Our relationship with nature

Introduction

The 2005 Tsunami has once again brought to the fore our relationship with nature. It would not be off the mark if we were to define our relationship with nature as tenuous and something which is in constant flux. Even as we create barriers between us and nature and move away from her, we are giving her human ‘virtues’. Any natural disaster is clubbed under the ‘wrath of nature’ series; the term ‘killer’ is used to describe what the natural elements do to us. And the intensity of a storm or other natural phenomenon is often described in terms of ‘fury’; these are human traits or reactions that most consider undesirable and despicable, there are rules and medication for those who show these mannerisms, there is a certain acceptance of a wantonness in such terms. But at the same time we have coined the term ‘mother nature’ to describe her ability to give and sustain life. We thank her for her ‘bounty and ‘generosity’. Further, descriptions given to nature are being used by us -‘walk on the wild side’ describes a situation where someone goes against societal norms, while being ‘wild’ could stretch from letting ones hair down on occasion to someone who is habitually unruly.

The usage of terms goes beyond nature to her many minions; ‘cool cat’ is used to describe someone who is suave. Strong as an ox is something that is used to describe someone’s strength. But these forms of description are not new. The creation myth of the Pelew Islanders is about a brother and sister making men out of clay kneaded with the blood of various animals. The characters of these first men and of their descendants were determined by the characters of the animals whose blood had been mingled with the clay; for instance, men who have serpent's blood in them are sneaks, and men who have cock's blood in them are brave.

Could clubbing nature with the feminine sex have less to do with the subjugation and exploitation by the patriarchal system and more to do with the recognition of the similarities between the life giving qualities of a woman and that of nature? In a paradox of sorts we give cyclones feminine names. This is a paradox because on the one hand cyclones are destructive while on the other hand the feminine touch is usually caring and nurturing. However recent cyclones have been given male names, maybe someone has seen the paradox; or has feminism found a new target?

Like any relationship, our relationship with what we call nature has undergone a range of changes. Also the basis of our relationships has also undergone many variations and modifications.

A discussion of these changes cannot ignore some fundamental questions - When did human beings realize that they had to fight nature to survive? Or for that matter when did the question of human’s versus nature, human’s battling against the elements, human’s surviving the elements become an issue? And finally are we the only species battling with the elements? Answers to these questions can lead us to an understanding of our bonds with nature.

The answer has less to do with our language and its descriptive skills. The ‘us’ and ‘them’ syndrome is a lasting effect of almost ‘coming out on top’; of being the species that can domesticate, that can capture and can eat on a plate. It is also about the glory and virtue of the ‘survivor telling the tale’ symptom. These terms - ‘versus’, ‘battling’ and others – are used to describe a confrontation, a challenge, something that brings out not only the feebleness of humans but also their strength and their ability to win the war.

The ‘us’ and ‘them’ syndrome had its foundations in the instinct to survive. This instinct over time evolved into the intelligence to adapt. Adaptation also brought about recognition of the inputs required to survive and then thrive. Things thrive when survivability becomes a habit. Humans recognised that nature was ‘fickle’ and that its fickleness could be stymied by worship and ingenuity. Whenever ingenuity was used it was as a tool of battle and whenever worship was used it was used to appease and placate the unknown or used as an offering of thanks for the munificence. This could also be seen as a system of giving back to nature or showing that humans could share their ‘bounty’ with nature. The selflessness of this giving was supposed to mirror the selflessness in natures giving, however it was the thought that counted and not the quantity.

In the beginning - - -

Human beings recognition of the power of nature came much before their ability to settle down. It was not because they were part of the food chain that made them realize this; it was because of changing weather patterns, occurrences like snow and rain, the raw power in the sound and fury of a thunder shower that created this idea of something powerful and indefinable. Here was an unknown entity that brought in rains, heat and numbing cold. Here was an entity that had power over everyone from the largest to the smallest. Here was an entity that could vanquish without claws, sharp teeth or weapons.

