How do we become better at recognizing “more-than-human” modes of life without anthropomorphizing nonhuman life? How do we practice care, freedom, justice, and equality with nonhumans? […]
What, or even who, is a tree?
Humans that are closely entangled with nonhuman environments and attentive to nonhuman life do not need to theorize about any nature-culture division.
For others, the concept of nonhuman life and the idea of a more equal or just relation to it causes considerable difficulties. Recent criticism has focused on the way nonhumans are included in discussions of nature, ecology, and climate change. This critique says that speaking for the nonhuman is unproductive, and thinking on their behalf only supports existing humanist ideologies that anthropomorphize and patronize other species. Astrida Neimanis, for one, has written about the ways that nonhuman “others” are represented. She proposes a “representation without colonization,” pointing to the questionable ethics and politics of humans who position themselves as spokespeople for nonhuman beings. […]
About a decade ago […], the writer Arundhati Roy spent some time “walking with comrades” through the dense forests of Dandakaranya in central India. These comrades were […] Indigenous rebels hailing from the Gond, Halba, and Muria tribal communities, and they were fighting state-backed exploitation, including the destruction of forests, lands, and water. Roy describes how the Indian state’s “institutionalizing [of] injustice” affected these groups. The Dandakaranya forest has been a highly contested space for decades, because the corporate appetite for minerals and other resources remains limitless. The tribal communities of the Dandakaranya forest, as well as the tribal communities […] like the Kayapo, the Arara-Karo, and many others, have been defending rainforests for a long time. Many Indigenous people living in forests have a specific relation to nonhuman life there […]. The communities living in close relation with these woodlands are aware that, by exploiting forest resources, it is not only human lives that are ruined, but all other life that depends on the forest. […]
The relationship between nature and culture, and the so-called division between them, has been a major subject of debate throughout Western history. This endless analysis and negotiation has even been regarded as a kind of “conceptual prison.” […]
Who is actually given the privilege to speak in the name of nature(s)? What is the right way to “represent” the thing we call “nature”? What, or even who, is a tree?
To take trees as an example, people have not only depended on trees for shelter, fuel, and food, but also for medicine and spiritual fulfillment. In many cultures […], trees represent an important aspect of communal life […]. Until quite recently, in Slovenia the linden tree symbolized the central space of village communities. In traditional Japanese culture, tree spirits, or kodama (first mentioned in the eighth-century Kijiki chronicle), and holly trees, or shinboku, still play an important role in cultural life. Not only are these trees protected in Japan, but knowledge of the trees that kodama inhabit is very important for many communities, being passed from one generation to another. Trees have also sometimes been declared monuments, signifying important sites, events, and even people.
We cannot say that trees are actually aware of the monumentness imposed on them by humans.
The same goes for other human concepts applied to trees, such as “history” – do trees have history beyond their human-made ones? What could that history be other than the genetic changes trees have undergone since the first Archaeopteris species of proto-tree arose more than three hundred million years ago? What is certain is that trees are without a clear division between life and death, between the present and future, at least not in the same way humans understand these concepts. […]
Fully grown trees support young seedlings in a shaded understory […]. When in danger – from insect attack or disease, for example – trees also send out distress signals to other nearby trees. Apparently, the trees synchronize their behavior so that they are all equally successful and the rate of photosynthesis is the same for all. A group of researchers working in the southwestern Pyrenees recently discovered a complementary relationship between different tree species – for example, between pine and beech trees, where growth of both is reduced when intraspecific competition increases. […]
Scientists have noticed that it is very difficult to distinguish what is actually part of a tree and what is not […]. Trees form hybrid collectives, involving underground mycorrhizal fungi networks that connect trees, roots, and fungi to one another in a kind of collaborative, self-organized way. […]
Realizing that representation can never really be bypassed – we can only speculate about “nature writing itself” – is a crucial part of understanding nonhuman beings and our relationship to them.
Bojana Piskur. “Trees, More-Than-Human Collectives.” e-flux. June 2021.