The anthropology view has two main models, interpretivism and materialism, that can help unravel this ‘default framing in sustainability.’ The framing focuses on individualized responsibility for environmental problems, but the analysis has to be done rigorously using this culture. We may expose the deep links between sustainability and people’s perceptions using the interpretive approach that focuses on cultural significance and the materialist approach that critically studies structure.
Anthropologists adopt the notion that they should explore various webs of symbolism and meaning to understand what makes people do certain things. This is revealed through cultural constructs of nature towards sustainability. For instance, in capitalist societies, nature is regarded as merchandise to be exploited for some monetary benefits (Pirgmaier, 2021). The cultural dimension instilled in society’s norms influences personal conduct and provides a frame for interpreting ideas of sustainability. This shifts the burden to persons, with the emphasis being placed on individual lifestyle decisions and consumer behavior. Reading sustainability through cultural glasses requires figuring out what symbols represent certain meanings for any society towards its environmental surroundings.
Green products have been commodified in the consumer culture as a representative phenomenon under the interpretive paradigm. Sarie et al. (2023) offer that this can be interpreted as reflecting a deep cultural understanding and incorporating it into consumer behavior where individual choices like choosing green products are emphasized. Nevertheless, this point of view often fails to capture the structural problems inherent in business organizational matters. As such, the interpretative approach serves as a mechanism for revealing the symbolic meaning assigned to sustainable development and presenting it not only as a common duty but also as a personal choice based on national culture.
Notably, the study of the Anthropocene also needs to use the interpretive lens. It is an anthropocentric era that epitomizes an existential dimension toward sustainable practices. Sarie et al. (2023) share that this perspective points out that cultural stories define the sustainable perspectives associated with human-caused environmental challenges. The interpretive perspective reveals how societies create stories influencing people’s perceptions of environmental duties towards a common meaning in sustainability problems.
By contrast, the approach in materialist anthropology turns our attention to the structural and economic forces behind human conduct. This lens is central to sustainability as it reveals how deep-rooted inequalities lead to environmental issues (Halvaksz, 2021). For example, one can evaluate corporate activities and lobbying, which are often identified as actual causes of ecological problems (Halvaksz, 2021). The materialist perspective seeks to move the discussion beyond personal choices and the individualization of responsibility, highlighting wider socio-economic influences on crime.
An analysis of the commoditization of nature, as seen through the lens of dialectic materialism, unveils how capitalistic societies shape ideas about sustainability. This economic structure puts most emphasis on profits while ignoring environmental needs (Homar & Cvelbar, 2021). As a result, people get shaped by these structural forces and develop personal behavior according to these capitalistic requirements. The organizational structure analysis highlights the inbuilt inequalities and the sustainability initiatives’ implications. As such, it takes a more critical look at the economic foundations supporting this ‘default framing for sustainability’ from the materialist perspective. It also provides insights into the policy-level considerations shaping the “default framing for sustainability.” This point of view involves looking at how the governance and economy shape environmental policies, which points to the systemic nature associated with sustainability issues. It emphasizes the importance of addressing the structural inequalities and policies that do not focus on personal choices.
In conclusion, the ‘default framing of sustainability in anthropology’ entails a complex concept derived from two perspectives, including interpretive and materialistic perspectives. Through these approaches, it becomes apparent how cultural perceptions relate to the structures that define the complexities around sustainability. Economic conditions and perceptions about sustainability shape cultural meanings.
References
Halvaksz, J. A. (2021). Environmental Anthropology. The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Anthropology, 245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921000082
Homar, A. R., & Cvelbar, L. K. (2021). The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics, 183, 106950.
Pirgmaier, E. (2021). The value of value theory for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 179, 106790. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445139/
Sarie, F., Muhtadi, M. A., & Fildansyah, R. (2023). Efforts to Enhance Anthropological Insights on Sustainable Practices in Human-Environmental Interactions in Central Java. West Science Social and Humanities Studies, 1(04), 162-170. https://wsj.westscience-press.com/index.php/wsshs/article/download/270/334
write