The American Relationship with Nature
Jenny Freedman
Environmental Sociology
October 29, 2021
Most Americans assume ownership over the environment they live in, but with what precedent? For the most part, learned culture allows us to detach from individual responsibility to sustain the state of one’s environment. We learn that the world is ours for the taking instead of the viewpoint that we must coexist with our environment and protect it. This perspective aligns with a colonization mindset, which not only works to excuse the abuse of other species, but also extends to racism within humankind. In my mind, we are all framed by the arrogance in assuming that what we come across is ours. The relationship we maintain with other species is key in analyzing this claim. Generally, in the United States, we view ourselves as above other species instead of having a relationship of mutualism or commensalism.
In constructions of the non-human, we find a lot that is human. For example, in Fine and Christophides’ analysis of the English Sparrow War, they connect the overarching view of sparrows to a fear of foreigners. Culturally, nativism and racism are normalized and hidden behind language that suggests natives must be protected from outsiders. Ecologically, the sparrows are an invasive species, so “the opponents of the English sparrow drew their imagery from the nativism (anti-foreignism) of the day. They defined the bird as: (1) a foreigner, (2) that competes unfairly with native birds, (3) that has an immoral character, and (4) that needs to be eliminated from the American community of birds. Examining the metaphorical linkages among public concerns of the same period, [they] suggest, is a fruitful way of examining social problems” (Fine and Christophides, 1991:375). These birds are painted as “moral” creatures having human characteristics. Anthropocentrism emphasizes that humans are a part of Nature, and not simply inexplicably linked to the natural world. Language sets us up to develop such a damaging relationship.
The fact that a word for nature even exists implies an inherent separation between humans and nature. But we must ask, where and what is nature? Garkovich and Greider argue that there is no nature, as nature is everything; there is only Nature, or the learned concept (Garkovich and Greider, 1994:21). Proxies are used in conversations of Nature, but an overall uncertainty and malleability will always exist. Conversations surrounding Nature often come down to a human superiority complex. Power, control, and dominance overthrow the need for healing. In fact, in Christianity, there is the idea that God gives “dominion” of everything on the planet to human beings. Dominion implies stewardship, or fair, careful treatment; however, the concept is often abused and interpreted as domination. Dominion seeks to maintain, which directly contradicts common American lifestyles of environmental pollution, abuse, and harm.
The usage of the term “nature” in English assumes that what we live in is not a part of it; therefore, it is not as important to keep clean. I find it especially intriguing that many languages do not even contain a word for nature; “In the modern West, by contrast, social selves have often been constructed through a separation from nature… In the contemporary United States, and other societies that have been organized around an ideology of science as control of the natural world, there seems to be considerable anxiety around the possibility that the human/animal/nature boundary is more fluid than we think, or perhaps that the universe holds more contingency than we would like” (Capek, 2006:161). In terms of unsustainability, many Americans maintain the mindset of “it only affects me, and I don’t care”; however, this thought process excludes long term effects. Communities with low-income populations and people of color are impacted first, while those with privileges to act sustainably choose not to. Making lifestyle changes to alter the norm are often not framed as an active choice, as it is easier to follow mainstream culture for guidance.
We are defined by our environments and surrounded by the culture of our specific milieu. What we can control is what we decide to devote our lives through obtaining capital, or wealth, in specific fields. Wealth is typically thought of in monetary contexts, but it can also be expressed by an individual’s knowledge and resources. Moral capital is obtained through experience, ethical discernment, and wisdom. Time capital is obtained through the freedom from excessive physical and mental strains. Emotional capital is obtained through phycological nourishment. We all make choices that prioritize certain types of capitals, and they often influence and interact with each other.
Juliet Schor successfully defines the connections between various forms of wealth and capital in her book True Wealth. She highlights the economic effects of current society’s priorities and norms. Instead of maintaining and nurturing the current market, or business-as usual (BAU) activity, Schor asserts that the American way of life must undergo a complete reconstruction focused on sustainability, innovation, and individual well-being. She titles this refocusing of values “plenitude” (Schor, 2011:13). Instead of masking our BAU economy with a more ecologically friendly appearance, plenitude is a transition period before reaching “true wealth” that requires trust in individuals, local businesses, a new allocation of time, and dedication to sustainability. Commitment on an individual level is required to produce widespread change. If individuals create and grow resources on their own, less is required of them to buy and less pressure is put on the individual to earn money. The issue is that many factors of our society and culture deter individuals from wholly committing to protecting our environments.
It is easier for people to follow the crowd and stick to what they know, even if the benefits of change are potentially abundant. Additionally, the lack of universal health care in the U.S. prevents the plenitude lifestyle from being more accessible. People dedicate a large amount of time to their work-life to ensure that they receive benefits and construct a secure safety net. Consequently, a common scarcity mentality produces a widespread mindset that we do not have time to relax, as too much off-work time is wasteful and unproductive. Many Americans are not given the privilege of not being wholly focused on wealth and consumption of goods; however, even the people that are financially stable are often resistant to major lifestyle changes.
