Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect
Abstract This perspective piece discusses the history of the use of the term ‘reciprocity’ across environmental social sciences in the analysis of the interactions between the social and the natural systems. Reciprocity, as a concept, these days, seems to be used in a rather uncritical fashion. Thes...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | People and Nature |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10685 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849422215764770816 |
|---|---|
| author | Ismael Vaccaro |
| author_facet | Ismael Vaccaro |
| author_sort | Ismael Vaccaro |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract This perspective piece discusses the history of the use of the term ‘reciprocity’ across environmental social sciences in the analysis of the interactions between the social and the natural systems. Reciprocity, as a concept, these days, seems to be used in a rather uncritical fashion. These pages do not intend to be exhaustive, instead they focus on the role that the idea of explicit intentionality (or its absence) has had on the different ways reciprocity has been conceptualized. The literature identifies two clusters of approaches to this subject. On the one hand, we encounter a group of schools in which the notion of reciprocity demands explicit intentionality, an articulation of the concept that requires intend and consciousness of the consequences of agency and the directionality of causality. On the other hand, a wider definition of reciprocity that does not depend on awareness has also been used to discuss the relationships between human and non‐human actors. Thanks to this wider definition, reciprocity has been used as well to describe interactions between human and non‐human entities in which one or both parties were not explicitly intending to benefit each other. The aim of this article was not to determine which approach is correct and which is not. The goal was to underscore the significance of requiring or not requiring intentionality on the construction and use of the notion of reciprocity and the analytical and representational consequences of this choice. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5217fef59dd046d7ad8f84fcd7ffe8b5 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2575-8314 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | People and Nature |
| spelling | doaj-art-5217fef59dd046d7ad8f84fcd7ffe8b52025-08-20T03:31:11ZengWileyPeople and Nature2575-83142025-05-01751005101010.1002/pan3.10685Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effectIsmael Vaccaro0Institució Milà i Fontanals de investigacions en Humanitats‐CSIC Barcelona SpainAbstract This perspective piece discusses the history of the use of the term ‘reciprocity’ across environmental social sciences in the analysis of the interactions between the social and the natural systems. Reciprocity, as a concept, these days, seems to be used in a rather uncritical fashion. These pages do not intend to be exhaustive, instead they focus on the role that the idea of explicit intentionality (or its absence) has had on the different ways reciprocity has been conceptualized. The literature identifies two clusters of approaches to this subject. On the one hand, we encounter a group of schools in which the notion of reciprocity demands explicit intentionality, an articulation of the concept that requires intend and consciousness of the consequences of agency and the directionality of causality. On the other hand, a wider definition of reciprocity that does not depend on awareness has also been used to discuss the relationships between human and non‐human actors. Thanks to this wider definition, reciprocity has been used as well to describe interactions between human and non‐human entities in which one or both parties were not explicitly intending to benefit each other. The aim of this article was not to determine which approach is correct and which is not. The goal was to underscore the significance of requiring or not requiring intentionality on the construction and use of the notion of reciprocity and the analytical and representational consequences of this choice. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10685environmental social sciencesintentionalitymutualismreciprocity |
| spellingShingle | Ismael Vaccaro Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect People and Nature environmental social sciences intentionality mutualism reciprocity |
| title | Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect |
| title_full | Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect |
| title_fullStr | Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect |
| title_full_unstemmed | Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect |
| title_short | Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect |
| title_sort | defining socioecological reciprocity intentionality mutualism or collateral effect |
| topic | environmental social sciences intentionality mutualism reciprocity |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10685 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ismaelvaccaro definingsocioecologicalreciprocityintentionalitymutualismorcollateraleffect |