|
|
This site maintained by: Aomar Boum. Site last updated on October, 2001. |
Journal
of Political Ecology:
Case Studies in History and Society |
|
|
VOLUME 5 (1998)
Earth's Insights:
A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin
to the Australian Outback by J. Baird Callicott, with a Foreword by
Tom Hayden (1997) Berkeley : University of California Press, 285 pp.
Reviewed by Dipak R. Pant, Professor of Economic Anthropology and Applied Anthropology, University of Castellanza (VA), Italy. Earth's Insights covers some challenging
terrain in the field of comparative environmental ethics, a field too
little explored by scholars. Callicott, professor of philosophy and religious
studies at the University of North Texas, constructs for us a framework
for the comparative study of ethics and environmental values, and for
examining the susceptibility of both to historical change. Implicit in
this tour is a notion that we might turn to non-Western sources of inspiration
to chart a course for a more sustainable future. The first question Callicott poses
is: What is the equivalent of "ethics" in traditional non-Western
societies? As he acknowledges, ethics do not exist in a vacuum, hermetically
sealed off from larger systems of ideas (or, for that matter, from the
rough-and-tumble of the real world). Ethics must be viewed, instead, like
any other spheres of human thought and action (science, technology or
law) in a broad frame of differences--of problems perceived and solutions
attempted--by peoples of different places and times, in different terms
and under different conceptual banners. Callicott's jump-start with a
philosophical discourse on ethics is quite problematic, however, as he
does not first provide us with a well-enough grounded panorama of ethics-like
thought in non-Western traditions. From the outset, one is left wondering
about how well his conceptualization of ethics travels across time and
place. The going does not grow easier.
Dealing with the historical roots of Western environmental attitudes and
values (Chapter 2), Callicott repeats an oversimplification promoted by
many other Western scholars. Only Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage's
are taken into consideration, while overlooking the more richly textured
mosaic of local "little" traditions of Celts, Iberians, Italics,
Teutonics, Nordics, Slavs, and so forth. The pre-industrial Western rural
traditions were expressions of some powerful and persistent undercurrents
that have survived even to contemporary times in different folk forms.
Yet Callicott disregards the surviving rural folklore in Europe. The Christian
traditions, particularly Roman Catholicism, have absorbed and preserved
many polytheistic, polycentric and nature-worshipping elements that are
yet to be seriously studied to comprehend the environmental attitude and
values of Western peoples. In the Alpine region and in many parts of central
and southern Europe, for example, one can still find the sacred geography
(e.g., "Madonna of the Snow," "St. Michael of the Mountaintop,"
many saints and holy figures associated with summits, lakes, rivers, boulders
and so on). The European rural-popular sacred geography contains a highly
articulated land ethic and a rough cosmography--most probably of pre-Christian
origins, absorbed and modified by the medieval Christianity. It is a pity
that the author fails to notice such a widely present and interesting
aspect of the European culture. Callicott appears to confound history
and tradition. History is contingency, whereas tradition is continuity.
Many elements do change forms and adapt to new circumstances to survive;
and that produces history. Unforeseen changes (climate change, disasters,
encounters and clashes of cultures) force the traditions to take different
shape and to be articulated in different ways; all that is history. Yet
Callicott does not clearly indicate which traditional attitudes and values
(regarding the environment) have changed under which historical circumstances.
He does not explain, for example, how the Western idea of nature as God's
expression (omnis natura Deo lognitur, Hugo of St. Victor, Erudito Didascalica,
6.5, p. 176, 1805) degenerates to the idea of nature as the unlimited
resource to be possessed by people. Nor does he clearly explain how the
Old Testament concepts of "God's creation" and "the centrality
of humans" were turned to be "man-nature fellowship under the
God's patronage" in the medieval mysticism (a good example would
be the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi). Similar problems can be found in
the author's oversimplified characterization of Islamic environmental
ethics. The author totally ignores the Sufi tradition and the underlying
nondualistic (almost pantheistic) mysticism expressed in the esoteric
Islam, for example, the highly influential works of Jalaluddin Rumi and
Mansur al-Hajjaj. Islamic esoterism has been somewhat different from the
Judaic and Christian varieties. The influence of Sufi doctrines and practices
in mainstream Islamic cultures is far more incisive than that of Jewish
Kabbala or Christian esoterism in their respective sociocultural mainstreams.
