Skip to main content

Nature Reverence does not mean Conservation in Tribal Rajasthan: Culture, Cognition, and Personal and Collective Commitments to the Environment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Faunal Heritage of Rajasthan, India

Abstract

We discuss why nature reverence and pro-environmental thinking among indigenous peoples inhabiting a Wildlife Sanctuary in southern Rajasthan does not translate into more actual conservation practice. We point to the way that the post-Independence dispossession of these peoples from their lands has resulted in a failure of institutional organization and collective action. Lacking locally meaningful institutions for monitoring and policing forest resource use, even individuals personally committed to conservation lose the will to behave responsibly with regard to their forests. We use this discussion to refine a cognitive anthropological framework of the environment that prioritizes both individual commitment and social organization and that attempts to understand how local beliefs and values intersect with, and are constrained by political contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Magra means mountain in local tribal dialects, and baoji, though widely used to refer to deities and spirits, is more generally “a term of respect also used for elders who possessed supernatural knowledge” [1].

  2. 2.

    See [2126] for our own work in this regard.

  3. 3.

    For a survey of this work, see Kempton [8].

  4. 4.

    The description and analysis of traditional ethnobiological knowledge systems—and mainly ethnobotanical and ethnozoological knowledge—is still a vibrant project within cognitive anthropology, as demonstrated by the contemporary societies and journals devoted to this topic. See, for example, the Journal of Ethnobiology produced by the Society of Ethnobiology and also the International Society of Ethnobiology.

  5. 5.

    This follows the more prosaic, yet nevertheless important and time-intensive, agenda of documenting the wide range of cultural models found within America and elsewhere. On this change in research agenda, see D’Andrade [2, 7]; D’Andrade and Strauss [36]; Hutchins [20]; Kempton [8]; Strauss and Quinn [6].

  6. 6.

    They are “scheduled,” along with India’s low status and formally untouchable caste communities, for government aid programs aiming to alleviate poverty and “backwardness.”

  7. 7.

    See, for example, Snodgrass [44].

  8. 8.

    For example, studies of the relation between religion and “environmental concern” such as Guth, Green, Kellstedt, and Smidt [47]; Hayes and Marangudakis [48]; and Schultz, Zelezny, and Dalrymple [49].

  9. 9.

    Interviews were usually conducted in Mewari, a Rajasthani dialect and lingua franca in the area, rather than in Hindi or in the particular Bhili or other tribal dialects spoken in the sanctuary.

  10. 10.

    Spotted Deer (Chital, Axis axis), Swamp Deer (Barasingha, Cervus duvauceli), Bluebull (Nilgai, Boselaphus tragocamelus), and other large mammals are no longer found in the sanctuary due to overhunting and habitat loss; Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) and other smaller game animals, such as (Chinkara, Gazella bennettii), are only rarely seen.

  11. 11.

    This reverses the pleas of other environmental and ecological anthropologists to devote more attention to nature and ecological processes in their studies of the interactions of human populations with the environment. See, for example, Moran [53].

  12. 12.

    The phrasing here is taken from a personal communication from Roy D’Andrade. In the same communication, D’Andrade points out that “all collective beliefs and models are shared, but some shared beliefs and models are not collective. Thus, Americans share the idea that other Americans have materialistic values (which is not true). But you don’t have to believe this, and Americans don’t know that other Americans think this, so it is not a collective belief.”

  13. 13.

    The entire “tragedy of the commons” literature (e.g., McCay and Acheson [38]), not to mention the burgeoning subfield of political ecology more generally (e.g., Robbins [60]), explores the way that institutional lacunae can lead to overexploitation of the environment.

