Jim and Ecolog:
There were humans in proximity with other humans in a predominantly
cooperative/social rather than a predominately competitive/cultural state
from the dawn of the species until the transformation of pre-civilized to
civilized states of being, roughly beginning around 10,000-12,000 BCE.
Humans before the "domestication" (enslavement?) of plants and animals had
to cooperate to survive. In that state (although one could make a point that
it began with tools) humans were more "in" the
environment/Nature/ecosystem/nutrient cycle than "out" of it. As culture
"advanced," humans increasingly were outside of Nature (I prefer this term
to the others, except maybe nutrient-energy cycle), hence, culture is, by
definition, pathological.
Either one accepts that there are two distinctly different states of being
or one doesn't; there's no way to "prove" that cultural humans are not "just
another" manifestation of Nature ("environment," if you prefer), like
"Manifest Destiny."
WT
PS: I agree about the need for "strong support." However, so does the
alternative, whatever that is.
If I failed to adequately address Crants' points either here or in the
response to Hedges, please let me know.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment
I agree with Jamie Hedges that the assertion that culture is a
sociopathological phenomenon requires very strong support.
"Sociopathological phenomenon" could also use a clear definition. I
understand it to be any social phenomenon that is (overall) harmful to the
society in which it occurs. ("Harmful to society," to me, means "harmful to
those within the society who have little power." History and current events
are loaded with cases where powerful elites equate themselves with society
and thus rationalize any harm they do to the powerless in pursuit of their
own interests.) A Google search shows that people apply the term to crime,
corruption, drug addiction, and fundamentalism.
I can clearly see how our society would be better off without crime,
corruption, and drug addiction, and, my religious and political views being
what they are, I think we'd benefit if fundamentalism disappeared, too. But
culture? Even Western culture? I think labeling all of Western culture a
"sociopathological phenomenon" is advocating throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. There are aspects of our culture that are causing more harm than
good, obviously, but there are other aspects that serve people of little
power quite well, including aspects that prevent or repair damage to the
natural environment. The local foods movement, the Clean Air Act, classical
music, science, and the First Amendment are all products of Western culture
that I just can't see as pathological (overall).
Beyond such specifics, though, society without culture is beyond my
imagination. What would that even mean? I think of a society as a group of
interacting people, and I don't see how a group of people can interact with
each other without transmitting ideas and forming group values, thus
creating culture. If I'm right that you can't have society without culture,
it makes no sense to call culture "sociopathological." For that matter, I
don't think you could have multiple humans in close proximity without having
human interaction, leading inevitably to the formation of culture. Are
humans sociopathological?
Jim Crants
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jamie Lewis Hedges
<hedge...@yahoo.com>wrote:
I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the en
Dear Wayne,
I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the environment and
about
the implications that human behavior has for it. The question of humans in
the
definition of environment--whether academic or general--is a crucial one,
and
cannot be resolved by any one person, field, and definitely not by so
over-generalized an assertion.
To characterize culture as a "sociopathological phenomenon" is concerning.
Without discerning between those cultural behaviors that are beneficial
and
those that are detrimental to our environment, this statement remains
unscientific and non sequitur.
Culture? Which one? All of them? And what do you mean "we"? Certainly not
Anthropologists, Sociologists, Geographers, etc. And your statement has in
no
way been the conclusion of the broader community of Ecologists.
I find your idea repeated elsewhere, such as in your response to Gunderson
and
Folke's 2009 article "“Lumpy Information” in the journal Ecology and
Society.
There you write, "it may be useful, even critical to our depth of
understanding,
to recognize that culture itself is demonstrably a societal pathology."
Again, unless corrected, this mistake makes the whole discussion
fundamentally
unscientific. Examples to the contrary include the classic Roy A.
Rappaport's
1971 "The flow of energy in an agricultural society" [Scientific American
224(3):116-32] as well as Paul Robbins work on human-environment dynamics
involving the Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, India [Robbins,
Chhangani, Rice, Trigosa, & Mohnot. Enforcement Authority and Vegetation
Change
at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Environmental
Management (2007) 40:365–378 as well as Chhangani, A. K., Robbins, P. and
Mohnot, S. M. (2008) 'Crop Raiding and Livestock Predation at
Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan India', Human Dimensions of
Wildlife,
13:5,305—316].
By your statements and from the larger context of the Ecolog thread, I
remain
sure that by "culture" you mean "Western culture" and its demonstrable
trend
toward overconsumption and inefficient consumption of natural resources.
Or
perhaps by "culture" you mean "pop culture" and its role as raison d'être
for
Western culture's overconsumption of natural resources. While some,
perhaps
even
I, who would argue the specifics of these, they would not be as concerning
as
your statements currently stand.
Whether this is true or not, whether you agree or not, perhaps you and
others
would be interested in reading and perhaps responding to my discrete
consideration of my response for a more general audience
at http://jamielewishedges.info/2010/07/13/changing-culture/.
With respectful concern,
Jamie Lewis hedgeshedge...@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3002 - Release Date: 07/13/10
06:36:00
