Traditional cultures and sustainable development

nomic and administrative action’ Habermas, 1987. Subsequent theorists have stylised modernity into a general model of evolutionary social development Coleman, 1968 in which the core societal goal is economic growth rather than survival in harmony with natural surroundings, and the dominant individual goal is achievement through income and consumption rather than through moral standing. An inevitable character- istic of modernisation for both Weber and his successors is the dramatic devaluation of tradition through universalisation of norms of action, gen- eralisation of values, and individual-based pat- terns of socialisation. Tradition has become, at best, a way of presenting the past as an increas- ingly scarce non-renewable resource and, at worst, an impediment to progress. Yet, an important postmodern insight is that tradition also concerns what Halbwach 1980 terms ‘pastness’ — a renewable resource of cur- rent validity Appadurai, 1981; Appadurai et al., 1991. The human values embodied in tradition are not only the ‘scars of the past’ but also the ‘portents of the future’ Pulliam and Dunford, 1980. One might even define postmodernity in terms of its separation of the cultural premises of modernity from its functional consequences; by challenging the validity of the former, post- modernity de-emphasises instrumental rationality and brings a shift in basic values towards what Inglehart 1997 calls ‘existential security’. The postmodern emphasis on subjective well-being, environmental protection and other quality of life concerns has led to a re-evaluation of tradition, reinforced by a tendency towards the removal of the artificial structures of nation-states in favour of more natural ethnic or spatial communities within a pluralist framework see Jones and Keat- ing 1995, for the case of the European Union. Despite the universalising tendencies of mod- ernisation, EU marginal areas retain traditional cultures 1 , exhibiting varying degrees of vigour, which potentially represent resources for alterna- tives to the modernist cosmopolitan mode of eco- nomic development. Yet, social analysis has largely been dominated by rational behaviour models which abstract economic action from its historical and cultural contexts. Even in early political economy, opinions on cultural diversity were ambivalent. J.S. Mill, for example, recog- nised Europe’s indebtedness for its ‘‘progressive and many-sided development’’ to the ‘‘plurality of paths’’ resulting from its cultural diversity Feyer- abend, 1987, p. 33; yet Mill also assumed that it would be unequivocally beneficial for minorities in Europe to be brought out of their own ‘‘little mental orbit … into the … current of the ideas and feelings … of more civilised and cultivated’’ majorities Kymlicka, 1995, p. 5. Furthermore, the importance of deciphering the structures and processes of the local and the temporal is an article of faith for postmodernism. The rest of this paper is in four sections. Some of the links between traditional cultures, territori- ality and sustainability are considered in Section 2. A powerful reason for the neglect of traditional cultures may lie in the absence of well-developed theoretical approaches to assessing their role, eco- nomic potential and policy implications, and one such approach is explored in Section 3. An alter- native to the direction taken by current EU agri- cultural policy is proposed in Section 4. Section 5 draws some conclusions.

2. Traditional cultures and sustainable development

In modern social analysis, attempts to take account of ‘culture’ have largely been confined to: i assuming that traditions inhibit entrepreneur- ship and constrain developmental economic activ- ity Hoselitz, 1952; Hagen, 1980; ii relating economic outcomes to societal or civic character- istics assumed to be the result of an historical accumulation of social capital Ishikawa, 1981; Putnam, 1993; or iii disentangling the complex interaction between economic performance and its cultural context as revealed in people’s attitudes and values Bauer, 1984; Inglehart, 1997. Never- 1 Although not all European regions contain thriving and distinctive traditional cultures, the strength of regionalism is considerable. An Assembly of European Regions was launched in 1985 with 107 members, and subsequent develop- ments include the 1994 formation of a Committee of the Regions. theless, ‘‘the conviction that ‘culture matters’ re- mains pervasive in the underworld of develop- ment thought and practice’’ Ruttan, 1988, p. 56, and its treatment on an intuitive rather than analytical level is ‘‘a deficiency in develop- ment practitioners’ professional capacity rather than …, evidence that culture does not matter’’ Ruttan, 1988, p. 256. A persistent view among economists is that culture can be subsumed in ‘tastes’ which are treated as given and outside the frame of economic analysis; that cultures are somehow separate from, and unaffected by, de- velopment values; and that cultural diversity is of no economic importance. Although