Human impacts on or in the environment?

Another thought which illustrates for me the inadequacy of a division between the nature and unnatural, or between nature and society. This one was triggered by a passage from Bill McKibben's book The End of Nature, which is quoted in a Rough Guide to The Earth as suggesting that:

we could let human activity alter the climate so that a hotter-than-before day is essentially a human artifact. But if we take steps to stop altering the climate, a normal cool day is also an artificial event which we have decided to create (Ince, 2007: 272).

Thus, by actively choosing to mitigate global climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions we are still creating a human-altered/influenced/managed environment. Through our very presence, self-awareness and power to effect environmental change, whatever we as a species choose to do represents a choice of type of impact in our environment, rather than a choice of level of impact on the environment. This is especially the case given the level of global awareness which has emerged in the past half-century.

This is illustrated on a smaller scale by the management of nature reserves and national parks, which ranges from hands-on management to hands-off 'un-management', and with varying degrees of intervention in between. All of these types of management represent active choices to effect a certain outcome which we have determined is best. And the same is true on the global scale in the case of climate change. Trying to view nature or the environment as a separate domain in which we can choose our level of impact is clearly unrealistic - because of our presence, self-awareness and power to effect environmental change we are always choosing our type of impact. Some form of environmental impact will always result from our actions as a species, since we are a part of our environmental system, not a separate unnatural or social domain.

The question: whether breaking down the division between nature and society in our thinking would lead to a better understanding of the effect that human activity has within our environment?

Are there any natural landscapes left?

When the prevalent dualism of nature vs. society is applied to landscapes, it creates another dualism - landscapes are divided into natural landscapes or man-made landscapes (aka anthropogenic, human, social ... landscapes). Then building on this often-unquestioned dualism of landscapes, many of our environmental movements have an explicit focus on preventing the 'natural' landscapes from being influenced by society/humans, and thus becoming 'man-made' landscapes.

Examples of this type of environmental organisation include the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, all of whom call for the protection of 'wild places' or 'wilderness' - our 'natural' landscapes.

While I would tend to reject these categories based on the nature/society dualism, it is clear that of the variety of landscapes on earth today, the level of direct human influence does vary. Yet I would disagree that a landscape can be characterised as either natural or man-made. And perhaps global climate change, what some would describe as the ultimate environmental challenge, will finally destroy this landscape dualism. I suggest this because global climate change presents anthropogenic environmental change on a truly global scale, thus affecting all landscapes, whether they were previously 'natural' or 'man-made'. Perhaps, for better or worse, the onset of anthropogenic global climate change will put an end to the idea that any landscape can be truly pristine and natural, that a Garden of Eden might still exist in the wilderness which can be preserved and maintained through careful management.

But where does this leave those environmental organisations? Do we simply have to choose what to protect in a different way, or does this herald the rise of a completely new approach in for the environmental movement?

Paradox

Have you ever come across a new idea or concept which hasn't been part of your thinking before, and then in the following weeks, found it cropping up in everything you read? Paradox is one of those for me. First it cropped up in an article by James Proctor which I found useful in forming the conclusion to an essay about the role of Geography in the field of Political Ecology. Proctor cites Kierkegaard's view that be ability to "retain paradox is the mark of good inquiry" (1998) in calling for a geography which does not flatten reality under a forced nature-culture dualism, and this clarified for me the argument that I had formed to argue a similar point.

Having thought about this, the notion of paradox suddenly started to seem central to other aspects of my reading - particularly in work questioning the meanings of 'nature', for example Cronon's edited book Uncommon Ground. And again in literature about happiness, which I was using to explore how the economic concept of utility has failed to produce outcomes which maximise human happiness. Much of the happiness literature described how a paradoxical notion of self/the individual as divided and separate from society has tended to produce flawed understandings of happiness.

And most recently, one of the two comments posted in response to posts on this blog has been from Geoffrey Edwards, for whom paradox forms a central interest and subject of two blogs. The suggestion there is that we are in the middle of a paradigm shift from a dominance of orthodoxy to one of paradoxy. Read more here.

Anyone else have anything else to say about paradoxes?

The Aims of Education?

The ideas about our systems and institutions of education that I am starting to explore owe a lot to a book chapter written by Noel Castree entitled Whose Geography? Education as Politics, published in Questioning Geography. This post outlines some of the ideas expressed in that chapter, and explores some links.

Lefebvre states that:

[Hegemony] is exercised over society as a whole, culture and knowledge included, and generally via human mediation: policies, political leaders, parties, as also a good any intellectuals and experts. It is exercised, therefore, over institutions and ideas (Lefebvre, 1991: 10).

Thus, Lefebvre suggests that we would be wise to look at our institutions, and ask where hegemony is present and how it might be conditioning the nature of these institutions, and the education that their students gain. If hegemony were indeed present in conditioning the nature of our educational institutions, then these institutions are acting as a tool through which our very identities are shaped, since education forms such a central part of our identity formation.

Castree opens his chapter with this very point. He states that:

Education is not just about the inculcation of knowledge (or at least it shouldn't be). Rather, education is part of the process through which we become the kind of people we are: it shapes our very identities as thinking and acting beings (2005).

- and that as such, education is inherently political and deeply consequential for society. The element of Castree's subsequent discussion that interests me the most is his link to the work of the philosopher Jurgen Habermas, who described ideas of knowledge as falling into three types - analytical, hermeneutic and critical (see this article by Paul Terry for more detail). Habermas' idea was that these three types of knowledge are promoted in a range of places and situations in society, but that educational institutions are one in which they are delivered formally. In simplified terms, Habermas viewed the sciences as delivering largely analytical knowledge, and the arts and humanities as more hermeneutic and critical.

