In 1927 Chehalis elder Mary Heck testified on behalf of her people before the U.S. Court of Claims. She spoke in Chehalis, enumerating the things a non-Indian court might count in terms of value.
She listed the houses that had been destroyed by pioneers who wanted the cleared land on which they stood. She told how long it took her people to build each of those great cedar houses that stood for generations unless they were destroyed by fire – the white tool of choice in this matter. She spoke the names of villages erased from maps that set down straight lines over lands and waters that contemporary Chehalis elders told me were traditionally navigated by “streams of trees” and “fish trails.”
But Mary Heck had something else to say as well, something she deemed important to place on the record alongside the list of the destroyed homes of her people: the destroyed homes of the beaver, devastated by pioneers as they drained her people’s lands for their farms.
Even in translated court transcripts, her tone comes through. She is speaking up for the beaver who shared a partnership with Chehalis women in their root digging grounds. Mary Heck credits the beaver for sustaining the wetlands and fertile ground the Indian women favored for these crops. In relating the destruction of the beaver’s homes, Mary Heck mourned the loss of a friend.
Just as the otter is a keystone species in Pacific Ocean ecosystems, the beaver had a central role in ecosystems both east and west of the Cascades. Indeed, in taking beaver and otter, the early fur traders could hardly have picked two species whose depletion had more profound effects on local ecosystems. Beaver dams helped create and sustain the wetlands that are now ninety-nine per-cent gone along the Willamette River, wetlands which married the river to the land, providing habitat for a proliferation of plant and animal species, containing and filtering storm water, and keeping ground water tables charged.
Across the Cascades, along the Crooked River, for instance, innumerable springs dried up when the beaver dams were lost in the wake of the fur trade. Then the once fertile lands that spread out beside that river shrank as the formerly meandering waters stayed to a deeply cut bed. In this sense, the concerted policy of Hudson’s Bay Company administrators John McLoughlin and George Simpson to stymie competitors by creating a “fur desert” in the Pacific Northwest had an ironic ring. In accomplishing their goal of depleting the otter and beaver, they enlarged dry land areas throughout the Northwest.
We can set Mary Heck’s story of the beaver alongside the modern ecologist’s story of the sea otter in expressing the dynamic interplay of species in a resilient ecosystem. Her perception, in turn, derives from the “partnership” worldview in the indigenous Northwest. With this point, I want to take up where many natural resources managers, including innovative ones such as “resilience” thinker Brian Walker leave off. I want to shift from questions about how we “manage” natural resources to how we manage ourselves to support nature’s resilience.
The issue of partnership takes up a theme in a paper I recently gave on resilience thinking, in which partnership was one of four strategies I proposed for managing human behavior in ways that support the resiliency of natural systems.
The first step in establishing a partnership is treating our partners with comparable respect to that with which we treat ourselves. In their 10,000 years of sustainable living here, the Pacific Northwest’s diverse indigenous cultures did this by treating all natural life as their intimate kin, with standing comparable to that of humans. “All animals and inanimate objects possessed spirits,” as STOWW (Small Tribes of Western Washington) stated in their handout for their 1975 treaty rights workshop. Among the Sahaptin-speaking people on the mid-Columbia River, the term for “life” is waq’ádyšwit, the “animating principle or ’soul’ possessed by people as well as animals, plants, and forces of nature”. Waq’ádyšwit indicates “intelligence, will, and consciousness,” and since it exists in all natural things, it is the moral basis of the reciprocal partnerships between humans and their land. [i]
Parallel recognition of personhood in nature is found in the traditions of the inland valleys as expressed by contemporary Coos-Kalapuya elder Esther Stutzman: “The earth is alive. It has a heart.” The indigenous peoples of Northern California likewise also perceived natural landscapes as comprised of persons alive with spirit. In the early 1900s, linguist Jaime de Angulo wrote of his frustration in trying to get a word for animals that contrasted with that for humans in the Pit River language. But there was no such word in their language, since there was no such distinction in Pit River culture.
A partnership worldview inherently promotes respect for diversity in its recognition that all natural life possesses spirit and personhood. In this sense, the partnership view envisions the most democratic of socio-ecological systems, embracing what Vandana Shiva terms “a democracy of all life”.
The radical equality between humans and other natural life in the partnership worldview goes hand in hand with the recognition that nature and humans are intertwined in the relational manner of Brian Walker’s “socio-ecological systems,” in which “changes in one domain of the system… inevitably impact the other.”
In this sense, both the partnership model and the resilience paradigm offer an alternative to the dualistic split of the worldview that sets humans apart from and above nature. Both concur with the modern science that tells us whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves. Thus, for instance, the pesticides and fire retardants released into our environment have become ubiquitous in U.S. breast milk.
In recognizing the dynamic reflexivity between ourselves and the natural world, indigenous Northwesterners developed an ethic of reciprocity, which entailed sharing the gifts of life with others, taking only as much as you could replace from natural systems, and treating natural life with respect in order to allow it to flourish – which in turn allowed humans to flourish. In such reciprocity, we find the intersection of ethics and practical outcomes in an interdependent world.
Take for instance, the case of the salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Respecting the salmon as partners with humans, for instance, resulted in their abundance under native management, so that the indigenous peoples on the Columbia River harvested seven times the modern take without harming the sustainability of the runs.
Since all natural species were peoples in the partnership view, it followed that one should develop an ethics of consideration for the future generations of salmon and humans together. Drawing on this perspective Yurok elder Lucy Thompson observed in 1916 that non-Indian rules for protecting the salmon on the Klamath River were bound to fail, since they were based on the actions of individual fishermen – but their actions taken together created a gauntlet of barriers the salmon could not run.
Lucy Thompson’s insights stand beside those of all the indigenous peopled cited above in illustrating how the partnership view implements both intimate knowledge of natural systems and careful monitoring of the results of human actions on those systems. Thus is the alternative to the Not in my Backyard attitude which separates the consequences of environmental decisions from those who make them. Ecofeminist Val Plumwood points out the fundamental irrationality of the modern global system in this respect, in which those who have the most power to make environmental decisions are the least likely to be visibly and immediately affected by them. This broken feedback/ethical loop must be repaired by remedying a sense of “remoteness” from particular places (as the bioregional movement sets out to do), from the future (in the effects of our actions on future generations) and from those “others” which a hierarchical worldview renders invisible or inconsequential.
The ways in which the partnership model encouraged humans to manage themselves for the benefit of both their landscapes and themselves were not limited to the salmon. In Tending the Wild, Kat Anderson details the way that this worldview led to the exquisite bounty of root crops, wildfowl, and game recorded in hundreds of explorer records in native California. In like fashion, early explorers in the Willamette Valley termed it the “gourmand’s paradise” for the results of the specific management practices of the Kalapuya – and they would come to the Willamette Valley to stock up on provisions whenever they ran low.
The intersection of ethics and practical results in the partnership model is eloquently expressed by modern Nisqually leader Billy Frank, Jr., who has worked tirelessly both for Indian fishing rights and the care of the salmon and its habitat: “I don’t believe in magic. I believe in the sun and the stars, the water, the tides, the floods, the owls, the hawks flying, the river running, the wind talking. They’re measurements. They tell us how healthy things are. How healthy we are. Because we and they are the same thing.” [ii]
Modern Westerners cannot authentically or ethically take over the specific spiritual beliefs of other cultures. Nor can we return to the past. Yet as the Resilience Alliance’s workbook for resource managers observes, it is important to tell the story of ourselves and our land in ways that free us from the constraints of the ruling paradigm. In this context, the partnership worldview has much to show us about fostering a resilient world.
Indeed, the partnership worldview immunizes its holders against the paradox of domination. This paradox flows from the fact that the more one tries to control a thing, the less one sees it for what it is. One-way communication with natural life (we plant, you yield) subverts the knowledge we need to foster a resilient world. As a remedy for the dangers of such limited information gathering, the partnership model sensitizes humans to the ways in which natural life “talks back” to us.
This paradigm has important scientific potential, as expressed in geneticist Barbara McClintock’s Nobel Prize-winning work she accomplished through “speaking with the corn,” getting to know each corn plant as an individual. It was not a popular method for any scientist, much less a woman beginning work in genetics several decades ago. For years McClintock struggled to continue her research without the support of her colleagues, finding ways to fund her own work.
This is the kind of leadership expressed by Siletz Takelma elder Agnes Pilgrim Baker in taking on her personal commitment as a “voice for the voiceless.” She does not say, “voice of the voiceless.” She is not subsuming or taking over the voice of the other. Instead she is expressing the central stance in the partnership worldview: speaking up for those we might otherwise leave out of our goals or visions, in the same way that Mary Heck called attention to the beaver.
Such leadership reminds us that in order to gear our behavior toward fostering a resilient natural world, we need to increase our listening skills-and thus expand our range of vision.
Key to the success of the partnership worldview is its attribution of agency to all in any socio-ecological system. Thus it helps us embrace a question as pressing in this era of increasing globalization as it was to cultures with 10,000 years of standing in the Pacific Northwest.
How do we share our world?
[i] “Western Columbia River Sahaptins,” Eugene Hunn and David H. French in Handbook of North American Indians v. 12.
[ii] Quoted in Charles Wilkinson, Messages from Frank’s Landing.
A slightly different version of this essay appears as “Partnership and Resilience” in Ecotrust’s online journal, People and Place.
Filed under: Contrasting worldviews, Ecofeminism, Environmental ethics, Environmental psychology, Health and healing, Indigenous, Justice, Northwest History and Culture, Our Earth and Ourselves, environmental philosophy | Tagged: Chehalis, culture and environment, Ecofeminism, Environmental ethics, environmental philosophy, Environmental psychology, northwest history, resilience thinking, sustainability
The partenrship worldview is becoming more accepted in American society. This is evidenced by the growning emphasis on things”green” in our culture. American culture seems to be acknowledging the partenrship worldview in its slow but continuous movement towards all that is more sustainable. In the past 50 years the efficiency with which humans are able to utilize the natural resources provided by nature has expanded exponentially. We are able to exhaust the planets vast resources in the foreseeable future. This applies to not just oil and minerals but also to the great numbers of animals and rangelands and forests. As a result of this, we must shift our mindset from one in which we harvest all that is available for the most profit now, to one in which we utilize the resources available, but with an eye to the future so that we do not destroy everything there is and harm everything irrieversibly.
I do believe that the growing scientific data regarding the limited capacity of the plantes resources is opening many eyes to the partnership worldview. Science should be impartial and provide us the data to make our analyses of situations.
Th concept that ” the partnership worldview immunizes its holders against the paradox of domination” set out above is not one I am comfortable with. I can see the partnership world view attempts to do exactly that, however I would say that once the ability to dominate is there and illustrated it is always there whether you try and protect against it ir not.
Immunization against domination will only come when there is a change in the concept of profit. Maybe the partenrship worldview addresses this further elsewhere. The determination of what is a profit is what will drive resource usage. As long as society stresses financial profit over all else, the 24 hour news cycle that is the reality in todays world will push corporations to continue to exploit our natural resources without concern for sustainability.
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply, Joe.
Worldview is bound up (consciously or unconsciously) in all our decisions: thus societies based on a partnership worldview may have the ability to dominate but choose not to.This is indicated by many tales from oral traditions in these societies that illustrate the dangers of the attitude of domination. The results that flowed from such a worldview are indicated above.
The partnership worldview robs humans of ways of seeing “earth others” as objects or “lower life forms” or backward peoples that can be used by those higher up in some hierarchy.
The partnership worldview, in that it allocates agency to all earth others, inhibits reducing them to some usury value.
This is where your point about changing current global market systems is an important one. There is much work done on how undemocratic current systems are in terms of the way they structure human interaction both between humans and between humans and the natural world. You might be interested in checking out some of the short audio pieces on the Tapestry of the Commons site on this point:
http://www.tapestryofthecommons.org/commons/rights_for_nature.html.
At the very least, we have an irrational system, from the standpoint of the majority of its users, since it rewards a few for the production of socially and ecological undesirable ends.
Mark Sagoff is an ecological economist who addresses the need to change the idea of values and enlarge democratic participation in current global economies.
Thanks again for your comments.
Embracing the partnership worldview would help change mass views of what profit is. I feel that the partnership worldview would immunize against the paradox domination because when we are all equal partners there is nothing to be gained by taking from your partner; in hurting half, one only hurts the whole. I have recently read a book about the Aborigines in Australia and they share this same partnership worldview. It is clear that the worlds addiction to material abundance, and control is a blind attempt at accomplishment. It seems this partnership worldview, Resilience paradigm clears the eyes to what is factual; the pesticides we poison this planet with do poison us, with the very life-giving sustainance of contaminated breastmilk. The partnership worldview embraces a more conscious approach to living– one must be conscious of their actions and belief systems because they are directly affected by them– as opposed to the blind attempt at success, accomplishment, achievement that allows unconscious following of popular patterns, media encouraged obsessions and belief systems, and ultimately the loss of our health/sustenance, and the health and sustainability of this planet.
In response to Professor Holden’s posting, and comments on the choice not to take advantage of the opportunity of dominance: many egalitarian societies, when one from the group attempts to dominate, group members simply do not comply. They do not make him wrong, punish him, or enforce their wishes upon him. They just live their life equally and when one chooses something that does not suit them they move on, one could alway join if he chose equality once more but he is also free to choose his own path. I wanted to point this out because it seems is often so easy to approach an issue with the intent to do good and bring equality but it often goes awry when one makes another wrong as opposed to leading by example– Interesting. I guess this concept would fit right into ecofeminism?
I appreciate the idea of going beyond thinking of “natural resource management” to the concept that WE are the resource that we have to manage. We also cannot try to manage human activity from a perspective of isolation (that human activity exists outside of nature, but must consider that all of our actions have a “ripple effect” on our entire ecosystem.
Hi Kelly, thanks for bringing up several important points here. It is obvious that you have some perceptions about the working of partnership societies. Your idea about leading by example rather than coercion is an important one.
I like the way in which you used the example of breast milk contamination to indicate the interdependence of our world which the partnership paradigm shows us!
This discussion brings to mind the remark of Nobel Laureate Chinua Achebe who wrote novels expressions the power of oral tradition in Igbo society. An interviewer once asked him if he thought his natal society was a “utopia”. He answered that there was no such thing as a utopian society: some societies just fought the “human instincts of self-destruction” better than others.
Such societies recognized the dangers of greed and arrogance, for instance, and worked to create other social values. Not incidentally, these societies were also ones in which their members seemed to be relatively satisfied (perhaps because they allowed so much choice on the part of their members–and their members thus chose what made them happiest?)
Much to think about here!
Essential points, Rachel! This is also, as Kelly indicates, a part of the partnership paradigm: that we manage ourselves rather than coerce or use others as we recognize our interdependent world.
I agree that we all need to be responsible for how we use our resources and that our actions do have consequences. If we do not take care of the resources that we have, eventually those resources will be consumed.
I also agree that we can not force our beliefs on other people and the best way to initiate change is by setting an example.
It is also important as the article states that we increase our listening skills in order to hear and learn of others views and beliefs. By doing this we may realize that our way may not be the best way or that there is a better or more efficient way of doing things than our own way.
Thank you for both a thoughtful and open-minded response, Pam. I also think it illustrates why ethics is pragmatic: as we listen to others, we increase our own knowledge of the consequences of our actions– and thus our possibility of survival.
Despite different perspectives on the natural world, we as humans are beginning to listening to the interconnectedness of life by embracing a partnership worldview. The Not in My Backyard attitude is being replaced with the more realistic attitude, of what’s not in my backyard now will affect what’s in my backyard later. Both science and nature and nature can agree that we are part of the natural environment and what affects the natural environment will ultimately affect us. By adopting a partnership world view we can cease trying to control the natural world around us and instead focus on fostering a democracy among all living things. By fostering equality we can finally take pride in how we share our world.
Hi Kristian. Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I like the way you brought the NIMBY attitude into this!
A partnering worldview is something so important to all of us, I am grateful for the thoughtful article and many examples you have provided for us. When we take the time to get out of ourselves and study what life was like before western influence we can see why our world is in such peril overall, and in local communities.
The sense of entitlement and desire for profit has caused much of our society to disregard, or just stay blissfully ignorant to this partnering worldview that is best for the world, and all its inhabitants equally.
As a resident of Astoria your example of the salmon issues definitely hit home. An ethics of consideration for both the salmon and the fisherman is absolutely needed to restore their numbers and continue to provide for the fisherman and their families. The consideration for the fish themselves was disregarded for so long that it will now be a major challenge to replenish the population to what it once was, if that is even possible.
A changing of the guard in this country will hopefully lead to a greater understanding of the masses; that an expanded range of vision about our Earth is absolutely necessary to help ensure a healthy, thriving planet for future generations.
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for a thoughtful and hopeful, as well as eloquent, response. I feel privileged to have worked with the elders who express such ideas–and to be able to teach and write on this topic.
This was a real eye opener for me. I belive we have to take responsiblitly for the things we do to our earth, and we dont do it enough. There was a quote that i feel sums it up, ” The earth is alive, it has a heart”. I think that so many people mess with the ecosystem and dont understand its effect on us and everything around us. I feel that many people dont have these issue with the salmon, beavers around them so they dont worry about it. I appricate everyone that speaks out about these isssues and so many more because i dont think that enough people do it , including my slef. I know that i need to be more educated about these issues so that i can also too help make a difference. i really enjoyed this article.
Hi Meagan, thanks for your kind and thoughtful comment. I appreciate your openness and sense of personal responsibility.
It seems to me that the Native Americans have known what we are still learning, and that is the concept of sustainability. I hesitate to use the term “green” like one of the other posters did because it seems to be just a term that corporations stick on a product to make people feel like they are doing the right thing, but the notion behind the term is a good one. I think that this article touches on something that is missing in modern day society, and that is being connected to your land, food, resources, and natural world. Mary Heck’s testimony shows us how connected she was to the natural world that surrounded her. The fact that she mourned the loss of the beaver not only because of the benefit it provided her in food gathering, but because she regarded it as a friend or necessary part of her world. We as people need to be more in touch with our natural surroundings so that we may foster such reverence for the environment in ourselves and others that Mary Heck had for her natural surroundings. I believe that we need to get away from the concept that “We know best,” and realize that we don’t. Nature has been managing itself far longer than we have, its expirience far outweighs our “knowledge”. The concept of managing people is the correct one. All the natural resource managers in the world are not managing nature, they are managing our effects on nature.
A very perceptive reply, Andrew. The partnership stance implies that we think of natural life on its own terms (as our kin and comrade) rather than “raw material” or “natural resource” we can use as we wish. Thanks for the comments on managing ourselves as well.
I really agree with Andrew– I feel we could learn much if we’d slow our “blind (lacking experience) actions and watch and learn from nature. I agree that the success of this planet is due to the intuitive nature of… nature– we should open our eyes to this. We are young to this world and its ways– we’ve much to learn.
A great perspective. Well said, Kelly, thank you!
I found it interesting that this article speaks to the negative effects that the depletion of the beaver population has caused. It made me wonder about the extent of the recent flooding found in Northern Oregon and Washington. As the wetlands disappeared the land was conscripted for use and abuse by those not necessarily in sync with nature. Wetlands and flood planes may be built upon but there is no guarantee natural water pathways won’t return. It is a mystery to me that people express surprise when the water resurfaces in traditional waterways.
