These days it has become fashionable to suggest that biophilia or love or nature or biophobia or fear of nature, is the result of correct vs. corrupt socialization or education.
According to this view largely pioneered by David Orr in the 80's children will learn to fear nature if they are taught about serious environmental problems prior to high school age. And the result will become contempt of the natural world or insistence on viewing it as nothing mroe than a resource. Instead, this view suggests children should simply be given hands on projects or taken into the woods without much adult comment, in order to create "genuine environmental stewards". Increasingly, proponents of environmental literacy are influenced by this view.
In addition many "alternative" schools of thought such as Montessori suggests that kids should if possible, not know about political or global problems, until well into adolescence. According to this view if "political" parents don't wait for the right developmental moment to talk to their kids about things like war, world hunger, climate change, poverty, and other serious issues they will grow up to be detached cynics who can't bring themselves to care about anything.
But is this view correct? I decided to start by asking somebody with a lot of experience in education: my mother. She felt from both decades of teaching experience and a background in child development that such views were "simplistic". That there was no formula style of education guaranteed to make all the kids grow up to be environmentalists. Or concerned about other political issues for that matter.
So where does this view come from? Mostly the answer lies with research done in the 80's which found most environmental activists and scientists remember positive experiences with nature as children. However, I can't help but think that for every such person, there is also an avid outsdoorman who listens to Rush Limbaugh and scoffs at global warming.
Other people argue that human beings are innately biophilic such as E.O. Wilson. Many proponents of this view argue that this is simply because humans evolved in the natural world and consider it home. On a more cynical note some people argue that biophobia is natural or at least honest, considering how people have achieved a higher life expectancy in a modern industrial setting, you'd find in a Stone Aged tribe.
However a more provocative theory exists. That while humans may at one level love outdoor settings, that they are also seen as somewhat scary for a reason. And that reason involves an aspect of our evolutionary history, that many people don't want to accept. That our ancestors weren't "Man The Hunter", but largely a prey species. After all, look at the extent of predator imagery in horror movies, in children's fairy tales, in religion, and above all in war stories and war related rhetoric. After all, why is it that people tend to fear animals with sharp teeth to a degree that far outweighs the actual risk of being killed by one? Why have cats inspired so many extreme reactions from humans ranging from being worshiped in Egypt (something they seem to feel entitled to!!) to associated with the Devil or evil spirits in many other cultures? Could some of the hostility towards nature come not from a corrupt socialization or pure greed, but an unwillingness to acknowledge any human vulnerability towards nature?
Could it be that the correlation between *hawkish* politics and refusal to acknowledge problems like global warming or natural disasters, is not purely accidental? Many evolutionary psychologists, however are reluctant to take the role of predators in human evolution or our current behavior seriously. And if largely feline predators shaped our species in a way that was crucial to the development of war, could it also be more than a coincidence that so many militaristic leaders throughout history such as Napoleon, Hitler and others were known to hate and/or fear cats?
But the issue here is human love of nature. Could it not be lurking somewhere in our consciousness that nature of course provides food, water, and basically life. We know it can be beautiful. But watch out you never know what might be lurking!! A tiger! Shark! Wicked witch! Zombie! Shark! Something that is going to eat you! Could it be that in order to truly address human attitudes towards the environment that we may not just have to address rational risks and economic needs, but also a sort of innate ambivalence? A mindset that is drawn to nature and sees it as home, but also can't help but wondering what lurks behind the trees/bushes.
Either way the hidden role of predators in the phenomena of biophilia/biophobia seems to be an underexamined question. And *food* for thought.
Say goodnight readers!
No comments:
Post a Comment