Re-connecting with Nature - Part 3

Semiology

Binary opposition can be applied to other systems besides text. Semiology is the cultural communication of society based on shared conventions using signs and symbols. All signs are learnt and not intrinsically natural.  

                                Fig 5 M King “Semiology and sign”

Sign

          Human action ---------------- Signifying meaning 

Structural Anthropology

 French anthropologist and ethnologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009) developed structural anthropology in the late 1950s systematizing a semiology of culture. During this time binary code was also introduced to technological advances with the development of digital computers. This form of binarism influenced Strauss to develop a mechanical theory of communication. For Levi-Strauss thought and culture were organized around binary opposites and the creative act of mythmaking in all societies was a means to try and resolve the resulting tension.

Language, sounds put together to form the words that signify meaning, is a system that allows thinking. To Levi-Strauss thinking takes place in the interaction between humans (situated within culture) and the environment (nature) which is the object of thinking.

The binary opposites of raw and cooked for Levi-Strauss were metaphors for culture. Human nature attempts to reconcile these opposites, it tries to find a balance between raw and cooked. However, the dividing line is difficult to ascertain, nature thought to be instinctive and emotional lies at the polar opposite to culture which is formed by rules and conventions. By using the term cooked Levi-Strauss refers to anything that has been socialized from its natural state. Whilst society and religions have a varied idea on what is edible, Levi-Strauss maintained that all have binary structures that separate the raw from the cooked.  

For Levi-Strauss, every culture’s mythology was constructed around binary opposites: raw/cooked, hot/cold, animal/human and it is through these opposing concepts that humanity makes sense of the world.

LANGUAGE ALLOWS THINKING

Nature (non-human) --------------Culture (human)

For Levi-Strauss nature is defined as universal and culture as rule-governed.

CULTURE

What does it mean when we use the term culture and nature to which Levi-Strauss refers?

The definition of culture to which Levi-Strauss refers has evolved. For Saussure the meaning of language was not held in its historical origins but as history points out meaning has changed over time. The word culture originated from the Latin word cultura, the tilling of the soil, and in the 18th and 19th century evolved to a process of cultivation or improvement as in horticulture or agriculture. In the 19th century culture was as a means of refining or bettering oneself, especially through education. Culture then became associated with the fulfilment of national aspirations or ideals. In the mid-nineteenth century, the term culture was used by some scientists to refer to a universal human capacity.

In 1870 Edward Tylor (1832-1917) applied ideas of a higher versus lower culture proposing an evolutionary theory of religion. Tylor believed religion evolves into more monotheistic forms from polytheism. The notion could be said to be refuted by Perlmutter and Koppman who acknowledged monotheism as a form of subjugation and its establishment in ancient biblical times related more to violence and denigration than evolution.

In the process, Tylor redefined culture as an assorted set of activities characteristic of all human societies thus paving the way for a modern understanding of culture.

In the 20th century the term culture was again re-defined as a concept that was central to American anthropology. Culture most commonly referred to a universal human capacity to classify and encode experiences symbolically and to communicate these symbolically encoded experiences socially. It is to this definition that Strauss refers. Culture emerged as something that encompassed all human phenomena that was not only a result of human genetics. In American anthropology culture referred to 2 meanings

The evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act creatively and imaginatively

The distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences and acted creatively

There is a current distinction between the physical artefacts that society creates, its material culture and everything else within society that is the main referent to the term culture such as language, customs etc.

Nature

Whilst nature can be defined as the essential qualities or the temperament or personality of a thing, fundamentally it refers to the whole system of the existence, forces, and events of the physical world that are not controlled by human beings.

The binary opposite to nature would seem to be the whole system of the existence, forces, and events of the physical world that are controlled by human beings.

Would culture define this notion? Culture from a 20^th century anthropological point of view refers to a universal human capacity to classify and encode experiences symbolically and to communicate these symbolically encoded experiences socially.

The key phrase, I feel that defines nature from humans is control, that which is not controlled by human beings. To classify and encode experiences symbolically and to communicate these symbolic experiences socially is not, to my mind control. A more contemporary definition of culture as material culture may fit with the notion of control because these objects are made by humans and in their use control or direct nature whether it is a wall or a jug its purpose is to control. Maybe the differences between nature and culture relates to control? If binary oppositions form a hierarchal structure then nature naturally supersedes culture despite humans trying to control nature.

