1 C M E $ A IP E A ft E?M-MSP.ECXI5tJLi_sJ MDO-B C3 JJ Chesapeake V J Rethinking Culture to Strengthen Restoration and Resource Management Michael Paolisso A Maryland Sea Grant Publication igmnt
2 C H 1: S A P E A K 1- PERSPECTIVES Chesapeake Environmentalism Rethinking Culture to Strengthen Restoration and Resource Management Michael Paolisso Department ofanthropology University ofmaryland, College Park iwilrant A Maryland Sea Grant Publication
3 The ideas and opinions expressed inthis monograph are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views ofthe Maryland Sea Grant College, the University of Maryland, orthenational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Publication Number UM-SG-CP Copyright 2006 bythe Maryland Sea Grant College. Portions ofthis document may be duplicated for education purposes without formal request. The publication of Chesapeake Perspectives ismade possible in part byagrant to Maryland Sea Grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Depart mentof Commerce, through thenational Sea Grant College Program. Grant number NA05OAR Cover photographby Skip Brown. Bookandcover design by Sandy Rodgers. For more information on this orother publications, orabout ourprogram, contact: Maryland Sea GrantCollege University of Maryland 4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 300 College Park, Maryland Library ofcongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Paolisso, Michael Jeffrey. Chesapeake environmentalism :rethinking culture tostrengthen restoration and resource management / MichaelPaolisso. p.cm. (Chesapeake perspectives) "Publication number UM-SG-CP " T.p. verso. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: (alk. paper) ISBN-10: (alk. paper) 1.Human ecology Chesapeake Bay Region (Md. andva.) 2.Nature Effect of human beings on Chesapeake Bay Region (Md. andva.) I. Title. II. Series. GF41.P '18 dc
4 Contents Preface Foreword v vii Environmentalism 1 Chesapeake BayEnvironmentalism 2 Culture as Place 6 Culture through Discourse 11 Culture as Discourse 12 Environmental Discourse 13 Environmental Discourses on the ChesapeakeBay 16 Case Study: Excessive Agricultural Nutrients 17 Case Study: Management of the Blue Crab Fishery 20 Defining the Environment through Cultural Models 23 Cultural 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
5 Preface In Chesapeake Perspectives Maryland Sea Grantpresents a forum forthework of eminentthinkers individuals who, throughtheir research, synthesis and integration, can help us navigate the array of important issues facing the Chesapeakewatershed. We have in the Chesapeake region a broad academic community witha keen interest in and oftena personal connection to the Bay's ecosystem and the humancommunities that give the region its unique character. Many have spent long careers working to understand, conserve, and restore this national resource. Aswe chart a course toward a more sustainable future, their perspec tives challenge us to think deeply about fundamental and at timescontrover sial issues. Insharing their observations andopinions, they help usall rethink our roles and responsibilities in securing an ecologically and economically resilientchesapeake Bay. In this, our inaugural issue, cultural anthropologist Dr. Michael Paolisso pro vides hisperspectives on environmentalism andthechesapeake. Building on his studies ofdiverse communities from watermen to farmers to scientists he presents a unique view of how we can shape our commitment to this Bay. Heencourages us to think beyond the confines of our interaction with the natural world to the deeper cultural basis for our ownvalues and percep tions of nature. Heargues that we need to better understand our varying cul tural views of the Bay if we are to find common ground that can serve as a solid foundation for restoration and stewardship. Jonathan G. Kramer and Jack Greer, editors
6 Foreword The initiation of the series Chesapeake Perspectives as Maryland Sea Grant approaches its30thanniversary provides mewithan opportunityto develop and convey to a broad audience a number of arguments for why we must incorporate cultural beliefs and values about nature and environment into our ecological efforts to restore and manage the Chesapeake Bay. My goal here is to present anthropological theories and data to illustrate how our many Bay restoration, conservation, and resource management efforts are not culturally neutral, but rather exist within and contribute to the for mation of what I will call Chesapeake Bay environmentalism. I willargue here that the absenceof a systematic recognition and integration of the cul tural construct of "environmentalism" into our Bay ecological restoration and natural resource management efforts significantly limits our ability to invite and expandbroader stakeholder involvement and participation. What I offerhereisa briefglimpse of whatanthropology, and more specif ically the emerging subfield of environmental anthropology, can bringto the study of environmentalism andhowitcanhelp to link cultural beliefs and val ues to ecological restoration and natural resource management. I will argue that cultural beliefs and values, expressed in both language and practice, do not simply overlie the ecological and natural, but in factencompass and give meaning to our understanding of ecology and resource management. Viewed slightly differently, the ecological, biological, and economic dimensions that are most clearly and directly encompassed bya culturalframework constitute our most compelling senseof environmentalism. Mychoosingto write about Bay environmentalism and culture results from my strong personal and pro fessional belief that a developed, robust, dynamic, and inclusive understand ing of environmentalism as a constructed system of cultural knowledge can significantly shift existing paradigms for thinking about management and restoration. Furthermore, by situating politics within a broader cultural con text in which differences can be understood in a holistic manner against a backdropof sharedconcern for the Bay, viewing Chesapeake environmental ism as a cultural construct may help us avoid overpoliticizing the Bay. Envivn
7 sioning such a broad, inclusive environmentalism makes me more bullishon the Bay's future. In this short monograph, I will discuss recent anthropological work, on and beyond the Chesapeake, to illustrate the research and practical implica tions ofa cultural approach to understanding Chesapeake environmentalism. I beginwitha general discussion of theconstruct of environmentalism, which is then applied to the Chesapeake Bay, arguing that in general we have not been able to capitalize fully on the strong environmental beliefs and values connected to the Chesapeake. I contend that in part this disconnect happens because culture has been conceptualized as a place-based, community-based setof beliefs and values. Next, I will argue that for our environmentalism to more fully contribute toourefforts toprotect and manage the Bay, it is neces sary to add a different conceptualization of culture, one that transcends any particular group's or community's beliefs and values. Consistent with my research on the Bay, I present discourse analysis and cultural model research as two alternative ways to shift the focus of our inquiry from the strictly placed-based tothe transcultural and finally toward the constructive interplay between public culture and private (individual) culture. I hope to show that while culture can certainly begin in places and with particular groups andbequite localized, it also transcends groups andmoves beyondspatial or temporalboundaries. With this alternative view of Chesa peake Bay culture, linked toenvironmental issues, we can open many new dis cussions that promise to clarify and expand the focus on environmentalism. Such a focus would involve theenvironmental research andadvocacy commu nities, aswell asthebroader public. Certainly, this anthropological work must belinked with the biological, ecological, and economic sciences. Iconclude by offering a few thoughts on roles and responsibilities of anthropology in this new understanding of Bay environmentalism. Michael Paolisso Vlll
10 Environmentalism I can well imagine that many readers who crab, oyster, farm, research, manage, or advo- Environmentalism js ^ ynudl a State cate on or for the Chesapeake rightly perceive ri., of heinc as a themselves as environmental and may J therefore question why we need to explore what it means to be "environmental." How- J conduct Or a set ofpolicies.1 mode ever, I can alsoveryeasily recall myown expe riences of, for example, two groups equally comfortable in their sense of being environmentally concerned disagreeing sharply over an ecological issue or the use of a particular natural resource and not fully understanding how the other sidecould not see what they, through their"environmentalism," plainly saw. I hope that I can demonstrate here that weallmust reflect upon the originsof our Chesapeake environmentalism and how that environmentalism is shaped. It iswell beyondthe scopeof thismonographto enter into an extensive dis cussion of the multiple definitions of the term"environmentalism."2 Rather, here I will briefly presenta number of defining characteristics of the concept of environmentalism found in anthropological literature in order to providea baseline context from which to discuss Chesapeake Bay environmentalism. The rise of "the environment"as a social and cultural phenomenon was a striking feature of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s around the world.3 Environ mentalism typically refers to a concern that the environment should be pro tected, particularly from the harmful effects of human activities.as Kay Mil ton notes: environmentalism isexpressed in manyways: through publicorganizations dedicated to environmental protection, throughgovernment policies aimed at decreasing pollu tion and conservingwildlife, through"green" political parties, through demands for
11 2 Chesapeake Perspectives changes inland use, through thepurchase of goods whose producers claim tobesen sitive to environmental needs. For individuals, it may beadeep-seated commitment which informs every aspect of their lifestyle orit may beamarginal concern which haslittle effect on everyday life.4 Broadly speaking, environmentalism is the application of knowledge, effort, and commitment tounderstand, manage, and, ifnecessary, restore eco logical systems in a sustainable manner. Modern environmentalism is a broad-based effort involving natural resource user communities, scientists, resource managers, policymakers, andthegeneral public. It canbeinstitution alized, bureaucratized, and driven by moral as well as scientific concerns. Environmentalism is a valuable motivator for restoration, research, and sus tainable management workat local, state, and federal levels. Chesapeake BayEnvironmentalism For a wide range ofstakeholders, the Chesapeake Bay is perceived and rep resented as a treasured natural and cultural resource. The Chesapeake is iconic of both thewealth andecological complexity of coastal environments and the increasing development that threatens our inland and coastal waters. Research findings indicate a continuing decline in Bay species and ecosystem services those natural functions, whether of wetlands or oyster reefs, that help to sustain healthy ecosystems. Restoration andmanagement efforts (e.g., to restore native oysters and underwater grasses, or to regulate the commercial harvest of blue crabs or the proposed introduction of non-native oysters) elicit deep-seated feelings in us about thenatural world and our responsibil ity to use ecosystems and natural resources in a sustainable manner. The Chesapeake Bay hasbecome a lightning rod for environmental debates, con cerns, and actions, ranging from those thatemphasize a pristine notionof the Bay little disturbed byhumanactivity to those thatconsider the Bay a resource to support one's livelihood. While making a living from thebay has become partof our regional char acter and heritage, efforts to analyze, restore, and manage the Bay are also extensive andvisible. TheBay watershed isoneofthemost studied bioregions, often citedasan example of integrated federal, state and local efforts to restore and manage a complex ecosystem.5 There areactive efforts to restore depleted natural resources, such as oysters and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and thechesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), thelargest environmental organ-
