From Pedestal to Partnership: A few free-religious thoughts about ‘Nature’ following the summer heatwaves, wildfires and flash-floods of 2026
 |
| A wildfire somewhere in the UK (photo source) |
A short “thought for the day” offered to the Cambridge Unitarian Church as part of the Sunday Gathering of Mindful Meditation, Music & Conversation
(Click on this link to hear a recorded version of the following piece)
—o0o—
—o0o—
(Click on this link to hear a recorded version of the following piece)
—o0o—
—o0o—
It won’t have escaped you that the CO2-driven climate emergency has really come home to roost this summer. Amplifying this human-made crisis, the most powerful El Niño in a century is developing, bringing further challenging and unwelcome weather events.
This has prompted a flurry of media reports, in nearly all of which journalists speak about nature as if we are over ‘here’ and (capital ‘N’) ‘Nature’ is over ‘there’. This reflects something that the philosopher Timothy Morton identified:
‘One of the things that modern society has damaged has been thinking. Unfortunately, one of the damaged ideas is that of Nature itself. How do we transition from seeing what we call “Nature” as an object “over there”? And how do we avoid “new and improved” versions that end up doing much the same thing... just in a “cooler,” more sophisticated way? . . . When you realise that everything is interconnected, you can’t hold on to a concept of a single, solid, present-at-hand thing “over there” called Nature.’
Now I think Morton is right. Human thinking—particularly in Europe and North America—has been damaged in this fashion, and it plays out in at least two subtly different ways.
Both share the flawed idea that nature is an object ‘over there’, but one group turns this object into something of no interest, whilst the other puts ‘Nature’ on a pedestal as an object of supreme value.
Today, I will not dwell on those who actively ignore this object as I am certain nearly everyone reading or listening to this will find that attitude both evidence-denying and extremely dangerous.
However, I do want to talk about those who have come to see ‘Nature’ as an object of supreme value. Why? Firstly, because it may include some of us; and secondly, because in its own way, it is as threatening to our future survival as is ignoring nature. Morton expressed this succinctly in his 2007 book, Ecology Without Nature:
Now I think Morton is right. Human thinking—particularly in Europe and North America—has been damaged in this fashion, and it plays out in at least two subtly different ways.
Both share the flawed idea that nature is an object ‘over there’, but one group turns this object into something of no interest, whilst the other puts ‘Nature’ on a pedestal as an object of supreme value.
Today, I will not dwell on those who actively ignore this object as I am certain nearly everyone reading or listening to this will find that attitude both evidence-denying and extremely dangerous.
However, I do want to talk about those who have come to see ‘Nature’ as an object of supreme value. Why? Firstly, because it may include some of us; and secondly, because in its own way, it is as threatening to our future survival as is ignoring nature. Morton expressed this succinctly in his 2007 book, Ecology Without Nature:
‘Putting something called Nature on a pedestal and admiring it from afar does for the environment what patriarchy does for the figure of Woman. It is a paradoxical act of sadistic admiration. Simone de Beauvoir was one of the first to theorize this transformation of actually existing women into fetish objects.’ (Ecology without Nature, Harvard University Press, p. 5).
When we raise capital ‘N’ Nature onto a pedestal, we engage not in true admiration, but in a sadistic form of fetishism or idolatry that ultimately harms both us and that which we continue to call, quite wrongly, capital ‘N’ Nature.
Now, to understand why this dynamic continues to play out, even amongst those of us who highly value the idea of nature, it’s helpful to turn to the writer and former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel. In his 1990 book, Disturbing the Peace, he noted:
‘. . . the arrogant anthropocentrism of modern man, who is convinced he can know everything and bring everything under his control, is somewhere in the present crisis.’
Given this, Havel believed the only way for the world to change for the better was through a ‘change in human consciousness’, and so he added:
When we raise capital ‘N’ Nature onto a pedestal, we engage not in true admiration, but in a sadistic form of fetishism or idolatry that ultimately harms both us and that which we continue to call, quite wrongly, capital ‘N’ Nature.
