Rethinking Culture to - University of Rhode Island · 2013. 10. 3. · GF41.P34 2006 333.7209755'18—dc22 2006007352. Contents Preface v Foreword vii Environmentalism 1 Chesapeake

V

C M E $ A IP E A ft E

?M-MSP.ECXI5tJLi_sJ

MDO-B-06-001 C3JJ Chesapeake

JRethinking Culture to

Strengthen Restoration andResource Management

Michael Paolisso

A Maryland Sea GrantPublication

iGmnt

C H 1: S A P E A K 1-

PERSPECTIVES

ChesapeakeEnvironmentalism

Rethinking Culture toStrengthen Restoration and

Resource Management

Michael Paolisso

Department ofAnthropologyUniversity ofMaryland, College Park

iWilrantA Maryland Sea Grant Publication

The ideas and opinions expressed inthis monograph are entirely those of the author and donot necessarily represent the views ofthe Maryland Sea Grant College, the University ofMaryland, ortheNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Publication Number

UM-SG-CP-2006-01

Copyright ©2006 bythe Maryland Sea Grant College. Portions ofthis document may beduplicated for education purposes without formal request.

The publication ofChesapeake Perspectives ismade possible inpart byagrant toMaryland Sea Grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Departmentof Commerce, through theNational Sea Grant College Program. Grant numberNA05OAR4171042.

Coverphotographby Skip Brown.Bookandcover design by Sandy Rodgers.

For more information on this orother publications, orabout ourprogram, contact:

Maryland Sea GrantCollegeUniversity of Maryland4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 300

College Park, Maryland 20740www.mdsg.umd.edu

Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Paolisso, Michael Jeffrey.

Chesapeake environmentalism :rethinking culture tostrengthen restoration andresource management / MichaelPaolisso.

p.cm. — (Chesapeake perspectives)"Publication number UM-SG-CP-2006-01"—T.p. verso.Includes bibliographical references.ISBN-13:978-0-943676-65-4 (alk. paper)ISBN-10:0-943676-65-7 (alk. paper)1.Humanecology—Chesapeake Bay Region (Md.andVa.)

2.Nature—Effect of human beings on—Chesapeake Bay Region (Md. andVa.)I. Title. II. Series.

GF41.P34 2006

333.7209755'18—dc22 2006007352

Contents

Preface v

Foreword vii

Environmentalism 1

Chesapeake BayEnvironmentalism 2

Culture as Place 6

Culture through Discourse 11Culture as Discourse 12

Environmental Discourse 13

Environmental Discourses on the ChesapeakeBay 16Case Study: Excessive Agricultural Nutrients 17Case Study: Management of the Blue Crab Fishery 20

Defining the Environment through Cultural Models 23Cultural Model Research on the Chesapeake 24

Chesapeake Bay Environmentalism Revisited 28

Toward an Environmental Anthropology of the Chesapeake 32

Notes 35

References 41

Acknowledgments 45

Preface

In Chesapeake Perspectives Maryland Sea Grantpresents a forum fortheworkof eminentthinkers — individuals who, throughtheir research, synthesis andintegration, can help us navigate the array of important issues facing theChesapeakewatershed.

We have in theChesapeake region a broad academic community witha keeninterest in — and oftena personal connection to — the Bay's ecosystem andthe humancommunities that give the region itsunique character. Many havespent long careers working to understand, conserve, and restore this nationalresource.Aswe chart a course toward a more sustainable future, their perspectives challenge us to think deeply aboutfundamental and at timescontroversial issues. Insharing their observations andopinions, they help usall rethinkour roles and responsibilities in securing an ecologically and economicallyresilientChesapeake Bay.

In this, our inaugural issue, cultural anthropologist Dr. Michael Paolisso provides hisperspectives on environmentalism andtheChesapeake. Building onhis studies of diverse communities — from watermen to farmers to scientists

— he presents a unique view of how we can shape our commitment to thisBay. Heencourages us to think beyond the confines of our interaction withthe natural world to the deeper cultural basis forour ownvalues and perceptions ofnature. Heargues that we need tobetter understand our varying cultural views of the Bay if we are to find common ground that can serve as asolid foundation for restoration and stewardship.

— Jonathan G. Kramer and

Jack Greer, editors

Foreword

The initiation of the series Chesapeake Perspectives as Maryland Sea Grantapproaches its30thanniversary provides mewithan opportunityto developand convey to a broad audience a number of arguments for why we mustincorporate cultural beliefs and values about nature and environment intoour ecological efforts to restore and manage the Chesapeake Bay. My goalhere is to present anthropological theories and data to illustrate how ourmany Bay restoration, conservation, and resource management efforts arenot culturally neutral, but rather exist within — and contribute to the formation of—what I will call Chesapeake Bay environmentalism. I willarguehere that the absenceof a systematic recognition and integration of the cultural construct of "environmentalism" into our Bay ecological restorationand natural resource management efforts significantly limits our ability toinvite and expandbroader stakeholder involvement and participation.

What I offerhereisa briefglimpse of whatanthropology, and morespecifically the emerging subfield of environmental anthropology, can bringto thestudy ofenvironmentalism andhowitcanhelp to link cultural beliefs andvalues to ecological restoration and natural resource management. I will arguethat cultural beliefs and values, expressed in both language and practice, donot simply overlie the ecological and natural, but in factencompass and givemeaning to our understanding of ecology and resource management. Viewedslightly differently, the ecological, biological, and economic dimensions thatare mostclearly and directly encompassed bya culturalframework constituteour most compelling senseof environmentalism. Mychoosingto writeaboutBay environmentalism and culture results from mystrong personal and professional belief that a developed, robust, dynamic, and inclusive understanding of environmentalism as a constructed system of cultural knowledge cansignificantly shift existing paradigms for thinking about management andrestoration. Furthermore, by situating politics withina broader culturalcontext in which differences can be understood in a holistic manner against abackdropof sharedconcern for the Bay, viewing Chesapeake environmentalismas a cultural construct may help us avoid overpoliticizing the Bay. Envi-

vn

sioningsuch a broad, inclusive environmentalism makesme more bullishonthe Bay's future.

In this short monograph, I will discuss recent anthropological work, onand beyond the Chesapeake, to illustrate the research and practical implications ofa cultural approach tounderstanding Chesapeake environmentalism.I beginwitha general discussion of theconstruct ofenvironmentalism, whichis then applied to the Chesapeake Bay, arguing that in general we have notbeen able to capitalize fully on the strong environmental beliefs and valuesconnected to the Chesapeake. I contend that inpart this disconnect happensbecause culture has been conceptualized as a place-based, community-basedsetof beliefs and values. Next, I will argue that for our environmentalism tomore fully contribute toourefforts toprotect and manage the Bay, it is necessary to add a different conceptualization ofculture, one that transcends anyparticular group's or community's beliefs and values. Consistent with myresearch on the Bay, I present discourse analysis and cultural model researchas two alternative ways to shift the focus of our inquiry from the strictlyplaced-based tothe transcultural and finally toward the constructive interplaybetween public culture and private (individual) culture.

I hope to show that while culture can certainly begin in places and withparticular groups andbequite localized, it also transcends groups andmovesbeyondspatial or temporalboundaries. With this alternative view of Chesapeake Bay culture, linked toenvironmental issues, we can open many new discussions that promise to clarify and expand the focus on environmentalism.Such afocus would involve theenvironmental research andadvocacy communities, aswell asthebroader public. Certainly, this anthropological work mustbelinked with the biological, ecological, and economic sciences. Iconclude byoffering a few thoughts on roles and responsibilities of anthropology in thisnewunderstanding of Bay environmentalism.

— Michael Paolisso

Vlll

ff^. >••*«,"51£ '--'r. •.>, ",•' •, •'mm...

•V,:Ml:«!:,:;:,'i.;,'<viWfi^ :r^ •'•'•••'•^ •^::^:::-y: ••••. .•••••!•:•-.;••.••'.•• •J::• r••i- •_•• -•. v...•••= :••,•., :: •^.-.•..J;: •/-.^ ^v.M i- •«•;••> J-?e;-:'fi ••'•..': •;->":.. ...••:••.;••• • "•..; •••'•.v;'J.v.i-,..!.'ji.i ;sj; i|/,•,..•;?•*•

i^KfMmm^--, •-' ' .. .'.{sjB-^rrr;;--. •/• ^ .... . t ....... #l -..: ...... - -..>i=--"wiiSp.V^-^--'-.3t'"- •• '^-'^rr::::,- ..-.a . • • -- •--.-;• -„• • ~--\ \\ . •- -•--• -a

«1 »^

Chesapeake Bay

Environmentalism

I can well imagine that many readers who Environmentalismcrab, oyster, farm, research, manage, or advo- js ^ ynudl a Statecate on or for the Chesapeake rightly perceive ri . ,

of heinc as a modethemselves as environmental and may J °therefore question why we need to explore °J conduct Or awhat it means to be "environmental." How- set ofpolicies.1ever, I can alsoveryeasily recall myown experiences of, for example, two groups equallycomfortable in their sense of being environmentally concerned disagreeingsharply over an ecological issue or the use ofa particular natural resource andnot fully understanding howthe other sidecouldnot seewhat they, throughtheir"environmentalism," plainly saw. I hope that I can demonstrate here thatweallmust reflect upon the originsof our Chesapeake environmentalism andhow that environmentalism isshaped.

It iswell beyondthescopeof thismonographto enter into an extensive discussion of the multiple definitions of the term"environmentalism."2 Rather,here I will briefly presenta number of defining characteristics of the conceptof environmentalism found in anthropological literature in order to provideabaseline context from which to discuss Chesapeake Bay environmentalism.

The rise of "the environment"as a social and cultural phenomenon was astriking feature of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s around the world.3 Environmentalism typically refers to a concern that the environment should be protected, particularly from the harmful effects of human activities.As Kay Milton notes:

environmentalism isexpressed in manyways: throughpublicorganizations dedicatedto environmental protection, throughgovernment policies aimedatdecreasing pollution and conservingwildlife, through"green" political parties, through demands for

2 Chesapeake Perspectives

changes inland use, through thepurchase of goods whose producers claim tobesensitive to environmental needs. For individuals, itmay beadeep-seated commitmentwhich informs every aspect of their lifestyle orit may beamarginal concern whichhaslittle effect on everyday life.4

Broadly speaking, environmentalism is the application of knowledge,effort, and commitment tounderstand, manage, and, ifnecessary, restore ecological systems in a sustainable manner. Modern environmentalism is abroad-based effort involving natural resource user communities, scientists,resource managers, policymakers, andthegeneral public. Itcanbeinstitutionalized, bureaucratized, and driven by moral as well as scientific concerns.Environmentalism is a valuable motivator for restoration, research, and sustainable management workat local, state, and federal levels.

