Anthropologists have always been interested in the way that humans interact with their environment, and particularly in the distinction between “nature” and human society. These ideas are changing as scholars listen to alternative views from across the world, and the debate can be overwhelming for researchers who are just getting started. Drawing on her own fieldwork in the high-altitude Himalayas and the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh, Dr. Orton explores the history of the debate and the stimulating new perspectives in contemporary research.
For university-level scholars or independent researchers, we’ve included clickable links to useful literature and canonical scholarship you need to be acquainted with to get started. For those who are simply interested in anthropology, enjoy these examples from different cultures all over the world!
Behemoth and Leviathan from William Blake’s Illustrations of the Book of Job
Nature and Culture
In the 1960s, canonical anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss claimed that the passage from nature to culture is the central problem of anthropology, arguing that concrete knowledge of the (natural) world people live in is meaningless unless it is abstracted and used to classify and order social phenomena.
Lévi-Strauss’ ideas have been criticised for overstating the distinction between nature and culture – after all, aren’t humans part of nature, too? Nonetheless, the question of how humans interact with the natural world around them is an important one.
Anthropologists are far from agreed about how to investigate these issues. Cultural ecologists like Julian Steward prefer quantitative methods, taking the view that humans interact with their environmental settings via adaptation, whereas ecological anthropologists like Roy Rappaport use more qualitative methods, arguing that culture-environmental relationships are reciprocal. Cultural materialists like Marvin Harris propose that material conditions like climate, food supply and geography help to explain differences and similarities between cultures.
At the same time, there have been clashes between anthropocentric or instrumentalist perspectives, which regard humans as the central entities of the universe, and biocentric or ecocentric views, which hold that humans are simply one species among many.
In recent decades, the debate has centred around the Western concept of ‘nature’ itself.
Nature and the West
Also in the 1960s, Lynn White argued that the Judeo-Christian idea of man’s dominion over nature encourages an anthropocentric dualism. White used his own background in the history of medieval technology, arguing that medieval Europe was the first society motivated to control nature through technology - and the cause of this drive was Latin (as opposed to Eastern) Christianity.
White’s point is that the man-nature relationship as seen in Biblical accounts such as the Genesis creation story established the dualism between man and nature, giving the former dominion over the latter. When it came into contact with pagan animism, Christianity removed genius loci (protective spirits) from mountains and trees and thus allowed the exploitation of nature.
White’s article has generated considerable debate within the academic community. Some scholars have pointed out that White exaggerated the degree to which the Middle Ages was driven by technological imperatives and overstated his claims, but was partially correct about the revolutionary nature of medieval technology.
White’s argument makes me uneasy, not least because of his harsh generalisations about Christianity. Many important figures in Christianity have a special relationship with animals and the natural world. One of my favourite stories is that of St. Cuthbert and the otters, which tells how the otters would dry Cuthbert’s feet when he came out of the sea!
Cuthbert and the Otters from Bede’s Life of St Cuthbert
Religious doctrine itself is similarly nuanced. God’s speech in the book of Job certainly doesn’t grant humans the kind of dominion over the earth that White reads in other parts of the Bible. In it, humans are just one small part of a vast, unfathomable universe. The story of Noah’s Ark has also been used to illustrate Biblical arguments for conservation and there are numerous verses throughout the Bible that call for care of the environment, not dominion over it.
One of White’s other claims is that Buddhism encourages an affinity with nature. White says that it is to this direction, or at least to the revival of pagan animism within Christian doctrine, that the West must turn, if it is to reverse the ecological crisis.
This argument romanticises and oversimplifies Buddhist doctrine, which is far too complex to generate any certainties over how its followers are bound to view the natural world. In my fieldwork in the Tibetan Buddhist area of Spiti Valley in the high-altitude Himalayas, I’ve heard very interesting and diverse perspectives from local people about humans’ relationship with the natural world.
For example, in Tibetan Buddhist texts, the snow leopard has been viewed as an emblematic animal interchangeable with the mythical snow lion, and as a symbol of the potential of humans to command the natural world in the story of the Buddhist saint Milarepa. In Himalayan Buddhist folklore, snow leopards have been seen as antagonists to humans, prone to drunkenness and, more recently, as majestic heroes of the mountains.
Click the link to read my blog post about some of these fascinating Himalayan snow leopard tales! You can also listen to my talk about the Buddhist Tibetan Empire’s mission of ‘taming’ nature, local religion and the mind.
Snow Lion, Tabo Monastery, Spiti Valley
We lose much of the richness of Buddhism if we examine it through the lens of Western ontology, so perhaps we should engage with it on its own terms. This means listening to what local people tell us, as well as understanding the difference between canonical religious texts and what people think today. I’ve written elsewhere on this blog about the method of vernacular theorising, which means prioritising what local people say over abstract theory when studying a community.
There is a huge diversity within and between communities of all religions. Individuals themselves may hedge, qualify and develop their own views, often within a single conversation (click the link to listen to my paper about nuance in the views of religious communities in the Sundarbans)! By listening carefully to these nuances, we can get a far more accurate – and respectful – picture of the way that humans interact with the natural world.
Disenchantment and Dialectic
Scholars have made other generalisations about the concept of nature in the West. In the early twentieth century, Max Weber used the concept of disenchantment, by which he meant that modern ideas about rationality have rendered the world profane, without spiritual significance. This idea has been very influential in scholarship, particularly in framing the Enlightenment as a watershed moment (click the link to read about how the Enlightenment has been influential on ideas about religion).
