Download 1. Full citation. Little, P. E. (1999). ENVIRONMENTS AND

1. Full citation.
Little, P. E. (1999). ENVIRONMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTALISMS IN
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH: Facing a New Millennium. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 28(1), 253–284. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.253
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his
credentials?
Paul E. Little has his PhD in Anthropology for the University of Brasilia in. He was an
associate professor at the University of Brasilia from 1997 to 2008. His research publications
have many focused on environmental and indigenous peoples’ issues in the Amazon Basin. Little
is considered on expert on the effects of environmental issues on the indigenous peoples of the
Amazon Basin. Little was a member of the Brazilian Federal Advisory Council on Traditional
Knowledge from 2002-2008.
3. What are the topics of the text? / 4. What is the main argument of the text? / 5. Describe
at least three ways that the argument is supported.
This review focuses on ecological anthropology and the anthropology of
environmentalism. The author, Paul E. Little describes ecological anthropology as involving the
use of ecological methodologies to study the complex relations between societies and the
environment. Anthropology of environmentalism is described as utilizing “ethnographic
methodologies to study environmentalism as a type of human action.” (Little, 1999) Little define
these terms in order to develop an “organizing motif” for the review.
Little describes the development of political and human ecology research methods,
illustrating the research which first employed political and human ecology methodologies and
the journals which first compiled human and ecological research literature. The review analyzes
political and human ecology research programs based on “four theoretical and methodological
areas: (1) transformations in the ecological paradigm, (2) levels of analysis and articulation, (3)
the use of history, and (4) the reemergence of space. ” (Little, 1999)
(1) Little illustrates how during the 1990’s nature/culture dualism was strongly
enforced within the scientific community and even led to the delineation of university
anthropology departments. Little states that it is critical for the divide to be bridged in
order to better address the complex environmental problems facing the world today. “The
development of an ecological theory that incorporates natural and cultural dimensions
within a single, broad paradigmatic framework is more urgent than ever. ” (Little, 1999)
Little illustrates numerous approaches to research aimed at examining both the natural
and cultural ecological dynamics of a society in order to convey the current progress
made in the field as well as to illustrate what still needs to be accomplished.
(2) Little articulates that in order to address the complex environmental problems
facing our society today, such as global climate change and ozone layer depletion, it is
necessary to widen the scope of research and analysis. Little illustrates past studies which
have incorporated global scale dynamics. In recent years, Little claims researching on a
global scale has become easier due to advancements in technology such as the vast
amount of information available on the internet, satellite use and other innovative
technologies. Little argues that increased globalization has intensified the need to study
global-level phenomena in order for anthropologists to be capable of analyzing complex
environmental issues. He emphasizes that while global scale analysis and research is
necessary, it should be combined with intermediate and small scale research as well in
order to develop in depth analyses. “The new interest in global-local dynamics should not
obscure the crucial role played by intermediate regional and national levels of analysis
and articulation in the intricate processes of mediation and linkage of local and global
levels. ” (Little, 1999)
(3) Little conveys how following the trend of the political/human ecology
division, the study of the history of ecological interrelations has also delineated into two
fields: environmental history and historical ecology. Little states that both terms
“describe a type of research that is interested in ‘deepening our understanding of how
humans have been affected by their natural environment through time and, conversely,
how they have affected that environment and with what results.’” (Little, 1999) He
outlines how historical studies have divulged past societies’ impact on their environment
and how learning from these occurrences can create knowledge that can be applied to
shaping current environmental policies. Little emphasizes that although necessary,
historical studies involve enormous methodological difficulties due to the vast network of
variables that must be accounted for, and that therefore anthropologists are tasked with
developing and implementing innovative methods in historical research.
(4) Little illustrates how “the concepts of territory, place, and landscape have
served to reintroduce geographic space as a significant factor in ecological research. ”
(Little, 1999) He describes various studies and literatures which have focused on the
concepts of territory, place and landscape and how focusing on those topics improves the
analytical capabilities of research. For example, research which investigates human
territoriality disembarks itself from “past ethnological analogies and environmental
deterministic approaches” (Little, 1999) and focuses on an ecological analysis that
considers the territorial behavior or societies.
Little describes how ethnographic analyses of the recent surge in
environmentalism have led to “a [new] field of study in its own right. ” (Little, 1999) Literatures
related to this topic are reviewed within four categories “(1) environmental movements, (2)
rights, (3) territories, and (4) discourses.” (Little, 1999)
(1) Little conveys that environmental movements are now driven by both NGOs
in the northern hemisphere and organizations of poor or marginalized peoples in
industrializing nations. He briefly describes numerous research projects which have
examined the social environmental movements generated by marginalized populations.
One cited researcher, Parajuli, describes groups of local people working toward
improving their environment as ecological ethnicities. Parajuli states that ecological
ethnicities are “people who have developed a respectful use of the natural resources and
consequently a commitment to creating and preserving a technology that interacts with
local ecosystems in a sustainable manner. ” (Little, 1999) Little states that networks of
environmental advocates have played a large role in sustaining environmental movements
in both First and Third world countries.
