21 Man-Nature and Culture-Nature Relationship

Rongnyoo Lepcha and K.R. Rammohan

Contents

    1.      Introduction

2.      The evolution of the interrelationship between man, nature and culture

2.1. Hunting and gathering the culture of the past

2.2. Agriculture as a paradigm shift in culture and nature

2.3. Transition of economy with change in culture

3.      Man and nature

3.1. From biological perspective

3.2. From Bio-cultural perspective

4.      Culture and Nature

5.      Man, Culture and nature as friends and foes

6.      Summary

Learning Objectives:

1.      To furnish the idea about the inter-relationship between man, nature and culture.

2.     To discuss about how emergence of different cultures of man is related to nature.

3.     To diversify the knowledge about transition in human population; how man became the dominant class of species from a simple hunting gathering society with the dynamic advancement in technologies,.

4.     To understand what factors caused the transition and diversification of societies.

5.   To look into the other aspects of man and cultures that emerged for survival with respect to the changing phases of nature. How culture of man, go alongside with nature in both positive and negative way.

    Introduction

Human evolution is a complex theory which gets more contradictory the more we find a clue to answer an unsolved mystery related to the very existence of human beings. Evolution can be better understood through an anthropological perspective, as it explains how, why and from where we have come to the stage where we are now, what are the key factors associated with the categorization of humans into different race, culture, language, etc. According to various definitions on humans given by various anthropologists and other scholars, what we have known so far is humans are social, cultural and adaptive animals, always curious about their surrounding environment, gifted with a unique quality that is the quality to adapt which in the long run has helped in surviving the extreme threats of nature and live till the present era. As it says “curiosity is the mother of all inventions”, because of which now we can see a vast difference among human populations. This difference is the outcome of the interaction between human and nature that gave rise to different cultures and this only became possible by human’s curious nature for survival. If we see it from the evolutionary perspective, what we know is that the early human ancestors were a bunch of nomadic people that relied on hunting and gathering. It is assumed that they used sign language, voice modulation as mode of communication much more similar behavior that we see as common among the other primate groups today. The notion is not only about what made humans to bifurcate from the rest of the primate groups but also how the bifurcation emerged. The inter-relationship between human, culture and nature is a complex one as one cannot conclusively say that one aspect is responsible for the development or change in other two, in fact the dynamic nature of the all three aspects are responsible for their change. For example, we cannot simply understand that humans can survive in extreme cold climate because of their adaptive physiology but there is also the role of culture that comes into play and in addition to that there is always the nature that selects the fittest, who can survive its threat. Environmental determinism and possibilism always play the thematic role while understanding the relationship between man, culture and nature. Human personality, morality, politics and government, religion, material cultures, biology, etc. all was once subjected to the deterministic view. Environmental determinism focused on the concept that environment determines all the aspects of humans. According to Environmental determinism the personality and intelligence levels are somehow determined by the climate. In the eighteenth century some of the scholars even tried to relate the practice of religion based on climate. For instance, practice of Buddhism in India was explained on the basis of climate of India that is it is the hot climate which makes the body lethargic and so people tend to follow passive religions (Hardesty, 1977). However, this thought was overruled by Environmental Possibilism which made significant contribution to the cultural area concept. It explained that culture is patterned by environment but it did not caused it. For example, big game hunting was permitted by grasslands of Great Plains, after the introduction of horse and firearms, but not caused by it (Kroeber, 1939). As such, it becomes more necessary to have deeper understanding of the relationship among man, culture and nature. We shall now look into the historical perspective of the evolution of the relationship among man, nature and culture.

Fig 1: the interactive relationship between Nature and Culture

The evolution of the interrelationship between man, nature and culture

It is a known fact that every human society at some point of time was once hunters and gatherers. Until about ten thousand years ago, all people practiced hunting and gathering economy. In fact we still rely on hunting and gathering but the only difference is that the mode of access is more advanced and sophisticated. The change in climate, strategies applied by humans to overcome different barriers for survival, cognitive development which led to the advancement in technology, etc. have made it possible to acquire a lifestyle where we don’t have to go out into the woods every day, risking our lives looking for food like our forefathers. The emergence of agriculture can be marked as a paradigm shift for nature, culture and humans. Lives changed, different culture emerged and nature is exploited. The evolution of the inter-relationship between man, culture and nature has been briefly described below under different sub-headings categorized on the basis of different eras humans once lived and how the transition from one era to another caused the change in culture and nature.

