|
Lately I have become increasingly aware of a dangerous dichotomy that apparently exists when it comes to the pursuit of sustainable development. It is almost as if there are two groups of people involved in conservation projects, and two types of efforts. One group cares about the birds and the bees and the flowers, and they focus strongly on biodiversity. They do all they can to describe the biological attributes, they map biodiversity hotspots and they design projects to protect them. The other group focuses on cultural attributes. To them the big issues are the indigenous people, cultural heritage, and do what they can to prevent the loss of such human-centered treasures.
This dichotomy is very dangerous indeed, and undoubtedly it has led to tremendous wastage of project resources and, much more sadly, to the loss of much precious biodiversity as well as cultural heritage.
The apparent dichotomy has always bothered me. I was particularly offended fifteen years ago when the leader of an environmental NGO fighting to save the rainforests in Madagascar, told me that she did not care too much for people as she was interested in saving the butterflies and rainforests and not those who are mostly responsible for destroying it through slash and burn activities. In her zeal there were two things that she had missed completely. One was the cultural richness and unique millennia old traditions of the people living in and around the Masoala Peninsula, and the other was that you cannot save one without the other.
Today I can see the stupidity of such approaches much more clearly. Inherent to the dichotomy is the non-recognition on the one hand that it is the local communities who are the keepers of the resources and not the well meaning foreign NGOs and donors, and on the other hand there is the lack of understanding that culture is inextricably tied to the environment. Without the environmental peculiarities of the Richtersveld for instance, there would be no transhumant livestock farmers, espousing a type of lifestyle which in fact forms the very basis of their World Heritage List inscription. In other words, environment led to culture. And very likely, removal of grazing pressure applied over millennia may have an effect on the same precious ecology that the environmentalists are trying to preserve. There are many other examples.
The need to break down the dichotomy led to a cultural landscape mapping workshop that was attended by people from both sides of the African continent. When we started to plot cultural and environmental attributes on the same map, it became very clear how closely culture and environment are intertwined. Changes through space and time involve both natural and cultural dimensions, and the linkages between them became clearer as the workshop continued. Once again we realized that we do not in fact manage natural resources, as our proposals aimed at the donors often suggest, we in fact manage the people that use them. The resources can look after themselves very well. If we want to understand the complete ecosystem, we need to pay the same attention to the people as we pay to the resources. And in the same way that we admire the biodiversity so should we admire and respect the cultural attributes of the local populations. To try and preserve one without the other makes no sense. People are not empty shells, and a loss of culture and local context will only make conservation of the natural attributes far more difficult.
The message that is slowly emerging is that long term, large scale projects will be wise to incorporate both cultural dimensions in addition their focus on the resource base. This should be done right from the start, as part of the overall agenda and not only as an afterthought. People should be incorporated not only because they are the consumers of the resource base. Rather, the intrinsic value of their culture should be recognized as strongly as the value of the biodiversity their existences depend on. Maybe a balance can then be achieved, and we can start to break down a dichotomy that is not only dangerous but downright silly.
|
Francois Odendaal is right - all living things, including humans, are part of the ecosystems where they live, and trying to ignore people (as blue-chip wildlife films have done for decades), has simply reinforced the dichotomy he refers to, at least in the eyes of millions of television viewers around the world.
But the real issue is not that we, as conservationists, should see environmental protection and cultural heritage under the same umbrella (which of course they are), but what are we doing to combat the causes of their destruction? The fact is, the so-called, Western-way-of-life - which most of us in this country enjoy - with its never-ending demands for oil and other mineral resources, for water, for fancy out-of-season foods, for hardwoods from the tropical forests, for travel, for holidays in more and more exotic places (and the pollution that goes with it all), are the main cause of the destruction of environments and cultures around the world. DLIST's recent environmental film festival, EARTHNOTES, laid it all bare - the greed, the hypocrisy, the lying, the fat-cat political and corporate slimeballs justifying their avarice and forging ahead like new colonialists to grab as many of the world's resources as possible without regard for local communities, cultures and environments. In other words, as usual, it's the rich that are the problem, not the poor.
The question we have to ask ourselves is; are we prepared to go without that new cell phone, ipod, laptop, motor car, television, DVD player, microwave cooker, washing machine, swimming pool, the trans-continental flights that will take us to yet another 'unspoilt wilderness' holiday or yet another conservation conference where we'll avoid the real issues yet again - but will certainly enjoy the prawn cocktail and smoked salmon receptions laid on for the occasion? That's the really dangerous dichotomy, and the dilemma we confront as conservationists - because there's no point in trying to protect environments and cultures without, at the same time, tackling the root cause of what is bringing about their destruction. |
I've been unable to participate on dlist for some time, but its good to be able to do so again.