The author is quite right in pointing
out that the place of Islam is in the "West" rather than in
the "East." But again, the role of Islamic mysticism (the variety
of Sufi traditions in North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia) in
bridging the gap among the pre-Islamic, non-Islamic, and Islamic traditions
and the environmental attitudes and values generated by such intercultural
dialogue are overlooked. The reality is very different from
the scholarly appearance, however. The demarcating lines among Hindu,
Buddhist, Jaina and other tribal and shamanic traditions of the Indian
subcontinent and the Himalayan region are terribly misleading. The doctrinal
contents are always articulated through social channels such as family
cults (Kula-parampara), scenic and social representations and recitals
(Lila-parampara), and pilgrimage (Tirtha-parampara). The Dharma texts
speak often in a cryptic and codified manner whereas the articulation
in social mainstream is direct and decodified. Most Western scholars,
Callicott included, fail to grasp fully the complementarity and parallelism
of the textual and oral traditions of India, Nepal, Tibet, and many other
parts of South and Southeast Asia. Without a careful empirical study of
the living forms one is bound to add more enigma and confusion to the
already complex and enigmatic reality of South Asian traditions. A more
serious problem with Earth's Insights and its treatment of ethical frames
from the Indian subcontinent, however, is the book's inattention to the
Tantric traditions, which are at the core of Indian, Tibetan, Nepalese,
Sri-Lankan, and other Asian systems of relating and dealing with the mind-body
complex, with nature and environment. Callicott's understanding of human-environment
relations in China is overloaded by aesthetic appraisal, and lacks critical
overview. After reading the book all the way through, one gets the impression
that the author views Chinese environmental thinking as the "best"
one (from the viewpoint of today's environmentalist). Yet among all the
Asians, the Chinese have been the most determined actors on the environment
(for example, great walls, grand pavilions, artificial lakes, iron shoes
to keep the women's feet little and tender, castration of young males
to have regiments of eunuchs). Chinese culinary art is rich and it includes
nearly every little or big beast known to the Chinese (one of the most
elite delicacies used to be a live monkey's warm brain by opening the
skull right at the moment of dining). Callicott does not seem to take
seriously these cultural traits; there is no explanation about such sophisticated
and forceful attitude to other creatures and towards the environment.
In the 1960s, the Chinese officialdom
undertook a huge, self-conscious venture of mass mobilization to destroy
the magico-religious traditions and sacred geography of the people (the
Cultural Revolution). In recent decades, the scale of environmental destruction
and landscape modification in China is without any precedence in Asian
history. Callicott does not appear to question why the heirs of an ancient
civilization so enthusiastically carried out a self-conscious process
of eradicating the "sacred" from the landscape and social life.
A sound empirical survey of the
Chinese society, institutions and history would have certainly helped
Callicott to understand better that the mainstream Chinese culture is
substantially this-worldly, with more focus on person-collectivity (person-to-person)
relations and least concerned with the human-nature relationship. Only
the Buddhist (imported from India) and Tao (not so dominant in Chinese
civilization) traditions have shown some cosmos orientedness compared
to Confucianism-dominated mainstream. Even in the Buddhist and Tao traditions
the Chinese have always longed for "longevity" (through medical-alchemical
pursuits) and pragmatic wisdom (in relations to the world and with the
others) rather than compassion or freedom. The Confucian, the communist,
and the neo-Confucian (the modern social and political thinking of Chinese-born
elites of Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries) ideologies are
staunch supporters of the traditional Chinese view that collectivity is
above the individual person and that the state is above the society (contrary
to the other Asians including the Japanese and the Indians who put society
above the state). What is the ramification of such ideas and practices
in the attitude towards nature and fellow creatures ? How is it that the
Chinese come to be more rampant in their materialistic pursuits and consumptive
ways of life among all other Asians today? Callicott fails to deal properly
with such fundamental questions. Callicott gives a much better account
of Polynesian (of Hawaii) and North American Indian (Lakota and Ojibwa)
environmental ethics (Chapter 6). More contextual information on kinship
and social organization, on resources and ecosystems management systems
is presented alongside the extrapolation from mythopoetic heritage. In South America, the author focuses
exclusively on the indigenous peoples of the Amazon (Tukano and Kayapo)
(Chapter 7). The accounts of agro-ecology of the pre-Hispanic Indians
of the Andes region is quite well documented; yet the author is mute about
these sources. The Inca land-use system (chakras) is still visible in
today's Peru; the author ignores the whole subject. Even the Incan and
other well-organized pre-Columbian resource-management systems and explicit
and implicit environmental values are left out of the discussion. It is
surprising to find no mention of the grand highland cultural traditions
of the Incas and the Uros that still display bulky fragments of pre-Columbian
practices and concepts regarding the environment. Callicott's choice of putting African
environmental thinking with that of Australian aborigines is beyond comprehension
(Chapter 8). As examples of African environmental thinking and ethics,
the authors picks up the agricultural Yoruba of Nigeria and the hunting-gathering
!San Bushmen of the Kalahari desert of Southern Africa. This limited selection
does not do justice to our understanding of African cultural reality.
