I didn't know what else to do after reading this paper. I had to post it for the simple reason of hoping that others will read it: that it will reach a larger audience than the 5 people she sent it to. My cousin, and anthropological passion-ista, Renee, has written this intriguing, intricate perspective on anthropological environmentalism, looking primarily at human ecology, green primitivism and studies of the New Age movement, ultimately suggesting her thoughts on the interrelationships on myth, humanity, religion, ecology and society economics and ethics.
I received my BA in Anthropology and so perhaps this has a deeper impact on me because it sort of turned on a switch for me, getting that academia wheel churning once again...but I hope that anyone who is looking for something to read other than Us Magazine, Yahoo! News, CNN or even NPR, you too can enjoy this real-life account of a studious girl in DeKalb, Illinois. Working for her dreams of becoming a primatologist.
Here it is: It's long. But enjoy, read it entirely and feel free to comment. I know this is out of the realm of my typical posts, but what is better than dispelling typical?
Green Primitivism and the New Age Movement:
An Anthropological Perspective on Environmentalism
Renée M. LaRocque
Introduction
Environmentalism has gained prominence in the political, social, intellectual, and religious domains of contemporary American society. Of long-standing interest to anthropologists (Little, 1999), it has more recently become popularized in modern American culture (Milton, 1996). A major shift to a greener sustainable life-style is on the rise in the developing world. From a worldwide concern with the effects of global warming to the everyday responsibilities of recycling, we are constantly reminded of our human impact and ecological footprint on the earth. What is man’s place in nature and what is our ecological responsibility as a species?
The notion of ‘primitive ecological wisdom’ has played a fundamental role in both the development of the Green Movement and the New Age religion in America. This paper critically examines this philosophy from an anthropological perspective by integrating research findings in the subfields of archaeology and cultural, linguistic, and physical anthropology. My research methods involved conducting a literature based review of green primitivism, ethnographic studies of the New Age religion in America, and human ecology. More precisely, this paper addresses the following: (1) environmentalism in anthropological thought, (2) the myth of primitive ecological wisdom, (3) the New Age and Neopagan movement, (4) spiritual ecology, and (5) man’s place in nature: the future of humanity. The results of this study suggest that (1) anthropologists are required to dispel the myth of primitive ecological wisdom; a return to a balanced ecological state is a fantasy (Milton, 1996), (2) it is unknown to what extent the New Age movement will create an ecologically sound society, (3) the New Age agenda is suspect, and (4) humanity’s interaction with nature is not ecological but economic (Rappaport, 1984).
The term environmentalism refers to an “explicit, active concern with the relationship between human groups and their respective environments” (Little, 1999:254). The interface between human culture, biology, and the environment has played a dominant role in scientific discourse and anthropology in particular. This paper is primarily concerned with that aspect of human behavior that goes beyond the physical environment and human activity – the cultural pattern of human behavior, the collection of specific objectives and values which shape knowledge and belief (Steward, 1955).
Environmentalism in Anthropological Thought
The concern to protect the environment is undoubtedly a reflection of us as human beings, as individual organisms living in an environment and subsequently learning about that environment through our interaction with it (Milton, 2002). A human being’s environment is social; each individual is a product of their own social experience. This is not to say that as social beings humans can only gather information from other like-beings. We are also capable of retrieving information from non-human beings in the environment (Milton, 2002), such as non-human primates. Our views of nature are nevertheless rooted in our personal experiences. While some view non-human animals as sole objects of human use, others focus on their conservation. As conscious beings – a feature which presumably distinguishes us from other animals – we experience feelings which in turn guide our actions (Milton, 2002).
Science has in a sense replaced religion in determining what constitutes ‘truth’ (Milton, 2002; Rappaport, 1984). The strength of science lies in its fundamental principle of systematically questioning its findings (Milton, 2002). This differs from myth-making in the realm of religion (Milton, 2002). What unites anthropology and Neopaganism is their inception. As anthropology turned to the ‘primitive’ and the Other as an inspiration for “how to right the wrongs of Western society,” contemporary New Age religion represents “a continuation of this critical impulse in Western culture” (Magliocco, 2004:203). Anthropology is primarily responsible for the public’s awareness that undisturbed indigenous peoples have long-term sustainable ecological practices (Kempton, 2001). Responsible for creating this myth in the first place, anthropologists are required to dispel the notion that human beings have a natural capacity to live sustainably. This popular fantasy persists in the 21st century to give environmentalists hope that there is an easy solution to environmental problems. Unfortunately there isn’t one (Milton, 1996).
