Content

Lana Peternel, Marija Vukšić, Cultural Models of Sustainability in a Post-Transitional Society in:

Anthropos, page 151 - 162

Anthropos, Volume 115 (2020), Issue 1, ISSN: 0257-9774, ISSN online: 0257-9774, https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2020-1-151

Browse Volumes and Issues: Anthropos

Bibliographic information
PDF download Citation download Share
ANTHROPOS 113.2018: 395 – 422 Abstract. – The once more-or-less exclusively pastoral Todas of the Nilgiri Mountains in South India still retain vibrant beliefs in gods and goddesses they say once lived among them but thereafter became mountains; they tell also of ancestors who were once living Todas but subsequently became divinities. Beyond such indigenous convictions, Todas have absorbed a plethora of Hindu beliefs and ritual practices. Christian ideology has been propagated among Todas, with foreign-led Christian missionaries succeeded in establishing a breakaway Toda Christian community. But notwithstanding the many divergent sources of Toda religious ideology, the predominant and most public display of Toda ritual activity (apart from among Christian Todas) still centres on their unique sacred dairying cult, despite the rapid decline in the importance of buffaloes in the community’s modern-day economic life. This, together with their exclusively Toda deities and culture heroes seems to suggest a unique ethnic religion, frequently categorized as “non-Hindu.” But demonstrably Indic (therefore, if only loosely, “Hindu”) principles permeate Toda ritual activity. Most notable are the concepts of hierarchy and purity and those of prescribed ritual avoidance coupled with required ritual cooperation. In sum, Toda religion – like the Toda community itself – is at once unique and, at the same time, thoroughly Indic. [South India, Nilgiri Mountains, Toda] Anthony Walker, an Oxford-trained social anthropologist, retired as Professor of Anthropology at the University of Brunei Darussalam in 2011 and now lives in Kandy, Sri Lanka. His peripatetic career has included teaching positions at the Science University of Malaysia in Penang, the National University of Singapore, The Ohio State University, and the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. – He began his, still-ongoing, field studies with the Todas in 1962 and has also conducted long-term field research (since 1966) on the Tibeto-Burman speaking Lahu peoples of the Yunnan-Indochina borderlands. – For his major publications on the Todas see References Cited. The Todas believe in their Goddess Thekershi (Tö·kisy1). They worship Goddess Thekershi for protection during their eternal (perhaps “mortal” was intended) existence and they also worship God Ayan (Ö·n) to protect them after death. The Todas do not observe idol worship. Todas worship light, fire, mountains, trees, rivers, sky, sun, and moon, which are believed to be the major creations of their Goddess Thekershi.2 1 Introduction In his recent book “Religion. An Anthropological Perspective” (2015: 9), Professor Homayun Sidky, my much esteemed former PhD student at The Ohio State University, claims: “no single definition has been able to capture the entire picture” of the religious phenomenon. “For this reason”, Sidky writes, “some argue that religion is best thought of as a multifaceted phenomenon with many interpenetrating dimensions as opposed to being viewed as a unitary occurrence.” This indeed is my interpretation of religion as understood and practised by the once more-or-less exclusively pastoral Toda community 1 The orthography of Toda in this essay follows that of Murray Emeneau (1957: 19; 1984: 5–49), except that I have added hyphenation where I feel this might assist non-specialists with pronunciation, hence my To·r-θas and Töw-fił̣y, where Emeneau has To·rθas and Töwfił̣y. (Note, however, that I do not add hyphenation to Toda words when quoting directly – as I do frequently – from Emeneau’s various works. Further assistance with the pronunciation of Toda words rendered in Emeneau’s transcription can be had from Tarun Chhabra’s “A Guide for the Transliteration of Toda” in his 2015 book “The Toda Landscape,” pp. xxxvii–xliii. 2 From the pen of Pöḷ-xe·n, son of Mut-iŝky – his name anglicized as Pellican (n. d.) – a member of Ka·s patriclan, first president of the Nilgiri Toda Uplift Society, high school graduate and literate both in Tamil and English. The Diverse Faces of Toda Religion Anthony R. Walker ANTHROPOS 115.2020: 151–162 Cultural Models of Sustain bility in a Post-Tra sitional Society Development of Green Economy in Croatia Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšić Abstract. – By following the anthropological theoretical ac‐ count and multi-methodological approach, we analyze sustain‐ ability as a cultural model that reveals individual and group ex‐ perience and notions of development in a changing post-transi‐ tional context. Despite the fact that sustainability is a complex cultural concept, in this study actors engaged in green economy unambiguously claimed negative attitudes towards profit and growth, along with positive attitudes towards development of innovative education based on “degrowth” strategies and orien‐ tations. Cultural elements of three domains that refer to sus‐ tainable values, governmental role, and working environment serve as strong predictors of and conditions for sustainable and future oriented societies. [Croatia, cultural model of sustain‐ ability, sustainability values, cultural consensus, future orien‐ tated societies] Lana Peternel, PhD in Anthropology (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, 2009); research fel‐ low at the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb.– Her main fields of interest include cultural and applied anthropology, along with interdisciplinary anthropology focused on inequali‐ ties and sustainability issues f om iverse perspectives. – Pub‐ lications include: “Complexity of Inner Belonging. Notio s of Belonging and Alienation amo g A olescents in Croatia” (2018); with A. Malnar, and I. Martinović Klarić: “Content and Distribution of Cultural K owl dge about Leisure Time, Social Participation, and Material Goo s. Sig ificance for H listic Anthropological Research of Psychosocial Stress in Croatian Youth” (2017); and with A. Sujoldžić: “Adolescents Eating Be‐ havior, Body Image, and Psychological Well-Being” (2009). – See also References Cited. – Email: lanapeternel@idi.hr Marija Vukšić, M.A. (in Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb). – She is currently enrolled in postgraduate doctoral study in Humani‐ ties at the University of Zadar in Croatia. Her work is in the field of Medical Anthropology along with Sociolinguistics. Introduction Sustainability is a contested, culturally bounded phenomenon that varies among societies implying inner cultural values and concepts of equity, im‐ provement, and well-being. Previous empirical ap‐ proaches emphasized the significance of sustain‐ ability as developmental outcome that affected cultural changes and cultural practices worldwide (Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2013; Domazet and Marinović Jerolimov 2014: 20). Following that presumption, in this study we presumed that an anthropological perspective of the people en‐ gaged in sustainable or green economies and their individual perspective and experience elucidate social, economic, and cultural changes influenced by different post-transitional processes in Croatia (Denona Bogović, Drezgić, and Čegar 2016; Stubbs 2013). We recognized that despite of the cultural embed‐ dedness of environme tal and sustainable values, ethnographic perspectives rooted in analysis of cul‐ tural models of sustainability are neglected in re‐ cent anthropological research. By applying the an‐ thr pological perspective, ba ed on b th qualitative and quantitative paradigm, cognitive anthropology and cultural consensus, we create an analytic ap‐ proach focused on cultural models of sustainability that repre ent eoples’ knowledge, attachments, and exp ri nces in the use of natural, e viro men‐ tal, and cultural resources. Their activities and practices mirror current aspirations and expecta‐ tions in economic and social development bridging 1 Anthropos 115.2020 the gap between historical and future perspectives on conventional or sustainable economies. However, two specific research aims of this study are defined: 1) to describe a cultural mod‐ el(s) of sustainability in post-transitional society of Croatia; 2) by applying cultural consensus ana‐ lysis to measure the level of sharing the sustain‐ able cultural model. By using a theoretical per‐ spective of cognitive anthropology and cultural consensus along with diverse methodological tools, we show specific knowledge, cultural val‐ ues, and practice in changing the social and politi‐ cal context in Croatia. The changes in the political system and the economies in the 1990 s in Eastern, Central, and Southeastern Europe, including former Yugoslavia and present-day Croatia, initiate and open a dialog about sustainable development in the “European Semi-Periphery” (Domazet and Marinović Jerolimov 2014). In the sociological theoretical approach “semi-periphery” marks those countries, such as Croatia, as geographically positioned be‐ tween “core” and “peripheral” countries, semi-or‐ ganized, having potential for technological, social, and organizational development and dominance (Domazet and Marinović Jerolimov 2014: 20). Stubbs claimed that there is an opportunity for Croatia to transform the dominant “growth paradigm and to think about the development of a more sustainable and inclusive eco-social policy” (2013). Insights based on anthropological studies of “semy-peripheral” or “peripheral” and “core” societies do not support the unilineal point of view encoded in the evolutionary progress with defini‐ tive beginnings and endings (Peternel, Malnar, and Martinović-Klarić 2014). Moreover, anthropologi‐ cal critique clearly illuminates the importance of describing and understanding the liminal spaces and their cultural practices that can contribute to the knowledge construction along with dissemina‐ tion (Peternel, Malnar, and Martinović-Klarić 2014). Research studies on the everyday practices of “ordinary” people in various cultural contexts describe sociological, political, economic, and cul‐ tural transitions as uncertain and unpredictable processes (e.g., Burawoy and Verdery 1999) char‐ acterized by “contradictory, paradoxical, and am‐ biguous” changes (Berdahl, Bunzl, and Lampland 2000; Hann 2007). Sustainability Theories: Anthropological Approach Passerini in her article “Sustainability and Sociol‐ ogy” (1998) argues that sociology has many im‐ 1.1 portant assets with which it could tackle the prob‐ lems of sustainability, in comparison to other dis‐ ciplines. In this article here, we complement her argument with the argument that anthropology also has many important assets it could use to ana‐ lyze the contemporary issues of sustainability in a changing context, especially using cultural con‐ sensus analysis. Barlett in her article “Reason and Reenchantment in Cultural Change” (2008) writes about her research among participants in the Pied‐ mont Project – a faculty development program for sustainability across the curriculum at Emory Uni‐ versity. She notes that higher education “provides a good laboratory for innovation in sustainability and an opportunity to document and assess the process of social transformation” (2008: 1078). Also, Cleveland (1998) theorizes about agricultur‐ al anthropology and the sustainability of small‐ holder in contrast to industrial agriculture models on a global scale searching new trajectories for the twenty-first century. Dove and Kammen (2015) use both a scientific and an anthropological ap‐ proach to rethink the issue of sustainability. They analyze political-economic dynamics of “vernacu‐ lar” landscapes, moral economy, and the evolution of the global discourse of the culpability and re‐ sponsibility of climate change. The diversity of sustainability-related topics from educational to industrial issues emphasize that there are many different approaches to understanding sustainabili‐ ty (e.g., Orlove and Caton 2010; Ababio 2006). Despite that fact, sustainability as a phenomenon along with well-being and economic growth is still in a very focus of current political and economic debate focusing on future-oriented societies and cultures. Although anthropology is largely associated with empirical research, through time it has ac‐ quired many different methods of research. In an‐ thropology, methods for sampling, methods for collecting data, and methods for analyzing data have to be done twice, “once for qualitative data and once for quantitative data” (Bernard 2006: 1). The anthropological approach we use is anthropo‐ logical in a sense that we attempt to understand “sustainability” as a “total social fact,” a term coined by Mauss (2002) and that can be simply defined as “an activity that has implications throughout society, in the economic, legal, politi‐ cal and religious spheres” (Edgar 1999: 64) rather than focusing on only one aspect of sustainability, and that we attempt to grasp it as a whole. Such understanding is achieved through different inter‐ disciplinary methodologies and theories, such as the identity theory, cognitive anthropology, cultur‐ 152 Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšic Anthropos 115.2020 al consensus analysis, qualitative data analyses, and free listing. Quantitative approaches that were used make it possible to determine reliability, va‐ lidity, and quality of data, while qualitative methodology is less reductionist, in a sense that it reveals more about “the social and cultural con‐ texts in which values are shaped” (Burgess, Limb, and Harrison 1988: 309). Cognitive Anthropology: Theory of Cultural Consensus The relationship between culture and individual outcomes in different cultural domains has long been a subject of considerable interest and a per‐ sistent theoretical and methodological challenge.1 Connecting culture as an aggregate and collective phenomenon with individual beliefs, behavior, and values has become more feasible with the theoreti‐ cal and methodological breakthroughs in cognitive anthropology, and especially since the develop‐ ment of the theories of cultural consensus (Rom‐ ney, Weller, and Batchelder 1986) and cultural consonance (Dressler 1996). In the cognitive anthropological perspective, culture is regarded as learned and shared knowl‐ edge structured in terms of overlapping and inter‐ connected sets of cultural models for various do‐ mains of life.2 The cultural model of an everyday life is a schematized and modular representation of different elements of all domains. Although in‐ dividuals vary in terms of their knowledge encod‐ ed in cultural models, their motivation, and their ability to act in accordance with the cultural mod‐ el, this knowledge is widely shared by members of the same group. Indeed, the most frequently shared aspects of knowledge or belief may be con‐ sidered as the culture of a group (D’Andrade 1987). “A cultural domain is any organized focus of discussion in a society (e.g., the family, reli‐ gion, soccer)” (Dressler 2012: 391), and re‐ searchers should attempt to identify important, central, over-reaching, or organizing domains (Caulkins 2004: 319). The second theory that we applied is cultural consensus theory (Kronenfeld et al. 2011). As a theory “it specifies the conditions under which agreement between people can be seen as a sign of knowledge” (Borgatti and Halgin 2011: 1171). It 1.2 1 E.g., Dressler (1995); Dressler, Campos Balieiro, and Dos Santos (1997, 1998, 1999); McDade and Worthman (2004); McDade, Stallings, and Worthman (2000). 2 D’Andrade (1981, 1995); Goodenough (1996); Holland and Quinn (1987); Shore (1996); Strauss and Quinn (1997). creates a method “of conceptualizing and coping” with individual variability (Borgatti and Halgin 2011: 1171; Kronenfeld et al. 2011). Borgatti and Halgin clearly pointed out three most significant aspects of cultural consensus, “it provides the way to determine whether observed variability in be‐ liefs is cultural or idiosyncratic” (2011: 1171). Furthermore, “the method provides a way of mea‐ suring how much of the culture each individual knows, and the method tries to ascertain the cul‐ turally correct answer to every asked question” (1171). Essentially, the goal of cultural consensus is to understand the construction of cultural knowledge, i.e., what people know, believe or feel, think and how they think it, and how they organize the relevant cultural elements (Kronenfeld et al. 2011) The goal of the studies is to devise cultural‐ ly based instruments and to assess culturally cor‐ rect answers. We applied cultural consensus analysis to re‐ search presence, composition, and distribution of shared knowledge in four cultural domains of sus‐ tainability. Cultural consensus theory (Romney, Weller, and Batchelder 1986) is a collection of an‐ alytical techniques and models for assessing cul‐ tural beliefs and the degree to which individuals know or present those beliefs. This means, in oth‐ er words, the culturally correct answers to a series of questions (answer key) and each informant’s knowledge or degree of sharing the answers (indi‐ vidual cultural knowledge or competency) (Weller 2007). Cultural competency is valued based on the degree of agreement between each pair of infor‐ mants (Weller 2007). Culturally correct answers are estimated by weighting each informant’s re‐ sponse by his or her competency and aggregating responses across all sampled people. Therefore, culturally correct answers do not simply reflect average individual beliefs and understandings, be‐ cause higher weight is given to informants who are more culturally competent (Weller 2007). Cul‐ tural consensus theory enables the researcher to determine whether the level of sharing in respons‐ es is sufficient to conclude that all informants are drawing on the same cultural model of the tested domain. In the case of consensus, the investigator is able to depict what is prototypical for a given domain, as understood in the investigated group of people. In general, an eigenvalue ratio of 3:1, av‐ erage competence score above 0.5, and few nega‐ tive competency scores indicate fit of the cultural consensus model with the data (Weller 2007; Den‐ gah 2013). On the other hand, there is the question of con‐ struction of social or cultural identity of an indi‐ Cultural Models of Sustainability in a Post-Transitional Society 153 Anthropos 115.2020 vidual who is the carrier of a specific knowledge tied to the concept of sustainability. Like with all other types of identity, with the identity construct‐ ed in terms of sustainability there is enduring and considerable interest in the changes of cultural and social identities today. Everyone seems to agree that social identities have come to the center of political mobilization and may constitute reactions and changes in fundamental aspects of societies.3 Identities related to sustainability or “green” cul‐ tural or social phenomena have come to the very focus not only because of their social mobilization but, in the first place, because of their impact on political and economic mobilization. Different economic and political practices, notions of devel‐ opment and future, the lived experiences associat‐ ed with impact on environment and societies can be analyzed not only as outcomes of certain practices but also as outcomes of personal identi‐ ties. In order to understand them, the focus was on a broad spectrum of individual orientations toward economic and ecological trends, cultural heritage, governmental responsibility, social relationships, and dominant cultural values. In our interpretation of sustainable or green identities, we follow inter‐ pretations of identities as essentially social, gain‐ ing their intelligibility and force only within a so‐ cial and cultural realm. In this study, we use termi‐ nology and labeling of ethnic identity theory fol‐ lowing primordialism, instrumentalism, and con‐ structivism as three different ways of identity strategy. Sample and Methods To describe how people relate to, estimate, and evaluate natural resources, we conducted the qualitative study (during February 2016) applying semi-structured and in-depth interviews with 19 study participants living in Croatia, working in a green economy. The study participants were own‐ ers of small ecological and family-owned estates, founders of renewable energy companies, organic farmers, and producers of other types of ecologi‐ cal products, caterers, employees in green and in‐ novative technologies, and so forth. A qualitative study was conducted in Zagreb, and Zagreb Coun‐ ty, Split and Split-Dalmatia County, Slavonia (eastern part of Croatia), and Varaždin County in northern Croatia. 2 3 E. g., Poutignat et Streiff-Fenart (2008); Banks (1996); Hutchinson and Smith (1996). To describe the cultural model of sustainability we designed a “quantitative study” (lasting from March to April 2016) that included a free-listing with 42 study participants from each of the sam‐ pled areas. Participants were asked to discuss and free-list elements of “sustainability.” The free-list‐ ing routine was carried out until the point of satu‐ ration – that is, until no new elements of sustain‐ ability were mentioned (Maltseva 2014). The sec‐ ond phase of the quantitative study (conducted from April to May 2016) consisted of the self-ad‐ ministered questionnaires. The questionnaires were structured based on the first phase inventory of items associated with sustainability, in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Participants were asked to answer the question “What is important for sus‐ tainability?” by rating the importance of listed items as (1) “not important,” (2) “slightly impor‐ tant,” (3) “moderately important,” (4) “very im‐ portant,” and (5) “extremely important.” In this study, we applied the purposive sampling: there are 60 study participants in this stage of data col‐ lection, 20 from each sample areas. A purposive sample consists of people employed or self-em‐ ployed in diverse economic fields defined as “green” of “sustainable.” The majority of them were females (60.0%). The range of the age of study participant is from 24 to 62, and the mean age is 38.8. More than half of the study partici‐ pants live together with a partner (60%). 52.4% of them have a university diploma, 14.3% graduated in a secondary school and continue their education out of formal education system. According to their working status, they are mostly working in private companies they own (62%) and 10% of them is self-employed. The majority of the participants in this study have monthly income less than 500 eu‐ ros per month (40%). According to the average monthly income, equal percentage of them earn from 500 to 700 euros per month (31%) and from 701 to 1200 euros (30%). To demonstrate the the‐ oretical and methodological utility of cultural con‐ sensus theory and to analyze the structure and dis‐ tribution of cultural knowledge about sustainabili‐ ty in various cultural and socioeconomic contexts in Croatia, we carried out fieldwork among people engaged in diverse sustainable and green economy practices. Data Analyses Thematic content analysis of interviews and freelisting was done manually and with ATLAS.ti 7 software (http://www.atlasti.com/index.html). ANTHROPAC 4.92 software was utilized to per‐ 2.1 154 Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšic Anthropos 115.2020 form the analysis of cultural consensus (Borgatti 1996). The informal cultural consensus model was employed for the analyses of quantitative data. In cultural consensus analysis, the informal model is focused on identifying differences between study participants or interlocutors and not variables. Therefore, it does not require correcting for guess‐ ing (Weller 2007; Peternel et al. 2014). The infor‐ mal model is designed to estimate the answers to a series of questions and respondent accuracy in an‐ swering those questions (Weller 2007). Here, an agreement matrix is factored with the minimum residual factoring method without rotation, and the competence scores are used to weight the respons‐ es of each respondent (Weller 2007). It does not test, how questions are asked and answered; hence, competence scores do not indicate the pro‐ portion of answers that a respondent knows but how well the responses of each respondent corre‐ spond with those of the group (Weller 2007). Results of Qualitative Data The qualitative analysis of 19 interviews with small business owners, who claim that their busi‐ nesses rest on the principles of sustainability, re‐ vealed several central codes (or themes) appearing throughout the interviews. Those themes are: “de‐ velopment and future,” “education and aware‐ ness,” “responsibility and profit.” Some of the main codes have subcodes (or subthemes). For ex‐ ample, the code “profit” has the subcodes “giving up part of profit,” “un-sustainability of capital‐ ism,” and “domestic market.” The code “develop‐ ment and future” has a subcode “re-invention of tradition.” “Responsibility” has the subcodes “government’s responsibility,” “company respon‐ sibility,” and “personal responsibility.” Not all codes are equally present in all the inter‐ views. “Responsibility” and “profit” appear in all the interviews, “education and awareness” appears in most, and “future and development” appears in less than the half (Responsibility [19/19]; Profit [19/19]; Education and Awareness [17/19]; Future and Development [6/19]). Responsibility is by far the most complex code because of the interlocutors’ very different atti‐ tudes and opinions towards it. They all believe that government’s responsibility is necessary, both on a local scale and on the scale of the entire state. They also believe that the government should sup‐ port a more sustainable lifestyle. One interlocutor says that one of the most important things the gov‐ ernment has to do is “to provide a good structure 3 for sustainability.” They feel that someone is re‐ sponsible for the state of things as they are. When talking about the government, the problems the in‐ terlocutors complain about are its inefficiency and a too much administrative red tape: Our administration and advisory services do more harm than good. To be a farmer you need to do your job, but the paperwork is ... You can get a subsidy and you can write projects, but it is too complicated and too slow (S. A.). They are also unhappy about the lack of monetary support and too much lobbying and corruption: All of us in this business (with wind turbines) feel like HEP4 is lobbying against us. They pressured various in‐ stitutions, including the Ministry of the Economy, to slow down the development (D. B.). Among the interlocutors, one company owner and one director of a company talk about the responsi‐ bilities of their company in regard to sustainabili‐ ty. The company owner emphasizes treating the employees fairly and investing part of profit into certain “green” activities, such as organizing a hu‐ manitarian concert for collecting money to clean up a certain neighborhood from trash. The director talks about giving a job to a co-worker who de‐ served it and re-using leftover wood shaving to make briquettes that are then used to heat up the boiler room in the company. The director has also made an effort to introduce sustainable processes into the company to lessen the company’s waste output. Both the director and company owner be‐ lieve that companies should invest profit into sus‐ tainable solutions and treat the employees fairly. The interlocutors are also aware of an individual’s (personal) responsibility towards sustainability, but there is no common agreement among them about what defines that responsibility. When asked about it, the answers were various and ranging from driving a hybrid, driving a Tesla, sorting waste, lessening the CO2 footprint by being a veg‐ etarian/vegan and working out. Some interlocutors also believe that equality, cooperation, mutual re‐ spect, and honesty are the basis of a sustainable society, and that every individual’s responsibility is to act in that way. “Profit” is a code that is present when the inter‐ locutors are talking about selling their produce or 4 Hrvatska elektroprivreda (HEP Group) is the national ener‐ gy company, which has been dealing with generation, distri‐ bution, and supply of electricity for more than a century (). Cultural Models of Sustainability in a Post-Transitional Society 155 Anthropos 115.2020 services and getting or not getting paid for it, and the (un)profitable side of their business is an im‐ portant topic for all the interlocutors. Four inter‐ locutors are willing to “give up part of their profit” to live more sustainably, but other interlocutors do not share that opinion. Seventeen interlocutors express the opinion that the current form of capitalism is not sustainable and that a slower, more natural economic growth would be preferable. Two interlocutors compare the current economic growth to a disease. One calls it “a negative growth that can be compared to the spreading of malign cells,” while the other compares it to “a tumor that never stops growing.” All interlocutors are aware of the position of their product on the “domestic market.” Five interlocu‐ tors directly express their belief in the importance of “going domestic” for national interests, while others do not specify why they are focused solely on the domestic market. One interlocutor says that because their privately owned business is focused on the domestic market, they are certainly suffer‐ ing a loss of some part of profit due to Croatia be‐ ing a country in transition and the state’s taxation “weighing heavily on private businesses,” but it is their choice to “go domestic.” As opposed to them, two interlocutors express their desire to “go global” with their businesses and have very little interest in domestic market. Most interlocutors believe that “education and awareness” is the key to a sustainable society and state. One interlocutor points out that an un-sus‐ tainable way of living is “the result of ignorance and unawareness.” This is the most straightfor‐ ward code since all the interlocutors agree about the importance of education and awareness in pro‐ moting and achieving a sustainable lifestyle in Croatia. The interlocutors are aware that sustainability should be part of the future and that it is a marker of developed countries, and that Croatia is not yet developed enough, but it may be sometime in the future, which still is not the case. “It is possible that it is still too early, people here don’t under‐ stand that concept,” one interlocutor says. Al‐ though sustainability is associated with the future, the ways in which sustainability is sometimes achieved is through the “re-invention of tradition.” One of the interlocutors has specifically bought a stone mill because “then the flour is not electri‐ fied,” while organic farming automatically sub‐ sumes farming without the use of fertilizers and pesticide. To reduce the CO2 footprint, a firm whose main branch of business is green building, uses straw as one of their main materials, etc. Al‐ though it appears significantly less than other codes, “future and development,” nonetheless, is an important topic that has a potential to be further researched and analyzed. From the analysis of the codes, it can be sum‐ marized that “sustainability” is a complex notion for the interlocutors and it is closely related to oth‐ er domains of meaning. Sustainability in many cases is described as the opposite of capitalism, which is often related to corruption, personal prof‐ it, and poverty, while a few interlocutors con‐ sciously give up part of their profit to live a more sustainable life. The biggest obstacles to sustain‐ ability are the corruption in the country and the in‐ efficiency of local and state government. Rapid economic growth is not seen as sustainable and the notion of a sustainable, reduced or even zero economic growth is suggested as preferable. Such economic growth (or lack of it) is often defined as “degrowth” or “a rejection of the illusion of growth and a project advocating shrinking of pro‐ duction and consumption with the aim of achiev‐ ing social justice and ecological sustainability” (Kallis, Demaria, and D’Alisa 2014: 2). Sustain‐ ability is seen as a way of life in the future, and it is connected to development and developed parts of the world, such as Western Europe. Sustainabil‐ ity is achievable, but currently is not achieved in Croatia, because Croatia is still on a lower level of development. To achieve sustainability it is impor‐ tant to educate people about sustainability and raise levels of awareness. Most of the interlocutors prefer domestic market to a global market and want to achieve product recognition on the domes‐ tic market, with a clear exception of two interlocu‐ tors. The importance of domestic market is closely connected to the interlocutors’ idea of sustainabili‐ ty that has to start “at home” and will help im‐ prove and further develop their home country. In‐ terlocutors whose businesses are based on grow‐ ing and selling organic (traditional) produce are open to the idea of cooperation with others in the same or similar business. They often successfully cooperate and form associations, which, as they stress out, must be based on honesty and equal division of labor, otherwise they often dissipate. They see those values as part of the personal re‐ sponsibility towards sustainability, but there is no general consensus about what “personal responsi‐ bility” should subsume. Companies should also be responsible and treat their workers fairly, and they should also invest part of their profit into sustain‐ able processes. 156 Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšic Anthropos 115.2020 Identity Strategies in Approach to Sustainability According to qualitative research data and in ac‐ cordance with the identity theory, there are three identification strategies the interlocutors use when talking about sustainability: primordialist, instru‐ mentalist, and constructivist (Poutignat et Streiff- Fenart 2008). Primordialism as a perspective in‐ cludes persistence of personal almost sacred and naturalistic bonding with nature and sustainable values. It is a great drive for an efficient, dynamic, and modern identity that is strongly tied with a core of sustainable concept. Primordialist: “It is what my heart always wanted, even from early childhood. I could not express it with words, but I remember thinking that way from a very young age” (M. J.). In the stark contrast to “primordialists,” the “in‐ strumentalists” treat sustainability as a social, po‐ litical, and economic resource for promoting their interests and statuses. Instrumentalists have strate‐ gies of maximizing preferences in terms of indi‐ vidual “rational choices” in given situations. Here it is assumed that actors in green economy gener‐ ally desire goods measured in terms of economic gain, wealth, power, profit, and status. Instrumentalist: “My colleague and I opened a firm and we decided to make a specialized soft‐ ware. After that software, we did a software for optimization of hydropower plants. Now we offer a wide selection of support to development of sus‐ tainable projects” (E. H.). Unlike the primordialists, the constructivist’s identity does not represent naturalistic, inevitable ties to sustainability. But, it has a personal and purposive orientation towards sustainability, that is not motivated by economic interests. Constructivist: “Since I was little I’ve learned to live in a sustainable and natural way. My parents and grandparents lived like this. I don’t use pesti‐ cide and my products are ecological because I want food that is good for me and my family” (V. A.). According to identity theories focused on differ‐ ent aspects of the process of self-identification construction, the specific category of identity im‐ plies different orientations toward the self, and, consequently, to different orientations toward group membership, cultural models, values, concepts, and practices in social and cultural envi‐ ronment (e. g., Hutchinson and Smith 1996). The analysis of identities in this study shows that peo‐ ple differently interpreted the emergence and the development of inner identity related to sustain‐ 3.1 ability notions and values. Notions of sustainabili‐ ty are important and highly valued especially among primordialists and constructivists. Regard‐ ing a cultural model of sustainability, the fact that people interpret the emergence of inner “green” identity differently does not imply the existence of a different cultural model, they all still refer to the same values and norms. The differences are most‐ ly on a manifest level, primarily in a concept of sustainability in entrepreneurship and business. Quantitative Research The analysis of free-listing data confirmed four cultural domains of sustainability that can be test‐ ed quantitatively. The cultural domain of “govern‐ mental responsibility” (Fig. 1) consists of state‐ ments: “the state must take care of the environ‐ ment,” “reducing corruption in environmental governance,” “the state must encourage environ‐ mental education,” “the state must encourage en‐ vironmental awareness,” “the state must invest in environmental protection,” and “the state must en‐ courage climate change mitigation.” The cultural domain of dominant “sustainability values” com‐ prises following elements (Fig. 2): self-assurance; tolerance; persistence and diligence; confidence; responsibility; honesty and fairness; future orien‐ tations; innovativeness; and independence. The cultural domain of “responsibility in working en‐ vironment” related to the ideas of sustainability like (Fig. 3): “taking care of employee wellbeing,” “reduction of negative influence on the environ‐ ment,” “insuring social equality,” “sustainable use of local resources,” “environmental education of employees,” “involving an expert on environmen‐ tal issues,” and “using profit for environmental protection.” The cultural domain of “sustainability in everyday life” consists of subjective items re‐ flecting inner values (Fig. 4): “life based on fair‐ ness and honesty,” “improving the quality of life every day,” “feeling fulfilled,” “enjoying beauty,” “pursuing challenges,” “behaving unconventional‐ ly,” and “fitting into prevailing values.” Following the quantitative methodological agenda, based on cultural consensus theory, 60 participants filled the questionnaire. The questionnaires were structured in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Participants were asked to answer the question “What is im‐ portant for sustainability?” by rating the impor‐ tance of listed items as (1) “not important,” to (5) “extremely important.” The results of the cultural consensus analysis in the sample (the eigenvalue ratio above the thresh‐ 4 Cultural Models of Sustainability in a Post-Transitional Society 157 Anthropos 115.2020 old of 3:1 and high average competence scores) indicate an overall sharing of cultural consensus in the governmental responsibility (Table 1), sustain‐ ability values (Table 2), and responsibility in working environment domains (Table 3). The cul‐ tural consensus is not confirmed in the “individu‐ al-oriented domain” of sustainability in everyday life (Table 4). There are people with negative esti‐ mated competences, for 3% of the participants in the governmental role in sustainability and 3% of the participants in the responsibility in working environment domain the consensus model does not fit. A closer inspection of the collected so‐ ciodemographic data does not indicate common specificities among participants with negative esti‐ mated competences. The cut-off values in cultural elements can be rated as being of high (above 4), moderate (from 3 to 4), and of low cultural importance (below 3). For example, in Figure 1, the results show that the study participants highly value the items “the state must take care of the environment” and “reducing corruption in environmental governance.” In Fig‐ ure 2, the results show that the items “self-assur‐ ance,” “tolerance,” “persistence and diligence,” and “confidence” are considered by participants to have a high cultural importance. In Figure 3, the items “taking care of employee wellbeing,” and “reduction of negative influence on the environ‐ ment” have the highest scores. Although in a do‐ main of “sustainability in everyday life” there is lack of cultural consensus among study partici‐ pants, the values reflecting fairness, honesty, and fulfillness are perceived as crucial for a sustain‐ able oriented society. Fig. 1: Governmental responsibility – val‐ ues of the answer key. Fig. 2: Sustainability values – values of the answer key. 158 Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšic Anthropos 115.2020 Fig. 3: Responsibility in working environ‐ ment – values of the answer key. Fig. 4: Sustainability in everyday life – val‐ ues of the answer key. Study participants N=60 Rating data 1 to 5 scale “7 POSITIVELY – PHRASED ITEMS” FACTOR EIGENVALUE RATIO 1 20.385 15.167 2 1.344 Mean 1. factor 0.920 Number of nega‐ tive 1 (3%) STRONG CONSENSUS Table 1: Cultural Consensus Analysis: Governmental Respon‐ sibility. Study participants N=60 Rating data 1 to 5 scale “9 POSITIVELY – PHRASED ITEMS” FACTOR EIGENVALUE RATIO 1 11.634 6.264 2 1.857 Mean 1. factor 0.868 Number of nega‐ tive 0 STRONG CONSENSUS Table 2: Cultural Consensus Analysis: Sustainability Values. Cultural Models of Sustainability in a Post-Transitional Society 159 Anthropos 115.2020 Study participants N=60 Rating data 1 to 5 scale “7 POSITIVELY – PHRASED ITEMS” FACTOR EIGENVALUE RATIO 1 15.078 5.425 2 2.799 Mean 1. factor 0.905 Number of nega‐ tive 1 (3%) STRONG CONSENSUS Table 3: Cultural Consensus Analysis: Responsibility in Work‐ ing Environment. Study participants N=60 Rating data 1 to 5 scale “7 POSITIVELY – PHRASED ITEMS” FACTOR EIGENVALUE RATIO 1 4.102 1.424 2 2.899 Mean 1. factor 0.791 Number of nega‐ tive 0 NO CONSENSUS Table 4: Cultural Consensus Analysis: Sustainability in Every‐ day Life. Conclusions The main goal of this research was to answer why and how a specific cultural model of sustainability is constructed in post-transition. The described cultural model of sustainability reflects ideas of development and future, better education and awareness, profit and responsibility based on “de‐ growth” as a concept, and socioeconomic orienta‐ tion. Although orientation towards the future is apparent, cultural heritage and tradition manifest‐ ed through widely accepted cultural values still play an important role in the construction of the cultural model of sustainability (returning to na‐ ture in a futuristic way). Discontent with the cur‐ rent economic system is apparent, and the inter‐ locutors want it to change, but most still believe that a sustainable economic growth is necessary. Profit is viewed as integral part of their business‐ es, and “degrowth” strategies are emphasized in education as a foundation for a more future-orient‐ ed society. When talking about responsibility, the interlocutors also talk about it in terms of culpabil‐ ity, i.e., a degree of responsibility for a fault or wrong.5 The post-transitional Croatian society faces multiple social and economic problems searching at the same time new solutions and ideas for the future development. Sustainability and green economy serve as potential concepts rooted on tra‐ dition, heritage, and culture. Growth of unemploy‐ ment, especially among the youth, increasing in‐ equality, decreasing social protection and security, unequal educational opportunities, and the de‐ 5 5 See [25.10.2019] creasing quality of the public health care system as well as numerous financial, privatization, and corruption scandals are the reasons that slow down or even make impossible the implementation of positive changes that contribute to the general wellbeing of the society (e.g., Horvat and Štiks 2012). Therefore, the transitional and post-transi‐ tional reality of the Croatian society is perceived as “something simultaneously frightening, excit‐ ing, and boring” characterized by rapid changes that no longer cause “shock but indifference” and, unfortunately, disinterest and disquiet (Prica 2011: 7). Expansion of credit and its consequence in sharp rise in debt-to-GDP ratios, job losses and business failures, agricultural yield stagnation and its consequence in rising fuel and food prices, and increasing evidence of wide-scale environmental degradation propelled sustainability and green economy as concepts to the global political agen‐ da. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), green economy should result in “improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” (Domazet and Mari‐ nović Jerolimov 2014). Whilst this notional goal is acceptable to all social actors tackling the afore‐ mentioned issues, the interpretation of the struc‐ tures engendering those problems and perspectives on paths leading to the said goal differ. By following anthropological methodological and theoretical agenda, in this study the goal was to describe cultural model(s) of sustainability while applying ethnographic approach, cognitive anthropology, and cultural consensus theory. The results of this study demonstrate the theoretical and methodological usefulness of cultural consen‐ 160 Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšic Anthropos 115.2020 sus theory in analyzing the structure and distribu‐ tion of cultural knowledge about sustainable cul‐ tural model. In line with the aims of the study fo‐ cused on understanding the relationship between economic/cultural changes and individual identi‐ ties in contemporary Croatian society, the analysis of collected data show that there are not as many concepts of sustainability as people who are seek‐ ing it. This work was co-funded by the European Union through the European Social Fund to the Institute for So‐ cial Research in Zagreb – Centre for Research in Social Inequalities and Sustainability (CRiSIS) from 2015 to 2016. For this reason, we are grateful to the European Social Fund for making this study possible. In addition, we would like to thank Dr. sc. Branko Ančić, Dr. sc. Je‐ lena Puđak, Dr. sc. Nikola Petrović, and Dr. sc. Mladen Domazet for long-term collaboration while doing this re‐ search, and all our interlocutors for their enthusiastic en‐ gagement in the fieldwork. References Cited Ababio, Kofi Tourism and Inter-Cultural Understandings of Sustain‐ ability. Anthropology Today 22/5: 25–26. Banks, Marcus Ethnicity. Anthropological Constructions. London: Routledge. Barlett, Peggy F. Reason and Reenchantment in Cultural Change. Sus‐ tainability in Higher Education. Current Anthropology 49/6: 1077–1090, 1094–1098. Berdahl, Daphne, Matti Bunzl, and Martha Lampland (eds.) Altering States. Ethnographies of Transition in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Ann Arbor: Uni‐ versity Michigan Press. Bernard, H. Russell Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham: AltaMira Press. Borgatti, Stephen P. ANTHROPAC 4.0. Lexington: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti Stephen P., and Daniel S. Halgin On Network Theory. Organization Science 22/5: 1168– 1181. Burawoy, Michael, and Katherine Verdery (eds.) Uncertain Transition. Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Burgess J., M. Limb, and C. M. Harrison Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice. Environment and Planning 20/3: 309–326. 2006 1996 2008 2000 2006 1996 2011 1999 1988 Caulkins, Douglas D. Identifying Culture as a Threshold of Shared Knowl‐ edge. A Consensus Analysis Method. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4/3: 317–333. Cleveland, David A. Balancing on a Planet: Toward an Agricultural Anthro‐ pology for the Twenty-First Century. Human Ecology 26/2: 323–340. D’Andrade, Roy G. The Cultural Part of Cognition. Cognitive Science 5/3: 179–195. Modal Responses and Cultural Expertise. American Be‐ havioral Scientist 31/2: 194–202. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cam‐ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Dengah, H. J. François, II The Contract with God. Patterns of Cultural Consensus across Two Brazilian Religious Communities. Journal of Anthropological Research 69: 347–372. Denona Bogović, Nada, Saša Drezgić, and Saša Čegar Green Economy as a Development Model of Eastern Croatia. In: 5. International Scientific Conference: “The Economy of Eastern Croatia – Visions and Develop‐ ment,” University Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek; pp. 646–654. Osijek. Domazet, Mladen, and Dinka Marinović Jerolimov Sustainability on the Semi-Periphery. An Impossible Topic in a Non-Existent Place? In: M. Domazet and D. Dinka Marinović Jerolimov (eds.); pp. 19–49. Domazet, Mladen, and Dinka Marinović Jerolimov (eds.) Sustainability Perspectives from the European Semi-Pe‐ riphery. Zagreb: Institute for Social Research in Zagreb; Heinrich Böll Stiftung Hrvatska. Dove, Michael R., and Daniel M. Kammen Science, Society, and the Environment. Applying An‐ thropology and Physics to Sustainability. London: Routledge. Dressler, William W. Modeling Biocultural Interactions. Examples from Studies of Stress and Cardiovascular Disease. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Supplement 21) 38/ S21: 27–56. Using Cultural Consensus Analysis to Develop a Mea‐ surement. A Brazilian Example. Cultural Anthropology Methods 8: 6–8. Cultural Consonance. Linking Culture, the Individual, and Health. Preventive Medicine 55/5: 390–393. Dressler, William W., Mauro Campos Balieiro, and José E. Dos Santos The Cultural Construction of Social Support in Brazil. Associations with Health Outcomes. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 21:303–335. Culture, Socioeconomic Status, and Physical and Men‐ tal Health in Brazil. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 12/4: 424–446. Culture, Skin Color, and Arterial Blood Pressure in Brazil. American Journal of Human Biology 11/1: 49– 59. Finding Culture Change in the Second Factor. Stability and Change in Cultural Consensus and Residual Agree‐ ment. Field Methods 27/1: 22–38. 2004 1998 1981 1987 1995 2013 2016 2014 2014 2015 1995 1996 2012 1997 1998 1999 2015 Cultural Models of Sustainability in a Post-Transitional Society 161 Anthropos 115.2020 Edgar, Andrew Cultural Anthropology. In: A. Edgar and P. Sedgwick (eds.), Key Concepts in Cultural Theory; pp. 64–66. London: Routledge. Goodenough, Ward H. Culture. In: D. Levinson and M. Ember (eds.), Encyclo‐ pedia of Cultural Anthropology. Vol. 1: A–D; pp. 291– 299. New York: Henry Holt. Hann, Chris Anthropology’s Multiple Temporalities and Its Future in Central and Eastern Europe. Halle: Max Planck Insti‐ tute for Social Anthropology. Holland, Dorothy, and Naomi Quinn (eds.) Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horvat, Srećko, and Igor Štiks Welcome to the Desert of Transition! Post-Socialism, the European Union, and a New Left in the Balkans. Monthly Review 63/10: 38–48. Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith (eds.) Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kallis, Giorgos, Federico Demaria, and Giacomo D’Alisa Introduction. Degrowth. In: G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, and G. Kallis (eds.), Degrowth. A Vocabulary for a New Era; pp. 1–18. Abingdon: Routledge. Kronenfeld, David B., Giovanni Bennardo, Victor C. de Munck, and Michael D. Fischer (eds.) A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Wiley. McDade, Thomas W., and Carol M. Worthman Socialization Ambiguity in Samoan Adolescents. A Model for Human Development and Stress in the Con‐ text of Culture Change. Journal of Research in Adoles‐ cence 14/1: 49–72. McDade, Thomas W., Joy F. Stallings, and Carol M. Worth‐ man Culture Change and Stress in Western Samoan Youth. Methodological Issues in the Cross-Cultural Study of Stress and Immune Function. American Journal of Hu‐ man Biology 12/6: 792–802. Maltseva, Kateryna Using Correspondence Analysis of Scales as Part of Mixed Methods Design to Access Cultural Models in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Prosocial Cooperation in Sweden. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10/1: 82– 111. 1999 1996 2007 1987 2012 1996 2014 2011 2004 2000 2014 Mauss, Marcel The Gift. Essai sur le don. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge. Orlove, Ben, and Steven C. Caton Water Sustainability. Anthropological Approached and Prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 401– 415. Passerini, Eve Sustainability and Sociology. The American Sociologist 29/3: 59–70. Peternel Lana, Ana Malnar, and Irena Martinović-Klarić Cultural Importance of Two Lifestyle Sub-Domains (Education & Professional Life and Intimate & Family Relationships) in Croatian Youth. Significance for Holistic Anthropological Research. Journal of Anthro‐ pological Research 70/3: 411–437. Poutignat, Philippe, et Jocelyne Streiff-Fenart Théories de l’ethnicité. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Prica, Ines Horror, porno, ennui. Vrlo kratak uvod. In: I. Prica i T. Škokić (eds.), Horror, porno, ennui. Kulturne prakse postsocijalizma; pp. 7–8. Zagreb: Institut za Etnologiju i Folkloristiku. Reedy-Maschner, Katherine L., and Herbert D. G. Maschner Sustaining Sanak Island, Alaska. A Cultural Land Trust. Sustainability 5: 4406–4427. Romney, A. Kimball, Susan C. Weller, and William H. Batchelder Culture as Consensus. A Theory of Culture and Infor‐ mant Accuracy. American Anthropologist 88/2: 313– 338. Shore, Bradd Culture in Mind. Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Strauss, Claudia, and Naomi Quinn A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stubbs, Paul The Prospects for a Green Economy in Croatia. Green European Journal (01.07.2013): [22.10.2019] Weller, Susan C. Cultural Consensus Theory. Applications and Frequent‐ ly Asked Questions. Field Methods 19/4: 339–368. 2002 2010 1998 2014 2008 2011 2013 1986 1996 1997 2013 2007 162 Lana Peternel and Marija Vukšic Anthropos 115.2020

Abstract

By following the anthropological theoretical account and multi-methodological approach, we analyze sustainability as a cultural model that reveals individual and group experience and notions of development in a changing post-transitional context. Despite the fact that sustainability is a complex cultural concept, in this study actors engaged in green economy unambiguously claimed negative attitudes towards profit and growth, along with positive attitudes towards development of innovative education based on “degrowth” strategies and orientations. Cultural elements of three domains that refer to sustainable values, governmental role, and working environment serve as strong predictors of and conditions for sustainable and future oriented societies.

References
Ababio, Kofi
2006 Tourism and Inter-Cultural Understandings of Sustainability. Anthropology Today 22/5: 25–26.
Banks, Marcus
1996 Ethnicity. Anthropological Constructions. London: Routledge.
Barlett, Peggy F.
2008 Reason and Reenchantment in Cultural Change. Sustainability in Higher Education. Current Anthropology 49/6: 1077–1090, 1094–1098.
Berdahl, Daphne, Matti Bunzl, and Martha Lampland (eds.)eng2
2000 Altering States. Ethnographies of Transition in Eastern Europe and the Former So-viet Union. Ann Arbor: University Michigan Press.
Bernard, H. Russell
2006 Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Borgatti, Stephen P.
1996 ANTHROPAC 4.0. Lexington: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti Stephen P., and Daniel S. Halgin
2011 On Network Theory. Organization Science 22/5: 1168–1181.
Burawoy, Michael, and Katherine Verdery (eds.)
1999 Uncertain Transition. Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Burgess J., M. Limb, and C. M. Harrison
1988 Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice. Environment and Planning 20/3: 309–326.
Caulkins, Douglas D.
2004 Identifying Culture as a Threshold of Shared Knowledge. A Consensus Analysis Method. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4/3: 317–333.
Cleveland, David A.
1998 Balancing on a Planet: Toward an Agricultural Anthropology for the Twenty-First Century. Human Ecology 26/2: 323–340.
D’Andrade, Roy G.
