人们如何看待自己在自然环境中的角色。滨海区悖论

Q3 Arts and Humanities
A. Pozanenko
{"title":"人们如何看待自己在自然环境中的角色。滨海区悖论","authors":"A. Pozanenko","doi":"10.20874/2071-0437-2022-58-3-15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the North, Siberia and the Far East, most villagers live in close connection with nature, primarily through using renewable natural resources. However, there is hardly any coverage in literature as to how people position themselves in relation to the surrounding nature. Even when the issue is raised, it addresses only indigenous peoples, and not all local inhabitants without reference to ethnicity. People living in different types of localities tend to have dissimilar perceptions of their role in the natural environment. For urban residents, we propose dis-tinguishing four main self-perception types: outsider (stays away from nature), visitor (e.g., holidaymakers, athletes, and tourists), user (e.g., anglers and gatherers of wild plants), and protector (various eco-activists). Residents of small towns and densely populated rural areas tend to perceive themselves mainly as users. Where the population density is low and natural resources are vital for sustenance, the basic perceptions are master and son. Masters believe they have exclusive rights to use the surrounding natural resources and claim to be doing it responsibly. Perceiving oneself as a son is mostly common for indigenous peoples; their discourse about respect for nature stems not only from a rational, but also sacred attitude. Field research on the east coast of Primorye revealed a self-perception untypical for villagers. Many locals call themselves thieves of natural resources. This means the subjective perception, and not objective differences in practices (doing the same thing, a person in the Russian North can consider himself a master, in Altai — a son, and in Primorye — a thief). We propose three reasons for this “Primorye paradox”. 1) Weak rootedness of the local population, spurring its turnover, which, in turn, makes it difficult to integrate into the natural landscape. 2) Saturation of the surroundings with outsiders, preventing to perceive the territory as “one's own”. The main outsiders are seasonal fishing crews from elsewhere; the Chinese; and crews of North Korean fishing vessels, whom the border guards treat more loyally than the local fishermen. 3) Constant pressure from the supervisory authorities. Primorye has a high concentration of hunting, plant, and aquatic biological resources. Business based on procuring natural resources is profitable, but according to the State, it is mostly illegal. If one can remain unnoticed in the taiga, on the water such chances are next to none. The situation is aggravated by a variety of specially regulated territories (federal and regional protected areas, maritime frontier regime, hunting grounds with different status), which expands the range of supervisory authorities.","PeriodicalId":36692,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Archeologii, Antropologii i Etnografii","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How people perceive their role in the natural environment. The Primorye paradox\",\"authors\":\"A. Pozanenko\",\"doi\":\"10.20874/2071-0437-2022-58-3-15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the North, Siberia and the Far East, most villagers live in close connection with nature, primarily through using renewable natural resources. However, there is hardly any coverage in literature as to how people position themselves in relation to the surrounding nature. Even when the issue is raised, it addresses only indigenous peoples, and not all local inhabitants without reference to ethnicity. People living in different types of localities tend to have dissimilar perceptions of their role in the natural environment. For urban residents, we propose dis-tinguishing four main self-perception types: outsider (stays away from nature), visitor (e.g., holidaymakers, athletes, and tourists), user (e.g., anglers and gatherers of wild plants), and protector (various eco-activists). Residents of small towns and densely populated rural areas tend to perceive themselves mainly as users. Where the population density is low and natural resources are vital for sustenance, the basic perceptions are master and son. Masters believe they have exclusive rights to use the surrounding natural resources and claim to be doing it responsibly. Perceiving oneself as a son is mostly common for indigenous peoples; their discourse about respect for nature stems not only from a rational, but also sacred attitude. Field research on the east coast of Primorye revealed a self-perception untypical for villagers. Many locals call themselves thieves of natural resources. This means the subjective perception, and not objective differences in practices (doing the same thing, a person in the Russian North can consider himself a master, in Altai — a son, and in Primorye — a thief). We propose three reasons for this “Primorye paradox”. 1) Weak rootedness of the local population, spurring its turnover, which, in turn, makes it difficult to integrate into the natural landscape. 