By Ada Barbee, Allie Osgood, and Hannah Machiorlete
POSTNATURALISM
Post-naturalism is the concept that humans alter the evolutionary and ecological trajectory of biotic and abiotic processes of the planet. It’s a term used to critique the notion of pure nature separate from the artificial, human world. The main assertion is that humans alter their natural environment to the point where nature ideals cannot be considered pristine. James Proctor, in his Ecotypes survey, establishes a dichotomy between the concepts of pure and hybrid nature; post-naturalism falls under the latter. Another facet of post-naturalism is the genetic modification of organisms through biotechnology and artificial selection. This theory can be applied to controversial concepts of transgenic organisms, selective breeding, induced mutations, and domestication.
CONTEXT
Postnaturalism is often thought of as supporting ideas of contemporary environmental thought due to its compatibility with common characteristics of that classification. Contemporary environmental thought came about as a critique of classic environmental thought. Environmental scholars that utilize contemporary environmental thought tend to support distinct views of controversial topics discussed in James Proctor’s Ecotypes survey. A main difference between classic and contemporary environmental thought is seen in how these two ideologies view nature. Within this post and much of environmental scholarship, nature refers the abstract concept of the natural environment and normally doesn’t concern a particular geographic location. Contemporary thought replaces the view of nature as pure with a more realistic view as a hybrid gathering of different aspects of life. Figure 1 outlines other opposing viewpoints of classic and contemporary environmental thought in the context of the Ecotypes axes.
Figure 1: Differing opinions of classic and contemporary environmental thought on varying Ecotypes axes
Postnaturalist scholarship was founded in the early 1990’s to counter classic views of pure nature, separate from culture, such as in Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in which he argues for the “need for pristine places… substantially unaltered by man,” (1989). Though it is a more modern synthesis, postnatural thought is not more popular than its classic counterpart. In his book We Have Never Been Modern, Bruno Latour asserts that modern humans are living in a paradox, clashing with the notion of stringent categorization, such as between abstractions of nature and culture, even though instances of hybridization are prevalent and frequent (Blok 2011). Timothy Morton, in Ecology Without Nature, argues that the current “transcendental” view of nature actually further separates humans and nature (2007). He critiques the abstract, umbrella term concept of nature as “That Thing Over There that surrounds and sustains us.” Classic environmentalists prescribe a complete overhaul of worldviews, however Morton believes that nature’s vague use won’t be compelling to the public or institutions and therefore will not be successful in altering society (Morton 2007). Nature’s connection to culture is examined in The Trouble with Wilderness by William Cronan, who argues that the idea of nature is a human cultural invention. He points out that, in the United States and elsewhere, humans decided what land to preserve as natural habitats, which reflect cultural ideas of beauty. Classic purist thought is more often a “fantasy” of economically advantaged people, and postnaturalism has a more mutually beneficial application to conservation (Cronon 1995, Collard et al 2015). Rosemary-Claire Collard and her colleagues argue that conservation must be both neoliberal and postnatural in the age of the Anthropocene, focusing on the manner in which ecosystem services benefit humans, rather than preserving biodiversity for the non-practical value humans assign to it (Collard et al, 2015).
Postnaturalism works to consider nature and culture from a different perspective. Latour counters modernity’s tendency to separate nature and culture and instead suggests analysis of hybrid networks between actors as a non-categorical framework of interactions (Blok 2011). From this authorization, Christine Walley’s Rough Waters explores postnaturalism in practice. She researched a group of people from Chole/Mafia who exemplified the postnaturalist idea of the absence of an overarching, universal concept of “nature.” The Mafian people’s lifestyles represent the concept of “‘hybrid’ realities” or a conglomeration of different ideas from different “origins,” (Walley 2004). Like the people’s composite ways of life, the concept of nature is not seen as a pure, universally recognized entity, but rather as a gathering of matter and ideas perceived as “mazingira” or “general surroundings,” (Walley 2004).
Google Ngram: Use of the term “postnatural” in Google Books from 1800 to 2000.
CRITIQUE
Given the current rate of species extinction and public apathy, prevalent naturalism is ineffective in preserving biodiversity. For example, climate change, though recognized as potentially dangerous, a majority of Americans do not believe that climate change will affect them personally. Separation between culture and concepts of nature may be related to public disinterest. Postnaturalism has been debated over time whether it is more beneficial or harmful to current environmentalist movements. Some environmentalists would argue that postnaturalism, as an idea, is more practical for environmental change because it’s more appealing to a wider audience; a new form of environmentalism can “enhance those natural systems that benefit the widest number of people, especially the poor,” (Collard et al 2015). Postnaturalist worldviews recognize anthropogenic interactions with biotic and abiotic factors on an individual basis, rather than abstract descriptions of humans impacting “the environment”. Looking at these systems of interactions have more practicality, for conservation in particular. By removing the figurative separation between humans and nature, environmental movements can advocate for progressive environmental regulation within a cultural context, which resembles the mixing of the two that occurs in reality (Latour 1991). Many people, in concern to environmental issues, are only attentive if they “Make money and don’t break the law,” therefore human benefits must be advertised to gain people’s interest (Steinberg 2015).
