2.3. Definición de términos básicos
3.1.4. Sesiones de aprendizaje del área de Ciencia y Ambiente
After the theoretical discussion of the communication process and the instrument used for this process we now come to the third element: the subject about which we want to communicate. At first sight this subject may simply be nature conservation or environmental conservation. In practice, however, this subject needs more clarification. In order to come to such a complex subject it is important to understand what we mean by ‘nature’ or ‘environment’ that we want (or do not want) to conserve. Talking about ‘nature’ and the ‘relationship between humans and nature’ is a terminological choice, lacking more holistic and flexible terms. Yet, the concept of nature appears to be problematic when only discussed within a western academic context. Nature as a concept can have very different meanings. In some circles it is conceived as pristine nature, the wilderness, the pure and original, untouched by any human influence. This is particularly evident in the case of national parks, which are seen as pre-human remnants providing refuge from society. Arusha National Park in Tanzania is described as “a sense of a complete withdrawal from the world of man and of immersion in the peace of unspoilt nature” (Vesey-FitzGerald, 1967, p. 13, see Neumann, 1998, p.178). Partly unconsciously, this idea has influenced many western people in their admiration of what they call nature and their aim to conserve it. Many environmental organisations have used this concept, sometimes even in an erroneous context8.
In a more biological sense nature can be seen as all organic life including humans. In a more evolutionary perspective nature is even broader including character, thoughts etc. Within this context we speak of acts of a person by saying: “he does so because it is his nature.” In other contexts, nature can be seen as referring to all material reality. In that sense it is opposed to immaterial things like ideas and immaterial concepts including supernaturalism.
In this research I tend to focus on a concept of nature in contrast with culture or technology. Here nature includes everything that is not cultural, i.e. everything not made or
organised by human volition. Here, nature can be defined as everything that organises itself, including human nature and nature outside the human body such as the weather and the sea.
Within the context of this study we could make a further distinction by using the term ‘living nature’ referring to everything outside the human body that organises itself and lives: plants and animals.
It should be noted, however, that indigenous visions often do not make the conceptualisation in which nature and culture are separated. The nature-culture dichotomy has its origin in western thinking, especially after the Enlightenment (Ingold, 1992). At the same time, this dichotomy forms the basis for so-called ecocentrism and the politics of all environmental movements, since it places mankind in an exceptional position, apart from nature, and in the position to influence nature. The idea of nature apart from people has led to many nature conservation practices in which they have tried to protect nature by isolating it from human influences. Yet, these practices have sometimes led to the opposite effect. Ghimire and Pimbert (1997, p.6) describe several examples in which the presence of certain large animal species is higher in areas modified by people. Moreover, the authors state (p.6) that what many conservationists still refer to as ‘pristine’ landscapes or ‘untouched wilderness’, are in fact mostly human cultural artefacts. Another example concerns the conservation of indigenous bee species in Mexico. These species have become highly marginalised after the introduction of the honeybee. The role of the Mayan tradition, based on traditional beekeeping turned out to be crucial for the conservation of the indigenous species (Zwaal, 1992). These examples at least put into question the practice of the idea of separating mankind and nature. It should be noted that by giving these examples I aim to counterbalance the nature-culture dichotomy, I do not aim to reject it. Moreover, practical objections of this dichotomy do not imply that it could be useful on an analytical level.
In contrast to dichotomic thinking there are a lot of alternative perceptions in the world in which for example, manifestations of man and nature are perceived as parts of a greater whole, a physical or meta-physical order (e.g. Bohm, 1980) or nature is considered to be ‘the culture of the other side’ (Schefold, 1988) or the boundary between human things and natural things is open and fluid (Zanen, 1996).
Apart from nature and culture there is a third component, called environment. Environment has become more central in Western debates in the last decades. Many former nature conservationist have shifted towards environmental conservation (see section 7.2.1). Apart from the supra-local level, also local actors in Western countries appear to make the difference between nature and environment. A research done by Aarts (1998) among farmers in a Dutch region ‘de Peel’ shows that they do make a distinction between nature and environment. For example by the statement: “I feel responsible for the environment but I do not so for nature.” Apparently, they relate ‘the environment’ to their own activities such as the emission of ammonia, whereas for them ‘nature’ refers to a more general level, such as the forest or the swamps, that is considered to be the responsibility of the state.
