Regarding your response to my post, it's clear that we're talking about different things when we talk about "culture." I've been writing with Merriam-Webster's fifth definition for culture in mind: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture. By this definition, pretty much any collection of humans with a group identity will have a culture. It's the definition people use when they talk about "corporate culture," "Trekkie culture," "pop culture," or "ancient Inca culture," and it's the one I assumed you were using when you said culture was a sociopathological phenomenon.
By "society," I was thinking of Merriam-Webster's third definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society. If you look at that definition, bearing in mind the definition of "culture" that I was thinking of, I hope you can see how it sounds absurd to call culture "sociopathological." To put it briefly, a society is a collection of people with a group identity, and any such collection will inevitably have a culture, so what could it mean to say the culture is bad for society? I do agree that culture has long progressed in the direction of isolating us from the rest of nature, so that an increasing number of humans can potentially get through life just fine imagining nature to be irrelevant to their interests. However, when you say that this progression toward isolation means culture is "by definition, pathological," you are essentially saying that culture must necessarily progress in that direction (if culture could reverse its pathological direction of progress, you couldn't say it was pathological by definition). But why can culture only advance toward greater isolation from nature? I don't agree that the alternative to calling culture a sociopathological phenomenon requires strong support. The alternative is simply that culture is not a sociopathological phenomenon; its effect on society is either good or neutral. This is a null hypothesis, and like any null hypothesis, it's a weak statement, and the only support it needs is the failure to confirm the alternative (in this case, your hypothesis). Further, I think the vast majority of us assume that culture is not bad for society, and any time you want to challenge a widely-held belief, the burden falls on you to make some sort of case for your position. If you can do so, that's when people might feel compelled to defend the status quo. Finally, I think I actually offered some pretty strong support to the null hypothesis/status quo position. I pointed out that you can't have a society without a culture, which makes it impossible for culture to be pathological to society. Certain attitudes or practices of a given culture may be harmful, but some kind of culture simply will be present wherever there is a society. I've just now received your response to Hedges. I think the definitions of culture and society that I've linked to above are distinct enough; the group of people is the soiciety, and their common attitudes, beliefs, and practices are their culture. If you have provided your definitions of culture and society, I've missed them. At any rate, I've already gone on much longer than I intended, so I will leave it to Jaimie Hedges (or someone else) to respond further. Jim Crants On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > 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 > >