Chesapeake BayEnvironmentalism

For awide range ofstakeholders, the Chesapeake Bay is perceived —and represented — asa treasured natural and cultural resource. The Chesapeake isiconic of both thewealth andecological complexity of coastal environmentsand the increasing development that threatens our inlandand coastal waters.Research findings indicate a continuing decline in Bay species and ecosystemservices — those natural functions, whether of wetlands or oyster reefs, thathelp tosustain healthy ecosystems. Restoration andmanagement efforts (e.g.,to restore native oysters and underwater grasses, or to regulate the commercialharvest of blue crabs or the proposed introduction of non-native oysters)elicit deep-seated feelings in us about thenatural world andour responsibility to use ecosystems and natural resources in a sustainable manner. TheChesapeake Bay hasbecome a lightning rod forenvironmental debates, concerns, andactions, ranging from those thatemphasize a pristine notionof theBay little disturbed byhumanactivity to those thatconsider the Bay a resourceto support one's livelihood.

While making a living from theBay has become partofour regional character and heritage, efforts to analyze, restore, and manage the Bay are alsoextensive andvisible. TheBay watershed isoneofthemost studied bioregions,often citedasan example of integrated federal, state andlocal efforts to restoreandmanage a complex ecosystem.5 There areactive efforts to restore depletednatural resources, such as oysters and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),andtheChesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), thelargest environmental organ-

Chesapeake Environmentalism 3

ization on the Bay, annually issues a"State ofthe Bay" report that indexes thecurrent status of key species and ecological conditions against their status inpre-European settlement times. The Chesapeake is the site ofthe ChesapeakeBay Program, aninnovative and ambitious multijurisdictional effort tostudy,monitor, and restore vital ecological and biological systems of the Bay.6 Andfinally, farmers and watermen, and toa lesser degree those employed in theservice and processing sectors behind farming and commercial fishing, areconstantly reported on in the public media and elsewhere in terms ofthe challenges they face inmaking a living from declining natural resources.

Throughout the watershed, individuals from diverse backgrounds andwith different levels ofunderstanding oftheBay's ecology care, often strongly,about what happens to the Bay. The research, restoration, management, anduse ofthe Bay's natural resources are ofmore than passing interest tomillionsofresidents living intheBay watershed. The national, regional, andlocal pressregularly produce articles on the state ofthe Bay and cover new findings onecosystem health and the status of restoration efforts. More dedicatedmonthly newsletters, such as the Bay Journal and The Watermen's Gazette,carry well-researched articles, effectively translated for broad public consumption, about the health of the Bay's living resources and the challenges ofdevelopment and population growth. Another reminder of our concern forthe Bay — as well as a statement ofintent to restore and take care of the Bay—can befound on theregion's carlicense plates. For example, in recent yearsMaryland license plates have reminded us to"Treasure the Chesapeake" andthat "Our Farms, [are] Our Futures." Finally, the importanceof the Bay to usis perhaps best captured by awell-known, ifnotalways overtly acknowledged,regional political axiom: "What's good for the Bay is good for politics." Whileweneed tobecautious andnotoverstate thepoint, an unknown but very largepercentage ofthe population living in the Bay states and District ofColumbia,if not theChesapeake watershed as a whole, feels connected to the Bay — indifferent ways and withdifferent degrees of strength, but the connections arethere. The effects of pollution and continued harvesting of the Bay's naturalresources areof obviousconcern to manyof the region's residents, as arenon-native species, dredging, and water quality, to name a few oftheissues debatedin the press and in private.

One's choice ofwords when talking aboutthe Bay provides moreevidenceof particular attitudes and environmental concern for the Bay. In interviews


we have conducted over the past few years with awide range ofBay stakeholders, it is striking to hear how often individuals describe themselves as "stewards," "guardians," and "protectors" ofthe Bay. These forms ofself identification were found widespread among staff and members of environmentalnongovernmental organizations (NGOs), scientists, resource managers,watermen, and farmers. These descriptors provided some ofthe best qualitative evidence ofthe moral values individuals attach to their relationship withthe Bay. Further exploration ofthe environmental beliefs and values underlying different stakeholders' use ofthese terms provided us with insights into thedifferent cultural frameworks that individuals and groups use tointerpret andunderstand the Bay and ourrestoration and management efforts.

This high level ofenvironmental activity, interest, andconcern areoutwardsigns ofsomething we can more broadly conceptualize as "Chesapeake Bayenvironmentalism." While much oftheregion's population would not immediately refer to themselves as "environmentalists," a term that may have specific political overtones for some, most individuals do perceive themselves asenvironmentally concerned about theBay. The Bay's ecological wonders andits economic bounty help tomake us environmentally aware, and the amountofpublic discourse onthe Bay makes it hard for people not tobe concerned,or become informed, to varying degrees, about particular Bay-related issuesrelevant to them. This form ofenvironmentalism is grounded in oursharedappreciation of the Chesapeake as a unique and wonderful natural environment important to usall, historically, economically, andculturally.

Despite widespread desire for a Chesapeake environment that is ecologically healthy and rich in natural resources, however, some widespread beliefsand values have complicated efforts torestore and manage the Bay, and infactin many cases they have become obstructionist and functioned in ways opposite from their natural intent —that is, they have been counterproductive toour restoration and management efforts. The problem is that the existence ofpositive environmental beliefs andvalues isnecessary but insufficient to forma Chesapeake environmentalism that can be used in our restorationand management efforts. These existing beliefs andvalues do not readily convert intobroad-based alliances among stakeholders to restore, save, treasure, or manage the Bay. They remain compartmentalized into groups associated withthose identified as environmentalists, scientists, resource managers, ornaturalresource harvesters (farmers and watermen). Moreover, sustained partner-


ships among these groups are toofew, toonarrow (e.g., species focused), tenuous, and infrequently replicated. Given the challenges of "cleaning up" theBay, there is increased recognition that we need all stakeholders to do whatcolloquially we could call "their environmental best."

To argue thatthe construct ofBay environmentalism isnotdeveloped sufficiently to beof much use toexisting research, restoration, and managementefforts does notdeny theexistence ofexcellent examples ofcooperative efforts,such as the Oyster Recovery Partnership, the Bi-State Blue Crab AdvisoryCommittee (BBCAC) and itsTechnical WorkGroup,and the manyworkingcommittees of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Rather, my point is that compared to the potential of a Bay environmentalism to recruit and organize abroad-based professional andcitizen movement, andcompared to theecological need and apparent broad public interest, we have onlyscratched the surface of potential commitment and support. We have failed to stitch togetherthisenvironmentalism intoa quiltofactionto a degree that matches the severityoftheproblem andthedepths ofourcollective, ifnot integrated, concerns.

How do we construct a Chesapeake Bay environmentalism that not onlycomplements andsupports restoration andmanagement efforts, but becomesstronger because ofaclose link tobiological, ecological, andeconomic efforts?My main argument is that we need a moresophisticated and inclusive senseof Chesapeake Bay culture ifwe areto integrate environmental beliefs andvaluesacross stakeholder groups intoa moreinclusive and applied construct ofChesapeake environmentalism. Iamnotarguing thatwehave ignored thecultural dimensions of the Chesapeake, but I am arguingthat the dominant conceptualization of Chesapeake culture needs to be revised to reflect thedynamic flow of cultural information within and amongBay stakeholders. Asdiscussed below, a critical stepin revising our understandingof Bay culture(s)is to move away from an exclusive focus on culture as purely place-based.

Culture as Place

As an anthropologist, it is impossible for me to see the Chesapeake Bay without also seeing culture. I inevitably take a holistic approach, which helps metounderstand the imperative for aninterdisciplinary perspective that includesbiology, ecology, and economics, to name only a few academic disciplines.Still, my training and profession require that my analytical focus does not straytoo far for too long from the cultural. While my cultural sensitivities are perhaps heightened, I suspect that most individuals who work, study, or careabout the Bay have an intuitive recognition and appreciation for somethingwe could call "Bay culture(s)." If this is the case, how we collectively understand and represent Chesapeake Bay culture becomes, for the anthropologist,acentral research question. As Isuggest below, our historical understanding ofBay culture needs a conceptual overhaul ifwe are to identify and build uponintra- and interstakeholder group environmental beliefs and values to construct a Bay environmentalism insupport ofrestoration and management.

Evidence ofhow Bay culture is represented and conveyed can be found indiverse sources. Perhaps the sources on Bay culture most widely recognizedand the ones most generally accepted as legitimate are the relatively largenumber of published accounts of people and places around what is called"Bay country." We are fortunate to have anumber ofnonfiction narratives bywriters who either grew up or continue to live on the Bay's shores. Throughparticipation incommunity life, these authors capture theday-to-day andseason-to-season rhythms oflife inrural Bay communities. The most exemplaryform of this writing has focused on watermen communities.Well-knownexamples include Tom Horton's Bay Country and An Island out ofTime, inwhich he richly describes living ayear inthe community ofTylerton onSmithIsland, and William Warner's Pulitzer-Prize-winning Beautiful Swimmers,which inaccessible prose and with beautiful line drawings describes the biol-


ogy and ecology of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), with a focus on theknowledge and practices of watermen from various communities.'

Similar to these nonfiction narrativesare coffee table books of Bayphotographs, almost always accompanied bytext. In both photographs and words,these booksoffer explicit and evocative documentaries of life around the Bay.Two good examples are Brice N. Stump's Unforgettable Treasures: People,Places and Culture of the Eastern Shore and Marion E. and MameWarren swidely acclaimed Bringing Back the Bay. Further documenting the region'sculture are historical accounts of particular areas of the Bay, such as John R.Wennersten's Maryland's Eastern Shore: AJourney in Time and Place, whichclearly brings home the widespread perceptions of cultural differencesbetween Maryland's western and eastern shores.

What thesebooks share in common is that the authors and photographersuse theirown histories and roots in the region as a platform from which toexplore and describe the hard work, language, institutions (e.g., churches,community groups), economics, ethics, ecological knowledge, and generallifestyles found around theBay. Intheend, they all draw comparisons betweentheir subject matter andcontemporary society inurban areas, often with morethan a hint of sadness that these local communities and their social and cultural traditions are disappearing. These accounts are sympathetic and sensitive renderings, widely available in bookstores and tourist stops around theBay.

Bay culture is also a backdrop for fiction, as the Chesapeake has been asource ofinspiration and contemplation for a wealth ofnovelists, writers ofshort stories, and poets. Well-known examples of novels include GilbertByron's The Lord's Oysters, Glenn Lawson's Baykeeper, the historical novelChesapeake by James Michener, the popular thriller Vie Waterman by TimJunkin, anda number ofcritically acclaimed works byJohn Barth. One collection ofshort pieces, Talking Tidewater: Writers on the Chesapeake, edited byRichard Harwood, includes a subsection titled "Culture."