Myth of Primitive Ecological Wisdom
The myth is that primitive societies, shorn of the artifice of civilization, are in harmony with
their environment through the wisdom of their folkways and that it is only the foolishness and wickedness of modern society that has rejected this. (Ellen, 1986:8)
Do indigenous peoples know how to conserve resources in ways which we have lost? Although hunter-gatherers are intimately connected to their environment (Kenrick, 2000), not all indigenous peoples interact with their environment in an eco-friendly manner (Little, 1999). To the contrary, people are prone to act in destructive ways (Milton, 1996). Although many tribal societies have achieved a state of ecological equilibrium, there are many examples of non-industrial societies destroying their forests. Interestingly, this myth is not only imposed by romantic environmentalists but is capitalized by indigenous peoples in attempts to promote themselves (Milton, 1996)!
Simpler cultures are indeed more conditioned by the environment than advanced ones (Steward, 1955), but only because their populations are small and therefore they have little impact on the environment anyway (Ellen, 1986). As Rappaport (1984) illustrates in his study of the ritual ecology of Papua New Guinea peoples, the Maring were not conscious ‘actors’ who intentionally minimized their impact on the environment. Minimal environmental damage is not the result of concerted population planning (Ellen, 1986). The idea that primitive human societies have a privileged access to “knowledge” of how best to manage environmental relations is a fantasy (Ellen, 1986; Milton, 1993).
The accumulation of anthropological research on hunter-gatherers have revealed that no human population has ever been completed isolated, and many of these “primitive” societies have been part of wider – often global – systems of exchange for many millennia (Barut-Kusimba, 2003; Ellen, 1986; Kenrick, 2000; Woodburn, 2000). It is not the conscious decision-making abilities of “tribal” actors so much as the consequence of a particular demographic, social structural, subsistence and ecological complex that is responsible for the development of a state we consider ecologically ‘balanced’ (Ellen, 1986). More importantly, once indigenous societies come in contact with the Western world they “reveal the same capacities, desires, and perhaps needs to overexploit their environment as did our European ancestors” (Redford, 1990:27; reviewed in Little, 1999).
The New Age is Upon Us
New Age and Neopagan beliefs and practices signify a trend in American religion at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century that resists institutionalization and values personal experience rather than empiricism. Their ultimate goal is “planetary consciousness” whereby the human species will live in global ecological harmony with the natural world (Pike, 2004).
Most religions have myths and Neopaganism is no exception. A myth refers to “sacred narratives believed to contain hallowed truths about the origins of things as they are today” (Magliocco, 2004:188). One such myth concerns the Age of Aquarius. The return of Quetzalcoatl, the Mayan god of peace is expected in the year 2012, and is based on the Mayan calendar’s 5,200-year Great Cycle (Pike, 2004). New Agers believe that 2012 is the coming of a New World Order, where those with primitive ecological wisdom will survive and the rest of us will perish:
If an evolved group will lead the way into a utopian future, everyone else will be left to a different fate. In a version of apocalyptic thinking that bears a striking resemblance to that of conservative Christians who believe the Rapture will remove true Christian believers from the tribulations of earth, leaving everyone else behind to suffer. In this way some New Agers affirm their unique role in history and their place in the future. They are the enlightened ones who will advance the course of evolution. (Pike, 2004:150)
They believe that an ecologically sustainable relationship to the natural world will characterize the future age when humans will live harmoniously on earth (Pike, 2004). They consider themselves as “part of an advanced group whose consciousness has evolved beyond the rest of humanity” (Pike, 2004:149).
Another myth involves the origin of humanity. Primitive man “stumbled upon mushrooms” which they subsequently consumed; consequently, man had an “ah-ha! moment” which resulted in our current cognitive capacity and ability to reason (i.e., knowledge/awareness ensued). This is simply a reflection of the New Age belief in personal transformation which often occurs through the use of hallucinogenic drugs. They believe these substances allow them to perceive the ‘true’ order of things. They believe they must align themselves with the expected global shift (coming of the Age of Aquarius), which is only possible if they undergo a personal initiation that may be difficult and painful (Pike, 2004). This conjures up images of stories of all-night drinks (a special brew of a medicinal plant from South America) where an individual expels the demons from their body and soul to cleanse the mind and spirit. They see this as part of their personal responsibility for not only their own health but the health of the planet (James, 1993).
Why have neo-pagan philosophies been resurrected in contemporary society? Luhrmann (1993) believes this is because people seek a powerful emotional (Milton, 2002) and imaginative religious experience. It was also ignited by the growing political power of environmentalism in Europe (Luhrmann, 1993). Seventy-five percent of adult Americans identify themselves as “environmentalists,” which illustrates how this category has become intimately linked to personal identity (Kempton, 2001). Luhrmann (1993:232) offers the following to explain the current rise in New Age beliefs and practices:
And perhaps neo-paganism suggests that imagination not only articulates life experience but ultimately is what is most real about that experience and also most human, that imagining the unimaginable, giving meaning to the meaningless, even transforming violence into creativity, are what being religious, and being human, are about.
