“Ethnobiology”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

"People-biota-environment" interactions around the world are documented and studied through time, across cultures, and across disciplines in a search for valid, reliable answers to two 'defining' questions: "How and in what ways do human societies use nature, and how and in what ways do human societies view nature?"^[2]

History

Beginnings (15th century–19th century)

Biologists have been interested in local biological knowledge since the time Europeans started colonising the world, from the 15th century onwards. Paul Sillitoe wrote that:^[3]

Local biological knowledge, collected and sampled over these early centuries significantly informed the early development of modern biology:^[3]

Phase I (1900s–1940s)

Ethnobiology itself, as a distinctive practice, only emerged during the 20th century as part of the records then being made about other peoples, and other cultures. As a practice, it was nearly always ancillary to other pursuits when documenting others' languages, folklore, and natural resource use. Roy Ellen commented that:

This 'first phase' in the development of ethnobiology as a practice has been described as still having an essentially utilitarian purpose, often focusing on identifying those 'native' plants, animals and technologies of some potential use and value within increasingly dominant western economic systems^[3]^[4]

Phase II (1950s–1970s)

Arising out of practices in Phase I (above) came a 'second phase' in the development of 'ethnobiology', with researchers now striving to better document and better understand how other peoples' themselves "conceptualize and categorize" the natural world around them.^[3] In Sillitoe's words:

Present (1980s–2000s)

By the turn of the 21st century ethnobiological practices, research, and findings have had a significant impact and influence across a number of fields of biological inquiry including ecology,^[10] conservation biology,^[11]^[12] development studies,^[13] and political ecology.^[14]

Ethnobiology has come out from its place as an ancillary practice in the shadows of other core pursuits, to arise as a whole field of inquiry and research in its own right: taught within many tertiary institutions and educational programs around the world;^[3] with its own methods manuals,^[15] its own readers,^[16] and its own textbooks^[17]

Subjects of inquiry

Usage

All societies make use of the biological world in which they are situated, but there are wide differences in use, informed by perceived need, available technology, and the culture's sense of morality and sustainability.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}} Ethnobiologists investigate what lifeforms are used for what purposes, the particular techniques of use, the reasons for these choices, and symbolic and spiritual implications of them.

Taxonomy

Different societies divide the living world up in different ways. Ethnobiologists attempt to record the words used in particular cultures for living things, from the most specific terms (analogous to species names in Linnean biology) to more general terms (such as 'tree' and even more generally 'plant'). They also try to understand the overall structure or hierarchy of the classification system (if there is one; there is ongoing debate as to whether there must always be an implied hierarchy.^[18]

Cosmological, moral and spiritual significance

Societies invest themselves and their world with meaning partly through their answers to questions like "how did the world happen?", "how and why did people come to be?", "what are proper practices, and why?", and "what realities exist beyond or behind our physical experience?" Understanding these elements of a societies' perspective is important to cultural research in general, and ethnobiologists investigate how a societies' view of the natural world informs and is informed by them.

Traditional ecological knowledge

In order to live effectively in a given place, a people needs to understand the particulars of their environment, and many traditional societies have complex and subtle understandings of the places in which they live.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}} Ethnobiologists seek to share in these understandings, subject to ethical concerns regarding intellectual property and cultural appropriation.

Cross-cultural ethnobiology

In cross cultural ethnobiology research, two or more communities participate simultaneously. This enables the researcher to compare how a bio-resource is used by different communities.^[19]

Subdisciplines

Ethnobotany

Ethnozoology

Ethnoecology

Other disciplines

Studies and writings within ethnobiology draw upon research from fields including archaeology, geography, linguistics, systematics, population biology, ecology, cultural anthropology, ethnography, pharmacology, nutrition, conservation, and sustainable development.^[1]

Ethics

Through much of the history of ethnobiology, its practitioners were primarily from dominant cultures, and the benefit of their work often accrued to the dominant culture, with little control or benefit invested in the indigenous peoples whose practice and knowledge they recorded.

Just as many of those indigenous societies work to assert legitimate control over physical resources such as traditional lands or artistic and ritual objects, many work to assert legitimate control over their intellectual property.

In an age when the potential exists for large profits from the discovery of, for example, new food crops or medicinal plants, modern ethnobiologists must consider intellectual property rights, the need for informed consent, the potential for harm to informants, and their "debt to the societies in which they work".^[20]

Furthermore, these questions must be considered not only in light of western industrialized nations' common understanding of ethics and law, but also in light of the ethical and legal standards of the societies from which the ethnobiologist draws information.^[21]

See also

Footnotes

1. ^¹Society of Ethnobiology's "What is Ethnobiology" webpage {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080416233913/http://www.ethnobiology.org/education/whatis.html |date=2008-04-16 }} Accessed 12 April 2008
2. ^Berlin, Brent (1992) Page 4
3. ^¹²³⁴Ellen, Roy (2006)
4. ^Examples of studies from this 'first' phase in the development of ethnobiology include Stevenson (1915), Castetter (1944) and Harrington (1947)
5. ^¹²³Sillitoe, Paul (2006)
6. ^Conklin, H.C. (1954)
7. ^Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1966)
8. ^Haudricourt, Andre-Georges (1973)
9. ^Porteres, R. (1977)
10. ^for instances of ethnobiology's influence on ecology, see Balée (1998); Plotkin (1995); Schultes & von Reis (1995)
11. ^{{cite journal |last1=O'Neill |first1=Alexander |display-authors=etal |date=2017-03-29 |title=Integrating ethnobiological knowledge into biodiversity conservation in the Eastern Himalayas |url=https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13002-017-0148-9 |journal=Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine |volume=13 |issue=21 |pages= |doi=10.1186/s13002-017-0148-9 |access-date=2017-05-11 |pmc=5372287 }}
12. ^for instances of ethnobiology's influence on conservation biology see Cunningham (2001); Johannes (1989); Laird (2002); Tuxill & Nabhan (2001)
13. ^for an instancing of ethnobiology's influence on development studies, see Warren, Slikkerveer & Brokensha (1995)
14. ^for an instancing of ethnobiology's influence on political ecology see Zerner (2000)
15. ^Ethnbiology methods manuals include Alexiades (1996) and Martin (1995)
16. ^one Ethnobiology reader is Minnis (2000)
17. ^one Ethnobiology textbook is Cotton (1996)
18. ^Ellen, Roy (1993) pages 216 forward
19. ^Franco, F.M. and Narasimhan, D. (2012). Ethnobotany of the Kondh, Poraja, Gadaba and Bonda of the Koraput region of Odisha, India. D.K. Printworld, New Delhi
20. ^Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association, section A
21. ^Dodson (2007)