It is also amazing and hard to comprehend how far away from the “partnership” worldview society has traveled, although the pendulum may be rebounding. Currently a large percentage of the population rely on means and avenues beyond their control for survival. Food and clothing are purchased through a profit driven system which may begin outside the U.S. It is no longer necessary to rely totally on locally made products, trade or natural resources. As far as the food supply is concerned this potentially introduces pesticides, preservatives, and additives that contain little or no nutritional value but may be detrimental to one’s health.
The partnership model of a reciprocal relationship with the natural world would alleviate these negative consequences. Many indigenous cultures have modeled aspects of successful cohabitation with nature. It most definitely requires a different mindset than currently can be found within the confines of an instant gratification, fast paced, technological and consumer driven market society.
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment, Colleen. Very important observation about the wetlands. Wetlands helped control floodwaters as well as protecting our water table. Various storm water departments in Willamette Valley cities are encouraging the use of swales, etc. by developers to keep stormwater on the sites where it falls rather than flooding our rivers (and treatment facilities). We certainly need our wetlands: one man on the news (re the current flooding in Washington) remarked that he had seen two “500 year floods” (so large that previously happened only every 500 years) in the last two years. Of course, indigenous peoples did not build permanent dwellings on flood plains. Taking trees off the land doesn’t help either. When the tangle of roots that used to hold saturated soil on clay slopes are no longer there, landslides are more common. We certainly need to think more about what we are doing in terms of both working with nature and nurturing ourselves. Pointedly, all this rain and floodwater is also linked to drought– for there is less means for the land to keep its water. Hopefully, we wise up a bit flood cycles before we are experiencing in the Northwest echo what happened historically in the Middle East: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/gilgamesh-and-other-pioneers-in-paradise/.
Although I might be burned at the stake for this, but, I thought the essay was a little lofty in its goals. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big proponent of incorporating the life of the environment with the life of humans and having them as one and the same, but, I think that applying the partnership model and the resilience paradigm will absolutely take time to implement and will need statistics to prove their success in the dominance world. For this reason, I was really excited with the mention of Barbara McClintock’s work in genetics because this is a quantifiable science that can be presented to many and understood easily through mathematics. This, then, gets me to my next observation that much of the value of the environment is unquantifiable in mathematical terms. I mean, how does one quantify the value of a mountain lion in terms of an esoteric system, like cost-benefit analysis? Further, it may not be even possible to apply the two ways of life to the present working generation due to the idea that “this dominance worldview has worked for hundreds of years why change it”. But, I think there is a way out of this quantification barrier, in that, these environmental values, partnership and mutual respect for the environment specifically, can be implemented to the younger generation without need for much mathematics and statistics about how it works. I believe that incorporating these values, through cartoons, Sesame Street, etc., can have a lasting effect on these young people and can influence them when they become part of the working generation. The change would not need many statistics and may only take, optimistically, one or two generation’s time to incorporate. But, again, this is probably as lofty an application as the idea of incorporating the environmental life and human life are to be one. However, I do agree with the author that there needs to be a partnership with the natural world but to coin a cliché, “this may be easier said than done”.
No burning going on on this site: Except maybe here: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/?s=burning+down+the+house (!) Thanks for your comment, which leads to the opportunity to discuss this issue.
The issue of quantitative versus qualitative method in science is an important one. In fact, many scientists do not believe that something has to be quantifiable in order to be valid. Quantification (a reductive representation of something — numerical values, that is, are not a given– they are ASSIGNED). Thus, for instance, the mathematician Kurt Goedel won the Nobel Prize for his elegant mathematical proof that we can only “prove” mathematically what we originally assume. That is, all quantification is based on a priori assumptions that we can never get beyond in a mathematical proof. This is true in statistics– which never actually predict something with certainty, but instead gives us probability and relationships (correlations), depending on what values are assigned to the things they are graphing. This is why it is so important to examine our assignments of value to particular things– whether or not that value is numerical. In this context, I’m not sure I would consider McClintock’s work quantitative, but qualitative.
If you are looking for results, I cannot think of any more profound ones than the results of the environmental choices of native peoples in the Pacific Northwest.
My guess, however, that you are also getting at a different idea: how can we replicate certain results in the short term in the modern era? There is (at least) a twofold issue here: one, how do we create a paradigm for thinking that matches the order of the world with which we are dealing? And are there things that are at base not quantifiable (in market terms, for instance): the latter is addressed in the idea of “intrinsic worth”.
Do we really want to quantify a value of a human life, for instance– even though risk-benefit analysis has done this in many cases? What is most interesting to me here is the ways in which particular ethical systems coincide with pragmatic environmental results. History is certainly a way of examining such results.
As for the ease of establishing such things: you might be interested in the work called Panarchy in which a number of natural resource managers are putting resilience thinking into practice. This model may not be more simple or convenient, but it gives more options– and allows us to discern more feedback from the natural world, both of which we are in sore need of today.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
I hate to lay this old line on all of you, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Seriously. They will be saddled with what have left behind. I feel very strongly that it is up to us, those who educate themselves with open minds, to promote ideas such as the partnership worldview as well as other ecologically sound ideas. We on this discussion board all clearly agree in principle about the partnership model, but the question remains: How do we get this idea of reciprocity with the natural world to ears that are clogged with greed, shortsightedness, and vanity? They’ll want to know what’s in it for them, and we can’t lose sight of that because they are the one’s who control things. So the question really is: How can we approach what many will surely view with skepticism (the partnership worldview) in a way that will satisfy ignorance’s need to save face?
I am trying to make the point that the questions we face in regards to the effects of how humans interact with the natural world are philosophical ones, but the answers lie in psychology. It is people’s minds that must change. They must not only change, they must embrace ideas that promote a more clean, sound, and efficient eco-system. However, I have developed a cynicism over the years that makes me wonder how long this will take in light of our inability to treat other humans with respect, let alone the environment.
This is where you, the future teachers and administrators, come in. The partnership worldview, or at least an introduction to it, needs to be included in childhood curriculum, as should other ideas and models that fit the broader topic of cultivating a more harmonious planet. I believe that the only way to introduce important ideas, especially those that have proven themselves over centuries, is to legitimize them through the education of those who will someday inherit our legacy.
Thank you for both your caring and thoughtful response, Mike. I agree with you about speaking to both the hearts and minds of others. And I certainly won’t argue with your idea about the importance of education. Having said as much, I might add that I think we are all teachers and learners– folks in positions like my own have a bit of status that we should use with care and responsibility. But I want to learn from my students as well–and you yourself, as your post indicates you understand, have some teaching to do as well, not least of all by what you model with your life choices.
After reading this article, I began to wonder when and what made humankind more of a parasite to the environment than a partner. What it when large scale agriculture and farming started? Was it when weapons were created to kill other human beings instead of for hunting? (Just think of all of the natural resources militaries use: land, gas, metals, food…) Or was it when currency was created, giving value to something simply because other people find value in it, having no other purpose than to be valuable? Unfortunately, I don’t think that we will be able to become partners once again with nature anytime soon, at least not in my lifetime.
One part of the article that really made me think was the paradox “the more one tries to control a thing, the less one sees it for what it is”. It made me think about not only how we try to control nature, but also how we try to control ourselves. We take medications to control our moods, we conform to what society expects of us, we get plastic surgery and so on. Then I starting thinking about human technology, and how much it has contributed to the overuse of natural resources, while at the same time we are using technology to repair and stabilize the very environment that technology helped destroy. At least now we seem to be on the right path with our growing use of reusable resources such as solar and wind power.
Hi Jessica, thanks for your response. You raise some important questions here: by understanding how our historical choices led to certain outcomes, we can gauge something of the consequences of our future choices.
Your personal passion and care helps give me hope– I only hope you are wrong in one respect– that you do see this kind of change in your lifetime. I have seen a good deal of disaster, but also many, many changes and reasons to hope in my own life.
I think that there are so many examples of this beaver effect in our environment. Our world used to be in harmony with the creatures that lived on it.
Dinosaurs lived on this earth for 200 MILLION years, and something catastrophic killed them. Humans have been on this earth for 2.5 million, and ones like us for only approx 200,000 years. With more dramatic changes being in the last 1000 years, and the most dramatic for the environment in the last 100 years. How many more years will humans make it before we kill ourselves off? Everyone assumes that animals are not “as smart” as us, but we are heading for the destruction of ourselves in a fraction of the time. We think we are getting smarter… but are we?
Here is a recent example. In Michael Pollen’s book Omnivore’s dilemma http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php He gives an example of how a good idea by humans has turned into something just short of a nightmare. It’s corn. He goes on for MANY chapters explaining how corn became a money making machine. How the government took extra postwar ammonium nitrate and made the corn grow faster, which made the corn cheaper, which meant we should grow more corn. In turn we gave up the pastures for corn to grow, and started feeding it to our animals and we no longer grazed them, in turn we they got sick, so we gave them antibiotics. Then our children consume antibiotics from a small age in their milk. In the 80’s we had too much corn, so we learned how to turn it into corn syrup and now it’s in everything you eat. There is corn in your cows, corn in your chickens, your eggs, your soda and your cheese. Is corn good for us? Nothing is good for us in such large qualities… and some believe it is a big culprit in our obesity health crisis.
Any one who has ever had real free range chickens, or grass fed beef knows the difference in taste. There is some research that shows there is also a difference in nutritional value. Let’s take chickens for example…. Free range chickens eat a variety of things, but one big part of their diets are bugs and worms. Bugs and worms provide the chicken protein; in turn the chicken provides you protein in your eggs. There is no protein in corn.
Now we want to make fuel out of corn? What about the water the energy it takes to make the corn. Is all those fertilizers and pesticides good for our environment? And how about the water it takes? Is all that really better than burning fossil fuels? I’m not convinced.
Ummmmm…. I think I got off-topic.
I started off with the thought of something that seems good turning into something with a much greater impact. The beaver fur for the clothes….
Thanks for your thoughts, Angie. It seems you are a bit off the topic here, though this is obviously something you care about. Did you know Michael Pollen sent a letter to Obama about the need to exercise leadership in farm policy. The problems with monocrops are also related to the technology that attempts to control the land– as in the case of the single crop of corn.
I would like to add to the current discussion something I think that has an important place here but has not been mentioned too often, that is perspective and respect. In the article we hear of Mary Heck who mourned the loss of her beaver friend when the beavers homes had been destroyed. We hear of people “treating all natural life as their intimate kin, with standing comparable to that of humans” and we hear of fishermen who are “Respecting the salmon as partners with humans”. These perspectives are clearly lined with a solid respect for other living things, while they are beautiful they are not the common perspectives for the average American (at least as far as I have seen). It seems that cause and effect are ignored and problem solution are attended to. For example urban sprawl,
problem: not enough space to build single family homes solution: spread out side city limits, clear land, build there.
What is forgotten;
cause: destruction of natural environment to build single family homes, strip malls, movie theatres, etc…
effect: loss of natural habitat, land slides, erosion, endangered species
How does a child who is born in an average middleclass home (or any home) grow up with the perspective of a partnership with all living things when they are surrounded by toys that think for them, food that they have never see grown and forests that they don’t even know exist let alone what is in them? How can one see past the inundations of modern commercialism and urban sprawl?
While these questions may loom about I remain hopeful that the partnership worldview will soon be the common perspective
Wonderful response, Jessie. I hope with you that respect for the environment will move us in the direction we both hope for. Important questions that you raise!
Unfortunately we seem to be repeating the same mistakes over and over. From the initial settlers to the industrial revolution to today, we have held tight to the idea that everthing is a commodity to be bought/sold/consumed, and that supplies are inexaustible. We have had many opportunities to learn from our mistakes, and from other cultures with better understanding. Clearly we are all connected to the Natural World, but I think most people refuse to recognize it because it would mean they would have to admit to themselves their part in the irresponsible way we have treated our environmet.
Adopting the “Partnership Worldview” would require a major philosophical change, and I believe future generations are our best hope of achieving that through focused education on these ideas. To affect change in todays population we need to promote other benefits as well. For example, the environmental benefits of renewable energy will appeal to some people, but when you add less dependancy on foreign oil, and increased national security to the argument, you engage a larger segment of the population.
Creative thinking and broad vision will be needed to start us on the right path, and I hope that the next generation will be able to look back and say that we gave them that start.
Thanks for your comment, John. It is certainly important to plan a way to get from where we are today to where we want to be. I agree that “creative thinking and broad vision” are needed: so are modeling changes for others in small everyday actions. As you indicate, change can come from sharing the benefits of environmentally positive changes. In a general sense, since our environmental actions tend to have so many self-destructive consequences, we have plenty of material to base this argument on.
While I agree with virtually everything said about the article and its assertions from an ideologic standpoint, the issues are terribly complex from a practical standpoint. For example, Jessie made valid points about urban sprawl, but the reality is that people need habitat, too. I’ve had to live in apartments in the city with my three kids, and it was very unnatural and destructive in more ways than I’ll name here. While we certainly can do without the movie theatres, we need healthy homes. But the solution, I think, might be found in dialogue, compromise and respect for one anothers views, even though we might disagree. I liked the reference to the fact “that the more one tries to control a thing, the less one sees it for what it is.” Finding a balance that is practical and respectful is certainly a challenge worthy of our best efforts.
Nice perspective, Carol. In my own neighborhood association we are dealing with the complex developmental choices in terms of infill and limiting “vehicles miles traveled”, while honoring the need for protecting existing biodiverse habitat. One thing that is interesting is the fact that the size of US houses per person has almost doubled since the 1950s; we likely need to go back to more moderate living space and make the most of this. I like your point about balance.
I love the use of the word partnership as a description for relationship with nature. I was recently reintroduced to the idea of synergy: that the sum of all parts is greater than the whole. I think that so often, our culture has a selfish outlook. In the past, our culture has allowed one to take without looking back at the consequences. Instead of reaping the substantial benefits that would come from a harmonious partnership with nature, one tries to benefit individually by taking (and destroying) the parts that seem profitable at the time. This article demonstrates that parts of nature have been destroyed, and the solution requires a synergetic partnership- where one does not take from individual parts, but benefits by contributing to the whole.
On another note, I cannot help but apply the term partnership in our relationship with other human beings as well. Many of our struggles have stemmed from human conflict. Not unlike our relationship with nature, our relationships with other humans have been destroyed by our selfish outlook that looks to take instead of contribute. By viewing our relationships as partnerships, we can begin to mend and improve our personal relationships, just as we will begin to improve our relationship with the natural world.
Hi Katelyn, thanks for your comment. I certainly like the word partnership as well and concur with your basic idea that the way in which we treat the environment is linked to the way in which we treat other humans. Both of these relationship are in need of repair– as you indicate.
I was impressed by Mary Heck for speaking up for the beaver, the beaver that has no voice. The beaver’s home is just important to it as anyone else’s to them. When Mary mourned a loss of a friend, she mourned the loss of the beaver. The beavers are a friend because they provided a better place for the women of the tribe. The beavers helped create wetlands that provide habitat for plant and animal life. People used to understand how important these things are but now people don’t see past what they are doing because our culture has taken us into a more modern and technological time with so many advances that aren’t good to Earth. Many humans are so out of touch with nature and what nature can do for us because now, bringing home the paycheck is more of a concern. Most modern jobs do not respect nature anymore. We need to learn how to manage ourselves so we do not disrupt nature’s course. We need to become more aware and conscious that all things exist together. Humans are parallel to nature. Changes in one domain of the system inevitably impact the other, Brian Walker says. We are all basically made up of the same molecules and atoms just in different ways to for different species. Natural life talks back to us and we need to listen. I would love to have been around to see the world before it was rearranged by man, for instance Celilo Falls before they put the damn in. I was told that it sounded like thunder; once the damn was built there was silence.
Hi Laura, thank you for your caring and thoughtful comment. We certainly become both destructive to the natural world and self-destructive when we forget, as you point out, that we are made of the same molecules as all life– and the least we can do is listen when it speaks to us– even is this is not in a “human” language.
Everything living thing is valuable, the beaver, salmon or the wetlands. Each plays a major roll, without one the other will not thrive. In society today, people forget what is really important, as Esther Stutzman says,“The earth is alive. It has a heart”. This statement is true, through and through. In our society people are not listing, they don’t have the time or won’t make the time to take a step back and get back the connection with nature. Balance is the key to make everything work in harmony. If humans continue on this path they are our children’s won’t have the natural resources or quality of life as we do.
Thank you for your thoughtful and caring comment, Dianna.
I found this article to be very interesting. It’s not hard to imagine wetlands along the Willamette River or the wildlife that would have inhabited them. It never ceases to amaze me how a few shortsighted people can impact everyone and everything else. For instance, in my hometown the city planners decided to open up areas that were previously considered unbuildable and let ethically challenged land developers bend rules that were originally set up for the benefit of the city. For sixty years the city had maintained some areas as urban wetlands that filled up with water during the winter and spring and kept adjacent properties from flooding. Every year there were crickets, dragonflies, butterflies, frogs, raccoons, opossums and occasionally there were even ducks, skunks, hawks and an owl or two. After the city decided to let the builder cut down trees, level the land and build two-story monstrosities the homeowners started having flooding problems and losing their trees because the saturated ground can’t hold them. All and all a prime example of how a natural system of water collection was destroyed and in turn it obliterated the wildlife and plants that flourished there. The local high school, which has an environmental study program, would have benefitted if the city had stayed partnered with the natural world. This decision also affected the city sewer which now gets more run off and in times of heavy rains the sewer system gets overwhelmed and raw sewage is released into the Willamette which affects all organisms downstream. These shortsighted planners should have tried to understand why the city forefathers had left open areas in the city for so long but they couldn’t seem to see ahead anymore then early settlers could in regards to the benefits of beaver dams.
Hi Teresa, this is a striking example of the unplanned changes that “planners” allow for the sake of economic profit– when there are long term consequences as well as so many other kinds of profit to consider. Thanks for sharing it. I do hope we can learn from our mistakes…
I think it is interesting that we so easily disregard how nature is our support system. We truly are the ones that need to be managed. I can only imagine how this poor woman was devastated to see not only her peoples land destroyed but the reciprocal relationship they had developed with the beaver.
Thanks for your compassionate comment, Stephanie.
I find paradox and continuity in the information presented by Dr. Holden in her article “Partnering with the Natural World”. My primary observation is how doubt of innate anthropogenic accuracy fostered scientific research which simply proved ancient connective philosophy. The human need for comprehension fosters the inquiry which leads to research and innovation; ironically, the conclusion of past examinations has led to reaffirmations of instinctive forces obviously hard-wired into human existence.
The current shift into ecosystem focused management is a common conclusion reached also by ancient tribal cultures. Nonetheless, the current execution of our knowledge is not comparable to the efficacy of ancient management strategies; our population and relatively recent discovery of anthropogenic impact has rendered great difficulty in implementing conservation and sustainability. Through our quest of improvement and control, we have discovered a path of destruction and submission.
We have succeeded in detracting wholly from direct relationship with nature and have no reasonable means of willfully reverting to our ancient state. As a result, we have no choice but to integrate our current technological and industrial knowledge with the proven right of our connection with nature. I feel as though a complete reversal of time and space to the hunter-gatherer, tribal nations which recognized our natural kinship would lead only to a repetition of our current plight. Therefore, in order to maintain some degree of linear success, we must focus our energies toward recognition of ecological interdependence while accepting the need for certain creature comforts.
