Book Review: Interpreting Nature
Interpreting Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment by I. G. Simmons, published by Routledge, 1993. (Amazon)
Although written close to fifteen years ago, this exploration of the interaction of people and the biophysical systems of the planet -- beyond that merely arising from the natural sciences -- is even more relevant today, as concerns of climate change are at the fore. Geographer Simmons looks at this interaction by the sciences, but also the humanities and the social sciences, seeing the myriad ways the human imagination has constructed ways of thinking about the environment and therefore dealing with it. The book can be seen as more important today, because if the way we think about our surroundings is linked with what we do to it, then we probably need to address both, not just the latter, as is the case in most proposals, be they architectural, urban, technological, or scientific.
Simmons did not aim to create an in-depth study of the concept, rather he presents a wide range and includes numerous foot notes and suggestions for further research. This plethora of voices and viewpoints makes this most likely the right approach for the book, but it also makes the hope for a solution to our environmental problems less than optimistic, as many of the voices don't share certain core beliefs that may be necessary for certain actions to take place. Apparently the author's favorite view of the planet (favorite in terms of the most likely to reduce ongoing or future harm via human hands) is the Gaia hypothesis, formulated by James Lovelock in the 1960s, which states that the earth is a self-regulating entity. While acceptance of the Gaia hypothesis, on the one hand, may mean people may view their actions as without consequence, thinking the Earth will fix things, it also means the opposite may be true: that the equilibrium so cherished could change via human interaction.
Simmons does not wholeheartedly accept Gaia as the way of constructing the environment; if anything he is critical and sees the shortcomings of practically every approach -- from Buddhism to Heidegger and cybernetics and so on. He eventually concludes that the best path for the future is a synthesis of two prevalent models: one based on realism and one based in idealism. These could generally be called environmental and humanistic views, respectively. This conclusion at first seems to be one that lacks a strong stance, of something like the Gaia hypothesis, but given the author's intentions it's not surprising. To find one way of viewing the earth for the whole of humanity would be do deny humanity itself. Instead, Simmons presents the ideas as multifarious as we are, giving suggestions and perspective for dealing with the contested constructions in a way that might allow for positive transformations of humanity and nature.
Although written close to fifteen years ago, this exploration of the interaction of people and the biophysical systems of the planet -- beyond that merely arising from the natural sciences -- is even more relevant today, as concerns of climate change are at the fore. Geographer Simmons looks at this interaction by the sciences, but also the humanities and the social sciences, seeing the myriad ways the human imagination has constructed ways of thinking about the environment and therefore dealing with it. The book can be seen as more important today, because if the way we think about our surroundings is linked with what we do to it, then we probably need to address both, not just the latter, as is the case in most proposals, be they architectural, urban, technological, or scientific.
Simmons did not aim to create an in-depth study of the concept, rather he presents a wide range and includes numerous foot notes and suggestions for further research. This plethora of voices and viewpoints makes this most likely the right approach for the book, but it also makes the hope for a solution to our environmental problems less than optimistic, as many of the voices don't share certain core beliefs that may be necessary for certain actions to take place. Apparently the author's favorite view of the planet (favorite in terms of the most likely to reduce ongoing or future harm via human hands) is the Gaia hypothesis, formulated by James Lovelock in the 1960s, which states that the earth is a self-regulating entity. While acceptance of the Gaia hypothesis, on the one hand, may mean people may view their actions as without consequence, thinking the Earth will fix things, it also means the opposite may be true: that the equilibrium so cherished could change via human interaction.
Simmons does not wholeheartedly accept Gaia as the way of constructing the environment; if anything he is critical and sees the shortcomings of practically every approach -- from Buddhism to Heidegger and cybernetics and so on. He eventually concludes that the best path for the future is a synthesis of two prevalent models: one based on realism and one based in idealism. These could generally be called environmental and humanistic views, respectively. This conclusion at first seems to be one that lacks a strong stance, of something like the Gaia hypothesis, but given the author's intentions it's not surprising. To find one way of viewing the earth for the whole of humanity would be do deny humanity itself. Instead, Simmons presents the ideas as multifarious as we are, giving suggestions and perspective for dealing with the contested constructions in a way that might allow for positive transformations of humanity and nature.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated for spam.