A different value: Nature
As human beings, we place value on the things around us; our surroundings and our experiences mean something. If you look around the world, though, you’ll find that the way we place value on things doesn’t match the way someone else’s culture does. Exploring these differences can give us insight and ideas for stories set in alternate worlds. Place a different value on something whose value we take for granted, and you may just surprise and fascinate your reader.
Today I’m thinking about nature. There are a lot of things that have brought the topic up for me: my recent trip to Yosemite, the Gulf oil spill, a recent article about the value of “green exercise” for mental health (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8654350.stm).
The value placed on nature varies both across cultures and over time. The Biblical view places mankind in charge of nature and licenses our species to use nature as we see fit. In that kind of model, gaining control over nature is a good thing – this would probably involve winning safety against natural threats as well as organizing what grows in one’s garden – growing food would be a part of this, to my mind. It would be interesting to ask whether portrayals of nature as relentless and unforgiving, like those by Jack London, can be included in this view. It’s possible, since gaining control of nature would take people out of danger (even though in the case of The Call of the Wild it can’t be done). On the other hand, the triumph of nature in a story can be interpreted in different ways.
Another often-seen view of nature is that of nature as good, as something we shouldn’t try to control, and particularly not to subjugate. The Garden of Eden would probably be one sort of example of this. Pocahontas has this going on in spades, and in fact there’s a common association between the idea of nature preservation as good and the image of the noble savage. The view that we are a part of nature has grown stronger and stronger over time, influenced in part by the growth of environmentalism. Science fiction has brought us an extreme extension of this idea: that of the ecosystem possessing a collective mind. Midworld by Alan Dean Foster contains one example of this idea, and James Cameron’s Avatar another.
There’s more complexity to be had, though, than just seeing nature as good or bad. The Japanese philosophy of gardening falls at an interesting point between these two extremes, because the idea there is to build a relationship between wild nature and man-controlled nature. (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ealac/V3613/gardens/overview.html) If you look at a bonsai, you can see part of this philosophy at work: the bonsai is planted in a tiny pot, and in that context the shoot of a full-sized tree is trained into such a shape that it looks like a miniature version of the real thing. I think it’s fascinating that the goal of human control in this case is to emulate actual nature on a different scale.
“The garden can imitate the wider landscape in miniature by the construction of artificial hills for tiny mountains and valleys, meandering pathways and streams. Viewing points are essential in the Japanese garden. The arrangement of features within the garden must consider the different views, and what will be seen from each viewing position.” (http://www.gosfordregionalgallery.com/garden.htm) Japanese gardens, as they design their viewing points, are also known for trying to create a scene that incorporates both the planned areas of the garden and the nature around it, making them match and flow into one another.
Nature can be good. It can be terrifying. It can be majestic, even religious. It can be our servant. It can be our mother. Or it can be so normal that it’s hardly noticed. Whichever value you pick, keep in mind that that value will probably be nuanced in different societal contexts – different aspects of nature may take precedence or be held at different levels of importance. Much of its value will be based on what part it plays in the life of a people.
Woodland dwellers might see it as normal and unnoticed, or possibly they might see it reverently, or as a mother figure.
City dwellers might see it as something vague to yearn for, or they might perceive it as a symbol that people argue over, or they might be frightened of its realities.
Cave dwellers might perceive nature as riotous and out of control, or as a paradise.
The possibilities are endless.
Keep in mind as you write that the way a society perceives nature will influence not only their behavior towards it, but also the language they use in thoughts or conversations about it. Explore how nuances of thought are reflected in language, and what we imply through speech (and thought) about the values we hold. Here are some examples to consider:
“Ejii fought against her surety that this time the world really was ending, that the Sahara Desert was finally finishing what it had started, swallowing up the rest of what was there.” (Nnedi Okorafor, The Shadow Speaker)
“Our great mother Eywa does not take sides, Jake; only protects the balance of life.” (Neytiri, from James Cameron’s Avatar)
“God damn, but he was sick of green.” (a human in Alan Dean Foster’s Midworld)
“‘Your honor, you mean you want me to go into the Sticks? I mean,’ he said, groping for words, ‘you want me to play for the Muckfeet?” (Alvah Gustad in Damon Knight’s “Natural State”)
In countless stories, we see that Nature has meaning to people. I encourage you to think about what nature means – and what it could mean – to the people in yours.