Finally, there is aspecial body ofwriting and photography dedicated totheChesapeake Bay skipjack, the large-sail, shallow-draft vessels watermen builtand used todredge for oysters during most ofthe last century.8 Sailing is partof the Bay's heritage and current culture, and there is nomore famous sailingvessel on theChesapeake than the skipjack, even though today there are probably fewer than 20 skipjacks onthe Bay, and only ahandful continue todredge


for oysters (the othersare providing valuable service for tourismand education). Theskipjack provides a major symbol of the Bay's heritage and past,andanthropologically it is fascinating tofollow today's iconic trail of the skipjack. A number of groups use the skipjack as a symbol. Somerset County,Maryland, uses a picture of a skipjack as representation of their heritage onthe county's tourism Internet homepage, Baltimore named its AmericanHockey League team the Skipjacks, the Lower Eastern Shore HeritageCommittee uses a skipjack in its logo, and thesame istruefor Maryland SeaGrant. Private businesses notdirecdy connected totheBay, other than bytheirlocation within the watershed, have appropriated the skipjack, in name orlogo: Skipjack Financial Services, Skipjack Appraisals, Skipjack's DryCleaners, Skipjack Seafood, and Skipjack Cove Yachting Resort, tocite someexamples.

Itwould be misleading to place too much emphasis on literature or photography as the main, or even the most important, source for Bay culture.Rather, important avenues for our cultural awareness of the Bay occurthrough ourdirect use and experience ofthe Bay and its natural resources. Atthe most basic level these come through our consumption ofthe Bay's crabs,oysters, andfinfish. Thanksgiving andoysters, orsummertime andsteamed orsoft crabs, have become cultural traditions here on the Bay. Some, in fact,might consider them inalienable rights. Ofcourse, what is important to ususually is captured in print, and the region is in no short supply ofChesapeakecookbooks filled with local versions ofBaywide culinary standards.9

Along with the culinary aspects ofculture are the many experiences oftheBay as a source of leisure, travel, and recreation. At marinas around the Bayone can hear orsense apublic conceptualization ofsomething loosely understood asthe"sailing culture" or the "powerboat culture" andthe"recreationalfishermen culture." What unites and separates each ofthese groups are theviews, values, and practices —often competing —that arise from their experiences and uses ofthe Bay. Clearly the members ofthese loose-knit groupshave diverse backgrounds and occupations, but the core of their culturalimportance inour minds is associated with aparticular form ofusing the Bay.

An important part of our leisure time that also has explicit educationalmeaning is exploring Bay country through tourism focused on folk life andheritage. The Bay area has many museums, antique shops, and tours of historic buildings, homes, and downtown areas. Particularly pronounced in the


springand summer are the town heritage festivals throughout the region: theshad festival, the skipjackraces, and the county agricultural fairs.

While we could certainly find additional expressions of Bay culture, theabove examples illustrate thewidespread and diverse expressions of whatI amcalling Bay culture(s). In these examples, Bay cultureisvalued and importantto us in termsof its identity withworkand leisure and our sense of a past thatisdisappearing. But the above examples do morethan merely illustrate whatwe mean when we write about, observe, and participate in Chesapeake culture. What isstriking about these examples istheexplicit or implicit linkage toplace — toacommunity, location, or region bounded geographically (e.g., anisland or town) andbya perceived limit, inspace and time, to theextension ofcertain practices, beliefs, and values. The study ofculture as associated with aplace or community has a long, although not uncontested, tradition inanthropology.10 In adopting this approach, the particulars of Bay culture canbe cross-culturally compared with othergroups and places, including traditional, indigenous cultures once found in remote regions worldwide.

The representation ofculture as only place- or community-based is, however, analytically underpowered, particularly if we want to improve andstrengthen Bay environmentalism. First, the emphasis on place does not focusour attention enough on exchanges and movements of beliefs, values, andpractices across groups inspace and time. While culture is often most visiblypresent as shared within tightly bounded groups (e.g., Smith Island), as aconceptual framework itshould not be restricted only tospatially and temporallycontiguous communities. Second, itprioritizes the documentation ofculturalbeliefs and practices ofBay rural communities disappearing due to change anddevelopment. (Such an approach is arguably justified given the disappearanceofmany ofthe Bay's traditional lifestyles and practices.) Third, culture as placecan very easily lead tostatic discussions ofculture and cultural change. Itdoesnot give sufficient attention to the dynamic, proactive role ofculture as adaptive, asasystem ofbeliefs and values that can beused, for example, tohelp protect and manage the Bay's natural resources. And finally, this restricted viewleads toanunderstanding ofcultures mainly as objects"out there" inspace andtime to be studied, from skipjacks to crab cakes to religious beliefs, objectsoften depicted as part ofa disappearing alternative tocontemporary, modernsociety. At best the above approach may lead toa selective —and atworse anoverly romanticized view — of culture andcommunity.


Anthropologists debate extensively themeaning ofculture."Our focus onculture iswhat we feel distinguishes usfrom othersocial sciences. While place-based frameworks forunderstanding culture have been widely used, and continue to be used effectively, alternative approaches to studying culture haveemerged thatemphasize thedecoupling of culture from place and give priority focus to processes, within and across communities and individuals, thatlead to theconstruction of cultural meaning. Rather than seeking to identifythe"culture of Xgroup" or "culture of Ygroup," the focus ison what createsculturalmeaning.

To illustrate howcultural meaning iscreated and communicated, I wouldlike to discuss two approaches (often seen as competing) to the study ofculture, citing examples of their application to environmental issues, includingthose facing the Chesapeake. The two approaches in question are discourseanalysis and cultural models. Taken together, they provide a dynamicapproach to the study of culture as something created in the external, publicarena as well as through individual cognitive processes. Both of theseapproaches help usaccount for what becomes culturally meaningful and howculturechanges or not.

Culture through Discourse

One of the most exciting and challenging tasks in the studyof cultureisto grapplewith the interplay betweenculture as located and embodied in

the public arena — existing or constructed in symbols, institutions, andbehaviors — and the idea of culture

as internalized within individuals.

For both the external and internal, or

public and private, ifyouwill, cultureneeds to be flexible and adaptive,capable of generating new meaningsand establishing shared connections

On the one hand, culture

resides in a setofpublicmeaningfulforms, whichcan most often be seen andheard.... On the other

hand, these overtforms areonly rendered meaningfulbecause human minds

contain the instruments

for their interpretation.12that individuals implicidy recognizetoa degree thatestablishes a sense ofgroup identity.

In my own research on the Chesapeake, I have employed two approachesto help link public (external) and private (internal) cultural meanings. Thefirst is discourse analysis, an approach that focuses closely on howlinguisticconstructs create public meaning. The second approach is cognitive in itsfocus, identifying implicit andtacit cultural models in themind. As discussedbelow, thestrength ofdiscourse analysis is that it draws ourattention to howcultural meaning (about theenvironment, forexample) isconstructed throughexplicit communication, while cultural models draw upon the cognitive sciences toask how cultural knowledge, much ofwhich is implicit, isorganizedbythemind.13 These are nottheonly alternative approaches tocultural analysis available or useful, but they have been used byanthropologists in ways relevantto the discussion hereof Chesapeake environmentalism.


Culture as Discourse

[I]tisnotsufficient to understand language as[only] transparent or reflective. It isnota neutral information-carrying vehicle — Rather, language isconstitutive: it is thesite where meanings are created and changed.'4

The term "discourse" has multiple meanings and interpretations, and formany, includingsocial scientists, it isnota term that isintuitively understandable. In social theory, discourse implies both process and substance.15 Discourse asprocess denotes how cultural or social reality iscreated, constitutedby the organization ofknowledge incommunication. What unites the analysis of discourse as process is "analytical attention to the use of language insocial contexts?™ Here"social context" means that researchers pay close attention to"naturally occurring" discourse — that is, utterances thatoccurin thecontext of social interaction, in contrast to utterances specifically elicitedusing structured interviews and surveys. In these interactions, speech andother signifying acts play asignificant role in constituting orconstructing cultural and social meanings. A central proposition of discourse-centeredresearch is that "culture is localized in concrete publicly accessible signs, themost important ofwhich are actually occurring instances ofdiscourse involving language."17 As such, culture emerges historically through the process ofdialogue, and is continuously produced and revised as language and dialogueevolve. Discourse-centered work emphasizes the heterogeneous, multifunctional, and dynamic character oflanguage use and the central place it occupies inthe cultural and social construction of reality. Discourses are not necessarily homogenous or consistent, either within or between groups. Fromthe perspective ofdiscourse analysis, culture is no longer objectively situatedin space and time.

Discourse as substance refers to a field of communication defined by itssubject matter or the type of language used: environmental discourse isa discourse about the environment, the discourse ofscience is the language ofscience, the discourse of watermen and farmers is the language used by thesegroups or the dialogues about them.18

How do discourses relate to each other? How do particular discoursesimpinge onpublic consciousness and how do some discourses acquire precedence over other discourses? Both as process and substance, discourses areinherently political. As discourses become established and "mainstreamed,"they become the dominant reference domain for new ideas, positions, and


viewpoints. As a result, alternative discourses that have their own logic andmeaningdo not enter into the dominant discourse as a system of meaning,but rather as disarticulated terms that become (re)interprcted in accordancewith the language and meanings of the dominant discourse.

Anexample includes the interaction between discourses on qualitative andquantitative data. In the dominant discourse of science, qualitative data areoften referred to as "anecdotal." Because qualitativedata do not meet certainmethodological criteria related to probability theoryin statistics, whenviewedfroma quantitative perspective, qualitative research findings areoftendeemedless objective, rigorous, "sound,"or reliable, i.e., "justanecdotal," onestepawayfrom hearsay. What is not allowed into thisscientific discourse is the preceptthat systematic qualitative research has its own logical frame for assigningvalidity and reliability that in theory parallels statistical methods of inferencein quantitative research. Given the widespread public perspective of science,meaning quantitative research, as the final arbitrator of truth and knowledge,the value of qualitative research is usually interpreted, and often discounted,within this realm of discourse.

Finally, to adopta discursive orientation to the role of language increatingmeaning does not susggest that oneentirely abandons the premise that talkand texts also convey concrete, nondiscursive information. Most researchersassume that language isboth constitutive and referential. In the above example, discussing qualitative methods and findings, even when situated withinscience-based discourse, will include meanings and information that reflectestablished memories and ready-formed opinions aboutqualitative research.Notall meaning and information will be constructed in the specific event ormoment of a discourse.19

Environmental Discourse

'Environmental discourse' isnot just communication about theenvironment, but alsothe process whereby ourunderstanding of theenvironment isconstituted throughsuch communication.20

Two case studies of discourse analysis applied to environmental issues willhelp flesh out thebriefoverview above of discourse research, and will provideadditional empirical background for a discussion ofdiscourse analysis appliedto Chesapeake Bay issues. The first case studyby Robin Grove-White examinesthe riseof official environmental discourse in the United Kingdom,where


state and scientificviewsof national environmental concerns became, from adiscourse perspective, the "orthodox view."21 The official environmentalagenda clustered around major issues —greenhouse effect, ozone depletion,toxic wastes, wildlife and habitat losses, pollution of seas and rivers, amongothers — which were given prominence in discourses undertaken by themedia, the scientific community, and the government. What these environmental problems shared was that they could be objectified in nature andmediated or understood through thenatural sciences. As the researcher states,"environmental problems worthy ofthe name are thus regarded as physicalproblems, arising from specific human interventions innatural systems; theircharacter and boundries are given to us from nature, their authenticity guaranteed by natural scientific investigation and confirmation."22 Accordingly,solutions tothese physically identified "problems"can be found inpersuasion,regulation, technological innovation, international agreements, orapplicationofeconomic instruments.