Hunting and Gathering: The Culture of the Past

Sitting on a comfortable and expensive chair one can hardly imagine how lives of our ancestors were, taking into consideration today’s lifestyles. Our ancestors who were hunters and gatherers did not live in the societies like we live today which is full of disparity, cultures were not so complex. The hunting and gathering era lived by our ancestors is also termed as the Paleolithic era and is divided into three phases the Upper, Middle and the Lower Paleolithic era. The categorization of the era is particularly on the basis of the difference in tools they used. They lived in egalitarian societies, had less possessions; the only economy was hunting and gathering and their lifestyles were nomadic, cases of diseases were seen less. They lived in a band that consisted of twenty to fifty members. Since they have to move from one place to another and they did not have anything to store their food resources, they never exploited the nature by hunting and gathering more than their want. As such, hunting and gathering was practiced on a daily basis. The only material culture they possessed were the crude tools made from stones and wood used for hunting and gathering and which later were modified based on their need. They had a close contact with nature and believed that nature would always provide them with abundant food resource which was not the case. Success in finding a game started to decrease. The change in the climate started to make the food resource very scarce and they followed reciprocity made them to use the strategy of fission and fusion. At the time of scarcity of food the band split into smaller groups consisting of fewer members in a group and the time of abundance of food the group reunited. Life as hunters and gatherers started to fall. Just at the end of the Paleolithic era, accidently or intentionally done, but there was seen the emergence of agriculture. Though it took time to spread all over and the transition from nomadic to sedentary lifestyle took a long period of time (Sutton and Anderson, 2004).

Agriculture as a paradigm shift in culture and nature

Early hunting and gathering societies moved from one place to another in search of food. They owned simple tools for hunting and gathering. Along with the threats of nature, emerged agriculture as mode of subsistence living, which resulted in lives becoming more sedentary. With the development in tools, agriculture started to flourish at a wide range. This era is termed as Neolithic era. People started to build houses instead of living in caves that led to the culture of living in a house. The evidences of different kinds of houses where our ancestors lived draw our attention to the fact that different houses were built according to the climatic condition and the environment they lived in. Different tools used in agricultural fields were also recovered from sites where human practiced agriculture. This also adds to our knowledge that development in technology has contributed a lot in human development in many areas. People started growing their own food. They started to settle near their agricultural areas, mostly near places where the accessibility of water was not a problem. Agricultural lands were of most prized possessions for them. They started to domesticate animals. Lives seem to become stable but all this was at the expense of health issues, social disparity, etc. that changed the course of culture and nature. Earlier diseases were not so common like it was now when human started to come in close contact with animal. With their growing population, the need for food also grew which led them clear more forests land to make it suitable for agriculture. This act disturbed the ecosystem and the natural environment of the organisms living in and around the cleared forests. People suffered from illness, many died as the medical facilities were not good and illness was treated as a bad omen. Some flourish in agriculture and possessed more food and land that made others dependent upon them. Disparity in societies began with development. People once had the concept of egalitarian life but now they started to have a hierarchical societies governed by people who possessed more land, food and materials (tools, ornaments, ceramics etc.). Nature which was considered as giving nature now became only a mode from where they can draw many resources as possible (Sutton and Anderson, 2004).

Alongside agriculture, pastoralism also flourished in places where agriculture was not suitable. People owned large number of cattle. It is also a form of economic activity as the pastoralist exchanged their basic needs along with the cattle products. Unlike agriculturalist that practiced sedentary lifestyle, pastoralists were nomadic people who wandered from one place to another place suitable for cattle grazing and unlike hunter and gatherers who valued dead animals as it was the only source of food other than roots, leaves and nuts, for pastoralist their cattle are valuable only when alive. They even engaged themselves in quarrels with other groups of people just to protect their cattle. This can also be seen as the different culture being practiced differently based on different environments and situations (Prichard, 1940). Every practice of culture somehow relates to nature and environment. Hunters and gatherers were nomadic people who valued meat, agriculturalists were sedentary but relied mostly on agricultural products and pastoralist protected their cattle but were nomadic.