12 Chesapeake Environmentalism 3 ization on the Bay, annually issues a"state ofthe Bay" report that indexes the current status of key species and ecological conditions against their status in pre-european settlement times. The Chesapeake is the site ofthe Chesapeake Bay Program, aninnovative and ambitious multijurisdictional effort tostudy, monitor, and restore vital ecological and biological systems of the Bay.6 And finally, farmers and watermen, and to a lesser degree those employed in the service and processing sectors behind farming and commercial fishing, are constantly reported on in the public media and elsewhere in terms ofthe chal lenges they face in making a living from declining natural resources. Throughout the watershed, individuals from diverse backgrounds and with different levels ofunderstanding ofthebay's ecology care, often strongly, about what happens to the Bay. The research, restoration, management, and use ofthe Bay's natural resources are ofmore than passing interest to millions ofresidents living inthebay watershed. The national, regional, andlocal press regularly produce articles on the state ofthe Bay and cover new findings on ecosystem health and the status of restoration efforts. More dedicated monthly newsletters, such as the Bay Journal and The Watermen's Gazette, carry well-researched articles, effectively translated for broad public con sumption, about the health of the Bay's living resources and the challenges of development and population growth. Another reminder of our concern for the 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 years Maryland license plates have reminded us to"treasure the Chesapeake" and that "Our Farms, [are] Our Futures." Finally, the importanceof the Bay to us is perhaps best captured by a well-known, ifnotalways overtly acknowledged, regional political axiom: "What's good for the Bay is good for politics." While weneed to becautious and not overstate thepoint, an unknown but very large percentage ofthe population living in the Bay states and District ofcolumbia, if not thechesapeake watershed as a whole, feels connected to the Bay in different ways and with different degrees of strength, but the connections are there. The effects of pollution and continued harvesting of the Bay's natural resources areof obviousconcern to manyof the region's residents, as are nonnative species, dredging, and water quality, to name a few oftheissues debated in the press and in private. One's choice ofwords when talking aboutthe Bay provides moreevidence of particular attitudes and environmental concern for the Bay. In interviews
13 4 Chesapeake Perspectives we have conducted over the past few years with awide range ofbay stakehold ers, it is striking to hear how often individuals describe themselves as "stew ards," "guardians," and "protectors" ofthe Bay. These forms ofself identifica tion were found widespread among staff and members of environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), scientists, resource managers, watermen, and farmers. These descriptors provided some ofthe best qualita tive evidence ofthe moral values individuals attach to their relationship with the Bay. Further exploration ofthe environmental beliefs and values underly ing different stakeholders' use ofthese terms provided us with insights into the different cultural frameworks that individuals and groups use tointerpret and understand the Bay and ourrestoration and management efforts. This high level ofenvironmental activity, interest, andconcern areoutward signs ofsomething we can more broadly conceptualize as "Chesapeake Bay environmentalism." While much oftheregion's population would not imme diately refer to themselves as "environmentalists," a term that may have spe cific political overtones for some, most individuals do perceive themselves as environmentally concerned about thebay. The Bay's ecological wonders and its economic bounty help tomake us environmentally aware, and the amount of public discourse on the Bay makes it hard for people not to be concerned, or become informed, to varying degrees, about particular Bay-related issues relevant to them. This form ofenvironmentalism is grounded in ourshared appreciation of the Chesapeake as a unique and wonderful natural environ ment important to usall, historically, economically, andculturally. Despite widespread desire for a Chesapeake environment that is ecologi cally healthy and rich in natural resources, however, some widespread beliefs and values have complicated efforts torestore and manage the Bay, and infact in many cases they have become obstructionist and functioned in ways oppo site from their natural intent that is, they have been counterproductive to our restoration and management efforts. The problem is that the existence of positive environmental beliefs andvalues isnecessary but insufficient to form a Chesapeake environmentalism that can be used in our restorationand man agement efforts. These existing beliefs andvalues do not readily convert into broad-based alliances among stakeholders to restore, save, treasure, or man age the Bay. They remain compartmentalized into groups associated with those identified as environmentalists, scientists, resource managers, ornatural resource harvesters (farmers and watermen). Moreover, sustained partner-
14 Chesapeake Environmentalism 5 ships among these groups are toofew, toonarrow (e.g., species focused), ten uous, and infrequently replicated. Given the challenges of "cleaning up" the Bay, there is increased recognition that we need all stakeholders to do what colloquially we could call "their environmental best." To argue thatthe construct of Bay environmentalism isnotdeveloped suf ficiently to beof much use to existing research, restoration, and management efforts does not deny theexistence ofexcellent examples of cooperative efforts, such as the Oyster Recovery Partnership, the Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee (BBCAC) and its Technical WorkGroup, and the many working committees of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Rather, my point is that com pared to the potential of a Bay environmentalism to recruit and organize a broad-based professional andcitizen movement, andcompared to theecolog ical need and apparent broad public interest, we have onlyscratched the sur face of potential commitment and support. We have failed to stitch together thisenvironmentalism intoa quiltof actionto a degree that matches the sever ityoftheproblem andthedepths ofourcollective, ifnot integrated, concerns. How do we construct a Chesapeake Bay environmentalism that not only complements andsupports restoration andmanagement efforts, but becomes stronger because ofa close link tobiological, ecological, andeconomic efforts? My main argument is that we need a moresophisticated and inclusive sense of Chesapeake Bay culture ifwe areto integrate environmental beliefs andval uesacross stakeholder groups intoa moreinclusive and applied construct of Chesapeake environmentalism. I amnot arguing thatwehave ignored thecul tural dimensions of the Chesapeake, but I am arguingthat the dominant con ceptualization of Chesapeake culture needs to be revised to reflect the dynamic flow of cultural information within and amongbay stakeholders. As discussed below, a critical stepin revising our understandingof Bay culture(s) isto move away from an exclusive focus on culture as purely place-based.
15 Culture as Place As an anthropologist, itis impossible for me to see the Chesapeake Bay with out also seeing culture. I inevitably take a holistic approach, which helps me tounderstand the imperative for aninterdisciplinary perspective that includes biology, ecology, and economics, to name only a few academic disciplines. Still, my training and profession require that my analytical focus does not stray too far for too long from the cultural. While my cultural sensitivities are per haps heightened, I suspect that most individuals who work, study, or care about the Bay have an intuitive recognition and appreciation for something we could call "Bay culture(s)." If this is the case, how we collectively under stand and represent Chesapeake Bay culture becomes, for the anthropologist, acentral research question. As Isuggest below, our historical understanding of Bay culture needs a conceptual overhaul ifwe are to identify and build upon intra- and interstakeholder group environmental beliefs and values to con struct a Bay environmentalism insupport ofrestoration and management. Evidence of how Bay culture is represented and conveyed can be found in diverse sources. Perhaps the sources on Bay culture most widely recognized and the ones most generally accepted as legitimate are the relatively large number of published accounts of people and places around what is called "Bay country." We are fortunate to have a number ofnonfiction narratives by writers who either grew up or continue to live on the Bay's shores. Through participation incommunity life, these authors capture theday-to-day andsea son-to-season rhythms oflife inrural Bay communities. The most exemplary form of this writing has focused on watermen communities. Well-known examples include Tom Horton's Bay Country and An Island out oftime, in which he richly describes living ayear inthe community oftylerton onsmith Island, and William Warner's Pulitzer-Prize-winning Beautiful Swimmers, which inaccessible prose and with beautiful line drawings describes the biol-
16 Chesapeake Environmentalism 7 ogy and ecology of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), with a focus on the knowledge and practices of watermen from various communities.' Similar to these nonfiction narratives are coffee table books of Bayphoto graphs, 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 s widely acclaimed Bringing Back the Bay. Further documenting the region's culture are historical accounts of particular areas of the Bay, such as John R. Wennersten's Maryland's Eastern Shore: AJourney in Time and Place, which clearly brings home the widespread perceptions of cultural differences between Maryland's western and eastern shores. What thesebooks share in common is that the authors and photographers use theirown histories and roots in the region as a platform from which to explore and describe the hard work, language, institutions (e.g., churches, community groups), economics, ethics, ecological knowledge, and general lifestyles found around thebay. Intheend, they all draw comparisons between their subject matter andcontemporary society inurban areas, often with more than a hint of sadness that these local communities and their social and cul tural traditions are disappearing. These accounts are sympathetic and sensi tive renderings, widely available in bookstores and tourist stops around the Bay. Bay culture is also a backdrop for fiction, as the Chesapeake has been a source ofinspiration and contemplation for a wealth of novelists, writers of short stories, and poets. Well-known examples of novels include Gilbert Byron's The Lord's Oysters, Glenn Lawson's Baykeeper, the historical novel Chesapeake by James Michener, the popular thriller Vie Waterman by Tim Junkin, anda number ofcritically acclaimed works byjohn Barth. One collec tion of short pieces, Talking Tidewater: Writers on the Chesapeake, edited by Richard Harwood, includes a subsection titled "Culture." Finally, there is aspecial body ofwriting and photography dedicated tothe Chesapeake Bay skipjack, the large-sail, shallow-draft vessels watermen built and used todredge for oysters during most ofthe last century.8 Sailing is part ofthe Bay's heritage and current culture, and there is nomore famous sailing vessel on thechesapeake than the skipjack, even though today there are prob ably fewer than 20 skipjacks onthe Bay, and only ahandful continue todredge
