Doing away with the concept of Nature, back to ethics and politics

The concept of nature is under attack from a number of contemporary researchers on ecology. This seems alarming in light of the current struggle to establish the anthropogenic, i.e., non-natural origin of climate change and mass extinction. This paper selects three examples of 'nature denial' by influential writers-Steven Vogel, Timothy Morton, and Bruno Latour-and tries to show that without a concept of nature, their theories are incoherent. Finally, the paper turns to Gernot Böhme for a philosophy of body and nature that can evade the aporias in which the three other writers are entangled. Keywords nature-human being-human-nonhuman relation-body-Anthropocene-climate-environmental epistemology-Steven Vogel-Timothy Morton-Bruno Latour-Gernot Böhme 1 Nature and Human Beings 'Anthropocene' is now widely accepted as a term expressing essential and epochal traits resulting from the power of humans to leave their mark on Earth. In the Anthropocene, human impact competes with plate tectonics, volcanism, orbital cycles, erosion, and so on. For most people, the concept also implies a profound concern that humanity's adaptation of the environment to its own ends has reached an alarming level. The question is whether the environment has the strength to restore itself and hence sustain humanity's current level of consumption.

2000

This work examines the ways in which the relationship between society and nature is problematic for social theory. The Frankfurt School’s notion of the dialectic of enlightenment is considered, as are the attempts by Jurgen Habermas to defend an ‘emancipatory’ theory of modernity against this. The marginalising effect Habermas’ defence of reason has had on the place of nature in his critical social theory is examined, as is the work of theorists such as Ulrich Beck and Klaus Eder. For these latter authors, unlike Habermas, the social relation to nature is at the centre of contemporary society, giving rise to new forms of modernisation and politics. ¶ Michel Foucault’s work on biopolitics and governmentality is examined against the background of his philosophical debate with Habermas on power and rationality. The growth of scientific ecology is shown to have both problematised the social relation to nature and provided the political technology for new forms of regulatory intervention in the management of the population and resources. These new forms of intervention constitute a form of ecological governmentality along the lines discussed by Foucault and others in relation to the human sciences.

The relation between the Christian tradition and nature has been a subject of vehement discussion the last few decades after the challenge from science historian Lynn T. White who in the prestigious journal Science in 1967 claimed that the historical roots of the ecologic crisis are the Western Christianity's anthropocentrism and instrumentalist view of nature. The church has responded to this challenge, but the question is if it has done so sufficiently. According to Lynn T. White the meaning to creation according to Christian tradition is just to serve human purposes. Humans, being created in the image of God are not simply a part of nature, but in great measure share God's transcendence in relation to nature. By replacing pre-Christian animism in Europe, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature and relate to nature in an indifferent way. This paved way for the industrial revolution and as a result for the worsening ecological crisis of today. White in conclusion suggests that since the roots of the problem largely are religious, the remedy also needs to be religious. He suggest a rereading of the tradition, especially of St. Francis, who exposed the humility of humanity as a species by making even an ant a Brother in praising the Creator. During almost five decades there has been a vigorous response to White's critique. According to James Nash the response from Christians should start with a confession that Christianity does bear part of the burden of guilt for the ecological crisis, since ecological concerns rarely have been a prominent feature in its theory and practice. Dichotomies between soul and body, spiritual and material, sacred and secular, redemption and creation with the former usually being superior to the latter have contributed to this. Protestant theology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries largely ignored nature and thereby

2018

The paper focuses on the relationship between nature and eth- ics, particularly by considering nature as a convention, the result of a so- cial agreement, which is based on the criterion of social utility. In order to analyse this relationship, my assumption takes into consideration three pathways: evolutionary ethics, with reference to Paul Ree; error theo- ry, with reference to John Mackie; and the concept of commodification, with reference to Ralph W. Emerson. I try to connect these perspectives in order to re-define the concepts of judgment and objectivity, showing that both can be viewed as standard or criteria of evaluation according to specific context and needs. My final aim is to show that Emerson’s concept of commodification corroborates the interpretation of nature in relation with the concept of social utility.

Environment and Planning A, 2004

2008

Nature is a contested term that means different things to different people in different places. Generally, this contestation revolves around three main meanings: the 'nature' or essence of a thing; 'nature' as material place external to humanity; and 'nature' as universal law or reality that may or may not include humans.

