Beyond Nature and Culture

by Philippe Descola, Janet Lloyd (Translator)

Philippe Descola has become one of the most important anthropologists working today, and Beyond Nature and Culture has been a major influence in European intellectual life since its French publication in 2005. Here, finally, it is brought to English-language readers. At its heart is a question central to both anthropology and philosophy: what is the relationship between nature and culture?


Culture—as a collective human making, of art, language, and so forth—is often seen as essentially different from nature, which is portrayed as a collective of the nonhuman world, of plants, animals, geology, and natural forces. Descola shows this essential difference to be, however, not only a specifically Western notion, but also a very recent one. Drawing on ethnographic examples from around the world and theoretical understandings from cognitive science, structural analysis, and phenomenology, he formulates a sophisticated new framework, the “four ontologies”— animism, totemism, naturalism, and analogism—to account for all the ways we relate ourselves to nature. By thinking beyond nature and culture as a simple dichotomy, Descola offers nothing short of a fundamental reformulation by which anthropologists and philosophers can see the world afresh.

Genres: Anthropology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Social Science, Theory, Nature

488 pages, Hardcover

First published September 14, 2005

Reviews

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ovo je važna knjiga. Antropološko remek-delo – nezaobilazna lektira za sve one koje interesuje ekološka humanistika i, još šire, razumevanje prirode i kulture kao termina. Osim ogromne količine najrazličitijih informacija (toliko velike da prosto ne znate kada neko uspe sve to da prikupi), zadivljuje to da se Deskola zaista bavio terenskim radom – živeo je dve godine sa amazonskim plemenom Ačuar (Achuar) i mnoga njegova razmatranja proističu iz tog iskustva. Ipak, Deskola crpi izvore doslovce iz celoga sveta: Kri, Papua Nova Gvineja, Malajsko poluostrvo, Sibir, Aboridžini... Iskustva fizički udaljenih zajednica pokazuje ne samo moguća povezivanja, nego i neodrživost nekih temeljnih predstava zapadnog čoveka, za koje, štaviše, deluje da nema alternative. Jedna od njih je upravo razlikovanje prirode i kulture, a s tim i sijaset izuzetno zanimljivih drugih distinkcija, od kojih bi možda ovaj put mogla da bude najzanimljivija neodrživost razlike između različitih formi života. Štaviše, u svetonazorima plemenskih zajednica, sfera onoga što je ljudsko izuzetno često se proteže na životinje, biljke, pa čak i nežive entitete. Ponekad se insistira na kontinuitetu, a ponekad se on ruši, ali na način održavanja zajednice koja, ne želeći da se ogreši o opšti poredak sveta, održava svoje postojanje. Otuda ne čudi da se lov često doživljava kao specifičan oblik razmene – s time što ulovljena životinja pripada istom ontološkom nivou kao i čovek! Zbog toga je neophodno izvesti niz pripremnih, ritualnih radnji, koje bi „objasnile džungli” neophodnost takvog čina. Jedan od najupečatljivijih zabeležen je kod jednog sibirskog plemena – signal da je lov dobrodošao traži se u erotskom snu, prouzrokovanom samonametnutom seksualnom apstinencijom lovaca (18). Takav san je poruka Duha šume, da je lov dobrodošao. S tim u vezi, valja primetiti da ne samo što nije univerzalna podela između prirode i kulture, ljudskog i ne-ljudskog, nego i između tela i duha. Postoje zajednice koje ne znaju za tu distinkciju – telo jeste duh (121). O tome koliko različitih neugodnih zaključaka to može da ima, govori nam zapažanje jednog šamana o tome kako je jedan od najvećih čovekovih izazova to da sve što jede ima dušu (16). Mogu oduzeti život nekom poput mene samo uz niz postupaka koji će me opravdati pred takvim nužnim kanibalizmom. Ipak, izuzetno je zanimljivo da ni razmišljanje o razlikama nije univerzalno. Na primer, neke zajednice veruju da je transformacija različitih bića moguća (neko se u prašumi, na primer, pretvori u neko biće), dok neke zajednice to odbacuju. Za neke je pak svaki pojavni oblik sveta izraz nekakvog Sveta sna, koji ne predstavlja prapočetak, već osvedočenje pojavnosti u večnosti (147). Podseća malko na nešto što bi Platonu bilo blisko?

