Synthesis of social-ecological theory to develop conceptual tools with explanatory power
5.3 Human systems: cultural characteristics
5.3.4 Patterns of identifying with ecological systems
examine the hegemonic, rather than diverse and nuanced, modern western patterns of being.
Figure 5.2: A conceptual synthesis of processes leading to cultural-ecological sustainability or collapse (based on Norgaard 1994; Westley et al. 2002; Mingers 2006;
Kellert 2007; Sterling 2007)
Anthropologists have found that among many peoples there is no concept of a nature- society divide. Three notable examples come from tribes living in the upper Amazon, namey the Tukano, Jivaro and Makuna peoples. The Tukano people do not have a separate term for ‘nature’; their environment is as much a part of them as their digestive system: “an extension of biological man” (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1996: 8). The environment is thus highly valued because it directly relates to who they are; damage of the environment leads to damage of oneself. The Jivaro people view most local plants and animals as persons who live in their own societies and enter into relations with humans under strict social rules, while the Mukana believe they participate in a
“wider community of living beings regulated by a single and totalizing set of rules of conduct” (Descola & Palsson 1996: 7).
Other examples reflect similar patterns of identifying with the natural world. For example, the Raramuri tribe of Mexico manage and live in the Sierra Madres, which is one of the three most biologically rich areas in the world (Salmon 2000). This group of people is highly connected to the local landscape, which is central to their theory of origin and cultural identity. The concept of nature being separate to their activities and culture is foreign (Salmon 2000). The Chewong of the Malay tropical rainforest do not have ontological distinctions between humans and other beings, where plants and animals are believed to have a consciousness, including their own language, moral code and intellect (Howell 1996). For the Huaorani hunters of the Amazon, the animals they hunt are social beings who actively engage in the world of the hunters. In this society plants, animals and other entities all belong to the same sociocosmic community, and operate under the same social rules as those applicable to humans (Descola & Palsson 1996).
This inclusivity of the natural world into human sociality encourages notable patterns of identifying that numerous authors hold up as positive for social-eological coupling.
Firstly, it encourages a view of the world that is animated, communicative and personal. This is argued to be a valuable way of viewing the non-human world that establishes a sense of connection with it (Nabhan 1997; Cheney & Weston 1999;
Abram 2010). Berry (2009a: page number unknown) argued for the universe to be viewed as a “communion of subjects” with the capacity for intimate relationship, rather than a “collection of objects” to be exploited; when this view is adopted it “will enable the human to become present to the Earth in a mutually-enhancing manner”. Cheney and Weston (1999) stated that our task is to participate in this animated world in ways that build relationships with the wider community of life.
Secondly, the lack of a nature/human divide supports a sense of kinship with non- human beings, where they are included in the community of concerns (Daly & Cobb 1994; Pierotti & Wildcat 1999). Anderson (2010: 44) argued that an environmental ethic should be built on an understanding of the “personhood of all beings”. Bird- David (1993) observed that throughout the world hunter-gatherer cultures represent human-nature dynamics as personal and between subjects rather than between a subject and an object. The bushman hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari have a 30 000 year old mythology about the connectedness between all living things (McCallum 2008). The Raramuri tribe described earlier regard certain creatures, such as the bear and coyote, as cousins or siblings (Salmon 2000), while Daly and Cob (1994) have described the strong tendency in India to view animals as sentient beings with religion and ethics orientated to their concern. Evolution confirms this kinship where it is now understood that we are genetically related to all life (Cheney & Weston 1999; McCallum 2008).
This section moves to an examination of hegemonic modern, western patterns of being that contrast with those described above.
A fundamental aspect of the hegemonic modern, western worldview is the idea that humans are separate from ecological systems (McCormack & Strathern 1980; Rajotte
& Breuilly 1992; Schumacher 1998; Pierotti & Wildcat 1999; Sterling 2007), which Ashley (2006) has termed the anthropocentric fallacy. As Schumacher (1998: 4) noted,
“Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it”. For example, a theme repeated in Marx’s writings was the attitude “that humans should struggle against, conquer, and dominate nature” (Anderson 2010: 144). In its extreme form there is a belief that we have liberated ourselves from depending on ecological systems. For example, Eugene Rabinowitch, editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists stated in the Times newspaper, April 1972:
The only animals … whose disappearance may threaten the biological viability of man on earth are the bacteria normally inhabiting our bodies. For the rest there is no convincing proof that mankind could not survive even as the only animal species on earth! If economic ways could be developed for synthesizing food from inorganic raw materials – which is likely to happen sooner or later – man may even be able to become independent of plants, on which he now depends as sources of his food. (Schumacher 1998: 82)
Accompanying the anthropocentric distinction between humans and ecosystems is an assumption that “all basic realities and values are identified with the human. The non-
human attains its reality and value only through its use by the human” (Berry 2009b:
page number unknown). Ashley (2006) argued that this anthropocentric perspective has become the dominant mode of thinking in modern society, is a perspective that denies inherent value to other living beings, apart from their use to humanity, and is supported by the view that humans are separate from ecological systems.
This view of being separate leads to a detatchment from, loss of intimacy with and attentiveness to ecological systems, which become objects for domination and control (Cheney & Weston 1999; Massey 2013). This attitude of being in control is fuelled by a mechanistic, inanimate view that the world is composed of inert atoms, reponding to the general laws of physics with no “feelings, soul nor mind” (Massey 2013: 104) and is expressed in dominant discourses that describe ecological systems as a storehouse of resources (Taylor 2004; Sterling 2007; Abram 2010) to be used for the advancement of society (Gottlieb 2009). Olvitt (2012) gave the example of the Millennium Assessment Report, which she explained adopts an instrumentalist approach, with an emphasis on ecological systems providing humans with resources and services. She further stated that “Through the services framework… our understandings of and respect for the diversity of life forms and their intricate relationships are pre-empted and coached by a human-centred, resource-oriented view” (Olvitt 2012: 85). Miller (1998) argued that this has led to a lack of moral restraint when managing nature and, supported by the capitalist ideology of maximisation of profits, and industrialisation, ‘resources’ have been increasingly harvested and consumed for short-term economic benefits. An example graphically expressing this is an advertisement of the development arm of a bank that had a picture of the globe and the following caption: “Businessmen Devour This Planet!” (Holling, Gunderson & Peterson 2002).
This section has focused on patterns of identifying that lead to stronger cultural- ecological coupling processes and includes those that encourage a sense of connectedness and interdependence with and responsibility for the earth. There are numerous examples of local peoples making little distinction between their sociality and ecosystems. This encourages the view of a personal and communicative world in which non-humans are related to as morally conscious subjects. This has been contrasted with hegemonic, western, modern patterns of identifying that are built on a human/ecological divide, an anthropocentric, conquering and controlling attitude and a view of a mechanistic natural world consisting of resources to be exploited for human development. The discussion moves on to examine the role that knowledge has in processes of cultural-ecological coupling.