The physical-natural problems identified in the United Kingdom casestudy are clearly important environmental issues, and governments and science are needed to address them. At the same time, however, the orthodoxenvironmental view excluded other environmental discourses or concerns.First, it trivialized and relegated NGOs and individual environmental concerns to the discursive terrain of"public opinion," where they could in somecases be seen as irrational, "unscientifically grounded," driven by "specialinterests," and— until information (i.e., scientific information) could becollected — they could bedismissed. Many of theenvironmental issues thattheorthodox view embraced were first identified by environmental and localgroups, who ironically were then excluded from the evolving, increasingly science- and management-based discourse.23

In a parallel example, J. Peter Brosius has documented the evolution of atransnational environmental discourse onsustainable logging.24 Brosius studied the international response to aggressive commercial logging of forestsoccupied by the Penan hunter-gatherers inSarawak, East Malaysia. In 1987,the Penan erected blockades to prevent logging oftheir forests. The images ofthe Penan confronting police and bulldozers galvanized international environmental opinion, and the Penan becamea cause cilebre for environmentalists worldwide concerned about unsustainable forest practices and indigenousrights. The Penan situation received extensive media coverage on television


(NBC Nightly News, Primetime Live), on National Public Radio, in magazines(Newsweek, Time, Rolling Stone, and National Geographic), and in documentaryfilm (Blowpipes andBulldozers), and Penan leaders were awarded humanrights and environmental awards by the Sierra Club, among others. TheGrateful Dead rock group testified before the U.S. Congress on behalfof thePenan, and Al Gore, then Vice President,held two news conferencesand supported the Penancause in hisbook Earth in the Balance.

But the discourse on Sarawak logging and the Penan evolved. TheMalaysian government initiated an effective rhetorical offensive against environmentalists from Northern, industrialized countries. It hired a prestigiousinternational public relations firm, developed its own timber trade organizations, senthigh-profile delegations to Northern countries to discuss sustainable forestry practices, and launched aneffective campaign that linked Northern environmentalism to the legacy of colonialism in Southern,developingcountries. Questions aboutthe right of the Penan to self-government and thefreedom to determine theirown"development" began to appear in the discourse, along with references to Northern countries' own forestry practicesthat had led to deforestation of temperate forests and the disappearance oftheir indigenous groups. As the discourse evolved, environmentalists lost themoral high ground. In response, theNorth switched discourses to focus moreon reducing tropical timber consumption in their own countries. As Brosiusmakes clear, "theoverall effect of these developments was that thedebate overlogging inSarawak shifted from afocus onforest destruction and therights ofindigenous communities to an issue ofsustainable forest management."25

As thetwo examples above suggest, "thosewho can most influence thedefinition of environmental responsibility are those who can make the mosteffective useof the toolsof discourse.26 Thesetoolswill varyfrom one culturalcontext toanother, but they typically include thenews media, mechanisms offormal and informal education, advertising, entertainment media, and political lobbying. Environmental activism often takes the form of trying toempower groups andorganizations byincreasing their access to these tools.

Environmental Discourses

on the Chesapeake Bay

OurChesapeake Bay environmental concerns become activated in responseto the decline ofparticular aquatic species, adecline in the function ofecosystems, and the presence of new or excess biochemicals (pollution). The firstlevel of response is to apply the approaches of science to identify causes,scope, effects, and possible solutions orremedies. There is not one Bay stakeholder group who would argue against the need for science to help us understand the Bay, and more particularly anthropogenic effects and what to doabout them.

However, our strong valuation ofscience and the language ofscience (e.g.,hypothesis testing, significance thresholds, random sampling, internal andexternal validity, and experimental design) dominates our Chesapeake environmental discourses and in theprocess becomes theintellectual and knowledge benchmark for understanding alternative views and types of knowledge. Below, Idescribe the interplay between science and local knowledge fortwo environmental problems ofgreat concern to Bay stakeholders. The firstproblem is the need to reduce the levels ofnitrogen and phosphorus runofffrom farms into the Bay. The second problem is low spawning stock biomassofblue crabs. My use ofnutrient runoff and blue crab fishery managementas illustrative examples is not to argue for one type ofknowledge over theother, ortoargue that one type ofknowledge is correct. Rather, my only goalhere is to illustrate how alternative views and knowledge from local experts,farmers, and watermen were discursively reinterpreted and recast tofit withinthe framework of the dominant view of science, and in the process weremarginalized and even trivialized, even though they come from primary target groups from whom we seek cooperation and regulatory compliance.


Case Study: Excessive Agricultural Nutrients

There is widespread consensus amongstakeholder groups that restorationofthe Chesapeake will be unsuccessful unless levels of nutrients — mainly nitrogen and phosphorus — in the Bay and its tributaries are reduced. Nutrient-enrichedwaters promoteexcessive concentrations of algae, whichcan depletewater oxygen levels and, in combination with high sediment levels, causereductions in underwater grasses in tidal shallows. Underwater grasses provide critical habitat for many finfish and crabs, and they also improve waterquality by buffering shorelines from wave action, filtering sediment, andabsorbing nutrients.

Nutrient reductionefforts beganin earnest in 1987, when the ChesapeakeBay Program adopted agoal calling for a40-percent reduction innitrogen andphosphorus. This ambitious goal was later scaled back to focus on what wereconsidered "controllable" nutrients, excluding sources difficult to affect suchasseptic tanks andairpollution. The 40-percent goal effectively became a 20-percent reduction in nitrogen and a 31-percent reduction in phosphorus.27Progress has been made toward reaching these goals. By 2000, phosphorusloadings were reduced from 27 million pounds to 19 million pounds andnitrogen loadings were reduced from 337 million to 285 million.28 Thesereductions were achieved through implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and increased control of point-source pollution,mainly at wastewater treatment plants. While efforts to reduce point sourcescontinue, it is recognized that to achieve significant further reductions moreeffort mustbe focused on reducing agricultural nutrientrunoff.

TheChesapeake Bay Program's Watershed Model estimates that38percentof the nitrogen and 49 percent of phosphorus delivered to the Bay originatefrom agriculture.29 Agricultural lands, which cover about 23 percent of theChesapeake Bay watershed, are responsible for 13 percent ofthegross domestic product inthe Chesapeake Bay watershed and about 4percent ofthe laborforce.30 Chesapeake Bay farms average 180 acres, compared to a national average of500 acres. The principal crops are corn, wheat, and soybeans, althoughhorticulture and nurseries are increasing in importance. Animal productionincludes beef, dairy, and poultry(broilers, layers, and turkeys).

The ecological and economic problems associated with excessive farmnutrients can only become understood and communicated through theapproaches andlanguage ofagricultural andmarine sciences. Excess nutrients


in the soils and their travel from fields and farms to tidal and Bay watersremain generally invisible to the farmer andconcerned citizen alike. Notonlyis science essential for understanding nutrient enrichment and developingprograms and policies to promote the balanced use of farm nutrients, buttechnical concepts and dependence on scientific language define and shapethe discourse on farm nutrient management.

Thedefining role ofscientific knowledge andlanguage inconstructing thediscourse around nutrient management can be illustrated through a discussion of BMPs, which are "tactical" plans for reducing agricultural nutrientrunoff problems from existing crop and animal production systems. Maryland farmers are required to develop and implement nutrient managementplans that include the BMPs most relevant for their crop, livestock, and poultry practices. Examples of BMPs in use in the Chesapeake Bay watershedinclude lagoons to catch and store animal waste, sheds for storing poultrymanure, winter cover crops toremove nitrogen notutilized byprevious crops,fine-tuned fertilizer application, and erosion control measures to reducerunoff. These BMPs are clearly defined interms oftheir structure and implementation, and these definitions are employed by jurisdictions within thewatershed. For example, when planting a winter cover crop, anagreed-uponspecies must beused and planting must bedone during aspecified time frametoqualify asa BMP. Each BMP has anefficiency rating in terms ofhow muchnitrogen and phosphorus it removes if implemented in a mannerconsistentwith its defining criteria. If the winter cover crop is sown inexacdy the prescribed way, it isassumed that itsefficiency in removing nutrients will beconsistent across microhabitats. Furthermore, there are standardized tracking andreporting procedures for BMPs for the Bay watershed states. Finally, information onBMP implementation and the associated nutrient reduction efficiencyfor each BMP practice isused by the Chesapeake Bay watershed model toestimate nutrient stocks and flows.

The agricultural and agronomic scientific knowledge acquired for implementingand measuring BMPs produces information invaluable to our effortsto reduce nutrient runoff. At the same time, BMPs have become the dominant

discourse through which we come to understand theproblems of and solutions to agricultural nutrient enrichment. It should be clear that while wedepend onscience to help usunderstand and address the nutrient problem, adependency on scientific reasoning and means of communication can make


it difficult to conceptualize alternative discourses. Given that we cannot seenutrients and that they move in complex ways, take complex forms, and havea range ofconsequences underdifferent conditions, it isvery difficult to imagine an alternative viewpoint or way of understanding and communicatingabout them. The question of how else we might understand and addressnutrient problems is not evenconceptualized.

There is, however, a competing farmerdiscourse on agricultural nutrientmanagement and resistance to implementing BMPs. The competing discourse is not a complete rejection of the scientific method and its attendantmeansof communication. Our interviews and surveys have shown that farmersthroughout thewatershed do recognize that there isa nutrientenrichmentproblem and do value the knowledge and guidance inherent in the development of BMPs. The problem froma discourse perspective is that requirementsof BMPs and the language associated with BMPs marginalize farmer knowledge, experience, and agricultural values. By marginalize, I mean that farmerknowledge and agricultural experience as theyrelate to nutrient managementareonlyunderstood as compared to what we accept as truth inherent in thescientific basis for the BMPs. While science cansometimes fail to"getit right,"these errors are perceived to be a consequence of insufficient methods orinformation, both of which are refined and improved in the process ofadvancingscientific knowledge.