the mod- ernist assumption of the cultural neutrality of progress has now been comprehensively under- mined by anthropological and historical research Toulmin, 1990, suggestions for relating cultural endowments to resources, technology and insti- tutions e.g. as in the induced innovation model of Hayami and Ruttan, 1985 tend to be illus- trative and preliminary. Anthropology is the social science for which ‘culture’ is the central, albeit disputed, analytical concept. Early anthropological definitions took a bounded and locational view of culture, stress- ing its behavioural, perceptual and material as- pects and, above all, its territoriality and association with specific communities Milton, 1996. With few exceptions, anthropologists have studied culture and its context at the local level, seeing the world as a ‘cultural mosaic’ Han- nerz, 1992 of traditional cultures and inherited values — a concept echoed in Norgaard’s ‘patchwork quilt’ view of cultures Norgaard, 1994. However, the greatly reduced importance of territorial boundaries in an age of increas- ingly available international communication has prompted post-structuralist anthropologists to abandon the traditional locational model and to see culture in unbounded and de-territorialised terms. This approach distinguishes culture’s non- observable elements perceptions, values, ideas and knowledge which colour people’s under- standing of experience from observable social processes and structures, and it focuses attention on the fact that culture is communicated through relationships rather than inheritance Hannerz, 1990. The result has been an exten- sion of the concept of culture to include hybrid cultures e.g. imported religious practices and beliefs that have merged with indigenous ones, de-contextualised cultures e.g. the vestiges of cultures retained by emigre´s and, most impor- tantly, ‘trans-national culture’ e.g. ‘Western’ or ‘modernist’ culture and cultures reflecting com- munities of interest e.g. the ‘cultures’ of inter- national bankers or academics. This shift to approaching culture in interpretative terms in re- sponse to the diminished importance of territo- rial boundaries has freed anthropology from its territorial focus and allowed it to consider cul- ture in a global context. It has, however, caused two important difficulties in a postmodern con- text in which tradition is being re-evaluated. The first is that the separation of knowledge from action recalling the Cartesian duality of mind body and humanitynature contrasts with much empirical observation, creates difficulties for so- cial science modelling of the links between cul- tural endowments, resources, technology and institutions, and is anathema to the philosophi- cal bent of many environmentalists. The second is that the de-territorialisation of culture ob- scures anthropological insights into the purpose of traditional cultures. To illustrate this, it is useful to examine the association negative or positive of culture with sustainability. Traditional, vernacular or territorial cultures are often perceived as positively associated with sustainable development for two sets of reasons. The first relates to the pervasive assumption of the existence, in non-industrial societies in partic- ular, of what Milton 1996 terms ‘primitive eco- logical wisdom’. Such wisdom is often assumed to vary inversely with the extent of traditional soci- eties’ external links. Dasmann 1976, for exam- ple, contrasted ‘ecosystemic’ societies living within a narrow range of ecosystems upon which they depend for survival and towards which they are presumed to behave responsibly, and ‘biospheric’ societies linked into global technological and trade systems and therefore less constrained to sustainable behaviour. The assumption of a causal link between ecosystemicness and sustainability has come to be associated with anti-industrial sentiments and feelings of sympathy for ‘back- ward’ indigenous populations under pressure from more ‘advanced’ majorities. It may also be the result of the casual observation that ‘ecosys- temic’ populations do not radically modify their environments over time, and of the desire for model solutions to sustainability problems. Clearly, primitive ecological wisdom is difficult to associate with non-traditional cultures, and mod- ern anthropology has sought to undermine it on the grounds that humans ‘‘have no natural propensity for living sustainably with their envi- ronment’’ Milton, 1996, p. 222. Rather than a cultural goal, ecological benignness may be an incidental outcome of factors such as low popula- tion density, remoteness, or lack of access to trade and technology. Nevertheless, for a significant proportion of humanity until comparatively re- cently, traditional practices appear to have led to a long-standing, yet highly productive, relation- ship with the land see King, 1933, for the exam- ple of East Asia. The second, more persuasive, set of reasons for viewing traditional cultures positively in the light of sustainable development results from the per- ception of