Circulating Stories: East Timorese in Australia and Questions of Post‐Independence Identity

During the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, diasporic groups played a central role in the campaign for self‐determination. Throughout the occupation, East Timorese in Australia maintained a strong sense of long‐distance nationalism, which drove, directly or indirectly, communal and social activities. The fight to free East Timor was at the core of the exiles' collective imagination, defining them as a largely homeland‐focused community. However, in the aftermath of the independence, the role and position of the diaspora have been less clear and the exiles have struggled to redefine their relationship with their home country. Personal experiences upon return and perceptions of political, cultural, economic, and social development (or lack thereof) have led to renewed questioning of identity and belonging. This article explores the renewed questioning of identity and belonging embedded in people's ‘circulating stories’ of change, sacrifice and return.     

THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE

In his thought‐provoking book, Alex Mesoudi argues for an evolutionary, unifying framework for the social sciences, which is based on the principles of Darwinian theory. Mesoudi maintains that cultural change can be illuminated by using the genotype‐phenotype distinction, and that it is sufficiently similar to biological change to warrant a theory of culture‐change based on evolutionary models. He describes examples of cultural microevolution, within‐population changes, and the biologically inspired population genetics models used to study them. He also shows that some aspects of large‐scale (macro‐evolutionary) cultural transformation can be studied by using ecological models and phylogenetic comparative techniques. We argue that although Mesoudi's evolution‐based perspective offers many useful insights, his ambition—the unification of the social sciences within a Darwinian framework through the use of the methods and models he describes—suffers from a major theoretical limitation. His reductive approach leads to overlooking culture as a system with emergent processes and features. Mesoudi therefore does not engage with any of the central past and present theories in sociology and anthropology for which the systems view of culture is central, and he does not analyze the emergent, high‐level properties of human cultural‐social systems. We suggest that a systems perspective, using some analogies and metaphors from developmental biology, can complement the evolutionary approach and is more in tune with a systems view of society. Such an approach, which stresses feedback and self‐sustaining interactions within social networks, and engages with the insights of sociological and anthropological theories, can contribute to the understanding of cultural systems by highlighting the evolution of processes of social cohesion, and by making use of the mathematical approaches of complexity theory.     

THE PROBABILITY OF THE IMPROBABLE: SOCIETY–NATURE COEVOLUTION

This article aims to show how evolutionary theory, social‐metabolism and sociological systems theory can be utilized to develop a concept of society–nature coevolution. The article begins with a conception of industrialization as a socio‐metabolic transition, that is, a major transformation in the energetic and consequently material basis of society. This transition to industrial metabolism was essential for the emergence and maintenance of industrial societies and is at the same time the main cause of global environmental change. The article proceeds by asking what the notion of society–nature coevolution can potentially contribute to understanding environmental sustainability problems. An elaborated concept of coevolution hinges on (1) a more precise and sociologically more meaningful concept of cultural evolution and (2) understanding how cultural evolution is linked to the environment. Next I briefly outline major lines of thought and controversies surrounding the idea of cultural evolution. The direction proposed here commences with an abstract version of Darwinian evolution, which is then re‐specified for social systems, understood as communication systems, as developed by Luhmann. The re‐specification implies three important changes in the theoretical outline of cultural evolution: first, shifting from the human population to the communication system as the unit of cultural evolution and to single communications as the unit of cultural variation; second, shifting from transmission or inheritance to reproduction as necessary condition for evolution; and third, shifting from purely internal (communicative) forces of selection towards including also environmental selection. Adopting elements from the work of Hägerstrand and Boserup, the primary environmental selective force in cultural evolution is conceptualized as the historically variable constraints in human time–space occupation. In the conclusions I tie the argument back to its beginning, by arguing that the most radical changes in human time–space occupation have been enabled by major socio‐metabolic transitions in the energy system.     