Transition of economy with change in culture

It is said that “resources are limited and human wants are unlimited”. The growing need of humans has played an important role in the cognitive development that in long run has given rise to the development in technologies which are applied for survival. Technology is the tool kit used by humans in the quest of food, shelter and reproduction (Hardesty, 1977). The rise in different technologies pioneered the emergence in different kind of material culture like the invention of different kinds of potteries, ceramic wares, ornaments, structure of houses, introduction of coins and money. People advanced in technologies, started to yield good harvest and rule over the ones who fail in yielding high. Disparity in societies emerged. Reciprocity only form of economy practiced by hunter and gatherers was dominated by barter system where one good is exchanged with another, which later transformed into monetary system. Barter system gave rise to an economy that consisted of debts and slavery. The introduction of metals was followed by the concept of money. The more there is transition in culture the more complex a society and its culture gets.

Man and Nature

This heading has been divided into two sub-headings to simplify the complex relationship between man and nature. The classification is based on the two different perspectives; the biological and bio-cultural perspectives that exemplifies the relationship in a broader way.

From Biological perspective

To survive and continue the progeny, every organism needs food, shelter and protection. Humans have always excelled as compared to other beings because of their adaptive characteristic which takes place at behavioral, cultural, genetic/ demographic as well as physiological or biological level. These responses for adaption take place to adjust with different environments. Rapid adjustments to sudden changes in the environment take place at behavioral level. Example: standing on shade to stay away from hot sun, to sit near fireplace when cold. It is when the behavioral responses fail to adjust with the sudden environmental changes; the role of biological adaptation comes into play. For example: if even after getting near a fire place, one feel cold, then to adjust with the environment and maintain homeostasis, one starts shivering which increases the metabolic rate and peripheral blood vessels constricts to conserve heat. As compared to behavioral adaption, physiological responses are not as fast. If the physiological change continues for a longer period of time, genetic responses start to occur. For example: living in a cold environment for longer duration can bring about permanent changes like enlargement of lungs but this changes in genetic structure takes many generations (Bateson, 1963). No matter what strategies any organism may adapt to survive but in the end it is always in the hands of nature to eliminate the ones who cannot adjust with the changing environment. Man and nature are so closely related, when nature changes man adjusts to it by some changes at physiological level yet nature is always a step ahead and dictates every living organism including man (Darwin, 1859).

From Bio- cultural perspective

This sub-title mainly focuses on the bio-cultural perspective that somehow is a strategy for survival adapted by man. The interplay between biological and cultural variables with respect to nature is to be looked from historical and/or ecological perspective. For example, the relationship between sickle-cell anemia and culture in West Africa is linked with agriculture and the spread of malaria (Livingstone, 1958). It is observed that the spread of sickling gene is greatly enhanced by the development of agriculture. The clearing of forest for cultivation provides a breeding ground for mosquito (Anopheles gambiae) which is the vector of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. It is found that the individuals, who are the carriers (heterozygotes) of sickling gene, have a higher immune system against malarial infection when compared with either the normal persons without the gene or with those persons who are homozygous for the gene. There is clear evidence that the frequency of sickling gene is low in hunting and gathering populations as compared to those populations which are more dependent on agriculture. This indicates that the spread of sickling gene is associated with the spread of agriculture because the gene provides a superior fitness to the heterozygous individuals. This is known as selective advantage of the heterozygotes. It provides a good example of the interplay between biological and cultural adaptation of human populations to the environment. Another example can be taken of a condition termed as hypervitaminosis A, a condition with an excess of vitamin A due to consumption of the livers and fats of marine and arctic animals, is reported to be responsible for the aberrant behavior known as pibloktoq among Eskimo peoples (Landy, 1985). Such aberrant behavior could also be linked with socio-economic conditions which may be associated with other biological factors. People living in colder regions do not have other options rather than to consume sea animals and animals with fat. Taking the biological perspective into consideration, fat is essential for people living in colder region for better metabolism. In the other way round only those kinds of food rich in fat are available within their environment and consumption of excess amount of fat can lead to hypervitaminosis A. This condition can also be seen as the interaction between biology and culture, how human biology have adapted in certain environment of nature practicing certain culture or how nature has led humans to adapt certain culture that has made the human biology get accustomed to its environment.