such cultures as established ‘‘systems of values, beliefs, artifacts and artforms which sustain social organisation and rationalise action’’ Norgaard, 1994, p. 90. The systems view goes beyond cultures as collections of separable be- havioural, perceptual and practical phenomena and highlights their self-organisation and struc- tured and bounded relationships. General systems theory defines a system as a ‘‘complex unit in space and time whose sub-units co-operate to preserve its integrity, structure and behaviour’’ Weiss, 1971, p. 99. Individual systems are dedi- cated to the maintenance of the larger systems of which they are part and the smaller systems which comprise them as a pre-requisite for the preserva- tion of their own integrity and stability von Bertalanffy, 1962. The ‘integrity’ and ‘stability’ concepts strongly recall the Leopoldian ‘land ethic’ Leopold, 1994, while relations between sub-systems are of particular interest in the con- text of minority cultures — i.e. sub-national cul- tures of numerically weak populations within nation-states, usually located within specific geo- graphical regions, and frequently retaining their own language Eliot, 1948. When applied to cul- tures as systems, the systemic characteristics of self-preservation over time and dynamic inter-sys- tem relationships tend to have important implica- tions. These include implications for resource use materials recycling and cyclic food chains tend to be built into traditional cultures; social organisa- tion ties, relationships and obligations tend to be more important than individualism in societies with strong traditional cultures; external relations dependence on outside forces tends to be limited in a strategic attempt to maintain systemic homeostasis 2 ; and sustainability policy a cultural component cannot be removed from its context without disrupting the set of relationships within which it is embedded, nor imported into another context without disturbing the new surroundings. By contrast, de-territorialised non-traditional cultures generally have negative associations with sustainability because of their shortcomings as systems. The trans-national ‘culture of modernity’, in particular, although defended by some social philosophers such as Habermas Out- hwaite, 1996, has been savaged by many others such as Giddens 1990. 3 Their attack is largely centred on its technocratic, e´litist, and inherently globalising Cartesian tendency to replace a diver- sity of traditional ideas with the uniformity of cultural universals, and its assumption that people 2 The ability to maintain stability in the sense of both resistance and resilience by their own efforts Odum, 1969. A weakness of general systems theory in this context may lie in the presumption of systems’ homeostatic equilibrium with their environments, a presumption which, when applied to cultures, may fail to account for cultural change Norgaard, 1994. However, a co-evolutionary progression of social and environmental systems does not seem to preclude a dynamic equilibrium between a culture and its environment. 3 An argument is often made for a cosmopolitan alternative to cultural navel-gazing in a world of widening horizons, whereby individuals choose from a variety of ethno-cultural sources whilst avoiding dependence on any particular one Rushdie, 1991; Waldron, 1995. The argument seems spurious since such cosmopolitanism presumably relies on the existence of cultural diversity. from all traditions have access to the same cultur- ally-neutral basic conceptual framework. The cul- ture of modernity has become the third pillar alongside economics and politics in the ‘unholy trinity’ of mechanisms that integrate world sys- tems at a global level Wallerstein, 1990 without regard for local specificities. It is seen as a me´lange of disparate, contextless components with neither temporal nor locational foundation, where collective memories and generational suc- cession are unimportant, where no ‘sacred land- scapes’ or ‘golden ages’ are available for use as reference points Smith, 1990; Hamilton, 1994, and where reliance is placed on overwhelming technological and institutional force Jenkins, 1998. Under this view, the flows and relation- ships associated with the culture of modernity are the uni-dimensional ones of economic exchange and innovation, and its competitive success is associated with the high value attached to short- term rewards without regard for long-term conse- quences recalling the ‘defective telescopic faculty’ attributed to modern humanity by Pigou. In system terms, the culture of modernity suffers from lack of context and of sensitivity to its systemic environment, uni-dimensionality, uni-di- rectionality, and short-sightedness. A fundamental anthropological contention con- cerning the purpose of traditional cultures is that culture is interposed by humanity between itself and its environment in order to ensure its security and survival Carneiro, 1968 and to preserve lasting order Gans, 1985. The criterion for cul- tural ‘success’, therefore, can be seen in