Synthesis of social-ecological theory to develop conceptual tools with explanatory power
5.3 Human systems: cultural characteristics
5.3.1 Introduction
Human beings are classified as animals and are part of the ecological world (Westley et al. 2002). However, distinct differences between humans and other animals can lead to a sense that we are separate from ecology. Westley et al. (2002) identified the human ability to symbolically represent the world as one of our distinguishing features.
They explained that ecological systems have time and space dimensions, while social systems have time, space and symbolic dimensions (structures of signification where symbols and meaning are constructed). This ability to symbolically represent the world is an emergent property of a human-ecological system. This claim is based on Bhaskar’s view of human-ecological systems that demonstrates how layers of
increasingly complex reality emerge. Bhaskar (2010) identified three essential properties of emergence:
1. An emergent level (in this case symbolic representation) is unilaterally dependent on a lower level (in this case the ecological system);
2. The emergent level (symbolic representation) has new and different properties that cannot be predicted from the lower level (ecological system); and
3. An emergent level (symbolic representation) is causally irreducible to, and can affect, the lower level (ecosystem) from which it has emerged, but in unpredictable and complex ways, i.e. the emergent level is more than the sum of the parts of the lower level and process causalities between the layers are complex and often unpredictable.
The symbolic dimension is closely related to the unique human capacity for culture (Thompson 1990; McCallum 2008). Culture is a contested term with various uses according to context (Taylor 2007; Guthrie 2007). It emerged as a central concept in Anthropology to refer to human aspects that cannot be attributed to biology, particularly our capacity to represent meaning and experience through symbols (Rappaport 1979).
Two additional structures making up human society are “structures of domination”
(power dynamics and influence over the flow of resources); and “structures of legitimation” (rules, norms and routines) (Westley et al. 2002), which both have a bearing on cultural practices. The kind of symbolic representations, nature of power dynamics, flow of resources and social rules are culturally mediated, determine human perceptions of and interactions with the ecological world (Bowie 2000) and become inscribed on local landscapes (Peirea & Lewis 1979; Fairhead & Leach 1996; Kothari
& Das 1999; McCallum 2008; Rogers & Luton 2011; Massey 2013). The way cultural practices are mirrored in ecological systems can be understood by the third characteristic of emergence, where the emergent level (culture) can provide feedback on the lower level (ecosystems). It is also a consequence of human-ecological co- evolution. As Norgaard (1994: 41) has stated:
… social and environmental systems co-evolve such that environmental systems reflect the characteristics of social systems – their knowledge, values, social organization, and technologies – while social systems reflect the characteristics of environmental systems – their mix of species, rates of productivity, spatial and temporal variation, and resilience.
There are close parallels between the concepts ‘culture’ and ‘worldviews’ (Taylor 2007). Sterling (2007) identified three aspects of worldviews: the normative, which refers to attitudes, norms and values; the descriptive, which refers to cognition and affects how the world is perceived; and the purposive, which influences action (Sterling 2007). These three aspects of worldviews can be interpreted in terms of identity (normative), knowledge (descriptive) and agency (purposive). A key premise in this thesis is that cultural worldviews, possible because of structures of signification, determine patterns of identifying with, types of knowledge about, and forms of agency in ecological systems with fundamental effects on ecological value and health. Social-ecological transformation therefore includes changed patterns of identifying, new knowledge and the capacity for agency that gives effect to normative change.
A notable property of culture is that it enables human societies to become more or less embedded within and congruent with ecological realities. As Westley et al. (2002: 108) stated: “Through the use of communication, language, and symbols [we] collectively invent and reinvent a meaningful order around [us] and then act in accordance with that invented world, as if it was real”, thus creating a virtual reality.
Kellert (2007: 28) has discussed a possible genetic tendency within humanity to desire connection and unity with nature, which he argued is evident in religion and science and “is at the heart of our capacity for culture”. Evidence for this includes the extent people go to include other animals in their lives and the love and attachment they can develop for the landscapes they live in (Anderson 2010), an experience common to human societies (Descola & Palsson 1996). This propensity Kellert (1984) terms
‘biophilia’, a concept coined by Edward O. Wilson (1984). However, Kellert (2007:
28) explained that this is a weak tendency dependent on “stimulation, learning, and social support to become functionally manifest”. Science and religion have the power to guide us either towards or away from biophyllic instincts, leading to greater or lesser cultural-ecological embeddedness respectively, with consequent harmony or
“intolerable excess and violent destructiveness” (Kellert 2007: 28). Our patterns of identifying with, types of knowledge about and forms of agency in ecological systems will reflect the extent that a society has cultivated its weak biophyllic tendency, through religion and education. This in turn will affect the extent of cultural embeddedness and congruence to ecological realities with consequences for the strength of cultural-ecological coupling. The discussion moves on to examine weak and strong coupling in social-ecological systems.