In the scientific (and public) discourse on farm nutrient runoff there isanimplicit, if not explicit, conceptualization of farming as polluting or, morestridentiy, of farmers aspolluters. Farmers areseen primarily as the source ofthe nutrient enrichment problem and are not widely viewed as potentialstakeholders who would voluntarily participatein increased efforts to reducenitrogen and phosphorus runoff. Opinions vary as to whetherthe problemisthat farmers knowinglyovcrfertilize or are forced to for economic reasons,orwhether existing nutrient management practices and technologies for controlling runoffare inadequate. Regardless, the overall consensus appears to bethat the potential ecosystem effects of excess nutrients warrant new regulations,management approaches, and technologies.

What is not present in anysignificant wayin the nutrient management discourseis that farmers have a personal and economic stakein maintainingthequalityof the environment and in not overapplying a costlyfarm input, andthat they value protecting the environment. Also missing from the main-


stream debate isanaccurate andcomplete portrayal offarmer's environmental knowledge and how that knowledge is based on a view of farming as acommunity-based livelihood.31

We found that in the dominant discourse on nutrient management, theconcept of environment was treated as though each group understood theway in which every other group defined and valued the environment.Assumed viewpoints, often implicit, also emerged: farmers are avoiding environmental responsibility because they don't want toaccept blame for polluting; and farmers are not concerned about broader environmental issues, justthose that affect their own localized farming practices. It was assumed (orunquestioned) thatifthey were notcompletely infavor ofprotecting theenvironment in accordance with thebest research findings and pending legislation, then they were anti-environmental. If they were anti-environmental,then they needed toberegulated inorder tomake them comply. As a result, akey stakeholder group became disenfranchised.

Case Study: Management of the Blue Crab FisheryAsecond example ofBay environmental discourse focuses on management ofthe blue crab fishery. Marine scientists and natural resource managers recentlyconcluded that thespawning stock oftheblue crab (Callinectes sapidus) hovers at dangerously lowlevels and that a natural disaster, such as a hurricane,could reduce the population toa level from which itmay noteasily recover.32Bay scientists andresource managers recognize thatthis decline istheresult ofmultiple causes and also acknowledge that current scientific understanding ofthe blue crab is limited. Nevertheless, scientists and resource managers haveconcluded that the mostprudent course of action to protect the bluecrab isto immediately reduce fishing pressure.

Watermen agreewith scientists and resource managers that the blue crabfishery is under intense pressure and see a role for science and regulations inhelping tosustain thefishery andtheir livelihoods. However, watermen do notfeel that the commercial harvest ofblue crabs isthe main problem inthe fishery. In public fora held to discuss the recent scientific findings andproposedregulations, in print, television, and radio media, and in the Maryland statecourts, commercial watermen and processors have argued repeatedly that science and regulations should not "cut" the watermen's share of the resource;rather they should address problems of fish predation on bluecrabs and the


harmful effects of decliningwaterqualityon blue crab habitat and reproduction. Watermen also question the scientific findings of a low spawning population,arguing instead that current lowharvests are part of natural cycles andvariability that have always characterized the blue crab.

Accepting minimum stock threshold and target fishing recommendationsof the Bi-State Blue CrabAdvisory Committee (BBCAC), and aftera numberof public hearings to discuss with watermen and crabprocessors howbesttoachieve a 15-percent reductionin fishing pressure, the Maryland Departmentof Natural Resources (DNR) enacted new commercial and recreational crabbing regulations for the2001 and2002 crabbing seasons.33 For the2001 season, new regulations required watermen to take one dayoff per week fromcommercial crabbing and to limittheirdaily timeon thewaterto a maximumofeight hours. Additional regulations for the2002 season increased theminimum size limits forpeeler crabs from 3 to 3.5 inches, for soft crabs from 3.5to 4 inches, and for male hard crabs, beginning in August, from 5 to 5.25inches.Moreover,the number of allowable undersized crabs per harvest basket was reduced from twenty to five crabs. For the2004 season, these regulations continued to be in effect.

The enactment of newbluecrab regulations in Maryland ended anysignificant efforts at dialogue between watermen and stateresource managers.Scientists and resource managers restated their position that the bluecrabpopulation isat risk of collapse, and therefore a reduction in thecommercial harvest is essential to protect the blue crab and watermen. Watermenbecame more opposed to the position of scientists and resource managersand more criticalof the intentionsof science and government regulations.Continued rejection bywatermen of scientific findings created — or reinforced — a public image of watermen as self-interested, greedy, and irrationally opposed to efforts to save the blue crab and ultimately their ownlivelihood.

In this example, an important form of public discourse broke down. Anincreased sensitivity to environmentalism as discourse heightens one's awareness of the subtle meanings inherent in the ways in which the form and content of our discussions and communications about the Bay create meaningand interpretation. An awareness of discourse as a site of creating and constructing meaning helps to illuminate some ofthe most important and overarching issues confronting users and managers of the Bay. To illustrate this


point, I would like to suggest that in the Bay thereareat least four meta-envi-ronmental discourses at play with the Chesapeake as a:

• biologically and ecologically unique estuary

• productive natural resource direcdy andindirectly supporting thelivelihoodsof many throughout thewatershed

• place for recreation and leisure

• pristine ecosystem

My sense is that the centrality and influence of these discourses has shiftedovertimeand allied themselves in different ways.

Inthepast, Bay discourse was most often oftheeconomic, livelihood type.With resource declines and increased pollution, the dominant discourseshifted from economic toecological. Today, theeconomic issubsumed withinthe ecological, as evidenced by the emphasis onsustainability inmanagementand use. What is interesting and important to contemplate is the possibilitythat the ecological and recreational discourses will combine, while the economic discourse becomes more marginalized as watermen and farmersdecline. We have already heard initial discussions about the possibility ofmaking some areas ofthe Chesapeake Bay a national park.

Defining the Environmentthrough Cultural Models

While discourse analysis focuses on the explicit uses oflanguage insocial contexts that create cultural meaning, cultural models research seeks to understand cultural meaning that is more implicit. Quinn and Holland describecultural models as"presupposed, taken-for-granted models of the world thatarewidely shared by members of a society and that play an enormous roleintheir understanding of that world and their behavior in it."34 The use ofa cultural model approach presupposes a definition of culture that emphasizesideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, and directs a researcher to investigatehowculture iscognitively organized and processed. Thus, culture is"whateverit isone has to knowor believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to[group] members."35

A fundamental assumption of cultural modeling is that when individualsengage the world, they cannot possibly attend to it in all of its complexity.Consequently, individuals use models to help them reasonor calculate, mentally manipulating the model's parts to solve problems or interpretsituationsor events.36 Cultural models frame experience, supply interpretations of thatexperience and inferences about it, and provide goals for action.37 For theindividual, the cultural models deployed arelargely tacitand unexamined andoften highly resistant to change.38

Cultural models typically consistof a number of interconnected"schemas"(or "scripts"). A schema is the organization of cognitive elements into anabstract mental objectwith default values or open slots that can be filled inwith appropriate specifics. A robin or eagle fills in the default/slots of the"bird" schema, while hamburgers or salads fill in the "lunch" schema.

Schemas are key to information processing and, by definition, reside in aperson's short-term memory. Along with models, schemas allow individuals


to makesense of all the detailed and newinformation presented to the mindforprocessing. It should benoted thatpeople do not always act inaccordancewith theircultural models and mayhave goodreasons not to do so.

Aneffective approach to identifying underlying cultural models of knowledge is to focus on explanations offered as part of natural discourse on thetopic or domain at hand.39 In offering explanations forwhy something is theway it is, individuals often present theirunderstanding of a situation in termsof propositionsand theories. A propositionisa statementassertingor proposinga state of affairs.40 According to D'Andrade, "aproposition is thesense ofsomethingsaidabout something (typically a sentence) and involves the integrationof a relatively small numberof separate schemas into a more complexschema."41 Propositions areculturally codified asslogans, cliches, wise words,maxims, and other formulaic statements.42 A theory is an interrelated set ofpropositions that describes the natureof somephenomena.Analyzing propositions and theories constitutes an effective approach used by cognitiveanthropologists to identify underlying cultural models.

Recent research hasdemonstrated the useof a cultural modelsapproachtoaddress environmental concerns suchas natural resource degradation, pollution, and biodiversity conservation. For example, Willett Kempton, JamesBoster, and Jennifer Hartley foundthatpeople actively fitnewinformationonglobal warming into existing cultural models of pollution, ozone depletion,and photosynthesis and respiration.43 In another case, Niels Einarsson'sresearch on Icelandic whaling shows that environmentalists view whales witha humanrights model, in partbecause ofwhales' intelligence, communicativeabilities, andsocial characteristics.44 Icelandic whalers, bycontrast, have a utilitarian model of whales as a natural resource to be harvested to supporthuman livelihoods. In this model, whales are alsoseen as dangerous becausetheycan sinka small boat,destroy nets, and compete for fish.

Cultural Model Researchon the Chesapeake

Cultural model research has been applied to help explain stakeholderresponses to environmental issues concerning the Chesapeake Bay. WillettKemptonand James Falkusedculturalmodelsto challenge the assertion thatmediacoverage wasthe main reason for the public's exaggerated response in1997 to fish kills, linked to the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida, in a small


number of lower Eastern Shore tributaries.45 Theirthesis was thatinappropriateculturalmodels, more than faulty mediaattention,wereresponsible for thepoor match between exaggerated public reaction and the known biologicalcharacteristics of Pfiesteria. Furthermore, they suggested that errors in journalism could also result when reporters applied inappropriate culturalmodels. Theunderlying reason for using these oldcultural models is that the fish-attacking form of Pfiesteria is not similar to anything in our inventory ofpopular knowledge.

What are these inappropriate cultural models? Based on semistructuredand informal interviews, five preexisting cultural models used for Pfiesteriawere identified. Thesefive cultural models suggest that peopleimplicitly thinkof Pfiesteria as (1) pollution, (2) a toxin or poison, (3) a disease in fish, (4) aparasite in fish, and (5) a predator that attacks fish.46 It is noteworthythat themodelof Pfiesteria as a predator that attacks fish, whichbestapproximated atthat time the biologicaldescriptions of Pfiesteria during fish-kill events, wasreportedbyonly5 percentof 790 survey respondents. Kempton and Falk conclude that the public remained most concerned about certain effectsof Pfiesteria, even when scientists concluded that these particular effects were notharmful, and theyappeared less concerned about the effects that were, in fact,of concern to scientists, such asexposure to airborne Pfiesteria toxins.47

In another cultural model study of Pfiesteria, Shawn Maloney and I compared perceptions and understandings of Pfiesteria by farmers and environmental professionals (e.g., scientists, resource managers, and environmentalists).48 This research tested the hypothesis that farmers and environmentalprofessionals would have different perceptions of the causes and consequencesof Pfiesteria, even though both had relatively equal access to the same mediaand scientific information. Theethnographic basis forthishypothesis wasthatthe farm community in Maryland was generally not convinced of the linkbetween agricultural nutrient runoffand Pfiesteria blooms, and that farmerswere veryangryover the stategovernment's decision to passthe Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 (WQIA), which mandates that farmers musthave nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient-management plans.49 There waswidespread belief among the farm community that the decision to regulatefarmers was driven as muchbypolitical pressure applied byenvironmentalistsand urban groupsduring a gubernatorial election yearas it wasby the real oreven potential consequences of Pfiesteria.50


Maloney and I found that farmers and environmental professionals didagree on many keyareassurrounding the causesand consequencesof Pfiesteria, but weidentified disagreement on a more fundamental cultural level. Thisresearch found that responses to Pfiesteria could not be understoodwithoutreference to more encompassing cultural values, suchas, in the case of farmers,those related to the economics of farming, property, and community. In-depth interview datasuggested that farmers' views on Pfiesteria werelinkedtocultural schemasand modelsfocused on landas property,farmingas a moraloccupation, and nature as unpredictableand resilient.

