The subject of ecological anthropology is interpreted quite widely and usually varies in various versions; however, almost all authors emphasize its complexity. On the one hand, the intellectual and socio-historical progress achieved by people opened great opportunities for further development with the possibility of unlimited cultural and civilizational progress. On the other hand, there is the threat of an anthropological catastrophe due to the aggravation of social conflicts and globalization of environmental crises.
One of the most exciting issues that attracted attention in this course refers to the change in the attitudes to ecological anthropology. According to Kottak, ecological anthropology appeared in the 1960s as a direction led by Steward. This author focused on studying various patterns and methods of energy transmission and analyzed how to define different culture points as a unit of analysis. The environmental anthropologists have examined the notion that as ecological populations, people should become units of analysis, while culture – the means by which populations change and adapt to the environment. Thus, the direction of the so-called old ecological anthropology developed in the framework of the theory of systems and functionalism, attaching particular importance to feedback analysis.
It is important to learn that Kottak notes that the activists of the environmental dimension of anthropology, Rappaport, contributed to the shift of the analytical block of their research from the culture of the population. The fact that culture acted as the main means of adaptation to the environment was greatly facilitated by cultural materialism. In the view of the identified notion, it was especially useful to become aware of the alteration in the perception of ecological anthropology. Namely, the new environmental anthropology differs from the old one in that it takes into account not only the adaptive effect but also the participation of politics and value orientations. As a result, such a shift significantly changes the purpose, analytical unit, scale, and research method in the given field.
The concept of landscape in the context of social constructionism and environment is another impactful topic that was beneficial to increase one’s knowledge. As stated by the American scientist Greider and Garkovich, the landscape is known to be historical, cultural, and ethnographic. The scientific texts widely discuss the factors that influenced the change and development of the landscape, including its formation and protection. The methodological and theoretical base of the cultural landscape is analyzed in the article by the mentioned authors. The latter delves into the concept of integrated heritage conservation, considering the landscape resulting from the interaction of nature and culture. To outline the cultural relations of groups with nature and the environment, the theory based on a social perspective that covers aspects of the interaction of phenomenology with symbols is used.
Most importantly, it is possible to view the landscape as a symbolic environment created by man. When discussing the symbolic transformation of the environment, one can note that it can be presented as a social environment. Cultural groups socially construct the landscape as a self-reflection. In this process, social, cultural, and natural issues intertwine, becoming part of the symbolic sphere, with specific content provided by individual social groups. The technological development of society diminishes the role of the landscape, new symbols emerge, and the meanings and understandings of the previous ones begin to change. The cultural landscape is an element of the environment that is transformed substantially under human influence. Natural processes have a decisive influence on the natural landscape, whereas human activity does not have such obvious consequences. Cultural features of landscapes are shaped by individual factors, such as environmental management, land management, engineering networks, and ethnic and artistic creativity. This makes it possible to identify the main functional types of cultural landscape: rural and urban.
Thus, the key insight obtained from the discussed readings is that the phenomenon of cultural anthropology is dynamic and complex. Its definitions and components may change with time, under the impact of people, technology, and natural resources. The landscape, as the symbolic representation of human beings, can be used as the basis for considering the environmental issues that are translated via social media, media, and professional areas. It is possible to suggest that the discussed insights can facilitate a deeper understanding of the human-environment interactions.