Author : Wahid Ahmad
Environmental Determinism
Early
Understanding
Determinism is a big idea that
says one thing controls everything else. Back from ancient times until the
early 1900s, scientists believed that just one thing caused everything to
happen in nature. They didn't think about how different things interacted with
each other.
Some theories, especially ones
about the environment, also say that where you live determines how successful
and powerful you are. They claimed that places with a "nice" climate,
according to their own standards, produce people who are smart, strong, and
destined to rule over others. They used this idea to justify why certain groups
of people were in charge and why others were not.
So basically, if you lived in a
place with good weather, you were thought to be naturally better and more
capable. Interestingly, what was considered the best climate changed over time,
following shifts in global power.
Greek and Roman Theories
Greeks and Romans believed their
strategic locations influenced their cultural superiority. Ideal climate in the
"middle latitudes" (Greece and Rome) was seen as promoting balanced
development. Success and dominance were attributed to favourable geographical
conditions.
Arab Theories
Arabs had a twofold view:
astrological and geographical. They emphasized factors like water, natural
vegetation, and topography in determining human settlement sites. The climate was
linked to humoral balance, affecting virtues or vices. Preference for life in
open countryside due to the belief in pure air leading to strength, wisdom, and
physical fitness.
During the Renaissance and the
18th century, Europeans, after discovering new lands, became curious about
different cultures and environments. They encountered various ideas about how
the environment influences people and societies.
In the Renaissance, people
started questioning old theories that said the climate of a place determines
the characteristics of its people. They realized that it's more complicated,
and factors like culture play a significant role. In the 18th century, some
thinkers, like Bodin and Montesquieu, still believed that certain latitudes
have better environments, associating climate with physical and moral
qualities.
19th
and early 20th centuries
In the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, there was a focus on understanding how human cultural history
changes. Geographers and ethnographers attempted to organize archaeological and
ethnological data, suggesting that cultures with similar artifacts and customs
could be grouped by geographic location. Friedrich Ratzel, a scholar in
anthropogeography, emphasized the importance of habitat in influencing
cultural diversity.
Friedrich Ratzel’s Perspective
Ratzel believed that human
societies react to nature similar to how animals react to their habitats. He
argued that conflicts over territory among migrating groups played a crucial
role in human cultural evolution. According to Ratzel, migratory peoples tend
to preserve their cultural traits even as they move.
Ratzel pointed out that natural
features like topography and location create "natural boundaries,"
defining and distinguishing political units. Similar locational conditions can
lead to similar political models, as seen in island societies. However, within
a nation's territory, geographic diversity can result in various effects, such
as mountains promoting isolation and cultural stability, while lowlands
encourage racial and cultural mixture and migration.
Twentieth-Century Environmental
Determinism:
In the
20th century, geographers like Ellsworth Huntington and Griffith Taylor
continued the trend of environmental determinism. Huntington focused on
understanding how climatic, seasonal, and weather conditions affect human
efficiency. He proposed that humans, when faced with environmental challenges,
choose the path of least effort. Huntington believed that moderate seasonal
changes, average humidity, and abundant storms constituted an ideal climate for
maximum human efficiency.
Limitations:
There are several limitations to
environmental determinism, as highlighted in the above text:
Oversimplification:
Environmental determinism tends to oversimplify the complex interactions
between humans and their environment. It often assumes a one-size-fits-all
explanation for human behaviour based on environmental factors, neglecting the
diversity and complexity of cultures.
Neglect of Cultural Factors: The
theory tends to overlook the role of human culture in buffering the impact of
the environment on society. Cultural practices and adaptations are crucial in
understanding how different societies respond to their surroundings.
Generalization and Uniformity:
Deterministic theories often generalize entire regions or nations, treating
them as uniform entities. This overlooks the internal diversity and variations
within a particular region or nation, assuming that all people in a given area
share the same traits.
Lack of Empirical Support: Some
deterministic theories have been criticized for using selective or inadequate
evidence to support their claims. The lack of a systematic methodology and a
clear sample in some studies undermines the validity of the generalizations made.
Limited Scope:
Environmental determinism tends to focus excessively on climatic and
geographical factors, neglecting other crucial elements that influence human
development, such as social, economic, and political factors.
Misuse of Inductive Reasoning:
Deterministic theories sometimes reverse the scientific process by formulating
a generalization first and then seeking evidence to support it. This approach
can lead to confirmation bias and limit a comprehensive understanding of the
complex factors at play.
While environmental determinism
was influential in shaping early geographic and anthropological thought, its
limitations lie in oversimplification, neglect of cultural factors,
generalization, lack of empirical support, a narrow focus on climate, and misuse
of inductive reasoning. Modern perspectives recognize the multifaceted nature
of human-environment interactions, acknowledging the importance of various
factors in shaping societies.
