How is nature social - Essay Example

? How is ‘nature’ social? Outline and critically discuss the social production of nature, using examples from your wider reading. Introduction The unprecedented geomorphological changes registered in the society, coupled with the sheer scale of alterations engendered by human beings, together with the qualitatively diverse modes of interventions have presented a fundamental shift of the conventional boundaries between nature and culture. Such transformations have not only touched on issues concerning natural scientists alone, but also the social scientists, the general public, and environmental groups. Environmental groups, with the aid of the media, guaranteed that, by the 1980s, concepts such as “ozone holes” and the “greenhouse effect” would be part of everyday vocabulary. An intricate juxtaposition of scientific developments, technological advances and ideological changes, coupled with consequences of the economic growth, has changed the way in which individuals conceive social representations of nature (Leslie and Evernden 1992, p.4). The paper explores the concept “social constriction of nature,” which has lately become a crude, but universal term describing various understandings of nature, knowledge, and the world. The essay explores the transformation of the physical environment into landscapes via cultural symbols and how the landscapes mirror individuals’ definitions of themselves. The social construction of nature derives from two core considerations; first, no human society can exist without modifying the natural order, or without some representation of its rapport to nature, and without some form of language that expresses and constructs such representations. Secondly, the prevalence of the “natural question” in modern societies would appear to submit representations of nature as a prime object of analysis. Scientific Sciences and Nature The conduct of scientific sciences has often proceeded guided by the assumption that scientific knowledge bears a representation of something that exists outside it. The claims to know certain facts of nature derive from the assumption that it is only the nature that exists wholly outside individuals that are competent to be known. However, the philosophy, history, and sociology of science in the last two decades have largely asserted and confirmed the relativism of any distinct scientific claims regarding nature (Crist 2004, p.6). Scientific understandings of nature (inclusive of ecological understandings) have frequently been criticized for being mechanistic. In the last two decades, dissatisfaction with positivism has been rife with many theorists appreciating the roles of culture and language in individuals’ perception and understanding of the nature (Whatmore 2005, p.18). It is apparent that naive forms of realism in which nature is a directly perceptible entity that is concisely available to all irrespective of experience, cultural context, or motivation have not been successful. However, among some social scientists, the stress on cultural factors has replaced, rather than complemented biological explanation, which reflects the swing of the epistemological pendulum from biologism (1950s) to the preoccupation with culture (Bird 1987, p.255). Models of Nature Models of nature have typically referred to ecological, or more commonly, scientific understandings and have rarely included cultural factors. Recently, however, there has been a significant step towards defining the nature as a “social construction.” This translates to the notion that nature is an artefact of human, social and linguistic capability. Vivien Burr suggests “what individuals regard as truth is mainly a creation, not of objective observation of the world, but of the social processes and interactions” (1995, p.4). Equally, Peter Mason advances that “reality” is itself a product reflecting the activity of individuals’ imagination (1990, p.15). Language plays a critical role in this construction. According to William Chalouka and McGreggor Cawley, “nature, as is everything that individuals talk about, is primary an artefact of language” (Cronon and Cawley 1993, p.5). As outlined, language is perceived as not necessarily representing nature, more or less sufficiently, but rather as constituting it. This informs constructionists to critique the assumption that science pursues nature as it exists outside individuals. According to this approach, nature has no intrinsic structures or patterns of its own. This assertion remain frequently criticized by constructionists as essentialism; although, the approach is structured discursively (Johnston, et al. 2000, p.537). Chaloupka and Cawley assert that, the dubious logic of nature must thus be replaced by rhetoric. Such assertions suggest that nature is itself an entity that can be regarded as quite different from that which most environmentalists, activists, and writers project. Hence, instead of being perceived as a multifaceted and varied order whose patterns and potential surpass humans understanding them, nature turns into an offshoot of a social reality, which also creates individuality. The reality is that the social world differs according to time and place, which translates to the notion that each of the social worlds will construct a fairly different account of the nature (Castree 2005, p.221). Therefore, there is no single nature, but rather an assortment of natures constituted by individuals’ diverse fantasies and languages. Alternative Models of Nature Alternative perspectives on the human-environment relationship have been advanced; however, the suggested approaches remain criticized for placing significant emphasis on the deterministic aspects of culture, nature, and the environment, to the omission of human preference and negotiation in modelling landscapes. Some cultural ecologists assert that nature and the environment are deterministic and that diverse cultural groups simply adapt to that environment. Some psychologists and socio-biologists stipulate that human actions are predominantly genetically adjusted in certain directions, besides individuals tend to respond in certain ways to a given environment (Crist 2004, p.7). The post-modern critique of the traditional social sciences detail that deterministic theories often tend