Bitter Shade: The Ecological Challenge of Human Consciousness

Yale Agrarian Studies Series

by Michael R. Dove

A seminal anthropological work on the paradoxical relationship between human consciousness and the environment
 
“Innovative, insightful, incandescent.”—Arun Agrawal, author of Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects
 
This book asks age-old questions about the relationship between human consciousness and the How do we think about our own thoughts and actions? How can we transcend the exigencies of daily life? How can we achieve sufficient distance from our own everyday realities to think and act more sustainably?
 
To address these questions, Michael R. Dove draws on the results of decades of research in South and Southeast Asia on how local cultures have circumvented the “curse of consciousness”—the paradox that we cannot completely comprehend the ecosystem of which we are part. He distills from his ethnographic, ecological, and historical research three perspectivism (seeing oneself from outside oneself), metamorphosis (becoming something that one is not), and mimesis (copying something that one is not), which help a society to transcend the hubris and myopia of everyday existence and achieve greater insight into its ecosystem.

312 pages, Hardcover

Published February 23, 2021

About the author

Michael R. Dove is the Margaret K. Musser Professor of Social Ecology in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Director of the Tropical Resources Institute, and Professor of Anthropology, at Yale University.

Reviews

[Benji · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Imagine taking two trips: the mythological trip of the Dayak to the village of the pig people, from which the normal human world is viewed; and Ingold's analysis of the trip into space, from which the earth is viewed, In the latter case, we are looking back at Earth but not at ourselves; our ontological underpinnings are untouched. In contrast, the former case involves an ontological shift: it shows how we might differently view both the 'other,' the pigs, as well as how these others view us. In the second case, we are looking at our home, the Earth, from an unchanged vantage point; in the first case we are looking at the human world from the pig world. The equivalent to this would be a nonhuman alien looking at the Earth from space. In the first case we literally get out of our own skin as we become pigs; in the second case we do not, we are still ourselves. In the second case we do not problematize our own ontology; in the first case we do.

Troubled versus untroubled ontologies have implications for sustainable environmental relations, because of the importance of perspective.'