Talk:Ethnoentomology

Proposed merge with cultural entomology
I recently accepted cultural entomology at WP:AFC but having taken a closer look I think it would better to merge the content into this article. As far as I can tell "cultural entomology" isn't a very common term, it was coined by Charles Hogue in 1987 and picked up by a few people since, and means basically exactly the same thing as ethnoentomology: the study of insects in human culture. To be fair Hogue (and presumably the people who have continued to use his label) does explicitly refer to ethnoentomology and distinguishes between the two fields on the basis that ethnoentomology is restricted to "so-called primitive peoples". I highly doubt that's a distinction any modern anthropologist would think tenable in any field of ethnobiology. Nor would they follow Hogue in separating "practical" (like eating insects) from "cultural" (like eating them ceremonially) behaviour. So in this case I think we need to go with the more common usage that labels any study of biology-in-culture as "ethno-x", including ethnoentomology.

The cultural entomology article needs quite a bit of cleanup in terms of encylopaedic tone and original research (I was starting to do that when I realised a merge probably made more sense) but there are lots of good, well-cited examples and we should at least make mention of the "competing" term cultural entomology and some of its theory in this article. joe&bull;roet•c 08:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest *not* merging cultural entomology with ethnoentomology
I agree that cultural entomology and ethnoentomology overlap, especially when looking at certain areas, such as mythology, religion, folklore and so on. However, there is an important distinction between cultural entomology and ethnoentomology that I believe needs to be observed and preserved. As Hogue (1987) himself explained: "...ethnoentomology, which is concerned with all forms of insect-human interactions in so-called primitive societies, is not synonymous with cultural entomology."

Note: I do agree about not limiting cultural entomology to "so-called primitive societies," as Hogue put it. There's plenty of cultural entomology evident in contemporary societies, too, in film, music and visual art, for instance, that deserves to be explored and examined.

However, Hogue's distinction between cultural/ritual relationships with insects versus purely practical ones has value. What I'm seeing is that in cultural entomology, one extracts the universal elements from specific aboriginal or ancient cultures. So when specific cultures are mentioned in cultural entomology, it's strictly for the purposes of providing an example or examples that allow for extrapolating the universal or more general aspects. It's not done for the purposes of featuring that particular culture, which would occur in ethnoentomology. Basically, extrapolating the universal elements of the human-insect relationship lies with cultural entomology whereas highlighting aspects of a particular culture's relationship with insects or uses of insects lies with ethnoentomology.

As far as I can tell, the motivations and goals behind the two studies of cultural entomology and ethnoentomology are quite different. I think there's value in preserving the distinctions, both for academic reasons of delineating these areas of study more clearly, and for readers who may be turning to these pages for different purposes. Some may be more interested in the more general, universal aspects of the human-insect relationship (cultural entomology) while others may be more interested in reading the more detailed and specific aspects of the human-insect relationship that belong to specific and unique cultures (ethnoentomology).

Ethnoentomology also is set up beautifully for: (1) allowing someone to study in depth a single culture's relationship with insects in all its aspects and uncovering what that culture's relationship with, and uses of, insects reveals about that specific culture in that era or geographical location or political climate, e.g., ancient Egyptian culture, or Australian aboriginal culture; and (2) allowing comparisons of cultures to find similarities and differences, e.g., contemporary European cultural views of certain insects could be compared to contemporary Japanese cultural views of those same insects.

Under enthnoentomology, culture by culture comparisons would illuminate specific cultures and their relationship(s) with insects, whether from past or present times, whereas cultural entomology would provide an overview of the universal human relationship with insects.

It also seems to me that sticking to these delineations would make the job of editing the two pages on cultural entomology and ethnoentomology much easier. Otherwise, they could get quite entangled and it would be very tempting to merge them together. But I hope I've shown (a) why it's not necessary to merge them since they really are distinct, even if overlapping, (b) that different motivations and goals are at work in each field, (c) that the distinct focus of each field of study leads to different kinds of knowledge, observations and uses, and (d) putting it all together, that there's value in maintaining and clarifying those distinctions.

Of course, this all depends on the definition of "culture" -- I think Hogue was applying this one: "The sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another. Culture is transmitted, through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, and art, from one generation to the next." 

HTharbar (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 