Plural Nature(s): An Overview of Their Sociocultural Construction

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Fátima de Fátima Pereira Alves	--	1722	2023-12-25 07:37:59	\|
2	formatted	Vicky Zhou	Meta information modification	1722	2023-12-25 07:58:48	\|

Peer Reviewed

This is a peer-reviewed entry published in Encyclopedia Journal, full entry can be found at 10.3390/encyclopedia4010001

The social construction of nature aims to emphasise that the concept of nature has multiple meanings that vary in different socio-cultural contexts. This underlines the multiple ways in which both structures and individuals understand, explain, and engage with nature and the environment. Consequently, nature and cultures/societies are not separate entities, but are intertwined in complex and interdependent relationships. Therefore, nature is the result of human perceptions and social practices. The way we interact with, perceive, interpret, and value nature is influenced by a given society’s history and sociocultural factors. This intimate relationship is closely linked to power–knowledge and influence relations. Those with more power can impose a particular vision of, and relationship with, nature, resulting in inequalities and potentially harmful relations that can explain the environmental degradation that the contemporary world faces globally, despite its expression in particular contexts, thus configuring plural natures.

social constructionism plurality nature

The modern divide between culture and nature is made within a “social classification logic” that naturalises social hierarchies based on unequal power relations ^[1], which has served to establish identities, places, and worlds that are strategically meant to be opposites and rivals ^[2]. Within this modern discourse, Western environmental law (post the French Revolution) has been based on an anthropocentric representation of nature as a commodity, that is, non-human beings (plants, forests, oceans, rivers, mountains, minerals, water, soil, and animals, among many others) are seen as objects to be used, and even destroyed, to satisfy the individual needs and desires of their owners ^[3]^[4]. Recently, there has been a growing emphasis in environmental philosophy and ethics on safeguarding nature and the environment, forming the foundation of the prevalent Western and Euro-American environmental legal framework ^[5]. Both national and international human rights laws acknowledge individuals’ entitlement to access natural resources, green spaces, and a clean, healthy environment ^[6]. However, the translation of the human right to nature into environmental laws, while directed at conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services, maintains the prevailing anthropocentric viewpoint. This approach continues to separate humans from non-humans by prioritizing the protection of nature based on human interests and wellbeing ^[7]: essentially safeguarding nature solely for human benefit. In essence, this perspective perceives nature primarily as a source of “natural resources” meant for human advantage, illustrating a perspective rooted in economic values ^[8]. The key point remains: it is not possible to survive without nature, and humans need the resources provided for this purpose. But this does not justify the abusive and extractive logic that has guided humanity’s relationship with nature.

As our scientific understanding progresses, there is a growing acknowledgement of how complex and ever changing ecosystems are, shaped significantly by environmental factors and appreciated for their inherent value ^[9]. Consequently, these terms—ecosystems, environment, and nature—are often used interchangeably, blurring their distinctions in both everyday language and scholarly discussions ^[10]. However, the notion of “ecosystem services” poses a challenge by suggesting a Western-centric, human-centered view, framing nature and the environment as providers of essential “services” for human use ^[11]. Addressing this issue, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) proposed a different language in 2013, offering an alternative framework to recognize and categorize ecosystem services ^[12]. Specifically, IPBES introduced the concept of “Nature’s Contributions to People” ^[13], aiming for a more inclusive and respectful approach toward diverse representations of nature. This perspective does not portray nature as serving humans, but instead suggests a holistic viewpoint, less centered on utility and more attentive to nature’s agency and intrinsic worth. There is, therefore, a possibility of achieving this coexistence and interdependence, which should be harmonious, based on the references, principles, and virtues associated with the relationship between non-humans and humans.

Nature/environment and society/culture are not separate entities, but are instead intertwined in complex relationships. Nature and the environment consist of social and cultural practices that are created and signified by individual and collective actions in specific contexts ^[14]. As such, notions of nature and the environment are not equal. Nature, often perceived as the physical world, transcends mere natural elements. This concept is contextually dependent and subject to varied interpretations influenced by socio-cultural contexts ^[15]. Different societies construct their understanding of ‘nature’ based on their cultural backgrounds and historical legacies ^[16], since human interaction with nature is deeply entwined with societal perceptions, cultural norms, and historical narratives ^[15]. Thus, societies construct and define what constitutes ‘nature’, and this construction is influenced by societal values and beliefs. While ‘environment’ encompasses natural and human-made elements, representing the broader context within which nature exists ^[15]^[16], encapsulating the physical, social, and cultural milieu influenced by human actions. The relationship established between society and the environment is marked by power dynamics, where dominant groups shape perceptions and interactions with the environment, which often leads to inequalities and exploitative practices within environmental contexts. Considering culture as the shared beliefs, customs, values, traditions, language, arts, and social behaviours of a particular group or society, which, therefore, shape individuals’ perceptions, behaviours, and interactions within a community, through a dynamic process over time, we can see that nature and environment concepts are deeply ingrained in, and are influenced by, societal practices and norms ^[17]. These perceptions influence societal practices, environmental policies, and conservation efforts ^[18]. Biodiversity, encompassing the variety of life forms on Earth, is intrinsically linked to cultural perspectives and human–environment interactions, since cultural constructions influence biodiversity conservation practices and shape attitudes toward preserving ecological diversity ^[19].