Ipak, iz celog čitanja Deskoline monografije najvažnije je izvući podelu na četiri različita pogleda na uspostavljanje navedenih dihotomija. To su animizam, naturalizam, totemizam i analogizam. Sva četiri pristupa predstavljaju složeni sistem pogleda na (ne)istovetnost čoveka i ne-ljudskih životnih oblika, ali i odnosa prirode i kulture. Rizikujući da ponešto ispadne jednostavnije nego što treba, izneću najosnovnije podatke – animizam podrazumeva da su ljudi i ne-ljudski životni oblici organizovani odvojeno, ali sa istim unutrašnjim i spoljašnjim odlikama; naturalizam podrazumeva to da je sfera ljudskog i ne-ljudskog odvojena i da se može napraviti granica između prirode i kulture. Totemizam zastupa to da su kultura i priroda (odnosno ljudsko i ne-ljudsko) jedna celina, ali da unutar njih postoje podele, a analogizam da celokupan kosmos predstavlja jedno društvo, u kome je sve nerazabirivo izmešano. Različite zajednice poseduju različite modele pogleda na prirodu i kulturu i, uopšte, svet – na zapadu je preovlađujuć naturalizam, ali Deskola tvrdi da nijedan model nije najbolji, već da svi treba da budu razmatrani u tumačenju sveta. Kakve su nam temeljna uverenja, takvi su nam i najvažniji zaključci vezani za samouspostavljanje na planeti. Ko to previdi, u grdnoj je zabludi. A ko zablude prihvati i osvesti, dobija šansu da ih preraste. S tim na umu, treba se radovati prilici za proširivanje doživljaja, pronalaženje perspektive koja nije samo antropocentrična i instrumentališuća. Ona je već osvedočena u različitim oblicima, a antropološka istraživanja ih mogu približiti onima koji, poput mene, nemaju taj luksuz, a ni kapacitet, da žive dve godine sa nekom plemenskom zajednicom da bi shvatili kakve bi trebalo da budu mere sveta.

[Boria Sax · Rating 5 out of 5]

A consensus seems to be emerging among people in many fields from ecology to philosophy that dominance of anthropocentrism in Western culture is approaching an end, but remarkably few people have seriously tried to envision what this change would entail. Some people expect to continue essentially as before, perhaps with a few reforms. Others speak of the change very dramatically, while giving almost no specifics, a bit as people used to imagine the Communist utopia. Still others are panicked by the prospect and describe it entirely in terms of negatives, for example a decline in human rights. All of these approaches impress me as not only lazy but unnecessary. Certainly, we cannot predict what society will be like after the decline of anthropocentrism in any detail, but disciplines such as anthropology, history and folklore give us sufficient tools to at least envisage, in fairly clear terms, some of the possibilities. Descola in Beyond Nature and Culture has, so far as I can tell, done more than anybody else in exploring models for what life after anthropocentrism would be like. According to him, anthropocentrism, found only in the modern Occident, is only one of four basic ontologies, with which people have tried to understand the world. The others are animism (indigenous cultures of Africa and most of the Americas, most of Siberia), totemism (Australian aborigines), and analogism (China, the Renaissance in the West, plus enclaves among indigenous peoples in Mexico, West-Central Africa, and Northern Siberia). These other three ontologies have also survived in enclaves within Western culture, and we may expect one or more of them to increase in prominence over the decades and centuries to come.

[Rhys · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting approach to comparing various human worldviews as they relate to culture and nature. I was particularly impressed with the effort made not to place the Western worldview as an evolutionary apex.

There was a lot of example from anthropology to support the thesis.

[melancholinary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is amazing. I wish I read this earlier. I am so engaged with Descola's idea of the mode of identification and relation. His humble conclusion, his awareness that his work could easily fall into a hole of simplification although he provides extensive comparative data, and curious wonder on why there's no nonhuman parliament really struck me. This ontological turn in anthropology shows a more engaging discussion with a more interesting approach in understanding the cosmogony of human thought and social organisation of things than the post-humanism with their more-than-humanity.