The power of this entity was seen once again when human beings became agrarian. Humans discerned that certain weather conditions promoted growth and others did not, they saw the regenerative powers of this entity and they also saw that they could at times stave off hunger and death if they stored food. Thus not only was there further recognition of the power of this entity but there was also an understanding that certain effects of this entity could be side stepped.

With their new found ability to cultivate land, humans also moved from being a part of the food chain to being on top of the food chain. This was the first degree of separation. In all probability this was also when a term was coined to describe a place that had animals and was dangerous for humans to go into or inhabit – the ‘wild’. This also could have been the time when the feeling that humans were fighting against the natural elements rose; this was because there was a growing ability to recognize possessions and value them for their inherent quality of aiding survival. Any inclement condition, be it weather or any other natural occurrence, was considered a threat to survival, and the ability to thwart this threat was considered a victory.

Some of the first gods created by human being’s were gods of weather, Hindus had Indra, and the Vikings had Thor (the god of thunder). Researchers studying ancient religions have made the deduction that, the dispositions of these gods were not the same everywhere, the character of the gods depended on the climate in these regions. Therefore the Egyptians had a weather god that was mild and helpful in disposition which reflected the reliability of the weather there, the Hindu weather god was someone who was not only the king of gods but was also someone who frequented earth, the weather gods of Mesopotamia were edgy which patterned itself with the type of weather there.

With time humans increased the number of gods, however even in these newer gods there was an element of nature. For example, Hindu gods had animals as their steeds they also had weapons like lightning bolts, five out of the nine incarnations of Vishnu (another Hindu god) were animals or part animal, Zeus the Norse god had a thunderbolt as a weapon. The add-ons of animals and natural elements showed the prowess of such gods over things that humans had no control over, and also provided a visualization of the power in nature.

Even though Hinduism worshipped nature and her elements, one should not confuse Hinduism with animism or nature worship as practiced by the indigenous of India. A lot of nature worship is clubbed with ancestor worship and tribals in India have gods for natural phenomena. The Rain Goddess amongst the Muria tribe of India is Bhima Devi , other tribes worship Mati Deo (Earth God).

Human’s inability to comprehend nature and their feeling of awe not only created gods but also created a special segment of people in society; this segment known as shamans and druids were initially respected in civilizations. Shamans in certain cultures wore skins of certain animals to show that they were able to commune with them and also shared their animal’s mythical power. They not only had powers to commune with nature, but also knew her secrets and used this knowledge for the benefit of their community. But with the spread of practical religion these druids/shamans were called witch doctors, were shunned and even put to death.

Creation myths

The next stage of this relationship was the stories of creation. Creation stories were necessary to give human beings a context to their relationship with nature – human beings were either owner’s of all that they surveyed or were the caretakers and protectors who had to ensure that there was no desecration of nature. There is a difference in the stories of creation between modern socio-religion (including Hinduism) and ancient religious practice. For example the Mayan creation myth has the sky and water forces (‘Heart of Sky’ and ‘Plumed Serpent’) coming together to create everything - the animate and inanimate. This idea of a ‘common egg’ emphasizes the need to respect all creatures. One of the Hindu creation myths speaks about the sacrifice of Purusha (the primeval being), from this sacrifice everything was created – gods, animals and the four castes of man. What is important to note in this myth is that fluids and different parts of the body created different things and different castes of man; for example the clarified butter that came out of the sacrifice produced the animals of the forests, but the body of Purusha created man.

The singular difference between these religions and nature worship was that mainstream religion was not only about ownership, benevolent or otherwise, of nature, but also about a differentiation between man and other beings in their manner of creation ( as described in the above mentioned Hindu creation myth). Nature worship could be best described according to Chief Seattle ‘----Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished----’. In nature worship humans are part of the natural cycle.

Expansionist Europe saw in Christianity a heavenly diktat to plunder and conquer. Many would argue that the Old Testaments ‘Dominion over nature’ decree to be the reason for today’s environmental crisis. However, theologians today argue that when god looked at the world he had created ‘he saw it was good’ – it meant that he did not want what he had created to be destroyed by something that was created in his own image. The fact that even though Christianity has ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’ as one of its founding principals, its practice ensured that the meek and defenseless (animal, nature and other humans) were open to exploitation and rape. The gap between the practice of religion and its preaching has a lot to do with the politics of an era. Religion and the state were closely entwined. Modern religions like Christianity have been used as a form of suppression and inclusion. The spread of Christianity was paralleled by growing mercantilism, founding of new colonies and the harvesting of natural resources in the New World.

Inventions and the sudden increase in raw material catalysed the dawn of the Industrial Age. Factories created cities and people moved to them in search of a steady and higher source of income Romanticism had its birth in the stygian chimneys of these foundries and mills of England. When the poet Robert Burns saw the fire and smoke of the Carron Iron Works in 1787 he wrote the following verse:

We cam na here to view your warks

In hopes to be mair wise,

But only, lest we gang to Hell,

It may be nae surprise.

The dinginess, misery and smoke of the Industrial revolution created a demand for a space that had not yet been touched by people and polluting capitalism – what better place than nature – something that was outside the drabness and dirtiness of the city. Nature that was once unconquerable, that had in the Industrial Age become a veritable ‘Fort Knox’ of mineral wealth and more, became nature the clean, nature the beautiful – a place according to Percy Shelley of ‘Sweet oracles of woods and dells, And summer winds in sylvan cells’. Many would regard these as attempts to bring back ‘god into nature’ but it just created another degree of separation. It created another world; a world where one escaped to recharge oneself and then get back into the wild of the concrete jungle.

Romanticism gave the west a new interpretation of nature an interpretation of goodliness and godliness which was present in religions like Hinduism and Taoism. The ascetics in Hindu mythology were supposed to have lived in perfect harmony with nature while Taoism speaks about an ‘Age of Perfect Virtue’ where there was no distinctions of superior and inferior, between man and animal. But the one resounding difference between Romanticism and these religions was something that Blake said ‘Nature without man is barren’. The real beauty of nature so captured by the Romantics had less to do with realism than with Romantics penchant for words, many times induced in a haze of opium. Nature existed in all its wondrous beauty only because humans recognized it.

The idea that the self exists only because it is recognized by someone else was used in this relationship with nature. It was not that nature recognized ‘man’ but was ‘man’ that recognized nature - A fact in any human relationship.

So even when Blake wanted us to “To see a world in a grain of sand, And heaven in a wild flower, infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour.” It had less to do with nature and her beauty and more about humans condescending to provide nature a stage to show her beauty.

It is not very often now that humans ‘commune’ with nature. But, that is not to say humans haven’t learnt from nature’s creatures or that they did not ‘commune’ with nature earlier or did not place her as an important part of their life. Aesop’s tales, the Panchatantra(folk tales of India) are all attempts to teach morals through the use of wise animals. The forest was magical and a place for quite meditation - the Indian ascetic went into the forest and hills to gain wisdom, the fourth stage of man according to ancient Hindu law is “Vanaprastha" or when the family man renounces his wealth and leaves his family to live in the forest. Native Americans on the threshold of manhood would go into the forest and starve themselves as rite of passage until they had a vision and then accordingly they were given names.

Modern fairy tales paint forests as dark and dangerous, where the unknown is dangerous; where wicked witch’s cast dark spells on castles and the young hero(ine) get lost. These shifts have happened not too far in the recent past.

The level of development is based on the degrees of separation between us and nature and the manner in which we have been able to use nature. The zoo is an apt example of our current relationship with nature. Nature today is an oddity, something that needs to be understood if not controlled.

When the term ‘wild’ is used, ‘ferocity’ is not far behind. Movies and television while extolling humans ability to conquer and even subdue nature, paint nature as ‘raging’ and ‘revengeful’. But nature hasn’t changed -she is who she is; it is humans who have changed. Humans have moved from deifying her to defying her. Also in the quest to understand her humans have bracketed her in ‘phrases’ which show her as someone who is most often opposed to them.

Are these attempts to humanize nature; to give her a heart and soul and therefore make her something that is fathomable? Has the manner in which humans have and are continuing to exploit her (like we do others) given seed to these attempts to humanize her or are these the first attempts to put salve on the wounds.