The debate between realists and constructivists has polarized environmental scholarship in recent years. Situating this debate within the longstanding modernist tradition of categorically distinguishing “nature” from “culture,” and the natural sciences from the social sciences and humanities, this article suggests that we need to find a non-dualistic space for rethinking cultural-ecological relations. Such a space has been articulated by actor-network theory (ANT), but this theory leaves significant gaps in its understanding of agency and of macro forces. To fill in these gaps, the author draws on perspectives that theorize perception and agency as embodied, animate, and ecologically embedded and that theorize macro forces as discursively shaped and causally multidirectional and multiscalar. The author proposes the concept of multicultural ecology as a way of articulating the indivisibility of nature and culture and the multiplicity of cultural-ecological practices, and suggests a normative dimension by which such practices can be compared and evaluated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albertsen, N., & Diken, B. (2001). What is the social? (Draft, revised June 16, 2001). Retrieved February 2002 from the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University Web site: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc033bd.html
2.
Ashmore, M. , Wooffitt, R., & Harding, S. (1994). Human and others, agents and things. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 6-6.
3.
Barad, K. (1996). Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In L. Hankinson Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 161-194). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
4.
Barad, K. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 1-11). New York: Routledge.
5.
Barwise, J. , & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Biersack, A. (1999). Introduction: From the “new ecology” to the new ecologies. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 5-18.
7.
Bingham, N. (1996). Object-ions: From technological determinism towards geographies of relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14, 635-657.
8.
Bird, E. A. R. (1987). The social construction of nature: Theoretical approaches to the history of environmental problems. Environmental Review, 11, 255-264.
9.
Braun, B. , & Castree, N. (Eds.). (1998). Remaking reality: Nature at the millenium. New York: Routledge.
10.
Braun, B. , & Castree, N. (Eds.). (2001). Social nature: Theory, practice, politics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
11.
Brosius, J. P. (1999). Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest. American Anthropologist101(1), 36-57.
12.
Busch, L. , & Juska, A. (1997). Beyond political economy: Actor-networks and the globalization of agriculture. Review of International Political Economy4(4), 688-708.
13.
Callicott, J. B. (1991). The wilderness idea revisited: The sustainable development alternative. Environmental Professional, 13, 235-247.
14.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements in a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (Sociological Review Monographs, No. 32, pp. 196-233). London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
15.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory—The market test. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16.
Callon, M. , & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Carello, C. (1993). Realism and ecological units of analysis. In D. Steiner & M. Nauser (Eds.), Human ecology: Fragments of anti-fragmentary views of the world. New York: Routledge.
18.
Casper, M. J. (1994). Reframing and grounding nonhuman agency. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 839-856.
19.
Castree, N. (2002). False antitheses? Marxism, nature and actor-networks. Antipode, 34(1), 111-146.
20.
Chaloupka, W. (2000). Jagged terrain: Cronon, Soulé, and the struggle over nature and deconstruction in environmental theory. Strategies, 13(1), 23-39.
21.
Collins, H. , & Yearley, S. (1992a). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301-326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Collins, H. , & Yearley, S. (1992b). Journey into space. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 369-389). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory and Psychology, 5(4), 467-481.
24.
Cronon, W. (1995a, August 13). The trouble with wilderness. The New York Times, pp. 42ff-42ff.
25.
Cronon, W. (Ed.). (1995b). Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. New York: Norton.
26.
Crumley, C. (Ed.). (1994). Historical ecology: Cultural knowledge and changing landscapes. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
27.
Crumley, C. (Ed.). (2001). New directions in anthropology & environment. New York: Alta Mira Press.
28.
Deleuze, G. , & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
29.
Descola, P. , & Pálsson, G. (Eds.). (1996). Nature and society: Anthropological perspectives. New York: Routledge.
30.
Eden, S. , Tunstall, S., & Tapsell, S. (2000). Translating nature: River restoration as nature-culture. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 257-273.
31.
Elam, M. (1999). Living dangerously with Bruno Latour in a hybrid world. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(4), 1-24.
32.
Ellen, R. , & Fukui, K. (Eds.). (1996). Redefining nature: Ecology, culture and domestication. Oxford, UK: Berg.
33.
Escobar, A. (1999). After nature: Steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Current Anthropology, 40, 1-30.
34.
Evernden, N. (1992). The social creation of nature. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
35.
Foreman, D. (1996/1997). All kinds of wilderness foes [Editorial]. Wild Earth, 6(4), 1-4.
36.
Foster, J. B. , & Burkett, P. (2000). The dialectic of organic/inorganic relations: Marx and the Hegelian philosophy of nature. Organization & Environment, 13(4), 403-425.
