Agrarian Spirit and a Reframing of the Language of Ecology
L. Kristen Page, Ph.D. Ruth Kraft Strohschein Distinguished Chair & Professor of Biology
Students of ecology learn that this discipline is the study of the relationships that determine the distributions and abundance of organisms. This definition points to the importance of knowing where to look for a given organism, and how abundant it might be in that location. When I study or teach ecology, I would like to think that everyone is motivated by the same curiosity and desire for knowledge that characterizes my life as an ecologist. I’ve always wanted to know where to go to see or learn about various species or communities that I’ve read about. I want to understand what factors impact different species, and I want to know how to prevent damage to ecosystems that perpetuate the loss of biodiversity characterizing the Anthropocene. However, I realize that many are more motivated by the desire to consume resources, rather than the desire to learn or protect. After reading Norman Wirzba’s book, Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land[1], I’ve begun to recognize how the language of ecology perpetuates a misunderstanding of the human relationship to the rest of creation by establishing a hierarchical lexicon, reflective of imperialism and supporting the distinction of humans separate from the rest of creation. Agrarian spirituality offers a new lens in which to view the human condition and our understanding of ecological processes.
A long history of ecological ideas exists from antiquity when the relationship between organisms and the environment were thought of as a transactional relationship between humans and gods – where humans appease the gods through sacrifice, and the gods maintain a “balance of nature”.[2] This ancient philosophy places humans in a position that is separate from creation. In this way of thinking, there is a balance, but that balance is dependent on humans making sacrifices to appease gods associated with that place. As Greek philosophers considered the role of humans in nature, ideas ranged from those that suggest a harmonious coexistence where humans have very little impact on the environment (Arcadian Ecology) to ideas that place humans in a position to measure, understand, and control nature.[3] Early interest in natural history and written descriptions of ecological assemblages of species are found in the writings of Aristotle and his student, Theophrastus.[4] These writings marked the beginning of a systematic approach to understanding the environment and heralded a long era of naturalist writings that ultimately led to the works of Linnaeus and Darwin.[5] Slowly, a transition occurred in which “balance of nature” became an idea more associated with theology than anything resembling ecology.[6] By the 19th century, the writings of naturalists like Linnaeus and Darwin set the standard for recording information that required detailed records and precise measurements that led to interpretations we now hold as foundational to biological sciences. These ideas were based in an understanding that reason could allow for human dominion over nature[7], and firmly places humans as separate from the rest of nature.[8] The development of scientific methodologies and theories correspond with the expansion of European empires through colonialism, and as a result science often was used to justify a “benevolent empire” through the expansion of agriculture and colonial medicine.[9] With the expansion of Europeans throughout the world came the expansion of natural historians and the development of extravagant collections of species representing every reachable ecosystem.[10] The development of Ecology, as a discipline, resulted from the work of many of these naturalists, like Darwin. Ironically, the collections that led to the study of the factors that impact the distribution and abundance of species certainly had a devastating impact on those distributions and abundances – and humans were not even seen as a driving factor. When Ernst Haekel first defined Ecology (Oecologie) in 1866 as “the whole science of the relations of the organism to the environment including, in the broad sense, all the ‘conditions of existence,’” [11]the language used to define these relations and conditions would be significantly impacted by imperialism.[12]
The power regimes of imperialism are reflected in the ways that we understand ecological systems. For example, one of the concepts that led to the formalized study of what we now know as Ecology is the concept of ecological succession,[13] or the development/transition of plant communities over time. When I teach my students about succession, I could be teaching them about colonialism. Consider the following description of the development of a plant community following a disturbance:
Pioneer species invade or colonize newly developed (discovered) soil. Some species will establish and out-compete others and become the dominant species in the community. The presence of these initial colonists facilitates the success of later species that will arrive through different modes of seed dispersal. Facilitation changes the community, as the original colonists alter the landscape – for example through changing shade regimes or soil chemistry. If the landscape is altered enough by the pioneers, this could result in the disappearance of these species and the success of later arriving species. Without disturbance, the plant community will favor the species that outcompete other species, or those species that can survive or tolerate the environmental conditions of the location.
As I reflect on the language of my discipline, I am struck by how the terminology reflects the injustices of colonialism. I am frustrated with myself for not questioning this terminology. I have never considered how this type of terminology continues to empower certain ideologies and disenfranchise others. Furthermore, I wonder how this terminology, so reflective of power imbalances, supports the idea that powerful humans are separate from and thus have power over the rest of creation? For many years in my Ecology course, I have been trying to convince my evangelical students that we are called to care for creation, and that our response to God’s call is one (very important) way we love our neighbors. In the same classroom, I have been using the language of dominance, and therefore, reinforcing the false narrative that we are powerful and deserve to rule over creation. This dissonance became quite loud, as I read Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land and entered into discussion with my colleagues.