17 8 Chesapeake Perspectives for oysters (the others are providing valuable service for tourismand educa tion). The skipjack provides a major symbol of the Bay's heritage and past, andanthropologically itis fascinating tofollow today's iconic trail ofthe skip jack. A number of groups use the skipjack as a symbol. Somerset County, Maryland, uses a picture of a skipjack as representation of their heritage on the county's tourism Internet homepage, Baltimore named its American Hockey League team the Skipjacks, the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee uses a skipjack in its logo, and thesame istruefor Maryland Sea Grant. Private businesses notdirecdy connected tothebay, other than bytheir location within the watershed, have appropriated the skipjack, in name or logo: Skipjack Financial Services, Skipjack Appraisals, Skipjack's Dry Cleaners, Skipjack Seafood, and Skipjack Cove Yachting Resort, to cite some examples. Itwould be misleading to place too much emphasis on literature or pho tography as the main, or even the most important, source for Bay culture. Rather, important avenues for our cultural awareness of the Bay occur through ourdirect use and experience ofthe Bay and its natural resources. At the most basic level these come through our consumption ofthe Bay's crabs, oysters, andfinfish. Thanksgiving andoysters, or summertime andsteamed or soft crabs, have become cultural traditions here on the Bay. Some, in fact, might consider them inalienable rights. Ofcourse, what is important to us usually is captured in print, and the region is in no short supply ofchesapeake cookbooks filled with local versions ofbaywide culinary standards.9 Along with the culinary aspects ofculture are the many experiences ofthe Bay as a source ofleisure, travel, and recreation. At marinas around the Bay one can hear orsense apublic conceptualization ofsomething loosely under stood asthe"sailing culture" or the "powerboat culture" andthe"recreational fishermen culture." What unites and separates each ofthese groups are the views, values, and practices often competing that arise from their expe riences and uses ofthe Bay. Clearly the members ofthese loose-knit groups have diverse backgrounds and occupations, but the core of their cultural importance inour minds is associated with aparticular form ofusing the Bay. An important part of our leisure time that also has explicit educational meaning is exploring Bay country through tourism focused on folk life and heritage. The Bay area has many museums, antique shops, and tours of his toric buildings, homes, and downtown areas. Particularly pronounced in the
18 Chesapeake Environmentalism 9 springand summer are the town heritage festivals throughout the region: the shad festival, the skipjackraces, and the county agricultural fairs. While we could certainly find additional expressions of Bay culture, the above examples illustrate the widespread and diverse expressions of whati am calling Bay culture(s). In these examples, Bay cultureis valued and important to us in termsof itsidentity withworkand leisure and our sense of a pastthat is disappearing. But the above examples do morethan merely illustrate what we mean when we write about, observe, and participate in Chesapeake cul ture. What isstriking about these examples istheexplicit or implicit linkage to place to a community, location, or region bounded geographically (e.g., an island or town) and bya perceived limit, inspace and time, to theextension of certain practices, beliefs, and values. The study ofculture as associated with a place or community has a long, although not uncontested, tradition in anthropology.10 In adopting this approach, the particulars of Bay culture can be cross-culturally compared with othergroups and places, including tradi tional, indigenous cultures once found in remote regions worldwide. The representation of culture as only place- or community-based is, how ever, analytically underpowered, particularly if we want to improve and strengthen Bay environmentalism. First, the emphasis on place does not focus our attention enough on exchanges and movements of beliefs, values, and practices across groups inspace and time. While culture is often most visibly present as shared within tightly bounded groups (e.g., Smith Island), as acon ceptual framework itshould not be restricted only tospatially and temporally contiguous communities. Second, itprioritizes the documentation ofcultural beliefs and practices ofbay rural communities disappearing due to change and development. (Such an approach is arguably justified given the disappearance ofmany ofthe Bay's traditional lifestyles and practices.) Third, culture as place can very easily lead tostatic discussions ofculture and cultural change. Itdoes not give sufficient attention to the dynamic, proactive role ofculture as adap tive, asasystem ofbeliefs and values that can beused, for example, tohelp pro tect and manage the Bay's natural resources. And finally, this restricted view leads toanunderstanding ofcultures mainly as objects"out there" inspace and time to be studied, from skipjacks to crab cakes to religious beliefs, objects often depicted as part ofa disappearing alternative to contemporary, modern society. At best the above approach may lead toa selective and at worse an overly romanticized view of culture and community.
19 10 Chesapeake Perspectives Anthropologists debate extensively themeaning of culture."our focus on culture iswhat we feel distinguishes usfrom othersocial sciences. While placebased frameworks forunderstanding culture have been widely used, and con tinue to be used effectively, alternative approaches to studying culture have emerged that emphasize thedecoupling of culture from place and give prior ity focus to processes, within and across communities and individuals, that lead to the construction of cultural meaning. Rather than seeking to identify the"culture of X group" or "culture of Ygroup," the focus is on what creates cultural meaning. To illustrate howcultural meaning iscreated and communicated, I would like to discuss two approaches (often seen as competing) to the study of cul ture, citing examples of their application to environmental issues, including those facing the Chesapeake. The two approaches in question are discourse analysis and cultural models. Taken together, they provide a dynamic approach to the study of culture as something created in the external, public arena as well as through individual cognitive processes. Both of these approaches help usaccount for what becomes culturally meaningful and how culturechanges or not.
20 Culture through Discourse One of the most exciting and chal lenging tasks in the studyof cultureis to grapplewith the interplay between culture as located and embodied in the public arena existing or con structed in symbols, institutions, and behaviors and the idea of culture as internalized within individuals. For both the external and internal, or public and private, ifyouwill, culture needs to be flexible and adaptive, capable of generating new meanings and establishing shared connections On the one hand, culture resides in a set ofpublic meaningfulforms, which can most often be seen and heard... On the other hand, these overtforms are only rendered meaningful because human minds contain the instruments for their interpretation.12 that individuals implicidy recognize to a degree thatestablishes a sense of group identity. In my own research on the Chesapeake, I have employed two approaches to help link public (external) and private (internal) cultural meanings. The first is discourse analysis, an approach that focuses closely on how linguistic constructs create public meaning. The second approach is cognitive in its focus, identifying implicit andtacit cultural models in themind. As discussed below, thestrength of discourse analysis is that it draws our attention to how cultural meaning (about theenvironment, forexample) isconstructed through explicit communication, while cultural models draw upon the cognitive sci ences to ask how cultural knowledge, much of which isimplicit, isorganized bythemind.13 These are nottheonly alternative approaches tocultural analy sis available or useful, but they have been used byanthropologists in ways rel evantto the discussion hereof Chesapeake environmentalism.
21 12 Chesapeake Perspectives Culture as Discourse [I]tisnotsufficient to understand language as[only] transparent or reflective. It isnot a neutral information-carrying vehicle Rather, language isconstitutive: it is the site where meanings are created and changed.'4 The term "discourse" has multiple meanings and interpretations, and for many, including social scientists, itisnota term that isintuitively understand able. In social theory, discourse implies both process and substance.15 Dis course as process denotes how cultural or social reality iscreated, constituted by the organization ofknowledge incommunication. What unites the analy sis of discourse as process is "analytical attention to the use of language in social contexts? Here "social context" means that researchers pay close atten tion to"naturally occurring" discourse that is, utterances that occurin the context of social interaction, in contrast to utterances specifically elicited using structured interviews and surveys. In these interactions, speech and other signifying acts play asignificant role in constituting orconstructing cul tural and social meanings. A central proposition of discourse-centered research is that "culture is localized in concrete publicly accessible signs, the most important ofwhich are actually occurring instances ofdiscourse involv ing language."17 As such, culture emerges historically through the process of dialogue, and is continuously produced and revised as language and dialogue evolve. Discourse-centered work emphasizes the heterogeneous, multifunc tional, and dynamic character oflanguage use and the central place it occu pies inthe cultural and social construction of reality. Discourses are not nec essarily homogenous or consistent, either within or between groups. From the perspective ofdiscourse analysis, culture is no longer objectively situated in space and time. Discourse as substance refers to a field of communication defined by its subject matter or the type of language used: environmental discourse isa dis course about the environment, the discourse ofscience is the language ofsci ence, the discourse of watermen and farmers is the language used by these groups or the dialogues about them.18 How do discourses relate to each other? How do particular discourses impinge onpublic consciousness and how do some discourses acquire prece dence over other discourses? Both as process and substance, discourses are inherently political. As discourses become established and "mainstreamed," they become the dominant reference domain for new ideas, positions, and
22 Chesapeake Environmentalism 13 viewpoints. As a result, alternative discourses that have their own logic and meaningdo not enter into the dominant discourse as a system of meaning, but rather as disarticulated terms that become (re)interprcted in accordance with the language and meanings of the dominant discourse. Anexample includes the interaction between discourses on qualitative and quantitative data. In the dominant discourse of science, qualitative data are often referred to as "anecdotal." Because qualitative data do not meet certain methodological criteria related to probability theoryin statistics, whenviewed froma quantitative perspective, qualitative research findings areoftendeemed less objective, rigorous, "sound," or reliable, i.e., "justanecdotal," onestepaway from hearsay. What is not allowed into thisscientific discourse is the precept that systematic qualitative research has its own logical frame for assigning validity and reliability that in theory parallels statistical methods of inference in 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 ofdiscourse. Finally, to adopta discursive orientation to the role of language in creating meaning does not susggest that one entirely abandons the premise that talk and texts also convey concrete, nondiscursive information. Most researchers assume that language isboth constitutive and referential. In the above exam ple, discussing qualitative methods and findings, even when situated within science-based discourse, will include meanings and information that reflect established memories and ready-formed opinions about qualitative research. Not all meaning and information will be constructed in the specific event or moment ofa discourse.19 Environmental Discourse 'Environmental discourse' isnot just communication about theenvironment, but also the process whereby ourunderstanding of theenvironment isconstituted through such communication.20 Two case studies of discourse analysis applied to environmental issues will help flesh out the briefoverview above of discourse research, and will provide additional empirical background for a discussion of discourse analysis applied to Chesapeake Bay issues. The first case study by Robin Grove-White exam inesthe riseof official environmental discourse in the United Kingdom, where
