Since my interview with
Colleen Culley I have been spending a lot of time thinking about nature,
culture, and the body. I have especially been thinking about the parallels
that can be draw between the body and the environment, as well as the
definitions of “nature,” “culture,” and “community.
Last semester I took a
women's studies course taught by professor Betty Bayer entitled Stormy Weather:
Ecofeminism. This course focused a lot on looking at the world from a highly
interconnected perspective and how understanding this interconnectivity is
vital to understanding our current environmental problems. In one paper I was required
to write for this class I needed to answer the question "What is
nature?"
After re-reading this
paper, I decided it was worth sharing here on my blog. Obviously this paper
focuses on my personal opinions, and as always I am open to hearing any
differing points of view, so please feel free to comment! Also, the version I
am sharing here is slightly abridged from the original paper. Enjoy!
Katherine Marino
September 30, 2011
Mind, Body, Environment and Nature:
Blurred Lines and Imagined Barriers
As an Environmental Studies
and Dance double major I am able to spend substantial amounts of time examining
body, mind, and environment. The diversity of my studies provides me with an
understanding of how interconnected the world is on both an individual level of
body, mind, and community, and the larger level of Earth as a whole.
Understanding this interconnection makes separation of nature from human beings
extremely difficult. By attempting to separate people from nature you miss the
big picture and are not able to truly understand how the Earth functions.
The separation between nature
and culture, also referred to as the dualism of nature and culture, is integral
to the theory of Ecofeminism. Although there are many different types of
Ecofeminism, all explore how re-examining dualisms can open new paths for
thinking about society and the Earth.[1] Most
important to Ecofeminism are the dualisms of nature to culture and female
to male because they directly relate to relationships of power and
control. In this paper I explore the idea of interconnectedness between mind,
body, nature, and culture, and how these connections make the distinction
between nature and humans impossible to define.
The problem with dualisms
Whether we realize it or not,
dualist thinking is prominent in our culture today. Dualisms cause us to create
imagined barriers between different aspects of the world, such as culture and
nature, which in turn causes an incomplete perception of the Earth. Although
the act of mentally separating differences is necessary for us as humans to
understand and think about the world, it can also create an attitude of
closed-mindedness and disconnect, preventing us from seeing a complete picture
and discouraging the opportunity for successful, creative problem-solving.
Personally
I am most familiar with the dualism of body and mind due to my
studies as a dancer. Once I began looking deeper into the relationships between
mind, body, and environment I began to see a parallel between the mind
to body connection and the culture to environment connection.
The mind directs all bodily movement, whether conscious or unconscious, and
that movement can in turn have an effect on a person’s state of mind. A healthy,
active body is usually correlated with a healthy mind. For example, body
effects the mind through different body attitudes; if one slouches and gazes
downward while walking, they will have a completely different mental experience
than if they walk with an open posture and conscious, purposeful movement.
A similar comparison arises
when discussing the connection between individuals and environment. We have a
drastic effect on the environment surrounding us, just as our environment
creates who we are both physically and mentally. Simply stated, it is true that
“you are what you eat”; the nutrients we consume make up the cells of our
bodies, which inseparably connects us to the environment. Likewise, if we
inadvertently consume toxic man-made chemicals these too become part of our
beings. To take this idea a step further, it is also true that you are what you
drink, breathe, see, feel, think, and move.
These are all examples
visible, tangible connections between people and the environment, however
regardless of whether connections between humans and nature are intuitively
apparent, people are and have always been inherently a part of nature. It is
only in the relatively recent past that we have evolved to live in buildings
and grow and raise our own food, thus creating artificial environments and
blatantly controlling and exploiting both nature and ourselves in the process.
Carolyn Merchant: The Earth as the female body
According to Carolyn Merchant
in The Death of Nature, the mentality of humankind’s control over
nature first developed during the scientific revolution, in which the commonly
accepted view of the world made a “transition from organism to machine.”[2] Merchant
compares the Earth to a living female body, and in doing so implicates both the
image of a nurturing mother and the notion of something wild that needs to be
controlled. She describes the waterways of the Earth as blood vessels and
arteries, the Earth as a nurturing womb from which all life is birthed, and
volcanoes as the Earth’s erupting bowls. Merchant refers to this idea as the
Geocosm theory. She depicts the mining of the Earth for metals as the “rape” or
“torture” of nature, stating, “nature herself did not wish to be discovered”
(Merchant, 34). In this way she compares the exploitation and
control of the Earth to the exploitation and control of women, addressing both
the dualism of nature and culture and female and male.
After reading The
Death of Nature it seems obvious that the Earth is essentially a
single living organism, yet at first the comparison between Earth and female
body may seem almost ridiculous; as a society today we have slowly become
socially adjusted to viewing the Earth for the resources it provides rather
than seeing the Earth as a whole living organism, including all the animals,
plants, waterways, weather, landscapes, and mysteries that exist here. Merchant
states that we need a “new world view”[3] and
that we must “live within the cycles of nature”[4] rather
than continuing to live with a mentality of superiority and thus the knowledge
and “right” to control nature.
