Our interactions with, attitudes toward and images of nature seem absolutely central to questions of ecological restoration, the enhancement of biodiversity and related issues of economic vitality and quality of life. In fact, it seems to me that those questions cannot be answered without seriously considering those interactions, attitudes and images.
As someone steeped in History of Religions and the Visual Arts with a specialty in pre-Conquest Mexico–which for me means the intersection of Textual and Visual Interpretational Theories, Studies of Western and non-Western Religious Traditions, Ethnohistory, and Comparative Ethics–I find myself drawn to the interpretation of and ethical issues behind images of the "Savage Other" and their close alignment with images of Nature.
We have a 500 year plus Western tradition of viewing the "Savage Other" in a dichotomous way as either the idealistic "noble savage" or the less than ideal "nasty/ignorant/childish/bestial savage." These images also are closely tied to nature itself as either noble, fruitful or sacredly splendid; or in need of improvement for human use, or potentially and impossibly destructive and hence the cause of inevitable suffering (disasters, disease, etc.. . .). The Noble Savage inhabits the first natural environment, living in perfect harmony with it; the Nasty Savage inhabits the second, and as with his/her environment, has not yet learned to civilize either it or him/herself.
So. . .
1. What is the history of these noble/nasty images of nature and nature's savage inhabitants?
2. How are relationships among people, nature and sacrality understood in this history, and what concepts of time, place and morality do they project?
3. How are comparable relationships and concepts understood (if at all) in differing non-Western contexts?
4. And what can we learn from those non-Western contexts that might help us understand our relationships with healthy ecosystems, biodiversity, economic vitality and quality of life?
As someone steeped in History of Religions and the Visual Arts with a specialty in pre-Conquest Mexico–which for me means the intersection of Textual and Visual Interpretational Theories, Studies of Western and non-Western Religious Traditions, Ethnohistory, and Comparative Ethics–I find myself drawn to the interpretation of and ethical issues behind images of the "Savage Other" and their close alignment with images of Nature.
We have a 500 year plus Western tradition of viewing the "Savage Other" in a dichotomous way as either the idealistic "noble savage" or the less than ideal "nasty/ignorant/childish/bestial savage." These images also are closely tied to nature itself as either noble, fruitful or sacredly splendid; or in need of improvement for human use, or potentially and impossibly destructive and hence the cause of inevitable suffering (disasters, disease, etc.. . .). The Noble Savage inhabits the first natural environment, living in perfect harmony with it; the Nasty Savage inhabits the second, and as with his/her environment, has not yet learned to civilize either it or him/herself.
So. . .
1. What is the history of these noble/nasty images of nature and nature's savage inhabitants?
2. How are relationships among people, nature and sacrality understood in this history, and what concepts of time, place and morality do they project?
3. How are comparable relationships and concepts understood (if at all) in differing non-Western contexts?
4. And what can we learn from those non-Western contexts that might help us understand our relationships with healthy ecosystems, biodiversity, economic vitality and quality of life?
Kay Read
Religious Studies and Institute for Nature and Culture
Religious Studies and Institute for Nature and Culture
|