References

  1. Unnithan-Kumar M (1997) Identity, gender and poverty: new perspectives on caste and tribe in Rajasthan. Berghahn Books, Oxford, p 216

    Google Scholar 

  2. D’Andrade R (1995) The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 288

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Holland D, Quinn N (1987) Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 416

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Shore B (1996) Culture and mind: cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 448

    Google Scholar 

  5. Strauss C, Quinn N (1994) A cognitive/cultural anthropology. In: Borofsky R (ed) Assessing cultural anthropology. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 284–300

    Google Scholar 

  6. Strauss C, Quinn N (1997) A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 329

    Google Scholar 

  7. D’Andrade R (2006) Commentary on Searle’s ‘Social Ontology’: some basic principles. Anthropol Theo 6(1):30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kempton W (2001) Cognitive anthropology and the environment. In: Crumley C (ed) New directions in anthropology and environment: Intersections. Altamira, New York, pp 49–71

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fillmore C (1975) An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society pp 123–131

    Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental models. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 513

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 42

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 242

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mandler JM (1984) Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 144

    Google Scholar 

  14. Minsky M (1975) A framework for the representation of knowledge. In: Winston PH (ed) The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 121–277

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rosch E (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J Exp Psychol 104:192–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rumelhart DE (1980) Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In: Spiro RJ, Spiro B, Bruce C, Brewer WF (eds) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 33–58

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schank R, Abelson R (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 256

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bloch M (1985) From cognition to ideology. In: Fardon R (ed) Power and knowledge. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, pp 21–48

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bloch M (1998) How We Think They Think. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 216

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 381

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ross A, Sherman KP, Snodgrass JG, Delcore H, Sherman R (2010) Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature: knowledge binds and institutional conflicts. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp 213–226

    Google Scholar 

  22. Snodgrass JG, Tiedje K (2008) Introduction to JSRNC theme issue. Indigenous nature reverence and conservation: Seven ways of transcending an unnecessary dichotomy. J Stud Rel Nat Cult 2(1):6–29

    Google Scholar 

  23. Snodgrass JG, Sharma SK, Jhala YS, Lacy MG, Advani M, Bhargava NK, Upadhyay C (2007) Beyond self-interest and altruism: herbalist and leopard brothers in an Indian wildlife sanctuary. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12(5):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Snodgrass JG, Sharma SK, Jhala YS, Lacy MG, Advani M, Bhargava NK, Upadhyay C (2008) Lovely leopards, frightful forests: The environmental ethics of indigenous rajasthani shamans. J Stud Rel Nat Cult 2(1):30–54

    Google Scholar 

  25. Snodgrass JG, Sharma SK, Jhala YS, Lacy MG, Advani M, Bhargava NK, Upadhyay C (2008) Witch hunts, herbal healing, and discourses of indigenous eco-development in north India: theory and method in the anthropology of environmentality. Am Anthropol 110(3):299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tiedje K, Snodgrass JG (Eds.) (2008) J Stud Rel Nat Cult (Special issue). Indigenous Nature Reverence and Environmental Degradation: Exploring Critical Intersections of Animism and Conservation 2(1):5–159

    Google Scholar 

  27. Berlin B (1992) Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ

    Google Scholar 

  28. Boster J, Johnson JC (1989) Form or function? A comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. Am Anthropol 91(4):866–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Berlin EA, Brent B (1996) Medical ethnobiology of the highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico: the gastrointestinal diseases. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJMexico

    Google Scholar 

  30. Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp 209

    Google Scholar 

  31. Atran S, Medin D (1997) Knowledge and action: cultural models of nature and resource management in Mesoamerica. In: Bazerman M et al (eds) Environment, ethics, and behavior. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, pp 171–208

    Google Scholar 

  32. Medin D, Atran S (1999) Folkbiology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kempton W, Boster JS, Hartley JA (1995) Environmental values in American culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 320

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nazarea Virginia D (1999) In: Nazarea VD (ed) Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 91–106

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nazarea Virginia D (ed) (1999) Ethnoecology: Situated knowledge/located lives. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 299

    Google Scholar 

  36. D’Andrade R, Strauss C (eds) (1992) Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chernela JM (1987) Endangered ideologies: Tukano fishing taboos. Cult Surviv Quart 11(2):50–52

