Bridging ecology and culture: Human behavior, knowledge, and nature

Reviews in ecological anthropology often revisit established debates—such as the contrast between the optimal forager and the relational self or the critique of the nature–culture divide—without advancing a genuinely novel synthesis. This article moves beyond descriptive comparison by critically examining three influential theoretical orientations: Indigenous relational ontology as articulated in Debbie Bird Rose’s Dreaming Ecology; cross-cultural analyses of co-evolution and domestication in Redefining Nature; and the adaptationist framework of Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE). Juxtaposing these approaches reveals the political and historical dimensions of human–environment relations that are frequently overlooked, particularly the structural determinants of colonialism and market integration. The analysis demonstrates that ahistorical treatments of ecology are insufficient for understanding contemporary socioecological dynamics. Rather than endorsing pluralism as an unproblematic solution, the article interrogates its conceptual limits, including epistemic incommensurability, power asymmetries, and methodological tensions between universalist and situated forms of knowledge. It argues that a robust future for ecological anthropology lies in a critical synthesis that integrates the analytical rigor of adaptationist models with the contextual depth of historically situated ethnography and relational ontologies. Such an approach is essential for producing ecological anthropology that is both theoretically rigorous and politically relevant in the context of ongoing global environmental crises.