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
Theoretical trends and schools of thought in the field of anthropology evolve rapidly. Anthropological literature must keep abreast, not only of these intellectual shifts, but also of pressing global, political, and social issues. Thus, this volume, like others before it, seeks to provide updates on the state of the science and the theoretical and methodological trends of the day. Yet, there is another, more important reason why such a volume is necessary now, ‘today’, of all days, and another reason why this will serve as more than just another update on the discipline. Today, we face some of the greatest environmental challenges in global history. Understanding the damage being done by communities, large and small, and the varied ethics and efforts contributing to its repair is of vital importance. For these reasons, environmental anthropology today is different and arguably more critical than ever before. This volume thus poses the question and raises the challenge: What can increasing the emphasis on the environment in environmental anthropology, along with the science of its problems and the theoretical and methodological tools of anthropological practice do to aid conservation efforts, policy initiatives, and our overall understanding of how to survive, culturally and physically, as citizens of the planet? This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "Environmental Anthropology Today" on 8/5/11 available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203806906 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
How is an academic philosopher, humanities researcher, or scientist with an interest in philosophy able to imagine, understand and reproduce a philosophical theory that’s highly abstract in a way, because the theory is a priory by nature and doesn’t use a lot of examples that relate to daily life? For example, Helmuth Plessner’s Die Stufendes Organischen und der Mensch(1928)? Talking from my own experience as a trained academic philosopher with a master’s degree and a PhD in philosophy of anthropology and technology (Müller 2009), it takes a lot of analytical training and many years of study to build a huge‘internal mental mind map’–looking like a gigantic spider’s web or grid with interrelated philosophical and other scientific concepts–that serves as a road map to compare ideas, deepen the understanding of formerly read texts and gain new perspectives on philosophy as a discipline and life in general. Working in academia, this way of reading texts, understanding theories, producing papers and a dissertation, worked very well for me for quite some time. Until I startedtoteachphilosophy myself as a PhD student. In university, students are used to lectures accompanied by PowerPoints with lots of slides packed full of theories, definitions, andquotes, and sometimes a few images are added. I liked doing ‘traditional knowledge transfer education’ during my lectures but enjoyed the work groups even better as Ilearned a lot myself from the discussions with my students. Although being the‘master’ in front of a class of‘students’ has its beautiful sides (standing in a long tradition ofteaching regarded as a craft, where knowledge is passed over like a‘guild system’), I preferred the ’democratic ways of the work group’ joining efforts together in gaining a better understanding of philosophical theories and the way they relate to history and the cultures we live in–and our own lives. I always had the feeling that teaching philosophy could be done in a different way. This made me think. Could I invent a set-ting where the traditional ways of knowledge transfer would intertwine with the spicy‘agree to disagree’ discussions and moments of synergy?
DOCUMENT
This module for Involving Anthropology presents an account of one of the plenary debates held at the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) World Congress held at Manchester University, 5-10 August 2013. The module begins with a brief introduction to provide the context for the debate, which included two speakers for (Amita Baviskar and Don Nonini) and two speakers against (Helen Kopnina and Veronica Strang) the motion: ‘Justice for people must come before justice for the environment’. The introduction is followed by an edited transcript of John Gledhill’s welcome and introduction, the texts of the arguments made by each speaker for and against the motion (with the exception of Veronica Strang, whose presentation is being published elsewhere a summary of the comments and questions subsequently invited from the floor of the hall, and then a transcript of the responses of the presenters. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664677.2015.1102229 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The recent shift towards the interdisciplinary study of the human-environment relationship is largely driven by environmental justice debates. This article will distinguish four types of environmental justice and link them to questions of neoliberalism and altruism. First, environmental justice seeks to redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens to vulnerable groups and economically disadvantaged populations. Second, environmental justice highlights the developed and developing countries’ unequal exposure to environmental risks and benefits. Third, temporal environmental justice refers to the issues associated with intergenerational justice or concern for future generations of humans. In all three cases, environmental justice entails equitable distribution of burdens and benefits to different nations or social groups. By contrast, ecological justice involves biospheric egalitarianism or justice between species. This article will focus on ecological justice since the rights of non-human species lags behind social justice debates and discuss the implications of including biospheric egalitarianism in environmental justice debates. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-6434-1-8 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The purpose of the paper is to start a dialogue about differences between Western and Eastern cultures in the way they conceptualize knowledge and discuss the implications of these differences for a global intellectual capital (IC) theory and practice. A systematic metaphor analysis of the concept of knowledge and IC is used to identify common Western conceptualizations of knowledge in IC literature. A review of philosophical and religious literature was done to identify knowledge conceptualizations in the main streams of Asian philosophy. Fundamental differences were found in the way knowledge is conceptualized. In Western IC literature common metaphors for knowledge include knowledge as a thing and knowledge as capital. In Asian thought, knowledge is seen as unfolding truth based upon a unity of universe and human self and of knowledge and action. The research was performed on a limited sample of literature. More research is needed to identify how knowledge is conceptualized in the practice of doing business in Asia and to test the effects of introducing IC theories to Asian businessmen and managers. Moreover, it might be questionable whether different types of resources (Western management literature on IC and Asian cultural