Skin and plastic

Dec 18

For we are all one with what rains and shines, what shakes the fields of wheat and barrens their shells from the seed. For our parents and their parents knew the earth. They worked and kissed it. And felt in their core what it spoke in bleeding harvest and boiling sweat where bread was broken.

Customs reinforced and celebrated that source of sustenance, shelter and inspiration between nature and humans. In that culture, the human element participates with a high awareness for the impact it leaves behind. And it accumulates knowledge of the functions of nature through direct and continuous observation of cause and effect filtered into cultural values. It could also be argued that in such system of bio-cognizant values, an environmental behavior is not triggered by an anxiety for a future deficit but rather an embodied responsibility of the present moment. Could it be that in such society environmental conscience would be enacted from a stance of moral integrity and not of guilt, from a place of respect and not of fear?

From an untameable and intimidating force, nature came to be perceived as a mere resource to serve humanity's various needs. Paradoxically, humanity is frightened by nature while it also feels authority over it. Тhere are four myths of nature in relation to environmental behavior: nature benign, nature ephemeral, tolerant and capricious.1

Each of these concepts presents a specific coping mechanism based on the perceived level of vulnerability and resilience of nature. However, these four myths seem to regard nature as separate from humans where humanity “manages” nature as a resource.

The dynamics of power and exploitation have definitely been a part of the human-nature discourse. The more conquest of power rules as a guiding principle, the more the capacity for vulnerability and empathy diminishes.

I wonder how the cities, streets, houses and even our relationships would shape in a human world which fully embraces its origin as innately biocentric; how increasing empathy towards one another and the environment would lead to an embodied environmental responsibility. Hence to elevate our global society from the alienating stool of a drifting offender. Forever sitting across the bench of ecology, with a heavy nose that presses against an alarming future, repentance of the past or pure nonchalance of the present.

One step towards reconnection with nature may be embracing humanity's own vulnerability in the natural environment, and integrating it into the built environment.

Historian Carl Pletsch draws a line between sovereignty and relationship to nature, and further articulates the nature tolerant myth - morally speaking, asserting sovereignty over nature will leave the human species utterly alone in the universe.2

Perhaps a fifth myth exists which encompasses all of the above but also includes humanity as an intrinsic part of nature. Suppose that we accept humanity as the fifth element to participate in the cycle of nature. Would such an acceptance shift our position from a stance of victimising mother nature and vilifying our own wasteful existence, to assuming an active responsibility through reclaiming a biocentric origin?

In a joint case study on the human-nature connection and human perception of the natural and unnatural, the majority of the participants claimed to feel a part of nature only when they interacted with it. The more people communed with nature through outdoor activities, care or residence, the more they felt a stronger connection with it.

At the same time when participants were asked, to write words that describe unnatural environments, they most frequently mentioned human-made elements of the environment.3

Inevitably, this study questions our place in nature, and also shows that humans may feel a part of nature through the experience of it but don't ascribe the human world a biocentric value. All the while, humanity's values could be biospheric and provoke a behaviour that exhibits a higher connection with nature. Paradoxically, the human world and experience is seen as separate from the values of nature.

In this same study, the most frequently occurring natural attribute, ‘undisturbed by humans,’ was not only mentioned by 63.6% of participants who considered themselves separate from nature, but also by 32.3% of participants who considered themselves a part of nature. 4 The understanding that nature excludes humanity may be perplexing but also may provide an important insight into resolving the human relationship with nature.

Participants who considered themselves as part of nature still perceived nature as an entity that does not involve humans. The authors of the study further discuss that the increasing lack of interaction between humanity and nature would lead to more separation, since the built environment doesn't seem to enhance the human-nature contact. In a different study, Vining, Merick and Price suggest that “it is quite possible that the connection an individual feels with nature can not be altered, but perhaps making people more aware of their views would lead to conscious thought on the issue.” 5

Consequently, if humanity is seen as part of nature, biospheric and pro-self values exist concurrently reinforcing pro environmental behaviour, because there is no separation. The level of pro-environmental behaviour is determined by the level humanity feels its biophilic origin. Thus, empathy may emerge as an active responsibility over the immobilising stupor of shame and guilt.

At the same time when participants were asked, to write words that describe unnatural environments, they most frequently mentioned human-made elements of the environment.3

In this same study, the most frequently occurring natural attribute, ‘undisturbed by humans,’ was not only mentioned by 63.6% of participants who considered themselves separate from nature, but also by 32.3% of participants who considered themselves a part of nature.4 The understanding that nature excludes humanity may be perplexing but also may provide an important insight into resolving the human relationship with nature.

Consequently, if humanity is seen as part of nature, biospheric and pro-self values exist concurrently reinforcing pro environmental behavior, because there is no separation. The level of pro-environmental behaviour is determined by the level humanity feels its biophilic origin. Thus, empathy may emerge as an active responsibility over the immobilising stupor of shame and guilt.

1. De Groot, J. & J. Thogersen. (2013). Ch 14: “Values and Pro-Environmental Behavior ”In Steg, L., Van den Berg, A. and J. de Groot (Eds). Environmental Psychology: An Introduction. (pp. 142-151). Chichester, West Sussex: BPS Blackwell.

2. Pletsch, C., De Luce, Judith, & Baldwin, A. Dwight. (1994). Beyond Preservation Restoring and Inventing Landscapes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

3. Vinning J., Merrick M., Price E., 2008, “The Distinction between Humans and Nature: Human Perceptions of Connectedness to Nature and Elements of the Natural and Unnatural”, in Human Ecology Review, Vol.15, N°1, 11p.4 see 3

4. see 3

5. see 3

Mariya Apostolova

Skin and plastic

Coacervates of stormwater and ink

The gift of Angerona