Nature–culture divide

The nature–culture divide refers to a theoretical foundation of contemporary anthropology. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions nature and culture. Later, the argument became framed by the question of whether the two entities function separately from one another, or if they have a continuous biotic relationship with each other.

In Western society nature and culture are conceptualized as dichotomous (separate and distinct domains of reference). Some consider culture to be "man's secret adaptive weapon" ^[1] in the sense that it is the core means of survival. It has been observed that the terms "nature" and "culture" that can not necessarily be translated into non-western languages,^[2] e.g. the Native American Jon Mohawk describing "nature" as "anything that supports life".^[3]

It has been suggested that small scale-societies can have a more symbiotic relationship with nature. But less symbiotic relations with nature are limiting small-scale communities' access to water and food resources (Nelson 2008). It was also argued that contemporary Man-Nature divide manifests itself in different aspects of alienation and conflicts (Bakari, 20014)^[4] Greenwood and Stini argue that agriculture is only monetarily cost-efficient because it takes much more to produce than one can get out of eating their own crops,^[5] e.g. "high culture cannot come at low energy costs".^[6]

Sherry Ortner during the 1960s and 1970s extended the question to the role of women (as nature) and men (as culture).^[7]

See also

• Nature versus nurture

References

• Bakari, Mohamed El-Kamel. 2014. Sustainability and Contemporary Man-Nature Divide: Aspects of Conflict, Alienation, and Beyond. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 13(1): 125-146.
• Greenwood, David J and William A. Stini. 1977. Nature, Culture, and Human History. 1st. New York: Harper and Row, 393–408.