Castree describes how geography degrees, in their unusual arts-and-sciences position, expose their students to all three knowledge types, which encourage different modes of thinking: instrumental-technical, interpretive-hermeneutic, and critical-emancipatory respectively. Yet Castree argues that if students remain unaware of these distinctions, and unaware of the inherently political nature of the education process, then they risk "being the objects, rather than the subjects, of [their] education". Therefore, if students view education as a process of knowledge-accumulation, ignoring the emancipatory potential of critical forms of knowledge, then education can purely serve a 'legitimation function' in society, making the status quo seem 'normal' (an idea proposed by the geographer Allen Scott).

The questions that this line of thinking raises for me revolve around the way in which our education institutions function, and whether the hermeneutic and critical knowledge types could come to occupy a more prominent role. But would such efforts run up against the hegemony that Lefebvre describes as exercised through these institutions? All ideas that have been explored by others before I expect, but catalysts for me nonetheless.

Divided Disciplines and Institutions

One of the closing themes of my degree was the questioning of the place of geography as a discipline within academic institutions - in its sometimes uncomfortable position between the arts and sciences. Debates around this question are a common feature in academic journals (see Progress in Human Geography, Transactions, AAG), few clear conclusions are reached. However, a common suggestion implicit in this debate is that the current disciplinary structure of academic institutions might not be ideal, particularly for a subject like geography with a wide-ranging subject matter. In a recent lecture, Sir Crispin Tickell described this structure as a akin to a series of large boxes placed side by side, each containing a separate academic discipline. Although the boxes are open at the top, those working in each discipline are so far down that the walls of the boxes prevent any meaningful interaction between those from different schools. Sir Crispin's point echoed the (oh so common) call to 'think outside the box' - a call repeated by some geographers who see interdisciplinary work as the answer to the current discomfort in geography departments.

The broader question here might be: does the current practice of compartmentalising learning and knowledge-acquisition facilitate or hinder the understanding of 'the nature of things' (leaving aside for now questions of whether we can ever 'know' a 'reality')? I believe the answer is probably that the current structure of academic institutions may well hinder the development of sound understandings, particularly in the awkward case of geography. However, is this simply reflective of the way we tend to think? To divide, categorise and compartmentalise - are these practices fundamental to our way of knowing the world?

This approach, I feel, is also echoed by many environmental organisations, which tend to divide up the 'environmental problems' of the world into categories such as climate change, food, waste, energy, habitat loss, etc, and then to organise campaigns and actions centred on one of these
elements. However these issues are all clearly interlinked - all a part of the unsustainable living situation that humans have created on earth - and I would question whether the cause of 'environmentalism' is aided by presenting them to the public as separate domains.

Anyway, some thoughts that I hope to develop, particularly those concerning how well our education institutions are equipped at present to produce academics/professionals/leaders to see the bigger picture, and to address 'environmental problems' as inherently 'social problems' which must be addressed in a holistic rather than piecemeal fashion.

What's next?

I will use this space over the coming weeks to explore in words some of the ideas which I hope to develop in the next year (maybe more). I'll try to describe the area I wish to focus on in general now, and then explore further specific elements of it in future posts.

I also feel that already, just 3 months after starting to write in this (virtual) space, my aims are changing rapidly - casting the very title of this blog into question. This was brought home by a recent post by Geoffrey Edwards on his blog paradoxes and consequences describing his feelings when entering the job market, and how his approach to career moves, etc has changed in the intervening years. Geoffrey suggests that what happens as one emerges from the pre-defined path of school and undergraduate education is more a result of 'who you are' than your 'pedigree' or personal history, and that worrying about the future is unnecessary - events will take place, connections will be made and life unfolds. I think that this very closely reflects my own feeling, and perhaps the title of this blog suggests a sense of worry about the future which doesn't entirely characterise my personal approach! Always interesting to hear how others feel/felt when at this stage of finding direction.

Another of Geoffrey's blogs, From Othodoxy to Paradoxy, is also particularly interesting for me because it also picks up on the theme of paradox - an idea which seems to have cropped up increasingly regularly in my own reading, to the extent that it is shaping the direction I want to take in future research and thinking. Geoffrey presents paradox (or paradoxy) in opposition to the orthodox (orthdoxy); as an alternative approach to the status quo. The twin interests that have developed from my undergraduate work are the way in which we conceptualise nature and society (generally in dualistic opposition), and the (currently slow-moving) transition towards sustainability. At present I'm considering some research examining how the structure of higher education institutions affects the dominant view of nature as separate from society, and whether these dominant modes of thought (encouraged by educational institutions?) are hindering social change for sustainability.

In order to explore some of these ideas, I hope to post here in the future some thoughts about the way educational institutions are divided into disciplines and the potential of interdisciplinary study, the field of critical pedagogy - which I have recently started exploring, and other themes which will lay the groundwork in this area - as they come to me.

Reappearance

Although this page has been quiet for over two months, my life has been anything but.. however, final exams are done now and graduation a few weeks away. I've shooting for further study next year, to give me the chance to carry on reading and writing about the issues I'm interested in, and on an even more personal level, to clarify my own sense of purpose and direction in life. The question that needs answering: how do I find a way of living that does the least harm, does the most good, and gives me the opportunity to fulfill my potential? I didn't mention that question on my recent applications for postgrad study, but in my own way, answering that question is part of why I've chosen that option. The element of that decision which feels least comfortable just now is the choice to stay within the educational system, so often criticised for producing dry intellectuals cut off from reality. How to avoid becoming one of those? I hope that part of the answer lies in my choice to approach any further education in a critical manner, in a way which does not simply accept education for education's sake. To be continued..