Of Rocks, Mushrooms and Animals: Material Ecocriticism in German-speaking Cultures, Otago German Studies, ed. Cecilia Novero, 2017

Our notions of nature have been severely unsettled in the wake of the environmental crisis of the 1960s. From Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring over the constructivist phase of the 1980s and the recent turn to a new materialism, the ecocritical discourse that has unfolded over the past decades has been shifting between emphasizing material and immaterial aspects of the non-human. During the first early wave of the 1960s and 1970s, concrete material considerations dominated, such as the effect of DDT on birds or the limits of ecosystems to adapt to changes. Particularly in the 1980s, this led to a focus on the social constructedness of ‘nature.’ More re-cently, the ecocritical discourse has been swinging back again, turning against constructivist critiques to recover the materiality of nature against its deconstruction. Relying on Theodor Adorno’s model of negative dialectics, this paper offers to read this shift as a dialectical move-ment upon the discourse’s object of inquiry. Following the movement then the essay traces a concept of nature, that does not have to reduce its object to either corporeality or incorporeali-ty, but detects it rather as the tension between the two. By keeping the dialectic from coalescing into a synthesis, and by merely unfolding it through confronting the assessments of nature with each other, it becomes possible to keep open the understanding of nature as process. Rather than as a solid entity, such an approach describes nature as a continuous dialectical movement that alternates spontaneously between instances of material manifestation and presence, and immaterial aspects of productivity and change. Thus, a critical concept of nature that hopes to resist human claims of appropriation foreshadows.

Palgrave Communications, 2020

The idea of 'nature' is at the very core of science, considered as its flagship and deepest link with human societies. However, while nature preservation has become a major social concern , the idea of nature remains elusive. We examine here the origins, etymology, and historical semantics of this word and its different meanings in contemporary European languages. It appears that this word aggregated successively different and sometimes conflicting meanings throughout its history. One of the main present occidental meanings of "nature", designating what is opposed to humans, currently used in public policies, conservation science , or environmental ethics, hence appears rare and recent, and contradictory with most other visions of nature, including former European representations and contemporary foreign ones. Nature preservation ought to take into account this semantic diversity when proposing policies, integrating the relativity and potential inaccuracy of the currently dominating occidental definition.

Each one of us, all of us, altogether, are involved in various ways in varying degrees within business-as-usual. Thus, making profits count, but taking care of people and life on our planet do not truly count. Consequently, we are “on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator” - UN Sec-Gen. So, why are we cascading so madly with multiple interacting crises into TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It)? We ask here: Which world are we living in? Do we live with many non-modern people within the Wholeness (Spiritus-Anima-Corpus) of Nature? Or do we live with many modern people within prescribed physical sub-corporeal worlds? In the Wholeness of Nature, QUALITIES – like COLOURS, LOVE (Agape-Eros-Agency-Communion), BEAUTY in Skills, GOODNESS in Relations, and TRUTH in Vision (Who Is the Seer)? in Methods (How Is Seeing Being Done?) and in Outcomes (What Is Being Seen) – are much more valuable in many situations than limited sets of reductive measurements. In modern physical sub-corporeal worlds, represented mathematically in terms of the Cartesian coordinates (x1, x2, x3, t), however, countless body-soul-heart qualities that are present in various living worlds are discounted, because ONLY MEASUREMENTS COUNT. Thus, much too often for people living in our modern worlds, Nature is denatured, human beings dehumanised, qualities (like life, love, body, mind, soul, spirit, beauty, goodness, truth, feminine, masculine, et al.) disqualified, “unfriended”, as “Ghosts in the Machine.” Too overcome these gross reductionisms, we need to work with each other in creative Global Integrity Pacts to transform our lives from our current alienations towards various cooperative harmonies, to live well with each other in intra-generational and inter-generational equity, within our planet’s ecological matrices-thresholds, and with fair social allocations of our planet's limited living capacities and capabilities for everybody with everybody, and with all of this in tune with the Unity and Wholeness of Nature. As UN Sec-Gen António Guterres continues to say: “Humanity has a choice: Cooperate or perish. It is either a Climate Solidarity Pact – or a Collective Suicide Pact.”