A Reenchanted World: The Quest for a new Kinship with Nature, by James W. Gibson
Gibson, James William. 2009. A Reenchanted World: The Quest for a new Kinship with Nature. New York: Metropolitan Books.
This book describes a “culture of enchantment” that is supposed to have risen from the 1960’s hippies. It is a movement to re-enchant nature, and view the natural world as sacred and thus deserving of preservation.
However, this book suffers from a lack of empiricism. The main flaws are failures to adequately demonstrate:
1. Exactly how widespread this culture of enchantment really is (some evidence of support for protecting the environment is presented, but it is not enough to support a brand new culture of enchantment, especially given the disconnect between shallow environmental attitudes and behaviors)
2. How deep the culture of enchantment goes - how many people claim to support the environment but fail to do so in any meaningful way? Many, and this undermines the idea that there is a culture of enchantment. In how many political decisions is the environment ignored or sacrificed for economic goals (in other words, does the culture of enchantment/protecting the environment take precedence over economic concerns, and if so then how frequently?)
3. Whether the culture of enchantment has or ever could have any effect on real ecological conditions. In other words, does it make a difference?
Links to other work:
• Bruno Latour, since the culture of enchantment is supposed to remove the barriers between human/nature, science/art, culture/nature, etc.
• Graham Harvey’s take on Animism: the culture of enchantment has a lot in common with animist perspectives
Quotes from the book:
• “Factory farming isn’t just killing. It is negation, a complete denial of the animal as a living being with his or her own needs and nature” (pg. 6). In other words, factory farming represents the opposite of an animist approach to eating.
• “Since animals and plants and places had spirits [in the views of various Native American tribes], people could communicate with them through rituals, prayers, and meditation. In an enchanted cosmos, humans were never alone.” … Citing Max Weber: “The West’s elevation of ‘rational empirical knowledge’ led to the ‘disenchantment of the world and its transformation into a causal mechanism.’ Radial and utter isolation followed.” (pg. 9-10)
• “The ultimate goal of this sweeping change, which I call the ‘culture of enchantment,’ is nothing less than the reinvestment of nature with spirit. Flatly rejecting modernity’s reduction of animals, plants, places, and natural forces to either matter or utilitarian resource, the culture of enchantment attempts to make nature sacred once again.” (pg. 11) Bu why should I believe that this is really a “sweeping change” when you present so little evidence supporting the proposition?
• “Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and other scholars are proposing a radical re-thinking of the role of animals in shaping human evolution. Instead of portraying humans as the star species that progressed beyond all others, these thinkers stress human development through our relationships with other species.” (emphasis mine, pg. 66)
• On Europe vs. the U.S., or Another Reason Why I’d Prefer to Live in England: “The culture of enchantment seeks to tap this ‘memory of debased religious experience’ to consecrate land much as it consecrates animals, transforming it from ‘profane’ commodity to sacred space. But this form of consecration is far more difficult to achieve, particularly in America… In Europe and Great Britain, the long history of feudalism that preceded the development of capitalism created legal frameworks and cultural traditions that sometimes restrained the prerogatives of a landowner… To this day, the British retain ‘roaming rights’ to walk on any farmer’s land. United Kingdom law also places restrictions on ‘cropping public value’ such as building a house that obstructs a view of the landscape… [Citing the 5th Amendment], All subsequent land-use law in America has hinged on whether it might deprive somebody of the economic value of their land.” (pg. 69-70)
This book describes a “culture of enchantment” that is supposed to have risen from the 1960’s hippies. It is a movement to re-enchant nature, and view the natural world as sacred and thus deserving of preservation.
However, this book suffers from a lack of empiricism. The main flaws are failures to adequately demonstrate:
1. Exactly how widespread this culture of enchantment really is (some evidence of support for protecting the environment is presented, but it is not enough to support a brand new culture of enchantment, especially given the disconnect between shallow environmental attitudes and behaviors)
2. How deep the culture of enchantment goes - how many people claim to support the environment but fail to do so in any meaningful way? Many, and this undermines the idea that there is a culture of enchantment. In how many political decisions is the environment ignored or sacrificed for economic goals (in other words, does the culture of enchantment/protecting the environment take precedence over economic concerns, and if so then how frequently?)
3. Whether the culture of enchantment has or ever could have any effect on real ecological conditions. In other words, does it make a difference?
Links to other work:
• Bruno Latour, since the culture of enchantment is supposed to remove the barriers between human/nature, science/art, culture/nature, etc.
• Graham Harvey’s take on Animism: the culture of enchantment has a lot in common with animist perspectives
Quotes from the book:
• “Factory farming isn’t just killing. It is negation, a complete denial of the animal as a living being with his or her own needs and nature” (pg. 6). In other words, factory farming represents the opposite of an animist approach to eating.
• “Since animals and plants and places had spirits [in the views of various Native American tribes], people could communicate with them through rituals, prayers, and meditation. In an enchanted cosmos, humans were never alone.” … Citing Max Weber: “The West’s elevation of ‘rational empirical knowledge’ led to the ‘disenchantment of the world and its transformation into a causal mechanism.’ Radial and utter isolation followed.” (pg. 9-10)
• “The ultimate goal of this sweeping change, which I call the ‘culture of enchantment,’ is nothing less than the reinvestment of nature with spirit. Flatly rejecting modernity’s reduction of animals, plants, places, and natural forces to either matter or utilitarian resource, the culture of enchantment attempts to make nature sacred once again.” (pg. 11) Bu why should I believe that this is really a “sweeping change” when you present so little evidence supporting the proposition?
• “Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and other scholars are proposing a radical re-thinking of the role of animals in shaping human evolution. Instead of portraying humans as the star species that progressed beyond all others, these thinkers stress human development through our relationships with other species.” (emphasis mine, pg. 66)
• On Europe vs. the U.S., or Another Reason Why I’d Prefer to Live in England: “The culture of enchantment seeks to tap this ‘memory of debased religious experience’ to consecrate land much as it consecrates animals, transforming it from ‘profane’ commodity to sacred space. But this form of consecration is far more difficult to achieve, particularly in America… In Europe and Great Britain, the long history of feudalism that preceded the development of capitalism created legal frameworks and cultural traditions that sometimes restrained the prerogatives of a landowner… To this day, the British retain ‘roaming rights’ to walk on any farmer’s land. United Kingdom law also places restrictions on ‘cropping public value’ such as building a house that obstructs a view of the landscape… [Citing the 5th Amendment], All subsequent land-use law in America has hinged on whether it might deprive somebody of the economic value of their land.” (pg. 69-70)