Religion functions to create order in a chaotic and random universe, and ultimately succeeds in bringing
the population “under control” in state societies. Feelings of powerlessness among the general population
is why people turn to religion in the first place.
Contemporary American New Age culture has been difficult to label, categorize, and even locate
(Brown, 2004), since New Agers do not have a centralized place of worship. There are a number of
nature sanctuaries in Northern Calfornia, for example, such as Gaia’s Oasis or Harbin Hot Springs “New
Age Growth and Spiritual Center,” which provide a means of inscribing beliefs onto the land and
interacting with the spirit entities that live there. The New Age is a religious movement in the sense of
this spiritual component, but differs from religions of the past in lacking a centralized meeting place.
I believe this religious movement is nothing more than an historical artifact, a culmination of all beliefs
which have come before – a collection of Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian philosophies. The
radical nature of New Age philosophy – with its command for how we “ought to live” – is often viewed
as threatening and dangerous (Magliocco, 2004; Pike, 2004). Consequently, New Agers are low caste
in society – that “primitive” Other – reminiscent of contemporary hunter-gatherers:
One obvious response to low status and negative stereotypes is to be elusive – to avoid not just control and authority but also commitment, controversy, and confrontation, especially in dealings with people outside one’s own community. Facts about the people and their life become elusive like the people themselves. (Woodburn, 2000:78)
New Agers are often committed into permanent communal situations, which provide a means to avoid the control and authority of the state (Pike, 2004). Low status is what enables their very existence as living in the “interstices between and among established societies” (Barut-Kusimba, 2003:227). The shifting identities of these peoples make it exceedingly difficult to study them on the one hand, yet illustrates just how stable this way of life may be. They are “gypsy-like,” living a life that their neighbors despise while at the same time enjoying their independence (Barut-Kusimba, 2003:231). This characteristic of New Age culture is what enabled the creation of a new religion in the first place. By resurrecting Neopagan terminology (previously devalued by the dominant culture), they created an identity in opposition to aspects of mainstream society (Magliocco, 2004). This explains their focus on “power from within” as a means of resisting power and domination by the state with all its discourses and institutions, its negative impacts on the environment, society, and the individual (Magliocco, 2004:202). In order to make their theories seem more plausible to a secular world, New Agers often borrow from scientific discourse. This also functions to demonstrate their place among the elite who will be responsible for leading society into the new era (Pike, 2004). They knowingly and consciously construct themselves as the opposite of right society. However, from their viewpoint, “there is nothing ‘right’ about right society when its institutions are responsible for environmental degradation, human exploitation, violence, alienation, and nothing short of ‘the destruction of the world’” (Magliocco, 2004:202). This intentional marginalization on the part of most American Neopagans is essential to their ability to critique the dominant paradigm.
Spiritual Ecology
Indigenous peoples do possess environmental knowledge unknown to Westerners (Kempton, 2001). The new and expanding field of spiritual ecology offers an understanding of how themes of sacredness are crucial to ecological knowledge (Little, 1999). In some “primitive” societies, certain plant species are prioritized with a higher degree of protection if related to religious beliefs (Bandyopadhyay, 2001). Similarly, Rappaport (1984) argues that environmental relations understood in supernatural terms are governing while ecological formulations in modern societies are powerless. In this sense, spiritual ecology offers an alternative to the empirically grounded but ineffective environmentalism of the modern world (Rappaport, 1984). Minimizing environmental damage is possible in “primitive” societies since human interaction with nature is reduced to a single ecosystem. In nation-states, there is an expansion of land, resources, and human-environment relations. It is inevitable that a portion of such a territory will be degraded to the status of commodity, a “natural resource” to be exploited by the elite (Rappaport, 1984). Finally, higher biodiversity and linguistic diversity among traditional cultures compared to the “developed” world (Maffi, 2001) illustrates the need to preserve the indigenous life-way. If the entire planet spoke one language, ecological knowledge would diminish and our essential humanity would be lost (Kempton, 2001). Western medicine and human health depend upon this biodiversity. It is essential to our survival as a species.
Critique
Environmentalism offers an alternative to capitalist industrialism (Little, 1999). Although well intentioned, the extent to which such an optimistic and relativist approach will be successful in creating an ecologically sound society still remains to be seen (Radcliffe, 2000; Sponsel, 2001). It is unclear “whether the green movement is committed to democracy or is liable to fall for more dictatorial means to achieve its ends” (Radcliffe, 2000:205). More importantly, Radcliffe (2000:206) illustrates how such a radical world view is suspect:
Deep ecology, with the sense of moral superiority implicit in the name, lifestyle approaches and anti-rational affinity approaches with their New Age spirituality contain within them a sense of intolerance to alternative positions so that their claim to democratic sensibility is suspect.