23 14 Chesapeake Perspectives state and scientific views of national environmental concerns became, from a discourse perspective, the "orthodox view."21 The official environmental agenda clustered around major issues greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, toxic wastes, wildlife and habitat losses, pollution of seas and rivers, among others which were given prominence in discourses undertaken by the media, the scientific community, and the government. What these environ mental problems shared was that they could be objectified in nature and mediated or understood through thenatural sciences. As the researcher states, "environmental problems worthy ofthe name are thus regarded as physical problems, arising from specific human interventions innatural systems; their character and boundries are given to us from nature, their authenticity guar anteed by natural scientific investigation and confirmation."22 Accordingly, solutions tothese physically identified "problems" can be found inpersuasion, regulation, technological innovation, international agreements, orapplication ofeconomic instruments. The physical-natural problems identified in the United Kingdom case study are clearly important environmental issues, and governments and sci ence are needed to address them. At the same time, however, the orthodox environmental view excluded other environmental discourses or concerns. First, it trivialized and relegated NGOs and individual environmental con cerns to the discursive terrain of"public opinion," where they could in some cases be seen as irrational, "unscientifically grounded," driven by "special interests," and until information (i.e., scientific information) could becol lected they could bedismissed. Many of theenvironmental issues thatthe orthodox view embraced were first identified by environmental and local groups, who ironically were then excluded from the evolving, increasingly sci ence- and management-based discourse.23 In a parallel example, J. Peter Brosius has documented the evolution of a transnational environmental discourse onsustainable logging.24 Brosius stud ied the international response to aggressive commercial logging of forests occupied by the Penan hunter-gatherers in Sarawak, East Malaysia. In 1987, the Penan erected blockades to prevent logging oftheir forests. The images of the Penan confronting police and bulldozers galvanized international envi ronmental opinion, and the Penan becamea cause cilebre for environmental ists worldwide concerned about unsustainable forest practices and indigenous rights. The Penan situation received extensive media coverage on television
24 Chesapeake Environmentalism 15 (NBC Nightly News, Primetime Live), on National Public Radio, in magazines (Newsweek, Time, Rolling Stone, and National Geographic), and in documen taryfilm (Blowpipes andbulldozers), and Penan leaders were awarded human rights and environmental awards by the Sierra Club, among others. The Grateful Dead rock group testified before the U.S. Congress on behalfof the Penan, and Al Gore, then Vice President,held two news conferencesand sup ported the Penancause in his book Earth in the Balance. But the discourse on Sarawak logging and the Penan evolved. The Malaysian government initiated an effective rhetorical offensive against envi ronmentalists from Northern, industrialized countries. It hired a prestigious international public relations firm, developed its own timber trade organiza tions, sent high-profile delegations to Northern countries to discuss sustain able forestry practices, and launched an effective campaign that linked North ern environmentalism to the legacy of colonialism in Southern, developing countries. Questions aboutthe right of the Penan to self-government and the freedom to determine their own"development" began to appear in the dis course, along with references to Northern countries' own forestry practices that had led to deforestation of temperate forests and the disappearance of their indigenous groups. As the discourse evolved, environmentalists lost the moral high ground. In response, thenorth switched discourses to focus more on reducing tropical timber consumption in their own countries. As Brosius makes clear, "theoverall effect of these developments was that the debate over logging insarawak shifted from a focus onforest destruction and therights of indigenous communities to an issue ofsustainable forest management."25 As thetwo examples above suggest, "those who can most influence thedef inition of environmental responsibility are those who can make the most effective useof the toolsof discourse.26 Thesetoolswill varyfrom one cultural context to another, but they typically include thenews media, mechanisms of formal and informal education, advertising, entertainment media, and politi cal lobbying. Environmental activism often takes the form of trying to empower groups and organizations byincreasing their access to these tools.
25 Environmental Discourses onthe Chesapeake Bay OurChesapeake Bay environmental concerns become activated in response to the decline ofparticular aquatic species, adecline in the function ofecosys tems, and the presence of new or excess biochemicals (pollution). The first level of response is to apply the approaches of science to identify causes, scope, effects, and possible solutions orremedies. There is not one Bay stake holder group who would argue against the need for science to help us under stand the Bay, and more particularly anthropogenic effects and what to do about them. However, our strong valuation ofscience and the language ofscience (e.g., hypothesis testing, significance thresholds, random sampling, internal and external validity, and experimental design) dominates our Chesapeake envi ronmental discourses and in the process becomes the intellectual and knowl edge benchmark for understanding alternative views and types of knowl edge. Below, Idescribe the interplay between science and local knowledge for two environmental problems of great concern to Bay stakeholders. The first problem is the need to reduce the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from farms into the Bay. The second problem is low spawning stock biomass ofblue crabs. My use ofnutrient runoff and blue crab fishery management as illustrative examples is not to argue for one type ofknowledge over the other, ortoargue that one type ofknowledge is correct. Rather, my only goal here is to illustrate how alternative views and knowledge from local experts, farmers, and watermen were discursively reinterpreted and recast tofit within the framework of the dominant view of science, and in the process were marginalized and even trivialized, even though they come from primary tar get groups from whom we seek cooperation and regulatory compliance.
26 Chesapeake Environmentalism 17 Case Study: Excessive Agricultural Nutrients There is widespread consensus amongstakeholder groups that restorationof the Chesapeake will be unsuccessful unless levels of nutrients mainly nitro gen and phosphorus in the Bay and its tributaries are reduced. Nutrientenrichedwaters promote excessive concentrations of algae, whichcan deplete water oxygen levels and, in combination with high sediment levels, cause reductions in underwater grasses in tidal shallows. Underwater grasses pro vide critical habitat for many finfish and crabs, and they also improve water quality by buffering shorelines from wave action, filtering sediment, and absorbing nutrients. Nutrient reduction efforts began in earnest in 1987, when the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted agoal calling for a40-percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus. This ambitious goal was later scaled back to focus on what were considered "controllable" nutrients, excluding sources difficult to affect such asseptic tanks andairpollution. The 40-percent goal effectively became a 20- percent reduction in nitrogen and a 31-percent reduction in phosphorus.27 Progress has been made toward reaching these goals. By 2000, phosphorus loadings were reduced from 27 million pounds to 19 million pounds and nitrogen loadings were reduced from 337 million to 285 million.28 These reductions were achieved through implementation of agricultural best man agement practices (BMPs) and increased control of point-source pollution, mainly at wastewater treatment plants. While efforts to reduce point sources continue, it is recognized that to achieve significant further reductions more effort mustbe focused on reducing agricultural nutrientrunoff. TheChesapeake Bay Program's Watershed Model estimates that38percent of the nitrogen and 49 percent of phosphorus delivered to the Bay originate from agriculture.29 Agricultural lands, which cover about 23 percent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, are responsible for 13 percent ofthegross domes tic product inthe Chesapeake Bay watershed and about 4percent ofthe labor force.30 Chesapeake Bay farms average 180 acres, compared to a national aver age of500 acres. The principal crops are corn, wheat, and soybeans, although horticulture and nurseries are increasing in importance. Animal production includes beef, dairy, and poultry(broilers, layers, and turkeys). The ecological and economic problems associated with excessive farm nutrients can only become understood and communicated through the approaches andlanguage ofagricultural andmarine sciences. Excess nutrients
27 18 Chesapeake Perspectives in the soils and their travel from fields and farms to tidal and Bay waters remain generally invisible to the farmer and concerned citizen alike. Not only is science essential for understanding nutrient enrichment and developing programs and policies to promote the balanced use of farm nutrients, but technical concepts and dependence on scientific language define and shape the discourse on farm nutrient management. Thedefining role of scientific knowledge andlanguage in constructing the discourse around nutrient management can be illustrated through a discus sion of BMPs, which are "tactical" plans for reducing agricultural nutrient runoff problems from existing crop and animal production systems. Mary land farmers are required to develop and implement nutrient management plans that include the BMPs most relevant for their crop, livestock, and poul try practices. Examples of BMPs in use in the Chesapeake Bay watershed include lagoons to catch and store animal waste, sheds for storing poultry manure, winter cover crops toremove nitrogen notutilized byprevious crops, fine-tuned fertilizer application, and erosion control measures to reduce runoff. These BMPs are clearly defined interms oftheir structure and imple mentation, and these definitions are employed by jurisdictions within the watershed. For example, when planting a winter cover crop, anagreed-upon species must beused and planting must bedone during aspecified time frame toqualify asa BMP. Each BMP has anefficiency rating in terms of how much nitrogen and phosphorus it removes if implemented in a mannerconsistent with its defining criteria. Ifthe winter cover crop is sown inexacdy the pre scribed way, it isassumed that itsefficiency in removing nutrients will becon sistent across microhabitats. Furthermore, there are standardized tracking and reporting procedures for BMPs for the Bay watershed states. Finally, informa tion onbmp implementation and the associated nutrient reduction efficiency for each BMP practice isused by the Chesapeake Bay watershed model toesti mate nutrient stocks and flows. The agricultural and agronomic scientific knowledge acquired for imple mentingand measuring BMPs produces information invaluable to our efforts to reduce nutrient runoff. At the same time, BMPs have become the dominant discourse through which we come to understand the problems of and solu tions to agricultural nutrient enrichment. It should be clear that while we depend on science to help usunderstand and address the nutrient problem, a dependency on scientific reasoning and means of communication can make