Those concepts lose their Western meaning in a context where the separation between humans and non-humans is irrelevant, for example ^[20]. Acknowledging the deep interdependence between nature and society highlights the importance of understanding the plurality of perceptions and representations of nature and environment in contrast to the hegemonic socio-ecological narrative ^[21]^[22]^[23]. The need for this understanding is in line with the current debate on the contemporary environmental, climate, and ecological crisis. Four prominent challenges, therefore, need to be addressed:

Recognise the agency and interdependence of both humans and non-humans to gain a deeper insight into social practices, as highlighted by Latour ^[24]. There are many possible ways to address this challenge, such as: (a) promoting interdisciplinary research that integrates ecological and social sciences for a holistic understanding of interactions between humans and nature; (b) conducting ethnographic research that involves studying and documenting the relationships between humans and non-humans in specific social contexts, as well as promoting participatory research, where all may express their visions. This can provide insights into the roles of non-human entities in shaping practices and cultural norms; (c) learning from indigenous cultures and their traditional knowledge, which acknowledges the agency and interdependence of humans and non-humans; (d) exploring environmental ethics that consider the intrinsic value of non-human entities in order to develop more ethical decision making in social practices that affect the environment; (e) advocating for, and implementing, sustainable practices that take into account the needs and agency of non-human elements, including, for example, sustainable agriculture, wildlife conservation, and responsible resource management; (f) creating public awareness campaigns that highlight the importance of recognizing the agency and interdependence of both humans and non-humans, using, for example, multimedia, art, education, storytelling, among others, to convey these concepts; (g) advocating for policies and governance structures that integrate the interests of non-human entities and prioritize their wellbeing alongside human interests, recognizing by law their rights in order to guarantee that they are truly protected, acknowledging ecosystems as active participants, and fostering sustainable practices and conservation efforts;
Recognise different forms of social engagement within communities and their connection to the socio-cultural world and nature. This requires the adoption of grassroots policies to combat the impacts of climate change, as proposed by Alves et al. ^[25]. It is necessary to support grassroots movements and community-led initiatives to combat climate change impacts, but also to encourage participatory approaches in policy making to harness community knowledge and values;
Formulate and implement policies that effectively take into account the unique socio-cultural characteristics and needs of local communities, as well as the localised consequences of socio-ecological crises, as proposed by Alves et al. ^[26]. This implies crafting policies reflecting local socio-cultural nuances and their implications on environmental initiatives and engaging local communities in policy design and implementation for context-specific and effective strategies;
Include diverse forms of knowledge, language, and actors in deliberative and participatory contexts. This includes traditional, scientific, ecological, local, artistic, popular, and lay knowledge. It also means recognising the knowledge that emerges from the struggles of social movements for human dignity. Accepting this challenge means recognising and valuing alternative ways of being and, consequently, the epistemological diversity of the world, as opposed to dominant ways of knowing ^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]. This challenge indicates the establishment of deliberative contexts valuing traditional, scientific, and local knowledge for informed decision making through affirming various knowledge sources and alternative ways of knowing in environmental discussions, as well as the need to articulate them.

Addressing these challenges lays the groundwork for long-term environmental resilience and societal wellbeing. Considering this background, this entry aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the socio-cultural construction of nature and its implications for contemporary environmental challenges. By tracing the historical development of the concept and highlighting its relevance to contemporary socio-environmental issues, it emphasizes the complex historical, cultural, and philosophical underpinnings of the relationship between humans and nature. It also encourages a critical analysis of the prevailing dichotomy between nature and society, emphasizing its impact on social structures and the environment. The main aim is, thus, to advocate for a transformative change in societal and cultural attitudes and approaches to environmental conservation.

