Yesterday evening I attended the TigerLion Arts production of Nature, an "outdoor telling of Emerson, Thoreau, and their mutual love of the natural world." It was part biography, part philosophical dissertation, and part immersive experience that was intended to direct one's gaze away from the distractions of our modern world and even of the flaws and nature of the play itself and to the Nature that surrounded us.
Set in the St. John's Arboretum, in one of my favorite areas of restored prairie, wetland, and old growth oak forest, the play attempted to be a moment out of time, to be a moment in nature, but constraints of form and setting limited its transcendental reach. In the opening act, after the chorus welcomed us to what seemed to be a puritan church service of nature worship, they performed a collective sigh, the breath that can only be released in the presence of the stillness of nature. As this meditative and hypnotic exercise rested in silence and the birds and wind seemed to rise in symphonic hymn, the ubiquitous buzz of a car on the highway was a painful reminder of our imperfect setting. "Welcome to nature!" was the common refrain given by men and women in period garb, idyllically prancing in the prairie, yet despite every magical stage picture rendered by the natural setting, some aspect of human development or progress infringed upon its perfect attainment of nature. Not a hundred yards from the nearest road, with telephone lines framing the sunset, a highway humming incessantly, we were assumed to be in nature or transported to nature in theater. There lacked an exploration of the nature of nature or a critical reasoning into whether or not our small slice of the natural world constituted the great Nature referred to by the two main characters.
The philosophies claimed a need for direct commune with nature, Thoreau demonstrating the personal peace and contentment that comes from study of and living in undisturbed nature and Emerson expounding nature's transcendental qualities and tendencies for enlightenment. Emerson was demonized somewhat, becoming the antagonist in the play while Thoreau was touted as a sage, but in passages recounting their writings and letters one can see how brilliant both were. Captured in brilliant light and shadow of the sun setting through the trees, mankind's reverence and struggle with nature was beautifully personified, however much they were forced to rely on dramatic and comedic storylines and interactive and self-aware meta-theatrics (all of which were great fun).
What is your relationship with nature? This was the central question posed by this experience, when all the form and entertainment has been stripped away. While dreamily struck by the beauty of our circumstance, there was some profound melancholy that stirred under the joy and wonder of the performance and our receptivity to it.
I tend to envision Nature as pristine, untouched, and pure. To commune with Nature requires complete removal from human constructs and impacts, physical distance from all that we create. I think of reserves of great size and wilderness where one can be sufficiently lost and encounter Nature in its original form. This requires vast preserves of land with strict regulation to their unalteredness. This definition relies upon the physicality of a space, but also to its spiritual nature--the effects it can have upon the human psyche. It is contact with the divine or the unknown, to be lost in and under the dominion of something greater than ourselves. Here we gain humility and reverence in the presence of the natural world, the great ideal of Nature that Thoreau and Emerson speak of.
The Arboretum, while a beautiful space that captures much of the natural beauty of Minnesota, fails to fit my definition. It is human constructed and orchestrated, and lacks the physical dimensions to sufficiently transport one into the realm of true Nature. Constrained by the sound of the highway, the presence of buildings on the horizon, or logging trails and paths, it remains a great place that offers a valuable experience with nature, but is only a partial reconstruction of true Nature.
So while Nature prompted an exploration into my relation with nature and allowed me to better recognize the natural beauty of our setting, it simultaneously led me to lament the lose of this ultimate sense of Nature. While Nature is present in some places, unless one becomes Thoreau or Chris McCandless, we are left with traveling bands of theater and nature lovers who attempt with all nobility to return us to some state of idyllic reverence and recognition of nature, even while the nature we are left with leaves much to be desired. Have we lost Nature?
It is tempting sometimes to write off, to give up on this Nature. All trends and evidence seem to suggest that we are headed towards the end of the wilderness, where the only places left where nature exists are the few preserves that we have set aside. A realist could view our circumstance, and with the looming threat of climate change, decide that the preservation of nature as it is in its pure form isn't a priority in the survival of human society. This calculating perspective is rational and economic, but it lacks the depth and relationship with our environment that is crucial to our survival. Without the setting of Nature, we lose the setting from which we came, we lose the source of our mindset of sustainability, our values of care and humility. Without these values, without Nature, we can certainly create a future, but lack something crucial within our relationship with our environment, our relations between each other, and our relations to ourselves.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Sunday, September 6, 2015
World at Risk
For my first blog post of the semester, I would like to discuss a section from Ulrich Beck's book "World at Risk," an interesting piece of sociological study and philosophical investigation that identifies and categorizes our responses to risk and our relationship with the future. We were assigned the introductory chapter in our Climate Studies course, and at first it seemed like an odd choice of literature to review. However, I found that Beck's discussion laid out a schema for explaining how are actions and judgements are based off of our interpretations of danger and the unknown, a systematic worldview that can help interpret and guide our actions in the face of threats such as climate change, therefore an apt piece to commence a semester study on our responses to climate change.
