Team Members: Ben Carsner, Nicole Godbout, Lauren Walker
Definition
Biophilia was popularly defined in Edward O. Wilson’s book The Biophilia Hypothesis as “the innate tendency in human beings to focus on life and lifelike processes” (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). It is often used to describe the extent to which humans are hardwired to need connection with the non-human world. Biophilia is based from the greek roots ‘bio,’ translating to life, and ‘philia’ translating to love. Thus it can be inferred that in its most basic definition biophilia refers to the love of life (Kellert and Wilson, 1993).
Context
The idea of biophilia was first discussed in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, published in 350 B.C.E. In his work, Aristotle considers friendship as the ethics of interspecies obligation. Aristotle’s ‘philia’ is based on the notion of wanting good for someone else, independent of what one’s own self benefits from that person or interaction. Although the focus is on human relations, Aristotle writes “It seems that nature implants friendship in a parent for its offspring and in offspring for its parent, not only among men, but also among birds and most animals” (Aristotle 1962). The philosopher suggests biophilia is part of the animal and plant kingdoms and can be felt between humans and other living things (Santas 2014). The first use of biophilia in direct connection with living organisms was by psychoanalysis Erich Fromm in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (Fromm 1973), which described biophilia as “the passionate love of life and of all that is alive.” Like Aristotle’s beliefs, his biophilia was based on moral ethics.
However, biophilia was later popularized by American biologist Edward O. Wilson in The Biophilia Hypothesis, which took on more of a scientific approach to the word (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). Kellert and Wilson proposed that the tendency of humans to affiliate with plants, animals, the landscape, and other non-human life-forms has, in part, a genetic basis. Wilson’s definition of biophilia resonates with his contentious theory of sociobiology, a field of scientific study based on the hypothesis that social behavior results from evolution, and thus social behavior can be explained by evolution and genes (Wilson 1975). Biophilia, as a form of sociobiology, remain controversial. Wilson popularized biophilia as a “deep conservation ethic” (Kellert and Wilson 1993) that humans should do what’s best for wildlife independent of humans gain. This shift in use of biophilia from a moral sentiment to a biological connection has reverberated throughout conservation movements and laws. Modern conservationists, advocating for the prosperity and diversity of earths biological systems, use the genetic component of biophilia as the impetus for an argument that courts should rethink the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Advocates for such movements derive their power from the idea of biophilia as both a genetic interconnectedness (Johnston 2010); support for this intrinsic affiliation between human and other living organisms calls for an expansion of the ESA (Preheim 2001). The evolution of biophilia from a moral sentiment to a genetic disposition is thus a powerful tool.
Critique
This popular use of biophilia is both anthropocentric and essentialist. Anthropocentric environmental movements justify the protection of areas untouched by humans because this allows the advancement of human welfare. The ethics ecotype axis considers if nature should be valued for how it serves humans alone, or for its own sake as well. Biophilia rests on the assumption that nature is valued only because of the benefits it provides to humankind and declares that this dependence is a biological need. Thus, biophilia relies on these inherent values as an irrevocable scientific fact about humans. The intention of Wilson’s book was to provide incentive to preserve the wild. Relying on beliefs about nature as pure or hybrid, biophilia is weakened by its favorability towards a wild and pure world and its dis-favorability towards the “artificial world” (Stairs 1997) altered by humans. His definition also rests on an essentialist assumptions that every person can and wants to benefit from wildlife; a genetic basis does not allow any human to deviate from the demands of biophilia. Wilson’s conception of biophilia also does not consider harmful forms of living organisms, such as pathogens or mosquitos. Thus, the modern definition of biophilia is based on contentious values about anthropocentric and essentialist concepts of humans relationship towards living organisms.
The very definition of biophilia has drastically changed over time and continues to be debated. While Aristotle referred to biophilia as a moral affinity of living organisms (Aristotle 1962), Wilson used it to describe a love and desire to protect places untouched by humans based in genetics. While this idea “seems plausible to many scientists” (Kellert and Wilson 1993), evidence has not yet been found. While labeled as a hypothesis, there is no popular rhetoric refuting this common conception of biophilia. Treating the biophilia hypothesis as a fact in debate is dangerous since proposed scientific truths are powerful in political discourse. Contention arises when it is revealed biophilia has no confirmed genetic basis. Use by scholars should be limited to discussion of theory. Conservationists who view biophilia as a moral and personal commitment are more likely to support individual action, while those who favor a genetic basis generally turn to institutions and collective action. Thus, biophilia cannot be relied on to consistently result in effective implementation of change regarding resource conservation movements.
The meaning of biophilia also depends on people’s ethical and spiritual values. Erich Fromm discusses this by explaining how biophilia “is manifested in a person’s bodily processes, in his emotions, in his thoughts, in his gestures” (Fromm 2011) and therefore is different for each person. The usefulness of biophilia is weakened by users personal beliefs regarding living organisms and their relationship to humans. All religions have their own philosophies on the role of natural world in humanity and on human’s connection to living organisms. Individuals themselves have even more complex personal opinions varying from multiple ecotypes (Sachdeva 2016). Varying personal opinions makes it impossible to agree on a universal definition of biophilia.
Conclusion
Biophilia in its most simplistic meaning is the love of living organisms. The term has been used in many contexts throughout history, from Aristotle’s ideas of an ethical relationship between humans and living organisms to Edward Wilson’s claim of a genetic connection. Biophilia is now used to describe a range of connections between humans and the non-human world. The definition of biophilia is anthropocentric and contains an essentialist view of humans love for living organisms. Its interpretation and use is subjective to individuals previously held beliefs, varying because of religious and moral values. Scientific debate over the ethical or genetic basis for biophilia leaves room for subjectivity about the benefits of using biophilia in scholarly works.
Biophilia can be effectively used by scholars to describe a connection between humans and other living organisms, however, use of the word beyond its definition is not recommended. Biophilia should not be invoked by scholars as evidence of or reasoning for individual or institutional change regarding policy around conservation or other environmental action. This is because of the ambiguity of the word. Since the foundation of the biophilia is contested, and has a history of the public’s misunderstanding, we caution its use. Further, human’s tendency to exploit living organisms as displayed by deforestation, overfishing, and high consumption of meat products undermines the concept of true biophilia.
Works Cited
Aristotle. 1962. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Martin Ostwald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. 1973. Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada.
Fromm, Erich. 2011. The Heart of Man. Lantern Books.
Johnston, Lucas F. 2010. “From Biophilia to Cosmophilia: The Role of Biological and Physical Sciences in Promoting Sustainability.” Journal For The Study Of Religion, Nature & Culture 4, no. 1: 7-23. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.
Kellert, Stephen R., and Edward O. Wilson. 1993. The Biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Preheim, L. Misha. “Biophilia, the Endangered Species Act, and a new endangered species paradigm.” William and Mary Law Review, Mar. 2001, p. 1053.
Sachdeva, Sonya. “Religious Identity, Beliefs, and Views about Climate Change.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.
Santas, Aristotelis. “Aristotelian ethics and biophilia.” Ethics & the Environment, vol. 19, no. 1, 2014, p. 95+. Academic OneFile,
Stairs, David. “Biophilia and Technophilia: Examining the Nature/Culture Split in Design Theory.” Design Issues 13, no. 3 (1997): 37-44. doi:10.2307/1511939.
Wilson, Edward. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press.