    Google Scholar 

  38. McCay B, Acheson J (eds) (1987) The question of the commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rappaport Roy A (1984) Pigs for the ancestors: Ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea People’s prospect heights. Waveland Press, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  40. Romney AK, Batchelder WH, Weller SC (1987) Recent applications of cultural consensus theory. Am Behav Sci 31:163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH (1986) Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am Anthropol 88:313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Norbert R (2006) Culture and cognition: Implications for theory and method. Sage, New York, pp 374

    Google Scholar 

  43. Weller Susan C (2007) Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods 19(4):339–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Snodgrass Jeffrey G (2006) Casting kings: Bards and Indian modernity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 256

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Dressler WW, Balieiro MC, Ribeiro RP, Dos Santos JE (2007) Cultural consonance and psychological distress: Examining the associations in multiple cultural domains. Cult Med Psychiatry 31:195–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bhatnagar R et al (2003) Management plan of phulwari wildlife sanctuary. Forest Department Rajasthan, Jaipur

    Google Scholar 

  47. Guth J, Green J, Kellstedt L, Smidt C (1995) Faith and the environment: religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. Am J Pol Sci 39:364–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hayes B, Marangudakis M (2001) Religion and attitudes toward nature in Britain. Brit J Soc 52:139–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Schultz PW, Zelezny L, Dalrymple N (2000) A multinational perspective on the relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental concern. Environ Behav 32:576–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rolston H (1988) Environmental ethics: duties to and values in the natural world. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 400

    Google Scholar 

  51. Smith E, Wishnie M (2000) Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Ann Rev Anthropol 29:493–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Searle John R (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New York, pp 256

    Google Scholar 

  53. Moran Emilio F (2000) Human adaptability: An introduction to ecological anthropology. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 446

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sperber D (1985) Anthropology and psychology: Towards and epidemiology of representations. Man 20:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sperber D (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 169

    Google Scholar 

  56. Spiro Melford E (1987) Collective representations and mental representations in religious symbol systems. In: Kilbourne B, Langness LL (eds) Culture and human nature. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 161–184

    Google Scholar 

  57. Krech S III (1999) The ecological Indian: Myth and history. W.W. Norton, New York, pp 149

    Google Scholar 

  58. Krech S III (2005) Reflections on conservation, sustainability, and environmentalism in indigenous North America. Am Anthropol 107(1):78–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hunn Eugene S (1982) Mobility as a factor limiting resource use in the Columbia plateau of North America. In: Williams NM, Hunn ES (eds) Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter-gatherers. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 17–43

    Google Scholar 

  60. Robbins P (2004) Political ecology: A critical introduction. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 242

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research was sponsored by Colorado State University and by the National Geographic Society (Grant #7791-05: “Spreading Saffron: Ritual & Forest Conservation in Rajasthan, India”). Special thanks go to the many employees of the Rajasthan Forest Department and the government of India who supported our research in so many diverse ways. Thanks also for academic support offered by Bhupal Nobles’ PG College (Udaipur) and Mohanlal Sukhadia University (Udaipur). We also thank the American Institute of Indian Studies (New Delhi) for hospitality and the arrangement of research permissions. Special thanks go to the MA students from Bhupal Nobles’ PG College (Udaipur, Rajasthan) who administered our questionnaire: Durga Singh Chundawat, Lalit Kumar Jain, Naresh Jain, Fateh Singh Jhala, Tribhuvan Singh Jhala, and Arvind Singh Rathore.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey G. Snodgrass .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Snodgrass, J.G., Sharma, S.K., Lacy, M.G. (2013). Nature Reverence does not mean Conservation in Tribal Rajasthan: Culture, Cognition, and Personal and Collective Commitments to the Environment. In: Sharma, B., Kulshreshtha, S., Rahmani, A. (eds) Faunal Heritage of Rajasthan, India. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01345-9_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics