Fishers and Communities

There are many definitions of a community. Community studies have played an important role in the social sciences, such as anthropology, since the early twentieth century. In this sense, functionalist studies by Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown served as models for studying communities as a strategy for analysing culture as a whole. Even precursors like Tönnies with his concept of Gemeinschaft and his positivist organicism can be quoted. Culture was conceptualised as consisting of functionally interrelated parts, creating a model of analysis that was to pattern the standard in social anthropology (Redfield 1971 [1955-6]). The studies depended on a community concept characterised by isolation, homogeneity and shared values or culture. Redfield identified four essential characteristics in communities: a small or reduced social scale, homogeneity regarding their members’ activities and state of mind, a consciousness of distinctiveness and a certain self-sufficiency over time (Redfield 1971; Rapport 1996).

In the 1950s, Hillery found 94 alternative definitions of this concept and the features most commonly shared were ‘interaction’ and ‘ties of interest’ followed by ‘geographical proximity’, with the only substantive overlap being ‘all dealt with people’ (Hillery 1955: 117). In the same decade, a generally critical tendency of the models in community studies led to the partial demise of this concept in anthropology. It was replaced by alternative notions (such as population) with fewer connotations. However, in recent years the role of communities in conservation has been rediscovered as the locus of conservationist thinking. After a long history of failed top-down development programmes, international agencies from the World Bank or USAID to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have turned to programmes that implement or reinforce community-based conservation policies (Agrawal and Gibson 2001: 4). This process is linked to the emphasis on the participation of local populations after the recognition of state policy limitations in designing and enforcing adequate measures to achieve the sustainable use of natural resources.

Communities are more diverse, heterogeneous and unstable than Redfield and other authors assume. To summarise, we use a definition formulated by Agrawal and Gibson (2001: 1): ‘Communities are complex entities containing individuals differentiated by status, political and economic power, religion and social prestige, and intentions.