Is there any way this discrepancy and waste could have been avoided? Probably not. As dictated in this article, humans are as much a part of the natural world as any other organism. Therefore, our motives, whether emotional, logical, economical, or physiological, are part of the whole and serve some ecological purpose. Even if we are parasitic, infectious or destructive in some other way, the subjective nature of our function is irrelevant if we truly appreciate the complexity and holistic nature of the Earth dynamic.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You have raised some complex issues here, Jenna.It is not actually true that all human social evolution leads to the environmental destruction we are now recognizing in modern US society. It is true (at least I haven’t seen any counter-examples) that all colonial societies wind up this way. Indigenous societies are another matter. See the page on this site entitled “indigenous societies”: last year’s “expert’s gathering” of the UN indicated that indigenous societies actually show us an alternative to the assumptions that humans eventually either increase their populations and/or ravage their lands. We may also want to define what we mean by “creature comforts”–the San peoples of the Kalahari spent about 2 hours a day 2-3 days a week providing for subsistence and the rest of the time on creative and social pursuits. Industrialism raises the carrying capacity of the land in the short term, but it actually leads to more work, not more leisure, for individual humans. The advantage of a cross-cultural perspective is that we can see more options– we need all the creative ways we can think of to honor the “rights” of connection to nature (an interesting and I think, pointed way of putting this issue) and the ethical perspectives of past sustainable societies.
There is another issue to assess here: whereas current industrial farming techniques (such as mono-cropping and till agriculture) may raise the level of production of single crops in the short run, they are having serious long term effects on the fertility of the land– which we cannot afford period– but certainly in the context of growing human populations. Check out the essay , “The Green Revolution– Whoops”– on this site. And keep thinking critically as you assimilate new information! Thanks again for your comment.
I have always thought that most people do not have a clue when it comes to understand and respecting the natural world. Today, I do my best to reduce my carbon footprint and become more eco-friendly, but I do not think these acts really bring a person closer to nature. I think a person needs to feel nature by being immersed in it.
Mary Heck pleaded for Beaver life because she loved and respected Beaver’s place in the world. I think this type of relationship is challenging for todays people to understand because the only exposure that some have had the natural world is through television. As we know television is not real life and the relationships that are formed are also not real. For example viewers can watch animals and habitat being mismanaged or mistreated, but when they turn off the TV set it is not affecting them any longer. They have no real attachment to the issues. This is a sad state of being to be in. People need to go outside and get involved in the world around them.
I have always respected the teachings of the native people. I grew up in a community surrounded by four tribes on the coast of Washington. I learned a great deal from their stories and their conservation practices. In the future as a natural resource manager I hope to have a positive influence on people by helping them create better relationships with the natural world.
Hello, Ann, thank you for your comment. An interesting point about viewers assuming that problems go away after a TV set is turned off… it sounds like you have taken advantage of the opportunity to learn some things about our natural world in a very different way. I like what you said about Mary Heck. Congratulations on your future goals. One of the things we surely need most of all in the present day is the combination of science and ethics.
It is interesting for me to think about what essential quality is missing in people that pursue the thoughtless course of modern, destructive, out of balance practices for short-sighted profits, when for others, it is so obvious that these practices will bring about the destruction of the earth which sustains us, and thus, the destruction of human beings. Why are people afraid of culture that respects the earth and when will they realize that all this materialism does not make them happy, neither does it nourish our mother earth? I don’t know, but it would be interesting to learn more about where and how that psychology comes about, and how maybe it can be healed. As Jessie pointed out above, how will we get these people to change their ways, and how will children raised in modern lifestyles gain the relationship with nature that causes a deep respect and care for the earth? Well, we do see that there has been some awakening in people, since the situation has become so out of hand. They want to know why they get cancer, why the sky is dirty, why they can’t swim in the river, and why they don’t feel happy. So they start to find out. Indigenous people are starting to take a stand against corporations that want to destroy their cultures, because there are organizations willing to help them; it can be shown that modern development has not helped any tribe in the past. It is time to stand up to the big lie of science and development. It seems that education and activism are the main things that will turn the tide. Each of us doing everything we can to live lighter and wiser on the earth, and making that awareness spread wherever we can, especially in our schools and with our farmers and ultimately law makers.
Thank you for your comment, Leslie. There are some very thoughtful and well taken points about both activism and education in your words-and an obvious personal commitment to the earth we share. It has always seemed to me that learning and acting are linked in the ways that you intimate. If we know something needs to change, we are honoring ourselves and our ideas by working to make that change. You have a point about problems with development: far too often it is what Vandana Shiva calls “mal-development”– a one-way extraction of resources from the land or people supposedly being developed. Neither our natural resources nor our human communities can survive this process for long.
I believe there are consequences to our actions and the destruction of the only home we have is the biggest consequence. And it will result in the demise of humanity. We cannot live without the Earth so I would have to say we should start listening intensely. Future generations depends on us incorporating the partnership worldview into our daily lives. There is no going back but what we do today is important. So as long as there are voices speaking out such as these in this article, then nature will be heard.
Thank you for sharing your passion here, Tina. Our survival and that of future generations depends, as you indicate, on our listening to the words of the elders in this essay–and the “elders” in natural systems, which were here before us.
We need more people like Mary Heck who will speak for the animals, the waters, the trees. We have become a culture of domination: a culture that thinks that human beings are the most important factor. This speaks of an overwhelming sense of entitlement. How can we, coming from a place of entitlement and domination, move to a partnership worldview and learn to share our world?
Education seems to be the answer but when I think of the many millions or even billions of people whose worldview is one of domination and control over the natural world, it seems like the ethic of reciprocity is a long way from being common thinking. As mentioned in the essay, a crucial first step may indeed be to free ourselves “from the constraints of the ruling paradigm” and begin to tell a different story, begin to live a different story. My fear is that the world may not be able to wait for us to learn this lesson.
Hi Dazzia, thank you for your pointed comment. Well said! I take heart from all those who are working for change, as well as those who have lived in partnership with the natural world for so many generations–and those who, like yourself, obviously care deeply. I understand your sense of imperative here as well. I can only hope with you that we learn just how destructive the domination paradigm is to ourselves as well as to our world.
I think it is very important that the notion of “Not in My Backyard” has been mentioned. There are so many people, often those in the more wealthy areas, that refuse to deal with environmental problems because they feel that they aren’t relevant to them or aren’t affecting their lives. We need to stop assuming that it is someone else’s problem. This is OUR earth. Not yours, not mine, not his, not hers, but OURS. We share it and need to take care of it together.
Just because you can’t see a problem out of your kitchen window, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Many are blind to the issues that our environment is facing. We need to open the eyes of all humanity and create a partnership among all life so that we may succeed together. Our world is our future. Let’s take care of it.
Great points, Allie. Thank for your comment about our shared earth–and our future! I like your statement about the kitchen window perspective as well.
If animals such as beavers and salmons were able to speak out against the injustice humans committed to them, which testimony would they bear? I guess a devastating one. As a matter of fact, speaking out for those who are unable to protect their interests by themselves is a work of charity and humanity. This very common in a society, where humanism and democracy prevails. If we were all purely altruistic, we should speak out against the injustice committed to those animals, because it harms the existence of other beings on this planet and even whole ecosystems. But if we do not dare to speak out for the sake of altruism, let us speak out for the sake of egoism, because we are harming ourselves by harming those animals. After reading this article, I consider it to be a confirmation of all those views that I used to hold on this issue. By focusing solely on short-term benefits, we risk that important resources cease to exist and thus, we fail to leave some benefits of them to future generations.
Thanks for your comment, Nick. Your logic is flawless here: there is no reason NOT to speak out (and act) on behalf of those who share our world– for their sakes and for ours. Your words point out how irrational is a system that urges us to believe we are acting in our own self-interest when we are in fact undermining the systems that support our lives.
As Chehalis elder Mary Heck saw the dramatic changes to the land by the relentless trapping of beavers and draining of wetlands for farming by the pioneers, it shows how land management is not at all like managing a business or other entity. As Coos-Kalapuya elder Esther Stutzman says ‘The earth is alive. It has a heart’ (Holden 2). Indigenous peoples see the land and all life in nature as being a person. So the partnership idea between nature and humans is a good way to relate and to show the need for sharing and consideration. The idea of doing something to nature to change it or control it causes our thinking to be removed from that personal connection where one sees nature as having spirit and personhood. So there is tremendous value in these concepts expressed by these elders.
“Partnering with the Natural World” and the big effect the loss of beavers and otters have had, reminded me of the loss of wolves. It was previously thought that this dangerous predator should be eliminated and that would be a very good thing. It turns out that over hunting of wolves allowed elk to thrive in the western United States. As a result, the elk consumed young aspen tree shoots. With no predator to keep the elk populations in check, elks have been eating most of the new, tender aspen growth and in effect destroying the once large aspen forests which covered vast areas.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/07/study-says-loss-wolves-damaging-olympic-national-parks-forest-ecosystem
http://entomology.wisc.edu/~lindroth/PDFs/2008/Wooley%20et%20al%202008%20Rangelands.pdf
Human actions have far reaching consequences. We must partner with nature and regain the sensitivity and listening skills that will foster a more resilient world and keep it safe for future generations.
Jim Jarrad
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jim. I understand that the presence of wolves in the Yellowstone is now allowing aspen groves to return where elk had overgrazed them. I like your link between the partnership idea and consideration for the others who share our world. Your point on wolves brings up the idea that in the development of natural systems over time, every creature has an essential part…and we have much to learn about their belonging and our own in these systems if we wish to make wise choices about our actions.
Professor Holden says:
“I want to shift from questions about how we “manage” natural resources to how we manage ourselves to support nature’s resilience.”
and that
“The first step in establishing a partnership is treating our partners with comparable respect to that with which we treat ourselves.”
and then
“In this sense, both the partnership model and the resilience paradigm offer an alternative to the dualistic split of the worldview that sets humans apart from and above nature. Both concur with the modern science that tells us whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves”
I agree with all this, and wonder about her shift in emphasis from what we do to manage ourselves back to “what we do to nature we do to ourselves.” I wonder whether the alternate formulation “what we do to ourselves we do to nature” has a different kind of power, the power to act collectively by acting individually.
Pleasure is a strong motivation. The Epicureans taught “eat, sleep, and be merry.” They were not gourmands; they were looking for ways to indulge in the simple life, a life made free of fear through knowledge of the nature of things. Perhaps we westerners have the makings of our own ethic buried in our cannon.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. I am a bit confused by your response. I don’t see a shift in the stance of managing our own behavior to the perspective that what we do to the natural world we do to ourselves and vice versa…can you say a bit more about how you see a distinction between these two and how the notion of pleasure comes into this? Are you indicating that it is in our self-interest to assume a partnership stance with respect to the natural world? Is self-interest the same as pleasure?
Professor,
I was wondering out loud when I responded, and have wondered some more since. I am not arguing against partnership. I am lingering on your first step to establishing a partnership: respecting ourselves. I’m thinking there’s power in the realization that the way we manage ourselves in partnership with nature is to respect ourselves. What if that is not only necessary but also sufficient.? Perhaps all we have to do to mange our relationship with nature is to respect ourselves.
The rephrasing “whatever we do to ourselves we do to nature,” makes it clearer that to respect nature we must start with respecting ourselves; by respecting ourselves we respect nature.
Pleasure may not be the same as self-interest but it would be a boon if respecting ourselves was pleasurable. The Epicureans point in that direction:
It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing “neither to harm nor be harmed),
and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life
Great damage is done to the environment by the disrespectful choices we make when we eat what we eat. What we eat kills our vitality. What better place to start a discussion about respect than with what is in our reach: ourselves.
Thanks for the response to my queries, Michael. Your elaboration on the Epicurean philosophy is interesting, and I think it certainly fits the “quote of the week”I posted on this site from Linda Hogan. I didn’t actually say that respecting ourselves is the first step in developing a partnership with the natural world; instead I said that the first step would be to give others the same respect as we give ourselves. Of course, you might well reason that this will be meaningless if we don’t respect ourselves: you have a thoughtful point there. It is true that in a top down worldview such as our own, where we see humans as presiding over the natural world, humans do not allocate the same respect to other life as to their own (not just their own species, but their own class, gender, culture, etc.) But it is also true (as your thoughtful response indicates) that the top down worldview that so undercuts the basis of our own survival does not do a very rational job of respecting ourselves in the long run.
I am wondering, after reading this article, what it was that stopped the partnership worldview. This ideal seems so revolutionary now, but in reality, it was how the earth existed before we destroyed this mindset. Possibly the most definitive cause comes down to power and domination, and the fact that humans feel the need to destroy and take over, and cannot do this without ruining natural resources. In our culture, we are realizing how necessary the “Green” movement is, and how harmful we are, but we do it in such a way that we are still the most powerful creatures on earth, that we have the power to change and save the world around us, if we make the conscious decision to do so. While it is true that we are the most capable creatures to make important changes, our view is still that we need to retain our resources so that WE can enjoy it, and our future generations.
Very rarely do we even think about other creatures, or worry about what we are doing to harm animals and land. When we do think about these, it is with a view that we are superior. It would be shocking to hear, in the media, that anything were as equal or powerful or deserving, in the world, as we humans are. In our culture, having power seems so crucial and we are unwilling to give that away to anybody else. I think we enjoy being the most powerful creatures on earth, and we refuse to believe any other part of the earth is as significant. As long as we do not have to admit this significance, we will not be able to accept the partnership worldview that others before us held.
Thanks for your comment Erin. You raise a key issue: we can’t change this destructive dominating behavior if we don’t know where it came from–and since the partnership view has pertained for the bulk of human history, we also want to ask what made us turn from this sustaining and democratic worldview to the dominating one that is now destroying our environment. Everywhere I have looked into this, I have seen colonialism involved.
Still, yours is a complex question for which there is no one word answer–and which indicates why the analysis of cultural and historical context is so important.
In fact, modern industrial society (capitalist society) is an aberration in the long span of human history– the problem is that it is a powerful one–and the dominating one in our current situation.
Though the answer as to how this came about is complex, it is certainly bound into the misuse of power as power over others rather than power with or empowerment– thus one important step in righting this is to reassess and shift our use of power. In fact, the way we use power now has, I think, a built in self-destruct mechanism: a dominator paradox. The dominator assumes this stance for the sake of control, but in the end, attempting to stand outside the rules of natural systems will disempower us– robbing us of our own lives. And thus the dominating stance only leads to the ultimate disempowerment.
To me, the partnership model and resilience paradigm are not opposite to many of the world-views that set humans apart from and above nature. Instead they are just different ideas on a spectrum of views. I happen to resonate with both concepts: because of my spiritual beliefs, I believe that we as humans are set apart from the rest of nature, however, this does not mean we are not 100% reliant upon, affected by, and existent within it. We must partner with it in a responsible and respectful way. Some call this idea “Creation Care” and I admit it is anthropocentric at its core, but the actions: the whats and hows, and thus the hoped for results encouraged by this view are in harmony with the partnership world-view even if they differ in their opinions as to why.
I agree that those who make many of the decisions concerning the environment are not situated in a place so as to immediately comprehend or feel the effects of their decisions, but how does one get these decision makers closer while at the same time still allowing them the time to make all of the decisions that must make? It takes a long time to “listen” to nature, let alone to learn how to in the first place. When I think of agencies, I think of bureaucrats and red tape, which only further separate us from a true connection with nature and the effects we have on it and vise verse. So I too would like to know how we, and I personally, can better go about sharing our world. Hopefully, I will find some guidance to this in the next ten weeks.
You have raised a substantial question here indeed, Mark. I think that we do this by beginning, one step at a time, each in our own lives: we have some amazing models, such as those in the current lead essay on this site about planting a rose in wartime.
On the point of anthropocentrism: I do agree with you that we (in fact all of life) has its own particular character–and we certainly need to understand ourselves, our potential, and our best “nature”, if you will, as we make our decisions. I don’t think we can leave our human perspective out of the equation as we care for and with our world. What we can do is assume a self-critical stance and a listening one–which, as you rightly indicate, takes much time and wisdom. But it is imperative, given the current crises we are facing, that we begin, each in our own ways. I think that it is not an all or nothing process– but that we learn to listen by beginning to do it, which gives us more tools to listen, etc.
You raise an interesting point about perspective and distance– and time to plan. I do think you are right that we need some contemplative time in order to plan and think through our actions. Many current disasters are the result of acting without such forethought. On the other hand, I don’t think we need to be apart from our world to do such planning. As you indicate, it is important to understand the consequences of our actions–and certainly we cannot plan anything if we guard ourselves against experiencing those consequences.
And as for what to do about agencies that already act– at a remove from the world of consequences, awareness of this issue is the first step– and some recombining of authority with responsibility. We live in a culture which has linked authority with privilege rather than responsibility and this is dangerous indeed. We cannot find too many ways to reconnect authority with service instead. On the most concrete level, we need to take away current monetary and social rewards for those corporations whose actions lead to consequences few want (pollution, poverty, etc.). And the lobbyist system in Washington has to be changed.
Basically I think we need as many of us as are willing to do so acting creatively and responsibly in honoring and caring for our world and the gift of life within it.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Partnering With The Natural World
Paul Nash
As I read this essay, I could hear the words of the the Pacific Northwest’s diverse indigenous cultures speaking loudly! They felt that they had been robbed by the pioneers who had come in behind them. You could see that they felt violated. I am not sure if you have ever been a victim of robbery or not. But, if you have, then, you know the feeling of being violated. Someone came into your own being and space and took and destroyed things that you had worked very hard for and things which belonged to you. It appeared, in the essay, that this was the case.
Living in the NW of the United States in Montana and Wyoming, I remember hearing the cries of those people who had experienced very similar robberies as these people from the Pacific Northwest. And, now living in Mexico, I hear the cries of the indigenous culture here who remember well being robbed by the Spaniards who came in took claim of the things the Aztec Indians had worked so hard to preserve.
As we partner with the natural world, we must keep before us the fact that this world is a gift. And, it is our responsibility to care for it even there may be those who wish to come in destroy and rob the resources of her beauty and resourcefulness.
Thank you for your comment, Paul. You might like to take a look at the the overview essay on indigenous peoples here: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/culture-and-environment/indigenous-peoples/
It follows the recent UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and also cites the ways in which the results of indigenous management of their land for biodiversity has result in the fact that these peoples now steward eighty per cent of the world’s high biodiversity areas. Indeed, ninety-five per cent of all the world’s biodiversity currently resides on land claimed by indigenous peoples.
Supporting the rights of indigenous peoples is a matter of justice– but it is also a matter of wise care for the earth we share.
The idea of respecting the natural world by appreciating the rights of animals and plants to live as much as humans is helpful to allowing the world to survive. It resonates with the Native American view of subsistence. When they kill a fish or deer or whatever animal they use for survival, they thank the animal for the sacrifice that the animal has made for the human. Because of this respect for the animal, it is difficult to waste the lives of that being. If we can relate this respect for the other living beings in America and world for instance to all of the animals we displace with our strip malls and highways, we can begin to understand how we can sustain biodiversity here in the 21st century.
Thank you for your comment, Richard. You have an important point here. Sustaining biodiversity is key to honoring nature’s resilience in the face of climate change.
Professor,
We are getting closer but I still sense an important distinction.
First of all, the statement of yours that triggered this is
“The first step in establishing a partnership is treating our partners with comparable respect to that with which we treat ourselves.”
I do not think one has to go to the long run to see that we abuse mother earth by not respecting ourselves. The Epicureans are saying that how we understand the nature of things is integral to how we live and the impact of abusing her by overindulging has an immediate impact on our well-being. There will be long term impacts for sure, but eating beef from a CAFO is an act of disrespect to ourselves in the here and now.