Do we not fit in with nature? Are we not part of the same system? To be able to control nature seems to be an ethnocentric idea. I am unsure whether we can control nature for to control something is to direct it. We can direct nature to a point but we cannot control it. When we do believe we are controlling our environment we seem to be damaging it also. The recent study in the use of pesticides and the declining bee population in the UK which incidentally pollinate a large percentage of our crops is a case in point. Whilst pesticide companies refute the data and Defra plods along examining and re-examining the bees are still becoming extinct. There is a faction of human society that does seem to work against nature. I guess you could define it as capitalism. What is the binary opposition to capitalism, communism? Maybe we need to strike a balance between the two?

There is a faction that works with nature to produce goods that are sustainable but as consumers we are mostly unaware or too busy to find out about the products we buy. Where are they sourced and what involves producing them? Not just the product but every part that goes into producing and packaging that product. With food alone can I ever be sure that what I buy is what I believe I’m buying. A seller might inform me that my vegetables are pesticide free but that person is trying to sell a product, to make money, to survive. However, people lie. Watching an episode of The Apprentice highlights how much a person is willing to bend the truth in order to make the sale, to achieve their goal. Society, I feel we can either work within nature or without.

A more fitting opposition to nature might be the west.

Nature---------------The West

CULTURAL SYMBOLISM

For Levi-Strauss thinking can happen because language allows humans

• To form social relationships
• To categorize our environment as represented by symbols

Levi-Strauss’ notion as to why thinking happens relates directly to the modern American anthological definition of culture in that culture commonly refers to a universal human capacity to classify and encode experiences symbolically and to communicate these symbolically encoded experiences socially.

TOTEMISM

Levi-Strauss believed symbols related to totems. A totem, the representation of an object from nature which could be a plant or an animal, or a carving in wood or stone is a special symbol deemed helpful to the tribe it represented. Those which have an animal will not kill that special animal and those that have a plant will not eat other plants of the same species. Totems are symbols that categorize the environment.   

The use of totems was believed to be connected with primitive superstition, an ethnocentric view that Levi-Strauss challenged. For Strauss, totems are categories that divide up, they specify what is out there as symbols for thinking. They are binary classifications.

Can that be eaten (and why)?          Yes----No

Can I get married (and why)?          Yes----No

Marriage and food are deemed to be fundamental expressions of being human. Both food preparation and the exchange of women are believed to be part of man's affirmation of himself as an animal with culture, part of the language which binds the group.

How is the binary opposition of Nature (non-human) -----------Culture (human) represented in totemism?

The vertical order of images on a totem is widely believed to be a significant representation of importance. The higher figures on the pole are deemed to be more important or prestigious. However, it has been posited that figures may be arranged in a reverse hierarchal style, with the most important representations being on the bottom, and the least important being on top and some poles have significant figures in the middle. Other poles have no vertical arrangement at all, consisting of a lone figure atop an undecorated column. If this is the case the totem may represent symbols that categorize the environment but they are not defined by the hierarchal structural system of binary opposition.

For Levi-Strauss tribal societies use metaphor (substitution) and metonyms (combinations) as symbols in order to think about nature. More than things to eat animals and vegetables are read as codes linking nature to human society through the representation of non-human gods.

As in a sentence the totem forms a syntagmatic structure that may represent familiar legends, clan lineages, or notable events. Each of these symbols can be paradigmatically replaced, substituted for another similar symbol.

Functioning in binary sets the human mind is believed to unconsciously duplicate nature as the use of the traffic-light system demonstrates. Within the colour spectrum green is a short wavelength, yellow lies midway and red is a long wavelength.

In searching for a representation for the binary opposition stop and go the human mind finds red and green and uses the colour yellow to represent caution.

Another colour system that relates to nature is temperature

Hot---------------Cold

                                                         Red                  Blue

Red has a long wavelength whilst blue has a short wavelength. Does binary opposition when represented through nature have a specific colour and is this colour represented in opposing wavelengths?