However, while nature preservation has become a major social concern, the idea of nature remains elusive. We examine here the origins, etymology, and historical semantics of this word and its different meanings in contemporary European languages.
It appears that this word aggregated successively different and sometimes conflicting meanings throughout its history. Nature preservation ought to take into account this semantic diversity when proposing policies, integrating the relativity and potential inaccuracy of the currently dominating occidental definition.
Intense debates, significant thinkers and prominent scientific advances have made this field one of the most important socially in contemporary science, having a strong influence on national and international politics. As scientific knowledge of nature is and will always remain incomplete, scientists have to rely on mental representations and theoretical concepts, but these must be identified as such, and clearly defined Demeritt, Both the Greek and Latin words all seem to have come into use when all these languages had already reached their linguistic and philosophical maturity Berque, Surprisingly, Aristotle, who was not born Greek, obviously struggles with this word in his texts, especially in several extensive sections dedicated to the numerous, often contradictory and sometimes obscure meanings and uses of this word, for example the beginning of the second book of Physics II, 1.
In this book, he defines nature as the essence of things, what they are made of and entail their destiny: the nature of a bed or of a tree is wood here this meaning is close to substance and entelechy. More generally, phusis is a philosophical and nearly technical word, mostly used by scholars in an urbanistic context, but does not appear to be widely used in other contexts, especially in the rural world or in nature-influenced poetry. To finish, it is noteworthy that most definitions of phusis do not exclude mankind.
It got its philosophical, Greek-influenced meaning at the classical period first century BC while used by Greece-inspired philosophers such as Cicero first century BC , translating the Greek word Pellicer, Hence, the idea stays quite the same between Greece and Rome, but the word changes—and will stay the same until today. The change of word allows new plays on words: especially, Cicero introduces a classical opposition between nature and culture, the first being an initial state devoid of human influence, and the second one corresponding to an appropriation by human societies.
When the Christian view of the perverted Babylon, opposed to the enchanting wilderness as the place of encounter with God, spread in the Roman culture, this stark opposition between evil cities and holy nature got even more fortified. However, nature and culture were still seen as dynamic processes rather than fixed states: nature in a spatial view was still the place where nature as a process happened.
Whereas in the Greek and Roman view of the world, even the gods were part of nature, in a monotheist context God transcends nature, and so does the Man, as he is created at the image of God Callicott and Ames, The dualistic and mechanistic vision of nature, which characterized the classical era in Europe, through philosophers such as Bacon or Descartes, radicalized this trend Merchant, along with neo-platonician influences Simberloff, , though discussed at the end of the eighteenth century Hadot, Hence, the material world progressively lose its divine property and moral value in Europe and was entirely open for appropriation and exploitation as soon as the eighteenth century, with the apogee of protestant capitalism Weber, —which was denounced as the main source of the ecological crisis by Lynn White White, Last but not least, nature was no more seen as a process but as a mere initial state entailing creationism , a decorum, the only force of change and history being Man, under the grace of God.
Therefore it is not surprising if the countercurrent romantic vision of Nature was born in the most industrial cities of the 18th and 19th centuries Worster, , be it in England Gilbert White France Rousseau , Germany Goethe, Schelling , and later America, first with arts from W. Wordsworth to the Hudson River School and then with philosophy, notably through the transcendentalist movement, as illustrated by Emerson and Thoreau, who influenced seminal conservationists like John Muir Callicott, Strikingly, it is absent from most lists of philosophical concept in high school and academic programs and manuals such as Zarader, , maybe because it was neglected by Plato, and in the mere handful of manuals giving it a shy try, the authors seem as despaired by its absence of consensual definition as Aristotle seemed to be two millennia ago, and most of them recommend not using it in serious academic contexts see for example Lalande, Nature was then not a concern any more, as it was literally everything for some academics hence massively converted to the second definition, see below , and nearly nothing of concern for the others.
However, this withdrawal of scholars did not entail the disappearance of the word from popular language, quite the contrary. It rather acted a kind of acknowledgement of failure. One can bet they do not all share the same definition of this concept, especially between different disciplines, but this hypothesis cannot be answered as none of these papers dare providing a definition of this word, or even a mere bibliographical reference giving a hint of their point of view on it.
There is, once again, a lot to bet on the fact that divergences on their representation of nature feed many controversies in the field of nature conservation.
These four definitions are exclusive of each other, according to many parameters. We identified in particular the inclusion of mankind or not explicitly excluded from 1, included in all others , its dynamic or static quality fundamentally dynamic in 3 and its inclusivity including the whole of reality only in 2 and 3.
This definition, already provided by Aristotle, is by far the most inclusive, and hence supposed to be the least political one, as we cannot act on it. In the second one, nature is a process of change, which can be conserved by a proper understanding of its mechanisms, including eventually an active participation in its dynamic. The last one implies an idea of fundamental character, which is to protect against any denaturation or distortion.
These definitions hence imply very different conservation policies, which can hardly be merged. For example, when the aim is conserving nature as a non-human natural heritage, there is need to limit as much as possible human intervention, such intervention being done mostly in order to remove previous human disturbance restoration ecology.