Evolutionary approaches in archaeology

Two evolutionary approaches in contemporary archaeology, selectionism and processualism, are compared in terms of their theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and empirical contributions. Selectionism is a tightly focused approach that aims to apply a strict Darwinian framework to the study of cultural evolution. The selectionists view cultural evolution as a shift in the relative frequencies of cultural traits; the evolutionary mechanism that brings this about entails undirected variation followed by selection in a manner analogous to biological evolution. Processualism is a more flexible approach that acknowledges the importance of variation and selection but employs these concepts in a broader framework that recognizes fundamental differences between cultural and biological evolution. Among them are the central roles played by directed variation and the hierarchical operation of selection in cultural evolution. As we enter the late 1990s, the selectionists appear comfortably ascendant while the processualists often seem in disarray—they appear less confident, more embattled, more internally diverse. This diversity and dynamism, however, may harbor great potential for further growth and development. It is suggested that processualism's ongoing ferment will spawn the evolutionary archaeology of the future.     

Cross-Cultural Approaches in Archaeology: Comparative Ethnology, Comparative Archaeology, and Archaeoethnology

Cross-cultural approaches have been used widely in archaeological research. Comparative ethnology has provided a number of archaeological indicators of behavior, but large segments of the archaeological record have not yet been subjected to extensive comparative analysis. Comparative archaeology has aided in exploring variation among societal types (such as chiefdoms) and categories within the archaeological record (such as settlements). Diachronic comparisons have been used frequently by archaeologists, but these have often been based on unique samples and only rarely have employed statistics to aid in the discovery or testing of hypotheses. Archaeoethnology, comparative analyses of archaeological cases employing valid samples and statistical evaluation of theories and hypotheses, is introduced.     

先秦时期珠江三角洲环境变迁与文化演进

本文利用考古材料和多学科的研究成果,分析了先秦时期珠江三角洲的环境变迁与文化演进的关系。文章指出,如果自然资源丰富、种类多样互补和易于攫取,也能发育丰富多彩的、甚至是分层化的擢取经济文化,珠三角网河平原南部的渔猎采集和北部的渔捞采集经济文化,就是两个典型的实例。东周时期冲积平原火耕水耨经济文化的发展繁荣,促成珠江三角洲这个自然地理单元形成文化地理单元,又说明合理的区域文化也不可长久背离人类文化的发展方向。     

论文化生态学的理论发展与新构架

本文本着批判地吸收不同学科领域有关文化生态的理论和方法,在系统论与生态观的指导下,积极发挥地理学研究文化生态学的优势,对文化生态学从基本概念到核心理论进行了重构,阐发了以文化生态系统为其研究对象、现代文化生态学的宏观、中观、微观研究领域观点。试图籍此完善文化生态学的理论体系并进一步增强其实践性。     

文化主体的文化自觉研究——以黟县居民为例

从文化自觉的视角,探讨文化自觉的生成机制以及文化主体的文化自觉意识与文化生态保护之间的互动关系,并以黟县为研究案例地,采用问卷调查的方式,分析当地居民对徽州文化生态的文化自沉意识。研究结果表明:总体上,黟县居民对徽州文化生态具有一定的文化自觉意识,但对具体的徽州文化生态认知及喜爱程度不高:居民的年龄、文化程度及是否具有旅游工作经验对居民的文化自觉意识存在显著性影响。最后提出应从内外两个方面着手提高居民的文化自觉意识。     

Typologies of Advantage and Disadvantage: Socio‐economic Outcomes in Australian Metropolitan Cities

Australia's metropolitan cities have undergone significant social, economic and demographic change over the past several decades. In terms of socio‐economic advantage and disadvantage these changes, which are often associated with globalisation, wider economic and technological restructuring, the changing demographics of the population and shifts in public policy are not evenly dispersed across cities, but represent a range of often contrasting outcomes. The current paper develops a typology of socio‐economic advantage and disadvantage for locations across Australian metropolitan cities. More specifically, the paper takes a range of Australian Bureau of Statistics data and uses a model‐based approach with clustering of data represented by a parameterised Gaussian mixture model and discriminant analysis utilised to consider the differences between the clusters. These clusters form the basis of a typology representing the range of socio‐economic and demographic outcomes at the local community level.