1981 The Cultural Part of Cognition. Cognitive Science 5/3: 179–195.
1987 Modal Responses and Cultural Expertise. American Behavioral Scientist 31/2: 194–202.
1995 The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dengah, H. J. François, II
2013 The Contract with God. Patterns of Cultural Consensus across Two Brazilian Religi-ous Communities. Journal of Anthropological Research 69: 347–372.
Denona Bogović, Nada, Saša Drezgić, and Saša Čegar
2016 Green Economy as a Development Model of Eastern Croatia. In: 5. International Scientific Conference: “The Economy of Eastern Croatia – Visions and Development,” Uni-versity Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek; pp. 646–654. Osijek.
Domazet, Mladen, and Dinka Marinović Jerolimov
2014 Sustainability on the Semi-Periphery. An Impossible Topic in a Non-Existent Place? In: M. Domazet and D. Dinka Marinović Jerolimov (eds.); pp. 19–49.
Domazet, Mladen, and Dinka Marinović Jerolimov (eds.)
2014 Sustainability Perspectives from the European Semi-Periphery. Zagreb: Institute for Social Research in Zagreb; Heinrich Böll Stiftung Hrvatska.
Dove, Michael R., and Daniel M. Kammen
2015 Science, Society, and the Environment. Applying Anthropology and Physics to Sustainability. London: Routledge.
Dressler, William W.
1995 Modeling Biocultural Interactions. Examples from Studies of Stress and Cardiovas-cular Disease. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Supplement 21) 38/S21: 27–56.
1996 Using Cultural Consensus Analysis to Develop a Measurement. A Brazilian Examp-le. Cultural Anthropology Methods 8: 6–8.
2012 Cultural Consonance. Linking Culture, the Individual, and Health. Preventive Medicine 55/5: 390–393.
Dressler, William W., Mauro Campos Balieiro, and José E. Dos Santos
1997 The Cultural Construction of Social Support in Brazil. Associations with Health Out-comes. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 21:303–335.
1998 Culture, Socioeconomic Status, and Physical and Mental Health in Brazil. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 12/4: 424–446.
1999 Culture, Skin Color, and Arterial Blood Pressure in Brazil. American Journal of Human Biology 11/1: 49–59.
2015 Finding Culture Change in the Second Factor. Stability and Change in Cultural Con-sensus and Residual Agreement. Field Methods 27/1: 22–38.
Edgar, Andrew
1999 Cultural Anthropology. In: A. Edgar and P. Sedgwick (eds.), Key Concepts in Cultur-al Theory; pp. 64–66. London: Routledge.
Goodenough, Ward H.
1996 Culture. In: D. Levinson and M. Ember (eds.), Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropolo-gy. Vol. 1: A–D; pp. 291–299. New York: Henry Holt.
Hann, Chris
2007 Anthropology’s Multiple Temporalities and Its Future in Central and Eastern Euro-pe. Halle: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.
Holland, Dorothy, and Naomi Quinn (eds.)
1987 Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horvat, Srećko, and Igor Štiks
2012 Welcome to the Desert of Transition! Post-Socialism, the European Union, and a New Left in the Balkans. Monthly Review 63/10: 38–48.
Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith (eds.)
1996 Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kallis, Giorgos, Federico Demaria, and Giacomo D’Alisa
2014 Introduction. Degrowth. In: G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, and G. Kallis (eds.), Degrowth. A Vocabulary for a New Era; pp. 1–18. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kronenfeld, David B., Giovanni Bennardo, Victor C. de Munck, and Michael D. Fischer (eds.)
2011 A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Wiley.
McDade, Thomas W., and Carol M. Worthman
2004 Socialization Ambiguity in Samoan Adolescents. A Model for Human Development and Stress in the Context of Culture Change. Journal of Research in Adolescence 14/1: 49–72.
McDade, Thomas W., Joy F. Stallings, and Carol M. Worthmaneng2
2000 Culture Change and Stress in Western Samoan Youth. Methodological Issues in the Cross-Cultural Study of Stress and Immune Function. American Journal of Human Biology 12/6: 792–802.
Maltseva, Kateryna
2014 Using Correspondence Analysis of Scales as Part of Mixed Methods Design to Ac-cess Cultural Models in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Prosocial Cooperation in Sweden. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10/1: 82–111.
Mauss, Marcel
2002 The Gift. Essai sur le don. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge.
Orlove, Ben, and Steven C. Caton
2010 Water Sustainability. Anthropological Approached and Prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 401–415.
Passerini, Eve
1998 Sustainability and Sociology. The American Sociologist 29/3: 59–70.
Peternel Lana, Ana Malnar, and Irena Martinović-Klarić
2014 Cultural Importance of Two Lifestyle Sub-Domains (Education & Professional Life and Intimate & Family Relationships) in Croatian Youth. Significance for Holistic Anthropo-logical Research. Journal of Anthropological Research 70/3: 411–437.
Poutignat, Philippe, et Jocelyne Streiff-Fenart
2008 Théories de l’ethnicité. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Prica, Ines
2011 Horror, porno, ennui. Vrlo kratak uvod. In: I. Prica i T. Škokić (eds.), Horror, porno, ennui. Kulturne prakse postsocijalizma; pp. 7–8. Zagreb: Institut za Etnologiju i Folkloristi-ku.
Reedy-Maschner, Katherine L., and Herbert D. G. M⁠a⁠s⁠c⁠h⁠n⁠e⁠reng
2013 Sustaining Sanak Island, Alaska. A Cultural Land Trust. Sustainability 5: 4406–4427.
Romney, A. Kimball, Susan C. Weller, and William H. Batchelder
1986 Culture as Consensus. A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist 88/2: 313–338.
Shore, Bradd
1996 Culture in Mind. Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, Claudia, and Naomi Quinn
1997 A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, Paul
2013 The Prospects for a Green Economy in Croatia. Green European Journal (01.07.2013): <https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/the-prospects-for-a-green-economy-in-croatia/> [22.10.2019]
Weller, Susan C.
2007 Cultural Consensus Theory. Applications and Frequently Asked Questions. Field Methods 19/4: 339–368.

Abstract

Anthropos is the international journal of anthropology and linguistics, founded in 1906 by Wilhelm Schmidt, missonary and member of the Society of the Divine Word (SVD). Its main purpose is the study of human societies in their cultural dimension. In honor of Wilhelm Schmidt‘s legacy, the cultivation of anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, and religious studies remain an essential component oft he Anthropos Institute – the organizational carrier of the journal.

Zusammenfassung

Anthropos - internationale Zeitschrift für Völkerkunde wird vom Anthropos Institut St. Augustin seit 1906 zweimal jährlich herausgegeben. Ursprünglich als Sprachrohr für katholische Missionarsarbeit geplant, gilt sie heute als wichtige Fachzeitschrift der allgemeinen Ethnologie. Sie behandelt sowohl kulturelle als auch sprachliche Themen in mehreren Sprachen, mit Schwerpunkt auf den Völkern des gesamtamerikanischen und afrikanischen Kontinents.