Nature and culture are universal categories of human thought. How true is this statement?

What difference does it make if it is untrue? Imposing a shape to things or feeling part of them. Landscape: visual bias in our culture because we perceive ourselves as detached from the environment

The almost epic contrast between Nature and Culture has always been one of the most debated topics in literature and anthropology. From the Victorian authors to the anthropologists of the past, Nature and Culture have always been considered as opposite elements and parts of an unbalanced relationship in which culture is superior to nature in every aspect. Despised and repressed, the natural side of human beings has always been described by writers as a lower and instinctive part of human nature. In the last century, the study of the relationship between Nature and Culture has taken a different course, elevating the state of Nature and therefore bringing some balance to the relationship between the two entities. Western scholars have argued and judged from their own perspective, but it would be appropriate to analyze the matter from another point of view, wondering whether nature and culture are universal categories of human thought or just a distinction that we make and then extend to other cultures. The purpose of this essay is to explore the nature-culture dichotomy, deciding whether the difference between the two elements is universally perceived. After analyzing two contrasting opinions, concrete examples will be brought to the attention of the reader. At first glance, the distinctions nature and culture may appear as universal categories of human thought. In most of the cultures, a clear distinction is made between what is human or produced by human intelligence and what is natural and not generated by men. Centuries of belief in the superiority of the socalled civilized world have brought Westerners to perceive themselves as detached from nature and decidedly superior to it. Such cultural background and system of beliefs has induced past scholars to assume that every society, even the most primitive one, individuated a difference between nature and culture. This is the reason why the universality of the distinction between nature and culture has been supported by many scholars. According to Carrithers (1996) and other anthropologists analyzing the work of one of the most famous anthropologists in history, Lvi-Strauss, he initially defined the concepts of nature and culture as intrinsic to every human being and therefore to every society. Lvi-Strauss formulated his distinction between Nature and Culture based on language and mans unique ability to see an object not merely as itself, but also as a symbol. It was in this ability to symbolise, a characteristic shared by all humans, no matter how primitive, that he sought the unconscious similarities of the human mind (The Telegraph, 2009). A similar position has been supported to some extent by the American anthropologist Donald Brown (1991). Individuating elements characterizing every human society (symbolic behaviour, language, political organization etc.) and trying to relate them to what he calls human nature, Brown draws a distinction between nature and culture which is at the base of his entire argument. Despite the author doesnt push himself as far as to directly define the dichotomy nature-culture as universally perceived, he still makes a clear distinction between the two entities As mentioned in the introduction, an increasing number of scholars have denied the universality of the distinction between nature and culture. Though it may be difficult for us to understand how a population cannot mark a difference between the two entities, perfectly reasonable explanations have been provided by scholars. The famous social anthropologist Tim Ingold (2000: 14) has argued that, in the perspective of certain cultures, the entire world and not just the world of human persons is saturated with powers of agency and intentionality. Being that nature is not only a living entity, but also a conscious being, no difference is made between what is natural and what is human. In their inclusive analysis, Pilgrim and Pretty (2010) have thoroughly studied the perception of the relationship between nature and culture among indigenous populations, reaching the conclusion that the distinction between nature and culture is not universal at all. As the authors argue, the distinction derives from the way in which a particular culture relates itself to the natural world. To have a strong sense of oneness with nature is to not recognize a distinction between nature and culture. On the other hand,

communities with a weak sense tend to perceive humans as separate from nature (Pilgrim and Pretty, 2010: 4). In many pre-industrial societies, the absence of a difference between nature and culture manifests itself in the establishment of strong ties of kinship connecting human beings and natural elements. Usually defined as totemism, despite the criticism of Lvi-Strauss (1971), who considered the term far too generic and often misused, the belief that human beings or family clans derive or have a kinship relationship with animals is typical of many indigenous societies.

Hagen

Argument 3 Find a position in which they are both : what difference does it make? Their perception of life is different The distinctions between social and natural systems are not universal, and could be described
as artificial because the two are closely interrelated. Even when considered as a dichotomy, it is clear that nature and culture converge on many levels (Pilgrim and Pretty, 2010:2)

Conclusion: The claim that nature and culture are universal categories of human thought is false because

Criticize

BIBLIOGRAPHY Carrithers, M. 1996. Nature and Culture http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OiKwfbcKqsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA174&dq=no+distinction+nature+culture&ots=MFnjTGlZnT&sig=JZhPRTmzcmf92zHjy4Aq ge-WkYY#v=onepage&q=no%20distinction%20nature%20culture&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zh04Rxom9AIC&pg=PA201&dq=no+distinction+nature+culture&hl=en &sa=X&ei=dOOOT8rPDrK0QXD3_zyDA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=no%20distinction%20nature%20culture&f=false look for no distinction Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment. London: Routledge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/6496558/Claude-Levi-Strauss.html TELEGRAPH Pilgrim, S., and Pretty, J., 2010. Nature and Culture. London: Earthscan. Brown, E., 1991. Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill (and Temple University Press). Lvi-Strauss, C., 1971. Totemism. Boston: Beacon Press.