Dear Jamie Lewis Hedges and Ecolog: Many thanks to Hedges for the thoughtful response. I have checked out the website, but will confine my comments to the email for the moment.
I agree that the question of humans in the definition of environment is a crucial one, and that it can't be resolved by any one person. I can understand and share the concern for over-generalization (in general), but will attempt to justify the assertion as a statement of a principle--if valid, quite another thing. One possible test for that is whether the assertion just wanders off into the intellectual weeds and stirs up semantic dust (a generalization), or whether it settles and aggregates the fine particles of detail into a coherent statement (a principle). While the subject question can't be "resolved" by me or anyone else, the assertion, in addition to being a response to the original question in this thread, is intended to serve as a starting point for an alternative way of thinking about the issue, which I have stated elsewhere concerns "the reconciliation of the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life." I intend that "reconciliation" refer to a process rather than an end point, thus, I hope, addressing Hedges' concerns about the deep water into which I have intentionally thrown myself in order to stimulate others to participate in the reconciliation process. I truly do not understand what Hedges means by "unscientific." I ask him to explain how he came to that conclusion, and what a "scientific" statement might be in the alternative. Similarly, I ask him to explain just how (on what basis) the statement is absurd to him. As to "culture," I have asked some of academia's top anthropologists to define the difference between "culture" and "society," but the responses have been, well, general. At the root of any intellectual discipline is consistency in definition and usage, but in learned treatise after learned treatise, I have failed to find any kind of clear distinction between the two terms. In fact, I find them used interchangeably, as more semantic and rhetorical devices than disciplined, well-defined terms. I keep hoping someone will supply an alternative to this unfortunate conclusion, and look forward to Hedges or anyone else correcting my misapprehension--if it is, in fact. In the absence of clear definitions, I have been forced to define them myself. I went to the Indo-European roots--well, as far as Latin anyway. Social/society is derived from "socius," meaning partner, cooperation. Culture's origins are a little fuzzier, but it's pretty clear that it is associated with cultivation. I ask Latin scholars to contribute their expertise here. Looking at the history of humankind, it appears that cultivation began somewhere in the neighborhood of ten or twelve thousand years BCE. That's when the "domestication" of plants and animals is thought to have taken place. This was apparently the Great Tipping Point in the first transformation, from "pre-civilized" to "civilized." If we look at human behavior before and after that transformation, we see a trend away from "partner" (cooperative/social, as in hunting and gathering) behavior toward "cultivating" (hierarchical/coercive) behavior. This, without going into mountains of detail, is the basic foundation for "my" definitions of the two terms, replacing the vague and interchangeable common usage with a clear if not crucial distinction between them. I am referring to culture as a phenomenon; in that sense, I mean all human behavior that is cultural. However, individual cultures still contain elements of social behavior, and are dependent upon them--the "meat" upon which Caesar doth feed. I try to look at the question of "humans in the definition of environment" in biological/ecological/evolutionary terms rather than cultural terms. As to pathology, I do not, in this case, confine it to individual organisms, but in evolutionary ones. If a behavior contributes to the long-term survival of the species, I consider it "healthy" for that species rather than pathological. That is one way of simply stating the foundation for my assertion that culture is a psychopathology. I invite anyone to correct me on the merits of these assertions or to provide better definitions. I know that I appear to be coming out of left field with this, but that is the price mutants must pay--transformation or oblivion. I am very grateful for all of the responses to my pot-cracking assertions, and look forward to standing corrected or responding accordingly. Thus do I see this effort as a joint one, and welcome the participation of all to its refinement or refutation. WT PS: Jamie, while I do appreciate the references, I do not automatically consider authorities as conclusive. However, if you have a point to make and particular quotes from authorities to cite and interpret in a relevant context, I will be happy to respond to your own analysis. Working notes: culturally-loaded terms this is not easy--counterintuitive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Lewis Hedges" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:07 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment 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 [email protected] NOTICE:This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C._ 2510-2521, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please be aware that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in error, then delete it. Thank you for helping maintain privacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2998 - Release Date: 07/12/10 06:36:00