In a final example of cultural model research applied to the Chesapeake, Ihave recently presented a cultural model of watermen's reasoning about bluecrab management.51 The impetus for this research is the recent controversybetween many watermen on theone hand, and state resource managers andscientists on the other hand, over thestatus of the bluecrabspawning stockandwhat should bedone torestore theblue crab. What is relevant to thepresentdiscussion isthe fact thatthewatermen's cultural model formanaging theblue crab fishery contains the same key elements as scientific and resourcemanagement approaches (i.e., natural production, science, and regulations).In the watermen model, however, nature or God is the ultimate provider ofcrabs, which humans canreduce in number through greed (e.g., overharvest-ing), pollution, and habitat destruction. The watermen's cultural modelincludes a role forregulation andscience: theformer should promote sustainable harvests (e.g., reduce greed/overharvesting and penalize polluters) andthe latter should study negative effects of human activity (greed and pollution) oncrabs.52 Onthe surface, the watermen's cultural model is very reasonable, balanced, and seemingly not that different overall from scientific andmanagement models for the fishery. However, the watermen's model placesthefocus ofscience andregulations —which watermen almost unanimouslybelieve are necessary—on the actionsof humans, and not on the use of stockassessment approaches as tools for estimating the reproduction and abundance of crabs. A focus on stock assessment, theycontend, runs counter toGod'sprovisioning of crabs forwatermen's use, a relationship that watermenbelieve is not amenable to reliable scientific investigation. This belief is evidenced, forexample, bythewidespread conviction among watermen thatyoucannot predictor everknowhow manycrabs there will be year to year. Theintervention of regulations between God/nature and watermen is implicitly

Chesapeake Environmentalist?! 27

understood by the latter as restricting their access to what God provides tosustain their livelihood.

The cultural modelof watermen's reasoning about blue crab managementprovides a critical framework for understanding watermen's oppositionto scientific findings and newcrab regulations. The model illustrates key relationships between core beliefs and values that help to explain watermen's resistance.The model suggeststhat watermen will resist regulations that appear tointerfere with God and nature's production of crabs, but will support scienceand regulations that improveon what nature provides.

Cultural models,then, are constructed from a wide range of cultural, cognitive, social, and economic sources. These models provide powerful templates and schemas for what individuals and groups seeas"environmental"and forwhatactions theychoose as their appropriate response. The physicaland natural world surroundingus isscreened or filtered in part bythesemodels, producingculturalconstructions of theenvironment. Theseconstructionscan traverse or be constrained by group boundaries, and contained in themarestrongbeliefs and values aboutenvironmental risks, management, protection, rights, andobligations. The cultural construction ofnature, through cultural models and other explicit expressions, does not deny that a "tree is atree," butexpands ourviewpoint to include thefact thatthesame tree has different environmental meanings to different individuals and groups.

Chesapeake BayEnvironmentalism Revisited

Environmentalism is a social commit

ment,a questfora viable futurepursuedthrough the implementation of culturally defined responsibilities.54 Thequestion of whether something like environmentalism exists inanygiven society willdepend on how the environment itselfisdefined.55 There can bemany visions ofa viable future, and the means to achieve

these visions can be in conflict.

Nonetheless, environmentalism should

include all culturally defined environmental responsibilities, whether they areinnovative or conventional, radical or

conservative.56 In this framework, socialmovements, political ideologies, grass-

Environmentalism is

unambiguously partofculture.. .it ispart ofthe way in which peopleunderstand the world

andtheirplace within it.It belongs to the spherethat includes people'sfeelings, thoughts,interpretations,knowledge, ideology,values, and so on.53

rootsactivism, andgovernment agenciesbecome specific cultural forms through which environmental responsibilitiesare expressed, implemented, and communicated.

Viewing environmentalism as part ofwider cultural processes raises specific questions about its incidence and variability. What conditions promotethe development ofparticular environmentalist perspectives? How do expressions ofenvironmentalism fit with biological and ecological research aimed atrestoring and managing ecosystems? How are different environmentalismslinked to form more encompassing, inclusive, andeffective forms ofenvironmentalaction? Whatseparates environmentalisms?


A cognitive approach to the study of underlying cultural schemas andmodels ofenvironmental beliefs and values, coupled witha critical assessmentof public discourse on environment issues, offers two useful pathways forunderstanding environmentalism. Both generate meanings and understandings about theenvironment in complementary ways. What might the use ofthese approaches mean to Chesapeake Bay environmentalism?

First, these tools would help usrealize thatthenatural characteristics of theChesapeake Bay are platforms for multiple environmentalisms. They wouldhelp us understand that — similar to therevamped view of culture assomething more than a place-based system of traditional ideas, behaviors, andinstitutions — environmentalism is not merely an objective array of knowledge and values. Rather, it is culturally constructed as anoverlay on ecological, biological, and economic systems through the establishment ofparticulardiscourses andthepresence ofcultural models. While theendgoal may bethesame — tosave andpreserve theBay — thestrategies andunderstandings ofhow to get there will vary, and in getting there our environmentalisms mayclash, reducing the effectiveness ofourcollective effort. Thus, itshould not besurprising that the waterman, farmer, environmentalist, resource manager,andcitizen can each perceive their environmentalism as trueanddistinct, andseeother environmentalperspectives as spurious.

Second, if we accept that we have multiple environmentalisms, this canawaken us to explore the origins and contents ofourvarying environmentalbeliefs and values. Andhereour recent anthropological workon the Bay suggests that we will encounter avery diverse range ofenvironmental beliefs andknowledge about the Bay, its ecological, biological, and economic challenges,andthescientific andmanagement efforts to restore andmanage it. What willbemost challenging isthattheorigins ofsome of these beliefs will arise fromdiscourses and cultural models, to list two important sources, that mostof uswould not identify asecological. The construction of environmental knowledge will instead be increasingly driven more by cultural than ecological orbiological understanding.

Scholars from various disciplines have written about theincreased integration of nature into culture.57 Environmentalism may mean havingbountifulcrabs and native oysters andall species of grasses and fishes possible, becausethis matches a vision of whatwas in the Bay before human activity broughtabout theBay's decline. These species andprocesses eventually become ideal-


ized benchmarks for restoration toward the pristine —a goal valued even inthe face of recognition that realistically we will never return to sucha state ofnature.58 Others, with a more utilitarian view, see the Bay as a naturalresource: for example, theonly use of a crab is to support families and feedpeople. This view does not imply that utilitarian environmentalists care lessaboutthe Bay, but only that this form ofenvironmentalism includes differentcultural beliefs and values. Howdo wecombine thesedifferent forms of environmentalism? No complete answer is currently available, but ifwe recognizeand value why each group feels the way it does about the Bay, we will certainlyopen up newdialogues and hopefully newcollaborations.

Third, with the perspective of multiple environmentalisms, we canbroaden our view ofenvironmental conflicts to see them as opportunities toexplore underlying cultural beliefs and values. Rather than continuing to regulate onthe one hand oragreeing (or refusing) to cooperate onthe other, theshift needs to be toward collaboration to learn about each other's environmentalism.59 Arecent, small-scale example of this occurred inthe Blue CrabCollaborative Learning Project.60 Using small workshops, the project broughttogether approximately 20 participants, equally divided among watermen, scientists, and resource managers, who either fish, study, or manage the Bay'sblue crab. Thegoal of theproject was not to reach consensus on thestatus ofthe blue crab stock, resolve differences on particular regulations, orevaluatethevalidity of"scientific" or"observational" facts about theblue crab. Instead,the goal was to have participants, through dialogue supported by informationabout underlying cultural models, learn about each other's environmentalbeliefs and values. The project also included workplace exchanges, with scientists and resource managers visiting watermen on their boats, and watermenvisiting scientists' labs or resource managers' offices.

Although small-scale and still exploratory, the project successfully promoted dialogue of a different type than what watermen, scientists, andresource managers had previously experienced with each other, and it hascreated opportunities for further collaborations in research, management,and education. The challenge now becomes how to scale up and integratesuch environmental collaborative learning activities within and betweenexisting environmentalisms, while maintaining the discursive nature andpotential to create nonjudgmental dialogue on environmental beliefs andvalues.


Fourth, an expanded cultural approach has the potential to recruit newenvironmentalists to the Bay in a manner that accepts and builds on culturaldiversity and the constructiveness of environmentalism. To accomplish this,stakeholder groups would need to cognitively and discursively traverse theartificial borders conceptually erected between our environmental views onthe Bay. The responsibility for this journey needs to be shared byall groupsequally: watermen and farmer communities, practicing environmentalists,scientists, policymakers, and resource managers. Also, it will be important toenlist new stakeholder groups into this process. With continued growth anddiversification of the population residing within the Bay watershed, newgroups, many of whom will be recent immigrants, will be the Bay's next generation ofstakeholders. What forms ofenvironmentalism do theybringto theregion, and howwill theymesh with existing environmentalisms? While suchdemographic changes bring many sociocultural, economic, and ecologicalchallenges, they can also bring environmental opportunities.

Finally, we must raise cultural analysis to a level comparable to otherresearch disciplines engaged in helping to restore and manage the Bay. It istime that werealize and accept into our research, management, use, and communication about the Bay that it is more than an ecosystem, but also a cultural-environmental construction resting on systems of knowledge, beliefs,and values. An ambitious cultural research agenda for the Bay would complement and reinforce ecological, biological, and economic research and wouldprovide new opportunities to apply our research findings. We need to promote research and communication on Bay environmentalism as an essentialcomplement to ecological analyses. By integrating these approaches, we willempower and multiply the numberof Bay researchers, volunteers, professionals, activists, and users, both directlyand indirectly, and open new pathwaysforbuilding partnerships and coalitions basedon a reflective and open understanding of the diversity and richness of culturalbeliefs and valuestoward theChesapeake Bay.

Toward an Environmental

Anthropology of the Chesapeake

If environmentalism iscentral to our efforts to restore and manage the Bay,and ifenvironmentalism rests strongly on a cultural foundation, then anthropologyhas an important role to play. Whilenot allcultural beliefs and valuesarerelevant to Bay ecological and biological concerns, many will be— in bothdirect and indirect ways — and their significance will most likely be largegiven the powerful symbolic value of the Chesapeake.