[Nina D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rêvé que je mangeais des nuggets de poulet humain à cause de ce livre

[Jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

bon en vrai j’ai sauté 150 pages mais 550 -150 p. ça fait quand meme 400 pages et je merite de les avoir lues + je le terminerai jamais donc SLAY MOI REGARDEZ J’AI LU DESCOLA (et c’etait sympa, si vous faites une these sur les animaux et les arbres je recommande)

[philosodendron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-provoking. For someone who has no previous education in anthropology, it's hard to take the content very critically...but what I can say about the form is that this could have been SO much shorter without losing any of its message or even much of the rich examples and caste studies.

[Doa'a Ali]

مجال بحثي مدهش مدهش

[Neil MacDonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a grand synthesis in the tradition of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Descola posits a way of organising the disparate and multifaceted confusion of human cultures. He proposes that all societies grasp the world around them initially in terms of two binary oppositions: other entities in the world are psychically similar or different, and they are physically similar or different. Combining these two oppositions create four possible world views. Our own Western world view, which he terms naturalism, sees other creatures and objects in the universe as being made of the same physical stuff, driven by the same laws, and differing physically from each other only in degree. By contrast, we reserve a special interior life to humans which is shared by no other entity. So naturalism rests on a world view in which things are physically similar but psychically dissimilar. From a wealth of anthropological material, he characterises animism as being a world view proceeding from an understanding that though we are physically distinct from other entities, we share with them a soul; and totemism as resting on a notion that other entities are like us both physically and psychically; and, finally, analogism as the world view proceeding from the idea that other entities are physically and psychically different from us.

There is always a pleasure that comes from understanding the confusion of the world as the reflection of simpler underlying principles. Of course, other schema are available. The test of whether Descola’s schema is useful is not just whether it provides a taxonomy of societies, but whether it explains what causes particular societies have particular world views. In this regard, Descola sketches in some material drivers of change. His analysis of Western society and the reasons why it came to make a radical distinction between nature and culture follows well- trodden paths. At the other end of the grid, he makes a plausible case for the equation of animism with certain ways of making a living, particularly the egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies.

He is, perhaps, at his most interesting in attempting to trace the way in which domestication of animals carried the risk of fracturing animism’s identity and mutual respect between creatures. By comparing different sub-Arctic societies who depend on reindeer hunting and/or herding, he sketches in a transformation starting with the animist Montagnais of North America and ending with the analogist Exirit-Bulagat of Asia. Though he is at pains to demonstrate that domestication of other beings does not automatically lead to analogism, he sketches-in the profiferation of entities and chains of dependence in the Exiti-Bulagat world view that perturb and conflict with an animist cosmos. Analogism renders the utter confusion of the universe comprehensible by seeking arcane connections or analogies between them. This is, he argues, a society which tends to hierarchy and fear. In our own Western history, Medieval thought, with its complex understanding of the Great Chain of Being and parallels between the Earthly and the Heavenly cosmos, would be a prime example of analogism.

As for totemism, much of the argument rests on evidence from Aboriginal culture in Australia and I found it less explanatory. There is no analysis of what might cause totemism, nor of how it might transform into another world view.

Be warned, the writing style is exuberantly and Gallicly intellectual. Whether you are convinced or not by his argument, buckle up for a wild ride. It repays the effort.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amazone

When I first bought, 'Beyond Nature and Culture,' I thought the purpose of this book was to transform the western worldview. Mr. Descola does do that to a certain extent. However, his main intent is to offer a challenge to the anthropology discipline, and how it portrays the other.

Written for an academic audience, and influenced by the structural theories of Levi Strauss, 'Beyond Nature and Culture,' decries the dichotomizing tendencies of portraying the other that is characteristic of traditional anthropology, takes issue with some of the relativistic tendencies that are currently in vogue, and at the same time pokes at the anthropocentric biases of naturalism, the foundation influencing the anthropology discipline.

Obviously, he has a lot on his plate and his challenge is to synthesize these themes.