I am not sure how to change the lexicon for a well-established discipline like Ecology, though many have called for such a change.[14] However, I can certainly make connections for my students and talk with them about the implications of such a vocabulary. Additionally, I can point to the ideas that Wirzba develops in his book, and help my students understand that to be part of creation is not demeaning! We do not have to be “above” creation to be special to God. Once we begin to cultivate the understanding of creatureliness, we can develop a totally different kind of relationship to creation and to the creator. We can develop an agrarian spirit by understanding God as being “constantly revealed in the divine power that creates, sustains, nurtures, liberates, empowers, and heals the world”,[15]and by “being committed to the flourishing of people, fellow creatures and the land altogether.”[16] When we do not understand ourselves as created and in relationship with creation, we are less likely to recognize that “this world and its life are sacred gifts of God that are meant to be cherished and celebrated.[17] Further, the language of ecology keeps humans from understanding our creatureliness and could inhibit our ability to pursue an embodied spirituality[18] that is “distinguished by (our) commitment to do work for the well-being of their places and communities…by developing the practical skills that cultivate the material and social goods – things like fertile soil and clean water…”[19] Robin Wall Kimmerer, in her book Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants, explains that science is “a language of distance which reduces a being to its working parts…”[20] and that because it asks questions about form and function, it tends to be reductionistic and mechanistic. She argues that the language of science (especially when spoken in English) gives us “permission to disrespect nature” because it strips away the relationships inherent in all of creation.[21] It is important for me to help my students navigate the problematic scientific language of ecology so that together we can answer the call to cultivate an agrarian spirituality. Perhaps in this way we can cultivate an understanding of our relationship to creation that goes beyond power, control, and use. The hierarchical language of Ecology might suggest that we understand the purpose for God creating other creatures – for our service or use.[22] However, Wirzba argues that creation is not utilitarian to God, and that creatures are not made “to fill some lack in God’s life.”[23] He also argues that creatures do not “exist in a competitive relationship where the greatness of the one depends on the diminution of the other. Instead, God is glorified all the more as creatures maximally realize their free life.”[24] We are called to live in relationship with the rest of creation. A relationship where we do not recognize ourselves in a position of power with a right to consume, rather in a relationship with all of Gods created world. If we can recognize that all of creation is an “expression of God’s love and delight,”[25] and “a place where God is intimately at work,”[26] then we will live in “such a way that our own creative gestures – as witnessed in our eating, teaching, building, parenting, playing and living- increasingly bear witness and honor the continuing creativity of God,”[27] and discover new ways of loving our neighbor.
[1] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame, Indiana.
[2] Egerton FN. 1973. Changing concepts of the balance of nature. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 48:322-350.
[3] Kormondy EJ. 2012. A brief introduction to the history of ecology. The American Biology Teacher, 74(7):441-443.
[4] ibid
[5] ibid
[6] Egerton FN. 1973. Changing concepts of the balance of nature. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 48:322-350.
[7] White L. 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155:1203-1207.
[8] Selby, GS. 2019. Pursuing an Earthy spirituality: C.S. Lewis and incarnational faith. Intervarsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois.
[9] Roy RD. 2018. Science still bears the fingerprints of colonialism. Smithsonian Magazine, 19 April 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-bears-fingerprints-colonialism-180968709/ accessed 29 June 2022.
[10] ibid
[11] Egerton FN. 2013. History of ecological sciences, Part 47: Ernst Haeckel’s Ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 94(3):222-244. p.226.
[12] Crosby AW. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900-1900. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
[13] Kormondy EJ. 2012. A brief introduction to the history of ecology. The American Biology Teacher, 74(7):441-443.
[14] For example: Virtanen PK, Siragusa L, Guttorm H. 2020. Introduction: toward more inclusive definitions of sustainability. Environmental Sustainability, 43:77-82. or Trisos CH, Auerbach J, Katti M. 2021. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 5:1205-1212.
[15] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. ix
[16] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 11
[17] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 3
[18] Selby, GS. 2019. Pursuing an Earthy spirituality: C.S. Lewis and incarnational faith. Intervarsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois
[19] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 15
[20] Kimmerer RW. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed editions, p. 49
[21] Kimmerer RW. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed editions, p. 57.)
[22] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land.
[23] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 75
[24] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 75
[25] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 94
[26] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 95
[27] Wirzba N. 2022. Agrarian Spirit: Cultivating Faith, Community, and the Land. p. 119