What is Nature?: Culture, Politics and the non-Human
By Kate Soper
Blackwell, 1995. 289 pp. $39.95
Reviewed by Neville Spencer
Concepts of what nature is and of what counts as natural feature both explicitly and implicitly in much progressive political discourse. To the green movement, concepts of nature are quite obviously important, but also within the feminist, gay and lesbian and animal rights movements concepts of nature frequently feature as either implicit foundations of their politics or as hotly debated issues.
In feminist issues, the contest over the status of nature is usually a reaction to the fact that the oppression of women is often condoned with claims that the male domination of our society is natural, that men are biologically destined to be dominant. Similarly for gays and lesbians, their battle for rights largely hinges on challenging the pervasive ideological prejudice which asserts that only heterosexuality is permissible because only heterosexuality is natural.
Concepts of nature within the green movement vary but tend to emphasise that humans are intertwined with nature or are a part of nature. The fact that our fate is intertwined with that of nature reinforces the need to ensure the protection of the natural environment.
Although most activists within these movements identify with each other's progressive causes, the concepts of nature on which they base their politics tend to be squarely at odds. Kate Soper's What is Nature? is a discussion aimed at examining these differing concepts and working towards a concept of nature which is more accurate and is capable of providing a unified foundation for progressive politics.
Nature-endorsement
Soper draws the most general division as between nature-endorsing and nature-sceptical perspectives. The latter is the more common perspective within sexual politics, since it challenges the reactionary condemnations of feminists, gays and lesbians who promote behaviour which is "unnatural".
The former perspective, essentially that what is natural is good, is common within the green movement but has also provided a foundation for anti-feminist, anti-gay and even fascist politics.
Logical extensions of the opposing concepts used within these two perspectives could lead to each being on opposite sides of the political divide on different issues. Soper examines both tendencies in an attempt to glean from each what is valid whilst rejecting elements in each which could lead to absurd and reactionary conclusions.
A strong tendency of nature-endorsing perspectives is to hold to reductionist views of humans, overlooking important differences between humans and non-human nature or between humans and other animals. Ignoring the unique nature of human society, which sets us apart from other animals, can lead to an ignorance of the special needs and possibilities which are open to humans.
By virtue of our uniqueness, human lifestyles are not dictated by nature, and many of the pleasures which humans can and should enjoy are not natural — that is, they are not directly due to our natural being but to society and culture. In this context, liberation from the purely natural must be a part of any progressive politics.
Even those of a strongly reductionist nature-endorsing perspective do implicitly recognise that humans stand apart from the rest of nature, for appeals to either behave naturally or to preserve the natural environment are always aimed at humans rather than, say, otters: they recognise that humans are uniquely capable of responding to such appeals.
Nature-endorsing perspectives also tend to assume that nature is a fairly self-explanatory concept and to overlook the extent to which what counts as natural is varied and culturally produced. Soper demonstrates the complex and non-given aspects of what nature is in raising questions such as whether any of the world can be considered natural, given that it is almost all influenced by humans one way or another, or whether a cultivated field can be considered natural in comparison to a factory. Less can be taken for granted about the term nature than is commonly thought.
Nature-scepticism
Aspects of nature-sceptical theories must be brought in to remedy some of these problems. Most modern social theory, such as postmodernism and other forms of idealism, contrasts with the reductionism of nature-endorsing perspectives popular in the green movement. It has emphasised that humans are cultural rather than natural and consequently tends to recognise the liberating possibilities which human culture can bring.
Since this allows that our sexuality or social role is open to whatever human culture allows, rather than dictated by nature, it is a dominant perspective within sexual politics. It also realises that humans have culturally produced needs in addition to basic biological ones, which any just society must seek to satisfy.
Such nature-sceptics have, contrary to most nature-endorsing positions, realised that what is considered nature is also a cultural product. This insight is something which Soper thinks should be taken on board in understanding nature. She does, however, point out that at the same time we should not take on board the anti-realist tendency within such social theory, which would have it that nature is a purely cultural product and that humans are not even biological. Not recognising nature as independently real leads to absurdities.
Soper points to the need for a concept of nature which can select the positive elements from both perspectives. A concept of nature would need to recognise the independent existence of nature, recognise its effect on us as a part of it but recognise that human needs and possibilities are still uniquely set apart from it.
Exactly what sort of theory might fit the bill here is, of course, a little more difficult to say. Soper takes a critical look at some of the theories which attempt to take up the challenge of theoretically situating human and non-human nature. In particular, she looks at various forms of dualism as developed by Descartes and as critically revived of late by Noam Chomsky, which pose some sort of absolute division between the abilities of humans and of other animals; and also at the recent attempt by Ted Benton to consider issues of ecology and animal rights on the basis of a non-reductive naturalism which recognises the qualitative difference of human abilities but tries to demonstrate their foundation in our natural being.
In achieving an appropriate theory of nature, What is Nature? doesn't pretend to be conclusive. In critically surveying the range of positions that exist, however, it does eliminate a number of popular but unsustainable positions. This at least helps clear a path for the further development of the complex debates about nature, humans and human society and their implications for an environmentally sensitive and liberationist politics.