Knowledge of Nature

With the phrase “ecological knowledge,” what are we seeking knowledge of? Sandilands (1999) comments that “the idea of an objective nature perpetuates a problematic opposition between nature and culture” (p. 90). This notion is based “on the very historically specific idea that nature is what is left over when the human is subtracted.” The notion of an objective truth that is best achieved one way or another may divert the aim of ecological knowledge.

“Under the pretext of protecting nature, the ecology movements have also retained the conception of nature that makes their political struggle hopeless,” writes Latour (2004, p. 19). Latour argues that nature, far from being an obvious realm of reality, is a way of assembling political order and ordering political life by the political division of what is objective and indisputable from what is subjective and arguable. “‘Nature’ was invented in order to reduce public life to a rump parliament” (p. 232).

Latour suggests a way forward in a thoroughly political ecology that has “nothing whatsoever to do with nature, this jumble of Greek philosophy, French Cartesianism, and American parks.” He continues, “Political ecology does not shift attention from the human pole to the pole of nature; it shifts from certainty about the production of risk-free objects (with their clear separation between things and people) to uncertainty about the relations whose unintended consequences threaten to disrupt all orderings, all plans, all impacts” (p. 25).

Haraway (1989) observes, “Both science and popular culture are intricately woven of fact and fiction. It seems natural, even morally obligatory, to oppose fact fiction; but their similarities are deep in Western culture” (p. 3). Latour (2004) suggests that we are witnessing “the progressive transformation of all matters of fact into disputed states of affair” (p. 25). As an example, he cites the compound asbestos. Once described as an inert material, asbestos’ status has shifted through decades of political struggle to become a nightmarish imbroglio of law, hygiene and risk.

M’Gonigle and Starke (2006) describe a dedication to truth as a “too-limited ambition.” If tied to this construction of knowledge, scholars will forever be tied to the task of separating legitimate from wild knowledge. In contrast to the notion of an objective truth, they suggest an educational system dedicated to developing and excavating local knowledges, refused / disqualified and “subjugated” knowledges, “unqualified or disqualified knowledges.” They cite Foucault (2003), who says, “it is the reappearance of what people know at the local level, of these disqualified knowledges, that makes the critique possible….”

Haraway (1989) observes while “nature” is construed as the disavowed and describable “other,” simultaneously, nature is the home of the “true self.” Inside the cultural dualisms we think through, the self is constructed from the raw material of the other, as culture from nature, human from animal, white from colour, woman from man. Each pole of the dualism cannot exist without the other. In this formulation, “observed and described peoples are turned into resources for the solution of other people’s dilemmas” (Haraway 1989, p. 257). These entanglements are illuminated by the work of the Senegalese artist Kan-Si's project, "Le Pont des Regards" (The Bridge to Look at Each Other).

Kan-Si's (Amadou Kane Sy), Le Pont des Regards, 2003 (The Bridge to Look at Each Other) © Photo: Maxence Denis

Kan-Si's (Amadou Kane Sy), Le Pont des Regards, 2003 (The Bridge to Look at Each Other) © Photo: Maxence Denis

Kan-Si's (Amadou Kane Sy), Le Pont des Regards, 2003 (The Bridge to Look at Each Other) © Photo: Maxence Denis

The island of Fadiouth is a popular tourist stop due to the fact that the island has maintained its traditional culture. The island is separated from the mainland by an 800-meter footbridge. Alves (2003) describes the project:

“Kan-Si became interested in the representation of the inhabitants, photographed by tourists as 'the Other’ to be shown around back home in France. ‘The look that one has of the other, and as a result, that which the other also has of us is part of the text explaining the project, placed at either end of the bridge.’

Kan-Si provided participating community members with cameras and inversed the roles: participants used the cameras to photograph tourists only…. [Several] confrontations led tourists to reflect on their actions and finally accept being photographed. The photos of the tourists were then lined up along one side of the bridge facing photos of the participants with their cameras. … Kan-Si 's project provided the community with a forum in which its members could engage with the tourists on the predicament of photographing the ‘Other’. The dialogue continues…”

NEXT: Self-knowledge

Thinking Nature Index

Thinking Nature References