Book Chapter Review: Materialism in Cultural Ecology

Which came first? Human or earth? It's not as difficult as the chicken and egg. There are many histories, but what is clear is that in outline humans were then sent down to earth to continue their functions as humans, of course from various versions. Did Adam, ancient humans, and others, all have their respective functions. Along with its development, humans and nature clearly have dependencies. Humans depend on nature for their lives, as well as nature, it cannot stand alone without human touch. There is an inherent reciprocal relationship. This is not looking at which came first, but rather the relationship between the two elements.

Anthropologically, these two elements are viewed through an ecological approach which is an approach to studying the interactions between organisms and their environment. Friedrich Ratzel, a German geographer, sees that an ecological approach is more suitable from a geographical perspective. According to him, the relationship between nature and humans will basically give rise to a certain type of culture. These pioneers of anthropogeography believed that ideas about the natural environment would directly shape certain cultural features. However, this is not in line with Frans Boas that according to him culture occurs not because of the environment directly, but nature is only a partition that causes geographical and cultural relations to develop and at the same time stop. So that nature is only another part that makes one culture different from another, not a cultural shaper.

In line with Boas, Alfred Kroeber also argued that the natural environment only sets broad limits on cultural possibilities. The relationship between culture and environment is a possibility. Therefore we cannot deny that geographical elements also have an influence, although they are not the main ones in determining culture. A student of Boas, Wissler, adds that there is a deeper causal relationship between geographic areas, dominant food sources, and of course cultural practices. This perspective is even broader, Wissler emphasizes that geography is not only regional boundaries, but also related to the production of public consumption. The role of the main food production has the influence of a group of habitats. Geographically various cultures may be separated, but they may have the same cultural characteristics when seen from how they process food, or are very different.

In The Economic and Social Basis of Primitive Bands (1936) in Moberg (2013), Kroeber's student Steward stated that it is cultural practices that provide space for people or groups to adapt to the environment. This process of adaptation is what he calls the core of culture. A culture starts from how a person adapts to his environment. This condition causes the formation of social organization and influences the emergence of cultural habits and practices, including eventually leading to technological advances. This view is motivated by Steward's ethnographic studies on hunting groups in Northern California. Consumption production is the main basis for the formation of cultural practices because part of the time spent by hunters is spent just looking for food, and this may be the same as Wissler's explanation.

However, this condition was questioned by Woodburn. What Steward believes basically also comes from how much time humans spend in producing what will later give rise to culture. So what if we don't need that much time to at least produce food? In this context, actually it is not literally about food production, but rather about how humans spend their time to produce which of course the context can be very broad. Work is part of production. Needs are also not only based on aspects of fulfilling physical needs, namely food, but other tertiary needs which seem to be important needs. Now, a lot of human time is used up for work, then what culture emerges?

What Steward explains is actually inseparable from the influence of Marvin Harris's work, which mixes the concept of cultural ecology with several aspects of Marxist theory. Marx called it cultural materialism. The basis of Marx's materialism concerns the relationship between technology and social relations. In other words, the components that influence culture are the ways of production and the social relations of that production. In The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968), Harris explained that the principles in understanding cultural ecology cannot be separated from ethical and emic approaches. Depends on where we see it. However, in this view, Harris is more inclined to an ethical view of cultural ecology. Harris tries to see culture from the realm of ethics by studying culture from outside those cultural practices. Then from various views in understanding culture, which one is the most correct? One thing that may be believed until now is that the interaction between nature and culture is like materialist theory which assumes that everything that exists in a cultural system occurs because it is based on materialistic things.

In its development, ecology from a materialistic perspective is often combined with a political economy approach, giving rise to a discourse on political ecology, one of which was pioneered by Eric Wolf (1972). Wolf's rationale stems from political and economic forces that drive deforestation, environmental degradation and several other things that affect natural and social conditions. However, the main thesis is that political forces always influence ecological functions, and this is inherent in the political view of ecology applied in the social and political sciences. Sheridan (1988) in his research in northwestern Mexico, he explained that local struggles between farmers and ranchers over land and water are conditions for political ecological analysis. Their struggle is a manifestation of the intervention of regional economic interests, mediation with government bureaucrats, both at the local and national levels.

In some of the views above, it becomes irrelevant when who comes first between nature and humans, but if viewed through a political ecology approach, humans will always be in control in the realm of their respective interests in utilizing resources. This context makes culture more diverse. Cultural diversity is not absolute because environmental conditions are in accordance with what has been described previously, but the emergence of power relations, imbalances, interests, has an impact on debates and even horizontal and vertical conflicts, and influences cultural development. When associated with the cultural materialism of Marx or Harris, it is very clear that culture is ultimately influenced by the capitalist economy, which can also be seen in the reality of political ecology or human ecology. Like Bryant and Bailey (1997:28) in Moberg (2013) who concluded that any change in environmental conditions is influenced politically and economically. This means that inequality in access to the environment has an effect on social and economic inequality which will clearly change the relationship with power.

The farmers were asked to switch professions as salt farmers. The hoe that he used to use as a tool for cultivating the soil was slowly being replaced with other tools that he was not used to using. Dozens of bundles of harvested rice were no longer visible, replaced by sacks filled with salt that they had to carry. The rice that used to be dried in front of the house in the hot sun is now replaced with grains of salt. Perhaps this can be seen from the phenomenon that occurred in the people of North Central Timor, East Nusa Tenggara Province (NTT) several years ago (republika, 07/08/17). Through the Regent of TTU, people are starting to be encouraged to switch professions. This condition is encouraged because TTU has a fairly wide sea coast and has the potential to produce very high salt. Factories began to be built and investors began to be brought in by the local government. Economic factors are an important basis for the implementation of this policy. Is it wrong? Maybe not, because the government is supporting efforts to improve people's welfare. However, this condition clearly changes what has become a habit of society. Their culture was formed due to being a farming community. Their adaptive abilities are trained because they have to be able to read when the season is right to plant and when to harvest. In fact, they are already prepared for the risk of famine and crop failure. Originally being dryland farmers, now they are encouraged to become farmers in wetlands with the guarantee that their production does not know the seasons. Some have switched and some have chosen to remain dry land farmers.

Policies and appeals from the Regent of TTU to his people are one form of how the authorities are trying to control ecological functions because there are materialistic motives, as explained above. In the end, Moberg wants to show that the study of nature is also an interesting fact for social scientists to do because in their journey, the study of nature tends to be separated from social science. Nevertheless, the development of political ecology is clearly influenced by power relations which make the environment an object that more or less influences the culture of the local community. That the environment as a part of forming culture has been seen as an economic and political tool, when viewed from a materialistic perspective.

Bibliography

Harris, Marvin. Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell Company. 1968

Mobergh, M. Engaging Anthropological Theory: A Social Science and Political History. New
York: Routledge. 2013.

Saubani, Andri. "Regent of TTU Urges Farmers to Change Profession to Salt Farmers".
Republika.co.id, 07/08/2017. (accessed May 2, 2020).

Sheridan TE. Where the Dove Calls: The Political Ecology of a Peasant Corporate Community
in Northwestern Mexico. Tuesson: Univ. Ariz Press. 1988.

Wolf, Eric. “Ownership and Political Ecology: Dynamics of Ownership in the Circum Alpine Area (Special Issues)”. Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1972): 201-205.