Cultural ecology: emerging human-plant geographies

Abstract

I Ghostly fl ora?It is several years now since Jones and Cloke noted that, while there had been considerable recent interest in animals and society within human geography and anthropology, 'fl ora … remains an even more ghost-like presence in contemporary theoretical approaches ' (Jones and Cloke, 2002: 4; see also Hitchings and Jones, 2004). In this second progress report on cultural ecology, we identify and trace emerging trends in human-plant geographies. Human-plant interactions have been the stuff of cultural ecology since the days of Julian Steward, and many aspects of that tradition are alive and well. Following a previous progress report (Head, 2007), we are not interested in assuming an ontological and unproblematic separation between 'cultures' and 'their [vegetative] environment' as the basis on which straightforward 'interactions' or 'adaptations' can be analysed (Blute, 2008). Rather we aim here to elucidate the contributions of relational geographies, sometimes referred to as more than human geographies, to the understanding of humanplant relations (eg, Whatmore, 2002, on soybeans, and Robbins, 2004, on invasive networks).The challenges of global environmental change provide good reasons why such geographies should be nurtured, and why the notion of a clear separation between culture and environment should be long gone. Even a cursory roll call of the pressing issues of the next few decades -food security, biofuels, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, quality of urban life -immediately involves messy and malleable confi gurations of plants and people. Plants are fundamental players in human lives, providing our food supply and contributing to the air we breathe, and vice versa -humans have transformed many aspects of plant lives. Physical biogeographers now recognize that the vegetation patterns they are studying refl ect both deep time evolutionary pathways and the 'muddy and indecipherable blur' of human infl uence (Mackey, 2008: 392).At one level it is puzzling then that humanplant geographies have been less commented on than human-animal geographies. We touch here on several reasons. First, animal geographies have been spurred on by questions of ethics. Between plants and humans, there is arguably a greater ethical distance, and the unit of ethical standing (individual, species,

Passive Flora? Reconsidering Nature’s Agency through Human-Plant Studies (HPS)

“…Through the premise of connectivity between plants and society, HPS would provide a framework for conceptualizing plants as active partners in knowledge production and cultural practices, -as social beings with agentive efficacy‖ ( [69], p. 183). HPS would investigate plants and everyday human-plant interactions-for example, South African botanical species in Western Australia (see Figure 5)-towards a reconsideration of -planthood.‖ Hence, HPS would align closely with the theoretical advances of the ecological humanities, as well as the methodological precedents of ecocriticism [41]; ecocultural studies [17]; human-animal studies [58]; human-plant geographies [10,11]; multispecies ethnography [69]; and biosemiotics [49,79]. Importantly, this framework would look towards Indigenous knowledges in reconceptualizing these divides [7,80].…”

Home Gardenscapes as Sustainable Landscape Management on St. Eustatius, Dutch Caribbean

“…"Biogeographical landscapes" can be seen as a patchwork of land areas at different stages of recovery and different levels of diversity due to natural processes and human relationships with natural resources [1]. Subtle and direct effects on the environment are changing people's relationship with the land, substantiating the need to not only support plant diversity but also biocultural knowledge about that diversity at very local levels [8][9][10].…”

Can’t See the (Bamboo) Forest for the Trees: Examining Bamboo’s Fit Within International Forestry Institutions

“…Plants are natural and cultural artifacts, shaped by particular histories, local and global priorities, funding patterns, and institutional hierarchies (Schiebinger 2004). Furthermore, plants are not considered individuals, but collectives or assemblages (Head and Atchinson 2008). Bamboo is framed within the forestry assemblage, which in a global sense is largely based on European notions of treed landscapes governed within forestry institutions.…”