The Western Dichotomy of Nature and Culture and the Ecological Crisis

This essay examines the argument that the Western dichotomy of nature and culture has contributed to the ecological crisis. It begins by defining the dichotomy and its historical roots, highlighting the dualistic antagonism between culture and nature. The paper then analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of this argument, exploring how the Western perspective, influenced by anthropocentrism, has led to the exploitation of nature. The role of anthropocentrism is central to the discussion, with the essay arguing that the human-centric view, which prioritizes human needs over the environment, is a significant driver of the crisis. The essay further explores how this perspective has shaped societal views and behaviors toward nature, resulting in environmental degradation. It also considers the ethical implications of environmental decision-making, emphasizing the need for a shift towards ecocentrism to foster sustainability and respect for the web of life. The paper concludes by advocating for a re-evaluation of our relationship with nature, suggesting that recognizing the intrinsic value of all elements of nature is crucial for mitigating the ecological crisis.

Running head: WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 1
An argument considered in this unit is that the Western dichotomy of Nature
and Culture has, in part, caused the ecological crisis we are currently
experiencing. Describe this argument and consider its strengths and
weaknesses, paying careful attention to draw on the role of anthropocentrism
in your analysis.

WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 2
WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS
The Western dichotomy of Nature and Culture has caused the
ecological crisis we are currently experiencing. This paper focuses on
describing the above argument by considering its weaknesses and strengths
while paying closer attention to draw on the role of anthropocentrism in the
analysis.
The western dichotomy of Nature and Culture
It remains frequently accepted that the western perception of the
place of humanity in nature stays subjugated by a dualistic antagonism
between culture and nature (the western dichotomy of nature and culture).
Conventionally, such has emerged from the nature externalization in both
cognitive and productive practices; case of such externalization has been
generalized. It is believed that this dualism might be decomposed via the
identification of predominant aspects in every specific instantiation and
showcasing that their stringent distinction vanishes under thorough
examination.
However, this viewpoint presents a philosophical challenge which is to
replace the concrete socio-ecological examination for foundational
metaphysics. An appraisal of the dominant interpretation of dualism history
in Western perspective showcases that the legacy remains increasingly
multi-stranded than is often admitted. In comparison, science avails
techniques for contextual examinations on how activities of humans
alongside natural processes arise. The dualism, therefore, vanishes in real
research practice.
Nonetheless, the foundational metaphysics should be contested,
chiefly due to its paralysing influence on environmental philosophy.
“Culture” equates to all human artefacts whereas “nature” corresponds to
the external environment hence culture and nature are differentiated from
one another as if they stood two distinct reality realms. This enables other
interpretations as to what the feature of their mutual relationship entails or
need to be. Culture and nature remain opposing sides in dualism which stays
harmful and calls for a contest. This dualism inevitability needs to be
rejected since it has a debilitating effect on environmental thought or
understanding of the ecological problem.
Nature remains constituted as the external object which converts to
the environment of a utilizing subject. Nature thus becomes objectified and
its elements become an object of use. A subject with an identity is also
constituted following a historical process as no subject appears from the
void. Thus, the process of identity-formation (whether at a cultural or
personal level), presupposes contrast and opposition with an “other.”
At the cultural identity level, nature remains such an “other” and the
association with the “other” remains asymmetric as well as means
domination. For example, in such opposition as male-female, the 2nd phrase
(herein female) is the “other” for the 1st one that stays dominant phrase.
Similarly, by being sphere whereby human historical identity gets formed,

WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 3
culture remains dominant to its “other,” nature; and culture converts to a
“something” in opposition to “something else” that is nature (Sponsel,
2014).
The above explanation is bolstered by an all-pervasive shadow of
Western metaphysics. Subject-object association and the resultant dualisms
get elevated to the metaphysical claim that subject-object dichotomy
remains an imperative determinant of the existence of humans. Therefore,
the dichotomy of nature and culture stays relevant to ecological thinking,
especially during the ecological crisis. This is because human wishes to know
what nature permits them and to accomplish an eventual certainty, a human
would wish to differentiate between “nature by itself as a standard” and
“nature adjusted and polluted by humans.”
Nevertheless, this is never doable since humans remain creatures of
nature, hence, discriminating between nature phenomenon as “natural” and
cultural phenomenon as “unnatural” never stands reasonable. Moreover, as
nature alters continually because of natural courses, the fact the actions by
humans alter nature can never be a diagnostic characteristic of their
“unnaturalness.” Thus, where does culture’s unnatural” emerge? In case an
unanswerable query is seriously taken, solely declarations of faith stay, and
this might ensue in environmental fundamentalism that stays haunted by
being right totalitarianism (Abram et al., 2016).
The ecological crisis entered Western environmentalism vocabulary in
1960 and several scholars have attempted to make this crisis intelligible via
the provision of historical background. It has been suggested that the
historical roots of the “current ecological crisis” stay in the religious tradition
of Judeo-Christian. This is whereby White people claimed that humans’
interactions with their environment originate from and equates to
perceptions of their nature alongside destiny, which remain codified in their
religious beliefs.
Human ecology remains conditioned deeply by beliefs regarding our
destiny and nature, which means, by religion. Thus, in the tradition of Judeo-
Christian, a man stood made in the image of God, and all creation items had
the purpose to serve the aims of humans. According to White, such a cultural
pattern explicates the emergence during the Middle Age of systematic
nature exploitation in Europe. Man’s interaction with soil stood changed
profoundly. Man, formerly, had been part of nature; presently, he was the
nature’s exploiter (Taylor, Van Wieren & Zaleha, 2016). Modern science
further came to get permeated by this very spirit.
The current ecological crisis further emerged from the need for
domination arising from the practical needs of humans to master the world
surrounding them and converted into a typical characteristic of human
existence. This was too specific differences of human beings contrasted to
other organisms, which emerged from human’s tendency to predominate
nature. Accordingly, fellow human beings alongside society in entirety
converted into domination objects that further became the motivation for
technology and science development. This is a naturalization of nature

WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 4
domination by humans via the presentation as the anthropological constant
(Tallis & Lubchenco, 2014). However, the Modern era in Europe further
accounted for the critical swift in the humanity-nature relationship. Other
scholars further emphasized on break in nature views that ensued in the
Modern Age.
Thus, the critical shift stood from nature representation as to the
organic whole to nature representation as a passive exploitation object; an
organic cosmos’ image with living female earth at the centre giving way to
the mechanistic worldview whereby nature stood reconstructed as passive
and dead, to become humans- predominated and –controlled. This transition
started in mineral ores extraction alongside later expanding into living
nature exploitation in agriculture and forestry. This stood codified in dictum
machine of Bacon, “knowledge is power” alongside in Cartesian perspective
of the globe as a mechanical machine. This stood purely the shift in
worldview. Therefore, the above interpretation implies that the societal view
of nature explicates human behaviour towards nature (Sykes, 2016).
Role of Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism is a substantial motivator ecological/ecocide/
environmental crisis, for society has madly been in constant pursuit of
project “human planet” with no consideration that humanity remains
(ultimately) wholly reliant on nature. Anthropocentrism can never deliver as
to a sustainable future whereas ecocentrism, accepts, that human remains
part of nature and hence remain responsible to respect the web of life as
well as heal the damage triggered by the ideological predominance of
anthropocentrism. Thus, this paper agrees with the statement that the
Western dichotomy of Nature and Culture has triggered the currently
experienced ecological crisis as the strengths overweigh the weakness of the
statement (Washington et al., 2017).
The anthropocentric view remains prevalent and is regarded as being
accountable for the serious ecological crisis which ranges from global
warming, depletion of ozone, and scarcity of water to biological diversity
loss. For instance, deforestation significantly contributes to global warming
whereby tress-logging implies less carbon dioxide absorption, hence
culminating in excess greenhouse gases (GHGs) trapped in the atmosphere
(Taylor, Van Wieren, & Zaleha, 2016). This has a domino effect which results
in serious climate change leading to various species' extinction because of
habitat-sabotage. From the anthropocentric perspective, individuals cut tress
down to construct houses or even offer job opportunities for low-income
class. However, this negates the innate value of trees, hence, leading to the
emergence of destructive global consequences, ecological crisis (Sykes,
2016.
Making ethical decisions linked to the environment remain extremely
paradoxical. This is because to make a decision which would benefit both
human s and nature, individuals have to weigh up the feasible consequences
and establish that which should take precedence. For instance, oil extraction

WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 5
to generate energy remains injurious to the ecosphere but gainful to humans
for a range of applications including pesticides and fuels' production besides
ecological gain (Strang, 2017). It remains obvious that deciding to utilize oil
overly as an energy resource is never an environmentally-friendly decision;
hence, striving to get alternative green energy resource remains a deeper
ecological mindset. For instance, recycling waste vegetable-oil to generate
biodiesel for powering automobiles. When we apply a recycling mentality, we
can significantly lessen the consumption of a natural resource, and, hence,
consider the nature inherent value (Sponsel, 2014).
Even though some people might argue that alternative energy
resources are expensive, utilizing nanotechnology, solar cells’ flexible sheets
have been invented with significantly reduced cost as opposed to
photovoltaic cells utilized currently. It is doubtless that people remain
capable of getting solutions for several challenges, however, sacrificing
efforts stay the desirable step, ill-advisedly, and it is never often feasible
since some times, economic and political factors change people intrinsic
decent choice (Tallis & Lubchenco, 2014). People fail to care for each other,
and this is apparent via wars, whereby several lives are considered
worthless, and via the remarkable variations between social classes. Except
individuals acknowledge the inherent value in each human being and
subsequently transform such respect towards the environment, Earth shall
stay under intense threat hence widening ecological crisis (Shoreman-
Ouimet & Kopnina, 2015).
If humanity remains born with gluttony, it stays intelligent sufficiently
to observe that it is solely facing a darker future. Failure to take
responsibility towards environmental betterment shall witness our
accountability over species of nature culminating in eventual extinction
(Rolston, 2012). Though it is infeasible to abandon anthropocentrism
immediately, we are able to differentiate our nature-consumption
consequences and subsequently intervene when essential to our survival,
and never because is an interest or desire. The ethical decision towards our
nature might be quite contradictory, and the best choice would generate less
injury to the environment (Wandesforde-Smith, 2016). The first step to
reducing ecological crisis brought about by anthropocentrism involves
granting a bird, mountain and tree their intrinsic value in ensuring a better
planet and ecocentric world (Sykes, 2016).

WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 6
References
Abram, S., Acciaioli, G., Baviskar, A., Kopnina, H., Nonini, D., & Strang, V.
(2016). Involving anthropology: Debating anthropology’s assumptions,
relevance and future. Anthropological Forum, 26(1), 74–95.
Rolston, H. (2012). New environmental ethics: the next millennium for life on
earth. Routledge.
Shoreman-Ouimet, E., & Kopnina, H. (2015). Culture and conservation:
Beyond anthropocentrism. Routledge.
Sponsel, L. E. (2014). Human impact on biodiversity: Overview. In S. A. Levin
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of biodiversity (Vol. 4, p. 137). Waltham, MA:
Academic Press.
Strang, V. (2017). Justice for all: Inconvenient truths and reconciliation in
human-non-human relations. In H. Kopnina & E. Shoreman-Ouimet
(Eds.), Routledge handbook of environmental anthropology (pp. 263–
278). New York: Routledge.

WESTERN DICHOTOMY OF NATURE & CULTURE & ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 7
Sykes, K. (2016). Globalization and the animal turn: How international trade
law contributes to global norms of animal protection. Transnational
Environmental Law, 5, 55–79.
Tallis, H., & Lubchenco, J. (2014). Working together: A call for inclusive
conservation. Nature News, 515(7525), 27.
Taylor, B., Van Wieren, G., & Zaleha, B. D. (2016). The greening of religion
hypothesis (part two): Assessing the data from Lynn White, Jr., to Pope
Francis. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture, 10(3), 306–
378.
Wandesforde-Smith, G. (2016). Bracketing Braverman: Thinking and acting
for wildlife conservation after nature. Journal of International Wildlife
Law & Policy, 19(2), 176-187.
Washington, H., Taylor, B., Kopnina, H., Cryer, P., & Piccolo, J. J. (2017). Why
ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. The Ecological
Citizen, 1, 35–41.