Native Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian

5. Rationality and Resource Use among Hunters: Some Eskimo Examples

It is axiomatic among anthropologists and an article of faith among Natives that indigenous North Americans lived in harmony with their environments prior to European contact. To the extent that this proposition is correct, it suggests that Native American peoples used highly rational approaches to, and held remarkably long-term perspectives in, their relationships with their environments. Beneath the mysticism and rhetoric usually associated with assertions concerning these matters lie two sets of important empirical questions. First, did Native Americans really fit into their surroundings as perfectly as is generally believed, and if so, why? Second, did Native Americans’ relationship to their surroundings deteriorate after contact with Europeans, and if so, why? These questions have been addressed in a number of recent publications (e.g., Hunn et al. 2003; Krech 1999; E. Smith and Wishnie 2000) but have not been answered to everyone’s satisfaction . The purpose of the present chapter is to contribute to the discussion with an analysis of data from two Inuit Eskimo populations, the early contact Iñupiat of northern Alaska and the Caribou Inuit of the central Canadian subarctic.1 Before proceeding, I wish to comment on the general approach taken here. Human ecology is the study of the interactions between humans and their nonhuman environment; each side contributes input to and receives output from the other. A complete ecological study must deal with both sides of the equation. Most studies of northern ecology, however, focus 5. Rationality and Resource Use among Hunters Some Eskimo Examples Ernest S. Burch Jr. 124 | ernest s. burch jr. primarily on the effect that the harsh environment has on people and on the human adaptations to that environment. It is known that, in the Arctic and subarctic, major fluctuations in the size of fish and game populations due to nonhuman factors could and did throw even the most well adjusted human populations out of harmony with their environments from time to time (Krupnik 1985). Thus, in an absolute sense, “ecological harmony” in northern regions was probably rare, and when it did occur it was short-lived (Krupnik 1993, 259–62). In the present chapter I am concerned solely with the human side of the equation—the effect people have on their environment. From this point of view, the extent to which ecological harmony may be said to exist depends upon the ability of humans to take advantage of the resources of a given environment on a sustained-yield basis. General Considerations As its title suggests, this chapter analyzes Inuit subsistence strategy in terms of its cognitive aspects. Cognition, for present purposes, is defined as “knowledge or understanding of the situation or of phenomena in general ” (Levy 1966, 217). Human action can be divided into several types based on its cognitive aspects (following Levy 1952, 242–45):2 1. Rational action: conscious action in which the objective and the subjective ends of action are identical and in which both means and ends are empirical.3 2. Nonrational action: all conscious action other than rational action. 3. Irrational action: nonrational action in which the objective and subjectiveendsofactionarenotidentical,althoughbothmeans and ends are empirical (e.g., ignorance and error). 4. Arational action: all nonrational action that is not irrational. (a) Methodologically arational action, in which the ends of the actor are empirical but the means are nonempirical, at least in part (e.g., magic). (b) Ultimately arational action, in which both the rationality and resource use among hunters | 125 ends and the means of the actor are at least in part nonempirical (e.g., religious action). It is important to keep in mind the fact that the rational/nonrational distinction refers to the opposite poles of a continuum rather than to a dichotomy . Furthermore, while action can be entirely nonrational, such as when a person goes berserk and kills someone, it can never be wholly rational ; ethical or aesthetic considerations and/or ignorance and error are always involved to some extent in what people do. Technically, therefore, acts should never be characterized as being either rational or nonrational but rather as being predominantly toward one pole or the other. The concept of “predominance” should be assumed in the use of those terms in this chapter, even though it is not always stated. An important consideration in the analysis of the cognitive aspects of action is the time frame toward which the actors are oriented. Over the very long term, all...