While I could not think of a Western equivalent to the East's Tao Te Ching or principals of Buddhism, even amongst contemporary cultural trends, the West and the East's interactions with ecological systems seem much the same. According to Taun, it would seem natural beauty is selected and shaped in Eastern cultures, as it is in the West, to different effects. It seems that overall the difference between these two is merely in their aesthetic interpretations of nature. What this document seems to make most clear is the complexities or difficulties involved in creating or having a ecologically mindful culture, e.g. the "ironies" of Buddhism. What tenants would such a culture hold and how would they be effectuated within the culture?
The ironies and realities of the two cultural attitudes Tuan addresses about the relationship between humans and nature illustrates how complex and unpredictable conscious environmental decisions and attitudes can truly be. At first thought, the Eastern tradition of being harmonious with nature seems to be the more responsible, respectful position. But then we learn of the deforestation and harmful erosion that came about with that approach. The Western notion that nature is subservient to man initially came off as arrogant. But even as egotistical as humanity may be, being in a dominate position while executing rationalized decisions may be the key for a healthier natural world.
this text proved that what people might preach is far different then their actions. for instance, although so,e people follow nature loving beliefs, they disregard them for luxury and convenience. then, once humans have destroyed natural resources and devastated the land they realize how unattractive their creation is and begin planting trees. People strive for a "natural look." It seems people enjoy "natural" environments as long as it is controlled, as long as they planted the trees or built the canal. Humans are frightened of of things that they may not understand or unpredictable surroundings no matter what religion is being preached
This article holds a lot of topics within speaking about the differences between European and Asian attitudes towards nature. A topic we mentioned in class was one that seemed to really fit the main idea of this article for me. 'The definition of nature matters in terms of how it affects how we act towards and in nature itself.' For the Christians, they saw themselves as not really part of nature but above nature, that God made nature for man. For the Chinese they saw themselves as being part of nature, that man and nature were one. I got out of the article that both parties had respect for nature but truly the interference of man with nature is really inevitable. That no matter what and where nature exists man will either carry an opinion about it or try to alter its being. Going back to the main idea that I spoke about before I am starting to believe that nature and man have a strange relationship. Man needs nature in a different way than nature needs man. Man depends on nature and nature stands as this giant mystery that man will constantly and forever try to define.
The article seems to favor Asian perception of and interaction with nature, seeing it as contrary to the European tradition. Tuan emphasizes European ritual as a way to mix human labour with the natural world for the sake of man's progress at the expense of the naturally occurring. The Chinese examples were presented as superior in many ways in that they focus more on what naturally emanates from the earth, rather than glorifying products of nature by the hands of man.///However, i think it is unfair to say that (european) christianity exploits nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects, first of all because what natural feelings does nature have? and secondly because early christian ritual has deep ties with the natural world. Furthermore I do not think of Christianity as a stage in human history marked by the conquering of animism, rather as a change in perspective based out of the abstraction of man from the natural world.*(i/e raymond williams')///Despite akward mention of "masculinity" which i failed to understand in connection to everything else, the author rightly brings forth the concept of progress as an active/destructive force on the earth's natural resources/scapes.
In section III, Tuan discusses how the importance of the preservation of nature (or at least preserving a natural aesthetic) begins to be incorporated in the arts, philosophies and politics of the Chinese culture. A sense of praise and devotion is highlighted in the poetry selected and a hidden structure is revealed through the politics. Various structured grooming and upkeep plans were developed and maintained by the government in attempts to perpetuate the landscapes. Tuan highlights a sort of governmental protest against the presence of the man-made in nature with the 1877 closing of the railway. Through the various roles that nature takes on within the Chinese population its importance yet ambiguity is highlighted; it transcends China almost entirely, yet is constantly shifting in meaning.
The prescient thesis of Tuan's paper - the differing attitudes about stewardship with regards to one's environment - seems to illuminate one part of the recent sustainability dialogue, namely: the practicality of Environmental Management.
While EM (a body of practice and policy) is seen by some as a rational response to a variety of interrelated problems, it is viewed by others as an act of futility in the face of too-complicated ecological systems - the preference being to fully harmonize one's actions with what is directly sustainable (or easily comprehended as such). The former regards man's place in relation to nature as capable steward, while the latter, participatory subjugant.