Last but not least, if the aim is to conserve the fundamental character of a space, there is a theoretical idea of this place to showcase, in spite of its actual material reality. One will recognize here echoes of the classical conservationist debate between preservationists and conservationists Callicott and Nelson, , or between conservation and restoration ecology Wiens and Hobbs, , which both may also be seen as incarnations of the more general scientific opposition between patterns and processes Underwood et al.
It both partakes of the most ancient, and is something always new [ Last but not least, many debates about ecological restoration actually rely mostly on conflicting definitions of nature obvious in works such as Katz, , while this particular issue is rarely put in light. As these debates all participate in political decision about conservation, there is a capital need of a clear definition of the vision of nature at the basis of each speech.
Such conception cannot be erased with the sweep of the hand just because they are opposed to more mainstream ecological world views, but they need to be put in perspective with other widespread conceptions, and discussed on the basis on their own principles.
The diversity of meanings of nature also depends on who is using it and in what context Rolston III, However, ecology in the Anthropocene cannot behave as if mankind did not exist. Such vision entails very specific conceptions of conservation Sarrazin and Lecomte, Contemporary ecologists, lastly, have an analytic vision of nature: their aim is to divide it in units and relationships, so the holistic concept appears less useful as nature is mostly an abstract network of many scientific objects.
Once again, none of these definitions is right or wrong: they all stem from the history of sciences, and share analogies with philosophical traditions Callicott and Ames, , hence the standardization of one synthetic definition for all sciences and publics would probably entail a loss of scientific richness, as no definition is more legitimate than any other, and all possess their particular scientific, intellectual and political fecundity.
However, with the progress of evolution sciences in ecology and conservation, along with global change as a dynamic evolutionary pressure on life, the evolutionist vision of nature may soon spread to other sciences and popular conceptions. However, such shift must be conscious: it is not about erasing an obsolete vision and replacing it by a more accurate one, but what is at stake is the evolution of a philosophical trend that must keep all of its potential new ways open for future science.
On the other hand, trying to avoid it in conservation sciences seems unrealistic, and even dangerous, as it could make ecologists cutting themselves off from their popular support and flagship. One of the few major works to have taken into account the diversity of natures in the process of nature conservation appears to be the IUCN, through the IUCN protected area categories, first established in and revised in IUCN, Such vision of conservation is by nature static and fixist, and aims at transmitting such features to the next generations in the same state, hence closer to the fourth definition; it is noteworthy that many places protected under this category shelter hardly any biodiversity volcanoes, caves, high mountains, etc , diverging with a vitalist vision of nature as in the third definition.
This pluralistic grid is especially useful to protect a wide array of very different places, adapting to the numerous conceptions of nature and of its protection.
The dualistic American vision of wilderness VS man-devoted places is quite efficient and culturally significant in the US and a handful of other countries such as Australia , but has neither biological nor cultural groundings in most countries, especially western Europe or India Guha, Therefore, sticking artificially such culturally situated grid on inappropriate places or situations has very little chances of success, and faces local population incomprehension or opposition Campbell et al.
It is then paramount to document local visions of nature before trying to protect it, if we are to avoid any neo-colonial spirit.
Then, encompassing the different visions of nature rather than conflicting them appears as one of the seminal challenges to conservationists if they want to bring together as much people as possible under their flag.
There have always been many different policies of nature, and the main reason appears that there are many different conceptions of nature, which do not entail the same priorities, objects, and methods. These conceptions change with philosophical groundings, and are then deeply rooted in people.
Hence, science cannot and must not artificially standardize them, all the more that science also experiences such philosophical discrepancies. However, this diversity of conceptions of nature can also be seen as a chance for conservation, as it can anchor inspiration for public action, help defining accurate environmental policies and set objectives in human—nature relationship, which are difficult to determine on a strictly scientific point of view.
Actually, public policies are probably more inspired by cultural conceptions of nature than by scientific arguments: if conservation gained so much success in the US at the beginning of the twentieth century, it is probably mostly thanks to cultural and religious reasons Nash, Accessed 11 Nov.
Nglish: Translation of mean for Spanish Speakers. Britannica English: Translation of mean for Arabic Speakers. Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free! Log in Sign Up. Save Word. Essential Meaning of mean. The word meant one thing in Shakespeare's day, but it means something else now. See More Examples The abbreviation "U. See More Examples Don't distort what she meant by taking her words out of context.
When she says the play was "interesting," she means that it wasn't very good. He's very ambitious, and I mean that as a compliment. It's a very easy question.
Anyone, and I mean anyone, should be able to answer it. You hold it like this. Do you See what I mean? Do you Know what I mean? See More Examples She didn't mean you any harm. I don't trust him. He means no good. Full Definition of mean Entry 1 of 4. See synonyms for are on Thesaurus. We could talk until we're blue in the face about this quiz on words for the color "blue," but we think you should take the quiz and find out if you're a whiz at these colorful terms.
Abbreviation : a. See area. Words related to are breathe , do , last , prevail , move , remain , rest , stay , persist , live , continue , subsist , stand , act , survive , inhabit , hold , obtain , abide , endure. How to use are in a sentence That gross abuse should be among the products of such all-prior-bets- are -off decision making is hardly surprising.
0コメント