There are so many interesting topics and ideas introduced and discussed in this introduction that I don't have the time nor the space to comment on them all. I'll investigate a few of the points more pertinent to the climate change discussion, while begrudgingly leaving some of the finer but fascinating philosophical points undiscussed. First, I'll discuss his definition of risk and how that relates to our ideas of control and uncertainty, along with science's role in mitigating risk. Then I'll write on his theme of a "global risk society" that pits cultural perceptions of risk against one another, with the example of climate change negotiations and solutions.
Beck defines risk as the "perceptual and cognitive schema in accordance with which a society mobilizes itself when it is confronted with the openness, uncertainties and obstructions of a self-created future" along with postmodern conditions that defy traditional institutions of authority and the belief in "redemptive powers of utopias" (4). He characterizes risk as having "two faces...chance and danger" (4), where risk is the interpretation of our situation that allows us to manifest our own destinies. This is a condition that can lead to greatness or self destruction, but is fundamentally tied to our own decisions.
Where we make evaluations of risk we tend to assume the predictability of outcomes and the controllability of the future (at least this is the historical precedent). Yet by our own decisions (I want to stress the responsibility that is involved in this process), we create a future with consequences that cannot always be perfectly known, especially when it comes to the natural world. Uncertainty is ever present, even when logic and science are applied to the best of our abilities. We assess risks and are spurned to action using the best reasoning tools available, however our responses themselves to the initial perception of risk have risks of their own. Beck terms this the "reflexivity of uncertainty" a condition that he claims has become fundamental to our time and society (15). No matter how precise our knowledge and reasoning when we attempt to leap from the descriptive evaluation of risk to a prescriptive judgement that necessitates decision and leads to action, we encounter a flood of new uncertainties and risks. Beck says, "more science does not necessarily translate into less risk but makes the perception of risk more acute" (8).
The point is not to become nihilistic and dismayed to the possibility of controlling the future, nor on the other hand be so arrogant to assume that we have complete control over the uncertainties of our world. We must recognize our responsibilities, abilities, and limitations and use our best tools of science and rationality, as well as ethics and moral reasoning to step forward to the future and embrace the possibility and risk of the consequences of our actions.
A common trope stated by cynical people who recognize the reality of climate change but do not act is that 'one can't control nature.' The scientific community agrees however that we have created our ecological situation, therefore influencing and manipulating nature. In our response to climate change we must recognize our responsibility and our ability to continue to influence the climate positively, while also recognizing our inability and the uncertainty of the consequences of our actions and responses.
A good quote that I really enjoy from Beck that helps contextualize this idea is that we must embrace the risks and dangers of our society as " manufactured [and] self inflicted" that "the belief that modern society can control the dangers that it itself produces is collapsing-not because of its omissions and defeats but because of its triumphs" (8). That's a difficult pill to swallow, one that demands a reevaluation of how we approach the future.
Secondly, Beck merges his theories of risk and risk society with the concepts of globalization and the emergence of a worldwide society. Beck justifies this union given the global nature of the risks that face us today, primarily climate change, but also terrorism and global financial collapse. As Huntington describes a "clash of civilizations" that results from a globalized world mitigating cultural and religious differences, Beck asserts a "clash of risk cultures" (21). He asserts that our perceptions of risk are subjective and relative to our culture and based off of our history, values, dreams, and fears. In the perception and formation of risk, Beck describes the stages in which the risk is anticipated or imagined, then "staged" or disseminated, and finally acted upon in preparation to mitigate the risk. Risk perceptions come in conflict because we are dealing with the "controversial reality of the possible" (9), of which various cultures have different interpretations.
So in the discussion of the risk of climate change and other globalized issues we must be cognizant of the varying perceptions and interpretations of risk. There is the inherent danger of risk that leads us to exclude or ostracize marginalized or seemingly uncooperative or troublesome people. Risk, as a social concept and not just a scientific fact or reality, must mitigated with concern towards the social wellbeing of all. While we enter a new era of a globalized society (glossing over the debate on that fact) and globalized risk, Beck calls for the emergence of a "planetary ethics of responsibility" that can simultaneously protect from risk and uncertainty as well as constructively advance human civilization. Naomi Klien concludes in a piece for the Guardian that "Once the lens shifted from one of crisis to possibility, I discovered that I no longer feared immersing myself in the scientific reality of the climate threat. And like many others, I have began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change."
