Ecocultures: Blueprints for Sustainable Communities

This paper argues that the crafts provide an alternative way to look at world and have a distinctive role to play in defining new pathways to sustainability conceived of as "the art of longevity", that is to say, the long-term, strategic thinking that promotes effective stewardship of the world natural, social, and economic resources. Based upon an anthropological discussion of the different worldviews, philosophies and ethos of the crafts and science, this paper provocatively argues that the shift towards more sustainable societies and life styles requires of more crafts and less science. It does so by using the example of biodiversity, Defined conventionally as "the wide variety of ecosystems and living organisms: animals, plants, their habitats and their genes", the scientific view of biodiversity excludes humans and considers them as a threat to nature. This scientific view of the world, premised upon the principle of detachment and upon a model of life that radically disjoins Humans from Nature, lies at the core of the current environmental, economic and societal crisis. Craft ethos based upon practice not only does question the separation between humans and nature, but it also presents the possibility of a genuine "ecology of life" that stems from the principle of engagement with, rather than detachment from, the world. As such, it provides a better way to conceptualize a notion of the environment in which humans are an integral rather than a separate part of the earth community, and helps theorizing the relationship between humans and their environment in terms of stewardship rather than exploitation.

2019

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) is an international research program with a focus on social-ecological systems and how we can transform them towards sustainable pathways. PECS has emerged in a time where many advances in sustainability science and practice are being inspired by socialecological research (Fischer et al. 2015). While work on the interplay between nature and society has a long history and multiple interpretations (Brondizio 2016, Folke et al. 2016) the concept of social-ecological systems was introduced by Berkes and Folke (1998) as an integrated view of humans-in-nature. In essence this research highlights that people are part of ecosystems and shape them, from local to global scales, and are at the same time fundamentally dependent on these systems to provide services for human wellbeing and societal development. In 2005 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) helped mainstream this approach, while also revealing significant gaps in the scientific knowledge on the dynamics of social-ecological systems. In 2008, an expert group established by the International Council for Science (ICSU) and partners recommended the establishment of a research program that could deal with these knowledge gaps (Carpenter et al. 2009).

A biocultural ethic for sustainable geographies. In Sarmiento, F. & L. Frolich, eds., Geography of Sustainability International Handbook. Social and Political Science Series. Cheshire, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020

The global ecological footprint of humanity has exceeded the Earth’s annual biocapacity by 150 percent since 2007. It is not the whole of the human race, however, that is equally responsible for “humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint”. Consequently, we need to better distinguish specific human groups or individuals who have negative, or favorable, environmental impacts. To improve an unsustainable environmental footprint it is indispensable to better assess the carrying capacity of heterogeneous habitats, contrasting life habits that influence environmental impacts, and human inhabitants that are most responsible for these impacts.1 In order to undertake this task, and to foster planetary sustainability in the midst of the vortex of socio-environmental changes in our twenty-first century we urgently need to forge more informed and respectful forms of dialogue between different socio-cultural groups, and between local and global discourses. To foster intercultural dialogues that incorporate both the biophysical and the cultural heterogeneity of the planet, we offer the perspective of the biocultural ethic. Its central concept relies on the vital links between (i) the well-being and identity of the co-inhabitants (humans and other-than-humans);2 (ii) their life habits; and (iii) the habitats where they take place. This formal proposal of the “3Hs” (co-inhabitants, habits and habitats) offers a conceptual framework to analyze, from a biocultural viewpoint, the worldviews of cultures from different geographic regions, historical periods and/or socio-environmental contexts, and provides a methodological approach to undertake three tasks that contribute to favoring sustainable geographies.