Environmental Possibilism
Some scientists disagree about
whether the environment completely controls human behaviour (determinism). The
other viewpoint is environmental possibilism, which says that while the
environment sets limits, humans have choices in how they respond.
Possibilism is more about human
agency, focusing on how people make choices in their activities on Earth. It
emphasizes that humans have the freedom to choose how they adapt to the
environment.
Possibilism suggests that humans
can use innovation, adaptation, and hard work to overcome environmental
constraints. It's not forced; it's a choice based on weighing different
possibilities. Infrastructure (physical and social systems) also play a role,
providing a range of human responses.
This contrasts with environmental
determinism, saying that the physical world influences each culture.
Some argue that humans create
their situations through thought, socialization, and information, supporting
possibilism.
History of Environmental Determinism
Environmental determinism faced
criticism between 1920 and 1940 due to flawed claims and negative consequences.
This led to the development of
"environmental possibilism," a softer idea. Some scientists reject
any suggestion that the environment influences society, while others believe
it's useful to consider environmental factors. There's a discussion about
whether humans are entirely free agents or if certain behaviours can be
predicted.
If humans have free will, does
that mean we can't predict behaviour or societal outcomes? How do we explain
patterns in things like marketing, education, history, culture, and geography
if they're not determined by the environment?
Cultural Determinism
This
theory views nature as a static backdrop and emphasizes that human history and
culture shape observable features in communities. Franz Boas proposed
"historical possibilism," suggesting that nature sets limits, but
human choices and cultural factors determine what is chosen.
Justus
Liebig introduced the idea of limiting factors around 1840, stating that
organisms are constrained by the factor in the shortest supply.
For
example, the lack of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil can
limit crop yields and choices.
Thomas
Malthus in the late 18th century highlighted Earth's limitations for humans,
emphasizing that population growth could outpace food availability. Disease,
war, famine, and other factors were seen as population controls. Malthus's
ideas influenced Darwin and continue to be relevant, contributing to the
concept of "Spaceship Earth."
Franz Boas and Historical Possibilism
Boas
introduced the idea of historical possibilism, suggesting that while nature
sets possibilities for humans, historical and cultural factors determine
choices. Initially, he accepted the idea that the environment molds culture but
later rejected it.
Boas
studied the Eskimos on Baffin Island, initially presuming geographical factors'
importance. Boas, in his work "The Mind of Primitive Man,"
acknowledged that the environment provides the materials for people to shape
daily life artifacts and beliefs.
While
he recognized the general influence of the environment, Boas criticized the
idea that the same environment produces identical results everywhere.
Boas
highlighted that Eskimos in the Arctic hunted and fished, Siberian Chukchi bred
reindeer, African Hottentot practised pastoralism, and Bushmen hunted in a
semitropical environment.
Customs from one habitat could persist due to
"cultural inertia" even when no longer suitable.
Boas and his students challenged environmental
determinism, rejecting the notion that specific climates always result in cultural outcomes. FollowerLowie disproved deterministic ideas,
illustrating that vastly diverse cultures can emerge in the same geographical
conditions. An example is the distinct development of North American Indians
and modern civilization in the same environment. Lowie's evidence showed that
the presence of a resource doesn't ensure its utilization; for instance, North
American Indians didn't domesticate buffalo, and Eskimo didn't domesticate
reindeer.
Boas
and his followers emphasized meticulous data collection, critical analysis, and
conservative excursions into theory. Their approach was a reaction against
environmental determinism, focusing on understanding the specific circumstances
of each population.
Goldenweiser
and others challenged environmental determinism by proposing that culture,
rather than the environment, is the dynamic force shaping the use of natural
resources. Goldenweiser argued that humans modify their environment, creating
their own surroundings instead of being determined by them.
Lowie,
Wissler, and their contemporaries introduced the cultural area approach, dividing continents into culture areas
based on shared linguistic traits and cultural characteristics. They believed
that traits could diffuse outward from their origin, and environmental features
were viewed as passive limits on cultural development.
Kroeber,
influenced by Boasian ideas, initially emphasized the influence of culture on
the environment. However, he briefly departed from this approach in his 1939
work, organizing information into regional categories based on subsistence
systems, habitat characteristics, and population densities. Despite this
departure, Kroeber later shifted his focus towards diffusion and culture origins.
These
scholars contributed to the challenge against environmental determinism by
highlighting the role of culture in shaping human-environment interactions and
emphasizing the complexities involved in understanding these interactions.
Reference:
Moran, E. F. (2022). Human adaptability: An
introduction to ecological anthropology. New York: Routledge.