Strategies for Survival. Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context

238 Pages·1981·3.679 MB·English

by  Michael A. Jochim (Auth.)

STRATEGIES
FOR SURVIVAL
Cultural Behavior
in an Ecological Context
MICHAEL A JOCHIM
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Santa Barbara
ACADEMIC PRESS
A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers
New York London Toronto Sydney San Francisco
COPYRIGHT © 1981, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY
INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
111 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24/28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Jochim, Michael A.
Strategies for survival.
Bibliography: p.
Incluaes index.
1. Man—Influence of environment. 2. Human ecology.
3. Anthropo-geography. A. Ethnology. I. Title.
GF51.J62 304.2 81-7887
ISBN 0-12-385460-1 AACR2
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
81 82 83 84 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Illustrations
Fig. 3.1. Seasonal weight changes of male roe deer and male chamois 40
Fig. 4.1. Latitudinal distribution of barren-ground caribou and anadromous
fish 69
Fig. 4.2. Relationship between fat and protein contents of various foods 83
Fig. 4.3. Mean and extreme monthly rainfall, Maun, Botswana,
1951-1960 94
Fig. 4.4. Mean annual rainfall for two stations in the Australian Desert,
1951-1960 95
Fig. 4.5. Mean and extreme monthly rainfall, Alice Springs, Australia,
1951-1960 95
Fig. 4.6. Monthly probability of receiving no rain in the Australian and Kalahari
Deserts 96
Fig. 4.7. Location of East African groups in relation to rainfall reliability 97
Fig. 4.8. Mean monthly rainfall in three stations in Amazonia, 1951-1960 99
Fig. 4.9. Location of !Kung and G/Wi San 108
Fig. 4.10. Location of Crée and Ojibwa 111
Fig. 5.1. The balance of hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor 132
Fig. 5.2. Seasonal availability of plant foods among the G/Wi San 144
Fig. 5.3. Seasonality of mean rainfall and agricultural work among the
Karamojong 145
Fig. 5.4. Seasonality of mean rainfall, hunting, and agriculture among the
Bisa 146
Fig. 5.5. Seasonality of subsistence and nonsubsistence activities among the
Tlingit 147
Fig. 6.1. Determinants of tribal section size among camel pastoralists 158
Fig. 7.1. Determinants of strategies for correcting human-resource
imbalances 195
vii
Preface
This book focuses on the ecological relationships between cultural behavior
and its environmental context. It is addressed to all individuals interested in
human-environmental interactions, including professional anthropologists and
general students of human behavior. The proliferation of ecological studies
within anthropology suggests the increasing emphasis given to the systemic
context of behavior. The aim of this book is to develop a framework for examin-
ing these relationships and for comparing diverse ecological studies within a
coherent conceptual structure.
Three general problems characterize much of the literature of ecological an-
thropology. First, much of the work is strongly materialistic, emphasizing food
procurement and exchange. As a result, much behavior often has been unnecessar-
ily excluded from consideration, prompting a backlash of opinion stressing the
ideological aspects of behavior as distinct and primary. Second, most studies are
particularistic and lack a framework for cross-cultural comparison and generali-
zation. What framework does exist takes the form of an emphasis on a few
factors (such as energy, protein, and population pressure), and a limited set of
assumptions (for example, minimization of effort or maximization of produc-
tion). Third, much of the work in ecological anthropology addresses the effects
of decisions rather than the processes of decision-making, and can anticipate only
optimal behavior. There is little room for suboptimal or maladaptive behavior in
most current explanations.
This book is designed in part to address these problems. Specifically, it seeks
to construct a general theoretical framework with which to examine the relation-
ship between behavior and its environmental context. It seeks to include any
aspect of behavior, to investigate the links between ideological and material
factors, to broaden the view of relevant factors and possible assumptions, and to
relate the processes of decision-making to their specific context in a manner
allowing cross-cultural comparisons. In the process, certain popular forms of
ecological explanation will be examined. In addition, specific behavioral exam-
ix
X Preface
pies will be investigated in an attempt to explain patterns of similarities and
differences.
