Nature
Introduction
From a western cultural orientation, we probably consider the concept
of 'nature' to be an important one in most if not all cultures and
that it is important to identify how the concepts of 'nature' are
a construction which contributes to and is constructed by culture/
language. This is true in the sense that we can interrogate other
cultural traditions and identify something that we can equate to
'nature' within our understanding of their framework. We need to
be careful however not to confuse our concept of 'nature' in other
cultures with their own identification or in fact their lack of
identification.
By looking at the way nature is constructed
in western society, we can get a glimpse of the way in which the
concept, or what we identify as the concept, may be constructed
in other cultural groups.
What is at stake?
Our epistemological
understandings of nature underpin much of what we do as land managers,
resource managers, conservationists or developers. Whether we see
nature as being a separate entity or whether we see ourselves as
an intrinsic part of it, determines how we approach our use of nature
and the resources the natural world provides. In many ways, our
ontological
assumptions about the degree of inter-connection between ourselves
and the natural world, has a significant bearing upon who we are
and our place in the hierarchy of importance we construct around
ourselves.
Think about:
- Are we more important than the natural world?
- Can we therefore utilise it or destroy it with impunity?
- Are we responsible for our actions in this natural realm?
- Are there repercussions for us if we break what we
consider to be the natural rules?
|
All of these questions have very different answers if we have different
perspectives on what nature is and how we fit into it.
Is nature separate?
Epistemologically,
we in the west have separated ourselves from the natural world and
many of the problems, both environmentally and socially can be attributed
to a fundamental distinction between ourselves and nature and the
implications this has for our use of resources. Can we talk about
being part of nature though? In indigenous cultures, there is often
no distinction made between the natural world, the super-natural
world and humans. How can we talk about a lack of distinction without
referring to a distinction? In many ways I figure if we really thought
there is no distinction, then the words like 'nature' would disappear
from the vocabulary.
Projecting onto other cultures
Epistemologically, we need to be careful that we don't project
this same distinction onto other cultures. Australian Indigenous
cultures see connections between land, life and the spirit world
and it is very easy for western people to use their understandings
of these terms and overlay them onto the understandings of other
cultural groups.
What is the status quo?
Ignoring links with the natural world
The western concept of 'nature' is a product of the history of
the 'western scientific tradition' and has a variety of meanings
and connotations that have been developed as that history has occurred.
Most importantly in 'western' culture, nature and humans are often
considered to be different and distinct. Our links with the natural
world are often ignored.
Our relationship with nature is often described in terms of opposites:
rational
vs irrational; order vs chaos; masculine vs feminine. In the same
way that we have talked about the marginalisation of culture, nature
is the 'other' - the stuff out there, beyond the limits of civilisation.
Conversely, because it is what exists outside civilisation, nature
is also characterised as being beautiful, pristine, unsullied and
innocent, like the Garden of Eden during the biblical 'pre-fall'
and 'pre-sin' period.
Complexity of nature
But the nature of nature in the western ontology is complex. Not
only is it innocent and pristine, there is an element of our concept
of nature which represents the biblical 'post-fall', often linked
with some sort of loss of innocence and infiltration of disorder,
chaos and even evil. Nature is cruel, harsh and even murderous.
This streak of nature requires us to dominate and control it, almost
as if it were a battle and if we don't control nature, it's going
to get us.
By setting humans outside the systems of the natural world, there
was no restraints on exploitation and in the early industrial revolution,
no fear of depleted resources, especially with the colonisation
of new lands and the extraction of the necessary resources from
the colonies in Africa, Asia, South America and Australia. It legitimises
the use of nature as a commodity.
Think about:
- How does western society dominate nature?
- Do we do it out of fear or because we can?
|
What are the alternatives?
An ontology where no distinction is made between humans and nature
is often the usual alternative to a concept of nature that keeps
humans separate from it. Indigenous cultures and different groups
within western cultures more commonly have an ontology which posits
no distinction between the two. Humans and their actions are part
of the natural world, they influence the world and the world influences
them.
Nature in Indigenous culture
Australian Indigenous cultures often identify their origins in
the land and consider their presence in the landscape to be part
of the creation process of the ancestors when they spoke, sang and
danced the landscape into existence. Such an ontology allows no
room for identifying human action as being separate from or even
superior to the rest of the events in the natural world. Whilst
they identify the difference between a human and a tree and their
ontology would classify these differently, the same ontology, at
a deeper level, sees no distinction between the two in terms of
their origins and location within creation.
Interestingly, there are many groups within western culture that
promote an increasingly fuzzy distinction between the natural and
the human world. Deep Ecologists, Eco-feminists and even scientists
themselves who subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis (geophysiology?)
promote a more ecocentric approach to dispelling the separation
between humans and nature.
Think about:
- What alternatives do these philosophies promote?
- What are the consequences of following one or more of
these philosophies or scientific theories?
|
Post-modernist theories about the concept of nature suggest that
if the trend away from western thinking on the relationship between
nature and humans continues, then it spells the end or the 'death'
of nature.
What happens when different knowledge systems
speak to each other?
Post-modernist talk about the 'death' of nature. Is this true?
When you look out of the window, you can see natural things: trees,
plants, birds and dragonflies. Conversely, you could say no, because
what we see is a human construction.
Think about:
- Aren't those tree planted and nurtured by humans?
- Don't the birds and insects come here because they are
attracted to the plants in the garden?
|
The logical extension of this is Langton's concept of the myth
of wilderness. Remember, she says there is no wilderness, only human
constructed landscapes - created either by our actions or now by
our inaction. There is nothing natural in the accepted sense, because
everything is a product of our own action on our environment.
Think about:
- Do postmodernists say nature is dead because we no longer
need to appeal to a 'nature' for some explanatory power,
because natural laws have provided us with a (in some senses)
more powerful explanatory tool?
- Do our current epistemologies either destroy nature by
their explanatory power or place humans within it as part
of the fabric, subject to the same laws of genetics and
behaviour as any other animal or plant?
|
Marcia Langton's idea of the construction of wilderness either
completely destroys the concept of 'nature' in opposition to humans
or it places humans right in the middle of nature, as agents of
change.
Think about:
- Do we play a passive or active role in nature?
- Should we be talking about nature at all?
- Does that fact that we are talking about it betray the
fact that we really don't understand what we talking about?
|
Resources
These readings will provide you with a starting point for looking
at the contestation of knowledge about nature.
Reading 5.1
Seddon, G., 1997 'The nature of Nature' in Landprints:
Reflections on Place and Landscape, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 7 - 14.
Other references
Eckersly, R. 1998 'Ecocentrism Explained and Defended' in J.S.
Dryzek & D. Schlosberg (eds) Debating the Earth: The environmental
politics reader, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 374 -
397.
King, Y. 1998 'Towards an Ecological Feminism and a Feminist Ecology'
in J.S. Dryzek & D. Schlosberg (eds) Debating the Earth: The
environmental politics reader, Oxford University Press, New
York, pp 429 - 437.
Lease, G. 1995 'Introduction: Nature Under Fire' in M. Soule &
G. Lease Reinventing Nature: Responses to post-modern deconstruction,
Island Press, WashingtonDC, pp 1- 16.
Proctor, J. 1995 'Whose Nature? The Contested Moral Terrain of
Ancient Forests' in W. Cronon (Ed) Uncommon Ground: Towards Reinventing
Nature, WW Norton and Company, New York, pp 269 - 297.
Soule, M. 1995 'The Social Siege of Nature' in M. Soule & G. Lease
Reinventing Nature: Responses to post-modern deconstruction,
Island Press, Washington DC, pp 137 to 170.
|