28 Chesapeake Environmentalism 19 it difficult to conceptualize alternative discourses. Given that we cannot see nutrients and that they move in complex ways, take complex forms, and have a range of consequences underdifferent conditions, it isvery difficult to imag ine an alternative viewpoint or way of understanding and communicating about them. The question of how else we might understand and address nutrient problems is not even conceptualized. There is, however, a competing farmerdiscourse on agricultural nutrient management and resistance to implementing BMPs. The competing dis course is not a complete rejection of the scientific method and its attendant meansof communication. Our interviews and surveys have shown that farm ersthroughout thewatershed do recognize that there isa nutrientenrichment problem and do value the knowledge and guidance inherent in the develop ment of BMPs. The problem froma discourse perspective is that requirements of BMPs and the language associated with BMPs marginalize farmer knowl edge, experience, and agricultural values. By marginalize, I mean that farmer knowledge and agricultural experience as they relate to nutrient management areonly understood as compared to what we accept as truth inherent in the scientific basis for the BMPs. While science can sometimes fail to"getit right," these errors are perceived to be a consequence of insufficient methods or information, both of which are refined and improved in the process of advancingscientific knowledge. In the scientific (and public) discourse on farm nutrient runoff there isan implicit, if not explicit, conceptualization of farming as polluting or, more stridentiy, of farmers as polluters. Farmers areseen primarily as the source of the nutrient enrichment problem and are not widely viewed as potential stakeholders who would voluntarily participatein increased efforts to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. Opinions vary as to whetherthe problemis that farmers knowinglyovcrfertilize or are forced to for economic reasons, or whether existing nutrient management practices and technologies for con trolling runoffare inadequate. Regardless, the overall consensus appears to be that the potential ecosystem effects of excess nutrients warrant new regula tions,management approaches, and technologies. What is not present in any significant wayin the nutrient management dis courseis that farmers have a personal and economic stakein maintainingthe quality of the environment and in not overapplying a costlyfarm input, and that they value protecting the environment. Also missing from the main-
29 20 Chesapeake Perspectives stream debate isanaccurate andcomplete portrayal offarmer's environmen tal knowledge and how that knowledge is based on a view of farming as a community-based livelihood.31 We found that in the dominant discourse on nutrient management, the concept of environment was treated as though each group understood the way in which every other group defined and valued the environment. Assumed viewpoints, often implicit, also emerged: farmers are avoiding envi ronmental responsibility because they don't want toaccept blame for pollut ing; and farmers are not concerned about broader environmental issues, just those that affect their own localized farming practices. It was assumed (or unquestioned) thatifthey were notcompletely infavor ofprotecting theenvi ronment in accordance with the best research findings and pending legisla tion, then they were anti-environmental. If they were anti-environmental, then they needed toberegulated inorder to make them comply. As a result, a key stakeholder group became disenfranchised. Case Study: Management of the Blue Crab Fishery Asecond example ofbay environmental discourse focuses on management of the blue crab fishery. Marine scientists and natural resource managers recently concluded that thespawning stock oftheblue crab (Callinectes sapidus) hov ers at dangerously lowlevels and that a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, could reduce the population toa level from which it may noteasily recover.32 Bay scientists andresource managers recognize thatthis decline istheresult of multiple causes and also acknowledge that current scientific understanding of the blue crab is limited. Nevertheless, scientists and resource managers have concluded that the most prudent course of action to protect the bluecrab is to immediately reduce fishing pressure. Watermen agreewith scientists and resource managers that the blue crab fishery is under intense pressure and see a role for science and regulations in helping tosustain thefishery andtheir livelihoods. However, watermen do not feel that the commercial harvest ofblue crabs isthe main problem inthe fish ery. In public fora held to discuss the recent scientific findings and proposed regulations, in print, television, and radio media, and in the Maryland state courts, commercial watermen and processors have argued repeatedly that sci ence and regulations should not "cut" the watermen's share of the resource; rather they should address problems of fish predation on blue crabs and the
30 Chesapeake Environmentalism 21 harmful effects of decliningwater qualityon blue crab habitat and reproduc tion. Watermen also question the scientific findings of a low spawning popu lation,arguing instead that current lowharvests are part of natural cycles and variability that have always characterized the blue crab. Accepting minimum stock threshold and target fishing recommendations of the Bi-State Blue CrabAdvisory Committee (BBCAC), and aftera number of public hearings to discuss with watermen and crabprocessors howbestto achieve a 15-percent reduction in fishing pressure, the Maryland Department ofnatural Resources (DNR) enacted new commercial and recreational crab bing regulations for the 2001 and2002 crabbing seasons.33 For the 2001 sea son, new regulations required watermen to take one dayoff per week from commercial crabbing and to limittheirdaily timeon the waterto a maximum of eight hours. Additional regulations for the2002 season increased the min imum size limits for peeler crabs from 3 to 3.5 inches, for soft crabs from 3.5 to 4 inches, and for male hard crabs, beginning in August, from 5 to 5.25 inches. Moreover,the number of allowable undersized crabs per harvest bas ket was reduced from twenty to five crabs. For the2004 season, these regula tions continued to be in effect. The enactment of newblue crab regulations in Maryland ended any sig nificant efforts at dialogue between watermen and stateresource managers. Scientists and resource managers restated their position that the bluecrab population isat risk of collapse, and therefore a reduction in the commer cial harvest is essential to protect the blue crab and watermen. Watermen became more opposed to the position of scientists and resource managers and more critical of the intentions of science and government regulations. Continued rejection bywatermen of scientific findings created or rein forced a public image of watermen as self-interested, greedy, and irra tionally opposed to efforts to save the blue crab and ultimately their own livelihood. In this example, an important form of public discourse broke down. An increased sensitivity to environmentalism as discourse heightens one's aware ness of the subtle meanings inherent in the ways in which the form and con tent of our discussions and communications about the Bay create meaning and interpretation. An awareness of discourse as a site of creating and con structing meaning helps to illuminate some ofthe most important and over arching issues confronting users and managers of the Bay. To illustrate this
31 22 Chesapeake Perspectives point, I would like to suggest that in the Bay thereare at least four meta-environmental discourses at play with the Chesapeake as a: biologically and ecologically unique estuary productive natural resource direcdy andindirectly supporting theliveli hoodsof many throughout the watershed place for recreation and leisure pristine ecosystem My sense is that the centrality and influence of these discourses has shifted overtimeand allied themselves in different ways. Inthepast, Bay discourse was most often oftheeconomic, livelihood type. With resource declines and increased pollution, the dominant discourse shifted from economic to ecological. Today, theeconomic issubsumed within the ecological, as evidenced by the emphasis onsustainability inmanagement and use. What is interesting and important to contemplate is the possibility that the ecological and recreational discourses will combine, while the eco nomic discourse becomes more marginalized as watermen and farmers decline. We have already heard initial discussions about the possibility ofmak ing some areas ofthe Chesapeake Bay a national park.
32 Defining the Environment through Cultural Models While discourse analysis focuses on the explicit uses oflanguage insocial con texts that create cultural meaning, cultural models research seeks to under stand cultural meaning that is more implicit. Quinn and Holland describe cultural models as"presupposed, taken-for-granted models of the world that are widely shared by members of a society and that play an enormous rolein their understanding ofthat world and their behavior in it."34 The use ofa cul tural model approach presupposes a definition of culture that emphasizes ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, and directs a researcher to investigate howculture is cognitively organized and processed. Thus, culture is"whatever it 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 individuals engage the world, they cannot possibly attend to it in all of its complexity. Consequently, individuals use models to help them reason or calculate, men tally manipulating the model's partsto solve problems or interpretsituations or events.36 Cultural models frame experience, supply interpretations of that experience and inferences about it, and provide goals for action.37 For the individual, the cultural models deployed arelargely tacitand unexamined and often highly resistant to change.38 Cultural models typically consist of a number of interconnected"schemas" (or "scripts"). A schema is the organization of cognitive elements into an abstract mental objectwith default values or open slots that can be filled in with 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 a person's short-term memory. Along with models, schemas allow individuals
33 24 Chesapeake Perspectives to makesense of all the detailed and newinformation presented to the mind forprocessing. It should be noted thatpeople do not always act in accordance with their cultural models and mayhave good reasons not to do so. An effective approach to identifying underlying cultural models of knowl edge is to focus on explanations offered as part of natural discourse on the topic or domain at hand.39 In offering explanations forwhy something is the way it is, individuals often present theirunderstanding of a situation in terms of propositionsand theories. A propositionisa statementassertingor propos inga state of affairs.40 According to D'Andrade, "a proposition isthesense of somethingsaidabout something (typically a sentence) and involves the inte grationof a relatively small numberof separate schemas into a more complex schema."41 Propositions areculturally codified asslogans, cliches, wise words, maxims, and other formulaic statements.42 A theory is an interrelated set of propositions that describes the natureof some phenomena. Analyzing propo sitions and theories constitutes an effective approach used by cognitive anthropologists to identify underlying cultural models. Recent research hasdemonstrated the useof a cultural modelsapproachto address environmental concerns suchas natural resource degradation, pollu tion, and biodiversity conservation. For example, Willett Kempton, James Boster, and Jennifer Hartley foundthat people actively fitnewinformationon global warming into existing cultural models of pollution, ozone depletion, and photosynthesis and respiration.43 In another case, Niels Einarsson's research on Icelandic whaling shows that environmentalists view whales with a humanrights model, in partbecause ofwhales' intelligence, communicative abilities, andsocial characteristics.44 Icelandic whalers, bycontrast, have a util itarian model of whales as a natural resource to be harvested to support human livelihoods. In this model, whales are alsoseen as dangerous because theycan sink a small boat,destroy nets, and compete for fish. Cultural Model Researchon the Chesapeake Cultural model research has been applied to help explain stakeholder responses to environmental issues concerning the Chesapeake Bay. Willett Kemptonand James Falkused cultural modelsto challenge the assertion that mediacoverage wasthe main reason for the public's exaggerated response in 1997 to fish kills, linked to the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida, in a small