I wish to acknowledge my appreciation to countless colleagues who have
provided such a stimulating context for the development of these ideas, and most
importantly, to Marcy, who is necessary to my survival.
Introduction
Behavior and Ecology
Problems and problem solving seem to emerge together with
life. . . . Life is faced with the problems of survival from the very begin-
ning. Indeed, we can describe life, if we like, as problem solving, and
living organisms as the only problem-solving complexes in the universe
[Popper 1974:272].
Much of human behavior can be viewed as problem solving. Whether "getting
ahead" or "making do," people are constantly trying to solve the mundane
problems of survival in their own terms. Many of these problems are rooted in
the relationships between people and their natural and social environments. Cur-
rent dangers of resource depletion, overpopulation, pollution, internal disorder,
and international conflict are but special and magnified variants of similar prob-
lems that have faced pygmies, peasants, pastoralists, and princes. The perception
and context of each individual's problems may be unique or widely shared.
Choices of solutions may abound or may be strictly limited by the recognized
available means. Solutions may be considered planned or the product of habit
and tradition. The choices may be made by each individual or by designated
authorities. The goals guiding these choices may be culturally or individually
specific. Human cultural diversity can be attributed largely to the varying mixes
of these alternative options.
Similar problems are faced by other animal species, and countless viable
solutions in the form of morphology and behavior have been attained in the
course of evolution through natural selection. The nature of these solutions and
their relationship to the species' environmental interactions form the subject
matter of evolutionary ecology. Consequently, any general ecological techniques
and principles that describe common features of such solutions may be poten-
tially applicable to humans. This is the thesis of ecological anthropology. Such
an application may provide a broader understanding of human behavior and a
new basis for comparing different human societies. The emphasis here will be on
1
2 Introduction
the nature of certain problems and on the context, complexity, and processes of
their solutions. Much of the discussion will concentrate on relatively small-scale
societies of hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists. Larger and more complex
societies face many similar problems, but may differ greatly in the nature and
organization of solutions. These solutions, in turn, pose many additional prob-
lems of their own that are unique to complex societies, and that will be discussed
only briefly.
Chapter 1
The Context of Ecology
1. ANTHROPOLOGY
Ecology is the study of organisms in their natural and social settings and of
their relationships to these settings. Humans are unique in that they are found
in virtually all settings, and in addition, they can create their own cultural setting.
In traditional anthropology, the focus has been on culture as learned norms of
behavior, and the emphasis has been on culture as setting humans apart from
other animals and the natural world. As a social science, anthropology has
tried to explain aspects of culture, and since culture was considered to be a
separate and distinct entity, the explanatory terms were also cultural. The im-
mediate causes of cultural traits were seen as being cultural as well.
But humans are animals. They do interact with the natural environment, and
their behavior does seem to show some patterning in relation to patterns in the
natural environment. The ecological approach in anthropology tries to widen the
viewpoint of the discipline to include (and by contrast, often to emphasize) this
human interaction with the environment. Cultural behavior is studied not so
much for what it is (learned patterns of behavior) as for what it does (provides
one means of adaptation).
The ultimate goal of any science is to predict a phenomenon under study (to
give the necessary and sufficient conditions for its occurrence) or to predict the
consequences of a given set of conditions. To do this, first one has to explain a
particular example of the phenomenon, that is, cite its cause. One might look for
patterning or for correlations between events and then try to decide the nature and
direction of causation. Ecological anthropology is generally at the stage of look-
ing for such patterning or correlations. Only rarely are there simply patterns, and
even more rarely can the specific nature of causation be determined. Two major
themes stand out from numerous studies:
(1) The complexity of relationships and patterns
(2) The existence of functional alternatives to specific behavior or institutions
3
4 1. The Context of Ecology
Recognizing these problems, ecological anthropology is clearly separate from
older theories of environmental determinism. The importance of aspects of the
natural environment is recognized, but by no means are these aspects seen as
prime movers in determining human behavior.