I am sorry to see that this topic did not draw much comment. I think this dichotomy lies at the heart of why so many conservation projects experience, if not outright failure, then extreme difficulty in making projects work.
I agree with Francois on the issue of failing to acknowledge the vital role humans and culture have played, and continue to do so, in the ecology of the landscape. In Namaqualand, people have farmed with sheep for thousands of years - to an extent the vegetation has adapted to this. If the veld are not grazed, it actually becomes woody and loses diversity. Furthermore livestock farming is more than just a income generating activity. It is a way of life and itself has helped shaped the culture of the local peoples in a major way. The answer lies in finding conservation strategies that not only take these factors into consideration, but actively engage with the practitioners thereof, acknowledging that they have valid knowlege and expertise to contribute on how the ongoing functioning of the ecoystems they operate in, can be ensured.
I agree strongly with Neil as well,as I have said a number of times on dlist as well. Ultimately consumerism is at the heart of our problems like destruction of ecosystems, extinction of species and the decimation of the climate as we have known it. But, as I have also said before, we need to acknowledge the aspirations of developing nations, which often has the highest biodiversity, to reach the same levels of economic empowerment that they see in those that have enjoyed it for a long time. Either that, or a global mindshift on consumerism has to take place. For consumerism are not only destroying natural resources, it erodes cultures too. The "If I have the money, I can buy it" attitude are destroying the link people traditionally had with the land, where you knew where your food came from, had to work hard to get it and knew that you had to take care of your source if you do not want to go hungry.
The majority of people that works to promote conservation are comparatively more well-off than those they are trying to get to do it too - and, once again as I have said before, those we want to conserve, to have less of an impact will be fully justified in saying to us: How the hell can we beieve you? Actions, after all, speak louder than words. |
Dear Malinda,
I apologise for another delay in replying to your comments on the dangerous
dichotomy. Like you, I consider it an important topic, but for me it goes so
deep that in the past I just didn't even bother to write about it. With your
prompting, however, I would like to do so. Please excuse some meandering in
the process.
For me I cannot separate the issue from my 'mission' in life. This was
formulated by the famous historian Arnold Toynbee in the words, "An increase
in man's spirituality is now the only change in the biosphere against the
biosphere being destroyed." This is also the theme of my book "From
Intellect to Intelligence."
We say we want to conserve 'cultural heritage'. But what is culture? As I
see it, culture is basically a set of beliefs about how things are, and
behaviour that reflects those beliefs. Some cultures are functional (in
harmony with nature and themselves), and some not. But cultures interact and
change all the time. So what do we mean by 'conserving cultural heritage'?
Does that mean keeping everything as it was? Do we want to conserve
clitoridectomy and even male circumcision, because it is 'cultural'? Do we
want to encourage the repression of women because it is 'cultural'? With the
difficulties they are encountering now, even the Japanese claim that their
whaling is 'cultural'.
I have referred in the past to Malidom Somé's words about the tremendous
'spiritual hunger' of the West, and that I believe this is why western
tourists come to Africa. They seek something beyond 'culture': to experience
a simple life of harmony and integrity. As far as I understand it, they seek
to experience the honesty, openness, integrity and innocence that have
virtually disappeared from western 'civilised' society. (Interesting that,
that we should consider a society based on pretence, deceit, greed and
inequality as 'civilised'!)
I believe this is also the reason why some people seek 'unspoiled' nature:
to experience simplicity, honesty and lack of judgement. I can relate to
those who want to experience nature without seeing any other people. As a
child I hated people - because I hated myself. And so I sought refuge in
nature, where there were no people. Yet I never quite found what I was
looking for. Later, when doing my masters degree on otters in Tsitsikamma, I
was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed relating to the many hikers on
the otter trail. Still later, as coordinator of oceanographic research with
the National Research Foundation, I came to realise that we were trying to
solve problems through science that could never be solved through science -
they were human problems. And so I resigned and started working with - and
enjoyed working with - human beings. I realised that the problem wasn't
human beings as such, but our very unwillingness to be human - through
pretence and deceit. I discovered that, when we really start interacting as
human beings without pretence, a very different freality emerges.
I see both 'cultural' and 'natural' tourism as forms of escape in which
mainly western tourists seek something that they intuitively know is missing
in their own lives. Both can also be means of getting more in touch with
themselves. But even the preference is cultural: Europeans without any
contact with indigenous societies hope to find the 'real Africa' in the form
of original indigenous societies. Many South Africans want 'pure nature' and
are not interested in local communities, because they think they know them.