Now, to understand why this dynamic continues to play out, even amongst those of us who highly value the idea of nature, it’s helpful to turn to the writer and former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel. In his 1990 book, Disturbing the Peace, he noted:
‘. . . the arrogant anthropocentrism of modern man, who is convinced he can know everything and bring everything under his control, is somewhere in the present crisis.’
Given this, Havel believed the only way for the world to change for the better was through a ‘change in human consciousness’, and so he added:
‘Man must discover again a deeper sense of responsibility toward something higher than himself. I think that only through directing oneself toward a moral and spiritual orientation based on respect for some “extramundane” authority — for the order of nature or the universe... — can we arrive at a state in which life on this earth is no longer threatened by some form of “megasuicide” and becomes bearable. This direction alone can lead to the creation of social structures in which a person can once more be a specific human personality’ (Disturbing the Peace, Faber, 1990, pp. 11-12).
As a minister of religion, I have long felt likewise because it is clear that our arrogant anthropocentrism is a huge problem. But the temptation is that appeals to an ‘extramundane authority’ or ‘the order of the universe’ can quickly turn nature into a God-like idol or fetish raised upon a pedestal.
And so here we are back at Morton’s earlier point because this kind of ‘sadistic admiration’ fails to help us become true human personalities, as Havel hoped, and instead turns us, albeit often unknowingly, into sadists.
Now, a central task of the Unitarian, free-religious tradition to which I belong has always been to resist all forms of idolatry, and regarding the environment, I want to suggest that it is our religious duty to resist by coming to understand that there is no such thing as (capital ‘N’) Nature ‘out there’ to which we can point. In subject-object terms, we need fully to understand that we are not subjects looking at an object called ‘Nature’ but are, in fact, as much a part of nature as are the trees, the weather, the sea, the birds, wildfires and flash-floods. As Morton noted, once we realise everything is interconnected, we cannot hold onto a concept of a solid thing called (capital ‘N’) Nature ‘over there’.
Until we see this, all our talk and actions regarding the climate emergency will be idolatrous and, sadly, not just masochistic but sadomasochistic — because we will end up hurting ourselves as much as the rest of nature.
And to conclude, if I may be so bold in suggesting this, I think we best begin to show true love and admiration for nature by taking it off its pedestal, and recognising it not as an object over there, but as the very height, depth and breadth of our own being, and the being of all things, sentient and otherwise.
As a minister of religion, I have long felt likewise because it is clear that our arrogant anthropocentrism is a huge problem. But the temptation is that appeals to an ‘extramundane authority’ or ‘the order of the universe’ can quickly turn nature into a God-like idol or fetish raised upon a pedestal.
And so here we are back at Morton’s earlier point because this kind of ‘sadistic admiration’ fails to help us become true human personalities, as Havel hoped, and instead turns us, albeit often unknowingly, into sadists.
Now, a central task of the Unitarian, free-religious tradition to which I belong has always been to resist all forms of idolatry, and regarding the environment, I want to suggest that it is our religious duty to resist by coming to understand that there is no such thing as (capital ‘N’) Nature ‘out there’ to which we can point. In subject-object terms, we need fully to understand that we are not subjects looking at an object called ‘Nature’ but are, in fact, as much a part of nature as are the trees, the weather, the sea, the birds, wildfires and flash-floods. As Morton noted, once we realise everything is interconnected, we cannot hold onto a concept of a solid thing called (capital ‘N’) Nature ‘over there’.
Until we see this, all our talk and actions regarding the climate emergency will be idolatrous and, sadly, not just masochistic but sadomasochistic — because we will end up hurting ourselves as much as the rest of nature.
And to conclude, if I may be so bold in suggesting this, I think we best begin to show true love and admiration for nature by taking it off its pedestal, and recognising it not as an object over there, but as the very height, depth and breadth of our own being, and the being of all things, sentient and otherwise.
Comments