Overlooking privilege only heightens the extent of damage to our climate and natural resources.
The materiality paradox is a major component in the destructive cycle of excessive waste. This paradox states that the prices of most goods do not factor in the damage to the ecosystem; this allows for cheaper goods, more products sold, and more waste. The demand for products at very low prices sets a new standard of what consumers expect and diminishes the significance of ecological production costs (Schor 2011:40). Schor outlines the less visible and more complex reasoning behind committing to plenitude, as the wealth she is referring to is not monetary and consumption-based, but rather seen in the restoration of our planet’s beauty along with our souls and individual fulfillment.
Changes to the structure of our routines seem highly daunting, but the fear is often heightened by a reluctance to accept change and adapt. What may appear to be large lifestyle shifts are relatively small prices to pay in order to support sustainable goals that provide long-term solutions. I took my first step by prioritizing small, local businesses and abandoning fast fashion, as there are numerous benefits to thrifting, consignment stores, and ethically made clothes. One dividing factor that provides a rift in the achievement of widespread sustainable practices is political agendas.
The role of shifting cultural norms to protect the environments we live in cannot wholly be placed on local individuals, as the micro-level is only one small part that creates a larger sociological structure. It is necessary to assess the key actors on both the meso and macro level. On the meso-level, changes must occur within neighborhood community groups, the local news media, local government, federal government, and so on. Larger concepts on the macro-level that influence both the meso and micro level include the economy, media, family, government, culture, and religion. Major social shifts require time, resources, and advocacy within each level, specifically in order to make significant changes in the overarching American view of Nature.
Environmental Sociology
October 29, 2021
Most Americans assume ownership over the environment they live in, but with what precedent? For the most part, learned culture allows us to detach from individual responsibility to sustain the state of one’s environment. We learn that the world is ours for the taking instead of the viewpoint that we must coexist with our environment and protect it. This perspective aligns with a colonization mindset, which not only works to excuse the abuse of other species, but also extends to racism within humankind. In my mind, we are all framed by the arrogance in assuming that what we come across is ours. The relationship we maintain with other species is key in analyzing this claim. Generally, in the United States, we view ourselves as above other species instead of having a relationship of mutualism or commensalism.
In constructions of the non-human, we find a lot that is human. For example, in Fine and Christophides’ analysis of the English Sparrow War, they connect the overarching view of sparrows to a fear of foreigners. Culturally, nativism and racism are normalized and hidden behind language that suggests natives must be protected from outsiders. Ecologically, the sparrows are an invasive species, so “the opponents of the English sparrow drew their imagery from the nativism (anti-foreignism) of the day. They defined the bird as: (1) a foreigner, (2) that competes unfairly with native birds, (3) that has an immoral character, and (4) that needs to be eliminated from the American community of birds. Examining the metaphorical linkages among public concerns of the same period, [they] suggest, is a fruitful way of examining social problems” (Fine and Christophides, 1991:375). These birds are painted as “moral” creatures having human characteristics. Anthropocentrism emphasizes that humans are a part of Nature, and not simply inexplicably linked to the natural world. Language sets us up to develop such a damaging relationship.
The fact that a word for nature even exists implies an inherent separation between humans and nature. But we must ask, where and what is nature? Garkovich and Greider argue that there is no nature, as nature is everything; there is only Nature, or the learned concept (Garkovich and Greider, 1994:21). Proxies are used in conversations of Nature, but an overall uncertainty and malleability will always exist. Conversations surrounding Nature often come down to a human superiority complex. Power, control, and dominance overthrow the need for healing. In fact, in Christianity, there is the idea that God gives “dominion” of everything on the planet to human beings. Dominion implies stewardship, or fair, careful treatment; however, the concept is often abused and interpreted as domination. Dominion seeks to maintain, which directly contradicts common American lifestyles of environmental pollution, abuse, and harm.
The usage of the term “nature” in English assumes that what we live in is not a part of it; therefore, it is not as important to keep clean. I find it especially intriguing that many languages do not even contain a word for nature; “In the modern West, by contrast, social selves have often been constructed through a separation from nature… In the contemporary United States, and other societies that have been organized around an ideology of science as control of the natural world, there seems to be considerable anxiety around the possibility that the human/animal/nature boundary is more fluid than we think, or perhaps that the universe holds more contingency than we would like” (Capek, 2006:161). In terms of unsustainability, many Americans maintain the mindset of “it only affects me, and I don’t care”; however, this thought process excludes long term effects. Communities with low-income populations and people of color are impacted first, while those with privileges to act sustainably choose not to. Making lifestyle changes to alter the norm are often not framed as an active choice, as it is easier to follow mainstream culture for guidance.