I think that it is our tendency to seek answers outside ourselves that
causes us to destroy the very thing we are attracted to. The western way of
life aimed at 'helping', 'uplifting' or 'developing' indigenous people has
destroyed probably most functional societies on earth. In our quest to
escape the products of our very greed, pretence and inequality, we seek to
build our homes in the last vestiges of nature remaining around cities, and
so destroy even those last vestiges. We flee from the cities to the desert,
and then destroy the desert with quad bikes.
I agree with your and Neil's comments about consumerism. For me the basic
question is: why do we act in this way? Consumerism is the very cornerstone
of capitalism (and, by the way, of communism). Neither can function without
consumerism. We all believe that economic growth, whether 'sustainable' or
not, is essential, but economic growth is based on consumerism. That is why
we have to be convinced daily in thousands of advertisements that we need
all kind of things that we don't need.
Eckart Tolle puts it as follows in his worldwide bestseller "A New Earth -
Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" (now heavily boosted by Oprah):
"Paradoxically, what keeps the so-called consumer society going is the fact
that trying to find yourself through things doesn't work: The ego
satisfaction is short-lived and so you keep looking for more, keep buying,
keep consuming." And that, in short, is the basic underlying problem.
Ultimately, I see the 'dangerous dichotomy' between culture and nature as
simply a reflection of the dichotomy within ourselves that we are failing to
address.
For me one of the most effective ways of addressing this problem has been to
facilitate open and honest discussion between divergent people. Many years
ago (after I left the NRF), that was what I did. Probably our most succesful
discussions were those between an Afrikaner 'rightwing' group and the ANC
Youth League. When they met as human beings, many previously perceived
'problems' were not problems anymore and they were willing to work together.
Ironically it was the very party that claimed to 'reach out' to the
'rightwing' that eventually blocked it - probably because it was too
successful. Because the same 'ego' that needs to keep buying also needs to
have 'enemies' and hidden agendas.
I have recently decided to get a similar initiative - what I call a Dialogue
Initiative - going again. Why? Because, based on experience, I believe that
true dialogue, in which we meet as human beings, can solve what governments,
science, business and all kinds of other institutions have never been able
to solve and will never solve as long as they have all kinds of agendas and
'policies' to conform to.
I have already approached some organisations and individuals, but have not
encountered much enthusiasm. Perhaps because we have grown so cynical that
we don't believe anything can really change?
Any takers on Dlist to start dialogue groups - within local communities,
between communities and government or business, in fact between any
dissenting groups? I will come down to facilitate free of charge, simply
because I know the enormous potential of the process.
I am afraid that was a bit of a mouthful, Malinda, but I needed to say it.
By the way, I really like your thoughful inputs.
Douwe |
Douwe's comments in this thread are very interesting. Previously a
scientist, and later a scientific coordinator, he discovered that many of
the problems we are trying to solve through science were in fact human
problems. I experienced the same trajectory. First I worked as a scientists,
then an environmental consultant, and now strongly focus on dialogue between
humans, that is interest groups, civil society and government, business and
community, community factions, and so forth. This emphasis on dialogue
really is showing results as we saw this weekend with the inauguration of
South Africa's latest World Heritage Site, which required a great deal of
dialogue between often highly divergent groups. It could only happen when
common ground was found, and a collective view of the future was shaped. I
am starting to also see the Namibian Coastal Policy Programme achieve
results, again through honest and often rather heated exchange between
groups that ordinarily may never have met, yet share a common coast and a
common future. I thought that it may never be possible to bring them
together, but I was wrong. And I am not only talking about conservationists
and those view them as Tree Huggers, but it is also happening between those
who have always had the access and opportunities, and those who now need to
get their fair share. Any lessons learned thus far? Perhaps the most
important ones are that honest dialog does pay off, that transparency is
critical for the credibility of a policy process, and that there are no
shortcuts in a process where humans need to first and foremost need to
understand what is going on, before committing themselves to a policy that
aims address those problems in order to shape a better future. |
Good thoughtful and intelligent words, Douwe. Count me in on your dialogue
idea.
This culture thing bugs me too. It seems as if culture is simply a
collection of habits (often bad) that people are either too lazy or
bamboozled by a vested interest power group to change. Surely culture should
always be aiming at people becoming more human, conscious, open, fair, wise
etc and less dependent on "stuff"
Best
Patrick Dowling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Van der Zee" <douwe@umlilo.co.za>
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] A Dangerous Dichotomy
>
> Dear Malinda,
>
> I apologise for another delay in replying to your comments on the dangerous dichotomy. Like you, I consider it an important topic, but for me it goes so deep that in the past I just didn't even bother to write about it. With your prompting, however, I would like to do so. Please excuse some meandering in the process.