Here’s the gedanken experiment: suppose harvesting grasses instead of corn were not better for the environment.; suppose raising grass-fed beef was not better for the environment that raising corn-fed CAPO beef. It would still be more respectful to ourselves to eat grass and grass fed beef. The food would taste better and make us feel more alive. Those are here-and-now benefits.
The point of the gedanken experiment is to show that there are immediate benefits to respecting oneself independent of the impact on the environment. That what benefits per se and what benefits the environment are the same should not come as a surprise. We are evolutionary products shaped by nature. Knowing ourselves as individuals in that way will benefit the environment, just as knowing ourselves as a species with a long-term stake in the next generations will. Short-term respect for ourselves and long-term respect for the environment are in perfect concert. We need not sacrifice now for the sake of the future; acting in concert with nature is pleasurable immediately.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. I am not sure that you understand my answer, since the quote you cite is precisely the one I also cite in my response. I think there are two remaining issues with the Epicurean point of view as you present it. Firstly, it is not always clear to all humans that what is healthy is what is pleasurable– look at our own manipulated tastes in the current day. Secondly, it is not always true that what is pleasurable for humans is healthy for the environment. The thing about the partnership view (from my perspective) is that it makes us aware of the fact that there is more than just ourselves in the here and now to consider. We may have to agree to disagree on the way in which Epicurean philosophy is an answer to our current environmental crises.
I appreciate your effort in continuing this conversation until you feel that your point is made–and in thinking critically about this important issue.
Although, I believe the partnering world view to be an important step toward a conscious decision to work together and for the greater good of the earth and its inhabitants, too often cultural, political and religious views find its citizens without an innate sense of individual responsibility for their actions. I find that our relationship with the earth coincides greatly with our relationships with each other. For the most part we have little respect for other human beings and even less for the natural world. In order to achieve such a partnership with the earth, citizens must learn to take responsibility for their part in the greater order. Unfortunately, in the current fast paced technological environment of convenience, instant gratification, and self entitlement, individual responsibility gets lost in the shuffle.
We see it in Western culture with the infinite number of frivolous law suits with preposterous claims such as that if I spill coffee on myself; someone should pay me millions of dollars for the burn. Or we forget that in trying to grow a crop, the earth has provided all that we need to stave off pests in an ecologically responsible manner and instead, we jump for the quick, easy fix of chemical pesticides that harm not only the insects we’re trying to illuminate but ourselves as the ultimate consumers of what we grow.
We see it in 3rd world cultures like the Congo where superstitions rule over the conscious sense of right and wrong of men who claim that in order to reap success in battle they must brutally rape the women. Who are we to say that another’s culture or belief system is invalid or wrong? We may think it brutal and outrageous but to some of those rebel fighters in the Congo, they truly believe that it is what saves their lives on a daily basis. It is this sort of mindset that ecofeminism is struggling against. How are we to expect that people will care for a lowly beaver when they don’t even respect their own mothers and daughters? In the end, all of earth’s inhabitants become a commodity of some sort. We sell ourselves and each other out just as quickly as we sell the beaver and the otter and for most of us it’s too easy to turn a blind eye instead of acknowledging the devastation.
Therefore, it is not until mankind as a whole takes responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions that we can truly embrace a partnering world view and become spiritually connected to all that the earth has provided us. It would be great to see humans respecting each other and the environment towards resilience and sustainability, but with the way the world is today, it is hard to imagine such a place.
A thoughtful and obviously deeply caring response, Allyson. It is true that the cultural systems which seek to dominate the earth also tend to divide humans into higher or lower groups–and in such dominating cultures there is little or no responsibility toward those who fall on the lower rung of the scale.
If you haven’t already, take a look at this article here: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/culture-and-environment/indigenous-peoples/.
I think that careful distinctions between particular cultures and historical contexts can give us the hope that we are capable of change when we address the root historical and cultural causes of destructive systems. In Africa, there was a range of social stratification in pre-contact times– ranging from the highly egalitarian San peoples of the Kalahari (and the egalitarian pygmies of the Congo forests) to those who took part in the slave trade with Europe and the US three centuries ago. You have an important point in speaking about rebel activity in the Congo. Whereas the legacy of colonialism and current poverty might be an ample cause for rebellion, they are no excuse for venting this kind of hostility on other humans. I also think you may be cheered by this essay about those who not only imagined such the world as such a place (of resilience and sustainability) , but made great strides toward creating it where they live: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/how-can-you-not-plant-a-rose-in-wartime/.
Thanks again for your thoughtfulness.
Reading this essay is a sad reminder, to me, of how badly we have taken advantage of the natural resources that surround us. All you have to do is look at the riparian vegetation zone surrounding the Willamette River on the shores in Corvallis to see that we have not been treating the earth as it needs to be treated. Erosion and poor water quality are just a few clues that are plain to the naked eye! It seems that the human race (some peoples excluded, of course) has been so caught up in what they can get for free, that they forget that there really is an unseen cost in the end; and it’s a great cost, at that.
The simple truth is that the Native Americans had it right: seeing the environment around them as a part of their family, and monitoring it as a test of health for the tribe. It seems that the farther we stray from the way things SHOULD be done, the worse our situation gets. This Salmon fishing season being declared a disaster should’ve been a big enough wake-up call for anyone, but it doesn’t seem like anything has been done to make any real long-standing change for future generations.
Why not put what remains of the indigenous people of Oregon in charge of legislature that controls climate and environmental issues? If anyone has a clue of how to fix the damage that has been done, it is them: The people who learned to walk hand-in-hand with our forests without disturbing the tender ecosystem.
Thoughtful response, Josh. The Forest Service is using Siletz advice on controlled burning in the Coast Range. It is also true that much traditional knowledge has been lost with white settlement and land use practices. Given the sad history of native peoples with contact (such as forced boarding schools meant to wipe away any traces of traditional culture), we can’t say that today native peoples are automatically environmentally aware. However, many are in positions of leadership like Billy Frank jr. (since you mentioned the salmon, he has been active in restoring the runs). You might be interested to know that when the Washington State budget meant the cutting of many natural resource managers, the tribes of Washington State (as a whole) became the leading employers of such professionals.
While reading Partnering with the Natural World it touched on how the rivers have changed due to the decline in the beaver numbers, I kept on thinking about Katrina. A few years ago I spent some time in New Orleans and saw with my own eyes the devastation that Katrina caused. When I was there I saw a documentary and it made the point that Katrina would not have been as bad as it was if the wet lands that use to be there were still there. Those wetlands served as a bumper and would decrease the impact the storm had on inner cities. Because of human impact those wet lands have decreased and that bumper that should have been there is now gone. To me this is just a big example of how humans can impact the natural world and cause more damage than we know.
Thoughtful comparison here, Katherine. It is also interesting that in the huge East Asian tsunami that took place a few years back, tribal peoples were virtually uninjured, while hundreds of thousands died on the nearby developed coastline. Partially this was because the mangrove swamps were still in tact to slow down the tsunami, and partially because they forecast it from other natural signs and moved inland before it hit.
I completely agree that we must protect our natural resources by treating them the same way we like to be treated. But at the same time, I find it really difficult to treat the environment as if it had a soul (aside from animals). I think it’s in our nature as humans to classify things based on patterns we recognize. This may be one reason why it’s hard for us (or me at least) to treat animals, plants, humans, and any other distinct creatures/objects the same. Another reason may be the fact that, in my opinion, the bonds that we develop with other humans are much stronger than those we develop with the environment. Ironically, we depend on and use the environment more than we depend on humans, both directly (e.g. water, food from plants and animals, ..etc) and indirectly (like the beaver and otter examples). Given this dependency, I agree that one-way communication with the natural world does not work. I think the enviornment depends on us not to exhaust/abuse it. But how do we achieve this with the limited resources we have? (many – if not most – wars were fought over either land or water)
Hello Yousef, thanks for your comment. Very thoughtful considerations here. Obviously, it takes some human discipline and consciousness to “listen” to the natural world that does not speak a human language when we in the US seldom even learn a second human language. But we only expand our knowledge as well as the future of our children when we exercise this discipline. Those who see the hand of the Creator in natural life also feel they expand their sense of that holiness when they attend to the natural world as well.
Very thoughtful point about dependency– we only ignore the dependency on other natural life at our peril.
The issue about wars is a pointed one– especially in the present day, when increasing populations and environmental abuses cause inevitable pressure of this type. Actually, in ancient human history, natural resources were much more likely to be shared than fought over. Wars seem to fought, instead, over the exploitation of natural resources. You might be interested in the article overview on indigenous peoples on this site: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/culture-and-environment/indigenous-peoples/.
The like concept of partnering with nature that is introduced in this post. Valuing nature and others’ as we would ourselves is a point that many don’t realize. “Human life” managing ourselves to support the resiliency of natural systems is also profound.
The nature of humans seems to be “do as I say not as I do”. The partnership concept reverses this behavior by encouraging humans to “do” for natural life. The greater number of people that respect their resources by protecting and preserving become an active part of the story of partnership. Sustaining life becomes the message told in the story which becomes heard more and more. The history of the indigenous cultures valued sustaining natural life therefore actually did sustain natural life.
Our modern culture has become swallowed up in the material life consuming more than sustaining including economically. Our current economic condition reveals this root problem of consuming vs. sustaining. It’s not all that shocking to see the residue of this mentality all around us including what was once thriving ecosystems all drying up. The consumption slowly deteriorates the life from atmosphere.
I liked this quote, “in order to gear our behavior toward fostering a resilient natural world, we need to increase our listening skills-and thus expand our range of vision”.
Just like any partnership, both sides must pay attention and listen to the other in order to interact in unity. There is nothing like a one-sided partner that is in it for themselves. In my opinion, a lasting partnership requires mutual understanding valuing the other with each offering them-self up for the benefit of the other, continually allowing the dynamic to become harmonious and mutually satisfying.
Thank you for another thoughtful comment, Kaaren. A culture based on consuming rather than sustaining the sources of its life, as you indicate, is headed for serious trouble. You have some articulate personal additions to the concept of partnership here.
I think at the base of this discussion lies in the battle between dominance and husbandry; two ideas which to my way of thinking are very different. This subject was first introduced to me in the book, “Out of the Earth.” We do have the ability for responsible husbandry, but the idea of dominance is not one I’m comfortable with. At the beginning of this discussion, one person stated he wasn’t comfortable with something stated. Basically, someone is always dominating someone else and something else. I believe it is our carnal nature and one not easily squelched.
The quote you used from Agnes Pilgrim-Baker about being a “voice for the voiceless,” made me literally gasp. Over spring break, I asked myself: “What is it that I want to do? What is it that I hope to accomplish with my NR Management degree with emphasis in policy and minor in Fish and Wildlife? Where do I want to work? What IS MY PURPOSE?” These are aggravating questions for me. But, I finally came up with, “I will go to speak for those not spoken for.” And, I always have–clear back to gradeschool. This was interesting to me because she is my Auntie Ag. I don’t mention this to throw around names; I know her very little. But, what a coincidence.
As stated throughout this article I believe our dualistic nature needs to stop. We need to understand that we are tied with everything we use, consume, see, appreciate and worship….that everything has a soul. I feel something wrench at me when I pick a plant or cut down a tree, but do not feel it is wrong–only that I need to give thanks. You mention the broken feedback/ethical loop. Maybe our views need to include not only the partnership worldview, but a circle of the physical, emotional, and spiritual ties to our fellow beings in a circular manner instead of a taxonomic ladder.
Very well written, and I thank you.
Hi Tina, how wonderful to have Aggie for your aunt– for many of us she is an adopted grandmother. Have you seen this sketch of her in the river-blessing ceremony in Eugene last year? http://holdenma.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/takelma-elder-agnes-baker-pilgrim-honoring-the-water
It is my sense that their are no real accidents– just stories waiting to be told–and you obviously have an important one to tell in your life. I very much like your alternative to a “taxonomic ladder” here. Thank you!
I would definatly have to agree that we need to partner with the antural world. I have a ways believed that everything has a “spirit” in sense, and is derserving of respect. I could never imagine thinking that plants or non-human animals are inferior and not worthy of fair treatment. I really liked the point that “those who have the most power to make environmental decisions are the least likely to be visibly and immediately affected by them”. It’s no wonder how fast the Earth is declining. If they put people in charge that were directly affected by things then there would be better decisions made. And to think that pestcides show up in breastmilk, that is horrible! What have we humans done to the poor Earth.
Thanks for you comment, Kelli. Letting those who make decisions suffer their consequences is, I think, an appropriate recipe for change. And I certainly think your last question is one to ponder– it is not only what we have done to earth, but to our children with the pesticides in breastmilk. The good news is that Sweden has cleaned up their breastmilk supply by outlawing particular pesticides–and we could and should do that as well.
Yes, I have seen some of these pictures. If you follow the link on her page, you can locate the old photos of 7 generations. In the second row down, 4 across my Dad and his brothers are pictured there with their Dad. He’s wearing glasses. Our speaking of this makes me wish to go and visit her and learn more of my biological family history. I was invited to learn from the whole family about regalia and family history. I think I should call her.
Thank you. I was completely unaware of this site and can tell I’ll be learning a great deal of relevant and important information.
Wonderful, Tina. I know Aggie will be very pleased to hear from you! An invitation like this from our ancestors, no matter what our culture, is an important gift. Over my years of teaching, I have heard far too many stories of those who didn’t follow up such invitations and then they lost the chance when they passed on.
Professor Holden’s (pg. 4) words, “Whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves,” rings loud and clear to me, but why is it so many people don’t get this? Or is it why do so many companies not care? I knew from the first time I used an oven cleaner that it had to be toxic. That was when I was 18 and I then decided it was elbow grease or nothing. I would not use anything like that in the air my children breathe or anyone else.
We don’t seem to be getting any better at getting rid of what’s not good for us or our natural environment. Why does it take so long? We have been talking about the hazards of pesticides for decades. But they still produce it. We have been talking about the depletion of fossil fuels for decades and we do cut back for awhile, but then we revert right back to where we were. It feels like a yo-yo effect. It seems our government could take a strong stand by enforcing wind and solar power now, with no more nuclear sites. Then give everyone 3-5 years to convert. You can’t form a partnership without a partner. If our government did partner with us on this would they be able to take the first step (Holden, pg.3) in establishing a partnership, respect? Unfortunately, I don’t have the faith that they can fulfill that first step. Our government didn’t just do an injustice to the Native Americans; they are doing an injustice to us all.
The question posed in “Partnering with the Natural World” is how do we share our world? We can learn much from the Native American lifeways. What is going on now with our world is not working. We need to look to the past and learn from it. To be able to share our world we must all respect it. Many are doing that, but many are not. It starts within your home, then your community, then your city, then next your state and finally your federal government. We must all work together if we are to share what we have left. The Native Americans had the right balance that is needed, but is that something that we can actually teach? It was innate in them. How do you possibly teach that to our government? I agree with Professor Holden (pg. 5) that our listening skills must increase, which is a good start for sharing our world. And by starting with that it should help as Holden stated, “expand our range of vision,” but what next?
Thanks for a very thoughtful comment, Pamela. These are hard issues– we obviously need to answer the question and remedy the situation in which we continue to allow the production of thing we know are toxic to all living things.
I like your last paragraph about where we start to go to work to change things: this is the way I think movements for change our built.
The question about vision is a legitimate one: I think we need such vision to guide us–and that vision may be a bit (or a lot) different for everyone. My hope is that we can build a common vision–and expand one another’s visions in the process.
You likely saved both yourself and your children some health problems by avoiding those toxic household products– good for you in making this choice. If more consumers did likewise (with respect to pesticides as well) we would certainly have a healthier environment.
The fact that Jaime de Angulo could not find a unique term for animal and human in the Pit River Culture is a great example of the culture and beliefs upheld by these people. Think about how this same concept could ripple positive benefits into our own society. If we did not differentiate between mankind and animals, the color of ones skin, or breathing vs photosynthesis, so much would change. We would treat all life as equal and discrimination would be non-existent.
It amazes me that our own culture has evolved to what it is today. It’s obvious that the indigenous Northwesterners had a respect and appreciation for the balances in nature, and reaped the benefits of this. We need to realize these beliefs our culture today is missing and the harmful impact we have on our surroundings.
Hi Jason, thanks for your comment. Thoughtful response that indicates how we might expand our consciousness and our conscience in modern society.
“You might be interested to know that when the Washington State budget meant the cutting of many natural resource managers, the tribes of Washington State (as a whole) became the leading employers of such professionals.”
Thank you, I AM interested to know. That’s good news!
You are quite welcome, Josh.
How do we share our world, this is a very interesting question in this day and age. It seems that the world that we live in now is always for itself, its a cutthroat time period. So the aspect of sharing the world is almost kind of a funny concept. The fact that we have been in another country for the last 8 or so years taking oil isnt exactly my idea of sharing.
Our values it seems have for a long time never been to better the environment. We do not take the same care for our surrounding as the indigenous people do. Though it might be the extreme by thinking that all things have a sole and you must treat it like a person. such as they thinks plants do. But because of this love of nature they lived in lush land and abundant environments for centuries, and it took us just a little over 100 years to destroy it.
Thanks for your comment, Christian.
The rapidity with which humans can destroy a landscape is daunting– but I think there is still resilience left in some natural systems in the Northwest if we act quickly to manage our own behavior in order to foster this resilience.
An interesting thing about the “cutthroat” approach to things is that it is showing many self-destructive results in what I call the “dominator paradox”, which I outlined in these words in response to another comment (from Tina Barker) on this site:
The dominator hopes to control, manage, overtake nature (and others of all species), but in the end winds up more powerless than those with partnership views. Partly because in an interdependent world the consequences of our actions come back to us (or sadly, to our children or grandchildren). But also because knowledge is power and the dominator stance refuses to look fully at the world (to learn from those they “conquer”, for instance, as you point out).
Ultimately, as well, the dominator stance is wracked by wrenching loneliness– for we can only control those who actually do not exist for us in their own right. We only think we control the world, that is, if we behave as if we are the only ones in it.
Many of us have become so accustomed to our “creature comforts” that it will require a drastic change before we can make any significant progress in curtailing the devestating damage to our environment. Many of these modern conveniences are produced in third world countries who have little disregard for the environment. As consumers of these products were are, in effect, encouraging the irresponsible behavior that is rapidly destroying our environment.
I am encouraged by the efforts of people and companies to go “green,” but this is only the first on many, many steps that need to be taken. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but we have a long road ahead, and unless more people and businesses buy into the idea that the Earth is the only home we have at the moment, it is going to be a long, uphill battle. This is a good starting point, though…
Thanks for your comment, Allison. I think you are right that we have many changes to make. Of course, a basic “creature comfort” is staying alive and healthy–and perhaps the knowledge that our current actions are undermining these things will motivate change. Also, as you indicate with your mention of third world countries, not everyone share in these “creature comforts” that inhibit some from making the changes we need to care for our shared earth.
As usual this was a very interesting and informative article. I would like to say that a true partnership view of the Earth and the environment is a bit of an idealistic goal for modern western culture. Unfortunately we are too dependent on our conveniences to ever give them up. Although this sounds terribly pessimistic, I do think we have come a long way in improving the way we live in the environment. More and more people are demanding that companies they support make improvements to the way they manufacture their products. This is a great step in the right direction, but we still have a very long way to go and it seems almost unachievable.
Thanks for the comment, Tim. My own sense is that we shouldn’t give up on our best vision, just because it a ways away. Indeed, in the current environmental crises, seems like we need to begin to move (even if this is a step by step process) toward our best vision of ethical relationships to the world that sustains us.