We are defined by our environments and surrounded by the culture of our specific milieu. What we can control is what we decide to devote our lives through obtaining capital, or wealth, in specific fields. Wealth is typically thought of in monetary contexts, but it can also be expressed by an individual’s knowledge and resources. Moral capital is obtained through experience, ethical discernment, and wisdom. Time capital is obtained through the freedom from excessive physical and mental strains. Emotional capital is obtained through phycological nourishment. We all make choices that prioritize certain types of capitals, and they often influence and interact with each other.
Juliet Schor successfully defines the connections between various forms of wealth and capital in her book True Wealth. She highlights the economic effects of current society’s priorities and norms. Instead of maintaining and nurturing the current market, or business-as usual (BAU) activity, Schor asserts that the American way of life must undergo a complete reconstruction focused on sustainability, innovation, and individual well-being. She titles this refocusing of values “plenitude” (Schor, 2011:13). Instead of masking our BAU economy with a more ecologically friendly appearance, plenitude is a transition period before reaching “true wealth” that requires trust in individuals, local businesses, a new allocation of time, and dedication to sustainability. Commitment on an individual level is required to produce widespread change. If individuals create and grow resources on their own, less is required of them to buy and less pressure is put on the individual to earn money. The issue is that many factors of our society and culture deter individuals from wholly committing to protecting our environments.
It is easier for people to follow the crowd and stick to what they know, even if the benefits of change are potentially abundant. Additionally, the lack of universal health care in the U.S. prevents the plenitude lifestyle from being more accessible. People dedicate a large amount of time to their work-life to ensure that they receive benefits and construct a secure safety net. Consequently, a common scarcity mentality produces a widespread mindset that we do not have time to relax, as too much off-work time is wasteful and unproductive. Many Americans are not given the privilege of not being wholly focused on wealth and consumption of goods; however, even the people that are financially stable are often resistant to major lifestyle changes.
Overlooking privilege only heightens the extent of damage to our climate and natural resources.
The materiality paradox is a major component in the destructive cycle of excessive waste. This paradox states that the prices of most goods do not factor in the damage to the ecosystem; this allows for cheaper goods, more products sold, and more waste. The demand for products at very low prices sets a new standard of what consumers expect and diminishes the significance of ecological production costs (Schor 2011:40). Schor outlines the less visible and more complex reasoning behind committing to plenitude, as the wealth she is referring to is not monetary and consumption-based, but rather seen in the restoration of our planet’s beauty along with our souls and individual fulfillment.
Changes to the structure of our routines seem highly daunting, but the fear is often heightened by a reluctance to accept change and adapt. What may appear to be large lifestyle shifts are relatively small prices to pay in order to support sustainable goals that provide long-term solutions. I took my first step by prioritizing small, local businesses and abandoning fast fashion, as there are numerous benefits to thrifting, consignment stores, and ethically made clothes. One dividing factor that provides a rift in the achievement of widespread sustainable practices is political agendas.
The role of shifting cultural norms to protect the environments we live in cannot wholly be placed on local individuals, as the micro-level is only one small part that creates a larger sociological structure. It is necessary to assess the key actors on both the meso and macro level. On the meso-level, changes must occur within neighborhood community groups, the local news media, local government, federal government, and so on. Larger concepts on the macro-level that influence both the meso and micro level include the economy, media, family, government, culture, and religion. Major social shifts require time, resources, and advocacy within each level, specifically in order to make significant changes in the overarching American view of Nature.
Works Cited
Capek, Stella. 2006. “Surface Tension: Boundary Negotiations around Self, Society, and Nature in a Community
Debate over Wildlife.” Symbolic Interaction 29(2): 157-181.
Fine, Gary and Lazaros Christophides. 1991. “Dirty Birds, Filthy Immigrants, and the English Sparrow War:
Metaphorical Linkage in Constructing Social Problems.” Symbolic Interaction 14(4): 375-393.
Garkovich, Lorraine and Thomas Greider. 1994. “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the
Environment.” Rural Sociology 59(1): 1-24.
Schor, Juliet. 2011. True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time- Rich, Ecologically
Light, Small-Scale, High-Satisfaction Economy. London, England: Penguin Books.
Debate over Wildlife.” Symbolic Interaction 29(2): 157-181.
Fine, Gary and Lazaros Christophides. 1991. “Dirty Birds, Filthy Immigrants, and the English Sparrow War:
Metaphorical Linkage in Constructing Social Problems.” Symbolic Interaction 14(4): 375-393.
Garkovich, Lorraine and Thomas Greider. 1994. “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the
Environment.” Rural Sociology 59(1): 1-24.
Schor, Juliet. 2011. True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time- Rich, Ecologically
Light, Small-Scale, High-Satisfaction Economy. London, England: Penguin Books.