Although Sponsel (2001) argues spiritual ecology is an “ecocentric environmental ethic” rather than an anthropocentric or egocentric one, I believe New Age spirituality is largely egocentric. The dominating paradigm of humanity in complex state societies is one of self-interest and increased specialization. The specialization of knowledge which characterizes modern New Age traditions (holistic health, etc.) differs little from specialized modern scholarship in advanced societies (Rappaport, 1984). As Rappaport (1984:327) illustrates:
In such societies highly ramified divisions of labor free the productive activities of most people from direct engagement with the natural environment and even those who are directly engaged are likely to be highly specialized.
In both cases (New Age and Academia), knowledge is held by a specialist. Indeed, even indigenous medical knowledge parallels that of modern medicine in state societies, with the exception that the former is called a shaman and the ladder a medical doctor (Kempton, 2001). Every human being is concerned with “make a living,” learning the necessities involved in “putting food on the table (Terrell et al., 2003).” From this perspective, the mode of production involved in “making a living” is the same whether one subsists sustainably or not, hunts and gathers rather than cultivates, or tends an organic farm instead of going to the local grocery store.
Our survival depends upon knowing what to do and how to do. Domestication of the ecological landscape is simply the ability of an organism in their respective environment to “know how to make a living there” (Terrell et al., 2003). In this light, man is neither above nature nor in control of it in any way distinct from that of other animals. The inherent notion in anthropology – that humans are superior to nature – constantly needs to be reaffirmed, suggesting that this notion may be a belief rather than a fact of life (Kenrick, 2002). The New Age notion that man will evolve a collective consciousness (as if at the end of a progressive evolutionary ladder) argues for man’s supremacy over nature and confirms the idea that man and nature are in opposition to one another (Bird-David, 1993). The fact that this belief persists in 21st century thought indicates we have a long way to go before this is to be rejected.
Our Place in Nature and the Future of Humanity
Evolutionary biologist Niles Eldredge (1999) argues that humans have redefined their role in the natural economy of this planet by becoming an economic entity (similar to Rappaport, 1984) in a network of global exchange. We have violated the natural laws which govern other species. No longer bound by the limitations of local community living, our settled existence coupled with global exchange has enabled the human species to mushroom to some 6 billion people. It is this aspect of humanity’s ecological footprint on this planet that is responsible for the demise of the natural world (some 30,000 species go extinct every year). Homo sapiens are the cause of the current “sixth extinction” crisis. Our ecological responsibility as a species is to reverse the current trend in human population growth.
As socio-cultural evolution proceeds, the rate of growth of social and technological complexity accelerates so rapidly that we are not even aware of the processes that are taking place (Rappaport, 1984; White, 1949). It is therefore difficult for us to grasp the nature of social, political, and technological revolutions for which we are a part (White, 1949). Consider the changes which have taken place in transportation, medicine, and communication in the 20th century alone! Social evolution is proceeding towards even higher levels of intergration with “greater concentrations of political power and control” (White, 1949:388). We are moving towards a single political organization which will unite the whole human race into a single social system (White, 1949). Culture is a mechanism of harnessing energy and putting it to the service of man (White, 1949). If cultural systems are capable of multiplying and extending themselves in much the same way that biological organisms reproduce themselves (White, 1949), returning to a primitive ecological state with simpler technologies is incomprehensible.
With regard to our over-concern with the fate of the planet, let’s not forget that from the perspective of billions of years of evolution of life on earth, human impact may very well be insignificant (Little, 1999). As White (1949:) reminds us,
The cosmos does little know nor will it long remember what man has done here on this tiny planet. The eventual extinction of the human race – for come it will sometime – will not be the first time that a species has died out. Nor will it be an event of very great terrestrial significance.
(White, 1949:391)
Conclusion
Typically white middle-class Americans, New Agers are of privileged economic status. They are also that privileged “advanced group who has evolved beyond the rest of humanity” (Pike, 2004:149). From hunter-gatherers to New Agers and back, a myth that certain human groups have a privileged access to “knowledge” is exactly that, a myth. Why do mysticism and religion prosper in America compared to the rest of the developing world? Some have argued that “the single-minded pursuit of material wealth in the U.S. creates an emotional emptiness that draws people to religious faith” (Brown, 2004).
Although the New Age movement is optimistic, its foundation still lies in the realm of
religion – and horrible evils have been committed in the name of religion throughout human
history (Sponsel, 2001). A major downside of religion – whether it be fundamental Islam,
Christianity, or Neopaganism – is its emphasis on the preservation of the self. Implicit in this belief is the superiority of man as immortal beings. Alas, what could be more hopeful, more beautiful than life after death? This saddens me, for are we not setting ourselves up for disappointment? Is this not a denial of death itself? Religion frees man from his responsibility on earth. Isn’t it time that humanity unite for the sake of our survival as a species, if nothing else?
No comments:
Post a Comment