(2) Little describes the domain of environmental rights as one which refers to
situations where “the claims and rights of peoples to territories, natural resources,
knowledge systems and even their bodies are being ignored or abused.” (Little, 1999) He
provides a brief background to numerous studies which examined the environmental
rights of different peoples.
(3) Little presents environmental territories as specific areas which political
institutions have designated as protected and preserved locations for social and
environmental purposes. He describes a number of studies and literatures which are
primarily focused on the establishment of environmental territories and the conflicts that
arise when environmental territories are established in areas where indigenous peoples
reside. Little illustrates studies which have examined the difficult situation which arises
when environmental territory protection concerns directly impede on the rights of the
indigenous peoples that still rely on the local natural resources. One study mentioned
argues that conservation policies must be tailor fit to each region and culture that they are
established in. The study claims that ecosystems are best preserved when indigenous
peoples are granted rights to the land and allowed to continue their traditional practices.
(4) Little illustrates numerous studies and literatures which aim to shed the
Western preconceptions about the roles of humans, nature and animals within
ethnographic research. Proponents of this way of thinking believe that cultures must be
evaluated and analyzed using their own terminology and ideology in order to understand
the workings of the culture. Little states that this method of thinking outside the box,
“the cross-cultural study of discourses of human environmental relationships has bred a
host of theoretical propositions calling for the development of a grammar, a cognitive
geometry, or a meta-language to be used in comparative epistemology.” (Little, 1999)
Little argues that global environmental discourses must be constructed at a global level
and aim to address topics from shared cross-cultural viewpoints rather than imposed
viewpoints.
The review also examines the future role that anthropology can play in addressing the
numerous pressing environmental issues facing our society. Little’s main argument is that due to
the development of new environments which societies have created in the recent years, it is
imperative that new types of ecological analyses are developed to increase global sustainability
and help impede our path to extinction. Little attributes the growth of new environmental
problems to our so called “risk society” in which societal actors base their actions on the
distribution of dangers, leading to increased environmental degradation.
Little articulates how urbanization is transforming many environments as well as the
cultures of their inhabitants. In order for societies to adapt to urbanization, Little calls for the
proliferation of research concerning “urban environmental history, urban landscapes, urban
ecology and health, urban sustainable development and urban environmental rights.” (Little,
1999) Little conveys how cyberspace is a virtual environment which has also undergone drastic
change in the past decade, and that its relevance to the relations between humans merits
increased research efforts involving the “interdisciplinary dialogue among the informational,
psychological and anthropological sciences.” (Little, 1999) Little also describes how disease
transmission/inhibition as well as warfare fare environments are two other areas of ecological
study which merit increased research with new methodologies to account for the changing
dynamics of these systems.
Little argues that there is a necessity for a combination of novel ecological and
ethnographic research approaches in order to adequately asses and tackle the daunting
environmental issues facing society. This new expanded anthropological research field involves
the cohesion of empirical research with political and environmental projects. Little claims that
“this represents one of the broadest and most innovative developments in environmental research
in anthropology.” (Little, 1999)
In conclusion Little emphasizes that the concept of collective responsibility, at its basic
level meaning caring, has the potential to drastically improve our global society’s environmental
progress and resilience. Many of Little’s statements throughout the text tie into this one
overarching factor of collective responsibility.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
“The establishment of new environments and the problems that emerge from them, invariably
breed new environmentalisms that can, and are, being studied ethnographically in what is called
in this review the anthropology of environmentalism.”
“A central theme in this review has been that the concept of the environment provides a powerful
tool with which to understand some of the complexities of life on earth and the role played by
humans as an integral part of those complexities.”
“The rapid destruction of the world’s biodiversity a product of nearly four billion years of
evolution, at the capricious hand of humans, and the destruction of the world’s sociodiversity
as a result of the policies of powerful global and national economic and political agents,
represent a dramatic and troubling development for all species interested in the long-term
survival of life on earth.”
7. What three questions about research methods does this article leave you with?
This article does an excellent job outlining the basic principles and findings of numerous
anthropological studies and literature focused on environmental topics; however, the article
neither definitively critiques these studies, nor does it give detailed information about their
methods. While the stance of the authors is clearly distinguished from the studies and literature
that they cite along with the supporting information they provide, I believe that it would have
been beneficial to introduce studies which they felt were lacking in terms of scientific
methodologies, merit or focus. Based on this I would like more information about the methods
employed in some of the studies as well as some conflicting examples of studies that the authors
felt were lacking in some way in order for me to personally understand how to develop more
insightful research studies.
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance
your understanding of and skill with HASS research methods?
In order to gain a more detailed understanding about some of the methods employed in
the studies mentioned in the text I did further research on three of the studies cited:
(1) Bryant RL, Bailey S. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge. 234
(2) Harries-Jones P. 1998. Anthropology, Environmentalism and the Risk Society.
Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Ethnol. Soc./ Can. Anthropol. Soc.
(3) Robertson R. 1995. Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In
Global Modernities, ed.MFeatherstone, S Lash, R Robertson, pp. 25-44. London: Sage