>
> For me I cannot separate the issue from my 'mission' in life. This was formulated by the famous historian Arnold Toynbee in the words, "An
increase in man's spirituality is now the only change in the biosphere against the biosphere being destroyed." This is also the theme of my book "From Intellect to Intelligence."
>
> We say we want to conserve 'cultural heritage'. But what is culture? As I see it, culture is basically a set of beliefs about how things are, and behaviour that reflects those beliefs. Some cultures are functional (in harmony with nature and themselves), and some not. But cultures interact and change all the time. So what do we mean by 'conserving cultural heritage'?
> Does that mean keeping everything as it was? Do we want to conserve clitoridectomy and even male circumcision, because it is 'cultural'? Do we
> want to encourage the repression of women because it is 'cultural'? With the difficulties they are encountering now, even the Japanese claim that their whaling is 'cultural'.
>
> I have referred in the past to Malidom Somé's words about the tremendous 'spiritual hunger' of the West, and that I believe this is why western
> tourists come to Africa. They seek something beyond 'culture': to experience a simple life of harmony and integrity. As far as I understand it, they seek to experience the honesty, openness, integrity and innocence that have virtually disappeared from western 'civilised' society. (Interesting that, that we should consider a society based on pretence, deceit, greed and
> inequality as 'civilised'!)
>
> I believe this is also the reason why some people seek 'unspoiled' nature: to experience simplicity, honesty and lack of judgement. I can relate to those who want to experience nature without seeing any other people. As a child I hated people - because I hated myself. And so I sought refuge in nature, where there were no people. Yet I never quite found what I was
looking for. Later, when doing my masters degree on otters in Tsitsikamma, I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed relating to the many hikers on the otter trail. Still later, as coordinator of oceanographic research with
> the National Research Foundation, I came to realise that we were trying to solve problems through science that could never be solved through
science - they were human problems. And so I resigned and started working with - and enjoyed working with - human beings. I realised that the problem wasn't human beings as such, but our very unwillingness to be human - through pretence and deceit. I discovered that, when we really start interacting as human beings without pretence, a very different freality emerges.
>
> I see both 'cultural' and 'natural' tourism as forms of escape in which mainly western tourists seek something that they intuitively know is
missing in their own lives. Both can also be means of getting more in touch with themselves. But even the preference is cultural: Europeans without any
> contact with indigenous societies hope to find the 'real Africa' in the form of original indigenous societies. Many South Africans want 'pure nature' and are not interested in local communities, because they think they know them.
>
> I think that it is our tendency to seek answers outside ourselves that causes us to destroy the very thing we are attracted to. The western way
of > life aimed at 'helping', 'uplifting' or 'developing' indigenous people has destroyed probably most functional societies on earth. In our quest to escape the products of our very greed, pretence and inequality, we seek to
> build our homes in the last vestiges of nature remaining around cities, and so destroy even those last vestiges. We flee from the cities to the
desert, and then destroy the desert with quad bikes.
>
> I agree with your and Neil's comments about consumerism. For me the basic question is: why do we act in this way? Consumerism is the very
cornerstone of capitalism (and, by the way, of communism). Neither can function without
> consumerism. We all believe that economic growth, whether 'sustainable' or not, is essential, but economic growth is based on consumerism. That is why we have to be convinced daily in thousands of advertisements that we need
> all kind of things that we don't need.
>
> Eckart Tolle puts it as follows in his worldwide bestseller "A New Earth - Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" (now heavily boosted by Oprah):
> "Paradoxically, what keeps the so-called consumer society going is the fact that trying to find yourself through things doesn't work: The ego
> satisfaction is short-lived and so you keep looking for more, keep buying,
> keep consuming." And that, in short, is the basic underlying problem.
>
> Ultimately, I see the 'dangerous dichotomy' between culture and nature as simply a reflection of the dichotomy within ourselves that we are failing to address.
>
> For me one of the most effective ways of addressing this problem has been to facilitate open and honest discussion between divergent people. Many years ago (after I left the NRF), that was what I did. Probably our most succesful
> discussions were those between an Afrikaner 'rightwing' group and the ANC Youth League. When they met as human beings, many previously perceived 'problems' were not problems anymore and they were willing to work together.
> Ironically it was the very party that claimed to 'reach out' to the 'rightwing' that eventually blocked it - probably because it was too
> successful. Because the same 'ego' that needs to keep buying also needs to have 'enemies' and hidden agendas.