Culture and Nature

Human culture is very diverse and cannot be defined taking into consideration one culture alone. Different people have different interpretations about their culture and other cultures. So, one can assume that culture is anything related to man which is not biological or innate. Like food, clothing, lifestyle, tradition, customs, language, marriage patterns, housing structures almost everything is culture. We cannot judge one culture based on their food habit or clothing as there might be some reasons behind those practices. For example: The Inuit of the Arctic have realized effective cultural adaptations to cold stress in terms of clothing and shelter. They wear layered clothing, trapping air between layers to act as an insulator. They also construct temporary shelters and use snow as an excellent insulator. Permanent housing uses underground entrances and higher living areas. Because their body require more heat to maintain homeostasis and proper metabolism they eat food rich in fat and their body also have adapted to digesting more fat. Likewise, populations in dry and hot environments have realized effective cultural adaptations to heat stress using clothing and shelter designs to reduce heat production, reduce heat gain from radiation and conduction, and increase evaporation. Typical clothing for people living in dry and hot environments is light and loose. Shelters are frequently built compactly. Light colors reflect the sun, and doors and windows are kept closed during the day. Consumption of food rich in water is also seen among people living in hot regions. All these activities come under culture which every population have adapted in order to survive in their environment (Schutkowski, 2006). Our earth houses many number of people and they live in different regions, some lives in cold, some in hot, some in high altitude and with the spinning wheel of time, every population have learned how to live in their environment and that in the long run has become their culture, culture that identified them, brings about a group of people under one culture. Like the human biology holds a characteristic called adaption, similarly culture is also adaptive in nature. One gets born in a culture but one can adapted to different culture at the same time based on the environment one lives in and that is only to survive for long. The different advanced technologies used at the area of agriculture can also be seen as cultural practice for better and faster yielding of crops to increase the possibilities of gaining profit. Material culture and the technology were believed to be most affected by the environment. If we take a glimpse of the history of material culture of our ancestors and compare with the present day, we can see the intense increase and varieties of material culture at present due to the growing advancement in technologies which again is the outcome of the human skills for better livelihood. However, it should be kept in mind that not just human capacities and cultural heritage determines the material culture but it is the environment that holds the key. People with skills are of less importance if the environment does not provide them with materials to use their skills on (Holmes, 1919).

Interplay between Nature and Culture has always been a complex one to determine. It is hard to define the relationship between culture and nature as one cannot conclusively define the past based on assumptions and the inter linkage between culture and nature can be predicted to be as old as human existence. All cultures are in fact the outcome of various faces of nature. In every culture of the past, the act of nature is depicted. Our ancestors considered nature as giver and considered themselves as nature’s children. Till today in many cultures, mostly among tribes, nature holds an important place. Nature has always been considered superior to all in all cultures. Different cultures have different interpretation of nature. In many societies, rituals based on sacrificial offerings to nature are conducted before and after harvest. In many cultures any illness is treated as bad omen of nature and again rituals are performed to make the Mother Nature play smooth. Many cultures perform rituals before consuming anything provided by nature. In any culture, nature has always been considered as a superior force that has power to give as well as take.

Man, Culture and Nature as Friends and Foes

Human, Culture and Nature are the entities which are tied by the same rope and every act from one end somehow affects all. In one hand, culture is the act of humans; particularly the act adapted to survive the threats of nature and in the other hand, human culture seem to play hard on nature which is hampering survival. It is to be understood that, the act for survival should not be at the expense of causing threat to nature as a matter of fact that the act in long run can hamper human survival. If we trace down the history, the hunting and gathering societies solely relied on nature yet they did not exploit nature until human culture evolved. The emergence of agriculture marks a transition from taking what is required for survival to exploiting nature for gaining more.

The evolution of simple societies to more sophisticated ones, the growing needs of the growing population, advancement in technologies, and globalization of economy every aspect of man for better survival tends to rely on keeping nature at stake. If one takes from the environment one should also give to the environment but in this fast growing world, people do not seem to look into the serious negative outcome of the present act. The lack of awareness about nature is leading to global warming and climate change. the excess use of resources in the form of fossil fuels can result in the extinction and scarcity of these resources for our future generations. Although some initiatives are being taken to protect nature but the growing developmental assignments are at much higher pace and in greater deal. It is uncertain if the beauty of nature and its resources can be preserved and left out for our future generations or it only manages to survive in pictures and stories. The choice remains in the hands of the present generation whether to direct our culture against the nature and let our future suffer or find alternative measures to restore the long lost friendship with nature (Gadgil and Guha, 1995).

Summary

The relationship between Man, Culture and Nature has many interpretations as it can be seen as the wheels of a cart that goes hand in hand. Many theories have emerged so far that has tried to explain the unresolved mystery about the emergence of culture, whether it is an accidental act or the act based on nature. Well, the answers lie in what an individual wants to believe in. The idea of environmental determinism and possibilism throws some lights on what may be the cause of cultural emergence and evolution. Looking back to the history our forefathers seem to have lived as hunters and gatherers wandering into the wilderness in search of food and shelter. They owned hunting tools as their possessions which can be taken as a culture that emerged due to its need. They tend to believe themselves as a part of nature and never exploited nature.