34 Chesapeake Environmentalism 25 number of lower Eastern Shore tributaries.45 Theirthesis was thatinappropri ateculturalmodels, more than faulty mediaattention,wereresponsible for the poor match between exaggerated public reaction and the known biological characteristics of Pfiesteria. Furthermore, they suggested that errors in jour nalism could also result when reporters applied inappropriate cultural mod els. The underlying reason for using these old cultural models is that the fishattacking form of Pfiesteria is not similar to anything in our inventory of popular knowledge. What are these inappropriate cultural models? Based on semistructured and informal interviews, five preexisting cultural models used for Pfiesteria were identified. Thesefive cultural models suggest that peopleimplicitly think of Pfiesteria as (1) pollution, (2) a toxin or poison, (3) a disease in fish, (4) a parasite in fish, and (5) a predator that attacks fish.46 It is noteworthythat the modelof Pfiesteria as a predator that attacks fish, whichbestapproximated at that time the biological descriptions of Pfiesteria during fish-kill events, was reportedbyonly5 percentof 790 survey respondents. Kempton and Falk con clude that the public remained most concerned about certain effectsofpfies teria, even when scientists concluded that these particular effects were not harmful, 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 com pared perceptions and understandings of Pfiesteria by farmers and environ mental professionals (e.g., scientists, resource managers, and environmental ists).48 This research tested the hypothesis that farmers and environmental professionals would have different perceptions of the causes and consequences of Pfiesteria, even though both had relatively equal access to the same media and scientific information. The ethnographic basis forthis hypothesis wasthat the farm community in Maryland was generally not convinced of the link between agricultural nutrient runoffand Pfiesteria blooms, and that farmers were veryangry over the stategovernment's decision to pass the Water Qual ity Improvement Act of 1998 (WQIA), which mandates that farmers must have nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient-management plans.49 There was widespread belief among the farm community that the decision to regulate farmers was driven as much by political pressure applied byenvironmentalists and urban groups during a gubernatorial election yearas it wasby the real or even potential consequences of Pfiesteria.50
35 26 Chesapeake Perspectives Maloney and I found that farmers and environmental professionals did agree on many key areassurrounding the causesand consequencesof Pfieste ria, but we identified disagreement on a more fundamental cultural level. This research found that responses to Pfiesteria could not be understood without reference to more encompassing cultural values, such as, in the case of farm ers,those related to the economics of farming, property, and community. Indepth interview datasuggested that farmers' views on Pfiesteria werelinkedto cultural schemasand modelsfocused on land as property,farmingas a moral occupation, and nature as unpredictableand resilient. In a final example of cultural model research applied to the Chesapeake, I have recently presented a cultural model of watermen's reasoning about blue crab management.51 The impetus for this research is the recent controversy between many watermen on the one hand, and state resource managers and scientists on the other hand, over the status of the bluecrabspawning stock andwhat should bedone to restore theblue crab. What is relevant to thepres ent discussion isthe fact thatthewatermen's cultural model formanaging the blue crab fishery contains the same key elements as scientific and resource management approaches (i.e., natural production, science, and regulations). In the watermen model, however, nature or God is the ultimate provider of crabs, which humans can reduce in number through greed (e.g., overharvesting), pollution, and habitat destruction. The watermen's cultural model includes a role forregulation andscience: theformer should promote sustain able harvests (e.g., reduce greed/overharvesting and penalize polluters) and the latter should study negative effects of human activity (greed and pollu tion) oncrabs.52 Onthe surface, the watermen's cultural model is very reason able, balanced, and seemingly not that different overall from scientific and management models for the fishery. However, the watermen's model places thefocus ofscience andregulations which watermen almost unanimously believe are necessary on the actionsof humans, and not on the use of stock assessment approaches as tools for estimating the reproduction and abun dance of crabs. A focus on stock assessment, they contend, runs counter to God'sprovisioning of crabs for watermen's use, a relationship that watermen believe is not amenable to reliable scientific investigation. This belief is evi denced, forexample, bythewidespread conviction among watermen thatyou cannot predictor everknow how many crabs there will be year to year. The intervention of regulations between God/nature and watermen is implicitly
36 Chesapeake Environmentalist?! 27 understood by the latter as restricting their access to what God provides to sustain their livelihood. The cultural modelof watermen's reasoning about blue crab management provides a critical framework for understanding watermen's oppositionto sci entific findings and new crab regulations. The model illustrates key relation ships between core beliefs and values that help to explain watermen's resist ance. The model suggeststhat watermen will resist regulations that appear to interfere with God and nature's production of crabs, but will support science and regulations that improveon what nature provides. Cultural models,then, are constructed from a wide range of cultural, cog nitive, social, and economic sources. These models provide powerful tem plates and schemas for what individuals and groups see as"environmental" and for whatactions theychoose as their appropriate response. The physical and natural world surroundingus isscreened or filtered in part by thesemod els, producingculturalconstructions of the environment. Theseconstructions can traverse or be constrained by group boundaries, and contained in them arestrong beliefs and values about environmental risks, management, protec tion, rights, andobligations. The cultural construction ofnature, through cul tural models and other explicit expressions, does not deny that a "tree is a tree," butexpands ourviewpoint to include thefact thatthesame tree has dif ferent environmental meanings to different individuals and groups.
37 Chesapeake Bay Environmentalism Revisited Environmentalism is a social commit ment,a questfor a viable futurepursued through the implementation of cultur ally defined responsibilities.54 Theques tion of whether something like environ mentalism exists inanygiven society will depend on how the environment itselfis defined.55 There can be many visions of a viable future, and the means to achieve these visions can be in conflict. Nonetheless, environmentalism should include all culturally defined environ mental responsibilities, whether they are innovative or conventional, radical or conservative.56 In this framework, social movements, political ideologies, grass- Environmentalism is unambiguously partof culture...it ispart of the way in which people understand the world and their place within it. It belongs to the sphere that includes people's feelings, thoughts, interpretations, knowledge, ideology, values, and so on.53 rootsactivism, and government agencies become specific cultural forms through which environmental responsibilities are expressed, implemented, and communicated. Viewing environmentalism as part ofwider cultural processes raises spe cific questions about its incidence and variability. What conditions promote the development ofparticular environmentalist perspectives? How do expres sions ofenvironmentalism fit with biological and ecological research aimed at restoring and managing ecosystems? How are different environmentalisms linked to form more encompassing, inclusive, andeffective forms of environ mentalaction? Whatseparates environmentalisms?
38 Chesapeake Environmentalism 29 A cognitive approach to the study of underlying cultural schemas and models of environmental beliefs and values, coupled with a critical assessment of public discourse on environment issues, offers two useful pathways for understanding environmentalism. Both generate meanings and understand ings about the environment in complementary ways. What might the use of these approaches mean to Chesapeake Bay environmentalism? First, these tools would help usrealize thatthenatural characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay are platforms for multiple environmentalisms. They would help us understand that similar to therevamped view of culture assome thing more than a place-based system of traditional ideas, behaviors, and institutions environmentalism is not merely an objective array of knowl edge and values. Rather, it is culturally constructed as an overlay on ecologi cal, biological, and economic systems through the establishment ofparticular discourses andthepresence ofcultural models. While theendgoal may bethe same to save andpreserve thebay thestrategies and understandings of how to get there will vary, and in getting there our environmentalisms may clash, reducing the effectiveness ofourcollective effort. Thus, itshould not be surprising that the waterman, farmer, environmentalist, resource manager, andcitizen can each perceive their environmentalism as trueanddistinct, and seeother environmentalperspectives as spurious. Second, if we accept that we have multiple environmentalisms, this can awaken us to explore the origins and contents of ourvarying environmental beliefs and values. And hereour recent anthropological workon the Bay sug gests that we will encounter avery diverse range ofenvironmental beliefs and knowledge about the Bay, its ecological, biological, and economic challenges, andthescientific andmanagement efforts to restore andmanage it. What will bemost challenging isthattheorigins ofsome of these beliefs will arise from discourses and cultural models, to list two important sources, that mostof us would not identify as ecological. The construction of environmental knowl edge will instead be increasingly driven more by cultural than ecological or biological understanding. Scholars from various disciplines have written about theincreased integra tion of nature into culture.57 Environmentalism may mean havingbountiful crabs and native oysters andall species of grasses and fishes possible, because this matches a vision of whatwas in the Bay before human activity brought about the Bay's decline. These species andprocesses eventually become ideal-
39 30 Chesapeake Perspectives ized benchmarks for restoration toward the pristine a goal valued even in the face of recognition that realistically we will never return to sucha state of nature.58 Others, with a more utilitarian view, see the Bay as a natural resource: for example, theonly use of a crab isto support families and feed people. This view does not imply that utilitarian environmentalists care less aboutthe Bay, but only that this form of environmentalism includes different cultural beliefs and values. How do we combine these different forms of envi ronmentalism? No complete answer is currently available, but ifwe recognize and value why each group feels the way it does about the Bay, we will certainly open up newdialogues and hopefully newcollaborations. Third, with the perspective of multiple environmentalisms, we can broaden our view ofenvironmental conflicts to see them as opportunities to explore underlying cultural beliefs and values. Rather than continuing to reg ulate onthe one hand oragreeing (or refusing) to cooperate onthe other, the shift needs to be toward collaboration to learn about each other's environ mentalism.59 Arecent, small-scale example of this occurred inthe Blue Crab Collaborative Learning Project.60 Using small workshops, the project brought together approximately 20 participants, equally divided among watermen, sci entists, and resource managers, who either fish, study, or manage the Bay's blue crab. Thegoal of the project was not to reach consensus on thestatus of the blue crab stock, resolve differences on particular regulations, orevaluate thevalidity of"scientific" or"observational" facts about theblue crab. Instead, the goal was to have participants, through dialogue supported by information about underlying cultural models, learn about each other's environmental beliefs and values. The project also included workplace exchanges, with scien tists and resource managers visiting watermen on their boats, and watermen visiting scientists' labs or resource managers' offices. Although small-scale and still exploratory, the project successfully pro moted dialogue of a different type than what watermen, scientists, and resource managers had previously experienced with each other, and it has created opportunities for further collaborations in research, management, and education. The challenge now becomes how to scale up and integrate such environmental collaborative learning activities within and between existing environmentalisms, while maintaining the discursive nature and potential to create nonjudgmental dialogue on environmental beliefs and values.