>
> I have recently decided to get a similar initiative - what I call a Dialogue Initiative - going again. Why? Because, based on experience, I believe that true dialogue, in which we meet as human beings, can solve what governments,
> science, business and all kinds of other institutions have never been able to solve and will never solve as long as they have all kinds of agendas and 'policies' to conform to.
>
> I have already approached some organisations and individuals, but have not encountered much enthusiasm. Perhaps because we have grown so cynical that we don't believe anything can really change?
>
> Any takers on Dlist to start dialogue groups - within local communities, between communities and government or business, in fact between any
> dissenting groups? I will come down to facilitate free of charge, simply because I know the enormous potential of the process.
>
> I am afraid that was a bit of a mouthful, Malinda, but I needed to say it.
>
> By the way, I really like your thoughful inputs.
> Douwe |
This is a very interesting and thought provoking discussion. I 'Googled'
"culture" and this is what I got:
A particular society at a particular time and place;
The tastes in art and manners that are favoured by a social group;
Acculturation: all the knowledge and values shared by a society;
The attitudes and behaviour that are characteristic of a particular social
group or organization;
Generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures
that give such activity significance. ...;
A set of learned beliefs, values and behaviours the way of life shared by
the members of a society;
The sum of ways of living built up by a group of human beings, which is
transmitted from one generation to another;
Values, ideas, and other symbolic meaningful systems that are transmitted
and created by a group of people;
The collective body of understanding, belief and behaviour among a given
group of people; depends on the human capacity for learning and transmitting
knowledge from one generation to another;
The reflection and prefiguration of the possibilities of organization of
everyday life in a given historical moment; a complex of aesthetics,
Feelings and mores through which a collectivity reacts on the life that is
objectively determined by its economy. ...
A pattern of values, beliefs and behaviours shared by people with similar
ethnic backgrounds, languages, religions, family values and/or life views,
which provides them with their identities and a framework for understanding
experience.
It could just enrich the discussion/'argument'...
|
Thank you Patrick. It would be an honour to work with a man of your calibre.
I'll send you a document I drew up that elaborates on what I have in mind.
My perception is that we live in a society where we all wait for government
or business to change things and consequently often perceive ourselves as
victims of those institutions when the expected salvation does not
materialise. True dialogue is an enormously empowering experience for all
participants that could change this by taking the oft quoted but seldom
applied 'consultation' and 'community participation' to a completely new
level.
Regards,
Douwe |
I am glad this discussion has picked up again. The topics of people and nature, and not people vs nature, as well as the basic problem of unrestrained economic growth as the perceived panacea to all ills, need to be kept in mind and in sight at all times.
I can verify Douwe and Francois's conclusion on honest and open discussion between people leading to mutual solutions. Sometimes problems one could not solve or not being able to find common ground is resolved when a bit of the formality is left behind and people are allowed to say what is really in their hearts. What needs to be done is to cultivate the kind of environment where people are not afraid of the vulnerability that comes with opening up and speaking the thing that really matters to you. In too many meetings and workshops the language and conduct has become formal and too businesslike. I can relate to people's fear to open up and contribute their own unique feelings and possible solutions, as opposed to not just recycling all the jargon and catch frases of the moment. Maybe there should be more talking around the fire than talking in the workshop venues and boardrooms. Douwe, I like your ideal of dialogue sessions and would like to hear more about it. My email address is m.gardiner@conservation.org.
As for culture, it has been discussed before. Growing up as the human specie we created many cultures. Aspects of all cultures have becomed outmoded and unacceptable, but there are many things in cultures that enrich us and are positive to take forward, but I agree that bad habits should not be championed because its "part of our culture" There is a gun-culture in many areas of North America and it could be easy to say it comes from the frontier days, but the reality is, that culture is resulting in people walking into schools and mowing off innocent people.
Aspects of culture are good though, like some of the myths and stories that illustrate the strong connection people had to the land, cultural events that bind communities and strengthen ties, in an age where both the connection with the land as well as social ties are breaking down, these cultural aspects can play a role in reconnecting them. We need to keep an open mind around culture.
