nature and culture Flashcards
european philosophy
humans at the top of the hierarchy; the scale of intellect 1330
aristotlte christian doctrine
humans have soul—> therefore different frnom animals; great chain of being
enlightenment and nature
descartes (17th century)
“i think therefore i am”
agreed that ONLY humans have consciousness
animals; nothing but animated machines with no emotion or agency
mind/matter/body; non human life is mechanistic
critique of enlightnment concept of chain of being
hume: animals DO have emotion; a sad dog after losing master
science and nature
weshare DNA with animals/plants (physical connection)
but humans have intelligence, culture, language, reason ,etc= MORAL and INTELLECTUAL hierarchy
creates a metaphyisical dicontinuity (mind and spirit different); nature/culture divide
edward b tylor
(primitive man 1871); ‘knowledge, blief, arts and moral customs makes a man a member of society’
- agreed culture was UNIQUE feature of humans; civilizzation was socially created
- still place humans over animals; intensified this difference as humans participate in society
modernist take on nature
euro-amiercan; there is a sepeeration of nature and culutre.
(this isnt bad, just a specific view.)
- not a CLEAR divide as studies show animals have language, intellgience and emotion which challenges this view
Victorian anthropology effect on nature/culture divide
intensified this view by placing humans as ‘most evolved’
- humans as sole point of study
- human and animal relations might vary in different societies; attacheted to tribal/less evolved/nonmodern societieies
animism
tylorian concept of religious belief of the 19th century;
everything has a soul & consciousness; inatimate objects are animate
‘belief that inatimate forms/natural phenomena posses an animating force, endowing objects with emotional, intellectual and spiritual qualities parallelling humans’
tylor and animism
- attached animism to primitive man; as ‘less rational mind’; similar to a child
- tribal/hunter-gathered groups who live in nature, therefore out of civiilization
- biological/environmental surivival reliance creates a stronger relationship to animals and the enviroment
- this cosmological orientation; individuals in animated world MUST coexist and interact with other beings
aboriginals in australia and nature
BELIEF: world created by a rainbow serpent in the dream time, hence all beings come from one (strong human-natural relations)
Land—> sacred and with mythical creatures and spirits
e. g. river spirits ‘cant kill a catfish as he has my spirit and therefor ekilling it is killing myself’ (spirit in everything)
e. g. rituals and dance; grant spirits power who grant humans with fertility; white paint used as this ritual link
totemism
a form of animism where non-organic objects have spiritiual forms to reflect the sharing of the human-animal-plant link
what did levi strauss want to investigate
wanted to understand totemism: how it works structurally; argued it was a feature of human universal though
structuralism
doctrine/method that privilliges structures over function in animals/humans
structuralism and levi strauss
anthropoligical focus shoudl look at patterns of universal human though which result in cultural categories
- structures can be looked at in isolation; need to bee viewed as part of a interrelated whhole to understand social world
- mind is similar; therefore cultural variation are used by people to understanding and bring meaning to the world
levi strauss and totemism
(Inuit culture); totems dont establish SIMILARITIES but DIFFERENTS among clans
previous anthropological conceptions; totems how humans metaphorically understand human relations to nature
instead; totems as natural metahprs of culture
- clans use totems to assosiate selves with animals; create relations to nature
- nature is used as a metaphor for culture
e.g. kangaroo and emu clans; different of species as metaphor for differences among human groups
‘natural species are chosen, not because they are good to eat, but because they are good to eat’ (totemism, 1962)
- nature reflects social divisions
- primitive people; share concerns and rperesentations but totemic thought intermingles representations and nature mysitically as opposed to scientifically
- accepeted but he still added indigenous people as culture not nature but still placed a divide
bird david
‘animism 1999’; argument: tries to get away from nature culture dictohomy and see humans as differetetating and united in a social space
- critiques previous theories of animisim/totemism as a ‘failed epistemology’/’simple relations’
- says its a reduction of animist belief to symbolism; should be viewwed as a modern perspective
- believes animism and nature are analogus with human social live; therefore dividing it is a modernist perspective
bird david and nayaka
ethnography;
personhood; people as made up of relationships
individual; modern category that seperate speople as individuals with no interrelations
‘dividiual; people are composed of relations’; nayaka think of their relations to other (share space, food, social life); sharing as social expectation
—-kin are consistent shareres
‘devaru’; aspects or beings of the environment that the nayaka share with; (e.g. elephant or hill or tree); not just objects being used or eaten but with relational; what happens to them can affect people.
nondualistic perspective of nayaka?
‘hunter gatherers dont create a nature-culture dichotomy; they view the world as an integrated entity’
- relational poitn of view; reveals bias of modernist perspective
= hence ANIMISM is a relational epistemolgoy; just one way humans undersatnd world
bd: nayaka use meatphors from social human domain to create culture ways of understanding the environment
metaphor model
animals arent persons but exist that way in hunter gatehrer world
ingold on metaphor model
- 2000 ingold: metaphysical categories arent taken seriously; own assumptions are challeneged of nature
a. metaphor suggests social relations are either literal or meatphorical
b. natureal world as out there by cultural cognitive definition
c. individuals mode nature to understand culture
soul hunters
2007- rane willerslev
—> studied siberian yukagnirs; they dont have a word that corresponds to our notion of nature
‘being in the world’
‘animals/humans are both persons, not because its a form of cognitive processing, but because they revels themselves as such in real like activities and contexts’ (personhood depends on context)
— hunting therefore a way hunter mimics prety to bring out its person; takes on a double perspective as hunter and prety
‘all entities share the same inner essense; ‘avibii’’ which gives them similar rational capacities; multinaturalism
perspectivialism
proposed by vivieros da castro after fieldowrk in amazon with amerindian;
in his own mind a jaguar is a human; default state of everythign in jungle human/person
ontology
a way of being