I’m reading a book right now that has a subplot that’s exactly one of your suggestions: city people yearning for the vague idea of nature. I’m certain that if they achieve their goal it won’t at all be what they expect. The book is Dreams of Sex and Stage Diving by Martin Millar.
I used to read a lot of nature writing. The best examples are a great way to get the feel of a place, and of attitudes toward a place: Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey and The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson come quickly to mind.
Farm City by Novella Carpenter, about starting an urban farm in Oakland, takes an entirely different approach to nature, and could be a good starting point for story ideas.
Thanks for your comment. Those sound like interesting books to check out.
Love this whole wedding shoot! The clupoe is stunning and the photos you took of them are fantastic!! A true Storybook wedding and you caught so many special moments the photos are incredible I am sure the clupoe was thrilled. I feel like I am at the wedding as I am looking at them well done E. Luna!!!
Without going as far as embracing Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, we are part of nature because we evolved on this planet, and co-evolved with its other lifeforms.
As you point out, there are many SF stories about sentient ecosystems. Off the top of my head, Le Guin wrote two such: The Word for World is Forest (which is one of the many works that Cameron mashed together in Avatar) and Vaster than Empires and More Slow. Then there is Joan Slonczewski’s A Door into Ocean.
In some ways, the gatherer versus agriculturalist lifestyles encapsulate the two end-point ways of thinking about nature, with shepherding and hunting being somewhere in the middle. The older animistic religions did not see nature as an active adversary — more like a companion, though one to be reckoned with. The split between humans and nature became full-blown when monotheistic religions started gaining hold, because they were based on pyramidal hierarchies.
That’s a really good point about gatherer vs agriculturist cultures, Athena. I admit I was thinking more abou the “Noble Savage” perception when I wrote my earlier comment. It seems to me that it’s about control. The transition from gatherer to agriculturalist led to both increasing (attempted) control of and separation from nature, which in turn made the “Noble Savage” and romanticization of nature possible.
Sarah, exactly: invariably, you only idealize something you are are distanced from.
Also, Juliette, the Japanese example you used is the ultimate control. Not only is a bonsai a tree forced to become a miniature; it is also sculpted to look “natural” and effortless. It’s a double layer of control. It produces masterpieces, like any art that adopts this path (all forms of “classic” dancing and music-making across cultures belong to this category). But there is no question that implicit in its appreciation are the layers of effort it took to make it look casual.
Yes, Athena, I agree with you, and thanks for the additional examples. I think it’s very useful to trace the basis of beliefs about nature back to the gatherer/agriculturalist/hunter level of human culture. It’s hard to write a post of this nature because there are so many millions of deeper directions one *could* go… I’m very glad you made the point. I have a friend who thinks the Japanese attitude is quite creepy, and in fact I think her reaction has to do with what you call the double layer of control. On the other hand, I don’t think that idea of control is an inherent part of the philosophy, but likely more of an outsider’s view on it. My intent in bringing it up was to show that variations on a theme of control of nature can differ from one another in nuanced ways.
Great article!
One of my WIP’s has two characters who view nature and their places in it very differently, so this piece is very relevant to stuff going on in my head right now.
Thanks again for giving me things to think about!
Thanks, Brad! I’m glad it was helpful.
While I agree that the Bible well establishes what humanity did with its dominion over nature, looking into Biblical languages and research: the Bible’s idea of the correct balance was for man to take CARE of nature and use what he needed for himself. Think, yes, Garden of Eden. Adam was the CARETAKER of the garden. So it was all about balance as well, and not just dominion.
Well, yes — but the tone was rather decidedly paternalistic. That, coupled with the “be fruitful” bit, rather set the stage.
True, but if the Bible is to be believed (and I do), sin was the reason that happened and it was all man’s screw-up.
Even if I believed in the Bible (and I don’t), the explicit instructions about lording it over nature preceded the fall.
Not so. I actually read my Bible. Before the fall, God said to take care of all nature and rule over it and take care of the Garden of Eden. Nature had no weeds and there was nothing at all to destroy. Man didn’t even make clothes, only ate fruit and vegetables (which is what happens in a good ecosystem).