The transition from a culture of unsustainability to a culture of sustainability entails a cultural transformation from modern to holistic worldviews and ways of life. This is vital for resolving the failures of modernity and building the structures of a sustainable future. In particular, ecovillages are presented, for one, as demonstration sites for such ways of life that can offer a concrete alternative to the unsustainable culture of modernity, and secondly, as dissemination sites for a new culture that is based on a holistic worldview. This essay shows how sustainability can be understood in terms of culture and why it is vital. A distinction is made between culture as ways of life and worldviews. Particular focus lies on the holistic worldview, which is explained by means of contrasting it the modern culture. Ecovillages are presented as models for a sustainable culture: firstly as demonstration sites for an alternative way of life and, secondly, as dissemination sites for a holistic worldview that forms the basis for this alternative.

TECHNE - Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment

The pandemic, with its environmental and socio-economic crises, has highlighted the urgency of structural responses. Overcoming this polycrisis requires the reactivation of a community and identity dimension of places. Cultural institutions can play an important role in this process. This paper proposes a focus on the role of ecomuseums in the creation of resilient communities, able to renew themselves to respond to crises. The ecomuseum movement is strongly committed to the eco-social transition of communities and territories and offers good practices for the management of common goods, methods and tools for the recognition of local identities, joint decision-making, co-planning, the care of living cultural heritage, the integral development of the landscape and the monitoring of impacts.

Sustainable Lifeways, Cultural Persistence in an Ever-changing Environment, 2011

Cultural responses to environmental risk are embedded in technology, practice, and ideology. By their collective actions, societies can mitigate or exacerbate immediate and long-term risk in their environment. This volume, based on a workshop that took place in 2008 at the Penn Museum, considers four relatively arid world areas: parts of west Asia and Andean South America, which supported societies dependent on domesticated plants and animals; East Africa, with full time pastoralists; and the U.S. Southwest, with societies based on domesticated plants. Arid regions are intrinsically important in studying response to climate change as they are more prone overall to short- and long-term variability in rainfall and are likely to suffer most from the changing climates in the near future compared to regions in more favorable climes. Periods of perceived stability in the archaeological record may be interpreted as the results of effective risk management in the face of varying conditions. Insofar as these factors relate to the 'natural' environment, these cultural systems have demonstrated their resilience in the face of risks. The broad concept of diversity unites the mechanisms of risk reduction discussed in the volume, and thereby helps focus attention on how ancient societies dealt with risk and sustainability. Our discussions revolved around the interconnections among diversity of place, subsistence, and society. Diversity of subsistence choices, including technology, is also an important strategy. Finally, memory, a kind of mental and cultural storage, is an essential process in resilient societies.

2017

It is twenty four years since the Rio conference which debated on „Our Common future‟ and the passage of the Agenda 21 which summarizes the core thinking of the global community on the question of sustainability of human settlements. The World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) defines sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. It stresses intergenerational equity. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, 1992, 2002, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 held in Rio de Jeneiro (Brz.), Johannesburg (SA), Rio de Jeneiro (Brz.), London (UK), London (UK) and New York (USA), mentions the three components of sustainable development – economic development, social development and environmentally sustainable development, as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars. But, doing or maintaining the Sustainable Development is at the zenith of the public debate and global agenda. Recentl...

