This collection follows anthropological perspectives on peoples (Canadian Inuit, Norwegian Sámi, Yupiit from Alaska, and Inuit from Greenland), places, and practices in the Circumpolar North from colonial times to our post-modern era. This volume brings together fresh perspectives on theoretical concepts, colonial/imperial descriptions, collaborative work of non-Indigenous and Indigenous researchers, as well as articles written by representatives of Indigenous cultures from an inside perspective. The scope of the book ranges from contributions based on unpublished primary sources, missionary journals, and fairly unknown early Indigenous sources and publications, to those based on more recent Indigenous testimonies and anthropological fieldwork, museum exhibitions, and (self)representations in the fields of fashion, marketing, and the arts.The aim of this volume is to explore the making of representations for and/or by Circumpolar North peoples. The authors follow what representations have been created in the past and in some cases continue to be created in the present, and the Indigenous employment of representations that has continuity with the past and also goes beyond "traditional" utilization. By studying these representations, we gain a better understanding of the dynamics of a society and its interaction with other cultures, notably in the context of the dominant culture’s efforts to assimilate Indigenous people and erase their story. People’s ideas about themselves and of "the Other" are never static, not even if they share the same cultural background. This is even more the case in the contact zone of the intercultural arena. Images of "the Other" vary according to time and place, and perceptions of "others" are continuously readjusted from both sides in intercultural encounters.This volume has been prepared by the Research Group Circumpolar Cultures (RGCC) which is based in the Netherlands. Its members conduct research on social and cultural change focusing on topics that are of interest to the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic. The RGCC builds on a long tradition in Arctic studies in the Netherlands (Nico Tinbergen, Geert van den Steenhoven, Gerti Nooter, and Jarich Oosten) and can rely on rich Arctic collections of artefacts and photographs in anthropological museums and extensive library collections. The expertise of the RGCC in Arctic studies is internationally acknowledged by academics as well as circumpolar peoples.
DOCUMENT
Anthropology is traditionally broken into several subfields, physical/biological anthropology, social/cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, archaeology, and sometimes also applied anthropology. Anthropology of the environment, or environmental anthropology, is a specialization within the field of anthropology that studies current and historic human-environment interactions. Although the terms environmental anthropology and ecological anthropology are often used interchangeably, environmental anthropology is considered by some to be the applied dimension of ecological anthropology, which encompasses the broad topics of primate ecology, paleoecology, cultural ecology, ethnoecology, historical ecology, political ecology, spiritual ecology, and human behavioral and evolutionary ecology. However, according to Townsend (2009: 104), “ecological anthropology will refer to one particular type of research in environmental anthropology—field studies that describe a single ecosystem including a human population and frequently deal with a small population of only a few hundred people such as a village or neighborhood.” Kottak states that the new ecological anthropology mirrors more general changes in the discipline: the shift from research focusing on a single community or unique culture “to recognizing pervasive linkages and concomitant flows of people, technology, images, and information, and to acknowledging the impact of differential power and status in the postmodern world on local entities. In the new ecological anthropology, everything is on a larger scale” (Kottak 1999:25). Environmental anthropology, like all other anthropological subdisciplines, addresses both the similarities and differences between human cultures; but unlike other subdisciplines (or more in line with applied anthropology), it has an end goal—it seeks to find solutions to environmental damage. While in our first volume (Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina 2011) we criticized Kottak’s anthropocentric bias prioritizing environmental anthropology's role as a supporter of primarily people's (and particularly indigenous) interests rather than ecological evidence. In his newer 2 publication, Kottak (2010:579) states: “Today’s ecological anthropology, aka environmental anthropology, attempts not only to understand but also to find solutions to environmental problems.” And because this is a global cause with all cultures, peoples, creeds, and nationalities at stake, the contributors to this volume demonstrate that the future of environmental anthropology may be more focused on finding the universals that underlie human differences and understanding how these universals can best be put to use to end environmental damage. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "Environmental Anthropology: Future Directions" on 7/18/13 available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403341 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This article explores the perceptions of development through metaphor use by students of International Business Management Studies at The Hague University. Students’ reflections upon the concepts of nature and development before and after educational intervention are examined through discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Results show that initially students reflect the dominant development paradigm which tends to conflate ‘nature’ with ‘natural resources’. This study suggests that the critical course has the potential to shift the student focus from the unquestioning acceptance of economic development and instrumental view of nature to recognition of more ecologically benign and culturally variable paths to sustainability. In terms of pedagogy, the ‘trans-human’ Gestalt, or mindset conducive to planetary consciousness, may require a distinct type of didactic strategy, discussed in this article. It is concluded that while transformative social learning towards sustainability requires the integrative switching back and forth between the various mindsets, effective, ecologically engaged and critical learning may require a more fixed, committed and above all affirmative action approach. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408214529989 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