Ecological anthropology is an approach, not a set field or discipline. Its subject
matter is as wide as that of anthropology—all people in all times. No fixed
problem areas are defined. Any aspect of human behavior may be studied, since
it may be directly or indirectly related to features of the natural or social envi-
ronment. The emphasis may be on structure or function, but since ecology
focuses on relationships, explanations should be dynamic and should stress pro-
cesses. The value of this approach is that it adds to anthropology; it defines new
problems and adds new classes of data as relevant to the study of human cultural
behavior.
2. SYSTEMS
Ecology is the study of relationships. All relationships can be regarded as
transactions or exchanges of energy, matter, or information (Flannery 1972:
400). The goal of an ecological study is to describe, understand, and predict
the nature of such transactions—their structure, function, maintenance, and
alteration. For living organisms, such exchanges take place on various levels:
within the cell, organ, whole organism, local population, community of differ-
ent species, entire biotic province, and whole world. Ecology deals with only
some of these levels, those above that of a single organism.
The basic unit of study in ecology is the ecosystem, a set of interrelated species
of organisms and their physical environment. An ecosystem is a real entity—a
forest grove is a particular kind of environment with certain natural conditions of
climate, topography, soil, a variety of plants, and a group of animals from the
worms underground to the birds in the canopy, from the tiniest insects to the
largest mammals. Here, all the organisms and factors are interacting. The ecosys-
tem is extremely complex, and we can study only those aspects that we can
observe and measure. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in studying any real
ecosytem, however, is that we have to impose boundaries—often artificial—to
define a unit of study that is manageable.
In a real forest ecosystem, there are numerous interactions with materials and
organisms from outside. Insects from adjacent fields may pass through and be
eaten; forest birds may range far away in search of food; wind may carry sedi-
ments and pollen from miles away; and rain and erosion are constantly removing
materials. In other words, no real ecosystem is closed, and yet we often have to
act as though it were—otherwise we would be tracing relationships forever. The
simple fact that the sun is the ultimate source of energy for any ecosystem means
2. Systems 5
that the system is open and that we have to allow at least this input into our study
unit.
To some extent, the boundaries we set are determined by our problem of
interest. If we want to investigate the entire forest ecosystem, then we would
have to include the external factors mentioned. On the other hand, if the focus is
on one species of bird, then we could probably narrow our system to those plants
and animals with which it directly interacts; other factors could be viewed as
constant or at least regular in their effects.
This problem of boundary definition is directly related to our use of the
concept of system. A system can be defined generally as a group of components
or variables interrelated such that a change in one produces a change in all others.
Using this concept, once we define those variables that we want to investigate,
then we have to include others that can be determined to be related to them in a
systematic way. For a study of forest mice, for example, we definitely would
include their food resources and predators, but we might exclude, at least ini-
tially, animals that feed on rodents other than mice. Note, however, that these
other rodents may compete with mice for food, and their removal would affect
the mouse population in important ways. This problem of boundary definition
deserves emphasis because when we turn to human ecosystems, it becomes more
complex, partly because we can observe more diverse interactions and may have
greater difficulty in setting boundaries, and partly because humans establish
cultural boundaries that may or may not coincide with any natural ones. This
problem will be treated in more detail later.
Simple recognition of human interactions with the environment is not, of
course, the product of any new, revolutionary thinking by a few farsighted
anthropologists. On the contrary, the relationship of humans to the environment
has always been a major focus of human thought in the sciences and humanities.
Within anthropology, too, these interactions have been central points of study
(Hardesty 1977:1-17; Netting 1977:1-7). What is new, however, is the ecologi-
cal conceptualization of these relationships, which is quite different from previ-
ous extreme views.
One extreme position was that of environmental determinism. In its strictest
form, this held that the natural environment directly affects the psychology and
work habits of people, and thus determines the nature and complexity of their
culture. In this view, Southern Californians in their warm, benign climate would
be lazy and pleasure-oriented, whereas New Englanders, living in a region with
great climatic changes and cold winters, would be more industrious and rational.
This view, needless to say, would find greater favor in New England.
When such thinking went beyond regional caricatures and purported to explain
human cultural development, it became more serious. Africa and South America,
in this view, were dismissed from any mainstream of cultural elaboration by
virtue of their tropical and subtropical climates and dense jungles. The excep-