Communities, conservation and livelihoods, 2021

This paper is an introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Political Ecology on "Ecologies of Hope." The authors argue that discrete, specific, and often, local actions can create spaces that are bettering human lives and livelihoods. The five papers identify actions and movements that are situated in the "middle" between the individual and larger social and economic formations, and inbetween social and economic status- quo and revolution. They are everyday initiatives that do not make revolutionary claims, but which in small but significant ways, help transform the lives of people and communities. These "ecologies of hope" resonate with the work of Karl Polanyi, and his identification of the modern disembedding of the economy and the environment from its societal and cultural context. Polanyi argued that processes that result in a loss of cultural "habitation" engender movements by societies to protect their social solidarity, and distortions of their relationship with the natural environment. Creating and carving out "ecologies of hope" may not mitigate catastrophic global change or miraculously transform the unjust into the just, but does make life and livelihoods a bit more habitable. For people whose lives are affected, this matters. Political ecology should recognize the importance of creating spaces for "habitation" that are not necessarily structural and scalable. Ce document est une introduction à un numéro spécial du Journal of Political Ecology sur «écologies de l'espoir». Les auteurs soutiennent que les actions qui sont discrets, spécifiques et locales peuvent créer des espaces qui font une vie meilleure, et de meilleurs moyens de subsistance. Les cinq articles identifier les actions et les mouvements sociaux qui se trouvent en «milieu» entre l'individu et les grandes formations sociales et économiques, et entre statu-quo et de la révolution. Ce sont des initiatives quotidiennes qui ne font pas prétentions révolutionnaires, mais qui dans de petits moyens, aider à transformer la vie des personnes et des communautés. Ces «écologies de l'espoir» sont en accord avec les travaux de Karl Polanyi, et son identification du déracinement moderne de l'économie et de l'environnement de son contexte social et culturel. Polanyi a fait valoir que les processus qui conduisent à la perte de l'«habitation» culturelle créer des mouvements pour protéger la solidarité sociale, et de créer de meilleures relations avec l'environnement naturel. La création de «écologies de l'espoir» ne peut atténuer le changement global catastrophique, ou miraculeusement transformer l'injustice, mais elle rend la vie et les moyens d'existence un peu plus «habitable». Pour les personnes dont la vie est touchée, cela est important. L'écologie politique devrait reconnaître l'importance de créer des espaces pour «habitation» qui ne sont pas nécessairement structurale et extensible. Este artículo es una introducción a una edición especial del Journal of Political Ecology sobre "Ecologías y esperanza". Los autores argumentan que actuaciones independientes, específicas y a menudo locales pueden crear espacios que están mejorando vidas humanas y medios de susbsistencia. Los cinco artículos identifican acciones y movimientos que se sitúan en el "medio" entre las formaciones sociales y económicas individuales y de mayor tamaño, y entre el status quo y la revolución social y económica. Son iniciativas cotidianas que no suponen una revolución, pero que de manera modesta pero significativa, ayudan a transformar las vidas de personas y comunidades. Estas "ecologías de esperanza" tienen conexiones con el trabajo de Karl Polanyi, y su identificación de la desincrustación moderna de la economía y el medio ambiente de su contexto social y cultural. Polanyi arguía que los procesos que resultan en pérdida de "habitación" cultural engendran movimientos en sociedades para proteger su solidaridad social y las distorsiones de su relación con el medioambiente natural. Crear y forjar "ecologías de esperanza" puede no mitigar un cambio global catastrófico o transformar milagrosamente lo injusto en justo, pero al menos hacen la vida y el sustento un poco más habitables. Para las personas cuyas vidas resultan afectadas, esto es importante. La ecología política debería reconocer la importancia de crear espacios para la habitación que no son necesariamente estructurales y medibles.

This paper argues that the crafts provide an alternative way to look at world and have a distinctive role to play in defining new pathways to sustainability conceived of as "the art of longevity", that is to say, the long-term, strategic thinking that promotes effective stewardship of the world natural, social, and economic resources. Based upon an anthropological discussion of the different worldviews, philosophies and ethos of the crafts and science, this paper provocatively argues that the shift towards more sustainable societies and life styles requires of more crafts and less science. It does so by using the example of biodiversity, Defined conventionally as "the wide variety of ecosystems and living organisms: animals, plants, their habitats and their genes", the scientific view of biodiversity excludes humans and considers them as a threat to nature. This scientific view of the world, premised upon the principle of detachment and upon a model of life that radically disjoins Humans from Nature, lies at the core of the current environmental, economic and societal crisis. Craft ethos based upon practice not only does question the separation between humans and nature, but it also presents the possibility of a genuine "ecology of life" that stems from the principle of engagement with, rather than detachment from, the world. As such, it provides a better way to conceptualize a notion of the environment in which humans are an integral rather than a separate part of the earth community, and helps theorizing the relationship between humans and their environment in terms of stewardship rather than exploitation.