to disregard socially-constructed symbols and meanings that fashion nature and the environment and the processes through the meanings and symbols are bargained, renegotiated, and imposed on other groups via the application of power. The Social Construction of Nature: Interactionist Approach Sociology of knowledge approach, mainly social constructionism, combines phenomenology and symbolic interaction as applied to diverse examples from sociology and anthropology in highlighting the notion of landscapes. Nature is subjective to every society in the same way that, for two individuals, nature will not necessarily invoke the same ideas. Cultural groups alter the natural environment into landscapes via the application of diverse symbols that confer diverse meanings on the same physical objects or conditions. The symbols and meanings are mainly socio-cultural phenomena (social constructions emanating from the ongoing negotiations in a cultural context) (Johnston et al. 2000, p.538). Meanings are not intrinsic in the nature of things; the symbols and meanings that encompass landscapes mirrors what individuals in cultural groups define to be either proper or improper relationships among themselves and the physical environment. Hence, via the sociocultural phenomena, the physical environment transformation into landscapes embodies reflections of how individuals define themselves (Vivien 1995, p.4). The transformation of the physical environment into landscapes that mirror individuals’ definitions of themselves and the manner in which these landscapes reconstruct in reaction to individual’s changing definitions. Although the landscape can be viewed as the same physical thing, the interactionist approach view the landscape as carrying multiple symbolic meanings that stem from the values by which individuals define themselves (William 1996, p.36). The symbolic meanings and self-definitions are sociocultural phenomena, rather than physical phenomena, in which individuals transform the open field into a symbolic landscape. Thus, every landscape is indeed a symbolic environment, and the landscapes mirror individuals’ self definition grounded in culture (Evans 2008, p.258). The idea of the social construction of nature stipulates that nature does not exist independently of man; the approach advances that nature and a society are cultural, political, and philosophical values of the entities that exist naturally (such as air, trees, and waterways) to create a landscape. Thomas Greider and Lorraine Garkovich’s article titled, “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment” reveals that individuals’ understanding of nature and human relationships with the environment are mainly cultural expressions employed to define individuals’ identity (Greider & Garkovich 1994, p.3). Human beings are not disconnected from nature, but employ nature to form interpretation of themselves, their place in nature, as well as nature itself. Hence, when events or technological innovations confront the meanings vested on these landscapes, it is the individuals’ conceptions of themselves that change via the process of negotiating fresh symbols and meanings (Evans 2008, p.256). The self definitions (the processes of negotiation over landscapes) and ensuing social actions should be the focus of social science inquiry as there are no natural meanings intrinsic within the world. The theoretical synthesis of social construction of nature breaks away from the realist postulation of a given, irreversible and non-socialized nature, and from the individualist conceptualizations of man-environment associations that still dictate environmental and ecological approaches (Goldman and Schurman 2000, p.563). Environmental disasters common in contemporary society such as oil spills reveals three distinct, yet interconnected social representations of nature, which include organic, mechanistic, and cybernetic. Each of the social representations remains inherently related to a certain sense of identity, form of knowledge, and form of relations to nature (Kidner 2000, p.340). In the organic representations, nature comprises a repository of their history, a collaborator of the individuals’ identity as a marginal, but resilient community embodying direct engagement and participation in a life world. The individuals living outside the area, but affected by the oil spill, may hold mechanistic and/or cybernetic representations anchored in some universal, abstract knowledge centring on the systematic attributes of the environment. This group’s relations to nature fluctuate between domination, mastery, and protection. Discussion The human understanding of nature and relationships with the environment derive from the cultural expressions of individuals’ identities. Thus, when attempting to highlight and understand the potential human consequences of changes witnessed within the natural environment (Anderson 2010, p.119). It is essential that such consequences remain understood from the diverse cultural definitions that construct landscapes whether the landscape is created by the farmer, the hunter, or the real estate developer. William Cronon observes that there is nothing in physical nature that can aid individuals adjudicate among the diverse visions (of nature). This is because in all cases, nature simply serves as the mirror onto which different societies can project the perfect reflections they wish to see (William and McGreggor 1993, p.5). Constructionism, thus, entails a relativistic stance within which any attitude towards or one interpretation of the natural world is no better or inferior to any other (Smith 1990, p.34). Cronon’s views of nature (wilderness) suggest that nature is not the ground out of which human life sprouts, but rather “the location for a repertoire of definitional and contestatory activities. This means that nature is part of a discursive world in which problems that might exist within the world are produced and solved by debate, instead of embodied action (Cronon 1996, p.69). In line with this spirit, John Hannigan notes that environmental problems emanate from the discursive realm referred to a “science” (1995, p.187). In his critique of the notion that science can, at least to a certain degree, “mirror the physical reality of the natural world,” Hannigan concludes