philosophies) can be put in a comparative perspective to extract conclusions out of it. This methodological starting point has its confinements, but is plausible partly as long as IC theories originating from an Asian background are still missing, partly as far as philosophical notions within Western IC publications are contrasted with Asian notions of knowledge. Despite this restriction we would like to emphasize that Western conceptualizations of knowledge, embedded in terms like intellectual capital and knowledge management, can not be transferred to Asian business without considering the local view on knowledge. Asian conceptualizations of knowledge should play an important role in the further development of a knowledge-based theory and practice of the firm. We choose deliberately to contrast Western philosophy with cultural and religious connotations in Asian philosophy, as the underlying paradigm is strongly influenced by these notions. This is clearly perceivable in revivalist and reformist tendencies in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Religious notions within these traditions have a strong paradigmatic function in a cognitive and normative sense. Not only in anthropology but also in epistemology, contemporary Asian thought is dominated by a discourse deeply embedded in religious and cultural traditions, in which the dimensions of 'nature', 'subjectivity' and 'history' have well defined boundaries. Anthropologically and epistemologically, all spheres of human reality are analyzed and described within the perspective of an integral and monolithic unity, in which all dimensions and spheres of being are bound. In Western philosophy these spheres of being have been separated from religious notions because of a longstanding secularization due to which religion and culture, metaphysics and philosophy have become separate disciplines.(Boom, 1993)
DOCUMENT
The journal was a forum for the work of both theorists and practitioners of philosophical practice with children, and published such work in all forms, including philosophical argument and reflection, classroom transcripts, curricula, empirical research, and reports from the field. The journal also maintained a tradition in publishing articles in the hermeneutics of childhood, a field of intersecting disciplines including cultural studies, social history, philosophy, art, literature and psychoanalysis.
DOCUMENT
Stefan Bengtsson's commentary about policy hegemony discusses the alternative discourses of socialism, nationalism, and globalism. However, Stefan does not adequately demonstrate how these discourses can overcome the Dominant Western Worldview (DWW), which is imbued with anthropocentrism. It will be argued here that most policy choices promoting sustainability, and education for it, are made within a predetermined system in which the already limiting notion of environmental protection is highly contingent on human welfare. What would really contest the dominant assumptions of Vietnamese policy and, more specifically, education for sustainable development (ESD) is an alternative discourse that challenges the DWW. That alternative discourse embraces philosophical ecocentrism and practices of ecological justice between all species, and deep ecology theory - all perspectives fundamentally committed to environmental protection. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1048502 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
In this article we focus upon a division between generalized schools of philosophical and ethical thought about culture and conservation. There is an ongoing debate playing out over conservation between those who believe conservation threatens community livelihoods and traditional practices, and those who believe conservation is essential to protect nonhuman species from the impact of human development and population growth. We argue for reconciliation between these schools of thought and a cooperative push toward the cultivation of an environmentally-focused perspective that embraces not only social and economic justice but also concern for non-human species. Our goal is to underline the ethics and tangible benefits that may result from combining the cultural data and knowledge of the social sciences with understanding of environmental science and conservation. We highlight instances in which social scientists overlook their own anthropocentric bias in relationship to ecological justice, or justice for all species, in favor of exclusive social justice among people. We focus on the polemical stances of this debate in order to emphasize the importance of a middle road of cooperation that acknowledges the rights of human and nonhuman species, alike. In conclusion, we present an alternative set of ethics and research activities for social scientists concerned with conservation and offer ideas on how to reconcile the conflicting interests of people and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
There are many different uses of the term sustainability as well as its derivatives, such as social sustainability, environmental sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable living, sustainable future, and many others. Literally, the word sustainability means the capacity to support, maintain or endure; it can indicate both a goal and a process. In ecology, sustainability describes how biological systems remain diverse, robust, resilient and productive over time, a necessary precondition for the well-being of humans and other species. As the environment and social equality became increasingly important as a world issue, sustainability was adopted as a common political goal. The concept of sustainability the way most of us use it today emerged in the 1960s in response to concern about environmental degradation. This degradation was seen by some to result from the consequences of industrial development, increase in consumption and population growth and by others as poor resource management or the result of underdevelopment and poverty. Sustainability was linked to ethical concerns, typically involving a commitment to justice between generations involving issues such as equal distribution of wealth, working conditions and human rights, and possibly between humans and nonhumans, as discussed in chapters of Robert Garner, Holmes Rolston III and Haydn Washington. We can distinguish between different types of sustainability, for example between social (in terms of promoting equality, health, human rights), economic (in terms of sustaining people’s welfare, equitable division of resources) and environmental (in terms of sustaining nature or natural resources for humans and for nonhuman species) sustainability, as well as combinations of them. The study of sustainability involves multidisciplinary approaches, anthropology, political ecology, philosophy and ethics and environmental science. This type of multidisciplinary combination enables us to explore this new form of institutionalized sustainability science in a neoliberal age of environmental knowledge production and sustainability practice. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "Sustainability: Key Issues" on 07/19/15, available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109496 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
