On 15 Jun 1995, to Subject: essentialism, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Susan
Clayton) wrote:
>To get back to the environment, I believe someone earlier made the comment
>that this tendency to dichotomize that makes us see male and female as
>opposites is also responsible for the artificial distinction between nature
>and culture, which arguably is responsible for much maltreatment of the
>environment by humans.
>
>Susan
Is making a distinction between nature and culture artificial? Let's begin by
exploring definitions of the terms to ensure that we are all talking about the
same thing. For sake of initial discussion, I offer the following definition
of "culture": the process by which the human species organizes itself
(socially, politically, economically, philosophically, psychologically,
spiritually), its view of reality, and the rest of creation so as to pursue
the goal of the survival and flourishing of the human species. I offer the
following definition of "nature": the process by which the planet organizes
itself (physically, chemically, geologically, meteorologically, biologically)
to pursue the goal of the survival and flourishing of the planet.
I would offer that the indigenous, primal, aboriginal ("nature-based" to use
Glendinning's term) cultures were and are part of nature, and in that
instance, there is no distinction between culture and nature. I would further
offer that technological, materialistic, reductionist, nation-state culture is
concerned only with the survival and flourishing of the human species (and
only parts of it, at that), regardless of the impact on the survival and
flourishing of the planet. Thus, the distinction between nature and culture -
THIS culture, our culture - is far from artificial. I think it is very, very
real. That's the problem.