The danger of an a priori division between nature and environment is indicated by many
organisms, including humans, do not exist without their environment. A physical place in the environment can have different significance depending on who is using it (Ingold, 1992). Ingold thus argues to replace the concept of nature, based on the perception of the physical world by a neutral outsider, by environment, i.e. the reality of the world in relation with the
person that gives meaning to it. I will follow Ingold by preferring to use the concept of environment rather than nature. I will use this concept in its most general meaning: the environment is that which surrounds us (Milton, 1996)9. This may hopefully leave enough opportunities for alternative visions related to, for example, the relation between human and non-human components.
The relationship between human and environment in other cultures is studied by many different authors. To give one example, Bird-David (1992a and b) has described the relationship for hunter-gatherer societies who consider the environment as a giving environment.
It should be remarked again that it is dangerous to talk about a single indigenous conceptualisation (e.g. the conceptualisation of the hunter-gatherers). It presumes that the indigenous people are a homogeneous stereotype group. Von Benda-Beckmann (1997) describes the tricky alliance between environmental protection and the rights of indigenous people. She states that a general perception on the part of the donors stimulated by intermediary organisations, of homogeneity among communities poses a serious threat to participation. According to Von Benda-Beckman it is mainly the intermediary role of NGOs that puts emphasis on the position of indigenous peoples in a national and international setting. However, she continues, these NGOs often deal with indigenous elite that has other interests than the common people that belong to the same group.
Related to the concept of environment is the concept of environmental protection, which is, of course, strongly dominated and initiated by a western conviction that they know what is best for the future of the world. This is founded on many rational and irrational arguments. Many of these are supported by scientific results. Yet, there are also counter-currents that contest the myth of the all-knowing Westerner (e.g. Stott & Sullivan, 2000). In many of these contests, however, this myth is replaced by another myth: the ecological wisdom of indigenous peoples. This myth has played an important role in the environmental discourse and I will therefore discuss it in more detail here.
The myth of ecological wisdom is even used by western environmental organisations as an inspiration for their activities and the recruitment of donors. Examples of these are the speeches held by Indian chiefs, based on a stereotype image of people that live entirely in harmony with their environment. Indigenous peoples are honoured for their contribution to
9 It should be noted that this meaning is different from that which is often implicit in supra-local terms such as environmental movement or environmental problem. In case of misunderstanding I will use less philosophical indications such as plants, animals or ecosystems, which I will here summarise as ‘nature’.
the conservation of bio-diversity and their enormous knowledge of species that is relevant for, among others, the medical science (Von Benda-Beckmann, 1997).
The myth of ecological wisdom is not free of criticism. It should be first noted that it concerns here mainly people of the forest, whereas people from semi-arid regions are mostly associated with over exploitation. There is, of course, no justification for this. The images of a certain environment do not necessarily have any relation to the real impact people have on that environment.
Furthermore, Milton (1996) criticises the myth of ecological wisdom by pointing out that many environmental activities of indigenous peoples are not related at all to the wisdom of how to treat nature harmoniously. That does not necessarily mean that there do not exist societies that deal with their environment in a sustainable way, but according to Milton this does not mean that it is done intentionally. On the contrary, it concerns a favourable situation with regard to isolation, population density and limited access to technology. This makes a certain life style temporarily beneficial for the environment. However, as soon as there is technological development or new social and economic perspective there are very few indigenous societies that manage to develop a sustainable lifestyle (Persoon, 1991).
Von Benda-Beckmann (1997) points out the danger that the ecological wisdom myth has for the position of indigenous peoples themselves. She writes: “It could well be that indigenous people will eventually only be protected - if protected at all- as long as they are considered of environmental value.”
The myth of the indigenous wisdom is based on the presumption that many of these cultures are conservative and static. These peoples are considered to stick to old tradition with fixed norms and values. This is, in fact, related to the same idea that stories are static and fixed, reflecting and confirming this tradition. As already pointed out in section 2.3, I do not support the approach of considering stories to be static and unchangeable in the same way as I do not consider people to be unchangeable. Ingold (1998) believes in an active involvement of people with their environment. That means that the world is not a static cultural construction. Instead of humans constructing the environment, Ingold introduces the term ‘dwelling in the environment’ meaning that ‘persons endure through continuous discourse with their environment, thus mutual constitution of persons and environment in process.”
It may be concluded from the previous discussion that it is tricky to draw the a priori
conclusion that a positive form of human activities with respect to the environment is always supported by and based on ecological wisdom. This is very important for the study of stories related to the environment because it shows that what counts are not the concrete activities that people manifest on a certain moment in time but the underlying assumptions they use to justify their behaviour. Only these assumptions may or may not guarantee a sustainable way
of living with regard to the environment. In analysing stories in the context of this research one should thus especially search for these underlying assumptions.
The following concluding section further elaborates on these underlying assumptions.