One way that we separate
ourselves from the cycles of nature is by disregarding the natural seasons.
Rather than eating seasonal foods, we have nearly every type of meat, produce,
and dairy all year round. For example, it is completely normal for us to eat
tomatoes, apples, and eggs all year, yet none of these products are naturally
available all year. We also disregard the seasons by using air conditioning in
the summer and heat in the winter. Although I am not advocating for people to
turn off their indoor-heating during the winter, I believe it is possible to
live within the cycle of nature much more closely than we do currently.
Rachel Carson: Toxic chemicals and the control of nature
In Silent Spring Rachel
Carson discusses in detail the shocking effect that toxic, man-made chemicals
have had on animals, humans, and the whole Earth.[5] She
emphasizes the lack of research and “needless havoc” surrounding the use of
pesticides, insecticides and herbicides, stating “as man proceeds toward his
announced goal of the conquest of nature, he has written a depressing record of
destruction, directed not only against the earth he inhabits but against the
life that shares it with him.”[6] Similar
to Merchant, Carson presents the dualism of nature and culture by
discussing man’s attempt to control nature.
Although Carson doesn’t
directly relate the control and exploitation of nature to the control and
exploitation of women, one can see how these power relationships have affected
her life and work in the introduction to Silent Spring: 40th Anniversary
Edition. The intro explains the difficulty Carson had during the research
and publication process; because she was a woman many people did not take her
work seriously.[7] Because
of her situation I consider Carson to be an Ecofeminist.
One major problem Carson
presents is the distinction between different senses of time; with the
implementation of these chemicals into the environment, the environment is not
given enough time to evolve to adjust to the chemicals, and thus the balance of
nature is disrupted. Since people are a part of nature, and people created
these chemicals out of “organic” materials, the chemicals in and of themselves
are also part of nature—the most unnatural aspect of the situation
isn’t actually the chemicals but the fact that we are essentially speeding up
time.
Ralph Waldo Emerson: Nature is truth
In his essay Nature, Ralph
Waldo Emerson states that nature represents truth that as humans we are unable
to express through the use of language alone.[8] Although
Emerson presents many different definitions of nature, I would like to focus on
the over arching idea of nature as truth. Although languages may have different
ways of expressing similar concepts, “nature” it is essentially the same for
every person, no matter of age, culture, or location.
When reading Emerson it is
important to remember that nature and our interpretation of nature are two
distinct concepts. If five people from five parts of the world walk the same
path through the woods, they will all have different internal experiences
because their interpretation of the woods—whether they find it beautiful,
boring, scary, or comforting—will change with their language and cultural
background. People may even have different or multiple words for “nature” depending
on the language they speak. In contrast to their interpretation of nature, they
will see the same trees, smell the same scents, and feel the same breeze upon
their skin regardless of their individual history. Similarly, the natural laws
certainly do not change depending on an individual’s culture or language; an
apple will always, naturally, fall downward. Relating back to Carson, perhaps
“nature’s time” is the true sense of time, while we have inadvertently created
an artificially sped-up version of time that the environment is not able to
keep up with.
The nature of movement
I have found many connections
between the dualisms challenged by Ecofeminism and my own study of dance and
movement. I also found that Emerson’s discussion on “nature as truth” reminds
me of the study of dance was well. In dance we communicate using only our
bodies and the physical movement they produce. Movement of the body is
universal, and in my opinion human movement is part of nature and thus has the
potential for communication beyond the ability of language alone. True, we
can’t communicate specific messages, mathematical equations, or scientific
discoveries, but there is something I find to be very true, honest, and
personal about creating physical movement to be shared by an audience.
Over the past few years I
have been toying with the relationship between dance and environmental studies.
When I began writing this paper I decided to interview two of my dance
professors on their thoughts regarding this relationship. The professors I
interviewed were Cadence Whittier (professor of ballet, anatomy/kinesiology,
and Laban Movement Analysis courses in the dance department) and Kelly Johnson
(professor of jazz, modern, African, multicultural, and introductory dance
courses).
One question I asked both
professors addressed the relationship between their increased awareness of the
mind to body connection and how that connection may or may not be relatable to
a better understanding of the interconnectedness of the world at large. Whittier
stated that she was personally able to use her inner sense of connectivity as
helpful when looking at the big picture. She stated “I think that experiencing
that [body/mind connection] at a body level has made me think about it on a
more macro level… I am like one hair on my head when I think about my body as
the world; unless a lot of other hairs decide to go in the ponytail there wont
be a ponytail left. Ultimately I’m not enough.”[9]
Johnson also stated that a
sense of inner-connectivity and inner-knowledge is important; “I see it in
students… who are very disconnected from themselves, and [don’t know] who they
are for themselves. It makes it very difficult to see the forest for the trees.