Louis Dupré points out that, in the seventeenth century, “The idea of an independent nature with its own teleology makes room for a mechanical one, mathematically constructed and subject to human purposes.”
Bronislaw Szerszynski builds on this idea, talking about the desacralisation of nature, according to which it “has been progressively mechanised and instrumentalised, cleansed of mysterious forces and meanings.” According to Szerszynski, in Western religious history, supernatural powers of ancient divinities were collected in the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic religions, which has shaped Western views of nature as a unified whole.
Shrine to the snake goddess Monosha, Sundarbans, Bangladesh
Philippe Descola argues that Western “naturalism” sets apart humans from non-humans in terms of the mind, while being on a material continuum with other creatures. That is, “naturalism” portrays humans as different and special because we have a complex mind, or, in some iterations, a soul.
Descola disparages this view, although he acknowledges that scientists are now less certain of a “neat discontinuity of interiorities between humans and non-humans,” citing the work of Donald Griffin as an example.
My sense is that this is still an overgeneralisation of the West. Many more ethological studies than Descola credits are receptive to the idea of non-human animals possessing culture, self-awareness and perspectives, evinced by the observations of ethologists themselves in their memoirs. Jane Goodall’s seminal study of chimpanzees in the 1960s certainly allowed for such notions without losing scientific rigour; Denise Herzing speaks about ‘dolphin etiquette’ and culture and Mark Bekoff and Frans de Waal work on animal languages, cultures, emotions, and morality.
I would also point to the difference between the narratives published in scientific papers and those in biographical field accounts. In the former, scientific convention prohibits the kind of language about the interior worlds of non-human animals, whereas in the latter, this possibility is very much taken into account. In reality, researchers wrangle with the methods of their study, the interpretation of their results and the framing of their research questions themselves – without being restricted to only thinking in the “naturalist” terms that Descola sets out.
In view of this, perhaps we should not take “Western naturalism” to mean that there is single Western idea of “nature” and our relationship with it. We should rather understand that dominant habits of expression that have been historically common in academic circles are informed by post-Enlightenment scientific views and historically prevalent religious beliefs about the uniqueness of the human soul. However, the prevalence of these ideas certainly do not indicate a monoculture.
Nurit Bird-David speaks of ‘‘modernist’’ dualist conceptions, but qualifies that “‘modernist’ signals neither the dichotomous opposite of ‘‘primitive’’ nor the equivalent of ‘‘scientific’’ but ideas and practices that dominated the Euro-American cultural landscape from the 17th to the 20th century.” This framing might be helpful in avoiding the generalisation of a “Western” approach, while also allowing for the critique of such views.
Humans and Nature
I remain cautious about the idea of a “Western” notion of nature. Across both Western and non-Western societies, perspectives on nature and demarcations of the “natural world” differ among communities and even between individuals. My sense is that academic debate is prone to creating a false dichotomy between Westerners and non-Westerners, and ignores the fact that multiple accounts of human-animal relations exist within Western culture.
Dr. Orton interviews local people about their relationship with animals, Sundarbans, Bangladesh
As for anthropology and folklore, exciting new areas of study are emerging. Jay Mechling’s article “‘Banana Cannon’ and Other Folk Traditions between Human and Nonhuman Animals” pointed out that there is ‘folklore’ between humans and their pets. Mechling is credited with the “animal turn” in anthropology.
Other scholars also pay attention to the possibility of animal folklore. Tok Thompson points out, “…it is not true that only humans narrate” as “narrative language does not necessarily mean a story.” A human radio announcer narrates the scenario unfolding before him is an example of a non-story narration. Likewise, alarm calls that announce approaching predators and “all clear” signals can be seen as non-human animal narration; play among non-human animals could be seen as a ‘proto-story’.
Perhaps it is academic discourse, rather than the West as a whole, that has overstated the distinction between humans and the natural world. I’m happy to say that this is changing. As always, we start with people. Theory follows.
Find Out More:
Learn more about Dr. Orton’s exciting fieldwork in our blog series on People and Wildlife in South Asia!
If you’re interested in tutorials with Dr. Orton, she offers online, one-on-one tutorials that are based around your learning or research needs. This ranges from ad hoc tutorials to gain an understanding of the academic literature, research proposal feedback and development, or regular, ongoing support.
You might also like to take a look at our Religious Studies or Anthropology courses. These courses are templates of possible routes of study and can be combined, adapted, or designed from scratch to suit your interests and goals. Dr. Orton will work with you to design a course of private tutorials tailored to your needs, ability and schedule – whether you are undertaking your own research for an independent project, writing a book or simply have a personal interest. Click the link to find out what it’s like to work with her and contact us to find out more!
To learn more about Dr. Orton’s research into anthropology and religion, visit Our Research Page to listen to her lectures, or read her blog post on Himalayan narratives to find out why we should prioritise the voices of local people in anthropological research.
Undertake Your Own Research Project in Anthropology and Religious Studies
Working on your own independent research project needn’t be a lonely task: Dr. Orton works with other independent scholars on projects in conservation and the humanities. Contact us for a chat with her.
If you’re not ready to reach out yet, follow our research methods series on this blog for more ideas! Dr. Orton has written posts on the importance of independent research and how to get started with building your own approach to ethical, people-centred fieldwork.
Reach Out
Follow us on Orton Academy Instagram to see pictures from Dr. Orton’s fieldwork in the Himalayas and the Sundarbans – we would love to connect with you!
Comments