I concur that “Mordern Westerners cannot authentically or ethically take over the specific spiritual beliefs of other cultures. Nor can we return to the past.” We need to find ways to communicate the deeper understanding of humanities ties to all creation, but not necessarily subscribe to the spiritual beliefs of native american cultures. Shared appreciation and understanding of Native American belief systems can help to bring about a stronger awareness of the unified nature of all things.
Beyond “Partnership” as described in this article, I believe there are many alternatives to the “Not in my Backyard” attitude and all opportunities should be explored to raise our ecological awareness. For example, adapting the root concerns of interdependent ecosystems and relating them to ones personal experience and health seems more likely to move the U.S. culture, wherein consumption occurs predominantly on the basis of personal gratification and convenience. In fact, Not in my Backyard may take on new meaning as our global society continues to recognize that the entire earth including it’s atmosphere and orbital space is our backyard. To extend the analogy, the moon is only across the street, so we should probably protect it too. Of course we will have to extend this to the solar system and the universe, but first things first, let’s focus on giving our children some time to make that leap.
Thank you for a perceptive comment, David. I like the way you integrated revising the NIMBY concept with more consciousness of our over-consumption. Perhaps awareness of our interconnected natural world also models awareness of the interconnections of our ideas and values. I was very touched by your last statement!
How have we disconnected ourselves from Nature – from the production point? Our understanding of Nature has radically changed as modern man sees milk as coming from the grocery store and not from a cow. This disconnect with Nature has allowed us to alleviate our responsibility for the decisions we make and has allowed people with high influence over environmental decisions to maintain a low involvement in their ramifications.
In 1927, Mary Heck understood this interdependence with Nature and attempted to convey this to a non-Indian court as she clarified how the destruction of the beaver impacted not only her people, but also all people. The interdependence of the beaver and the surrounding environment is an example of the disconnect between man and the production point in nature. The Indian culture understood that one could not be disconnected from Nature. To protect Nature one needs to view it as a partnership. As with any partnership one needs to view the rights on both sides of the table – kind of like the Golden Rule.
This ideal of reciprocity is simple to understand but not so easy to put in practice when one does not view the environment as biocentric The ability to distance ourselves from Nature has allowed us to look at our decisions and the consequences of those decisions from an antiseptic viewpoint which encourages the “not in my backyard’ syndrome. Which could mean that my right as a consumer is as important as the rights of the environmentalist. How does one treat each with respect to answer the question “How do we share our world”?
On another note, I found it interesting that already by 1927 the destruction of the wetlands had occurred – My view of the rivers I grew up around in the 1950s are very different than the rivers my mother grew up around in the 1920s and different than my grandmother’s who came to the West in the late 1800s. So much has changed so quickly. I wonder if the wetlands have begun to come back as we began to understand and appreciate the beaver and the impact it had on the ecosystem. Just a thought
There is much to ponder in your comment, Elizabeth. I think that a key to putting reciprocity in action is shifting away from the competitive worldview. Take the instance of the consumer’s rights versus environmental rights (as we often see it in our culture and economy). What we are finding more and more if we look at the situation in its holistic sense– is that these two perspectives are inter-related. The site links under “consumer information” on this website make that point with their work. Protecting health and justice IS also protecting the consumer. In fact, consumers have been kept in the dark in terms of the real costs of “cheap” products that we will all have to pay some day. From the holistic perspective (rather than the NIMBY attitude) , my backyard is the whole world’s backyard: and thus I cannot (in the long term) defend my rights without defending yours. What we need to understand that reciprocity is not about giving things away we might cling to in a competitive situation, but passing things on so that the gifts we receive multiply and return.
One thing that I think is on our side in facing current environmental crises is the resiliency of the natural world– if we don’t put such a load on it as to undermine this resilience. It would be hopeful to see wetlands come back, given how important they are to a functioning ecosystem. My understanding is that we have about one per cent of the original wetlands that used to frame the Willamette River.
You obviously have some personal historical perspective in terms of your family’s experience.
And you certainly have a point that it is difficult to become an intimate partner with the natural world that we seldom directly experience as provider of our needs.
I find it very interesting that much of Native American culture observes such beauty in a natural habitat that many Westerners do not see. They view that every tree, animal, person, or object has a spirit no matter if they have a voice or not as stated by a Siletz Takelma elder (Agnes Pilgrim Baker). I agree that a partnership worldview seems to be one of the least dominant worldviews in which one or a group of persons can abuse their power and rule over other beings or natural life. A quote I think defines this view and the motives of all those who practice it is the following: “ The partnership view envisions the most democratic of socio-ecological systems, embracing what Vandana Shiva terms “a democracy of all life”. This view not only takes into account a theory of fair treatment and representation for all persons that feminists and sociologists work so hard to promote, but also a theory that nature and the animalistic populations also have a spirit and therefore a right to be represented in the democracy .
From this article, it seems that the more modern and Western societies’ practices become, the less we connect with other beings around us such as nature. Oregon such as in Corvallis, however, is developing a small part of this view by taking a concern for the preservation of nature’s remoteness, popularizing diversified world views, and allowing wildlife to roam at its outskirts.
Hello Kristen, thank you for your comment. I aprpeciate the way you joined a number of ideas in this response. Let us hope that we expand our Western worldviews in something that is more earth-centered in the ways you indicate. I like your points about including more than human life in our ethical concerns as well.
“This paradox flows from the fact that the more one tries to control a thing, the less one sees it for what it is.”
I think that the farther we are removed from this thing the less we understand it. My family has a cabin on a lake that supplies water for the surrounding farmland. The farmers own a certain acreage of the water that is pumped out for the crops. Years when the lake is up to the high water mark no one really notices or complains. But drought years when the lake is down and is then further reduced by pumping, you hear a lot more complaints. One of our neighbors at out cabin is also a farmer in the area. Drought years already have quite a negative impact on his crops and the water pumped out is a much needed scarcity to keep his crops alive. It is amazing to hear people upset at the long walk they must take from their cabin to reach the waters edge or the swampy reed patched that lie between the beach and the now low water line. These people have no understanding of the purpose of the water other than its entertainment value. The farther removed we are from the environment, the less we understand it, the more we appropriate and places values on it and the more we misuse it. Back to the quote I started with “… the more one tries to control a thing, the less one sees it for what it is.”
I read this essay a couple weeks ago and then again today and there are a couple points that stood out to me. I spent a great deal of time thinking about the statement: “whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves.” It is the unfortunate truth, as evidence would suggest – plain and simple. I can see how this statement could be carried over into all environmental concerns either as a result of individual, collective or industrial carelessness.
The other point that stood out to me was the side by side approach the Native Americans took with the ecosystem. It wasn’t a case of human superiority or perceived rights over the animals and land but rather they worked in harmony. By sharing the abundance nature provided and only taking what they needed to survive they were able to sustain their communities. The beavers were an essential element to the success of the Native Americans. However; due to the disastrous effect the fur trade had on our ecosystem the wetlands began to disappear.
Today there are efforts to preserve wetlands in Oregon and protection councils and agencies have sprung up all over the state. While this is good progress, I fear that development will still take precedence over the preservation of natural habitats. This is most evident to me when I think about all of the hillsides and land that have been cleared of any trees or wildlife to make room for housing developments.
Hello, Anedra. The fact that what we do to the environment, we do to ourselves could be a postiive thing if we treated it differently in the modern Western world. You are right about the fur trade– careless land development in the decades that followed added to further ravaging of the wetlands. You have a good point that we are making some progress– but also sliding backwards at the same time. I would say that we need more than regs– thouigh we need those also. We need a change in worldview that would allow us to truly partner with the natural world. Thanks for your comment!
The author points out, “Modern Westerners cannot authentically or ethically take over the specific spiritual beliefs of other cultures.” I don’t even think it is a matter of ethics. It is more a matter of the willingness to listen and apply “new” knowledge. It’s a matter of what has always been there…a sustainable management approach Native Americans have had for years and years. I say “new” because this knowledge is new to the western culture, not the Native Americans. Gee…it worked before, why not try it again. With that said, natural resource managers, commercial fisherman, sport fisherman, and the Native Americans are getting together and holding productive meetings that are leading to sustainable conservation efforts. After all we all want the same thing….sustainable salmon populations.
The Native Americans certainly have been managing salmon in partnership with the natural world…not only in the past, but presently as well. As I mentioned above, it’s good to see that our agencies, such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are beginning to implement management plans that incorporate the Native American management approach. This is something I would like to become a part of.
Thanks for pointing out the cooperation–and its positive results– among those working to restore and sustain salmon runs. In terms of ethics, I was referring to the danger of co-opting the beliefs of others rather than finding authentic ones of one’s own. This does not mean we should not listen (or learn to listen) to others. Good point here. I’m glad you want to become a part of the important move to use what worked (as you aptly point out) for so many thousands of years, Patrick!
I first want to respond to some people who say that the partnership view is being embraced in our culture. I agree it is, but to a very small extent and only be niche groups, so far. For the most part, all the ‘green’ movements we see are hardly that (but still small steps in the right direction). Things like purchasing co2 offsets and buying recycled products; these are not within the partnership worldview, but still within the traditional Western view. To embrace the partnership attitude a drastic reworking of our systems would have to be enacted, something that will not happen soon, but the steps in that direction can continue to happen.
This article reminds me of my conflict resolution psychology course. Viewing animals and nature as partners puts them within our moral circle, so we are thoughtful of them and see them as equals in considering impacts. In human conflict, especially in the terrible extremes such as genocide, the aggressors have separated the victims from themselves in their own mind. They have pushed the victims outside of their moral circle, so that they are objectified and the morals the aggressors hold themselves to no longer apply to those victims. — If we see ourselves, as humans, as separate and above the natural world all around us, than committing harmful acts against the natural world is easy and of no consequence to our conscience. Embracing nature as partners will be quite difficult when we cannot even do this with all people.
A key point about including our true partners within our moral circle, Michael. Your point about our difficulties including humans within our moral circle brings up the fact that the ways in which cultures treat other humans echoes the ways in which they treat all “earth others”. The license that the dualism/dominator paradigm yields is not only outside conscience but outside practical perceptions–the blindness that leads us to undercut the means of our own survival.
Ok…makes sense, and I’m not saying having ethics is bad…I’m just saying that ethics, in some cases, is a matter of cultural opinion. In other words, modern society/culture can get so wrapped up in what the “right ethics” to have is, when in reality ethics is usually a “right vs. right issue” based on values. I just think that another cultures knowledge could possibly be more valuable in getting us where we want to be.
I remembered a statement I heard sometime ago and I’m not sure who said it, but “just because you don’t like someone’s behavior, doesn’t mean the behavior is wrong.” I think of this in how it relates to different cultures and within our own when someone acts, say’s something, or makes a decision different than our own. I’m sure this is nothing profound, but thought it worthy of stating.
Thoughtful point, Patrick. Opening ourselves to the practical result–and expansion of our sense of humanity– that flows from other cultural systems may facilitate gaining a critical perspective on our choices. Ethics have served humans as a means of survival throughout history: that is, teaching children, as traditional Chehalis elders put it “how to get along with one another” is linked to learning “how to take care of yourself.”
I do also think we can assess ethics– or lack of them– as to their consequences on others. The way I have heard your statement is that we should assess an action without developing a rejection on the person who committed it: that is, we can hate the action and love the person who commits it.
The idea of balance and a partnership of equality is something that needs to be adapted. Several people mentioned ‘managing’ ourselves, I completely agree, I think too often we try to control everything in our lives if we are out of control of ourselves. Would our country be in the financial crisis it is in if we managed ourselves better? The possibilities of bettering ourselves are endless, but most importantly we would be in balance with everything around.
We need to set the example for each others, if we create an atmosphere of peace and balance, it will encourage people to emulate. The article mentions that by allowing nature to flourish we are allowing ourselves to flourish if we are in balance with nature. We as a human race see power is amassing large quantities of items, more than we actually need, and yet instead of happiness we have a very high depression and anxiety rate. If we can learn to live in balance with nature, thereby learning to live in balance with ourselves, we can be free of many these types problems.
Good point on controlling other when we aren’t take responsibility for controlling our own actions, Becah. Given the consequences of human actions on our environment, managing ourselves can bring many benefits–as well as acting as a model (as you indicate) both for others within our society and developing nations.
The sense of balance, as you note, is very important! That is what reciprocity is all about– we should only take from life systems what we can put back in some other way. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Part of the problem in recreating the lost partnership with nature is the fact that so many people have become disconnected with nature. While there are environmentalists, scientists, ecologists, etc. that have greatly increased our knowledge of how ecosystems and nature in general functions, reading a book is by no means a substitute for first hand experience. At times it seems like all of our best laid plans and knowledge about the natural world is a waste because salmon are still on the decline, whole forests are going up in flames, and our waters, despite the Clean Water Act, are still polluted. It is the paradox of dominance in real life, since the more we know about these systems and attempt to control them, the less we actually understand them and the more we end up harming them.
The NIMBY attitude also works against a partnership with nature since it is yet another means of disconnection with the natural world. If people were forced to see how much garbage piled up in their back yard, had to find a way to protect their children from mine tailings in the water, or live in the middle of a clear cut, the NIMBY attitudes would soon be replaced by NIABY attitudes. It could be said that the native peoples had a NIABY attitude since they understood that everything action had a reaction and what was taken must be replaced or allowed to regenerate before taking more. The native tribes could not just care for themselves since it was the land that cared for them, which is what fostered their partnership.
In the face of undeniable global climate change, many people have begun changing the way they consume and treat the earth. It’s been said that Portland is one of the easiest cities to be green in, but with more and more companies reducing their impact on the environment, I like to think that it extends much farther than the PNW. The Waxman-Markey Bill is also a step forward in changing how we treat the earth and with the advent of renewable energy, could help reestablish some of our partnerships with the earth. However, the greatest changes come from individuals since the power of the dollar tends to create more change than votes. I believe that if we want to be good stewards, we must have a NIABY attitude and consume responsibly.
Thoughtful integration of ideas here, Bekah. All these worldview attitudes and values are interlinked–and as you say, if we could but be linked to the natural world in experience and understanding, we would have a serious platform for change– as would be the case if we practiced any of these values — not in anyone’s backyard, reciprocity, intimacy with the natural world, and partnership itself. Thanks for your comment!
I am already feeling somewhat guilty for the way I consume so much. It isn’t often that I stop to think about what exactly has happened to the product I am using, where it has been and what has been lost. I do believe it is important for people who have a calling for a certain realm in life to speak up, just as the woman did with the beavers. I know there is an ethical perspective that states that we should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, I don’t think our environment should be any different. I have always believed that our surroundings have spirit and life also.
Thanks for your comment, Lorena. Good consideration about the entire life cycle of what we consume. I like your last thought about acknowledging the life of the environment around us by extending our ethic to it: treating it as we would like to be treated.
I’m curious, how much of an effect did the Hudson Bay Company think they were having on the environment with their fur trading policies? They obviously knew that it was a limited resource if they thought they could create a “fur desert” and dominate the supply. Did they think that the beaver and otter population would just restore itself if they stopped killing them, or was a concept to be put off worrying about it until later?
With regard to environmental regulation (which, admittedly, I know a lot less about it than I probably should), it seems like the only effective way to really protect the environment from things like overfishing would be if *every* person had a personal stake in the effect of their actions. Meaning that everyone involved would need to be raised with a lot more respect for nature, such as the native Americans typically were. Is this too lofty of a goal to manage, or are there other ways to encourage more people to be responsible on their own?
Good question, Daniel. The Hudson’s Bay folks weren’t considering the future of the beaver, only their short-term economic gain. In fact, it was the concerted policy to wipe out the beaver so that they would not be faced with future competition from other fur traders– that is what creating the “fur desert” was all about. We see then as well as now what effects a myopic short-term economic gain perspective has on long term well being of the natural systems that support us. I think you are right that personal responsibility (based on a change in worldview in our case) is the best remedy for over-fishing, for instance. At the same time, it is also true that regulation models ways to change our worldview–as in the case of the cooperative programs hashed out by multiple stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest Power Council. Take the Civil Rights Voting Act, for instance: it modeled a moral high standard and helped move us away from racism, changing the worldview of many in that regard. Of course, in order for regs or laws to have this kind of effect, they must enforce a high moral (or environmental) standard and not a minimum one such as the World Trade Organization is currently enforcing.
Thanks for bringing up this issue.
I will begin by saying that I disagree with a lot of the thoughts and ideas expressed in this essay. However, I do agree that we need to be more sustainable in our use of natural resources. We as a world need to move closer to a point where we are “taking only as much as [we] could replace from natural systems.” We need to use the practices and techniques of the native people who hold to the Partnership Worldview in order to sustain our own resources. I also believe that we need to do this in order to save what we have enjoyed in our time on earth for our children and future generations. It would be highly irresponsible and immature of us to take all that we want without regard to the harm of nature that we’d be causing. On that point, I agree with Val Plumwood when she talks about how the problem with our society today is that the people who have the most power to make the big environmental decisions are the ones who are least likely to be affected by them. I think that our society should figure out ways in order to relay the information of harmful environmental acts to those who perform those acts.
I do not believe in the other side of the Partnership Worldview: the side that believes that animals have spirits; nature and humans are equal. I think that people like Stutzman, Shiva, and especially Billy Frank, Jr. have it all wrong. The reason that Mary Heck had to speak for the beaver was because the beaver can’t logically defend its reason to live, even if it spoke English. Humans are the dominant species on this earth. We use animals and nature for our benefit. Not the other way around. If humans and animals become equal, the status of human gets brought down significantly and the status of animals gets brought up to meet them. Humans that unfortunately go homeless now share the same drinking water out of ponds and fountains that stray dogs and wandering cows are now drinking out of.
I can see that the idea that man should respect nature and share the earth with it helped the indigenous tribes of the Willamette Valley survive and sustain their resources, but putting nature on the same level as humans isn’t something that should be done.
Thoughtful personal response in terms of your own values, Christopher. I don’t quite understand your example of the pond: as it now stands, humans have seriously polluted water resources around the globe (lack of potable water is an escalating crisis we are already facing). I don’t see that sharing partnership with earth others would bring humans down– though it might make us more humble, this might allow us to know the processes of the earth that sustains us in such a way that we have clean water for all, for instance, in the generations that come.
I appreciate your personal stance: I personally don’t feel that bringing others up means bringing ourselves. Instead, in a world of reciprocity (which is a fundamental biblical ethic), bringing others up raises our own moral plane– and in the case of the environment, gives us more practical knowledge. This does ask for more discipline from humans: we much consider the life of creation more seriously as we make our own choices. According to the indigenous worldview, the beaver need human spokespersons in human society not because they have no language of their own (a metaphor, if you will, for their own place and meaning in creation) but because humans do not always see this.
Thanks for your comment.
The ideas posted here are very interesting and call for a broader understanding of our impact on nature. The part most intriguing is about the paradox of control. Where by striving for a partnership with nature we manage nature to the extent that we loose appreciation or understanding of it. This is a difficult situation, and it must take a cultural shift for things to change. The native tribes of our nation have in this mentality in their heritage and their entire lives were shaped ny the land and nature. Our present day lives are shaped by the dollar or by the individual drive for something. In most cases this drive is not for the preservation of nature. We will need a shift in culture, or a reawakening to the partnership idea to make headway in the future.
Thank you for your comment, Ross. I certainly agree that the drive for money does not coincide with the care for natural systems: it would be great if we had a system which actually rewarded those things which the majority of society wants (such as clean water and a decent future for our children).
