Nature–culture divide
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.
"Man and nature" redirects here. For the 1864 book, see Man and Nature.
In East Asian society, nature and culture are conceptualized as dichotomous (separate and distinct domains of reference). Some researchers consider culture to be "man's secret adaptive weapon"[2]: 393 in the sense that it is the core means of survival. It has been observed that the terms "nature" and "culture" can not necessarily be translated into non-western languages,[3] for example, the Native American scholar John Mohawk described "nature" as "anything that supports life".[4]
There is an idea that small-scale societies can have a more symbiotic relationship with nature. 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] Feminist scholars question whether the dichotomies between nature and culture, or man and woman, are essential. For example, Donna Haraway's works on cyborg theory , as well as companion species[8] gesture toward a notion of "naturecultures": a new way of understanding non-discrete assemblages relating humans to technology and animals.
History[edit]
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 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.[9]
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 “Eden itself."[10] Land was a commodity and as such, anyone who did not use it to turn a profit could have it taken from them. John Locke was one responsible for these ideals.[9] Yet the commodities didn't end with the acquisition of land. Profit became the main driver for all resources that would follow (including slavery). The cultural divide that existed between Europeans and the native groups they colonised allowed the Europeans to capitalise on both local and global trade.[11] So whether the ruling of these other lands and peoples was direct or indirect, the diffusion of European ideals and practices spread to nearly every country on the globe. Imperialism and globalisation were also at play in creating a ruling dominion for the European nation, but it did not come without challenges.
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.[11] And that “wilderness” is that the connection between humans and nature is broken.[12] For native communities, human intervention was a part of their ecological practices.
Theories[edit]
The Role of Society[edit]
Pre-existing movements include a spectrum of environmental thoughts. 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.[13] 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.[13] 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.[13]
The Role of Science[edit]
The nature–culture divide is intertwined with the social versus biological debate since both are implications of each other. As viewed in earlier forms of anthropology, it is believed that genetic determinism de-emphasises the importance of culture, making it obsolete. However, more modern views show that culture is valued more than nature because everyday aspects of culture have a wider impact on how humans see the world, rather than just our genetic makeup. Older anthropological theories have separated the two, such as Franz Boas, who claimed that social organisation and behaviour are purely the transmission of social norms and not necessarily the passing of heritable traits.[14] Instead of using such a contrasting approach, more modern anthropologists see Neo-Darwinism as an outline for culture, therefore nature is essentially guiding how culture develops. When looking at adaptations, anthropologists such as Daniel Nettle state that animals choose their mates based on their environment, which is shaped directly by culture. More importantly, the adaptations seen in nature are a result of evoked nature, which is defined as cultural characteristics which shape the environment and that then queue changes in phenotypes for future generations. Put simply, cultures that promote more effective resource allocation and a chance for survival are more likely to be successful and produce more developed societies and cultures that feed off of each other.
Transmitted culture can also be used to bridge the gap between the two even more, because it uses a trial and error based approach that shows how humans are constantly learning, and that they use social learning to influence individual choices.[15] This is seen best in how the more superficial aspects of culture still are intertwined with nature and genetic variation. For example, there are beauty standards intertwined into the culture because they are associated with better survival rates, yet they also serve personal interests which allows for individual breeding pairs to understand how they fit into society. By learning from each other, nature becomes more intertwined with culture since they reinforce each other.
Sandra Harding critiqued dominant science as "posit[ing] as necessary, and/or as facts, a set of dualisms—culture vs. nature; rational mind vs. prerational body and irrational emotions and values; objectivity vs. subjectivity; public vs. private—and then links men and masculinity to the former and women and femininity to the latter in each dichotomy".[16] Instead, they argue for a more holistic approach to knowledge-seeking which recognizes that every attempt at objectivity is bound up in the social, historical, and political subjectivity of the knowledge producer.[17]
Real-World Examples[edit]
National Parks[edit]
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.[18] In fact, there have been instances where the removal of people from an area has actually increased illegal activities and negative environmental effects.[19] 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.[19] Ecotourism, even with environmentally friendly 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.[10] 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.[18]