The great majority of the Africans are agro-pastoral people (agriculture
and livestock breeding combined). The pure pastoralists constitute a significant
portion of African population, mostly concentrated in East and North-East
Africa. Desertification in sub-Saharan Africa is mostly related to overgrazing
and massive and monotonous cash crop cultivation (problems created by
the colonial powers first, and perpetuated by the international development
community's prescriptions now). A close look into this reality (pastoralism)
and a careful analysis of the traditional environmental ethics of these
peoples in lieu of the negative developments in the environment and landscape
could constitute a significant contribution. It is unfortunate that Callicott
does not address this reality. The essay on postmodern environmental
ethic (Chapter 9) is provocative. Any careful observer of the current
environmental situation of the world is likely to agree with the author.
But a few perplexities remain. The author affirms that the emerging global
scientific worldview, happily, is not as conceptually dissonant with the
world's many indigenous intellectual traditions as its predecessor, the
mechanical worldview. I have doubts about this. First of all, the emerging
global scientific worldview is based on the same (as in case of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century modern science) Western paradigm
of the near-total knowability and programmability of the world. There
is some anthropocentric arrogance (faith in the ultimate technological
fix) in it, and there is a high potential of manipulative attitude. Let's
not forget that the big progress in biotechnology, medicine, and pharmacy
are very recent (say, postmodern) developments and I sincerely do not
see any trace of the so-called good and kind "emerging global scientific
worldview." Death and decay are continuously viewed as undesirable
and, therefore, solutions of all sorts are pursued to avoid them, to prolong
the life span. Frankly, this is far from the traditional indigenous ethics
of many peoples. Even the deep concern with the environment among the
so-called postmodernists seems more for the sake of better quality of
life for the humans, not as a total outlook of improving the relationship
amongst the creatures and the cosmos. The modern Western paranoia of death
and decay is being transferred to other cultures through science, technology,
and education. Science and technology are part of the problem and not
the solution. The forward posture of fixing the things to improve the
environmental situation may help in the short run (it is welcome) but
it is not enough. What is needed is an inward posture of renouncing absolute
human superiority and arbitrage. The author's affirmation that "conserving
the human benefits and minimizing the environmental costs of modern technology
will head the global agenda of the twenty-first century" (p.210)
is too much in line with the forward posture. Callicott has saved his best for
last. Chapter 10 offers an elegant and interesting assessment of "stewardship"
ethics in action. By reading the whole book an ordinary reader gets the
impression that the author finds this ethical framework quite viable for
the contemporary Western world, but he does not really regard it as really
"fine" and "high." Callicott reports about the strong
and successful (to some extent) Indian and Sri-Lankan environmental movements
("the Hindu environmental ethic in action" and "the Buddhist
environmental ethics in action"). Throughout the book, one gets the
impression that he considers the traditional environmental thinking of
the Indian subcontinent to be quite good, better than the Western (Judeo-Christian-Moslem
one) but not so "fine" and "high" as the Chinese,
the Japanese, and some tribal ones. He also mentions the Buddhist forest
conservation movement in Thailand. It is surprising that the author does
not mention any instance of a traditional Chinese or Japanese environmental
ethics (according to him, far superior to the Western and better than
the Indian) in action. He also fails to say if they exist at all. If they
do not exist then a serious question emerges: how the finest and the highest
environmental thoughts (the Chinese and the Japanese, and some tribal
ones, according to the author) do not generate any significant social
and environmental action? If they exist, the reader becomes eager to know
about them. A qualified recommendation, then, would be for readers to include Earth's Insights among a list of works on comparative environmental ethics. The language and writing style tend to the baroque, overloaded by decorative elements. But Callicott is straightforward in delivering his oversimplified message, and is sure to prompt vigorous discussion. |