My own opinion on this would be that the latter view seems eager to convert inconsistencies in scientific understanding of nature to a kind of mysticism ... this is, at the very least, not very pragmatic.
Both the West and the East adopt the "male" principle of domination of nature through celestial interpretations. City planning in China was done without any consideration for the environment. In both cases, man has influenced the way nature has evolved. The difference, according to Taun, lies between European and Chinese aesthetic value of nature. While Christian reasoning calls for man's domination of nature, eastern religions, such as Buddhism, express a concern for conservation of nature. I do agree that there was once a distinction between the east's natural garden and the formal garden of the west, but both gardens ultimately faced man's intervention with the environment.
Tuan essentially argues that while the cultural perception of nature may be slightly different in the east and west, it manifests itself in the same way. The two both use the ecological framework to their advantage. He writes, "Philosophy, nature poetry, gardens, and orderly countryside are products of civilization, but so equally are the deforested mountains, the clogged streams, and within the densely packed, walled cities, the political intrigue" I found this particularly profound-- the way one treats the earth is not merely a reflection of how one thinks of it-- writing a poem about nature does not necessarily make one a conservationist. It seems that in both cultures the appreciation of nature manifests itself as treating it like a product, consuming it. In this way, a so-called appreciation of nature can be detrimental to its existence.
Yi-Fu Tuan problematizes the assumptions about Chinese and Christian world-views toward nature and questions the direct link between cultural worldview and action. Tuan agrees that there are in fact fundamental differences. But while the “widely recognized distinction is valid and important” (177), she argues that it is also reductive. For example, the exploitive use of environmental resources, thought to be a novel invention of Christianity, in actual practice pre-dated the religion (178-179), and divinely-sanctioned intervention with nature, assumed to be a specific Christian belief, arguably has its practical parallel in the Chinese concept of cosmic alignment. Particularly notable to me was the construction of China’s first railroad- at first “well received,” it was regarded interruptive of feng-shui only after it killed a local- its effect on a person, not the earth. With Tuan’s more critical analysis the common characterization of Chinese and European worldviews as cooperative vs. dominative opposites does not hold up. Furthermore, the relationship between beliefs and application of such beliefs is not direct but mitigated by many social factors, yielding often unintentional or contradictory consequences.
The author of the article implies that Eastern countries are more respectful towards nature than Western countries. However, the article states that the Chinese, like Westerners, have damaged their environment in the past through deforestation, erosion and resource depletion. Even though Buddhism and Taoism seem to have a greater respect and appreciation of nature than Judaism and Christianity, both religious traditions are present in cultures that dominate nature in a sometimes destructive way. Both cultures were aware of the some of the negative effects of human activity on the environment, but they continued their destructive practices anyway. The more respectful Chinese attitude towards the environment did not necessarily produce more respectful or “eco-friendly” practices. It’s interesting to note that in the past both cultures are partly but not fully aware of the their environmental impact.
This text definitely turned my view of Europe and China's "environmental attitude and behavior" upside-down. In the beginning, Tuan states "...most people with an opinion at all will...reply: that the European sees nature as a subordinate to him where the Chinese sees himself as a part of nature." I will say that I am guilty of this reasoning therefore my own opinion was overruled. Tuan opened up a door when she revealed that although the Chinese feel they have to highly respect nature, their way of preservation is not entirely pure as it seems to be. She states it's art that makes their gardens appear more natural and more of a gift to nature (the gift of preservation.) But in reality, it is all man-made, therefore nature has been interfered with and the gardens are just beautiful clones. This makes me kind of sad since I always thought that the Chinese (and even some other Asian cultures)did represent the true definition of nature/natural. But I guess we, as humans, can never really convey this meaning.
Despite the seemingly opposing and diametrical cultural attitudes presented in Yi-Fu Tuan's article, complicated cross-overs and exchanges take place between the East and the West regarding man's relationship with nature. Tuan makes a particularly interesting point on p182, where he quotes two poems from the Shi Ching. He writes, "deforestation necessitated by the expansion of agriculture and the building of cities seems to have led to an appreciation of the value of trees. . . . Trees were regarded as a blessing" (183).
In concordance with our class discussion on Thursday, I found this quote quite provocative. Through deforestation (which, Tuan points out, is definitively present in both the East and the West, despite their differing attitudes towards nature), it seems that nature itself has once again been redefined. The "natural habitat" of any population reared in a deforested area is contained within that boundary. Urban dwellers, for example, experience a natural life within cities that is radically different from a natural life in, say, a desert or a forest -- yet both can be said to be natural, even though urbanites might characterize "true nature" as the untamed wilderness that they have rarely, if ever, experienced. Can nature be defined as the original location of a certain population (that is, subjectively), even if said location is entirely man-made? Or is it a subjective outside habitat in which we either do or do not exist?
I found the discussion of the Christian tradition and its influence on the western concept of nature on page 178 interesting. I also found the example of the differences between a European garden and a Chinese garden amusing. This idea that in western doctrine "holiness was invested not in landscapes but in man-made alters, shrines, churches...." which dominated the pagan world and reflected the idea that the earth belonged to man does seem to oppose the Chinese concept of nature. However, there seems to be a huge divide between the Taoist, picturesque, China and the thriving modern China whose recent economic boom has increased pollution, as well as population, immensely. The pull between mass development and conservation efforts is disturbing. In general, while eastern philosophy aims towards protection and oneness with nature, Western philosophy seems to promote ownership over land. Still, this is a vast generalization which needs to be explored further.
The readings were mainly focusing on comparing the interactions by Eastern and Western cultures and their relations with nature. There is also a more intricate focus on the religious values of each of these views. The Christian believes that man should dominate nature. Its a man run society. In the west capitalism skews peoples motives or beliefs on preserving nature,The East becomes a template for the critique on the Evil Western Ideologies on how to treat the environment. But after reading the article you come to realize that we (being the west and the east) will throw out our previous ideals and values when money is on the line. Regardles of our preconicved religious or cultural ideals.
16 comments:
While I could not think of a Western equivalent to the East's Tao Te Ching or principals of Buddhism, even amongst contemporary cultural trends, the West and the East's interactions with ecological systems seem much the same. According to Taun, it would seem natural beauty is selected and shaped in Eastern cultures, as it is in the West, to different effects. It seems that overall the difference between these two is merely in their aesthetic interpretations of nature. What this document seems to make most clear is the complexities or difficulties involved in creating or having a ecologically mindful culture, e.g. the "ironies" of Buddhism. What tenants would such a culture hold and how would they be effectuated within the culture?
The ironies and realities of the two cultural attitudes Tuan addresses about the relationship between humans and nature illustrates how complex and unpredictable conscious environmental decisions and attitudes can truly be. At first thought, the Eastern tradition of being harmonious with nature seems to be the more responsible, respectful position. But then we learn of the deforestation and harmful erosion that came about with that approach. The Western notion that nature is subservient to man initially came off as arrogant. But even as egotistical as humanity may be, being in a dominate position while executing rationalized decisions may be the key for a healthier natural world.
this text proved that what people might preach is far different then their actions. for instance, although so,e people follow nature loving beliefs, they disregard them for luxury and convenience. then, once humans have destroyed natural resources and devastated the land they realize how unattractive their creation is and begin planting trees. People strive for a "natural look." It seems people enjoy "natural" environments as long as it is controlled, as long as they planted the trees or built the canal. Humans are frightened of of things that they may not understand or unpredictable surroundings no matter what religion is being preached
Melina said:
This article holds a lot of topics within speaking about the differences between European and Asian attitudes towards nature. A topic we mentioned in class was one that seemed to really fit the main idea of this article for me. 'The definition of nature matters in terms of how it affects how we act towards and in nature itself.' For the Christians, they saw themselves as not really part of nature but above nature, that God made nature for man. For the Chinese they saw themselves as being part of nature, that man and nature were one. I got out of the article that both parties had respect for nature but truly the interference of man with nature is really inevitable. That no matter what and where nature exists man will either carry an opinion about it or try to alter its being. Going back to the main idea that I spoke about before I am starting to believe that nature and man have a strange relationship. Man needs nature in a different way than nature needs man. Man depends on nature and nature stands as this giant mystery that man will constantly and forever try to define.
The article seems to favor Asian perception of and interaction with nature, seeing it as contrary to the European tradition. Tuan emphasizes European ritual as a way to mix human labour with the natural world for the sake of man's progress at the expense of the naturally occurring. The Chinese examples were presented as superior in many ways in that they focus more on what naturally emanates from the earth, rather than glorifying products of nature by the hands of man.///However, i think it is unfair to say that (european) christianity exploits nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects, first of all because what natural feelings does nature have? and secondly because early christian ritual has deep ties with the natural world. Furthermore I do not think of Christianity as a stage in human history marked by the conquering of animism, rather as a change in perspective based out of the abstraction of man from the natural world.*(i/e raymond williams')///Despite akward mention of "masculinity" which i failed to understand in connection to everything else, the author rightly brings forth the concept of progress as an active/destructive force on the earth's natural resources/scapes.
In section III, Tuan discusses how the importance of the preservation of nature (or at least preserving a natural aesthetic) begins to be incorporated in the arts, philosophies and politics of the Chinese culture. A sense of praise and devotion is highlighted in the poetry selected and a hidden structure is revealed through the politics. Various structured grooming and upkeep plans were developed and maintained by the government in attempts to perpetuate the landscapes. Tuan highlights a sort of governmental protest against the presence of the man-made in nature with the 1877 closing of the railway. Through the various roles that nature takes on within the Chinese population its importance yet ambiguity is highlighted; it transcends China almost entirely, yet is constantly shifting in meaning.
The prescient thesis of Tuan's paper - the differing attitudes about stewardship with regards to one's environment - seems to illuminate one part of the recent sustainability dialogue, namely: the practicality of Environmental Management.
While EM (a body of practice and policy) is seen by some as a rational response to a variety of interrelated problems, it is viewed by others as an act of futility in the face of too-complicated ecological systems - the preference being to fully harmonize one's actions with what is directly sustainable (or easily comprehended as such). The former regards man's place in relation to nature as capable steward, while the latter, participatory subjugant.
My own opinion on this would be that the latter view seems eager to convert inconsistencies in scientific understanding of nature to a kind of mysticism ... this is, at the very least, not very pragmatic.
Both the West and the East adopt the "male" principle of domination of nature through celestial interpretations. City planning in China was done without any consideration for the environment. In both cases, man has influenced the way nature has evolved. The difference, according to Taun, lies between European and Chinese aesthetic value of nature. While Christian reasoning calls for man's domination of nature, eastern religions, such as Buddhism, express a concern for conservation of nature. I do agree that there was once a distinction between the east's natural garden and the formal garden of the west, but both gardens ultimately faced man's intervention with the environment.
Tuan essentially argues that while the cultural perception of nature may be slightly different in the east and west, it manifests itself in the same way. The two both use the ecological framework to their advantage. He writes, "Philosophy, nature poetry, gardens, and orderly countryside are products of civilization, but so equally are the deforested mountains, the clogged streams, and within the densely packed, walled cities, the political intrigue" I found this particularly profound-- the way one treats the earth is not merely a reflection of how one thinks of it-- writing a poem about nature does not necessarily make one a conservationist. It seems that in both cultures the appreciation of nature manifests itself as treating it like a product, consuming it. In this way, a so-called appreciation of nature can be detrimental to its existence.
Yi-Fu Tuan problematizes the assumptions about Chinese and Christian world-views toward nature and questions the direct link between cultural worldview and action. Tuan agrees that there are in fact fundamental differences. But while the “widely recognized distinction is valid and important” (177), she argues that it is also reductive. For example, the exploitive use of environmental resources, thought to be a novel invention of Christianity, in actual practice pre-dated the religion (178-179), and divinely-sanctioned intervention with nature, assumed to be a specific Christian belief, arguably has its practical parallel in the Chinese concept of cosmic alignment. Particularly notable to me was the construction of China’s first railroad- at first “well received,” it was regarded interruptive of feng-shui only after it killed a local- its effect on a person, not the earth. With Tuan’s more critical analysis the common characterization of Chinese and European worldviews as cooperative vs. dominative opposites does not hold up. Furthermore, the relationship between beliefs and application of such beliefs is not direct but mitigated by many social factors, yielding often unintentional or contradictory consequences.
The author of the article implies that Eastern countries are more respectful towards nature than Western countries. However, the article states that the Chinese, like Westerners, have damaged their environment in the past through deforestation, erosion and resource depletion. Even though Buddhism and Taoism seem to have a greater respect and appreciation of nature than Judaism and Christianity, both religious traditions are present in cultures that dominate nature in a sometimes destructive way. Both cultures were aware of the some of the negative effects of human activity on the environment, but they continued their destructive practices anyway. The more respectful Chinese attitude towards the environment did not necessarily produce more respectful or “eco-friendly” practices. It’s interesting to note that in the past both cultures are partly but not fully aware of the their environmental impact.
This text definitely turned my view of Europe and China's "environmental attitude and behavior" upside-down. In the beginning, Tuan states "...most people with an opinion at all will...reply: that the European sees nature as a subordinate to him where the Chinese sees himself as a part of nature." I will say that I am guilty of this reasoning therefore my own opinion was overruled. Tuan opened up a door when she revealed that although the Chinese feel they have to highly respect nature, their way of preservation is not entirely pure as it seems to be. She states it's art that makes their gardens appear more natural and more of a gift to nature (the gift of preservation.) But in reality, it is all man-made, therefore nature has been interfered with and the gardens are just beautiful clones.
This makes me kind of sad since I always thought that the Chinese (and even some other Asian cultures)did represent the true definition of nature/natural. But I guess we, as humans, can never really convey this meaning.
-Jacqueline Gallerson
Despite the seemingly opposing and diametrical cultural attitudes presented in Yi-Fu Tuan's article, complicated cross-overs and exchanges take place between the East and the West regarding man's relationship with nature. Tuan makes a particularly interesting point on p182, where he quotes two poems from the Shi Ching. He writes, "deforestation necessitated by the expansion of agriculture and the building of cities seems to have led to an appreciation of the value of trees. . . . Trees were regarded as a blessing" (183).
In concordance with our class discussion on Thursday, I found this quote quite provocative. Through deforestation (which, Tuan points out, is definitively present in both the East and the West, despite their differing attitudes towards nature), it seems that nature itself has once again been redefined. The "natural habitat" of any population reared in a deforested area is contained within that boundary. Urban dwellers, for example, experience a natural life within cities that is radically different from a natural life in, say, a desert or a forest -- yet both can be said to be natural, even though urbanites might characterize "true nature" as the untamed wilderness that they have rarely, if ever, experienced. Can nature be defined as the original location of a certain population (that is, subjectively), even if said location is entirely man-made? Or is it a subjective outside habitat in which we either do or do not exist?
I found the discussion of the Christian tradition and its influence on the western concept of nature on page 178 interesting. I also found the example of the differences between a European garden and a Chinese garden amusing. This idea that in western doctrine "holiness was invested not in landscapes but in man-made alters, shrines, churches...." which dominated the pagan world and reflected the idea that the earth belonged to man does seem to oppose the Chinese concept of nature. However, there seems to be a huge divide between the Taoist, picturesque, China and the thriving modern China whose recent economic boom has increased pollution, as well as population, immensely. The pull between mass development and conservation efforts is disturbing. In general, while eastern philosophy aims towards protection and oneness with nature, Western philosophy seems to promote ownership over land. Still, this is a vast generalization which needs to be explored further.
Matt said:
The readings were mainly focusing on comparing the interactions by
Eastern and Western cultures and their relations with nature. There is also a more intricate focus on the religious values of each of these views. The Christian believes that man should dominate nature. Its a man run society. In the west capitalism skews peoples motives or beliefs on preserving nature,The East becomes a template for the critique on the Evil Western Ideologies on how to treat the environment. But after reading the article you come to realize that we (being the west and the east) will throw out our previous ideals and values when money is on the line. Regardles of our preconicved religious or cultural ideals.
Post a Comment