Risk can be danger, but it can also be opportunity. We must embrace both, accept responsibility of the past, and take action into the future.
Klien article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you?CMP=share_btn_link
There are so many interesting topics and ideas introduced and discussed in this introduction that I don't have the time nor the space to comment on them all. I'll investigate a few of the points more pertinent to the climate change discussion, while begrudgingly leaving some of the finer but fascinating philosophical points undiscussed. First, I'll discuss his definition of risk and how that relates to our ideas of control and uncertainty, along with science's role in mitigating risk. Then I'll write on his theme of a "global risk society" that pits cultural perceptions of risk against one another, with the example of climate change negotiations and solutions.
Beck defines risk as the "perceptual and cognitive schema in accordance with which a society mobilizes itself when it is confronted with the openness, uncertainties and obstructions of a self-created future" along with postmodern conditions that defy traditional institutions of authority and the belief in "redemptive powers of utopias" (4). He characterizes risk as having "two faces...chance and danger" (4), where risk is the interpretation of our situation that allows us to manifest our own destinies. This is a condition that can lead to greatness or self destruction, but is fundamentally tied to our own decisions.
Where we make evaluations of risk we tend to assume the predictability of outcomes and the controllability of the future (at least this is the historical precedent). Yet by our own decisions (I want to stress the responsibility that is involved in this process), we create a future with consequences that cannot always be perfectly known, especially when it comes to the natural world. Uncertainty is ever present, even when logic and science are applied to the best of our abilities. We assess risks and are spurned to action using the best reasoning tools available, however our responses themselves to the initial perception of risk have risks of their own. Beck terms this the "reflexivity of uncertainty" a condition that he claims has become fundamental to our time and society (15). No matter how precise our knowledge and reasoning when we attempt to leap from the descriptive evaluation of risk to a prescriptive judgement that necessitates decision and leads to action, we encounter a flood of new uncertainties and risks. Beck says, "more science does not necessarily translate into less risk but makes the perception of risk more acute" (8).
The point is not to become nihilistic and dismayed to the possibility of controlling the future, nor on the other hand be so arrogant to assume that we have complete control over the uncertainties of our world. We must recognize our responsibilities, abilities, and limitations and use our best tools of science and rationality, as well as ethics and moral reasoning to step forward to the future and embrace the possibility and risk of the consequences of our actions.
A common trope stated by cynical people who recognize the reality of climate change but do not act is that 'one can't control nature.' The scientific community agrees however that we have created our ecological situation, therefore influencing and manipulating nature. In our response to climate change we must recognize our responsibility and our ability to continue to influence the climate positively, while also recognizing our inability and the uncertainty of the consequences of our actions and responses.
A good quote that I really enjoy from Beck that helps contextualize this idea is that we must embrace the risks and dangers of our society as " manufactured [and] self inflicted" that "the belief that modern society can control the dangers that it itself produces is collapsing-not because of its omissions and defeats but because of its triumphs" (8). That's a difficult pill to swallow, one that demands a reevaluation of how we approach the future.
Secondly, Beck merges his theories of risk and risk society with the concepts of globalization and the emergence of a worldwide society. Beck justifies this union given the global nature of the risks that face us today, primarily climate change, but also terrorism and global financial collapse. As Huntington describes a "clash of civilizations" that results from a globalized world mitigating cultural and religious differences, Beck asserts a "clash of risk cultures" (21). He asserts that our perceptions of risk are subjective and relative to our culture and based off of our history, values, dreams, and fears. In the perception and formation of risk, Beck describes the stages in which the risk is anticipated or imagined, then "staged" or disseminated, and finally acted upon in preparation to mitigate the risk. Risk perceptions come in conflict because we are dealing with the "controversial reality of the possible" (9), of which various cultures have different interpretations.
So in the discussion of the risk of climate change and other globalized issues we must be cognizant of the varying perceptions and interpretations of risk. There is the inherent danger of risk that leads us to exclude or ostracize marginalized or seemingly uncooperative or troublesome people. Risk, as a social concept and not just a scientific fact or reality, must mitigated with concern towards the social wellbeing of all. While we enter a new era of a globalized society (glossing over the debate on that fact) and globalized risk, Beck calls for the emergence of a "planetary ethics of responsibility" that can simultaneously protect from risk and uncertainty as well as constructively advance human civilization. Naomi Klien concludes in a piece for the Guardian that "Once the lens shifted from one of crisis to possibility, I discovered that I no longer feared immersing myself in the scientific reality of the climate threat. And like many others, I have began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change."
Risk can be danger, but it can also be opportunity. We must embrace both, accept responsibility of the past, and take action into the future.
Klien article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you?CMP=share_btn_link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)