Nature–culture divide
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment.[1] It is a theoretical foundation of contemporary anthropology that considers whether nature and culture function separately from one another, or if they are in a continuous biotic relationship with each other.
In East Asian society nature and culture are conceptualized as
There is an idea that small-scale societies can have a more symbiotic relationship with nature[by whom?]. Less symbiotic relations with nature are limiting small-scale communities' access to water and food resources.[4] It was also argued that the contemporary man-nature divide manifests itself in different aspects of alienation and conflicts.[5] Greenwood and Stini argue that agriculture is only monetarily cost-efficient because it takes much more to produce than one can get out of eating their own crops,[2]: 397 e.g. "high culture cannot come at low energy costs".[6]
During the 1960s and 1970s, Sherry Ortner showed the parallel between the divide and gender roles with women as nature and men as culture.[7]
Understanding the history of how the nature-culture dichotomy came to be will help environmentalists and policymakers alike determine a new future in human and nature relations. Some elements to understanding this history are cultural (society) differences in views of land, theories behind the perpetuation of the dichotomy, and real-world examples of its existence even today.
History
Within European culture, land was an inherited right for each family's firstborn son and every other child would need to find another way to own land. European expansion would be motivated by this desire to claim land and extract resources through technological developments or the invention of public trading companies. Other factors also include religious (e.g. Crusades) and discovery (e.g. voyages) purposes. In addition to the desire for expansion, Europeans had the resources for external growth. They had ships, maps, and knowledge—a complex of politics, economy, and military tactics that they believed were superior for ruling. These factors helped them to possess and rule the people of the lands they came in contact with. One large element of this was Western European's strong cultural belief in private property.[8]
Colonialists from Europe saw the American landscape as desolate, savage, dark, and waste and thus needed to be tamed in order for it to be safe and habitable. Once cleared and settled, these areas were depicted as “
The native groups they encountered saw their relationship with the land in a more holistic view. They saw the land as a shared entity of which they were a part, but the Europeans saw it as a commodity that could and should be divided and owned by individuals to then buy and sell as they pleased.[10] And that “wilderness” is that when the connection between humans and nature is broken.[11] For native communities, human intervention was a part of their ecological practices.
Theories
The Role of Society
Pre-existing movements include a spectrum of environmental thought. Authors, Büscher and Fletcher, present these various movements on a condensed map. Though it is simplified in thought and definition, it offers an excellent way for readers to see the major conservation movements plotted together in which elements of their philosophy are highlighted. The following movements are as follows: mainstream conservation, new conservation, neoprotectionism, and their newly proposed convivial conservation.[12] Each movement is plotted against two major factors: capitalism and the human-nature divide. Mainstream conservation supports the human-nature divide and capitalism, new conservation supports the human-nature divide but rejects capitalism, neoprotectionism rejects capitalism but supports the human-nature divide, and convivial conservation rejects both the human-nature divide and capitalism. This newest movement, though reminiscent of previous ones, sets itself apart by addressing the political climate more directly.[12] They argue this is important because without it, their movement will only gain as much traction as those before it, i.e. very little. Lasting change will come, not only from an overhaul in human-nature relations and capitalist thought but from a political system that will enact and support these changes.[12]
The Role of Science
The
On the other hand, transmitted culture can be used to bridge the gap between the two even more, for it uses a trial and error based approach that shows how humans are constantly learning, and that they use
Since nature and culture are now viewed as more intertwined than ever before, which makes the divide between the two seems obsolete. Similarly, social scientists have been reluctant to use biological explanations as explanations for cultural divisions because it is difficult to construct what "biological" explanations entail. According to social scientists like Emile Durkheim, anthropologists and especially sociologists have tended to characterize biological explanations in only a physiological and cognitive sense within individuals, not in a group setting.[16] On the other hand, there is a heavier focus on the social determinism as seen in human behavior instead. Furthermore, even as the divide between nature and culture has been narrowed there is a reluctance to define biological determinism on a large scale.
Real-World Examples
National Parks
There is a historical belief that wilderness must not only be tamed to be protected but that humans also need to be outside of it.[17] In fact, there have been instances where the removal of people from an area have actually increased illegal activities and negative environmental effects.[18] National parks may not be particularly known as places of increased violence, but they do perpetuate the idea of humans being removed from nature to protect it. They also create a symbol of power for humans over nature, as these sites have become tourist attractions.[18] Ecotourism, even with eco practices in effect, still represents a commodification of nature.
Another example can be seen in “the great frontier.” The American frontier became the nation's most sacred myth of origin. Yet the lands protected as monuments to the American past were constructed as pristine and uninhabited by removing the people that lived and survived on those lands.[9] Some authors have come to describe this type of conservation as conservation-far, where humans and nature are kept separate. The other end of the conservation spectrum then, would be conservation-near, which would mimic native ecological practices of humans integrated into the care of nature.[17]
See also
References
- S2CID 143248700.
- ^ a b Greenwood, David J and Stini, William A. (1977) Nature, Culture, and Human History, New York: Harper and Row, 393–408
- ^ Strathern 1980[full citation needed]
- ^ Collective Heritage Institute
- Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development13(1), 125-146.
- ^ Braun and Castree 1998[full citation needed][full citation needed]
- ^ Sherry Ortner (1972) Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?, Feminist Studies 1(2): 5-31
- ^ OCLC 760384471.
- ^ OCLC 36306399.
- ^ S2CID 157705999.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-520-93310-1.
- ^ S2CID 195819004.
- S2CID 144846930.
- .
- .
- S2CID 143409716.
- ^ S2CID 230646912.
- ^ S2CID 233542986.