In the last decade, the subfield of environmental anthropology, buildinguponearlier generations ofecological research inanthropology, has emergedwith a growing body of researchers and applied practitioners using diversetheories and methods to investigate cultural-environmental linkages.61Anthropological research on the Chesapeake mustbe informed by and contribute to the developmentof this subfield.

The challenges for developing an environmental anthropology of theChesapeake will beboth substantive and pragmatic. In substantive terms, wewill need to grapple with advantages and disadvantages of applying a moreanalytical concept of culture. As I hope the preceding sections have madeclear, our traditional understanding of culture — bothwithin anthropolog)'and among the public — as a set of beliefs, values, and practices associatedwith a spatially bounded group is not well suited to promote cross-culturalcommunication on environmental issues. At the sametime, this conceptualization of placed-based culture doesremain a source of powerful emotionandinterest within and between groupsand communities. When we, as anthropologists or citizens, say that we want to save the cultures of the Bay, oftenexpressed as preserving our farmerand watermencommunities,we are talking precisely about placed-based cultures. Such communities are emotive,


unique,valued, educational, and certainly warrant our interests, anthropological and otherwise. We allwant to preserve these place-based Chesapeake cultures; they are the root of the Bay's heritage and history.

The question here iswhethera cultural approach — through such methods as discourse analysis and cultural models, which place a priority on thetranscultural — can also contribute valuable insights to augment the place-based version of culture. Based on myexperience of the Chesapeake, I believethe answer isan unequivocal "yes."

The methods of discourse analysis and cultural modelscan be appliedatthecommunity level. They canelicit direct and indirect constructions of cultural meanings that are strongly grounded within a localized group. Theseapproaches can open the floodgates of analysis to ideas and values "outsidethe community" that are assimilated (or not) with more locally producedcultural forms. In the end, it will perhaps be difficult to exorcise all these"external" cultural meanings, and no doubt problematic to do so. Nevertheless, I would argue thatall beliefs andvalues thatemerge through such studies shouldbe treated equally, whether theyrepresent recent influences fromsources beyond the community, or whether they are a continuation of corecommunity belief systems. Treating all cultural beliefs and values as equalbecomes essential if we are to capture and convey the present-day realitiesof communities throughout Bay country. To fail to treat them asequal willlead to overly restricted or romantic views of community life and culture onthe Bay.

From apragmatic perspective, the question is how toscale upand how bestto integrate environmental anthropology research with ecology, biology, economics, andother disciplines studying the Bay. It ishere thatwhat I amcalling the analytical (e.g., discourse and cultural model) approach is inherentlymoreuseful than the culture-as-place approach. Both discourse analysis andcultural models usewell-established research methodologies, capable of producing both qualitative and quantitative results. Ofequal importance is thatboth methods are fully applicable to a wide range of stakeholder groups,including fellow scientists, resource managers, and policymakers. Free of theplace-based restriction, these analyses can follow the discourse and implicitmeanings where they might lead. One possible drawback, however, is thatthese analytical, social-science based approaches donotbring theemotive andpopular recognition associated with placed-based cultural analysis. Thus,


though more powerful in helping to study and make use of environmentalism,theyare less recognizable and consistent with the"model"of culturethatis present on the Bay. As a consequence, any environmental anthropolog)' ofthe Chesapeake will need to include communication and education effortsthatwill help fellow researchers andothers appreciate thattraditional anthropological understanding ofculture has evolved significandy, contrary topopular conceptions ofhow anthropologists study culture.

I am excited about the contributions environmental anthropology canmake in support ofefforts to restore andmanage the Bay's natural resources.I amequally excited about the potential of anthropology to initiate new discourses on culture and environmentalism and to do so in a manner that fosters collaborative learning among all of us. My training and anthropology'sintellectual history will not allow me to completely lose sight ofthe perspective ofculture as community. However, inwitnessing the application ofawiderange ofcultural beliefs and values to the Bay's ecological issues, Iwill quicklybe reminded ofthe need to broaden our understanding ofculture to prioritize the exchange of environmental beliefs and values across all Bay stakeholder groups. In the process offollowing this transcultural trail, we can beginto identify and articulate amore robust environmentalism capable ofpromoting expanded collaborative efforts to understand and manage this constantlyevolving andtreasured Chesapeake Bay.

Notes

1. Timothy O'Riordan, Environmentalism (London: Pion, 1981) Vol. IX. Cited inKay Milton, Environmentalism: The View fromAnthropology (NewYork: Rout-ledge, 1993),p. 1.

2. For more extensive discussions, seeWillett Kempton et al..Environmental Valuesin American Culture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995); Kay Milton,Environmentalism: The View from Anthropolog)' (New York: Routledge, 1993); Kay Milton,Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology inEnvironmental Discourse (NewYork: Routledge, 1996).

3. Robin Grove-White,Environmentalism: A NewMoral Discourse for Technological Society? In Kay Milton, ed., Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology,pp. 18-30.

4. Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role ofAnthropology in Environmental Discourse, p.27.

5. Philip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher, eds., Discovering theChesapeake: The History ofan Ecosystem (Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); Robert Costanza and Jack Greer, The Chesapeake and ItsWatershed: AModel for Sustainable Ecosystem Management? In Lance Gunder-son, C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light, eds.. Barriers and Bridges to Renewal ofEcosystems and Institutions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995);Howard Ernst, Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Savethe Bay (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

6. Ibid. RobertCostanzaand Jack Greer in Gunderston et al., Barriers and Bridges.Note that the Chesapeake Bay Program, like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,also produces anannual "State oftheBay" report. See www.chesapeake.net

7. Other examples include Mick Blackistone's Sunup toSundown: Watermen oftheChesapeake (1988) and Dancing with the Tide: Watermen of the Chesapeake(2001), GlenLawson s The Last Waterman (1988), and Randall Peffer's Watermen(1985), to name onlya few.

8. Pat Vojtech, Chesapeake Bay Skipjacks (Maryland: Tidewater Publishers, 1993).

9. Well-known and widely available examples ofthese cookbooks include Lynette L.Walther s The Art ofCatching andCooking Crabs (1985), Whitey Schmidt's TheCrab Cookbook (1990), and The Chesapeake Bay OysterCookbook (2003).


10. Cf.Adam Kuper, Culture: TheAnthropologists'Account (Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press, 1999); James Clifford andGeorge Marcus, eds., Writing Culture:The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (California: University of CaliforniaPress, 1985).

11. Cf.AdamKuper, Culture.

12. Ulf Hannerz, Cultural Complexity: Studies in theSocial Organization of Meaning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), p.4. Cited in Claudia Straussand Naomi Quinn, ACognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 10.

13. Claudia Strauss and Naomi Quinn, ACognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

14. Stephanie Taylor, Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research. InMargaretWetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates, eds., Discourse as Data: AGuide for Analysis (California: Sage Publications, 2001), p. 6, emphasis added.

15. Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology.

16. Brenda Farnell and Laura R. Graham, Discourse-Centered Methods. In H. Russell Bernard, ed., Handbook ofMethods in Cultural Anthropology (California:AltaMira Press, 1998), p. 411, emphasis inoriginal.

17. Ibid.,p. 412.

18. Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology.

19. See Talyor 2001 for more methodological discussion on separating the constitutive and referential role ofdiscourse.

20. Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, p. 8.

21. Robin Grove-White, Environmentalism: ANew Moral Discourse for Technological Society? In Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. J. Peter Brosius, Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from the MalaysianRainforest. American Anthropologist 101 (1): 36-57; J. Peter Brosius, Politics ofEthnographic Presence: Sites and Topologies inthe Study ofTransnational Movements. In Carole Crumley, ed., New Directions inAnthropology and Environment (California: AltaMira Press, 2001), pp. 150-176.


25. Peter J.Brosius,Politicsof Ethnographic Presence, p. 160.

26. Peter Harries-Jones, Between Science and Shamanisms: The Advocacy of Environmentalism in Toronto. In Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View fromAnthropology.

27. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Innovation in Agricultural Conservation for theChesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress andAddressing Future Challenges (Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program, 2004).

28. Ibid., p. 6.

29. Donald Boesch and Jack Greer, eds., Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21stCentury. An Independent Report of the Scientific andTechnical Advisory Committee (Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program, 2003).

30. Scientific andTechnical Advisory Committee. Innovation in Agricultural Conservation for the Chesapeake Bay, p.17.

31. Michael Paolisso and R.Shawn Maloney, Toxic Algal Blooms, Nutrient Runoff,and Farming on Maryland's Eastern Shore (Culture and Agriculture 21 [3]), pp.53-58.

32. Chesapeake Bay Commission. Taking Action for the Blue Crab: Managing andProtecting the Stock and Its Fisheries. Report ofthe Bi-State Blue Crab AdvisoryCommittee (Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Commission, 2001).

33. Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission all enacted regulations aimed atreducing fishing pressure ontheBay's blue crab stock by15 percent, in accordance with the recommendations of the bi-statecommittee.A copyof the Blue Crab Action Plan (2001) and annualStatusReportscan be found onthewebsite of theChesapeake Bay Commission, http://www.chesbay.state.va.us.

34. Naomi Quinn and Dorothy Holland, Culture and Cognition. InDorothy Hollandand Naomi Quinn, eds., Cultural Models in Language andThought (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.4.

35. Ward H. Goodenough, Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. InP. Garvin, ed.,Report ofthe Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting in Linguistics and LanguageStudy (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, 1957), p. 167.

36. Roy D'Andrade, The Development ofCognitive Anthropology (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

37. NaomiQuinn and DorothyHolland, Cultureand Cognition.

38. Ibid.


39. Ben G. Blount, Key Words and Cultural Models in Representation of Environmental Knowledge (Unpublished Manuscript, 2001); Roy D'Andrade, The Development of Cognitive Anthropology (United Kingdom: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995); Naomi Quinn and Dorothy Holland, Culture and Cognition.

40. Bradd Shore, Culture inMind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

41. Roy D'Andrade, The Development ofCognitive Anthropology, p. 180.

42. Ibid.

43. Willett Kempton, James S. Boster and Jennifer A. Hardey, Environmental ValuesinAmerican Culture. (Massachusetts: MITPress, 1995).

44. Niels Einarsson, All Animals Are Equal but Some Are Cetaceans: Conservationand Conflict In Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology,pp. 73-84.

45. WiUett Kempton and James Falk, Cultural Models ofPfiesteria: Cultivating MoreAppropriate Risk Perceptions (Coastal Management 28,2000), pp. 349-361.

46. Ibid., 356.

47. Ibid., 359.

48. Michael Paolisso and R. Shawn Maloney, Toxic Algal Blooms.

49. Tom Simpson, ACitizens Guide to the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998(Maryland: Maryland Cooperative Extension Program, 1998).