2) Saturation of the surroundings with outsiders, preventing to perceive the territory as “one's own”. The main outsiders are seasonal fishing crews from elsewhere; the Chinese; and crews of North Korean fishing vessels, whom the border guards treat more loyally than the local fishermen. 3) Constant pressure from the supervisory authorities. Primorye has a high concentration of hunting, plant, and aquatic biological resources. Business based on procuring natural resources is profitable, but according to the State, it is mostly illegal. If one can remain unnoticed in the taiga, on the water such chances are next to none. The situation is aggravated by a variety of specially regulated territories (federal and regional protected areas, maritime frontier regime, hunting grounds with different status), which expands the range of supervisory authorities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Archeologii, Antropologii i Etnografii\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Archeologii, Antropologii i Etnografii\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2022-58-3-15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Archeologii, Antropologii i Etnografii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2022-58-3-15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在北方、西伯利亚和远东,大多数村民主要通过使用可再生的自然资源与自然密切联系。然而,在文学中几乎没有任何关于人们如何定位自己与周围自然的关系的报道。即使提出了这个问题,它也只是针对土著人民,而不是所有当地居民,没有提及种族。生活在不同地区的人们往往对自己在自然环境中的作用有不同的认识。对于城市居民,我们建议区分四种主要的自我感知类型:局外人(远离自然)、游客(如度假者、运动员和游客)、使用者(如垂钓者和野生植物采集者)和保护者(各种生态活动家)。小城镇和人口稠密的农村地区的居民往往认为自己主要是用户。在人口密度低、自然资源对维持生计至关重要的地方,人们的基本观念是主人和儿子。马斯特斯认为他们拥有使用周围自然资源的专有权,并声称自己是负责任的。土著人民普遍认为自己是儿子;他们关于尊重自然的话语不仅源于理性,而且源于神圣的态度。在滨海边疆区东海岸进行的实地调查显示,村民的自我认知并不典型。许多当地人称自己是自然资源的窃贼。这意味着主观的认知,而不是客观的实践差异(做同样的事情,一个人在俄罗斯北部可以认为自己是主人,在阿尔泰可以认为自己是儿子,在滨海边区可以认为自己是小偷)。对于这种“滨海悖论”,我们提出了三个原因。1)当地人口的根性较弱,导致人口流动,难以融入自然景观。2)外部环境的饱和,防止将领土视为“自己的”。主要的外来者是来自其他地方的季节性捕鱼队;中国;以及朝鲜渔船的船员,边防军对待他们比对待当地渔民更忠诚。3)来自监管部门的持续压力。滨海有高度集中的狩猎、植物和水生生物资源。以获取自然资源为基础的商业是有利可图的,但根据国家的说法,这大多是非法的。如果一个人能在针叶林中不被注意,那么在水面上这样的机会几乎为零。各种特别管制的领土(联邦和地区保护区、海上边界制度、不同地位的狩猎场)扩大了监督当局的范围,使情况更加恶化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How people perceive their role in the natural environment. The Primorye paradox
In the North, Siberia and the Far East, most villagers live in close connection with nature, primarily through using renewable natural resources. However, there is hardly any coverage in literature as to how people position themselves in relation to the surrounding nature. Even when the issue is raised, it addresses only indigenous peoples, and not all local inhabitants without reference to ethnicity. People living in different types of localities tend to have dissimilar perceptions of their role in the natural environment. For urban residents, we propose dis-tinguishing four main self-perception types: outsider (stays away from nature), visitor (e.g., holidaymakers, athletes, and tourists), user (e.g., anglers and gatherers of wild plants), and protector (various eco-activists). Residents of small towns and densely populated rural areas tend to perceive themselves mainly as users. Where the population density is low and natural resources are vital for sustenance, the basic perceptions are master and son. Masters believe they have exclusive rights to use the surrounding natural resources and claim to be doing it responsibly. Perceiving oneself as a son is mostly common for indigenous peoples; their discourse about respect for nature stems not only from a rational, but also sacred attitude. Field research on the east coast of Primorye revealed a self-perception untypical for villagers. Many locals call themselves thieves of natural resources. This means the subjective perception, and not objective differences in practices (doing the same thing, a person in the Russian North can consider himself a master, in Altai — a son, and in Primorye — a thief). We propose three reasons for this “Primorye paradox”. 1) Weak rootedness of the local population, spurring its turnover, which, in turn, makes it difficult to integrate into the natural landscape. 2) Saturation of the surroundings with outsiders, preventing to perceive the territory as “one's own”. The main outsiders are seasonal fishing crews from elsewhere; the Chinese; and crews of North Korean fishing vessels, whom the border guards treat more loyally than the local fishermen. 3) Constant pressure from the supervisory authorities. Primorye has a high concentration of hunting, plant, and aquatic biological resources. Business based on procuring natural resources is profitable, but according to the State, it is mostly illegal. If one can remain unnoticed in the taiga, on the water such chances are next to none. The situation is aggravated by a variety of specially regulated territories (federal and regional protected areas, maritime frontier regime, hunting grounds with different status), which expands the range of supervisory authorities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vestnik Archeologii, Antropologii i Etnografii
Vestnik Archeologii, Antropologii i Etnografii Arts and Humanities-Archeology (arts and humanities)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信