terms of what Rappaport 1971 terms ‘adaptive effective- ness’, under which cultures ensure adaptive hu- man behaviour in relation to a societal development path sanctioned by the collective conscience Harrison, 1927. Durham 1976, p. 101 suggests that cultural and biological traits co-evolve to enhance the ‘inclusive fitness’ of hu- manity in its environment: ‘‘By providing a means of adaptation which is both … constant in stable environments and … flexible in changing environ- ments, culture can … greatly enhance the ability of social behaviour to track environmental condi- tions’’. As a result, the evolutionary advantages of cultural diversity have received particular anthro- pological recognition Milton, 1996. Natural di- versity means diversity in the gene pools of species, more probability of adaptation to chang- ing conditions, and hence species’ survival under a wide variety of conditions. Cultural diversity strengthens natural diversity by enabling diverse ways of comprehending experience and interact- ing with environments, providing different possi- bilities for human futures Keesing, 1981, allowing more flexible use of global resources Jacob, 1982, and potentially leading to a variety of sustainable societies IUCN et al., 1991. Cul- tural diversity is also akin to intellectual diversity and multi-disciplinarity, the value of which is based on the assumption that understanding is increased when issues are viewed from different perspectives. In addition to servicing systemic reproduction and providing humanity with the behavioural means to evolutionary advantage, cultures have two more contentious instrumental roles. The first lies in their potential for mobilising collective energies 4 , emphasised in Weber’s 1976 focus on the ‘motivational’ aspects of culture for economic development. The second lies in their production of a sense of common destiny Smith, 1990 which underwrites social integration Bauman, 1989. This has led some to argue for culture as a ‘basic need’: ‘‘Among elementary human needs — as basic as those for food, shelter, security, procre- ation, communication — is the need to belong to a particular group, united by some common links — especially language, collective memories, con- tinuous life upon the same soil, … a sense of common mission’’ 18th century historian Johann Gottfried von Herder, quoted in Berlin, 1980, p. 252, 257. It also leads to the ‘social capital’ view of culture i.e. the importance of networks, trust and association derived from Alexis de Toc- queville Putnam, 1993; Day, 1996 which sug- gests that local cultures are important mechanisms in the dispersion of economic control and in increased local autonomy, both supported 4 Not necessarily benevolent ones, as the Nazi period in Germany Bramwell, 1989 and recent events in the former Yugoslavia have shown. by sustainable development theorists and the logic of Agenda 21, and facilitated by increasingly so- phisticated information technology. Both the mo- tivational and social capital roles of cultures resurface in current discussion of the economic position of disadvantaged regions in an increas- ingly competitive EU Committee of the Regions, 1996. In particular, it is argued that socially, cultural rootedness is based upon belonging rather than upon accomplishment and therefore forms a secure plank in the platform of human self-identity; politically, cultural vibrancy can be a stimulating source of cohesion and of long-term confidence that the networks involved are sustain- able over time; and economically, cultural assets are exploitable through product differentiation in the quest for market share. These can be signifi- cant factors in development, leading regions to make long-term investments and to forge eco- nomic relations with the outside world Bassand, 1993. In view of these important claims regarding the purpose and potential of traditional cultures, a culturally homogenous world appears unattractive in sustainable development terms. Although the continuing existence of traditional cultures in rural areas guarantees neither sustainability nor economic vibrancy, such cultures have character- istics which improve the probability of sustainable ways of living and developing. The sustainability debate has taught that economic, social and envi- ronmental problems and, more importantly, their solutions are as much cultural as technological and institutional. Cultural diversity, therefore, of- fers humanity a variety of ways of developmental interaction and avoids the difficulties associated with any monoculture — namely, a loss of mate- rial for new paths of economic, social and envi- ronmental evolution, and a danger that resistance to unforeseen problems is lowered. A policy re- quirement of cultural diversity seems justifiable, therefore, in general sustainable development terms; taking a Hicksian view of sustainability, cultural diversity increases the probability that human societies develop without undermining their economic, social or environmental capital bases.

3. Traditional cultures and endogenous development