Only AFTER sin was there any killing or destruction of nature at all. So no, the Bible does not in any way approve of man doing whatever he feels like to nature. It simply gave a pretty evensided report of how badly man and sin screwed everything up.
I very much respect that many people do not believe this account. Fine by me. But I refuse to agree that death and wanton use of nature were God’s idea in the Bible because that simply isn’t true.
Most of the entire book talks about man’s proprietary ideas, INCLUDING what he did with all the laws God did give. It’s rather unimpressed with man’s use of God’s laws.
So, to use your own words, which part of “rule over nature” is unclear to you?
We’ve strayed off the path of science here. There can be no single verifiably correct interpretation of religious text, and reference to it in the post above was only to cite it as one source informing humanity’s relationship with nature. SiMF isn’t the best place to challenge the validity of anyone’s interpretation of any religious text. Our time will be better spent if we stay on topic; examining the ways we relate to nature, and speculating about alternatives for humans and other people.
I was addressing a very specific line in this article: “The Biblical view places mankind in charge of nature and licenses our species to use nature as we see fit.” If as we see fit is destructive and sinful, NO, the Bible does not say we can or should be allowed to do that. It simply says we DID that. The Hebrew concept of dominion as granted in Genesis actually applies to caretaking (just as we can’t use our kids as we see fit, even if parents “rule over” them).
My SOLE point, which while not scientific is relevant to the article as it comes FROM the article.
Other than that, I simply enjoyed the piece.
The parent-child relationship is asymmetric in terms of power. And until very recently, parents could do what they saw fit with their children (and husbands with their wives) by law — much of it religious, or at least not separated from secular. The mindset that informed these laws also informed the stance towards nature.
Ah! Now I see. You could’ve said earlier you were discussing RELIGIOUS teachings. They are quite another animal (with a million ad infinitum more branches) than the BIBLICAL orders at Eden.
Enough. This isn’t a situation in which you’re going to find validation in semantics. Let this point go and get back on topic.
Please do not insult my intelligence, and everyone else’s. I, too, read the Bible — the New Testament in the original Alexandrian Greek. And I grew up in a society that did not separate church from state at the time. Playing semantic games can be amusing, especially for adolescents, but it eventually gets tiresome.
People who live in secular societies and decide to be religious always have recourse to secular law when the going gets rough. In short, they’re playing at it and can drop it at their convenience. People who live in theocracies have no such choice.
I understand that, but regardless of what the bible actually says (which depends entirely upon translations of translations unless you read ancient languages), there is no question that Western society has used it as justification for running roughshod over nature. Among other things. The fact that many people in Western culture operate under a ‘biblical view’ that is both counter to the text and atrocious doesn’t change the fact that they use it to justify their actions. They may be doing it wrong, but it’s what they do.
Speaking as someone who has read a few versions of the bible (among other religious tests), I’ll say this: Nobody does it ‘right’. And every faith has its abusers. When the abuse becomes the standard, then you have the sort of behavior and justification Juliette described. In that case, the text itself is not important. It’s not about the instruction manual they swear by, it’s about their actions.
We can talk about the things people do and the justifications they use without derailing the conversation like this.
I kept MY point to the line in the article and did not derail the conversation. If Athena discussed how that plays out in society, you may decide whether that was irrelevant. My point was that Juliette Wade’s statement (the article writer, not commenter) was slightly inaccurate because I DO study ancient languages, etc. and don’t get much off into modern paraphrases.
And understanding that Athena was not debating the article topic but another one entirely meant that I could leave it be and should make my exit. Apologies if my exit seemed offensive to you. That was me blushing and going “I misunderstood YOUR point, Athena. Adios.”
As the blog moderator, I get the last word on whether something is on or off topic.
Now let it go.
Thanks for the interesting article, Juliette. While I’ve used nature to shape characters before, and had themes of this sort, I haven’t played with human control in the ways this post inspires. I didn’t understand why bonzai both attracts and repels me until the discussion in the comments, though, and I’m sure I can find something fun to do with that aspect.
You’re welcome, Margaret, and thanks for the comment. Since I mentioned it in this post I’ve actually had more than one person mention that bonsai rather attracted and repelled them, and it sounds like it’s because of that strange relationship of control with nature.