Assessing Nature: Between Zones of Exploitation and Protection

Á. Ábrán, Iulia Hurducaș
{"title":"Assessing Nature: Between Zones of Exploitation and Protection","authors":"Á. Ábrán, Iulia Hurducaș","doi":"10.2478/subbs-2018-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nature is a domain where the scientific, the capital, and the political meet, in constant negotiation and making of Nature. By Nature with a capital ‘N’ we mean an abstract concept of Nature as one external and in contrast to Society with a capital ‘S’. While these concepts are abstracts, they are at the same time very real in that they have to be made, maintained, and are acted upon, thus shaping reality (see Latour, 2004; Moore, 2015). The result of this making of Nature is by no way fixed and is often contested as claims on the protection and exploitation of Nature are made. We understand the exploitation of Nature as embedded in a neoliberal agenda of both resource extraction and touristic attraction, while nature’s protection oscillates between ascribing degrees of intervention and the exclusion of humans from other than human environments, such as what is proclaimed as wilderness. Yet on the ground, human and other than human interaction is a practice of assessment, judgement, and selection, where questions of right, of emotional attachments, and the survival and reproduction of species human and non-human are put to the test. While Nature often appears as a bound more than human entity, specific entities like trees, flowers, animals, mushrooms, and microbes are often invisible and uninteresting groups. They leave categories of indifference only when they become potential resources (or threats) to human lives. When not material resources, they are moralising comparisons to human socialities as mere metaphors rather than entities in their own right (Tsing, 2005: 172; see also Lorimer, 2007). We direct our interest towards those modes of assessment that happen in space and time, ‘on the ground’, where entities are sorted in a bid to make Nature.","PeriodicalId":53506,"journal":{"name":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/subbs-2018-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nature is a domain where the scientific, the capital, and the political meet, in constant negotiation and making of Nature. By Nature with a capital ‘N’ we mean an abstract concept of Nature as one external and in contrast to Society with a capital ‘S’. While these concepts are abstracts, they are at the same time very real in that they have to be made, maintained, and are acted upon, thus shaping reality (see Latour, 2004; Moore, 2015). The result of this making of Nature is by no way fixed and is often contested as claims on the protection and exploitation of Nature are made. We understand the exploitation of Nature as embedded in a neoliberal agenda of both resource extraction and touristic attraction, while nature’s protection oscillates between ascribing degrees of intervention and the exclusion of humans from other than human environments, such as what is proclaimed as wilderness. Yet on the ground, human and other than human interaction is a practice of assessment, judgement, and selection, where questions of right, of emotional attachments, and the survival and reproduction of species human and non-human are put to the test. While Nature often appears as a bound more than human entity, specific entities like trees, flowers, animals, mushrooms, and microbes are often invisible and uninteresting groups. They leave categories of indifference only when they become potential resources (or threats) to human lives. When not material resources, they are moralising comparisons to human socialities as mere metaphors rather than entities in their own right (Tsing, 2005: 172; see also Lorimer, 2007). We direct our interest towards those modes of assessment that happen in space and time, ‘on the ground’, where entities are sorted in a bid to make Nature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估自然:在开发和保护区域之间
自然是科学、资本和政治在不断协商和创造自然中相遇的领域。我们所说的大写N的自然,是指一种抽象的概念,认为自然是外在的,与大写S的社会相对立的。虽然这些概念是抽象的,但它们同时也是非常真实的,因为它们必须被制造、维护和行动,从而塑造现实(见Latour, 2004;摩尔,2015)。这种创造自然的结果绝不是固定的,而且在提出保护和开发自然的要求时经常引起争议。我们理解对自然的开发是嵌入在资源开采和旅游吸引的新自由主义议程中,而对自然的保护在归因于干预程度和将人类排除在人类以外的环境(例如所谓的荒野)之间摇摆不定。然而,在地面上,人类和其他人类之间的互动是一种评估、判断和选择的实践,在这里,权利、情感依恋以及人类和非人类物种的生存和繁殖问题都受到了考验。虽然自然经常表现为一个束缚而不是人类实体,但树木、花朵、动物、蘑菇和微生物等特定实体往往是看不见的、无趣的群体。只有当它们成为人类生命的潜在资源(或威胁)时,它们才会离开冷漠的范畴。当不是物质资源时,它们将人类社会作为纯粹的隐喻进行道德比较,而不是本身的实体(Tsing, 2005: 172;参见Lorimer, 2007)。我们的兴趣指向那些发生在空间和时间上的评估模式,“在地面上”,在那里实体被分类,以创造自然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Science and Social Knowledge or What We Do Not Know About What We Believe We Know Searching for Authenticity: Critical Analysis of Gender Roles and Radical Movements in Personal Development Practices in Contemporary Society Pros and Cons of Online Social Support Exchange on Social Networking Sites: A User’s Perspective Deindustrialization and the Real-Estate– Development–Driven Housing Regime. The Case of Romania in Global Context Balancing Efficiency and Personal Time Requirements for Human Resources Professionals after Telecommuting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1