The introduction of agriculture marks an important transition of culture and the relationship of man with nature. The lifestyles became more sedentary, the idea of storing resources for future emerged that led to the inventions of material culture like potteries. Different tool technologies emerged, social hierarchy started to develop. With the close contact with animals they had started to domesticate animals, which led to the emergence of various diseases. Nature no longer remained natural and rich but exploited over and over again till present day. However, it is also contested that environment molds the culture but do not cause it. The question here lies in what made culture to emerge? The answer is again inconclusive because it is not just the human capacities that can bring about the change but the nature should also favor the capabilities to put it in use.

If we look through the biological perspective the relationship between man and nature, adaptation tends to play a vital role. Humans have been gifted with the quality to adapt to the changing course of nature. So, if the body is exposed to a specific environment, it tends to acclimatize and in the long run some genetic changes can possibly occur which makes them more suitable to survive than other people who are alien to that environment. People of lower altitude areas can suffer from hypoxia in higher altitude regions, their body may acclimatize to the environment after a long stay and if their stay prolonged for generations then there can be some genetic changes in the following generations which make them fit into the environment.

The bio-cultural perspective on the other hand makes the relationship between man, culture and nature more elaborated. It is the cultural practices that lead to the change in human biology. The cultural practices are again linked with the environment possibilism. The areas where agriculture is possible people tend to suffer from diseases but some diseases have caused mutation in human genes which have made them to resist from diseases. Example can be of sickle cell anemia.

Culture and nature have always played a vital role in human survival. People have adapted culture to survive the threats of nature or nature has led them to adapt the culture is hard to explain. Different people of different areas have different cultures which possibly would have emerged to adapt to the environment or because they planned to live in that area they must have adapted the culture suitable for that area. Like the different foods, lifestyles, clothing, housing styles, etc.

Man and nature always lived together and the balance was always maintained not until human wants grew rapidly that brought about much advancement in technologies to exploit nature and have more. Culture was for survival and now the strategies for survival is deteriorating nature and the threats of nature is only getting worse, this human behavior is also a culture that is responsible for the doom that humans has brought upon all. The activities of humans if not controlled earlier, the exploitation of nature if not stopped now can break the line which has already been disbalanced.

The relationship between the three; man, culture and nature only tends to get broad if different perspectives are taken into consideration. But the idea is the relationship is a complex one and man should not underestimate nature and try to break the bond. The focus should be more on how to mold culture in such a way that the relationship with nature can be made a healthy one. Of course one cannot alter what has already been lost but the actions can make to protect what has been left for the future generation.

References

• Bateson, G. 1963. “The Role of Somatic Change in Evolution”, Evolution. 17: 529- 539
• Darwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray
• Gadgil, M. and Guha, R. 1995. Ecology and Equity: The use and abuse of nature in contemporary India. New Delhi: Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd.
• Hardesty, L.D. 1977. Ecological Anthropology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Holmes, W.H. Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology
• Kroeber, A.L. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Landy, D. 1985. “Pibloktoq (Hysteria) and Inuit nutrition: Possible implication of hypervitaminosis A”, Soc. Sci. Med., 21: 173-185.
• Livingstone, F.B. 1958. “Anthropological implications of sickle cell gene distribution in West Africa”, Amer. Anthrop., 60: 533–562.
• Prichard, E.E.E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. London: Oxford University Press.
• Schutkowski, H. 2006. Human Ecology Biocultural Adaptations in Human Communities. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Sutton, M.Q. and Anderson, E. N. 2004. Introduction to Cultural Ecology. North America: Altamira Press.

    Suggested Readings

• Alexander, R.D. 1974. “Evolution of Social Behavior”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5: 325: 383.
• Bateson, G. 1963. “The Role of Somatic Change in Evolution”, Evolution. 17: 529- 539
• Bateson, Gregory,1973. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York: Ballantine, 1972; London: Paladin.
• Berman, Morris, The Reenchantment of the World, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981.
• Evernden, Neil, 1992. The Social Creation of Nature, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
• Hardesty, L.D. 1977. Ecological Anthropology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Harris, M. 1975. Culture, People and Nature. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
• Steward, J.H. 1955. Theory of Cultural Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Williams, G.C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thoughts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.