It is important to know yourself; you make an impact, you are a part of this
planet. If you know who you are you can relate anything you see to yourself,
and I think that makes you more socially conscious.”[10]
Although I could go more
in-depth regarding these interviews, I feel that these two main quotations
provide important insight to the idea of interconnectivity on both a micro and
macro level and how that relates to the study of movement. Both interviews
demonstrated the fact that the study of movement and the mind and body
connection can provide a deeper and broader understanding of the connection
between people and the Earth. Although I hadn’t realized it until recently, by
exploring this body to mind connection we have unknowingly broken down the
implied separation created by the mind to body dualism. I would be interested
to explore this idea further and how it relates to the fact that it is culturally
more acceptable for women to be dancers and how this relates to the notion that
women are more in-tune with both their bodies and with nature.
Environmental Studies: what should we be asking?
I am currently in my third
year of taking environmental studies courses, and over the past three years I
have never once been asked during my studies to define the term “nature.” I
honestly can’t remember even considering the question before this semester, yet
now it seems so obvious a question that I wonder why it hadn’t occurred to me
sooner.
Strong environmental studies
programs boast of having an interdisciplinary focus, requiring students to take
courses in a huge range of topics including biology, geoscience, water, energy,
law, economics, math, and more. Yet many of these courses focus on finding new,
innovative, and often increasingly complex solutions; for example enhancing
recycling methods, implementing renewable energy, or creating new agriculture
practices. But why do we have so much waste to be recycled, and why do we need
such astounding amounts of daily energy? The reason why these questions are not
being asked is because most environmentalists today unintentionally create the
same barriers and accept the same relationships of power that are so prominent
in our modern society due to the dualisms we have unconsciously created. The
problem itself isn’t our lack of recycling, but rather the fact that we are
creating so much excess waste to begin with.
This imagined separation and
sense of power has strong implications; keeping in mind our complete needs as
beings who are an aspect of nature, we may inadvertently agree with the
assumption that as humans we have the power, ability, and right to overcome the
“problems with nature” that we encounter by the implementation of new science
and technology. Carson provides the clear example of using toxic chemicals to
increase agricultural productivity. Although it is true that productivity has
increased, there are other serious implications of these chemicals that are
often still overlooked. If environmentalists investigated the implications of
the dualisms that Ecofeminism presents, maybe our role as humans as simply
another aspect of nature would be viewed in a new light and the environmental
movement would take a different direction.
Conclusion
Emerson’s statement that
nature is truth provides a theoretical definition, but in no way supports a
boundary between people and nature, and neither does the discussion of toxic
chemicals and time that Carson presents in Silent Spring. Merchant
draws parallels between the human body and the Earth, which provides a
different way of viewing the Earth. However Merchant’s discussion cannot be
used to illustrate a separation between nature and human beings.
A distinct barrier between
humans and nature simply does not exist because humans are a part of nature.
Despite this, many people in society today unconsciously form such a barrier,
which prohibits us from finding solutions to our true environmental problems.
In order to find plausible solutions to our current ecological crisis we must
reconsider our beliefs and values as human beings. Often people do not take
time to ever get to know themselves and thus place values in things that, upon
further reflection, they may not truly value at all. If people took more time
to look intrinsically and understand themselves and their individual connection
between mind, body, environment and culture it would help people see the world
in a new, interconnected way.
The dualisms between culture
to nature, and men to women, and mind to body must be critically analyzed so
they are no longer blindly accepted. Each one of us are both part of nature and
culture, possessing both feminine and masculine qualities. The assumptions that
culture is better or more powerful than nature, and that men are better or more
powerful than women has been subconsciously ingrained in our society and needs
to be re-evaluated.
We should also question why
we feel the need to control nature in the first place, and if this need stems
simply from our imagined separation from nature or from a different source
altogether. I realize that in some cases we attempt to control nature in order
to prevent disease-carrying insects or hunger due to failed crops, and in these
and other similar situations the need is understandable. Yet we should ask
ourselves why we have automatically been set apart as an entity separate from
nature, and why we are in seemingly constant conflict with the “outside world.”
There is not an “outside
world” and an “inside world,” but there is just the world. To better understand
this world and the links between nature, culture, mind, body, men and women,
one must critically examine these dualisms and the associated power
relationships and interconnectivity. By analyzing the assumptions these
dualisms create it may be possible to develop a new worldview and find answers
to our current ecological crisis based on interconnectivity and mutually
beneficial relationships rather than separation and control.
Works Cited
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring: 40th Anniversary
Edition. New York: First Mariner Books, 2002.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Nature. New York: Penguin
Books, 2008.
Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and
Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism.” Feminist
Formations, Vol. 23 No. 2 (Summer 2011) pp. 26-53.
Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature. New York:
HarperOne, 1980.
[1] Greta Gaard, “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism
and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism,” Feminist
Formations, Vol. 23 No. 2 (Summer 2011) pp. 26-53.
[9] Cadence Whittier, interview by Katherine Marino, Hobart and
William Smith Colleges Scandling Center, September 26, 2011.
[10] Kelly Johnson, interview by Katherine Marino, Hobart and
William Smith Colleges Winn-Seeley Gym, September 26, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment