Social Constructions of Nature - Notes

What Do We Mean by Nature?

Natural products, ingredients, parks, and the concept of 'Mother Nature' all contribute to our understanding. It raises questions such as whether it is possible to find 'nature' nowadays and whether 'nature' means the same to everyone.

Castree (2014) notes a widespread tendency to believe in a natural world existing independently of our attempts to understand it.

The Dictionary of HG (2009) defines nature as:

• The essence or defining property of something.

• A material realm untouched by human activity.

• The entire living world, including the human species.

Terms often related to nature include wilderness, landscape, and natural hazards. Nature is a highly problematic and politically powerful term (Evans, 2016; Hull, 2018; Robbins, 2022).

Nature As…

An Economic Ideal

Nature is transformed into resources that fuel the economy and support civilization.

• Factory: Nature can be managed to improve its efficiency according to market demand.

• Service provider: Nature provides free ecosystem services that can potentially be monetized or privatized (Hull, 2018).

A Scientific Ideal

Often related to the 'balance of nature,' it is linked to two contested discourses:

• Human interventions will disrupt nature’s balance.

• Nature is robust and can balance itself.

Both "scientific discourses" can be used to validate particular arguments (Hull, 2018).

An Aesthetic Ideal

A sublime and beautiful evocation of nature is often related to 'unoccupied' landscapes and popularized by artists and landscape architects (e.g., reserves, national parks).

A Moral Ideal

Understanding nature as a source of inspiration, rationale, guidance, and justification for arguments and ideologies (e.g., God gave humanity power over nature…) (Hull, 2018).

Hull (2018) suggests that "nature" can be defined in many ways, each depending upon the different values, cultures, and purposes of the people using the term.

Social Construction

Builds on constructivism: reality is socially constructed based on people’s previous experiences and differing social norms.

Robbins (2022) defines it as "Any category, condition, or thing that exists or is understood to have certain characteristics because people socially agree that it does."

Relies on how different social groups 'create' and 'fabricate' the worlds they inhabit, experience, and represent (Ekers, 2018, based on Evans, 2008). Depends on the social context (ensemble of social relations in a particular space and time).

Social structures and institutions often 'naturalize' their own ways of life, organization, and power distribution, such as racial hierarchies, gender roles, money, and the division between poor and rich countries.

A social construction approach allows the identification of 'naturalized assumptions' that often support particular holds on power. Hence, this approach is a useful political tool and a form of social critique.

Questions to consider (Robbins, 2022):

• Is this claim or concept natural, inevitable, timeless, and universal?

• If not, at what point was it invented? Under what conditions?

• What are the social, political, or environmental effects of believing that this claim or concept is true, natural, or inevitable?

• Would we be better off doing away with the concept altogether, or rethinking it in a fundamental way?

Social Construction of Nature

As a social construct, the idea of nature varies for different social groups in diverse times and places.

The construction depends on the experiences and knowledge of the viewer, who is, in turn, influenced by the society and culture where they live.

Useful for understanding why peoples from different places and times relate differently with nature.

Malthus’s Principle of Population (1798) highlights natural limits. Labeling something as “natural” has deep implications. For instance, is competition a natural behavior?

Deeply influenced by neoliberal discourses such as economic development. Monetary value attaches to natural resources and transforms it. Notions of nature have been (and can be) used to legitimize injustices and hide root causes of environmental degradation.

'Natural' parks hide the processes behind them (e.g., colonization, land-grabbing) and justified settler-colonialism in some cases. This involves the historical removal of voices and practices of Indigenous people. Social constructions of nature have deep political implications.

Discourse

Frameworks that embrace a particular set of narratives, concepts, ideologies, and practices.

They are power-embedded, naturalizing and universalizing a particular view of the world.

They are heterogeneous, regulated, embedded, and situated.

Discourses can influence our understanding of nature (e.g., the tragedy of the commons). Environmental discourse analysis is a method to address these discourses considering the social context.

Social Production of Nature

Nature has been transformed for millennia depending on social relations. Social relations influence our relations with nature. In capitalism, nature tends to be commodified. Nature management looks to increase efficiency or productivity.

Karl Marx (1980) stated that not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction (e.g., the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field, etc.), but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs, and new language.

Nature and the Anthropocene

Currently, human activity has impacted all parts of the planet (Anthropocene). It is harder to draw a clear line between realms: ‘nature’ & ‘culture’. A new system is needed, with new conceptions of beauty and science focusing on adaptation rather than control.

Raises questions such as how far should we manipulate biology, weather, and geological processes (geo-engineering)? "What kind of nature do we want?" (Smith, 1996).

Memories and Future of Nature

Memories of a place interact with the framing of the future of such place. Our social context influences our visions of the future of nature.

Limits to Constructivism

Relativism: all beliefs, truths, and facts are relative to their social context. Should we reduce science to its social context? Are scientific facts reliable?

Constructivism argues for a middle ground: scientific truths are not a 100% reflection of nature, but it is not reduced to the social context.

Critical Reflections

Nature can be used to describe and justify various factors. Nature as a construct reflects the cultural, political, and spiritual beliefs of a society. Nature as an idea is infused with power. It is important to consider who are included/excluded from our idea of nature.

Conclusions

'Nature’ cannot be taken for granted. There are various constructions of nature depending on the social context.

The social construction of nature in some environmental discourses has been used and is used to perpetuate power structures.

Our social context influences our future imaginaries of nature and our relationship with it.

The current mode of production (capitalism) influences social relations and therefore the production of nature.

Constructivism does not escape criticism and, indeed, has limits and dangers(!)