The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology
In this perspectives essay, I propose some ways in which current thinking in anthropology might inform the emergent cross-disciplinary field of coexistence studies. I do so following recent calls from within the conservation science community (including this special issue), acknowledging that unders...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/c1f777df9e514e4c9803ef88a3e9b517 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:c1f777df9e514e4c9803ef88a3e9b517 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:c1f777df9e514e4c9803ef88a3e9b5172021-11-11T15:03:58ZThe Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology2673-611X10.3389/fcosc.2021.711019https://doaj.org/article/c1f777df9e514e4c9803ef88a3e9b5172021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2021.711019/fullhttps://doaj.org/toc/2673-611XIn this perspectives essay, I propose some ways in which current thinking in anthropology might inform the emergent cross-disciplinary field of coexistence studies. I do so following recent calls from within the conservation science community (including this special issue), acknowledging that understanding human-wildlife coexistence in the fractured landscapes of the Anthropocene1 requires being open to alternative approaches beyond conventional frameworks of conservation science and management (see for instance; Carter and Linnell, 2016; Pooley, 2016; Chapron and López-Bao, 2019; Pooley et al., 2020). The essay suggests that relational (non-dualist) ways of thinking2 in anthropology, often building on Indigenous philosophy and expertise, may help ground coexistence studies beyond Euro-Western modernist conceptual frameworks—frameworks that perpetuate exploitative and colonial logics that many scholars from across academia view as being at the heart of our current ecological crisis (e.g., Lestel, 2013; van Dooren, 2014; Tsing, 2015; Todd, 2016; Bluwstein et al., 2021; Schroer et al., 2021). By proposing “relations” rather than objectified “Nature” or “wildlife” as the more adequate subject of understanding and facilitating coexistence in shared landscapes, I understand coexistence and its study first and foremost as an ethical and political endeavor. Rather than offering any conclusive ideas, the essay's intention is to contribute some questions and thoughts to the developing conversations of coexistence studies scholars and practitioners. It does so by inviting conservation scientists to collaborate with anthropologists and take on board some of the current thinking in the discipline. Amongst other things, I suggest that this will help overcome a somewhat dated notion of cultural relativism—understood as many particular, cultural views on one true objective Nature (only known by Science), a perspective that explicitly and implicitly seems to inform some conservation science approaches to issues of culture or the “human dimensions” of conservation issues. Ultimately, the paper seeks to make a conceptual contribution by imagining coexistence as a dynamic bundle of relations in which the biological, ecological, historical, cultural, and social dimensions cannot be thought apart and have to be studied together.Sara Asu SchroerFrontiers Media S.A.articleanthropologyconservationcoexistencerelationallymore-than-human ethnographyGeneral. Including nature conservation, geographical distributionQH1-199.5ENFrontiers in Conservation Science, Vol 2 (2021) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
anthropology conservation coexistence relationally more-than-human ethnography General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5 |
| spellingShingle |
anthropology conservation coexistence relationally more-than-human ethnography General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5 Sara Asu Schroer The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology |
| description |
In this perspectives essay, I propose some ways in which current thinking in anthropology might inform the emergent cross-disciplinary field of coexistence studies. I do so following recent calls from within the conservation science community (including this special issue), acknowledging that understanding human-wildlife coexistence in the fractured landscapes of the Anthropocene1 requires being open to alternative approaches beyond conventional frameworks of conservation science and management (see for instance; Carter and Linnell, 2016; Pooley, 2016; Chapron and López-Bao, 2019; Pooley et al., 2020). The essay suggests that relational (non-dualist) ways of thinking2 in anthropology, often building on Indigenous philosophy and expertise, may help ground coexistence studies beyond Euro-Western modernist conceptual frameworks—frameworks that perpetuate exploitative and colonial logics that many scholars from across academia view as being at the heart of our current ecological crisis (e.g., Lestel, 2013; van Dooren, 2014; Tsing, 2015; Todd, 2016; Bluwstein et al., 2021; Schroer et al., 2021). By proposing “relations” rather than objectified “Nature” or “wildlife” as the more adequate subject of understanding and facilitating coexistence in shared landscapes, I understand coexistence and its study first and foremost as an ethical and political endeavor. Rather than offering any conclusive ideas, the essay's intention is to contribute some questions and thoughts to the developing conversations of coexistence studies scholars and practitioners. It does so by inviting conservation scientists to collaborate with anthropologists and take on board some of the current thinking in the discipline. Amongst other things, I suggest that this will help overcome a somewhat dated notion of cultural relativism—understood as many particular, cultural views on one true objective Nature (only known by Science), a perspective that explicitly and implicitly seems to inform some conservation science approaches to issues of culture or the “human dimensions” of conservation issues. Ultimately, the paper seeks to make a conceptual contribution by imagining coexistence as a dynamic bundle of relations in which the biological, ecological, historical, cultural, and social dimensions cannot be thought apart and have to be studied together. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Sara Asu Schroer |
| author_facet |
Sara Asu Schroer |
| author_sort |
Sara Asu Schroer |
| title |
The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology |
| title_short |
The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology |
| title_full |
The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology |
| title_fullStr |
The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The Arts of Coexistence: A View From Anthropology |
| title_sort |
arts of coexistence: a view from anthropology |
| publisher |
Frontiers Media S.A. |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/c1f777df9e514e4c9803ef88a3e9b517 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT saraasuschroer theartsofcoexistenceaviewfromanthropology AT saraasuschroer artsofcoexistenceaviewfromanthropology |
| _version_ |
1718437172928839680 |