I’m not quite sure what you mean about the paradox of control as related to partnership. Partnership seems to me to avoid the loss of appreciation for others that domination creates.
I think that the domination worldview is the leading cause of the destruction of our natural world. The idea that humans are the dominant species and must have control over everything else has not only negatively affected our environment but also ourselves. I completely agree that “whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves”. Whether it’s the destruction of a keystone species or releasing pesticides into our environment, the results will come back to us. Through partnership with our environment we can not only improve the health and vitality of plant and animal species, but we can improve our own health because of our many interactions with these other life forms. I especially enjoyed the quote by Billy Frank, Jr. that natural life forms and processes are “measurements. They tell us how healthy things are. How healthy we are. Because we and they are the same thing.” If our environment is healthy then inevitably we are too and so we have a responsibility to respect that environment as an equal being, which is the principle of reciprocity.
However, I don’t feel that the partnership view is likely to become evident in much of the world very soon. It is becoming more clear to me that the way that we treat our environment with a dominant view parallels the sexism and racism in our society that is still evident today. The discussion of female elders and priests and other women in positions of power within indigenous communities definitely stands out to me. I realize that, when people create a partnership and equality with their surroundings, this also includes the equality of all people. In my opinion, we cannot create a partnership worldview until all humans are truly equal and respected as such.
I think that you have not stated too strongly the point about the destruction caused to nature (and to other humans as well) by the dominator worldview. I agree Lauren, that the partnership worldview will only be achieved when we also treat one another with true mutuality and justice. It is a tall order– but all such projects begin with small steps.
From what I understood of this article, since we pioneered these lands we have destroyed ecosystems and disrupted more than just the Indians and animals. We have been blinded by our greed and selfishness and are taking more from the earth than it can replenish. We need to go back to the old ways like the Indians and the salmon, and allow nature to replenish itself. Obviously we can not go back, but we can do our best to help conserve, rebuild, and replant.
Thanks for your comment, Erik. I think you are right about the destructive consequences to the environment in the last two hundred years in the Pacific Northwest: I do not think it was entirely malicious (greed and selfishness), but there was a good deal of denial, close-mindedness and ignorance involved. Time to change that, as you indicate.
It is 8:40 p.m. pacific time.
The “partnership” worldview of the indigenous people of the Northwest has more wisdom than the humans of Old World decent could ever give them credit for. I believe that the travelers from the Old World were used to a culture that was based upon an industrial monarchy. The world that they knew so well was based upon mass production and an all out sprint to gain the most power though resources and upper cognitive functioning. Obtaining human power, comfort, and order was about manipulating the earth to obtain value from it. That is where, I believe, they were (and are) at fault. The author of the essay says that she wants to “shift from questions about how we ‘manage’ natural resources to how we manage ourselves to support nature’s resilience.” The author begins to give examples of and to explain how “whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves.” All around the world this is true. When the Europeans took over the Americas, they banned the production and sale of quinoa. This was a staple grain for many of the indigenous people of the northwest. The Europeans banned this grain in hopes that it would further destroy the indigenous lifestyle. However, they did not know that is one of the only non-meat foods that contains all of the essential amino acids (amongst many other health benefits). The lack of trust for the natives “partnership” worldview has partially led to the obesity and coronary problems of the many Americans. A resilient world cannot be fostered if a “dominant” viewpoint is taken on our natural world. From the many examples in the essay, it is easy to see that if one alters an part of the eco-system for their own gain and does not consider all other life, it usually ends in the destruction of the alterer. A socio-ecological system has a cyclical nature, just as any eco-system does. It must not be forgotten that we, as humans, are subject to the same cycle as all other organisms.
Thanks for your comment, Shamon. I know that this website runs on global mean time rather than local NW time– don’t worry, I take that into consideration. I never heard that quinoa was grown in the Pacific Northwest. My understanding is that it originated in Peru. On the score of outlawing traditional indigenous products, you are, sadly, right on– Vandana Shiva’s Stolen Harvest indicates the ways in which this denigration of traditional products today.
It only harms us to forget that we are indeed, as you put it, a part of the same natural cycle as are all natural creatures.
One of the things I found interesting in this article is the idea of the applicability of ethics to the natural world. Holden spoke about an “ethic of reciprocity” in which there is a ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ philosophy. Coming from an ecology back ground where we study and understand feedback loops and the deep rooted relationships between ecological communities, I understand the ‘partnership’ with nature which is derived from this ethic. However this ethic of reflexivity concept was only applied to human interactions when I was taught the concept in Sunday school. It was never applied to the natural world. I am wondering how then I (personally) extended the boundaries to include the natural world on my own, without being taught. What experiences, influences, values, emotions, and knowledge allowed me to expand the ‘ethic of reciprocity’ to the natural world? And how can I use similar experiences/emotions to foster or trigger this expansion of a ‘worldview’ in others? Or how can I help to “increase our listening skills and expand our range of vision” as you so poetically state it. Clearly this can only come from positive experiences, emotions and values. You stated that we “cannot authentically or ethically take over the specific spiritual beliefs of other cultures,” is understanding (and firstly being open to understanding) enough to create this broadening of worldviews? Did my positive experiences create a curiosity that allowed me to open up and listen?
I also found your notion of the “intersection of ethics and practical outcomes” very interesting. I feel that creating practical relationships is an extremely beneficial thing, but it is only a first step (well … moving backwards towards a ‘partnership’ with the natural environment as we are now trying to do because we have tried to move beyond nature). This can be seen in the green building movement. Many ethical actions (such as restoring a watershed, using native plants, installing a green roof or wall) have very practical outcomes such as treating stormwater, saving money, or improving indoor air quality and productivity. However, I believe we have a long way to go before these measures are done with a deep ecology philosophy; for the benefit of nature and not simply the benefit of humans.
Thanks for this response, Chess. You outline the idea of partnership well in terms of an eco-centered view. How did you come to extending your sense of reciprocity to all life? And how might we encourage others to grasp this same extension (and the ethics that allows us to implement our own survival on this planet)? It is a question as complex as each of our personal experiences–and as simple as being alive in a live world within which we have been given bodies tuned to this world. That is, I think we only do NOT feel what you feel if we shut ourselves off to our own presence here.
This essay shows just how sad the current western worldview is, especially in the fact that 99% of the wetlands around the Willamette have been destroyed. I really mulled over the statement that we need to decide how to manage ourselves in order to support nature’s resilience. I think this is truly the only way we will ever be able to learn to adequately manage natural resources, all change starts from within and spreads outwardly, we need to change how we see the world as materials for us to take and use for our own good, without considering any of the other billions of living creatures on this earth from whom we are taking homes away. The “green movement” is a good start but I am afraid that it is much too little and probably too late. Recycling helps, but we shouldn’t be wasting resources producing bottled water. I’m proud that Corvallis–through the sustainability coalition–will most likely be banning bottled water, and possibly other bottled drinks in the coming years. Another interesting point in this article is the statement that “whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves.” We are killing our natural environment, as well as our kin, and thus we are killing ourselves. The occurrence of cancer in our society is astounding, the San Francisco bay area has been getting sprayed with a pesticide to kill a certain type of fruit fly for a while now, and to me it’s no surprise that it has the biggest cancer rate in America. The partnership worldview is likely the only one that could help us get back in touch with nature, through which we can restore our nature’s beauty and health to a certain degree, and with that hopefully we can restore our own.
Thank you for the many excellent points here, Paul. It is great about the bottled water sustainability initiative. Bottled water is not only an environmental disaster with all that plastic, but it is the reason for the ravaging of particular indigenous environments–as in the case of a water bottling corporation that wants to draw down the traditional river of the Wintu, in Northern California–they are fighting this in court. I certainly agree that we are facing an imperative situation in which doing “too little too late” will not save us-but we must do all we can–and any action anyone is willing to contribute is, I think, important. I very much like your assessment of the partnership view. The “cancer clusters” that are rising up throughout the US have each been linked to environmental degradation as soon as serious research is done there.
This idea of partnership reminds me of something I recently read about Charles Darwin and his contempt for the “Social Darwinists,” whom he viewed as distorting his theories in order to justify the ruthlessness of social stratification and the domination of Empire. In that usage, his well known phrase “survival of the fittest” was used to reinforce class distinctions, when his original meaning was something much closer to “survival of the cooperative.” Darwin recognized quite early on that the only way to survive yourself, and protect your offspring, was through the recognition of worth in others and subsequent cooperation with them, in order to work towards a greater good for all. The Native American idea of partnership with everything, from roots to beavers, demonstrates this idea perfectly, and is evidenced by the generations of abundance they enjoyed in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. With all of this evidence to the contrary from both our own respected scientists and the wisdom of thousands of years of indigenous tribes, it’s absolutely amazing to me that our ethnocentric approach to domination of the environment continues to be the dominant paradigm!
Hi Liz, thanks for your comment. Good point about Darwin: if you read that somewhere other than here (http://holdenma.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/how-“survival-of-the-fittest”-makes-us-unfit-for-survival) I would love to know where. The dominant paradigm (as you note) is hard to shift, but I do think that we are on our way to doing this– which we had better do if we hope to pass on a vital world to our children.
“The earth is alive, it has a hearth,” This sentence was really powerful, and in my opinion is the best way of describing and seeing earth as part of the natural life we live in. We are all responsible for taking care of our earth and the natural resources that nature produce for us. It’s important to pay attention to what nature needs, if we continue to ignore it then there will be consequences that eventually will grow in a big pile, and later will be too late to fix them. If we want the earth to stay in good conditions than lets take care of its hearth. It is important to learn, communicate, teach and be aware of the big issues that our nature is confronting. Educating our future generation is a very important key but we should also be an example to them. I truly admire those people who live in partnership with the nature and I also respect the people who care to make a difference on this earth. Great article!
Thanks for the feedback, Ruth–and for your personal move toward learning care for our shared earth.
This essay has brought up some ideas that have circulating in my head for awhile. Specifically, the story about the Hudson Bay company purposely creating a ‘fur desert’ in the Pacific Northwest to eliminate competitors of the fur trade which in turn led to the degradation of wetlands. Besides showing the nature dominating and discrete worldview, it brings up how our economy serves to eradicate renewable resources for short-term profit.
There is speculation that including the true costs of harvesting resources – environmental degradation and pollution – in products that we might pass to the consumer may help promote sustainability. The question that must is asked is, “can the free-market adequately account for these costs?” I don’t think it can in its current state. Not until the members of free market economies have developed a more encompassing partnership worldview would exploitations – human or nature – end. Certainly, including these costs now would be devastating to economy, but it is necessary that we move in this direction as a civilization.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis concerning the “fur desert”, Joseph. There are real issues with the supposed “free” market– given the WTO, for instance, which specifies a nation cannot “discriminate” against a product based on its “means of production”– that is, it cannot specify social and environmental standards in its production–lest it be sued as some have been. Another central issue is whether the market is actually “free”, given the influence of those with money on it. Certainly it doesn’t reflect human preferences for food among those too poor to buy it, for instance.
This essay makes a lot of sense to me because my grandma lives on the Zig Zag River on Mt. Hood. She sees all kinds of wildlife including beavers and deer. Over the last fifteen years since she moved up there, she has noticed a decrease in the amount of wildlife, and it really does make her upset to see the forests diminish and the water become less populated with wild salmon.
It sounds like your grandma has a wonderful place to live–and you to visit. It is sad to see those who share this earth with us diminishing– a sadness we can only remedy, I think, by changing the aspects of our lives that contribute to this.
As we learned and shared in our course, partnering with the natural world is one of the most essential values that we need to learn from indigenous people and keep in mind when we live through our life, I think.
The paragraph quoting Lucy Thomps idea, all the indigenous peopled cited above in illustrating how the partnership view implements both intimate knowledge of natural systems and careful monitoring of the results of human actions on those systems, were strongly sounded to my brain and heart, and I really agreed with it.
I think partnership with nature is an essential but also it is easily forgotten in busy daily life; by reading this article, I felt I would like to keep it my mind more carefully everyday.
Thanks for your personal response entailing both brain and heart, as you put it, Miki. I think we very much need decisions based on the intersection of both of these in the modern day.
The NIMBY mentality has an enormous effect on the nature of our planet. I think we need to increase awareness with early education in order for people to understand the value and importance of our natural environment. It can be as simple as teaching our children not to pour chemicals down the drain or as difficult as having current industries devise a plan to cut back or eliminate dangerous waste and pollutants. It is imperative that we listen to the land. Money is very motivating to many people, and industries all over tend to overlook the possibilites of polluting our land or harming our wildlife. Having a mentality that we share the earth with plants and animals can benefit ourselves and surroundings. We need to do business with mother nature as well as the industrial market and our backyards. We not only live for ourselves but for our children and future generations to come. Early education can foster a goal of healthier living.
Hi Michelle, thanks for your comment. I like the image of “doing business with the earth”– after all, isn’t nature the true bottom line– for we cannot live without it? Living for future generations and teaching children (and thus enriching their quality of life as well as responsibility) are also important points.
The question regarding “how do we share our world?” is one worth considering and one that deserves an answer. The problem is that not enough people see the need to share, yet. The ‘green’ movement is certainly gaining momentum, but it seems like our culture still lags behind that of the Sahaptin speaking people who lived by the Columbia River who thought all things from nature had a soul. If we could begin to think in terms of the things around us in more equal terms we are bound to take better care of them.
Our lives our so fast paced and hectic that it is so easy to take the easy way out of things. We are accustomed to quick fixes and that has been what has lead to problems like toxins in breast milk, which clearly illustrates how our actions to change nature end up hurting us in the long run. By trying to eradicate something in nature, we have ended up harming the most innocent among us.
I think the ‘green’ movement is helping people to move in the direction of a partnership worldview; I just hope that it doesn’t just end up like some fad movement that is soon replaced by something else. We also seem to live in a society that has ADD. After a while we tend to get bored with things and move on to something else; abandoning our early passions for something else entirely.
Hi Sandy, thanks for your comment. Interesting-and not inappropriate– to think of modern industrial culture as a society with ADD! I also find it heartening that folks like the Columbia Intertribal Fishing Commission are leading the way in restoration of the local habitat for salmon–and thus for other creatures that not only share human lives– but support the cycle of life on which all our lives depend. The links between treating nature as a partner — rather than something we think we can control of dominate– and facilitating the resilience of natural systems are important to consider.
I relate most things in terms of my children, simply because I am surrounded by them all day. I often tell my daughter the “Do unto others as you would want done unto you.” It’s so ironic that as parents and adults, we often think that we are immune to these simple rules for how to treat others: the “Do as I say, and not as I do” mentality. Many of us have that same mentality in terms of nature, Earth, plants, and animals. We want plants to yield “our” plentiful crops, even if we don’t let them rest or have the proper nutrients that could be added to the soil naturally. We want our animals to treat us politely, bears cannot come into a housing community, lest we take it out in a cage, yet we are able to go camping in the mountains and get upset if a bear eats our food. At least he didn’t put us in a cage and kick us back to our suburbs. Perhaps if we treated others the way we want to be treated, they would treat us more satisfactorily and we wouldn’t have so many concerning environmental repercussions. The way that many of us relate to our world puts us, humans, ahead of anything and everything else. We should look outside of ourselves and see the big picture, and not just our small part in it. We learn to share our world, by realizing we are not the center of it.
Thanks for your comment, Jennifer. Reciprocity is a central element of the partnership worldview–and an idea we will take up in more detail in lesson three of our worldviews class.
Children are important not only for what we teach them–and they teach us– but to remind us of our responsible to the generations that follow us.
Jennifer, I just wanted to say that I really liked your comment on the article because, coincidentally, I had EXACTLY the same thought as you did about my children and teaching them the golden rule! I actively try to teach them to treat other people how they would like to be treated, but have never thought before about including the environment in that same category. As I was reading the article, I had a shift in perception where the earth became a living being on the same level with all of us. About halfway through, I thought, “We need to treat the earth with all the respect and consideration that we would like to be treated with. Hey–that sounds like the golden rule.” I really enjoyed your comment, and I agree wholeheartedly!
Hi Jennifer, thanks for your comment: you are both right on here.
I think there are many people out there that really treat themselves well, the people around them well, and try to treat the world well. These are the people fighting for a better world and a better understanding that we need to do something now to help repair, or lessen, some of the scars humans have laid upon the world and the creatures in it. That being said, I feel that there are so many people that don’t treat themselves well, so they are definately not going to treat the earth well. This article is filled with great examples of people that really knew that by treating the things around them with respect, they were treating themselves with respect because we are all connected. Unfortulately, as we make steps, I think we are so far away from a balanced earth and a balanced society. In our modern world, people do things that are done the easiest; why put forth extra effort when we can do the minimum? So, those of us who undertand more about what can be done need to show others how easily it can be done. For example, I recently filled in at a local school. They just started recycling paper (yes, just started, its 2009!!). The boxes were placed right next to the garbage cans, and guess what? Paper still in the garbage! I guess it was the easiest thing to do for them. I just couldn’t believe it personally, but they don’t know any better. While many of us have very open ears to change, many people are still stubborn and don’t want to hear about it, and, sadly, I think this remains a large portion of the population. There needs to be a huge effort to educate children at a young age about the proper way to treat the earth. Like with the paper issue, if you never know better, how can you change?
Thanks for your comment, Matt. I certainly think you have something in the emphasis on educating children– though I don’t think adults are lost as far as change goes. Understanding the consequences of our actions is central to choosing them wisely–and habits (flowing from worldviews especially) take some work to change. But I have seen such changes over the last thirty years– I just hope we accept this change fast enough.
I hope so as well. I am only 29 years old, so I cannot speak to the changes over the years. I do know that even 10 years ago such a thing as recycling probably was not in small communities, so to have it now is a good step towards something bigger. Every step counts I guess, just need to make more!
The problem with trying to measure culture as a part of cost benefit analysis is what value to assign it. It is incomprehensible to put a cost on the cultural value of a stream or forest; likewise to neglect the cultural value of something is to leave out a major consideration in resource management. The problem comes that everyone one values culture differently. It seems that the culture of resources management by the native northwest is highly glorified while the imperialist west is vilified.
History is full of civilizations that develop at different rates. Many cultures were interrupted in their developmental period (while others such as some New Guinea tribes still exist). I argue that the “culture” of resources management is at least partially a product of a society’s developmental stage. To farm and domesticate animals begins to negate the need to hunt and gather, and affects the way resources are viewed.
I am not arguing against a wise use policy or that resources should not be managed but that using a cultural argument is a difficult argument. The cultural argument is at present an appeal to our emotion. Our emotion is what makes us human. Culture then is that thing guides us to limit our use of resources if for no other reason than to ensure the interconnectedness of everything is maintained.
Hello Patrick, thanks for your comment. I am not quite sure what you mean by “it seems the imperialist west is vilified”– do you mean in this essay? I think it is not (only) about emotion when one speaks to the issue of sustainability that lasted 10,000 years and the values/actions that led to this success.
You might want to take a look at the essay on “indigenous cultures” here: http://holdenma.wordpress.com/culture-and-environment/indigenous-peoples/. Actually there is no clear dividing line between hunting and gathering and agriculture– since all hunting and gathering peoples appear to have practiced some form of what we might call agriculture. The distinction comes in terms of industrial agriculture or “monoculture” (plowing and emphasis on a single crop). Unfortunately, the developmental stages we allot to ourselves as opposed to indigenous peoples have often been based on stereotypical notions of our own stance of “progress” rather than real data of the kind we are finally collecting now.
However, if you are making the point that there is a connection between the type of subsistence practiced by a given society and their worldview, that is certainly true: there is a definite interaction here– which we can also see in the difference between industrial and indigenous societies.
Is the “at present” of the cultural argument as emotion in this essay or how you see it in mainstream society? I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that a critical assessment of worldview as it is linked to environmental practices is important and pragmatic.
If I have misunderstood your points, you might help me by pointing out particular statements in this essay that you are responding to.
I am pointing out that I believe that management concept mentioned in the essay is one that is based on a cultural group. I think it is miss-leading to say that this management concept guided their society in sustainable resource management. Rather I think that the methods used by the original cultures were based more in resource competition. That given the opportunity a society tends to grow when resources are plenty and shrink when limited. This also depends on a society’s ability to manipulate resources for its own survival.
I do agree that western expansion over-consumed resources in an unsustainable way and that we now face a culture of over-consumption. We face the issue of how to manipulate the limited resources left and trying to change of our behavior. I do agree that the before mentioned culture group can act as a belief system that serves as an interesting study in resources and human interaction, but is not a practical resource management policy.
I really enjoyed this article. I had a big shift in perception when I read that, in the context of the partnership model, instead of managing our natural resources, we need to manage OURSELVES with the goal of supporting our natural resources, “nature’s resilience.” The partnership environmental model places the natural world on the same plane as everything else/humanity in respect to importance and priority. Thinking of humanity’s relationship with the natural world, then, as a partnership rather then a dictatorship, many principles of partnership become important. For example, as explained in the article, we need to have as much respect for our partner, our natural world, as we would have for ourselves. We need to recognize that those things that we do to our partner, the natural world, we also do to ourselves because we are a part of the natural world. And we need to remember to listen to our partner just as we want to be listened to in a partnership relationship. We need to hear the needs of the natural world before we can effectively support them. I think the idea of reciprocity and respect are so important here! If we expect nature to support us, we must also support nature. If we don’t, eventually we will lose the support that we so desperately need to survive. No one, especially including our most important partner, nature, can be an everlasting well of giving without eventually running dry.
Hello Jennifer,
Thanks for your comment. You have hit the central points of a partnership model. I like your key point that if we wish nature to support us, we must also support nature. Reciprocity and respect ARE key values here– and our the results of our actions in an interdependent world will come back to us– or to our children.
This essay really gets to the heart of the how we think about our natural world. We, “people” can not separate ourselves from the environment. We are as the essay states Partners. This essay uses references from multiple ideas and how the indigenous people perceived the relationship between people and nature. There perception is not one of separate entities but one of an intertwined relationship. The actions of one closely affect the other. In modern times it is easy for us not to notice the impacts that we have in the world around us as individuals. We get our food from the store and we through our waste in a can and it conveniently disappears the next day. The essay gives and example that the indigenous people of the Columbia River used to harvest more salmon than are harvested today. I think that is because of their close relationship to the river. They saw the river first hand and they could see the population of fish each year and how they were affection it. We are so far removed form our food chain that we rarely know where it comes from and what the conditions of the yearly populations are. I am not saying that the answer is for all of us to grow our own food or catch our own fish I just think that we must become more aware where our food comes from and the methods used to produce them. We must insist that all these methods enable nature to be “resilient” like stated in the essay
Hi Zane, thanks for your comment. You make an important point that we must understand the ways in which we rely on the natural world– and perceive our intimacy with it. Otherwise, our ignorance of the ways in which we depend on nature leads to foolhardy choices that may seem easy or convenient in the short run but have devastating consequences in the long run.
The thesis of this essay is easily the most important topic for our generation to emmulate, if we have any hope of progress alongside Nature. Not in My Backyard defines the conciousness of the majority of our population. By believing that if we just route natural tributaries or create our own dams, and expect the natural world to carry on as if nothing ever happened, only retards our progression as a species. The truth is that the natural world will find a way, but that could take decades or centuries of healing. Technological and industrial advances are necessary to our own existance, but turning a blind eye to the very essence of life that we build upon and smother, is not the type of progress that helps move our species ahead. If we could apply the partnership of animal and man to our innovations, becoming forever self-sustaining would not only be a dream. If we allowed our natural world to thrive alongside our industrial one, that would not only mean the beasts in the wild survive w/ dignity and habitat in tact, but we would gain the conciousness to not let our own species, i.e. Native tribes and floundering American families, be forgotten.
Hi Jessica, thanks for your comment. Some wonderful vision here: I like the idea of a both/and rather than either/or solution to our current crises. I do think that we will need a very different type of industrial technology in order to have it and the natural world it depends on thrive together.
The first part of this article that really stuck with me was the portion about Mary Heck and her testimony on behalf of her own Chehalis people. Even though I have been quite aware of the catastrophic damage that was done by settlers over the years, it still remains an eye-opener for me with each new story that I am told. The significance of the beaver was really important to me because it represented so much more than the loss that had taken place during that particular time. Obviously what happened to the beavers then was a horrible thing, but I believe that it represented every creature of the natural world that was and is being wiped out by the carelessness of human beings. It is interesting to me to see the varying difference of respect by all kinds of cultures toward the natural world. Some cultures take as much as they need, while others take what they want without any regard for the consequences. One great example in the essay was the part about how the Northwestern Indigenous peoples would only take what they needed from the natural world and in turn respect natural life so that it could continue to grow and everything and everyone could prosper. If we could all partake in such an act–giving the natural world the respect it deserves we would certainly find ourselves in a much better world. I think what really gets to me is how our world just keeps on giving and all we can think to do is take. How hard could it possibly be to balance out that level of give, take, and respect?
I really enjoyed reading this article because it brought a great sense of awareness for me and really increases my motivation to make a difference. Now we just need to get everyone to understand this issue!
Thanks for your comment, Erin. Your response shows much compassion for the suffering of other cultures and non-human beings caused by unthinking historical actions. You bring up an important perspective in your treatment of balance and only taking what we need versus gorging and hording material wealth.
I appreciate your own motivation to make a difference– your actions of this kind serve the world we all share.
Partnership worldview is a great idea, but is it a realistic goal in the time we have? By this I mean, can enough people’s values and fundamentals be changed in enough time to save what we (society) has already thrown out of balance? I’ve often wondered why humans have the ability to destroy so much. After reading this article, I realize it’s not humans, but mainstream society and that makes more sense. I believe many of our values come from our religion. Mainstream is male dominated. (This isn’t to say ALL our values come from religion and ALL religions are male dominated, but mainstream religion is.) Many I know, I’m guilty myself, want to “tame” nature. What I have come to realize is nature isn’t tame, nor is it supposed to be. But it is balanced. That’s something I’m not sure mainstream society understands.
Two key parts of this article struck a chord with me. The first was managing ourselves and not our natural resources. I feel if we take the time to educate ourselves, use the education and spread that knowledge on, we have a much better chance of managing ourselves than any other resource out there. By education, I mean using ALL resources. My late father-in-law was a font of common sense knowledge. He knew when to plant, harvest, prune, animal husbandry, mechanic- you name it. He was a great engineer. The entire neighborhood went to him to figure out how to build something. He also never made it through the 6th grade. He had to quit school and work to help support his family in the coal mines. There isn’t a school out there that can teach 80 years of knowledge like that. I don’t think we respect our elders and the knowledge they have enough- but that’s a different subject.
The second was “Earth is alive. It has a heart.” from Esther Stutzman. The Earth IS alive. How else does it spin and nurture life as it has for billions of years? It (I prefer she) even talks, as studies have revealed low frequency sounds emitted from the Earth. It’s not her fault we can’t hear what she is saying. Maybe we should listen, as the indigenous people have been trying to tell the non-natives for years.
Thoughtful responses here, Christy. There are many other examples upcoming in this class and on this website that indicate how the partnership view has been put into practice– partnership not only between humans and nature but humans and humans in working out restoration of rivers in the Northwest, for instance.
For myself, I think that our most profound vision is necessary as we face the greatest crises. Your father-in-law’s story is a great one– if a definition is being able to learn from the past, that certainly means learning from the experience of our elders as well.
I very much like your point of listening to the earth!
A native plant enthusiast, I had a discussion with a “natural resources” officer in another state about promoting the value of native plant conservation and restoration in the land around people’s houses. He mentioned that until we place a monetary value on undisturbed native habitat, it will continue to be destroyed. Such “monetary value” might appear as asking a higher price for one’s home because the native habitat was intact … and maybe even enhanced with additional biodiversity. This view would be guaranteed to be laughed at in the real estate offices across housing-crazed Arizona. Why is the health of the economy expressed in terms of new housing starts? Indeed, being a voice for the voiceless is an enormous uphill battle. How, for instance, would big box stores that decide to raze pristine desert in a community that does not need yet another one, be monetarily compensated for NOT moving into a locale? Would being seen as a “good guy” (“green” company) through media exposure fuel their profit margin more than the sales in the locale? It is a thorny problem trying to figure out how to shift the capitalism model toward the resilience paradigm to end “paving paradise to put up a parking lot.” In a capitalist world, it is money that is the foundation of decision-making. Yet another thorny problem is how to wage war without destroying natural habitat and the wildlife that inhabits it (that sounds absurd, doesn’t it?). Yet, do we, for instance, also learn on our nightly news of death tolls of non-human life and habitat destruction in these war-torn areas? If the feedback/ethical loop were repaired and humanity practiced the partnership model, would we also … perhaps … have no war? If so, it would be a glorious and peaceful world.
Thanks for your comment– a very thoughtful post. I certainly would love to see your last statement come true. You take up a key issue– which is how the health of our economy is based on growth–but this runs counter to the resilience of natural systems. Such growth uses up natural resources and cannot go on indefinitely. We need to develop a healthier standard than our current GNP assessment– as the economists Daly and Cobb have done in their For the Common Good.
As for native plants– this is especially important in a state such as Arizona, where the water table has been drawn down from human use since the 1950s– native plants can survive on the rains that nature provides. They don’t take herbicides and pesticides to maintain. Also, they provide a library of knowledge about the local ecology from which we still have much to learn.
To look at the immensity of what must be done is disheartening. Success requires participation by more than just our champions, or if you will, we must reach beyond ‘preaching to the choir’. Some of us are already ‘there’ and willing to buy responsibly, live more simply, and even act now and then. Imagining how to reach everyone else, though, now there’s the trick. Simplifying the message has its own risks, but inundating the average American family with facts and good ideas tends to make people back off, as we fear what we don’t understand. And if the bottom line for a family is “You’re telling me that I need to pay more for my _____” just to support local farmers,” then we need sensible, easy and persuasive things to say. Talking points, if you will.
I want to share my world. I want water to flow nearby, and clean air to sing through the trees. I still would enjoy remaining an omnivore, but like those who were here long before me, I respect the gifts that I’m given and try to use them wisely. I am glad to give back, in appreciation and labor and planting and rebuilding. I just don’t wish to be alone in doing it. I want the everyday fella or gal to ‘get it’.
Hmm. Maybe that can be my mission. ‘The Lorax’ did a lot for the environment by reminding kids that it’s worth protecting. ‘Telling the story of our land’.
That just might be it. Thank you!
Hi Patrick, thanks for your comment. Yes, there is much to do–and it takes some emotional as well as intellectual courage to face that. We will discuss a good deal about the ways pricing things do and and don’t work– one real “bottom line” (if not a monetary one) is indeed reminding ourselves and others what is worth protecting (and may be intrinsically priceless).
And telling stories of the land is an essential way to do this– it is my sense that this is reciprocal– that just as we keep the stories of the land, it keeps the stories of us.
I can understand our modern adversity here in the U.S. to the partnership worldview when the emphasis on our global position is taken into account. We have arrived in the 21st century with a strong sense of individualism which is supported by our capitalist ideals and dependence on a national military to carry us to a greater level of world domination. Our sense of the natural world holds a backseat to any area in which we feel we excel, and our stance on our environmental responsibilities have only recently become a concern as it relates to our economic malfunctions. As the old adage goes, “No man is an island” – yet, our national philosophy has long been that we are neither absolutely in need of our global counterparts nor absolutely dependent on the natural world because we have the capacity to control and manipulate.
Perhaps this ethical dilemma is improving among those who find reason in the “green” movement and particularly in younger generations who have vivid reminders of their tiny presence in an ever-growing global village. The larger of the ethical challenges for them and for all of us may be to overcome our sense of entitlement to things we neither produce nor responsibly obtain and to improve upon our vice of living beyond our means. Of course, this applies financially, but more importantly has an environmental impact when one considers the resources that are essentially hoarded or wasted for the sake of convenience. I can walk through enormous supermarkets where aisle after aisle holds an overwhelming amount of food which could feed a community for months if not years at a time, yet it sits and waits to be purchased at the discretion of its ignorant consumers. (Of course, many people have a heightened sense of awareness on the matter, but I am referring to a general population.) We no longer know the Milkman so to speak, let alone the Dairy Farmer who raises and milks the cows. Our preference remains on the side of mass production for the sake of convenience, rather than close involvement with the origin of our food and how, where, and by what means it is produced.
Thanks for your comment, Kristen. We do need a sense of community (as opposed to competitive individualism) to enact a partnership view–as well the knowledge of the natural “others” with whom we partner. Without this, it is like trying to develop any relationship with no knowledge of one’s partner– it just won’t work. My sense is that there IS a cooperative strain in our society– if not among many or even most of us– but that this is growing stronger as we understand the interdependence you refer to. In this context, it in our self-interest–and certainly that of our children– to partner with the natural world that sustains us. My hope is that the environmental crises we face may teach us something more about the necessity of working together.
“How do we share our world?” That is a good question! Very insightful article! I think it is imperative for more people to become more in-tune to the world in general. Many of these native cultures/people seem to understand the inter-relationship between all things of this world. Our culture in general these days cannot even seem to “hear” each other, let alone what the animals, trees, or rocks are telling us. And our idea of “sharing” means taking more-or-less taking with no regards to anyone or anything else.
While there seems to be an increase in the “green” movement, sometimes I wonder if more or less corporations do it as more of a PR move, than truly caring about what they do. We still have a long way to go, and even I will admit that it is a hard transition.
While”recycling” seems like a good idea, why do we even get to that point? My company often encourages our clients to go even further to reimagine, redesign, re-use, and reduce before even considering recycling and even more so, land-filling an item.
But, in general, corporations will only do as much as it is profitable to them, or at least as close to cost-neutral as possible.
Even myself, I find it hard to change the way I live to “share” this world. It would mean a drastic change… but as we become increasingly knowledgeable and more options are available to us, the better. I try to support companies that do choose to be greener, even it if is not “profitable” for them. For example, I can choose a Lands-end coat, or something from Patagonia, which is a more sustainable corporation. While it still may not be the BEST option, it is a better option, and I am willing to pay for it. I understand the principle. During the summers, we grow our own vegetables, and give plentily to our neighbors. For the items we do not grow, we try to support our local farmers and fisheries. It usually is more costly, but the cost is well worth it. This lends to another issue of the “true cost” of items, such as how much of an affect it has on the environment, etc, which often is not parlayed into the cost to consumers… but that is a whole story in and of itself!
Thank you for the comment, Danielle. Thoughtful point about the need to listen both to the natural world and to one another–and about planning differently so that there is no waste to recycle. The concept of “true cost” is an important one as well– and you apparently get many returns on growing your own in the way of your family’s health and the strengthening of community by giving to your neighbors.
Sharing our world is something we do not do easily in this culture. Seems we need some practice as this!
Mary Heck’s comments on her sadness at the loss of the beaver seem to be sadness about the loss of the connection of the Chehalis women with an important part of the ecosystem that sustained them. She realizes what pioneers and many people today don’t understand. She knows that humans are connected with our ecosystems and they provide important services for us both directly and indirectly. The beaver provided a service, creating wetlands, which directly provided food for the Chehalis people.
I like the worldview that the natural world is our partner. What a refreshing look at things when I am so used the western idea that we dominate nature and can change things to work the way humans want them to work. I think it is a good reminder that what we do affects other creatures and what other creates or parts of the ecosystem do effects humans. I think humans can be so disconnected from the natural world that they don’t know that we are a part of a bigger system.
The partnership worldview is just what the western world needs, and I think that we are starting to consider it more since we have started taking about global climate change and looking at the effects of what we have been that is changing our earth in negative ways. We have been a society that believes in ruling nature and changing it to meet our needs and desires. I think it will take a very long time for the western world to consider the natural world as a partner and an equal, if it ever does
Thanks for your comment, Christina. Very true about the things that were lost along with the beaver. I agree with you that the partnership worldview is something much needed in modern Western culture. I hope that we can learn this view before we hit the full results of the domination attitude toward the natural world.
The fact that indigenous people demonstrated a willingness to monitor themselves with regard to their use of natural resources like salmon and beaver gives me hope that we ‘civilized’ Westerners will do the same. Along those lines, we are making strides, slowly, here in the U.S. There are concerted efforts in our elementary schools to teach children at an early age to recycle, honor the environment and respect themselves, each other and the world we live in. The question is, will it ever be enough? We are still killing our planet and as a result, ourselves. While there are regulations regarding pollution, land use and hunting in developed countries, Third world countries, are forced to make a choice between protecting their environment and feeding their people. Western corporations build plants, dump garbage and export hazardous waste to these countries where there are few regulations against polluting. These corporations may pay a fee for dumping but the real price is paid by the environment. No amount of education or ambition in the U.S. will save our environment if we don’t also alleviate poverty and hunger in Third world countries so desperate they are willing to ignore their own history with the resources in their area. Corporate regulations will only go so far.
Great perspective concerning the monitoring of our actions– if indigenous people did this so well, we certainly ought to be able to, as you point out, Susan. It is very important to monitor our actions as consumers, as you indicate. I agree both that we have made steps in the right direction, but we need to do more. Voting with our dollars is one way to do this: check out some of the links under “consumer info” here for ways to do this (and protect your own health along with that of the environment).
The statement “whatever we do to our natural environment, we do to ourselves” really made an impact on me because it summarized so many of the problems we seem to be facing today. From the example stated in the article breast milk being tainted with pesticides and fire retardants to other examples that come to mind such as cancers linked to chemical carcinogens, stronger storms due to climate change, floods due to lack of wetlands. The list could go on and possibly be endless. From what I have learned and keep learning it seems so obvious that our past and current way of “seeing” and interacting with nature is not working.
A partnership with nature seems to make more sense and allows for a system where feedback (from nature) can be interpreted and (human) behavior can be changed or modified. This partnership with the natural world would require such a grand scale shift in human mentality and behavior that it simply seems overwhelming .
Thanks for your comment, Yensi. Your point about the interdependence between ourselves and the natural world is an important one. We would not have so many environmental crises if, as you indicate, our way of looking at (and thus treating) the natural world were in fact working.
I think you are right on in terms of the pragmatic effects of the partnership model in providing us with the proper feedback to assess and choose our actions.
A grand shift in worldview all at once seems overwhelming. But small changes add up–and I have seen a good many changes in the years I have been teaching this subject.
While the partnership model is a thoughtful and profound idea of creating a sustainable environment, we have to be aware of some limitations that will require some altering to the general idea. I definitely agree that we have much to learn from our past mistakes to help enable us to never repeat them again. We as a people need to take a more considerate and unselfish approach to coexisting with our environment rather than taking all that we can without any return. The peoples that originally existed while maintaining those balances have so much information that can be of great value to our future understandings of equal sharing among all things living.
This article makes a clear outline of the path that could preserve nature as well as allowing us to exist within it. My only concern is that we live in a society that is much more populated than the number of indigenous peoples that originally inhabited this world. That notion alone, concerns me that changes in the approach will need to be altered. I would also like to point out that there are many aspects of the partnership approach that are and have been implemented as we speak. At least in specific areas of the world we have begun to educate ourselves to better foster a beneficial relationship with nature and ourselves.
Hi Emily, thanks for your comment. I wasn’t quite clear about the limitations you speak of– limitations in modern Western culture that need shifting or limitations in the partnership model?
If we don’t the approach you suggest , we will soon be without the means to our own survival. You might be interested in some of the studies now done on industrial versus other types of agriculture that indicate that industrial agriculture is not actually the most productive, especially in the long run. Our stereotypes lead us to assume that we can produce more this way, but the data states otherwise- there are some examples on this site (e.g. the case of the New Agricultural Movement in Bangladesh); Becoming Native to this Place indicates how must MORE indigenous subsistence produced in the Midwest than modern agriculture does.
There are indeed many aspects of the partnership model currently employed–as in the work of the Intertribal Columbia River Fishing Commission–and other examples in the essay here on legal rights for nature– look for more as the quarter unfolds
Thoughtful and important issues that need bringing up!
The specific limitations I am referring to are those in modern western culture and the partnership model as well. We have created a society and culture that is dependent upon a specific way of life and is not aware of their capabilities to function more simplistically. Also it concerns me that the world population is so much denser than when the indigenous people occupied it. We cannot deny that indigenous people had a healthy relationship with nature, but we must also acknowledge that they had practices within their cultures which would not be quite so accepted in today’s society. So while some things can be observed and implemented from our original inhabitants, changes will need to be made to make them applicable. I agree that the idea of existing as a partner with nature is essential, I just don’t know if as a culture it is completely feasible.
Perhaps the question “How do we share our world?” should instead be “How do we share the world?”. The world belongs to no one but itself. Life forms are only borrowing from it for a short amount of time. Each human should treat it with respect and return it in a condition which is better than when we entered. We should do so for the sake of all life forms, not just for our children. Humans seem to think of themselves before any other life form. If a pet was saved in a flood while the child was left to drown then our society would intervene to tell us which life is more valuable. We can even put a value on one human life over the another.! I do not know if humans are capable of a partnership with nature when we are not even capable of a partnership with other humans. From the time of recorded history it has been one religion, political view or philosophy against the other. Human lives are sacrificed over such matters yet we know that killing others will not solve our differences. We need to switch from the worldview of controlling each other and each thing to a different worldview of a partnership with one another and all living things. Can we live in harmony with mankind and/or nature? We need to try. No harm will be done if we at least give it a try!
Thanks for your comment, Kelly. Very thoughtful point! For me, all earth is alive–and therefore the “our” (in my terms) refers to all life, human or not. Very thoughtful point about the hierarchical world. Perhaps in a partnership worldview, we would not worry about sacrificing one life for another (which is a competitive view) and find an both/and rather than an either/or answer to which life is the most valuable (and deserves “saving”). I do think that it is true that the way we treat other humans (dominating or mastery) reflects the attitude we have toward nature.
How we share out world? Wow! After reading this article and then thinking about the material presented my mind began to race and think of all the things I could say or wanted to say. But, first and foremost, it is important for us to actually “love” and “cherish” the world we live in before we can share it. In order to share the world one needs to realize the effects we as humans can have on the world. What I took away from this article is that not caring means no sharing. Poor choices in the environment can have an adverse affect on our world as a whole. I see it as the “butterfly effect.” For example a person poor something harmful down the drain, the drain leads outside, and it drains into a local body of water, polluting the fish/animals in and around the area of water. Those fish/animals are polluted with toxins, which then in-turn get eaten by a bear, a bear is then killed by a hunter, that hunter feeds his family the meat, the meat is bad because of the toxins and the humans get sick. It is a vicious cycle and it comes back to haunt you. Another example of this is I know a person that their family owns a logging company, and this past summer a person decided that they would dump their garbage (including an old microwave) off in the middle of the forest. During a hot day the garbage and the microwave became combustible, starting fire that burned over 100 acres of land, destroying, trees, vegetation, animals habitats, killing animals, polluting the air with smoke, and making peopr sick from smoke inhalation from fighting the fire. This was act of selfishness could have been prevented, if that one person would have loved their natural earth enough to respect it. I think the bottom line is we can share our natural earth if and only if we respect, care and love it in its entirety.
Great point about the importance of caring as a prerequisite to sharing, Jose– the bottom line is that we won’t have anything to share if we don’t care for it. And of course, there is sharing with more than humans… they are not the only lives that we depend on in ecosystems. Certainly, as you indicate, cherishing our earth creates strong motivation to care for it.
Thanks for your comment.
I think that the biggest point for me in this article was the idea of mutual respect. There should be a mutual respect and understanding between people and the environment around us. The ideas behind a partnership worldview resonates very deeply with me personally. I’m not sure why, but I highly respect people who respect the environment.
I think that the first place that I remember seeing this idea being roughly addressed was in Disney’s Pocahontas. I remember having my whole idea about the rocks and trees around me change. I saw them as living things all of a sudden. This may seem like a “new age” kind of idea, but believing that there was a spirit that ran through all living things really changed my young views about the environment and how I treat it. And I do still try to treat it with the respect that I tried to give it when I was younger.
But I don’t think that these issues about environmental awareness and respect are being addressed early enough with children. In elementary schools we teach kids to recycle, but we don’t always teach them why. I asked my little niece why she thinks we should recycle and she told me “because it saves the world.” When I asked her why she wanted to save the world, she couldn’t really tell me why. I feel like if we were to help people have an emotional connection to the earth, like so many of the Native American tribes do, they would have a reason to want to save it.
Thanks for your comment, Sarah. Mutual respect is certainly a key aspect of the partnership worldview. Your point about teaching children early is a good one. This is the basis of the best selling book, Last Child in the Woods.
I think that Americans have a lot to learn from the views of indigenous people that occupied this land thousands of years before us. There are many lessons that are essential to the survival of humans that have been cornerstones of the spiritual beliefs of these people, many of which stress the importance of the unity of the environment and people. I think that in recent years, the words of the indigenous people have come closer to the hearts of many people as we have come to realize that our actions are not going without vast implications: in our own selfishness, we are tearing apart the environment and the fragile ecosystems that exist in it. As the article states, many people do not realize how important a single species can be to the functioning of the environment: for example, the beavers created ecosystems—wetlands—where plants and animals flourished, but also helped the indigenous people irrigate their farms and provided clean water, eliminating toxins by filtering it through expansive dam systems. Even though so many of these beliefs seem so ancient and basic when we read them, they were true to the lives of indigenous peoples thousands of years ago and remain true today. The word “partnership” is often used in this article because it is so simple and true to the relationships between plants, animals, and humans—by denying this overtly obvious relationship between each of the participants in life and the environment, we either purposefully or inadvertently harm the world around us. By simply keeping the ideas of indigenous American people in our minds, we will make choices that benefit not only ourselves, but keep the ecosystems around us intact and our world in balance.
Hi Lauren, thanks for your comment. Thoughtful perspective about the lessons that modern industrial society has yet to learn– lessons that may seem simple (self-evident?) as you note– but take much knowledge (and respect for the ways in which all life is interconnected) to put into practice.
I believe there is much we can learn from the indigenous populations that have existed on these lands for far longer than the Westernized/Industrialized civilizations. We can especially benefit by adopting a partnership worldview not only with regard to our natural resources, but with respect to all of humanity as well. The key to the partnership worldview is mutual respect for all life, human ot otherwise. When we partner (with humans, the natural world, etc.) we are inherently showing that the partner has value to us and thus is worth not only of our respect, but our protection as well.
As of late, the global consciousness has been raised about protecting the environment and becoming “green,” and the once prevalent attitude of “Not in My Backyard” is slowly being replaced with…”It may not be in my backyard now, but it will be.” This shift in perception is moving us closer to adopting a partnership worldview as we begin to understand how interconnected all life on this planet is.
We are beginning to comprehend that our actions have direct and indirect consequences. It is very important for us to understand that we are free to make our own choices, but know that we are not free to choose the consequences associated with those choices. Those are out of our control and will be determined for us.
Thanks for your comment, Kathleen. A hopeful assessment of what we are starting to learn! Key points that that I agree we need to learn and learn very quickly! As you note, our actions have indirect consequences (or consequences we may try to hide from ourselves) as well as direct ones-and we cannot act wisely without understand these consequences. I like your phrasing in terms of a shift from NIMBY– to if it’s not in my backyard now, it will be. “
If humankind, and ultimately the earth, is to survive, we must recognize that without a paradigm shift, we will only continue down the path toward our demise. I was moved by the way Chehalis Elder Mary Heck spoke of the beaver as a friend and mourned the loss not only for the beaver but for her own people who had relied on the beaver for so much. And, ideally, I would love to see all humankind make this connection. But sadly, while the partnership worldview might take us in the right direction, not everyone will be able to reconcile their own beliefs and values to encompass it as such. Rather I think it might be worthwhile to ask for support of a partnership model, wherein those who cannot justify all the beliefs of the worldview could, at the very least, help sustain the model of it.
Unfortunately, the mental health of the entire world community is affecting whether we could reasonably adopt this model. The essay notes that “a first step in establishing a partnership is treating partners with comparable respect to that with which we treat ourselves.” Sadly, I believe if we treated our partners on this planet with the same respect we gave ourselves, we might realize we are hardly expecting much. If one looks at where we are globally, we barely respect ourselves, let alone our fellow human beings. Beyond that is a steep climb toward respecting those whom we deem less worthy (animals, rivers, mountains, etc.). At this juncture, maybe we need to leave behind this quest to reconcile this moral dilemma, lest we spend an eternity running in circles, never going anywhere.
The question, then, must not be which worldview is right and which is wrong. Belief systems have been in conflict since the beginning of humanity. I believe it more effecient and strategic to ask how each one is working. Where is each one taking us? And, ultimately, depending on which path we take, do we like where we’re headed? If we can see it as such, it no longer becomes an attack on or debate about our personal beliefs. It becomes more like a collaboration of great wisdom that can be extracted from many worldviews to run the great machine that will enable us to sustain what we have and build an even better contraption for the future.
Hello Staci. Thanks for your very thoughtful comment here. I appreciate your observation that we are not doing very well in our standards of treating one another– especially those whom we designate as “other” than ourselves. I do think there is a positive feedback loop here: those earth-centered indigenous cultures who used the partnership model to allow them to both respect and learn from the natural world treated one another with respect and equality- it would be great to take any small steps we might back in this direction. The first step is dropping the idea of dominating, mastering, and controlling the world around us– which certainly gets us nowhere in terms of learning.
You have a great point that we should assess what is working/has worked– and assess whether or not our strategies are getting us where we want to go. I do think that our perceptions (based on our beliefs) influence our choices– they influence even what we believe is possible to try. And one of the benefits of modern globalization is our ability to assess a range of worldviews and their interrelationships. The collaborative attitude you mention at the end (rather than I am right/you are wrong) is a key component of the partnership stance.
I appreciate your critical analysis here!
How do we share our world? It is a question everyone should consider. Growing up in the pacific northwest there has always been an urgent drive to buy a house and to buy land before someone else comes and buys it or the prices go up. This drive to buy up the world so that one can have a place within it seems so harmful and fear-driven. At times it can seem downright absurd to me that within human society we buy and own the earth. That we even consider the Earth a commodity to be bought and sold seems greedy. And if one doesn’t have the money to buy a piece of the Earth, they are homeless….
Just like the beaver and otter, being born on earth gives us the privilege of calling it home. It does not mean we should buy, sell, fence it off and own it. To see ourselves as equals with our human sisters and brothers as well as the animals and resources on Earth is one way we can share our world. Not one of us is more entitled to own a piece of this planet than the other.
Hi Jessica, thanks for your comment. Great perspective on a natural sense of home and belonging that is beyond buying it up. I like your last paragraph in expressing the sense of equality and justice here. In most indigenous societies, to be born is to be born to rights to share food, shelter and clothing–and humans belong to the land rather than land belonging to individual humans.
I have seen some good uses of ownership– more and more gardens and native landscaping. I don’t think the problem is caring for a place, but fear-based (as you say) hording of the earth we share. There are those who buy up land specifically to conserve it (as does the Nature Conservancy). The problem comes when folks ownership gives them the right to treat “their” land in any way they want– to use it up and move on, treating it, as Wendell Berry has remarked, like a “one night stand”.
I find it fascinating that the salmon thrived under a “respect” regime. Its very anti-instinctual for me with a natural resource background that focuses on stream quality for fisheries management.
Thanks for the observation, Coral. I wonder why water quality should not be connected to respect for the salmon (that is, caring for its habitat). They seem to me very connected. And you might check out the website of the Columbia River Intertribal Fishing Commission in terms of some amazing work they are doing. You might also be interested to know that the tribes of Washington and Oregon each hire more natural resource professionals than do either state…their traditional respect for the salmon motivates them to help them in whatever way they can.
“How do we share our world?” What a question, and a rather bothersome one at that, given the fact that I see more about how we do NOT share our world rather than how we DO share her. I can name off numerous ways we do not share our world. But, to share it? Why, such a concept it uncommon amidst the human race, which has evolved into a solely selfish, narrow-minded, indolent, and avaricious species.
I absolutely admire individuals like Mary Heck. They are surely few and far between, but when I read or hear of such people and their selfless passions, it lifts my heart, and I feel myself become somewhat inspired and less hopeless. Due to their efforts and their recognition that “the earth is alive. It has a heart” and that all natural species are “peoples” too, and that we must “expand our range of vision” considering the natural world, I am lead out of that shroud of darkness with which I perhaps cloaked myself upon seeing the ugliness of the whole of mankind when it comes to their carelessness and ignorance to the natural world, and even their indifference towards her. They just take from the land what they desire, without regard to the other species with whom we should be sharing this land, and without regard to the ultimate consequences.
It has irked and deeply saddened me to the point where I find I do not even know how or where to begin to reach out a hand and help; to the point where I just turn to pity, and to writing by which I can vent my anger in my own kind, my disappointment in my species; and by which I can express, the best way I know how, my respect for the wilderness and my sorrow for how she has been treated.
“How do we share our world?” We should first begin by recognizing that she is not “OUR” world to claim. Chief Seattle once wrote, “The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.” That is something I shall stick by. And we should then continue by recognizing what exactly she is, and how she has served us, and how we thus need to return her favors and respect, rather than take for granted all that she has given us to thrive… for without her, we could not exist… and thus, how could we possibly perceive our existence as being above her’s and the other species’ with whom we should be sharing this land?
We have absolutely no right to perceive ourselves as being a dominant or superior race to all other living things or natural things, each on which our existence relies! It IS sad that we only begin to aid their existence when we realize our own is threatened due to our careless and selfish behavior.
Heartfelt as well as thoughtful points, here, Cherisse. Thanks for sharing them. Good point that it is not “our” world to exploit– only ours in the sense that we all (including future generations) must share a life here.
And in the circle of life we are indeed hurting ourselves when we destroy habitats upon which human and more than human life depends.
We all seem to be very passionate about the fate of our Earth, and I think these discussions are absolutely key to shifting awareness towards a better path. A partnership worldview is completely what we need to shift towards if we want to honor our planet and survive. We have become so disconnected from the core meaning of a shared community, a collective with many interconnected relationships that depend on one another, that we have isolated ourselves in the Western world and created a sense of loneliness and discord that is palpable in the air and obvious on people’s faces.
Solar panels and composting are fabulous, and each ‘green’ tool or technology that contributes to the overall shift will always hold my favor, but we need to get to the root of the issue, which is, our worldview. Our spirituality. Our way of thinking- WHAT we think- which is essentially, ourselves. How do we do this? Or- for those of us who DO ‘get it’- how do we influence and inspire others?
Having been raised in a private Christian school in California, I’m particularly interested in how to mold this to the Christian mindset. At this point, with some of the people I’ve tried to engage in debate with, it feels almost impossible. There is no way I can even convince SOME that evolution is actually how we came to be, and YES, we did evolve from apes. The Bible is the WORD, hands down. So, the best way forward then, is to find scriptures that all ready exist and frame them to fit our purpose. That God made the Earth (in 7 days or millions of years, whatever!) and that his creations are sacred, and should be treated with the utmost respect and reverence. That by abusing his creation, we are abusing God. That by trying to build a ‘Tower of Babel’ with our current capitalist system, we will only be struck down. I would be so incredibly happy if suddenly all the Christians in America took up the environmental cause. Think about how much influence and (finally!) POSITIVE energy from them the earth could benefit from.
You have a very important issue there, Natalie–and with so many Christians in the world today, a very important one. Thanks for joining a discussion about worldview that I also believe is an essential one. You might be interested in taking a look at the recent responses I made to comments about Thomas Berry’s work to see if they are pertinent to your own thinking.
My hope is that you will be able to look back in thirty years and see this as a time when we decided to do something about the environmental crises we face, Matt. We will know how very foolish we were for that period before we changed. And I just saw another bit of news that engenders hope for change. The new head of the EPA is asking for a change in chemical regulation authority that is more comparable to the European Union standard– she may have a fight ahead from the chemical industry who has been used to coasting along releasing 80,000 chems into the environment with virtually no oversight. I think we need to do all we can to support her!
And this as, Clackamas County is considering banning urban clear cuts:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=125424492355203800
I appreciate the follow up, Patrick. It helps us to enter into dialogue when I can see where you are coming from.
Do you believe that the only culture that chooses or has chosen its environmental strategy is modern industrial society? I think that we can give humans more credit than that, as new and well documented studies that concentrate on the combination of choice and knowledge in indigenous situations points out. You might be interested in looking at Salmon without Rivers, Tending the Wild and the recent UNESCO studies on indigenous knowledge if you are interested in looking in detail at management strategies carried out by indigenous peoples. Jared Diamond’s most recent work (Diamond’s previous work tends to indicate that given a certain environment, humans will simply evolve a certain way) takes a turn by concentrating on the issue of choice– indicating the success of particular indigenous management strategies. (See his book Collapse).
Salmon without Rivers–which traces the history of NW salmon from pre-human times to the present, goes so far as to assert that the indigenous peoples on the Columbia River had the technological capacity to make salmon extinct but chose to moderate themselves instead because of their partnership ethic. And today the Columbia Intertribal Fishing Commission is doing an outstanding job of managing salmon resources– and employs more research scientists than either the states of Washington or Oregon in the process. They are guided in their motivation by their ancestral worldview.
Thanks for you comment–and allowing me to share more information.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify this, Emily. It is certainly true that we cannot make a simple return to the past– for one thing, a substantial portion of the topsoil in the Midwest that supported our original growth as a nation now rests under the Mississippi River (and is laden with agricultural chemicals as well). What I do not wish to conclude– since the data does not support it and it is a dangerous tact to take- is that we cannot implement this mutual relationship between ourselves and the natural world because of our population. In fact, I think our current status makes this change all the more imperative. We cannot afford to be careless with the land in any way. And there is new research that indicates industrial agriculture is NOT more productive than other methods such as permaculture or traditional diversity of farm crops–and especially in the long run.
Yours is an excellent question to ask, given the argument that is out there about our need to compromise our environmental care because of things like our modern population. But you may have noticed I have a new “quote” up on this site from a journalist who has done an award-winning book on climate science: her point is that if we continue as we have, we will undermine our ability to continue on with human civilization period (you can read an essay based on that book here