EDITORIAL - On natures and human nature. Ethics, aesthetics, ecologies

The vision According to Raymond Williams (1980), the term nature is “a case of a definition of a quality which becomes, through real usage, based on certain assumptions, a description of the world”. What is most striking in the linguistic history of the term nature is the coexistence of that common idea, a state of nature, with the almost unnoticed, because so habitual, use of nature to indicate the inherent and essential quality of any particular thing which is, of course, much more than accidental. Indeed there is evidence that it is historically the earliest use. In Latin one would have said natura rerum, keeping nature to the essential quality and adding the definition of things. But then also in Latin natura came to be used on its own, to express the same general meaning: the essential constitution of the world. … The multiplicity of things, and of living processes, might then be mentally organized around a single essence or principle: a nature (p.68). This “singular abstraction” becomes “a nominal continuity over more than two millennia” so pervasive “that we may not always realize quite all that it commits us to. A singular name for the real multiplicity of things and living processes may be held, with an effort, to be neutral, but I am sure it is very often the case that it offers, from the beginning, a dominant kind of interpretation: idealist, metaphysical, or religious” (p. 69), each of which has a specific historical and cultural context. The aim of this special section is to focus on the interpretation of this “singular abstraction” through the diverse lenses proposed by the contributions to the international conference Natures and Human Nature. Ethics, aesthetics, ecologies. A comparative approach, organized by Viviana Toro Matuk and Salima Cure in April 2024. The conference was designed as an occasion for reflecting from different disciplinary perspectives on the possibility of using the analytical tools of British anthropologist Mary Douglas’s Cultural Theory to lay the foundations for comparative research. Scholars of social and cultural anthropology, bioethics, cultural studies, psychology and biology contributed with presentations of ethnographic cases and theoretical reflections. Organizing the conference represented what the Murui indigenous population calls hacer amanecer or giving concrete form to an idea (Salima Cure, personal communication, October 31, 2024). Among the Fula of Guinea-Bissau, the figure of the visionary plays an important role in the community and is a person who has the ability to see what others cannot see. They have the ability to perceive dangers and warn in advance people who might be affected by them. This protective function is fundamental, as it helps prevent people from falling into traps set by sorcerers or other malicious individuals. The visionary acts as a guardian of the community, using their powers of perception to protect others from invisible dangers. The work presented in each of the papers in this special section resonates with that function. Ecological vision is the capacity to detect the traps inscribed in our dominant conceptualisations of nature, whether in the idea of the dualism of nature and culture or in the anthropocentric assumption that non-human beings exist primarily as resources. To exercise vision is to recognise dangers before they become irreversible but also to recognise openings: relational, epistemological, and ethical pathways toward alternative interpretations and possible futures. The Cultural Theory framework The conference aimed to explore the various ways in which humans perceive, interact with, and comprehend nature, both as a physical environment and as a symbolic concept. It also sought to examine from different perspectives human behaviour in relation to different forms of social organisation and modern institutions responsible for environmental protection. The nature versus culture dichotomy and the cultural origins of this dichotomy are focal points of numerous anthropological studies. In this respect, various diverse and complementary perspectives challenge Eurocentric notions of subjectivity by offering an alternative viewpoint on the relationship between humans and nature. Descola (2005) proposes a fourfold classification of the relations between human beings and nature: animism, totemism, naturalism, and analogism. Ingold (2019; 2020) emphasizes the significance of comprehending nature by using the notion of lines. Nature is depicted as a dynamic and interconnected continuum of processes, movements, and relationships. The significance of lived experience in comprehending and constructing the natural world is paramount. Moreover, Ingold underlines the fundamental connections and interdependencies between culture and nature, challenging the idea that they are different from one another. Viveiros de Castro (1998) posits that within Amerindian cultures, subjectivity and consciousness are discernible in both human and non-human entities. The conference situated the question of natures and human nature within the conceptual framework of Cultural Theory (Douglas, 1970), with particular regard to the ongoing discourse surrounding global warming and the multiple environmental changes resulting from human activities. Cultural Theory is a comparative approach based on the idea that there exist different ways individuals relate to society, forming different cosmologies, which can be synthesised within four cultural types. Douglas et al. (2003) assert that it is conceivable that a finite number of fundamental forms of social organisation could be identified, from which a vast array of ultimate forms of social and cultural existence could emerge. According to Cultural Theory four primary methods of organising, perceiving, and justifying social relations, also referred to as “ways of life” or “social solidarity”, exist: 1. Fatalism 2. Equality 3. Hierarchy 4. Individualism (Table 1). These forms of social solidarity imply distinct versions of “nature” and of “human nature”. Douglas and Ney (1998) point out how such configurations, or ways of looking at the environment, often also correspond to specific ways of understanding human nature, combining the themes of ethics (values and behaviours valued towards the non-human), aesthetics (sensitive appreciation of the world) and ecology (cosmological view related to nature). From situated and specific ethnographic cases in different historical and cultural contexts, it is possible to find a shared explanatory model that is able to shed light on contemporary cultural biases regarding the relations between humans and non-humans. Table 1. Cultural Theory methods of organising, perceiving, and justifying social relations INDIVIDUALISM - Perception of nature as benevolent and robust. - Human beings are driven by self-interest and atomistic tendencies. - Faith in others until shown otherwise. - Advocate for fair rewards for those who work more. - Believe in market-orientated institutions. HIERARCHY - Views the world as controllable. - Nature is stable if not pushed beyond discoverable limits. - Human beings are malleable, flawed but recoverable through reliable institutions. - Equitable distribution based on rank, position, or need, determined by experienced authority. FATALISM - Sees no logic or reason in the natural world. - Believes that man is unpredictable and inconsistent. - Lack of equity and constructive transformation. - Deficits in bonding with the natural world and fostering trust. - The process of learning is considered to be unattainable. EQUALITY - Nature is interdependent and fragile. - People are caring. - Equality is the foundation of equality and leads to equality in results. - Equality and trust are related. - Institutions of unequal distribution are disregarded. Towards a transdisciplinary approach In order to address questions that must be investigated on multiple levels, from the microscopic to the macrosocial dynamics of the contemporary world, we need an approach that combines the science that studies the mechanisms of living systems, biology, with the sciences that deal with the ways in which human beings know and recognise living beings, both inside and outside themselves. How can biology, ecology, aesthetics and ethics be intertwined to explain the anthropological continuities, models or mechanisms of action that characterise what is considered alive? As Ingold (2013) argues, a biosocial approach does not imply reducing the social to the biological, or vice versa, but involves considering life as a unique process, in which living cells and human behaviour in groups show identical patterns, in constant correspondence with other human and non-human beings, sharing a common condition of becoming, which can be compared: …to a hemp rope, twisted by multiple strands, in turn twisted by multiple fibres, each in turn twisted by its cellular and molecular constituents. In principle, it could be examined from near or far, microscopically or macroscopically. But at each level of resolution we find the same complexity, the same intertwining of threads, the same metabolic exchange. Like rope, becoming is biological to the top and social to the bottom (p. 9). Through the study of ethnographic cases, anthropology poses us questions first and foremost on an epistemological level. Can we find correspondences in the ways we know the world, both outside and inside ourselves, that lead us to think of a joint human endeavour? Although different scientific disciplines vary in terms of their objects, methods, purposes and the worldviews that drive them, together they can provide complementary visions. Rather than describing the relationship between, for example, anthropologists and biologists as a question of ontological differences, we can talk about different