40 Chesapeake Environmentalism 31 Fourth, an expanded cultural approach has the potential to recruit new environmentalists to the Bay in a manner that accepts and builds on cultural diversity and the constructiveness of environmentalism. To accomplish this, stakeholder groups would need to cognitively and discursively traverse the artificial borders conceptually erected between our environmental views on the Bay. The responsibility for this journey needs to be shared byall groups equally: watermen and farmer communities, practicing environmentalists, scientists, policymakers, and resource managers. Also, it will be important to enlist new stakeholder groups into this process. With continued growth and diversification of the population residing within the Bay watershed, new groups, many of whom will be recent immigrants, will be the Bay's next gen eration of stakeholders. What forms ofenvironmentalism do theybringto the region, and howwill theymesh with existing environmentalisms? While such demographic changes bring many sociocultural, economic, and ecological challenges, they can also bring environmental opportunities. Finally, we must raise cultural analysis to a level comparable to other research disciplines engaged in helping to restore and manage the Bay. It is time that we realize and accept into our research, management, use, and com munication about the Bay that it is more than an ecosystem, but also a cul tural-environmental construction resting on systems of knowledge, beliefs, and values. An ambitious cultural research agenda for the Bay would comple ment and reinforce ecological, biological, and economic research and would provide new opportunities to apply our research findings. We need to pro mote research and communication on Bay environmentalism as an essential complement to ecological analyses. By integrating these approaches, we will empower and multiply the number of Bay researchers, volunteers, profession als, activists, and users, both directly and indirectly, and open new pathways forbuilding partnerships and coalitions basedon a reflective and open under standing of the diversity and richness of cultural beliefs and valuestoward the Chesapeake Bay.
41 Toward an Environmental Anthropologyofthe Chesapeake If environmentalism is central to our efforts to restore and manage the Bay, and if environmentalism rests strongly on a cultural foundation, then anthro pology has an important role to play. Whilenot all cultural beliefs and values are relevant to Bay ecological and biological concerns, many will be in both direct and indirect ways and their significance will most likely be large given the powerful symbolic value of the Chesapeake. In the last decade, the subfield of environmental anthropology, building uponearlier generations of ecological research in anthropology, has emerged with a growing body of researchers and applied practitioners using diverse theories and methods to investigate cultural-environmental linkages.61 Anthropological research on the Chesapeake must be informed by and con tribute to the development ofthis subfield. The challenges for developing an environmental anthropology of the Chesapeake will beboth substantive and pragmatic. In substantive terms, we will need to grapple with advantages and disadvantages of applying a more analytical concept of culture. As I hope the preceding sections have made clear, our traditional understanding of culture both within anthropolog)' and among the public as a set of beliefs, values, and practices associated with a spatially bounded group is not well suited to promote cross-cultural communication on environmental issues. At the same time, this conceptual ization of placed-based culture doesremain a source of powerful emotion and interest within and between groups and communities. When we, as anthro pologists or citizens, say that we want to save the cultures of the Bay, often expressed as preserving our farmer and watermencommunities, we are talk ing precisely about placed-based cultures. Such communities are emotive,
42 Chesapeake Environmentalism 33 unique, valued, educational, and certainly warrant our interests, anthropolog ical and otherwise. We allwant to preserve these place-based Chesapeake cul tures; they are the root of the Bay's heritage and history. The question here is whethera cultural approach through such meth ods as discourse analysis and cultural models, which place a priority on the transcultural can also contribute valuable insights to augment the placebased version of culture. Based on myexperience of the Chesapeake, I believe the answer isan unequivocal "yes." The methods of discourse analysis and cultural models can be applied at thecommunity level. They canelicit direct and indirect constructions of cul tural meanings that are strongly grounded within a localized group. These approaches can open the floodgates of analysis to ideas and values "outside the community" that are assimilated (or not) with more locally produced cultural forms. In the end, it will perhaps be difficult to exorcise all these "external" cultural meanings, and no doubt problematic to do so. Neverthe less, I would argue thatall beliefs andvalues thatemerge through such stud ies should be treated equally, whether theyrepresent recent influences from sources beyond the community, or whether they are a continuation of core community belief systems. Treating all cultural beliefs and values as equal becomes essential if we are to capture and convey the present-day realities of communities throughout Bay country. To fail to treat them as equal will lead to overly restricted or romantic views of community life and culture on the Bay. From a pragmatic perspective, the question is how toscale upand how best to integrate environmental anthropology research with ecology, biology, eco nomics, and other disciplines studying the Bay. It ishere thatwhat I am call ing the analytical (e.g., discourse and cultural model) approach is inherently more useful than the culture-as-place approach. Both discourse analysis and cultural models use well-established research methodologies, capable of pro ducing both qualitative and quantitative results. Ofequal importance is that both methods are fully applicable to a wide range of stakeholder groups, including fellow scientists, resource managers, and policymakers. Free of the place-based restriction, these analyses can follow the discourse and implicit meanings where they might lead. One possible drawback, however, is that these analytical, social-science based approaches do notbring theemotive and popular recognition associated with placed-based cultural analysis. Thus,
43 34 Chesapeake Perspectives though more powerful in helping to study and make use of environmental ism,theyare less recognizable and consistent with the"model"of culturethat is present on the Bay. As a consequence, any environmental anthropolog)' of the Chesapeake will need to include communication and education efforts thatwill help fellow researchers andothers appreciate thattraditional anthro pological understanding ofculture has evolved significandy, contrary to pop ular conceptions of how anthropologists study culture. I am excited about the contributions environmental anthropology can make in support of efforts to restore andmanage the Bay's natural resources. I am equally excited about the potential of anthropology to initiate new dis courses on culture and environmentalism and to do so in a manner that fos ters collaborative learning among all of us. My training and anthropology's intellectual history will not allow me to completely lose sight ofthe perspec tive ofculture as community. However, inwitnessing the application ofawide range ofcultural beliefs and values to the Bay's ecological issues, Iwill quickly be reminded ofthe need to broaden our understanding ofculture to priori tize the exchange of environmental beliefs and values across all Bay stake holder groups. In the process offollowing this transcultural trail, we can begin to identify and articulate amore robust environmentalism capable ofpromot ing expanded collaborative efforts to understand and manage this constantly evolving andtreasured Chesapeake Bay.
44 Notes 1. Timothy O'Riordan, Environmentalism (London: Pion, 1981) Vol. IX. Cited in Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology (NewYork: Routledge, 1993),p For more extensive discussions, seewillett Kempton et al.. Environmental Values in American Culture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995); Kay Milton, Environmental ism: The View from Anthropolog)' (New York: Routledge, 1993); Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse (NewYork: Routledge, 1996). 3. Robin Grove-White, Environmentalism: A New Moral Discourse for Technolog ical Society? In Kay Milton, ed., Environmentalism: The View from Anthropol ogy, pp Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse, p Philip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher, eds., Discovering the Chesapeake: The History of an Ecosystem (Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Uni versity Press, 2001); Robert Costanza and Jack Greer, The Chesapeake and Its Watershed: AModel for Sustainable Ecosystem Management? In Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light, eds.. Barriers and Bridges to Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Howard Ernst, Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). 6. Ibid. Robert Costanzaand Jack Greer in Gunderston et al., Barriers and Bridges. Note that the Chesapeake Bay Program, like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, also produces an annual "State ofthebay" report. See 7. Other examples include Mick Blackistone's Sunup tosundown: Watermen ofthe Chesapeake (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 of Catching andcooking Crabs (1985), Whitey Schmidt's The Crab Cookbook (1990), and The Chesapeake Bay OysterCookbook (2003).
45 36 Chesapeake Perspectives 10. Cf.Adam Kuper, Culture: TheAnthropologists'Account (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999); James Clifford and George Marcus, eds., Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (California: University of California Press, 1985). 11. Cf.AdamKuper, Culture. 12. Ulf Hannerz, Cultural Complexity: Studies in thesocial Organization of Mean ing (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), p. 4. Cited in Claudia Strauss and Naomi Quinn, ACognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning (New York: Cam bridge University Press, 1997), p 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. InMar garetwetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates, eds., Discourse as Data: A Guide 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. Rus sell Bernard, ed., Handbook ofmethods in Cultural Anthropology (California: AltaMira Press, 1998), p. 411, emphasis inoriginal. 17. Ibid., p Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. 19. See Talyor 2001 for more methodological discussion on separating the constitu tive and referential role ofdiscourse. 20. Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, p Robin Grove-White, Environmentalism: ANew Moral Discourse for Technolog ical 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 Malaysian Rainforest. American Anthropologist 101 (1): 36-57; J. Peter Brosius, Politics of Ethnographic Presence: Sites and Topologies inthe Study oftransnational Move ments. In Carole Crumley, ed., New Directions in Anthropology and Environ ment (California: AltaMira Press, 2001), pp
46 Chesapeake Environmentalism Peter J. Brosius,Politicsof Ethnographic Presence, p Peter Harries-Jones, Between Science and Shamanisms: The Advocacy of Envi ronmentalism in Toronto. In Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. 27. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Innovation in Agricultural Conser vation for thechesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress andaddressing Future Chal lenges (Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program, 2004). 28. Ibid., p Donald Boesch and Jack Greer, eds., Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century. An Independent Report of the Scientific andtechnical Advisory Com mittee (Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program, 2003). 30. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Innovation in Agricultural Conser vation for the Chesapeake Bay, p Michael Paolisso and R.Shawn Maloney, Toxic Algal Blooms, Nutrient Runoff, and Farming on Maryland's Eastern Shore (Culture and Agriculture 21 ), pp Chesapeake Bay Commission. Taking Action for the Blue Crab: Managing and Protecting the Stock and Its Fisheries. Report ofthe Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee (Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Commission, 2001). 33. Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission all enacted reg ulations aimed atreducing fishing pressure onthebay's blue crab stock by15 per cent, in accordance with the recommendations of the bi-state committee.a copy of the Blue Crab Action Plan (2001) and annual StatusReportscan be found on thewebsite of thechesapeake Bay Commission, Naomi Quinn and Dorothy Holland, Culture and Cognition. InDorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn, eds., Cultural Models in Language and Thought (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p Ward H. Goodenough, Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. In P. Garvin, ed., Report ofthe Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting in Linguistics and Language Study (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, 1957), p Roy D'Andrade, The Development of Cognitive Anthropology (United King dom: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 37. NaomiQuinn and DorothyHolland, Cultureand Cognition. 38. Ibid.
