EVOLUCION, NATURALEZA, MEDIO AMBIENTE, DESDE UNA PERSPECTIVA DE GENERO. UNOS EJEMPLOS DE INVOLUCION VS

NADIA  BREDA     PAPER  FOR  XV  CONGRESO  NACIONAL  DE  EDUCACION  COMPARADA.     EJE  6.  EDUCACION  AMBIENTAL  Y  CIUDADANIA  MUNDIAL       TITLE:  EVOLUCION,  NATURALEZA,  MEDIO  AMBIENTE,       DESDE  UNA  PERSPECTIVA  DE  GENERO.       UNOS  EJEMPLOS  DE  INVOLUCION  VS  EVOLUCION.           My   presentation   highlights   the   innovative   and,   in   my   opinion,   very   interesting   concept   of   involution,   a   concept   elaborated   by   two   anthropologists,     Carla   Hustack   and   Natasha   Myers,   particularly   active   in   the   critics   of   nature/culture   relationship  and    of  science  of  plant  ecology.     Studying   the   extraordinary   Darwin’s   book   about     orchids   and   hers   pollinators,   Hustack  and  Myers  founded    a  particular  attitude  that  the  anthropologists  define   like   “Involutionary   Momentum”   (Hustak C., Myers N., 2012, Involutionary Momentum: affective ecologies and the science of plant/insect encounters. Differences: A Journal of feminist Cultural Studies 23:3, pp 74-118).      

DARWIN’ s estudios

 

           

     

 

    They  define  their  work  like  «a  work  “athwart”  dominant  logic  in  plant  ecology»   (p.   77).   «Working   athwart   the   reductive,   mechanistic,   adaptional   logics   that   ground   the   ecological   science,   they   offer   a   reading   that   amplifies   accounts   of   the   creative,  improvisational,  inventive  and  fleeting  practices  through  which  plants   and  insects  involve  themselves  in  one  another’s  lives»  (p.  77).       «Rather  than  advancing  theories  of  “unilateral  adaptation”,  these  accounts  frame   orchids  and  their  pollinators  in  a  “coevolutionary”  mode  that  drawn  attention  to   the   practices   that   bring   plants   and   insects   together   in   an   affectively   charged,   multisensory  partnership»  (p.  78).       The   involution   concept   tries   to   supplement   evolutionary   logics   with   an   involutionary  mode  of  attention.  Involution  is  not  to  be  confuse  with  regression!     They   are   far   from   evolutionistic   fundamentalism   or   neo/ultra   Darwinian,   but   near   to   the   positions   founded   on   «interspecies   affinity….   encounter   and   relations,  …  affectively  and  multi  sensorial  charged  community  ecology  shaped  

less   by   genealogical   lines   of   descendent   and   filiation   than   by   rhizomatic   associations  and  daring,  improvisational  leaps  across  species  lines»  (p.  96).     It   is   a   matter   of   highlighting   the   logic   of     partnership   (for   example   between   insects  and  plants)    rather  than  the  logic  of  economic    rationality  (these  logic  has   become  hegemonic  in  the  contemporary  life  science”  (p.  95).     We   can   so   approach   involution     as   the   «rolling,   curling,   turning   inwards”   that   brings  distinct  species  together  to  invent  new  ways  of  life».       «“Plants’   distributed,   decentralized   bodies   can   be   seen   to   form   a   “node   of   durable   action”   around   which   other   relation   turn   (Haraway,   …)   In   this   way   plants  can  teach  us  how  to  intensify  the  “encounter  value”  in  any  ecology»  (pag.   81).     What   the   plants   and   insects   make   in   their   encounter,   in   a   involutionary   perspective,    is    «to  articulate  with»  (p.  105),  to  join  with  others.     Encounter  between  plants  (orchids),  insects,  and  scientists  open  to  an  ecology  of   Interspecies   intimacy.   This   is   an   ecology  inspired   by   feminist   ethic   of   “response-­‐ ability”   in   which   questions   of   species   difference   are   always   conjugated   with   attentions   to   affect,   entanglement   and   rupture;   it   is   an   affective   ecology   in   which  creativity  and  curiosity  characterize  the  experimental  forms  of  life  of  all   kinds  af  practitioners,  not  only  the  human  ones  (p.  106)”       Now,   remembering   Anne   Tsing’s   recommendation,   that   we   have   the   allies   in   the   naturalists,   particularly   trained   in   description   of   the   natural   world,   and   remembering   Hustack   and   Mayers   experience   with   the   ecologists’   literature   of   the  past  centuries,  I  have  myself  experimented  that  it  is  possible  and  fruitful  to   read  with  the  involutionary  concept  others  readers  or  philosophers  and  so  on.     For   example,   in   my   research   about   something   that   I   call   “Anthropology   of   Anthroposophy”,   I   found   that   a   similar   approach   is   also   founded   out     in   the   Steinerian   literature.   The   Steiner’s   lectures   about   butterflies   and   insects,   for   example,  are  exemplary  for    illustrating  the  involutionary  mode  of  attention.  It  is   possible  that,    in  an  “anti-­‐modern”  philosophy  like  the  anthroposophy,  a  similar   involutionary  attitude  was  present.          

R. Steiner picture

 

     

   

 

  In  my  “Anthropology  of  Anthroposophy”  ,  AS  is  a  particular  way  to  connect   nature/culture,   and   I   defined   it   like   an   ANALOGISM,   according   to   Philippe   DESCOLA’s   categories.   Anthroposophy   is   an   analogism   challenging   the   “naturalistic”   philosophy,     and   it   survives   with   a   karstly     style     beside   the   naturalistic  mode.   In  this  way,  we  can  find  that  the  anthroposophical  movement,    widely  extended     above   all   in   educational   field,  includes   this   involutionary   method   and   could   be   a   vehicle  of  its  diffusion.  

  If,  like  Hustak  and  Myers  say,  «we  will  need  this  mode  of  ecological  thinking  in   order   to   do   more   effective   work   in   challenging   the   status   quo   of   ecological   irresponsibility»,   maybe   we   can   explore   the   scientific   literature   in   a   new   way   with   the   aid   of   this   new   concept,     and   we   can   to   discover   a   new   form   of   this   attitude  in  other  extraordinary  scholars.         If   this   is   correct,   this   concept   would   be   useful   both   for   the   anthropologists   or   anthroposophists,   or   educators,   or   contemporary   naturalists,   and   maybe   to   contribute  limiting  ecological  crisis  In  this  world.                  

Thank you for your attention!

               

 

Nadia  Breda,  SEVILLA,  UPO  UNIVERSITY,  17  novembre  2016