In a broad ethnological sweep of the worlds cultures, Descola seeks to achieve this lofty goal by revising anthropological notions on how humans schematize their experience in different ways; concentrating on the structural differences between the worldviews of animism, totemism, analogism, and naturalism.

Although Mr. Descola does allow for local differences, he attempts to classify the world's cultural belief systems into these four types of worldview, with animism and naturalism at the opposite sides of the spectrum and totemism and analogism falling in between these two polar opposite ways of viewing the world.

Traditionally, much of the world tended to hold animist, analogist, and totemistic worldviews. It was only with the rise of naturalism that the occident was provided with a unique perspective for viewing the world. The occident had for the most part held an analogist worldview before naturalism.

Every culture is ethnocentric to a certain extent.

However, naturalism provides for a peculiar form of ethnocentrism, for it is the occidental west that is really the exotic other, and this is Mr. Descola's first point, the rest of the worlds cultures follow consistent patterns. Therefore, who are we to judge how other cultures view the world?

Summarizing these patterns of relating, animist worldviews believe that spirit is immanent in all things. Therefore all things are treated as subjects, along the lines of the I and Thou existentialist philosophy of Martin Buber. According to the animist perspective everything should be honored as having some form of interiority, intent, and subjective consciousness.

Indeed, animist belief systems hold the view that animals see themselves as fellow humans, as brothers and sisters who give their bodies as gifts for humans to consume. Thus, although animists allow for physical differences between the flora and fauna of the world, there is no difference in spirit.

The naturalist perspective in contrast inverts this perspective, holding that at the most basic fundamental level everything is guided by the same natural laws and is constituted of the same physical and chemical elements, yet only humans have the gift of subjectivism, interiority, and intent.

Naturalism does allow for higher order animals to display some intent, but humans are at the apex of consciousness in naturalism and again it is these anthropocentric tendencies within naturalism that Descola takes issue with; demonstrating that this anthropocentric bias has clouded anthropolgy's views of other cultures through theories of cultural change such as cultural evolutionism, for example.

I admit I did not follow Descolas logic on totemism and analogism as much as his perspectives on animism, however I will still attempt to summarize. The aborigines of Australia are given as the classic example of Totemism.

Members of a Totemic group have physical and spiritual connections to one another, i.e. Kinship, etc. This is why certain animals are considered the group emblem, and why there may be taboos against eating that particular animal. For instance, members of the eel clan may not be able to eat that eel.

Mr. Descola's point is that in totemic systems difference is segmented across totemic lines. Members of the bear clan and the eel clan do not share external ties. The ties are internal to each totemic group. Members of each group perceive members of another group as an objective other, whereas internally members of the same group are treated as sharing a similar subjectivity.

Analogism gives rise to the hierarchical modes of perceiving the world that is intrinsic to naturalism. Most of the world's contemporary major religions can be placed within the analogy category of relating to the world.

For instance, the chain of being of Christianity, and the yin and yang of Taoism are examples of a way of relating to the world that demonstrates analogical thought. Alchemy, the idea of the four humours that guided traditional western medicine, and the notion that the microcosm is a manifestation of the macrocosm are also examples of analogical thought.

In analogical thought everything is made up of similar physical and spiritual elements that is constituted differently according to the particular mode of being that that particular entity expresses.

Grossly oversimplifying, an example would be a turtle manifesting more yang properties and a fish manifesting more yin properties.

Mr. Descola's point is that in analogical thought there is gradual discontinuity and progressive differentiation of the world's entities.

Out of the necessity of summary I have oversimplified and been somewhat reductionistic with the thoughts of Descola. Readers should also keep in mind that they are reading Descola through my lens and any of their evaluation of Descola should begin after they have read his book, and not based merely on my comments.

However, in his book Descola has consistently decried the reductionistic tendencies of traditional anthropology, and if there is a critique of him it is here.

Admittedly, it is difficult to give this sermon since I have more or less done the same thing with his book. However, reducing all of the ways in which the world's cultures express their beliefs into four categories does not really progress much on the dichotomizing tendencies of naturalism that Mr. Descola has condemned.

For the sake of generality, any systemic perspective is going to display reductionistic tendencies. Cultures are merely models of being, believing, and acting.

