Anthropologists define ‘naïve realism’ as the tendency for individuals to assume that other people view the world pretty much in the same way as he/she does. This is a form of ethnocentrism, which is the product of being centered in one’s own culture. But naïve realism is more extreme in that it is a belief that others should be like oneself. Each of us adopts this fallacy in a variety of situations from politics, to economics, to aesthetics. One realm in which it is easy to be naïve in such a manner is that of scholarly research.
I can share a recent example from my own research, a sizeable fraction of which relates to ‘applied paleozoology,’ the study of animal remains from archaeological and paleontological sites for the purpose of benefiting conservation biology. Animal remains from prehistoric sites can provide a multitude of information on the distributions and behaviors of wild animals deeper in the past, say, before the environmental impacts of modern humans. Applied paleozoologists, including myself, have been enamored with this perspective and we write and talk extensively amongst ourselves about its value. However, only recently have conservation biologists and ecologists begun to pay attention to our research.
The problem is that we have been enthusiastic about applied paleozoology within our own ranks, and, of course, we all agree that our point of view would be a valuable addition to conservation science. But, pragmatically speaking, conservation scientists have shown little interest because our applied paleozoological perspective can seem too idealized. For example, it can be demonstrated that the freshwater mussel community of the Upper Trinity River of north-central Texas was much different several hundred years ago. Many species that are sensitive to pollution, to channelization and to reservoir impoundment (damming) have simply disappeared. This makes sense because mussels are filter feeders that are directly exposed to water pollution. Further, these organisms are fairly sessile (non-mobile), and they disperse as juveniles by attaching (parasitically) for a time to fish. If rivers are dammed, those fish cannot move, and breeding opportunities for mussels decline. Although we might suspect these risks to mussels given their biology, we could not demonstrate the decline in sensitive species if we did not study the pre-modern paleozoological record.
So, what’s to be done? It is one thing to point out the problems, which applied paleozoologists regularly do, it is yet another to manage environmental change, to conserve threatened animal and plant populations, and to restore habitats. It is naïve and unrealistic for applied paleozoologists to think that our results are meaningful in isolation; it is unlikely, for example, that dams will/can/should be removed in north-central Texas because they store a huge supply of drinking water. Mussel conservation must occur in the context of political and social reality.
However, knowing the political reality of environmental management can be a boon for the applied paleozoologist who can suggest workable management actions when appropriate. For example, should lengthy sections of streams be found that have suitable habitat for mussels, perhaps those should be targeted for conservation and restoration. Or, from time to time, relict sub-communities of sensitive species are found intact; those could be targeted for conservation. Knowing the applied paleozoology of those communities aids environmental managers because those pre-modern conditions can be used as conservation targets when appropriate.
A couple of other thoughts. 1) In terms of being idealistic, I am guilty as charged (see this blog, for example); my applied paleozoological research is no exception. 2) A friend/ colleague of mine stated some years ago (and told me again recently) that our (applied paleozoologists’) impact will be most important at the ‘local level.’ When she told me this several years ago, I thought we should be concerned with the bigger picture of influencing the field of conservation biology. She is correct, environmental management happens at local scales, and the field of conservation biology may not do so. 3) Another friend/colleague/mentor of mine has suggested that the ‘political ecology’ of each situation must be considered when doing applied paleozoological research. What this means is that any conservation goal imbues a local, political reality that matters in terms of what conservation practices are possible. We cannot simply show up with ‘this is the way things were in the past prior to when the evil modern humans showed up and ruined everything’ and expect ‘change’ to happen. Finally 4) the big picture does matter, but the best way to make a difference is to act locally and publish the results for conservation scientists to see in widely distributed journals.
One could argue that naïve realism is the root of most social, environmental, political problems. Think about where different perspectives come from; being naively different may be the one thing that most people tend to have in common.
Thanks to Virginia and Lee for developing applied paleozoology.
0 comments:
Post a Comment