37.
Franklin, A. (2002). Nature and social theory. London: Sage.
38.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
39.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
40.
Gibson, J. J. (1982). Reasons for realism: Selected essays of James J. Gibson (E. Reed & R. Jones, Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Goodman, A. H. , & Leatherman, T. L. (Eds.). (1998). Building a new biocultural synthesis: Political-economic perspectives on human biology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Goodman, D. (2001). Ontology matters: The relational materiality of nature and agro-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(2), 182-200.
44.
Gross, P. R. , & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic Left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
45.
Gross, P. R. , Levitt, N., & Lewis, M. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
46.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
47.
Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.
48.
Hayles, N. K. (1991). Constrained constructivism: Locating scientific inquiry in the theatre of representation. New Orleans Review, 18, 76-85.
49.
Hayles, N. K. (1995). Searching for common ground. In M. Soulé & W. Lease (Eds.), Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction. Washington, DC: Island Press.
50.
Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Hetherington, K. , & Law, J. (2000). After networks. Environment and Planning B: Society and Space, 27, 127-132.
52.
Horigan, S. (1988). Nature and culture in Western discourses. New York: Routledge.
53.
Hviding, E. (1996). Nature, culture, magic, science: On meta-languages for comparison in cultural ecology. In P. Descola & G. Pálsson (Eds.), Nature and society: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 165-184). New York: Routledge.
54.
Ingold, T. (1992). Culture and the perception of the environment. In E. Croll & D. Parkin (Eds.), Bush base, forest farm: Culture, environment and development. London: Routledge.
55.
Ingold, T. (1995). Building, dwelling, living: How animals and people make themselves at home in the world. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Shifting contexts: Transformations in anthropological knowledge (pp. 57-80). London: Routledge.
56.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling, and skill. London: Routledge.
57.
Johnson, J. (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298-310.
58.
Kirsch, S. , & Mitchell, D. (2002, March 23). “Purely atomic”: Dead labor, non-human actors, and the agency of scientific work. Paper presented at the Association of American Geographers conference, Los Angeles.
59.
Kottak, C. P. (1999). The new ecological anthropology. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 23-25.
60.
Kuletz, V. (1998). The tainted desert: Environmental and social ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge.
61.
Landstrøm, C. (1998). The man that freed the non-humans (interview with Bruno Latour). Vest, 11(1), 61-64.
62.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
Latour, B. (1996a). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65.
Latour, B. (1996b). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369-381.
66.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
Latour, B. , & Crawford, T. H. (1993a). An interview with Latour. Configurations, 2, 247-269.
68.
Laurier, E. , & Philo, C. (1999). X-morphising: A review essay of Aramis. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1047-1073.
69.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1-14). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
70.
Law, J. , & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
71.
Lee, N. , & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 772-790.
72.
Levins, R. , & Lewontin, R. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73.
Lewontin, R. C. (1982). Organism and environment. In H. C. Plotkin (Ed.), Learning, development, and culture (pp. 151-170). New York: Wiley.
74.
Macnaghten, P. , & Urry, J. (1998). Contested natures. London: Sage.
75.
Maturana, H. , & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. In R. S. Cohen & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 42). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
76.
Maturana, H. R. , & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of understanding. Boston: Shambhala.
77.
McGrane, B. (1989). Beyond anthropology: Society and the other. New York: Columbia University Press.
78.
Merchant, C. (1990). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
79.
Merchant, C. (1998). The death of nature: A retrospective. Organization & Environment, 11(2), 198-206.
80.
Michael, M. (1996). Constructing identities: The social, the nonhuman, and change. London: Sage.
81.
Michael, M. (2000). Reconnecting culture, technology and nature. London: Routledge.
82.
Milton, K. (1996). Environmentalism and cultural theory. New York: Routledge.
83.
Milton, K. (1999). Response to Escobar, “After Nature”. Current Anthropology, 40, 21-22.
84.
Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
85.
Moore, J. W. (2000). Environmental crises and the metabolic rift in world-historical perspective. Organization & Environment, 13(2), 123-157.
86.
Murdoch, J. (1997). Inhuman/nonhuman/human: Actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society. Society and Space, 15, 731-756.
87.
Murdoch, J. (2001). Ecologising sociology: Actor-network theory, co-construction and the problem of human exemptionalism. Sociology, 35, 1-1.
88.
Nelson, M. P. (1996). Rethinking wilderness: The need for a new idea of wilderness. Philosophy in the Contemporary World, 3, 2-2.
89.
Oyama, S. (2000). The ontogeny of information (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
90.
Parajuli, P. (1998). Beyond capitalized nature: Ecological ethnicity as an arena of conflict in the regime of globalization. Ecumene, 5(2), 186-217.
91.
Parker, G. , & Wragg, A. (1999). Networks, agency and (de)stabilization: The issue of navigation on the River Wye, UK. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(4), 471-487.
92.
Peet, R. , & Watts, M. (Eds.). (1996). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements. New York: Routledge.
93.
Peterson, A. (1999). Environmental ethics and the social construction of nature. Environmental Ethics, 21, 339-357.
94.
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.
95.
Redclift, M. , & Woodgate, G. (Eds.). (1998). The international handbook of environmental sociology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
96.
Reed, E. S. (1988). The affordances of the animate environment: Social science from the ecological point of view. In T. Ingold (Ed.), What is an animal?London: Unwin Hyman.
97.
Rothenberg, D. (1998). With friends like these, wilderness needs no enemies. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 17, 343-351.
98.
Salleh, A. (2001). Sustaining Marx or sustaining nature? An ecofeminist response to Foster and Burkett. Organization & Environment, 14(4), 443-450.
99.
Sanders, J. T. (1999). Affordances: An ecological approach to first philosophy. In G. Weiss & H. F. Haber (Eds.), Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature and culture. New York: Routledge.
100.
Seidman, S. , & Nicholson, L. (Eds.). (1995). Social postmodernism: Beyond identity politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
101.
Serres, M. (1981). The parasite. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
102.
Sessions, G. (1995a). Political correctness, ecological realities and the future of the ecology movement. Trumpeter, 12(4), 191-196.
103.
Sessions, G. (1995b). Postmodernism and environmental justice: The demise of the ecology movement?Trumpeter, 12(3), 150-154.
104.
Sessions, G. (1996). Reinventing nature, the end of wilderness? A response to William Cronon’s Uncommon Ground. Trumpeter, 13(1), 33-38.
105.
Sharrock, W. , & Coulter, J. (1998). On what we can see. Theory & Psychology, 8(2), 147-164.
106.
Shepard, P. (1995). Virtually hunting reality in the forests of simulacra. In M. Soulé & G. Lease (Eds.), Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction (pp. 17-29). Washington, DC: Island Press.
107.
Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development. London: Zed Books.
108.
Slack, J. D. , & Whitt, L. A. (1992). Ethics and cultural studies. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.
109.
Smith, M. (1999). To speak of trees: Social constructivism, environmental values, and the future of deep ecology. Environmental Ethics, 21, 359-376.
110.
Snyder, G. (1996/1997). Nature as seen from Kitkitdizze is no “social construction”. Wild Earth, 6(4), 8-9.
111.
Snyder, G. (1998). Is nature real?Resurgence, 190, 32-32.
112.
Soper, K. (1995). What is nature?Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
113.
Soulé, M. (1995). The social siege of nature. In M. Soulé & G. Lease (Eds.), Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction (pp. 137-170). Washington, DC: Island Press.
114.
Soulé, M. , & Lease, G. (Eds.). (1995). Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction. Washington, DC: Island Press.
115.
Steiner, D. , & Nauser, M. (Eds.). (1993). Human ecology: Fragments of anti-fragmentary views of the world. London: Routledge.
116.
Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89, 443-465.
117.
Szerszynski, B. (1996). On knowing what to do: Environmentalism and the modern problematic. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment, and modernity. London: Sage.
118.
Turvey, M. T. , & Carello, C. (1981). Cognition: The view from ecological realism. Cognition, 10, 313-321.
119.
Varela, F. J. , Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. London: MIT Press.
120.
Vogel, S. (2002). Environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Environmental Ethics, 24(1), 23-39.
121.
von Uexküll, J. (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behaviour: The development of a modern concept. New York: International Universities Press.
122.
Whatmore, S. (1997). Dissecting the autonomous self: Hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 37-53.
123.
Whatmore, S. (1999). Hybrid geographies: Rethining the “human” in human geography. In D. Massey, J. Allen, & P. Sarre (Eds.), Human geography today (pp. 22-39). London: Polity.
124.
Wilson, A. (1991). The culture of nature: North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto, Canada: Between the Lines.
125.
Wolfe, C. (1998). Critical environments: Postmodern theory and the pragmatics of the outside. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
126.
Zimmerer, K. S. (1994). Human geography and the “new ecology”: The prospect and promise of integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(1), 108-125.
127.
Zimmerer, K. S. (2000). The reworking of conservation geographies: Nonequilibrium landscapes and nature-society hybrids. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2), 356-369.
