Stories passed down through generations form the basis of history. It is incredibly interesting to think that stories also inform biodiversity as well. I never thought of discussions of agriculture taking place in social context , as Anna Tsing discusses in her article “This earth, this island Borneo” from Friction: an Ethnography of Global Connection (Princeton University Press, 2005). I can relate to the premise of the article – that as the year 2000 approached (a milestone certainly) there was a need to list ‘all the contents of this earth, this island Borneo.’ That is a credible attempt to understand and document biodiversity, as well as contribute to the history of the times.
For Uma Adang to attempt to list the thousands of species of plants (and animals) that inhabit this island is an incredible undertaking, but to combine them into a story that relates agriculture, personal preference and social context is intriguing. I never thought of biodiversity in the framework of cultural and geographic diversity before. Sure, it occurred to me that we don’t have the same type of plants in Illinois as they do in say Africa, but I thought of it in terms of agricultural efficiency and taste preferences; more along the lines of economics of the cash value of a crop, or juggling the most protein available for the lowest cost or adapting to poor soil and unique labor conditions. But to think of biodiversity as filling a cultural link is to view it in a whole new context. As Tsing notes, production of rice is the centerpiece of the Meratus swidden field. But it is the diversity of the field that truly tells the picture of the culture. The Meratus grow many kinds of crops for the diversity they value in taste, and because it increase the chances of a good harvest. Following the scientific reasons for an improved yield are the social reasons, for experimentation, for trading vegetables, for discussing the yield and ways to use them.
In many cultures, rice is not only the staple of the diet but a source of societal stability. Just as the Eskimo have many words for snow, in Feudal Japan there were many words for rice. Its use ranged from a source of food to a means of currency, from glue to paper. The social uses for food only tie to the biodiversity of the planet. The bigger picture, as Tsing notes, is that the knowledge of nature is always cultural knowledge, whether we are scientists or farmers. The social bond that is achieved through agriculture brings together diversity on many levels. An understanding of bio, cultural, social and ethnic diversity can all be tied together through something as simple as agriculture.
These articles mutually brought up a lot of similar and important topics regarding what nature more less means to culture. It was really interesting to be able to dissect it and then look over everyone's comments (because I am late, again, sorry!) and see a pattern where almost everyone talks about levels of naturalness and conservation.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read in Tsing's article about farming culture as Matt wrote about and then in Ereshefsky's article about what is natural and unnatural and see how they can be paired up. We pick the best crops, saving and using what is most important to us as human beings. However, although we do this I have to hold the stance that conservation is still important even if something doesn't have immediate use.
For whatever reason I half feel like I missed the point in these articles because they tried to grab onto concepts I find a little bit intangible and bigger than just the simple human mind.