that scientific knowledge is predominantly dependent upon a process of claims making (1995, p.76). It is indeed difficult to highlight an environmental problem that does not have its derivations in a body of scientific research. Problems witnessed within the physical world such as acid rain, loss of biodiversity, desertification, global warming, and dioxin poisoning first began with a collection of scientific observations. Cronon echoes this observation by claiming a number of the most dramatic environmental problems witnessed today exist predominantly as simulated representations within complex computer models of natural systems. The environmental problems, according to this approach, do not represent interruptions of the ecological structure of the world that can be, more or fewer, defectively detected, measured and described via the scientific and conceptual tools available to individuals (Cronon1996, p.36). The complications and doubts surrounding assessments of ecological health are frequently employed to justify these views. Hannigan suggests that since there is minimal knowledge known regarding the manner in which species interact in ecosystems and key concepts such as ecology, nature, and environmentalism are by no means fixed in meaning, but rather are both socially constructed and contested. Then, it follows that, rather than being a fixed entity, the environment is a fluid concept that is both culturally grounded and socially constituted (Hannigan 1995, p.109). Smith asserts that just as the production of nature is cultural, the production of nature is equally an economic process (Smith 1996, p.42). Individuals remain equally dedicated to replicating the social conditions of production, consumption and development that have heralded environmental concerns in the first place (Castree 2000, p.5). The aspiration to place nature “out there or all encompassing” heralds disconnect with the individuals’ relationship to nature within the physical world such as a city. This detachment may be propelled by capitalist forces that either fetishize nature in the shape of an art gallery, spiritual experience, or gymnasium, to displace it (literally) from the physical environment such as a city to make room for development, or to label it for (what capitalism considers as) appropriate or safe consumption (Smith 1996, p.43). Conclusion Scientific knowledge should not be perceived as a representation of nature; instead, it should be regarded as a socially constructed interpretation of the natural world. Before individuals can draw conclusions regarding the sources of environmental problems, there is a need to review historical accounts on the concrete interactions between society and nature that have produced the changes (Bird 1987, p.255). The multiplicity of human interpretations of nature points out to constructionists’ assertion that there is no world “out there” self-sufficient of human cognition and language. This indicates an obvious conflict between the social constructionist perspectives and a more realist one that holds that, while the natural world enables individuals to interpret it in diverse ways, the reality of the natural world is nevertheless chiefly independent of social life. Humans remain constantly involved in seizing natural phenomena and transforming the natural phenomena into cultural objects, besides reintegrating the physical phenomena with cultural ideas. The shared, often take-for-granted, and reinforced symbols and meanings that emerge via processes of negotiation define social and natural phenomena. References List Anderson, J. (2010). Understanding cultural geography: Places and traces, Oxon, Routledge. pp.119-125. Bird, E. (1987). The social construction of nature: Theoretical approaches to the history of environmental problems, Environmental Review 11 (4). pp.255-264. Castree, N. (2000). Marxism and the production of nature, Capital & Class 24 (3). pp.5-36. Castree, N. (2005). Nature, Oxon, Routledge. pp.221-224. Crist, E. (2004). Against the social construction of nature and wilderness, Environmental Ethics 26, pp.5-24. Cronon, W. & Cawley, M. (1993). “The Great Wild Hope: Nature, Environmentalism, and the Open Secret,” in Jane Bennett and William Chaloupka, eds., In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics, and the Environment,Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. p.5. Cronon, W. (1996). “Introduction,” in William Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York, Norton. p. 36. Evans, J. (2008). Social Constructions of Nature, in Daniels, P., Bradshaw, M.,Shaw, D. and Sidaway, J. (eds.) An Introduction to Human Geography: Issues for the 21st Century, Pearson Education Limited, Essex. pp. 256-272. Goldman, M. & Schurman, R. (2000). Closing the “great divide”: New social theory on society and nature, Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1). pp.563-584. Greider, T. & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment, Rural Sociology 59 (1). pp.1-24. Hannigan, J. (1995). Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective, London, Routledge. pp.187. Johnston, R. J. et al., Eds. (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography, Oxford, Blackwell. pp. 537-540. Kidner, D. (2000). Fabricating nature: A critique of the social construction theory, Environmental Ethics 22 (1). pp.340-357. Leslie, L. & Evernden, N. (1992). The social creation of nature, London, The Johns Hopkins Press. pp.3-10. Mason, P. (1990). Deconstructing America: Representations of the Other, London, Routledge. pp. 15. Smith, N. (1990). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space, Oxford, Blackwell. pp. 34-65. Smith, N. (1996). The production of nature, in Robertson G et al, Future Natural, London, Routledge. pp. 35-54. Vivien, B., (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism, London, Routledge. pp. 4. Whatmore, S. (2005). Culture-Nature, in Cloke, P., Crang, P. and Goodwin,M. (eds.) Introducing Human Geographies, Hodder Arnold, London. pp.8-17. William, C. & McGreggor, C. (1993). “The Great Wild Hope: Nature, Environmentalism, and the Open Secret,” in Jane Bennett and William Chaloupka, eds., In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics, and the Environment, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. p.5. Read More