Postnaturalism has the potential to include more people within the conservation movement. In this era of the Anthropocene, a postnatural time period marked by the human management of the planet, people are very anthropocentric. The public’s interest is swayed by how much the issues can be applied to human life. Collard and her colleagues agree with the environmentalist Erle Ellis that the Anthropocene questions human interactions with “the environment” (2015). In this view, human roles shift from destroyers of the land to stewards with the responsibility to participate in the anthropocentric world’s progression. The absence of an abstract construct of nature calls for a new form of conservation and new priorities for conservation movements. Since “we are living on a used [and hybrid] planet” in the age of the Anthropocene, the focus of conservation movements has shifted to that of “farms, backyards and cities”; humans and conceptions of nature are intertwined (Collard et al 2015). Conservancy institutions such as “The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Conservation International as well as, The Breakthrough Institute (TBI)” have all adopted the characteristics of “postnatural environmentalism” (Collard et al 2015). TBI members such as Erle Ellis and Bruno Latour strive to “modernize environmentalism” through “human-centered managerialism” and a progressive time mindset (Collard et al 2015). By discarding the nostalgic fantasy of nature, the concept of conservation is geared toward human benefit and not simply biodiversity. Therefore, such issues will be more appealing to people, especially in poorer communities, who will engage if the issue “links to their own needs” (Collard et al 2015). Postnaturalist conservation movements emphasize ecosystem services instead of ecosystems themselves (Collard et al 2015).
However, Collard’s assumption that preserving biodiversity “for biodiversity’s sake” serves no human benefit is not absolute, as she forgets the scientific value of biodiversity. Though not all protected areas have the same species richness, areas of high biodiversity such as the Amazon rainforest provide learning opportunities for science students to observe and investigate mechanisms of evolutionary biology, chemistry, and a wide array of disciplines (Correia, et al, 2016). Such an argument requires the preservation and separation of natural areas. In addition, preserving biodiversity may be to retroactively preserve the organisms that serve a potential benefit, such as an undiscovered ecosystem service (e.g. medicinal or subsistence purpose).
In addition, postnatural views are more socially inclusive. As Cronan mentioned in The Trouble With Wilderness, the idea of pure nature ignores the fact that native Americans lived in the U.S before Europeans came, and were removed, to create “uninhabited places” such as National Parks (1995). The idea of pure nature also appeals more to people who do not rely on the land for survival. Therefore, naturalism not only divides humanity from our surroundings, but can divide humans by class and race. Cronan argues that “the middle ground is where we actually live” (1995). Embracing the overlap and the connections between civilization and the areas in which we reside allows us to “learn ways of imagining a better world for us all” (Cronan 1995). Also, naturalism misunderstands nature as an idea, particularly by ignoring social projections onto the concept. If the naturalist’s view of this pure nature relies on a separation from humanity, then no human has ever experienced the pure nature ideal that classic environmentalist thought clings to. Invisible cultural values and influences are always present, even in awe-inspiring, seemingly isolated areas. In Who Rules the Earth, Steinberg demonstrates that even the simple act of walking on a beach is controlled by human institutions (2014). Postnatural ideas recognize that humans influence the ecology of our planet because we are one of the many parts of the system, rather than the thought that humans and our surroundings are entirely separate entities. For as long as humans have been on the planet, we have interacted with our surroundings, and postnaturalism recognizes this truth.
CONCLUSION
Considering the need for progressive environmental action, looking back on the lost ecological utopia lamented by classic environmentalists is not a productive or inclusive strategy. Environmental scholarship must be open to new ideas and schemas that dictate their philosophies, such as questioning the conception of nature. More importantly, is our theoretical division from natural productive? Perhaps understanding the notion of nature as complex, and thoroughly integrated into culture (and vice versa) will facilitate a more creative, and consequently less restrictive platform for environmental engagement. Ultimately, if environmentalists desire to preserve biodiversity, the complexity of life, then it’s hypocritical to reduce “nature” to a pristine area devoid of human codependence and forgo its intricacies.
Therefore, postnaturalism should be accepted into environmental scholarship as a potential for new interest in environmental movements. Conservation biology could experience revolution if its focus shifts to preserve ecosystem services first, and biodiversity as a result. This new revolution gives a wider range of opportunity to more people, and in doing so has the potential to make a greater impact than its naturalist counterpart. Environmental interest and action could shift away from a privileged movement of the white upper class to a postnaturalist movement for all people.
REFERENCES
Blok, Anders, Jensen, Torben Elgaard (2011) Bruno Latour: hybrid thoughts in a hybrid world. Excursions, 4 (1). ISSN 2044-4095
Collard, Rosemary-Claire, Jessica Dempsey, and Juanita Sundberg. “A Manifesto for Abundant Futures.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105, no. 2 (March 2015): 322–30. doi:10.1080/00045608.2014.973007.
Correia, Ricardo A., Ana C. M. Malhado, Lays Lins, Norah Costa Gamarra, Waltyane A. G. Bonfim, Anyelet Valencia-Aguilar, Chiara Bragagnolo, Paul Jepson, and Richard J. Ladle. “The Scientific Value of Amazonian Protected Areas.” Biodiversity and Conservation 25, no. 8 (2016): 1503–13. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1122-x.
Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Environmental History 1, no. 1 (1996): 7–28. doi:10.2307/3985059.
Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, 2012.
Morton, Timothy. Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Harvard University Press, 2007.
Steinberg, Paul F. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford University Press, 2015.
Walley, Christine J. “Where There Is No Nature.” In Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park, 138–44. Princeton University Press, 2004.