Student: Mamelang Memela
Graduation date: May 2020
Type: Area of Interest (double major)
Date approved: November 2017
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
Having grown up in ‘the Global South’, I have always been aware of the tensions between the imposed systems of governance that were instilled by colonial powers and the ways in which they have impacted many facets of society. When comparing these viewpoints to those of indigenous people, with regards to the treatment of the nonhuman world, one can see the origins of these tensions and the ways in which they have come to manifest themselves in the physical and nonhuman world. Therefore, my area of interest seeks to explore and analyse the ways in which the human and the nonhuman world have come to influence and shape each other, how they interact and the role and origins of social constructions within these interactions.
In World-Systems Theory, sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein develops a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates world history and social change to suggest that the current world economy can be traced back to the origins of European capitalism in the 16th century (Wallerstein 1974). This approach separates countries into three categories: core, semiperiphery and periphery. The relationship between these countries is said to consist of core countries (mainly those in Western Europe) economically exploiting the periphery countries and thus having dominance over them (Wallerstein 2004). World- Systems Theory, its notions of core and periphery countries, and the ways in which it defines their characteristics will serve as the basis of my area of interest.
The dominance described in World-Systems Theory can thus be said to have originated through colonialism. Following the emergence of European capitalism that now dominates much of the world economy, many countries of ‘the Global South’ served as centres of mineral resources, labour and extraction that came to build the wealth and facilitated the innovation of the core countries. The process of colonisation eradicated many indigenous peoples and altered the ways in which they relate to their physical surroundings and the nonhuman world This also led to the creation of “Neo-Europes”, places such as North America, where European settlers were able to eradicate and control the indigenous populations and cause the land to undergo ecological imperialism (Crosby 1986) and (MacKenzie 1990) which was the manifestation of non-indigenous ideology on the physical surroundings. Thus creating and accentuating the disparities that exist between them (Peet 2009), (Dirlik 2007), (Jones 2000) and (Rodney 1981). However, the origins of these disparities can also be accounted for by the geography of the countries and continents which affected the probability of domesticated flora and fauna, the immunity of the people to disease and illness and their level of technological innovation (Diamond 1997).
In what is debatably referred to as the postcolonial era, these disparities have become more apparent with the autonomy and sovereignty of periphery countries due to the use of development indicators. However, these indicators also assume that there is a way countries should develop and achieve industrialisation, which often mimics that of many Western European and North American countries (Barfield 1997). With the reality of climate change and global warming, industrialisation, modernisation and the increasing population will only increase global emissions, intensifying the consequences that will negatively impact billions of people. Thus, the idea of coloniality becomes relevant as the there exists an economic, cultural, intellectual and political hegemony that came to the periphery through colonialism from Western Europe, which has impacted and influenced the ways in which indigenous people relate and interact to the nonhuman world. “The intellectual conceptualization of the process of modernity produced a perspective of knowledge and a mode of producing knowledge that gives a very tight account of the character of the global model of power: colonial/modern, capitalist, and Eurocentered.” (Quijano 2000). This idea of constructed reality is echoed in the context of wilderness (Cronon 1996) and expanded (Proctor 1998, 354-358) and is one of many examples that illustrate the ways in which social constructions affect how humans relate to the nonhuman world and consequently alludes to how they may relate to each other.
References
Barfield, Thomas. 1997. , The dictionary of anthropology, Wiley-Blackwell, Google Print, p.498-499
Cronon, William. 1996. “The Trouble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Environmental History 1, no. 1 (1996): 7-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985059 .
Crosby, Alfred W. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel : The Fates of Human Societies. 1st ed. 1997. Book Club Kit. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Dirlik, Arif. 2007. “Global South: Predicament and Promise.” The Global South 1: 12–23. DOI:10.2979/GSO.2007.1.1.12
Jones, Peris S. 2000. “Why Is It Alright to Do Development ‘Over There’ but Not ‘Here’? Changing Vocabularies and Common Strategies of Inclusion across ‘First’ and ‘Third’ Worlds.” Area 32.2 (June): 237–241.
MacKenzie, John M. Imperialism and the Natural World. Studies in Imperialism (Manchester, England). 1990. Manchester, UK ; New York : New York, NY, USA: Manchester University Press ; Distributed in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press.
Said, Edward W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Peet, Richard, and Elaine Hartwick.2009. Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. 2d ed. London and New York: Guilford. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2000.tb00135.x
Proctor, James D. 1998. “The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 3, volume: 88, pp 352-376. EBSCOhost.
Quijano, Anibal (2000). “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” (PDF). Nepentla: Views From the South. 1 (3): 533–580.
Rodney, Walter. 1981. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.
Spivak, Gayatri, 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271–313.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press
Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press. pp. 23–24.
Questions
- Descriptive: I) What are the attitudes and ideologies of core and periphery countries toward the nonhuman world? II) What were the attitudes and ideologies of indigenous people before colonialism toward the nonhuman world? III) What are the characteristics and manifestations of Eurocentric ideologies?
- Explanatory: I) What factors have historically contributed to the ways in which humans relate to the nonhuman world? II) How have colonialist ideologies affected the ways in which indigenous people relate to the nonhuman world? III) In what ways have the ideas and practices of core and periphery countries toward the nonhuman and physical world changed?
- Evaluative: I) What have been the adverse impacts of ecological imperialism and Eurocentric ideologies on periphery countries?
- Instrumental: I) How can Eurocentric and non-Eurocentric perspectives be used in implementing solutions to various preservation practices of the human and nonhuman world?
Arts and humanities courses
- HIST 261 (Global Environmental History, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.