47 38 Chesapeake Perspectives 39. Ben G. Blount, Key Words and Cultural Models in Representation of Environ mental Knowledge (Unpublished Manuscript, 2001); Roy D'Andrade, The Devel opment of Cognitive Anthropology (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 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 Ibid. 43. Willett Kempton, James S. Boster and Jennifer A. Hardey, Environmental Values in American Culture. (Massachusetts: MITPress, 1995). 44. Niels Einarsson, All Animals Are Equal but Some Are Cetaceans: Conservation and Conflict In Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, pp WiUett Kempton and James Falk, Cultural Models ofpfiesteria: Cultivating More Appropriate Risk Perceptions (Coastal Management 28,2000), pp Ibid., Ibid., 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 Paolisso and Erve Chambers, Culture, Politics, and Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms: the Anthropology ofpfiesteria (Human Organization 60,2001), pp Michael Paolisso, Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: ACultural Model for Understanding Watermen's Reasoning about the Blue Crab Manage ment (Human Organization 61,2002), pp 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 of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse, p Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropolog)'; Kay Milton, Envi ronmentalism and Cultural Theory. 55. Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory, p. 32.
48 Chesapeake Environmentalism Kay Milton, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, p Cf. William Cronon, ed.. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (New York: WAV. Norton &Company, 1996); John Bennett, The Ecolog ical Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1976). 58. William Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground. 59. Steven Daniel andgregg Walker, Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach (Connecticut: Praeger, 2001). 60. The Blue Crab Collaborative Learning Project was funded by Maryland Sea Grant. 61. Cf. Carol Crumley, ed., New Directions inanthropology and Environment (Cal ifornia: AltaMira Press, 2001).
49 References Bennett, John The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press. Blackistone, Mick Sunup to Sundown: Watermen ofthe Chesapeake.Annapo lis,maryland: BlueCrab Press Dancingwith the Tide:Watermen of the Chesapeake. Centreville, Maryland: Tidewater Publishers. Blount, BenG Key Wordsand Cultural Models in Representation of Environ mental Knowledge. Unpublished MS. Author's files. Boesch, Donald and Jack Greer,eds Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century. Edgewater, Maryland: An Independent Report of the Chesapeake Bay Programs Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Brosius, J. Peter Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from the Malaysian Rainforest. American Anthropologist: 101(1): Politics of Ethnographic Presence: Sites and Topologies in the Study of Transnational Movements. In Carole Crumley, ed.. New Directions in Anthropologyand Environment, pp WalnutCreek,California: AltaMira Press. Bryon, Gilbert The Lord'sOysters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press(original hardcover published in 1957). Chesapeake Bay Commission(CBC) Taking Actionfor the BlueCrab: Manag ing and Protecting the Stock and Its Fisheries. Report of the Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee. Annapolis, Maryland. Clifford, James and George Marcus, eds WritingCulture: The Poetics and Pol iticsof Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Costanza, Robert and Jack Greer The Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed: A Model for Sustainable Ecosystem Management? In Lance Gunderston, C.S. Holling,and Stephen S. Light, eds., Barriersand Bridges to Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press. Cronon, William, ed Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. NewYork: WAV. Norton 8c Company. Crumley, Carole,ed New Directions in Anthropology and Environment.Wal nut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
50 Curtin, Philip D., Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher, eds Discovering the Chesapeake: TheHistory of an Ecosystem. Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins Univer sity Press. D'Andrade, Roy The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Daniels, Steven and Gregg Walker Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Einarsson, Niels All Animals AreEqual but SomeAreCetaceans: Conservation and Conflict. In Kay Milton, ed., Environmentalism: The View from Anthropol ogy, pp: New York: Roudedge. Ernst, Howard Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman 8c Littlefield. Farnell, Brenda and Laura R. Graham Discourse-Centered Methods. In H. Rus sell Bernard, ed., Handbookof Methods in Cultural Anthropology, pp Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. Goodenough, Ward H Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. In P. Garvin, ed., Report of the Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting in Linguistics and Language Study. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, No.9. pp Wash ington, D.C.:Georgetown University. Gore, Al Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit New York: Plume/Penguin. Grove-White, Robin Environmentalism: A New Moral Discourse for Techno logical Society? In Kay Milton, ed.,environmentalism: The View fromanthropol og)', pp NewYork: Roudedge. Hannerz, Ulf Cultural Complexity: Studiesin the Social Organization of Mean ing. New York: Columbia UniversityPress. Harries-Jones, Peter Between Science and Shamanism: The Advocacy of Envi ronmentalism in Toronto. In Kay Milton, ed., Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, pp NewYork: Roudedge. Harwood, Richard Talking Tidewater: Writers on the Chesapeake. Chestertown, Maryland: The Literary House Press, Washington College. Horton, Tom An Island out of Time. NewYork: W.W. Norton 8c Company. 42
51 Kempton, Willett and James Falk Cultural Models of Pfiesteria: Cultivating More Appropriate Risk Perceptions. CoastalManagement28: Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster, and JenniferA. Hartley Environmental Val ues in American Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Kuper, Adam Culture: The Anthropologists' Account. Cambridge, Massachu setts: Harvard University Press. Lawson, Glenn The Last Watermen. Crisfield, Maryland: Crisfield Publishing Company Baykeeper. Alexandria, Virginia: ZAK Books. Michener, James A Chesapeake. New York: Random House. Milton, Kay Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. New York: Routledge Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse. New York: Routledge. O'Riordan,Timothy Environmentalism (2nd Edition). London: Pion. Paolisso, Michael Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A Cul tural Model for Understanding Watermen's Reasoning about Blue Crab Manage ment. Human Organization 61(3): a. Using Collaborative Learning, Cultural Models and Dialogue to Advance Co-Management Planning of Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Fishery. Research Proposal. Paolisso, Michael and R. Shawn Maloney Toxic Algal Blooms, Nutrient Runoff, and Farming on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Culture and Agriculture 21(3): Recognizing Farmer Environmentalism: Nutrient Runoff and Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms in thechesapeake Bay Region. Human Organization 59: Paolisso, Michael and Erve Chambers Culture, Politics, and Toxic Dinoflagel late Blooms: the Anthropolog)' of Pfiesteria. Human Organization 60:1-12. Peffer, Randall S Watermen. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress. Quinn, Naomiand DorothyHolland Cultureand Cognition. In Dorothy Hol land and Naomi Quinn, eds.,culturalmodels in Language and Thought, pp New York: Cambridge University Press. 43
52 Schmidt, Whitey The Chesapeake Bay Oyster Cookbook. Crisfield, Maryland: Marian Hartnett Press. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) Innovation in Agricul tural Conservation for the Chesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress and Addressing Future Challenges. Edgewater, Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisor)' Committee. Shore, Bradd Culture in Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Simpson, Tom A Citizen's Guide to the Water Quality Improvement Act of College Park: Maryland Cooperative Extension Program, University of Maryland. Strauss, Claudia and Naomi Quinn ACognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Stump, Brice N Unforgettable Treasures: People, Places andculture of the East ernshore. Virginia Beach, Virginia: The Donning Company Publisher. Taylor, Stephanie Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research. In Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J.Yates, eds.,discourse as Data: AGuide for Analysis, pp Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Vojtech, Pat Chesapeake Bay Skipjacks. Centreville, Maryland: Tidewater Publishers. Warner, William Beautiful Swimmers. New York: Little Brown 8c Company. Warren, Marion E. and Mame Warren Bringing Back thebay. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Wennersten, John R Maryland's Eastern Shore: A Journey in Time and Place. Centreville, Maryland:TidewaterPublishers. 44
53 Acknowledgments I would first like to thank Jonathan Kramer and Jack Greer of Maryland Sea Grant for their support and assistance with this monograph. I also want to recognize the watermen, farmers, and environmental professionals I have interviewed and worked with overthe past seven years for the time they have takento educateme about the Chesapeake Bay. Also due thanks is myanthro pology colleague, Erve Chambers, whose insights on applied anthropology and the Chesapeake Bay continually broaden and expand my professional horizons. Finally, the informationpresented in this monograph is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants , , and and the Maryland Sea Grant College, grant NA16RG2207.
54 About This Monograph Series This monograph is the first in a series entided Chesapeake Perspectives pro duced by the University of Maryland Sea Grant College to encourage researchers, scholars and other thinkers to share their insights into the unique culture and ecology of the Chesapeake Bay. Its audience includes environmental scientists and scholars, from marine biologists to cultural anthropologists, and a broad interested public that encompasses resource managers, watershed organizations and citizen advocates. For more about future books in the series and related topics, visit the web at umd.edu. Received ~"- National Sea Grant Library MAY Fish Rd, URI, GSO, 1 Pell Narragansett Rl02882 USA
55 National Sea Grant Library Pell Library Building Narragansett Bay Campus University of Rhode Island Narragansett, Rl USA
56 About the Author For nearly a decade Michael Paolisso hasstudied the cultures of farmers, watermen, and otherswho live and work near the Chesapeake Bay. An associate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Maryland, College Park, he hasalso conducted fieldwork in Latin America, East Africa, and Nepal. HisChesapeake research seeksto demonstrate howthecultural models we all bring with us in this case how we think about and relate to the environment have a direct bearing on howweuseand manage our natural resources. Paolisso teaches courses on culture and resource management, research methods, and cognitive anthropology. When notteaching orconducting anthropological research, his leisure pursuits include fishing, kayaking, running,and upending time with his wire and twin daughters,. Chesapeake Perspectives, amonograph writs produced by the Maryland Sea (..rant College, provide! a forum for researchers, scholars and other thinkers to share their insights into the unique culture and ecology of thechesapeake Bay. ISBN 0-V4367fi-b5-7 milliilinniiii inn 9ooo III III 111 III llllllll n " HJIi'lllllI II