And then, Patrick, a lamb choppie and soetsuurdeeg bread is just too good not to make it part of culture! I'll take that part of culture any day over the McBurger part.
|
I think we speak the same language, Malinda. The problem with 'formal'
meetings is that participants are generally tied to policies and procedures
of their respective organisations, and depend on saying the 'right' things
for their salaries - hence the fear of being completely honest. As somebody
once said: "it is difficult to make a man understand if his salary depends
on not understanding." The lack of those inhibitions actually gives the
unemployed tremendous power (which is probably why organisations tend to
insist on structured meetings). And yet there are many people in government
and business extremely dedicated to what they do, and who would love to be
more honest (and in rare cases have the courage to be). The art lies in
creating an environment safe enough for them to do so. I have great
admiration for people such as Francois for doing this kind of work in the
context of formal government and business structures. I don't think it's
easy.
It is my perception (and I could be wrong) that many of the so-called
consultation meetings between government or business and local communities
are not that at all. Certainly what I have seen of the EIA process is that
the meetings are structured in such a way as to make it very difficult for
local people (or for people tied to organisational policy) to truly have a
say. That is why I have this idea of a 'grassroots' dialogue movement (and
the sooner it is not 'my' idea anymore the better) as an independent
movement in which anybody could participate. If it were to grow strong
enough, it could have the power to counteract the kind of 'bullying'
strategies that are often employed by formal structures.
As far as my comments on 'culture' are concerned, I would like to stress
that I am not against the value of culture as such (I agree wholeheartedly
with your comment on soetsuurdeeg bread, Malinda!). That is indeed what
tourists come to experience. I just wanted to caution against simply
assuming that anything 'cultural' is of necessity good. Sometimes cultural
habits that were 'good' (functional) in the past are not so anymore in a
changed context.
-----Original Message-----
From: Malinda Gardiner [mailto:hardeveldtour@telkomsa.net]
Sent: 14 March 2008 10:00 AM
To: General Discussion
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] A Dangerous Dichotomy
I am glad this discussion has picked up again. The topics of people and
nature, and not people vs nature, as well as the basic problem of
unrestrained economic growth as the perceived panacea to all ills, need to
be kept in mind and in sight at all times.
I can verify Douwe and Francois's conclusion on honest and open discussion
between people leading to mutual solutions. Sometimes problems one could
not solve or not being able to find common ground is resolved when a bit of
the formality is left behind and people are allowed to say what is really in
their hearts. What needs to be done is to cultivate the kind of environment
where people are not afraid of the vulnerability that comes with opening up
and speaking the thing that really matters to you. In too many meetings and
workshops the language and conduct has become formal and too businesslike.
I can relate to people's fear to open up and contribute their own unique
feelings and possible solutions, as opposed to not just recycling all the
jargon and catch frases of the moment. Maybe there should be more talking
around the fire than talking in the workshop venues and boardrooms. Douwe, I
like your ideal of dialogue sessions and would like to hear more about it.
My email address is m.gardiner@conservation.org.
As for culture, it has been discussed before. Growing up as the human
specie we created many cultures. Aspects of all cultures have becomed
outmoded and unacceptable, but there are many things in cultures that enrich
us and are positive to take forward, but I agree that bad habits should not
be championed because its "part of our culture" There is a gun-culture in
many areas of North America and it could be easy to say it comes from the
frontier days, but the reality is, that culture is resulting in people
walking into schools and mowing off innocent people.
Aspects of culture are good though, like some of the myths and stories that
illustrate the strong connection people had to the land, cultural events
that bind communities and strengthen ties, in an age where both the
connection with the land as well as social ties are breaking down, these
cultural aspects can play a role in reconnecting them. We need to keep an
open mind around culture.
And then, Patrick, a lamb choppie and soetsuurdeeg bread is just too good
not to make it part of culture! I'll take that part of culture any day over
the McBurger part.
|
This is an interesting issue and worth pursuing.
Clearly we all have different cultures, or at least differing ideas
about what represents our cultural values and what hang off of those.
These arise not just from cultural differences but perhaps more
importantly from personal perspectives of what represents culture and
what importance and emphasis we place on cultural issues and beliefs.
If we are not beholden to any cultural belief, if we are not 'married'
to it so that it does not form the point of departure from which
decisions - environmental, personal, social, etc - are taken, then we
are not necessarily abrogating cultural values but merely being
pragmatic and practical in our decision making. On the other hand if we
do rely on utilisting our 'cultural values', be they personal or part of
the greater social web, then we often become victim to preordained outcomes.
So in order to avoid negative outcomes we need to examine, when we make
decisions on environmental management for example, what the best outcome
for not only the environment is but also for the people immediately
affected and then also for society at large, provincially, nationally,
globally, etc.
I think that this is where the dangerous disjuncture occurs when
environmentally based decisions are made, based on anachronistic or
outdated or misinterpreted cultural beliefs or shibboleths. This is
where for instance environmentalists get accused at putting the
environment first and forgetting about people, as per the example quote
of Madagascar in this thread.