50. Michael Paolisso and R. Shawn Maloney, Toxic Algal Blooms; Michael Paolissoand Erve Chambers, Culture, Politics, and Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms: theAnthropology ofPfiesteria (Human Organization 60,2001), pp. 1-12.

51. Michael Paolisso, Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: ACulturalModel for Understanding Watermen's Reasoning about the Blue Crab Management (Human Organization 61,2002), pp.226-239.

52. Ibid. This article includes a complete discussion of watermen's cultural model,including adiagram illustrating its main components and relations.

53. Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role ofAnthropology inEnvironmental Discourse, p. 33.

54. Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropolog)'; Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory.

55. Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory, p. 32.


56. Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, p. 11.

57. Cf. William Cronon, ed.. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place inNature (New York: WAV. Norton &Company, 1996); John Bennett, The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation (New York: Perg-amon Press, 1976).

58. William Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground.

59. Steven Daniel andGregg Walker, Working Through Environmental Conflict: TheCollaborative Learning Approach (Connecticut: Praeger, 2001).

60. The Blue Crab Collaborative Learning Project was funded by Maryland SeaGrant.

61. Cf. Carol Crumley, ed., New Directions inAnthropology and Environment (California: AltaMira Press, 2001).

References

Bennett, John. 1976. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and HumanAdaptation. NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Blackistone, Mick. 1991. Sunup to Sundown:Watermen of the Chesapeake.Annapolis,Maryland: BlueCrab Press.

. 2001. Dancingwith the Tide:Watermen of the Chesapeake. Centreville,Maryland:Tidewater Publishers.

Blount,BenG. 2001. Key Wordsand Cultural Models in Representation of Environmental Knowledge. Unpublished MS. Author's files.

Boesch, Donald and JackGreer,eds. 2003.Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21stCentury. Edgewater, Maryland: An Independent Report of the Chesapeake BayPrograms Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.

Brosius, J. Peter. 1999. Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from theMalaysian Rainforest. American Anthropologist: 101(1): 36-57.

. 2001. Politics of Ethnographic Presence: Sites and Topologies in theStudy of Transnational Movements. In Carole Crumley, ed.. New Directions inAnthropologyand Environment, pp. 150-176. WalnutCreek,California: AltaMiraPress.

Bryon, Gilbert. 1977. The Lord'sOysters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress (original hardcover published in 1957).

Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC). 2001. Taking Actionfor the BlueCrab: Managing and Protecting the Stock and Its Fisheries. Report of the Bi-State Blue CrabAdvisory Committee. Annapolis, Maryland.

Clifford, James and George Marcus, eds. 1985. WritingCulture: The Poetics and Politicsof Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Costanza, Robert and Jack Greer. 1995. The Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed: AModel for Sustainable Ecosystem Management? In Lance Gunderston, C.S.Holling,and Stephen S. Light, eds., Barriersand Bridges to Renewal of Ecosystemsand Institutions. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Cronon, William, ed. 1966. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place inNature. NewYork: WAV. Norton 8c Company.

Crumley, Carole,ed. 2001. New Directions in Anthropology and Environment.Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.

Curtin, Philip D., Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher, eds. 2001. Discovering theChesapeake: TheHistory ofan Ecosystem. Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins University Press.

D'Andrade, Roy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge,United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, Steven and Gregg Walker. 2001. Working Through Environmental Conflict:The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Einarsson, Niels. 1993. All Animals AreEqual but SomeAreCetaceans: Conservationand Conflict. In Kay Milton, ed.,Environmentalism: TheView from Anthropology, pp: 73-84. New York: Roudedge.

Ernst, Howard. 2003. Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, andtheStruggle to Savethe Bay. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman 8c Littlefield.

Farnell, Brenda and Laura R. Graham. 1998. Discourse-Centered Methods. In H. Rus

sell Bernard, ed., Handbookof Methods in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 411-457.Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.

Goodenough, Ward H. 1957. CulturalAnthropology and Linguistics. In P. Garvin, ed.,Report of the Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting in Linguistics and LanguageStudy. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, No.9. pp. 167-173. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University.

Gore, Al. 1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit New York:Plume/Penguin.

Grove-White, Robin. 1993. Environmentalism: A New Moral Discourse for Techno

logical Society? In Kay Milton, ed.,Environmentalism: TheView fromAnthropolog)', pp. 18-30. NewYork: Roudedge.

Hannerz, Ulf.1992. Cultural Complexity: Studiesin the Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Harries-Jones, Peter. 1992. Between Science and Shamanism: The Advocacy of Environmentalism in Toronto. In Kay Milton, ed.,Environmentalism: The View fromAnthropology, pp. 43-58.NewYork: Roudedge.

Harwood, Richard. 1996. Talking Tidewater: Writers on the Chesapeake. Chester-town,Maryland: The Literary HousePress, Washington College.

Horton, Tom. 1996. An Islandout of Time. NewYork: W.W.Norton 8c Company.

42

Kempton, Willett and James Falk. 1999. Cultural Models of Pfiesteria: CultivatingMoreAppropriateRisk Perceptions. CoastalManagement28:349-361.

Kempton,Willett,JamesS. Boster, and JenniferA. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Kuper, Adam. 1999. Culture: The Anthropologists'Account. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Lawson, Glenn. 1988. The Last Watermen. Crisfield, Maryland: Crisfield PublishingCompany.

. 1993. Baykeeper. Alexandria, Virginia: ZAK Books.

Michener, James A. 1987. Chesapeake. New York: Random House.

Milton, Kay. 1993. Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. New York:Routledge.

. 1996. Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role ofAnthropology in Environmental Discourse. New York: Routledge.

O'Riordan,Timothy. 1981. Environmentalism (2nd Edition). London: Pion.

Paolisso, Michael. 2002. Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural Model for Understanding Watermen's Reasoning about Blue Crab Management. Human Organization 61(3): 226-239.

. 2002a. Using Collaborative Learning, Cultural Models and Dialogue toAdvance Co-Management Planning of Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab (Callinectessapidus) Fishery. Research Proposal.

Paolisso, Michael and R. Shawn Maloney. 1998. Toxic Algal Blooms, Nutrient Runoff,and Farming on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Culture andAgriculture 21(3): 53-58.

. 2000. Recognizing Farmer Environmentalism: Nutrient Runoff andToxic Dinoflagellate Blooms in theChesapeake Bay Region. Human Organization59: 209-221.

Paolisso, Michael and Erve Chambers. 2001. Culture, Politics,and Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms: the Anthropolog)' of Pfiesteria. Human Organization60:1 -12.

Peffer, RandallS. 1979. Watermen. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Quinn, Naomiand DorothyHolland. 1987. Cultureand Cognition.In DorothyHollandand NaomiQuinn, eds.,CulturalModels in Language and Thought, pp. 3-40.New York: Cambridge University Press.

43

Schmidt, Whitey. 2003. The Chesapeake Bay Oyster Cookbook. Crisfield, Maryland:Marian Hartnett Press.

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). 2004. Innovation in Agricultural Conservation for the Chesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress and AddressingFuture Challenges. Edgewater, Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientificand Technical Advisor)' Committee.

Shore, Bradd. 1996. Culture in Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

Simpson, Tom. 1998. A Citizen's Guide to the Water Quality Improvement Act of1998. College Park: Maryland Cooperative Extension Program, University ofMaryland.

Strauss, Claudia and Naomi Quinn. 1997. ACognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning.NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Stump, Brice N.2000. Unforgettable Treasures: People, Places andCulture of theEasternShore. Virginia Beach, Virginia: The Donning Company Publisher.

Taylor, Stephanie. 2001. Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research. InMargaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J.Yates, eds.,Discourse as Data:AGuide for Analysis, pp. 5-48. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Vojtech, Pat. 1993. Chesapeake Bay Skipjacks. Centreville, Maryland: TidewaterPublishers.

Warner, William. 1976. Beautiful Swimmers. New York: Little Brown 8c Company.

Warren, Marion E. and Mame Warren. 1997. Bringing Back theBay. Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins University Press.

Wennersten, John R. 1992. Maryland's Eastern Shore: A Journey in Time and Place.Centreville, Maryland:TidewaterPublishers.

44

Acknowledgments

I would first like to thank Jonathan Kramer and Jack Greer of Maryland SeaGrant for their support and assistance with this monograph. I also want torecognize the watermen, farmers, and environmental professionals I haveinterviewed and worked withoverthe past seven years for the time they havetakento educateme about the Chesapeake Bay. Also due thanksismyanthropology colleague, Erve Chambers, whose insights on applied anthropologyand the Chesapeake Bay continually broaden and expand my professionalhorizons. Finally, the informationpresented in this monograph isbaseduponwork supported by the National Science Foundation under grants 9813448,9904928, and 9975825 and the Maryland Sea Grant College, grantNA16RG2207.

About This Monograph Series

This monograph is the first ina series entided Chesapeake Perspectives produced by the University of Maryland Sea Grant College to encourageresearchers, scholars and other thinkers to share their insights into the uniqueculture and ecology of the Chesapeake Bay. Its audience includesenvironmental scientists and scholars, from marine biologists to culturalanthropologists, and a broad interested public that encompasses resourcemanagers, watershed organizations and citizen advocates. For more aboutfuture books in the series and related topics, visit the web at www.mdsg.umd.edu.

Received ~"-National Sea Grant Library

MAY 0 8 2006

9 Fish Rd, URI, GSO, 1 PellNarragansett Rl02882 USA

National Sea Grant LibraryPell Library Building

Narragansett Bay CampusUniversity of Rhode Island

Narragansett, Rl 02882-1197 USA

About the Author

For nearly a decade Michael Paolisso hasstudiedthe cultures of farmers,watermen, and otherswho live and work near the Chesapeake Bay. Anassociate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the Universityof Maryland, College Park, he hasalso conducted fieldwork in LatinAmerica, East Africa, and Nepal. HisChesapeake research seekstodemonstrate howthecultural models we all bring with us— in this casehow we think about and relate to the environment — have a direct

bearing on howweuseand manage ournatural resources. Paolissoteaches courses on culture and resource management, research methods,and cognitive anthropology. When notteaching orconductinganthropological research, his leisure pursuits include fishing, kayaking,running,and upending time with his wire and twin daughters,.

Chesapeake Perspectives, amonograph writs produced by the MarylandSea (..rant College, provide! a forum for researchers, scholars and other thinkersto share their insights into the unique culture and ecology of theChesapeake Bay.

www.mdsg.umd.edu

ISBN 0-V4367fi-b5-7

milliilinniiii inn 9ooo°III III 111 III llllllll7 8 0 94 3n6 76 6 5411 " HJIi'lllllI II

Documents

Rethinking Culture to - University of Rhode Island · 2013. 10. 3. · GF41.P34 2006 333.7209755'18—dc22 2006007352. Contents Preface v Foreword vii Environmentalism 1 Chesapeake