Within any culture there is a plurality of perspectives. In a study of culture all we can expect to achieve is demonstrate that there is a modal way of being in relationship with the world while honoring the differences that exist within that system. The same must be said with any attempt to categorize the world's diverse cultures.

Still, despite their imperfections models have their use as long as we keep in mind that the model expresses tendencies and not stereotypes.

Mr. Descola does weave his initial themes together and provides the reader with a model for the many ways of relating to and viewing the world.

However along the way he may sacrifice the deconstructionist trends of relativism. Still, in spite of the critiques, this book is a must read for anyone interested in worldviews.

Trevor Neal

[Valentín Serrano García · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must be read by anyone interested in history, philosophy, anthropology or science.
Undoubtedly, one of the bests works within its field in the last years.

It provides fundamental outlines and insights to deal with the diversity of cultures, understanding their grounds and shaking narrow points of view. Idealism, materialism, biologicism (and those approaches burdened by ideologies) are put in brackets, alongside with deterministic authors such as Jared Diamond or Yuval Harari (who should have read this book to be more accurate in their works).

[Vanessa M · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really tried to read this but i gave up afer 150 pages!

[delly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Descola is such a yapper.

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was worried that troubling the distinction between nature and culture would simply reimpose a new dichotomy, a distinction between societies for which the nature/culture distinction holds, and societies for which it doesn't, but the way the two categories settle help to ensure that no developmentalist model can be imposed upon this separation: much of Europe and Africa fall on one side, much of the rest of the world on the other. Furthermore, I think the way Tupinambá mobilizes Descola's fourfold schema through mapping it onto Karatani's modes of exchange is extremely helpful: A corresponds epistemologically to either animism (same interiority, different physicality) or totemism (same interiority, same physicality), while B corresponds to analogism (different interiority, different physicality) and C to naturalism (different interiority, same physicality). Each overarching ideological formation governs the relations between humans and animals (alongside the rest of the natural world): nature as partner (A), as resource (B), or as matter (C). In animism, there is no human/non-human animal distinction (no anthropocentrism), but it remains anthropogenic, because its understanding of animals is based on its understanding of humans. Totemism doesn't have a human/non-human animal distinction at an ontological level, but distinctions are rather made on the basis of various empirical attributes. Analogism lends itself to Great Chain of Being thinking, while naturalism makes the distinction on the basis of a hierarchy of capacities. Overall, Descola finds himself in a tradition that includes Lévi-Strauss, Bourdieu, and Strathern, arguing for anthropology to think societies from the basis of their own epistemological assumptions rather than one's own.

[AimanFasil · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was pure joy to read Beyond Nature and Culture, which, I dare to say, is the most important book since Kant’s first Critique. The book is composed in a masterful way, addresses the perennial issues of anthropology and unites knowledge from anthropology, biology, philosophy, ethology, ecology, history and developmental psychology. The flip side is that it requires some prior knowledge of anthropology.

[Dyan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book on the various relationships between humans and non-humans. Though I didn't necessarily "agree" with all of it, and though it can be a little jargon-y at times, if you're able to get past that then I would definitely recommend it!

(I accidently left my review for this under The Ecology of Others! Woops!)

[Fany · Rating 4 out of 5]

"C’est ce qu’illustre une anecdote mettant en scène un homme du totem kangourou qui, contemplant une photo de lui-même, déclarait en référence à l’image : « Celui-là est exactement pareil à moi ; tout comme l’est un kangourou »."

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Complexe mais extrêmement intéressant

[Gabby R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though theoretically dense, a great effort from Descola to challenge the nature and culture divide. I especially liked the domesticated and wild section. I’ll likely have to return to this text.

[Kelda]

Not sure why I'm starting this now . . . just started winter break from school today. Professor Peter Stahl described it as very difficult, fascinating, and rewarding. I loved the shorter Descola article we were assigned in the Anthropological Theory class, and I've been wanting to read more by him. Multiple ontologies, and overturning the primacy of the nature/culture divide view. Read the introduction, and I'm already hooked.

[Luís Branco · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book on animist and naturalist I have read so far.