We have to make decisions that are not only environmentally sustainable
but also culturally sustainable. Given the global ecosystem crisis and
all it means to life on earth, there is surely an urgent need to put
aside outdated or archaic cultural beliefs that prevent us from making
decisions that will be good not only for the planet but for our heirs
seven generations hence. Surely culture cannot be cast in stone - in
order to remain competitive we must remain flexible?
That all being said we cannot ever forget the fact that there are not
just the two sometimes conflicting sides to decision making -
environment and culture. There is the 800 pound gorilla that is
commercial interest, capitalism, big business, corporate political
nexus, call it what you will. And this lobby has a very narrow agenda
and will use any tools to divide those who are trying to make the most
sustainable (socially and environmentally) decision. And this is where
the real problem is.
I really believe we can solve the differences between culture and
environment - in fact i would go so far as to argue that this is often
what occurs but is undermined by the efforts of those who are fixated on
capital return. They are all too often the fly in the ointment. Sure we
need to make a living, but do we need to make a killing? Especially when
this is often the most valid question against which to consider both
environmental and social sustainability.
I have probably left myself wide open to be torn into because of the
general nature of my comments but I just wanted to toss some of my ideas
into the mix for what they may be worth and in order to hopefully enrich
this train of thought. May the journey be rewarding!
Glenn Ashton
http://www.ekogaia.org
|
Very well put, Glenn. I do like the line about making a living, not a
killing. Unfortunately that dichotomy is probably lost on most who dedicate
their lives to the latter.
Perhaps because of the inherent difference in perspective between those who
tread lightly and those who don't (putting it mildly), we -- environment and
culture -- might be better served communicating the importance of intact
ecosystems to the well being of even the rich, as well as the high costs of
environmental degradation (initially borne by the poor but affecting the
bottom line of even the wealthiest companies eventually). "Hit 'em where it
hurts", as they say here in the land of consumption (USA), where making a
killing is very much admired indeed.
Tundi Agardy
tundiagardy@earthlink.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "ekogaia" <ekogaia@iafrica.com>
To: "General Discussion" <discuss@dlist-benguela.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] A Dangerous Dichotomy
>
> This is an interesting issue and worth pursuing.
>
> Clearly we all have different cultures, or at least differing ideas
> about what represents our cultural values and what hang off of those.
> These arise not just from cultural differences but perhaps more
> importantly from personal perspectives of what represents culture and
> what importance and emphasis we place on cultural issues and beliefs.
>
> If we are not beholden to any cultural belief, if we are not 'married'
> to it so that it does not form the point of departure from which
> decisions - environmental, personal, social, etc - are taken, then we
> are not necessarily abrogating cultural values but merely being
> pragmatic and practical in our decision making. On the other hand if we
> do rely on utilisting our 'cultural values', be they personal or part of
> the greater social web, then we often become victim to preordained
> outcomes.
>
> So in order to avoid negative outcomes we need to examine, when we make
> decisions on environmental management for example, what the best outcome
> for not only the environment is but also for the people immediately
> affected and then also for society at large, provincially, nationally,
> globally, etc.
>
> I think that this is where the dangerous disjuncture occurs when
> environmentally based decisions are made, based on anachronistic or
> outdated or misinterpreted cultural beliefs or shibboleths. This is
> where for instance environmentalists get accused at putting the
> environment first and forgetting about people, as per the example quote
> of Madagascar in this thread.
>
> We have to make decisions that are not only environmentally sustainable
> but also culturally sustainable. Given the global ecosystem crisis and
> all it means to life on earth, there is surely an urgent need to put
> aside outdated or archaic cultural beliefs that prevent us from making
> decisions that will be good not only for the planet but for our heirs
> seven generations hence. Surely culture cannot be cast in stone - in
> order to remain competitive we must remain flexible?
>
> That all being said we cannot ever forget the fact that there are not
> just the two sometimes conflicting sides to decision making -
> environment and culture. There is the 800 pound gorilla that is
> commercial interest, capitalism, big business, corporate political
> nexus, call it what you will. And this lobby has a very narrow agenda
> and will use any tools to divide those who are trying to make the most
> sustainable (socially and environmentally) decision. And this is where
> the real problem is.
>
> I really believe we can solve the differences between culture and
> environment - in fact i would go so far as to argue that this is often
> what occurs but is undermined by the efforts of those who are fixated on
> capital return. They are all too often the fly in the ointment. Sure we
> need to make a living, but do we need to make a killing? Especially when
> this is often the most valid question against which to consider both
> environmental and social sustainability.
>
> I have probably left myself wide open to be torn into because of the
> general nature of my comments but I just wanted to toss some of my ideas
> into the mix for what they may be worth and in order to hopefully enrich
> this train of thought. May the journey be rewarding!
>
> Glenn Ashton
> http://www.ekogaia.org |
Hi Francois Odendaal, it is has been quite a while without chatting through
DLIST email. Firstly, I am apologizing for not responding or making comments
on Draft document, but rather raising up a concern which is provoking my
mind.
On the 12 - 13 March 2008, I have attended NACOMA Steering Committee Meeting
in Swakopmund and we had familiarization field trip between Swakopmund and
Walvis Bay, to see the destruction of 4x4 and Quad Bikes done in December
2007. It was unbelievable for me, to see the elite groups trying to
privatize the coastal land between the two towns. My fear is that, by 2030
the coastal area between the two towns will not be accessible to the Public,
but will be the private property of the elite groups.
Parker! I am not against the infrastructural Development on the coast, but I
am saying that the buildings are wrongly located because they suppose to be
on the east side of the road, not on the edge of the coastal land which is
too risk for any incidence of Global warming, e.g. Tsunami.
The two municipalities should find mechanisms to service the land on the
east side of the road, to avoid infrastructure Development to engulf the
coastal land between the said Towns. We should learn from other countries,
let's not copy the same mistake of development. Tourists are visiting our
coast because of the unique, natural beauty of open coastal area.
Man! I just throw the shoe in the air, I don't know the feelings of other
technocrats.
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Odendaal [mailto:francois@ecoafrica.co.za]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:40 AM
To: General Discussion
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] A Dangerous Dichotomy
Douwe's comments in this thread are very interesting. Previously a
scientist, and later a scientific coordinator, he discovered that many of
the problems we are trying to solve through science were in fact human
problems. I experienced the same trajectory. First I worked as a scientists,
then an environmental consultant, and now strongly focus on dialogue between
humans, that is interest groups, civil society and government, business and
community, community factions, and so forth. This emphasis on dialogue
really is showing results as we saw this weekend with the inauguration of
South Africa's latest World Heritage Site, which required a great deal of
dialogue between often highly divergent groups. It could only happen when
common ground was found, and a collective view of the future was shaped. I
am starting to also see the Namibian Coastal Policy Programme achieve
results, again through honest and often rather heated exchange between
groups that ordinarily may never have met, yet share a common coast and a
common future. I thought that it may never be possible to bring them
together, but I was wrong. And I am not only talking about conservationists
and those view them as Tree Huggers, but it is also happening between those
who have always had the access and opportunities, and those who now need to
get their fair share. Any lessons learned thus far? Perhaps the most
important ones are that honest dialog does pay off, that transparency is
critical for the credibility of a policy process, and that there are no
shortcuts in a process where humans need to first and foremost need to
understand what is going on, before committing themselves to a policy that
aims address those problems in order to shape a better future. |
hi
a certain tract of land arround the coast should not be available for private ownership period. and that should actually be legislated. not to be tampered with by any political party either. these people think that because they have the financial means that gives them the right to do as they please. i think that its high time that goverments should be lobyied inthis regard. or alternatively funds should be made available for this land to be bought for the public and be protected for future generations.
Timoteus Katoma <tkatoma@iway.na> wrote:
Hi Francois Odendaal, it is has been quite a while without chatting through
DLIST email. Firstly, I am apologizing for not responding or making comments
on Draft document, but rather raising up a concern which is provoking my
mind.
On the 12 - 13 March 2008, I have attended NACOMA Steering Committee Meeting
in Swakopmund and we had familiarization field trip between Swakopmund and
Walvis Bay, to see the destruction of 4x4 and Quad Bikes done in December
2007. It was unbelievable for me, to see the elite groups trying to
privatize the coastal land between the two towns. My fear is that, by 2030
the coastal area between the two towns will not be accessible to the Public,
but will be the private property of the elite groups.
Parker! I am not against the infrastructural Development on the coast, but I
am saying that the buildings are wrongly located because they suppose to be
on the east side of the road, not on the edge of the coastal land which is
too risk for any incidence of Global warming, e.g. Tsunami.
The two municipalities should find mechanisms to service the land on the
east side of the road, to avoid infrastructure Development to engulf the
coastal land between the said Towns. We should learn from other countries,
let's not copy the same mistake of development. Tourists are visiting our
coast because of the unique, natural beauty of open coastal area.
Man! I just throw the shoe in the air, I don't know the feelings of other
technocrats. |
|
|
|
