Social_Ecology

Shannon Cox 2 February 2011 Essay 1, PHL 443 Outline: INTODUCTION: Social Ecology -definition -root issue- humans view of separate from nature stemming from how we treat others and ourselves. How this came to be Science - un-biased - hierarchical structure - organizing nature Business - profit maximization, bottom line - natural resources not equated for - growth and production - linear progression of consumption and disposal - sustainability What to do about it/ What is our role as social beings -Supportive vs. dominant -Independent vs. Interdependent -destination vs. journey -self vs. whole -reality (we are nature) -our ability to adapt -empathy and compassion CONCLUSION: Can’t deny we are here and therefore have a place. We are not separate but a part of nature. “Be one with the world (totally cheesy, but fitting)” Human society can be so much more than the oppression of others, but a co-inhabiting beautiful place where creativity flourishes, and the complex processes can be understood as more than what science tells us. because it is being. A Further Inspection and Deeper Perspective on Social Ecology As we move into the 21st century, the impact the human species has on the natural world can no longer be ignored. We as humans view ourselves as separate from nature, through modern business and scientific classifications. As our domination and growth become more widespread, ecological forces begin to collapse. As many climatic and ecological changes occur, we begin to realize the scope of our interdependence. By critically examining human culture and social interactions one can identify that many of the rising ecological issues stem from our social structures. By examining our own social interactions we are more able understand how our relationship with nature can be mended. Through science, humans have become very good at responding to the problem without addressing the issue that creates the problem. Within society science works to provide an un-biased explanation of events, where the scientist is simply observing and documenting a problem. No true feeling or emotion is applied to the process, as that would be un-scientific. This process manifests in other relationships we hold dear. We begin to interact with individuals and strangers as if we have no opinion about their well-being. We become un-biased, impartial beings, seeing ourselves as separate and disconnected. Science is a discipline that works to categorize and organize the world in a hierarchical fashion. The term Homo sapiens, the Latin word for humans, is a product of this scientific classification. Carlos Linnaeus invented the classification method based on a hierarchy of plant and animal species. The classification is based upon observed physical characteristics, organizing certain species as superior to others. Interestingly, this is still the predominant way to classify and name species today. In society we can relate this hierarchical structure to the way we classify ourselves. Instead of classifying by a species’ scientific name, we reflect upon class, race, sex, and nationality to define and organize individuals. These are all social constructions which divide us further than the scientific model would allow for. This leads us to view others as objects of their classification, instead of as living, breathing individuals; products of, but not defined by, their status and upbringing. However, people have the ability to adapt, and become more than what is defined by the social construction. By slapping labels on people we are ignoring their ability to change, and by organizing nature into these same subjective roles, we begin to dominate the complex interaction that creates ecology. Science has encouraged people to socially construct hierarchies that categorize people and nature. Its un-biased principle has led modern business to encourage power over individuals, the bottom line over the livelihoods of employees. The destruction of resources becomes one side of the cost-benefit analysis equation of today vs. the future. The extreme competition of the “grow or die” metabolism plagues our vital living world. It has become a thoroughly impersonal and self operating mechanism, where the “self” is at the center, omitting the greater benefits of other individuals and the planet that sustains us. Instead of simply building over, bulldozing through, mining mountains, poisoning rivers, and cutting down forests, big business should be held accountable to more than just shareholder interests. These modern businesses are concerned with nothing but the bottom line. In reality it is not just about the destination, but the journey it takes to get there. Currently we are squandering future generation’s ability to thrive and sustain itself. By redefining market structures to incorporate and encourage more holistic management of resources, our relationship with nature can be sustained. Growth and production are key concepts involved in business interactions. Today, of all the items we produce and consume, the majority get thrown away, ending up in a landfill six months down the road. On a finite planet, the “away” where people throw all of their garbage, is in fact somewhere. The US economy is based largely on consumption of imported material goods. What happens we deplete our resources to the point that we can no longer produce viable products to throw away' There used to be pride in building things that could last, but now its all about making money and planned obsolescence. The production of goods exclusively for sale and profit has encouraged businesses to care only about market growth and not about the natural resources or well being of the people who extract them in far off places of the world. The perspective that paints the natural world as a dead, mechanical machine which can be manipulated is inherent in how we do business with one another. Unfortunately, this worldview seriously undermines the intrinsic value of ecological processes. Nature has the ability to adapt and change by a function of distance and time. Our view as separate from this process of change has led us to dominate nature. We have turned a blind eye to the anxiety that our own domination over nature has caused us. As we cut down entire forests and turn fields into concrete jungles, not only are we dominating natural processes that have taken millennia to develop, but we are also neglecting our own connection to the process. To move forward, our tendencies of economic growth, gender oppression, and ethnic domination must be put into the past. We need to focus on becoming supportive entities as opposed to dominating ones, and recognizing the whole that is richer and more dynamic than the self. Supporting the existence of others encourages us to have more compassion and empathy towards others. The time has come to get a grip and adapt ourselves to the fact that we are destroying nature by dominating it. There is a role for us, we do have a purpose, and all it takes is a change of perspective concerning the way we treat ourselves and our fellow human beings. It all comes back to how we identify with one another. We have a great capacity to put ourselves in others’ shoes and try to understand the way that they feel. This ability to empathize is a great step towards viewing nature as more than just an inanimate object existing for the means of science and business. These social entities encourage egocentrism, where independent values are priority. It is essential that we move to a more eco-centric model where we understand the complex interaction between humans and nature. We are not independent of nature, but deeply interdependent in it. Without it we would cease to exist as nature is the vital support system that gives us the ability to thrive. The world viewed as dead makes us dead. By classifying it as a tool for manipulation and monetary gain, we ignore that we and other species need it for sole existence. The world viewed as a complex living organism gives more meaning to our understanding of how we co-evolve and adapt with it. Greater levels of complexity bring more enhanced experiences. That is to say that it is more than just science, the un-biased, unconcerned form we use to explain these complexities. Nature is more than an object to be observed, but a thriving dynamic entity supporting life. “We should see our role in the natural world as creative, supportive, and deeply appreciative of the needs of nonhuman life” (Bookchin, 463). We have to view ourselves as a part of nature and not a dominating process that is above it. By encouraging this perspective we are going straight to the root of the problem vs. identifying the issue that global change is occurring. This is a more holistic approach that gives better understanding to the issue, without undermining it. In order to get a grip with reality, we have to understand our place in nature as a creator and co-inhibitor with the many other people and species that we share our earth with. The world experiences itself through ourselves because we have the forethought and imagination that encourages dynamism and ecological adaptability. This perspective, that we have a stake in how nature conducts itself through our relationship with each other is what social ecology is all about. It isn’t about money, growth, or scientific reasoning, but something deeper and more whole. In Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic he explains it as “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” By viewing people and human societies as separate form nature we are not right. Only with empathy, compassion, and reciprocity for fellow humans, and creatures combined, the world will not be lost to our incredibly complex minds. Seeing others as more than strangers limited by their social status, we become more one with nature, because after all we are just that.