Beyond Ecology

I thought that Neil Evernden’s article “Beyond Ecology” raises many interesting points regarding humankind and its relationship to the non-human environment. He discusses this relationship within the context of “interrelatedness” but he takes this issue far beyond the notion of a casual connection. Instead, he interrogates whether or not humans and non-human elements are completely independent entities. In one instance, he explains that different bacteria can transfer an extra chromosome to other bacteria or to another species in general. This example undercuts preconceived notions that each creature is completely distinct from the other and highlights how the natural world is dependent on each other. I think Evernden is alluding to the idea that the boundaries within nature (including mankind) are much more fluid than we thought. It seems that he is encouraging us to take a more holistic approach when we consider what is natural and what is not. He argues that the only way we can understand human nature is to also study man within the context of the natural environment, not outside of it (95). We are accustomed to perceiving man onto himself and easily forget that man is deeply connected to his surroundings. Everden’s article attempts to bridge the gap between our preconceived notions of man with the reality of our relationship with the natural world. Although he makes a valid point, I think it becomes quite difficult to do so because over time, we have hidden nature from our sight. 

With the onset of urbanization, we do not see a inherit connection to nature; it seems as though mankind and nature are independent of one another. Evernden argues that “we not only see ourselves not part of the environment, we are not even part of the body. We, the real us, is concentrated in some disputed recess of the body” (98). Even on the few occasions when we attempt to connect with the natural world, we do so within the context of modernization. This eliminates any possibility of noticing our interconnection with the natural world. In order to perceive the interrelatedness that Evernden refers to, we must first begin to reframe our perception of man and nature, otherwise it will be difficult to reimagine the boundaries between them as anything but stable.  

Evernden brings up another interesting point when he urges us to include humanities within the conversation of ecology. He points out that we are misguided to believe that only the natural sciences are capable of understanding nature. He explains that the “significance of a place is a personal thing, and the battle for the right to know ‘where I am from’ is not one to won by environmental impact assessments and benefit-cost analysis” (102). I think he is right in the sense that since we are interconnected with the natural world, we need to utilize the social and the natural sciences in order to have a better understanding of our relationship with nature.  I think the field of humanities opens many opportunities for exploration that goes beyond the functionality of nature, but I’m unclear on how it would do so. Although Evernden stresses the importance of including humanities within the study of the natural environment, he does not provide a clear explanation on how this new approach would translate in practice.