Where We Live, Work and Play: The Environmental Justice Movement and the Struggle for a New Environmentalism, by Patrick Novotny. London: Praeger (2000). Reviewed by Diane-Michele Prindeville
Bibliographic record
Abstract
hunters, they often misconstrue the hunters' thinking and way of life.Dahl has much to offer on this score, emphasizing that Inuit hunting is part of the modern way of life, embedded in a larger context, the Saqqaq community, Greenland, and the Danish state.Animal rights activists share the hunters' respect for animals and their concern with environmental problems, but in many other respects the two groups are likely to disagree.Trapped in objectivist Western discourse on science and the Other, animal rights activists make a fundamental distinction between "them" (indigenous hunters) and "us" (Euro-Americans), between nature and society, and between animals and humans.This contrasts sharply with the ways in which hunters themselves often represent their relations with society and the animate world.Thus, Inuit tend to think of themselves as being in communion with nature, animals, and fellow humans.In their view, there is no fundamental distinction between nature and society, animals are regarded as social persons, and to kill them is a sign of responsibility and not a criminal act, at least as long as certain technical and ritual conditions are met.The environmentalist view may express charitable and humanitarian motives.However, it is not an objective account of the real world but an ethnocentric statement grounded in the historical realities of particular groups of Euro-Americans.Overall, this is quite a useful book, covering a range of ethnographic issues in plain language devoid of unnecessary jargon.Not only will it be useful in courses on hunter-gatherer society, Inuit culture, and colonial and post-colonial history, it should be valuable as well for specialists in economic and ecological anthropology.As to the weaknesses and omissions of Dahl's account, I would have liked to see more on ethnographic comparison, Inuit conceptions of human-animal interaction, gender relations, and activities performed by Saqqaq women.Also, given the emphasis on "tradition" in both Inuit and observers' accounts, a more thorough discussion of "traditional knowledge," an issue only briefly addressed (p.228-9), should have been provided.Moreover, while Dahl provides perceptive observations of the hunting mode of production, some reference to recent critical engagements with Sahlins's thesis of the "original affluent society" would have been in order.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".