Week 2 Flashcards
(8 cards)
What are the 3 general areas of meaning of “nature” and what are the complexities in these various meanings vis-à-vis the environment?
(i) the essential quality and character of something;
(ii) the inherent force which directs either the world or human beings or both;
(iii) the material world itself, taken as including or not including human beings.
These complexities in the meaning of “nature” have implications for how we understand the environment. The variable and sometimes contradictory ways in which “nature” is used can make it difficult to formulate coherent and consistent environmental policies. For instance, the selective use of “nature” to signify goodness and innocence can lead to an idealized view of the environment that overlooks the need for responsible management and conservation. Similarly, the personification of “nature” as a singular force can obscure the complex interplay of factors that shape the natural world.
What is social construction?
Social construction is a theory that examines how our understanding of the world, including concepts like nature, is shaped by social processes, beliefs, ideologies, and history rather than being solely determined by objective, inherent qualities. Things that are socially constructed may feel natural or inevitable, but they are products of specific cultures, values, and power dynamics. A constructivist perspective questions the idea that there are fixed, inherent characteristics in the world and seeks to understand how these characteristics are defined and given meaning within different social contexts
Concept of wilderness
The concept of wilderness is a prime example of social construction. Often perceived as untouched and pristine landscapes, the idea of wilderness often ignores or minimizes the impact of human activities and histories on these environments. For instance, the perception of North American wilderness as pristine during European colonization overlooked the long history of indigenous peoples’ land management practices, including controlled fires that shaped the landscape. William Cronon, an environmental historian, argues that the modern romantic view of wilderness as a place untouched by humans is itself a cultural product, stemming from particular historical and social circumstances in the 19th and 20th centuries. He points out that the very act of removing indigenous populations and regulating activities like hunting and fishing to create wilderness areas is a form of social intervention that reinforces the idea of humans and nature as separate entities
Relativism
Relativism questions the assumption that there is a single, objective truth about the world. It suggests that knowledge, beliefs, and facts are shaped by social contexts and perspectives. Critics of social construction worry that embracing relativism leads to the conclusion that all truths are equally valid and that there is no basis for making judgments about what is right or wrong. However, proponents of social construction argue that recognizing the socially constructed nature of knowledge does not negate the material reality of the environment but instead challenges us to examine how power dynamics influence our understanding of it.
Co-production
Co-production offers a way to reconcile the insights of social construction with the material reality of the environment. This concept emphasizes that our understanding of the world and the ways we interact with the environment are not separate processes but rather are intertwined and mutually influential. Humans, with their social practices and knowledge systems, shape their environments, while at the same time, the material world, with its constraints and possibilities, shapes human societies. The concept of co-production suggests that nature is not simply a backdrop to human activity but is actively shaped by human interventions, and in turn, the changing environment influences human societies and their actions. This understanding challenges the traditional dichotomy between nature and society and highlights the dynamic and complex interrelationship between the two.
What is “scientific forestry” and what does it produce?
“Scientific forestry” is a system of forest management developed in late eighteenth-century Prussia and Saxony with the goal of maximizing the yield of a single commodity, commercial timber. This system, which eventually spread to France, England, the United States, and across the Third World, simplified the complex ecology of natural forests in pursuit of efficiency and profit.
Why does Scott characterize scientific forestry as a “utopian dream”? (p.19)
Scott characterizes scientific forestry as a “utopian dream” (p. 19) because its idealized vision of a perfectly ordered and productive forest could not be fully realized in practice. Natural events like storms, fires, and blights, as well as the continued use of the forest by local populations, disrupted the foresters’ plans.
Ecological Degradation: The reduction in biodiversity made forests more vulnerable to disease and pests. Soil quality declined due to the removal of underbrush and a less diverse ecosystem.
Forest Death (Waldsterben): In some cases, the disruption of complex ecological processes led to widespread forest decline, significantly impacting timber production.
What is the Bonn Challenge and how does it relate to Scott’s “parable”?
The Bonn Challenge is a global effort to bring 150 million hectares of deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2020 and 350 million hectares by 2030. Launched in 2011 by the Government of Germany and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), it is a practical means of realizing many international commitments, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.Potential for Simplification: Examining the Bonn Challenge through Scott’s framework invites us to consider how the goal of restoring vast areas of land could lead to simplification and standardization in restoration approaches. Focusing solely on acreage targets could incentivize the planting of fast-growing monocultures, mirroring the practices of scientific forestry that prioritized short-term timber yield over ecological complexity.
Legibility and Control: Scott highlights how states often simplify complex realities to make them more legible and controllable. In the context of the Bonn Challenge, this raises questions about how restoration projects are monitored and evaluated, and whether these methods adequately capture the diverse ecological and social outcomes of restoration.
Ignoring Local Knowledge: Scott criticizes scientific forestry for its disregard of local ecological knowledge and the diverse ways in which communities utilize forests. Applying this critique to the Bonn Challenge highlights the importance of incorporating local communities’ needs, knowledge, and practices into restoration planning and implementation.
Long-Term Sustainability: Scott’s analysis of scientific forestry emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term sustainability of interventions. The Bonn Challenge, while focused on ambitious restoration targets, must also address the factors that led to deforestation and degradation in the first place to ensure the long-term success of restored landscapes.