The structure of this entry is as follows: after the introduction, the historical development of the concept of the socio-cultural construction of nature is traced, starting from ancient Greek philosophy and progressing through various intellectual movements. It then considers the implications of the historical division between nature and society, emphasising the Western capitalist, colonial, and patriarchal dimensions that have perpetuated this division. After that, a discussion is provided that explores how this division has contributed to the exploitation of nature and the socio-environmental crisis currently facing society and emphasizes the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness of humans and non-humans in addressing these challenges. The paper concludes with a summary of the key points discussed in the text, highlighting the need to acknowledge the influence of culture, society, and history on our understanding of nature to promote transformative change by moving beyond the limitations of the nature–culture divide to a more interconnected perspective.

References

de Sousa Santos, B. Para Uma Sociologia das Ausências e Uma Sociologia das Emergências. Rev. Crit. Cienc. Sociais 2002, 63, 237–280.
Valentim, C.S. A Exclusividade e a Exceção: Uma Análise da Relação Entre Seres e Saberes Na Lunda Colonial. Cabo Trab. 2012, 3, 24–62.
Benjamim, A.H. A Natureza No Direito Brasileiro: Coisa, Sujeito Ou Nada Disso. Nomos Rev. Programa Pós-Grad. Direito-UFC 2011, 31, 79–96.
Birnie, P.W.; Boyle, A.E. International Law and the Environment; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1994.
Gonçalves, D.D.; Tárrega, M.C.V.B. Direitos da Natureza: Reflexões Sobre Possíveis Fundamentos Axiológicos. Rev. Bras. Direito 2018, 14, 340.
Varvastian, S. The Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment in Climate Change Litigation. SSRN Electron. J. 2019.
Alves, F.; Costa, P.M.; Novelli, L.; Vidal, D.G. The Rights of Nature and the Human Right to Nature: An Overview of the European Legal System and Challenges for the Ecological Transition. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1175143.
Eckersley, R. Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach; State University of New York Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
Chan, K.M.; Gould, R.K.; Pascual, U. Editorial Overview: Relational Values: What Are They, and What’s the Fuss About? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 35, A1–A7.
Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1968.
Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting Nature and People. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16.
IPBES. Conceptual Framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES: Cape Town, South Africa, 2013.
Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.A.; Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al. Assessing Nature’s Contributions to People: Recognizing Culture, and Diverse Sources of Knowledge, Can Improve Assessments. Science 2018, 359, 270–272.
Greider, T.; Garkovich, L. Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment. Rural Sociol. 1994, 59, 1–24.
Latour, B. We Have Never Been Modern; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993.
Escobar, A. Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999.
Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Gadgil, M. Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity, Resilience and Sustainability BT—Biodiversity Conservation: Problems and Policies. In Biodiversity Conservation. Ecology, Economy & Environment; Perrings, C.A., Mäler, K.-G., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.-O., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 281–299. ISBN 978-94-011-0277-3.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Our Human Planet; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 9781559633871.
Bragança, L.S.; Lopes, M.S.B.; Grossi, G.d.B.; Pereira, A.d.F.; Assis, L.d.O. Natureza Política e Sustentabilidade: Limites e Horizontes. In Natureza Política: Rupturas, Aproximações e Figurações Possíveis; Lopes, M.S.B., Bragança, L., Eds.; Agência de Iniciativas Cidadãs: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2021; pp. 29–51.
Aldeia, J.; Alves, F. Against the Environment. Problems in Society/Nature Relations. Front. Sociol. 2019, 4, 29.
Kuper, A. Conceptualising Society; Routledge: London, UK, 1992.
Moore, J.W. Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism; Moore, J.W., Ed.; PM Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2016.
Latour, B. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
Alves, F.; Araújo, M.J.; Azeiteiro, U. Cidadania Ambiental e Participação: O Diálogo e Articulação Entre Distintos Saberes-Poderes. Saúde Debate 2012, 36, 46–54.
Alves, F.; Leal Filho, W.; Casaleiro, P.; Nagy, G.J.; Diaz, H.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.; Hurlbert, M.; Farooq, H.; Klavins, M.; et al. Climate Change Policies and Agendas: Facing Implementation Challenges and Guiding Responses. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 104, 190–198.
de Sousa Santos, B. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
de Sousa Santos, B.; Martins, B.S. The Pluriverse of Human Rights: The Diversity of Struggles for Dignity; Routledge: London, UK, 2021.
de Sousa Santos, B.; Meneses, M.P. Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
Alves, F. A Doença Mental Nem Sempre é Doença: Racionalidades Leigas Sobre Saúde e Doença Mental; Edições Afrontamento: Porto, Portugal, 2010; ISBN 9789723611335.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Environmental Studies

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Fátima Alves

Diogo Guedes Vidal

View Times: 399

Online Date: 25 Dec 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm

References