Culture is an ever changing, ever growing and developing system, much like that of an ecosystem. Ecosystems are described by the balance that is maintained to support them; the ever changing relationships between species, the global “catastrophes” such as earthquakes or tsunamis, and the impact from a dominant species are all triggers of change. The delicate balance of an ecosystem can be easily upset, and sometimes with what is thought to be a small impact can cause some of the largest changes within the ecosystem. Culture can be described as an ecosystem: it continues to change and adapt to these impacts, both good and bad. Hess supports this ever changing ideology when he states “It is therefore unlikely that the world is becoming “more homogeneous”: there are both centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, merging cultures and emergent cultures.” Many ecosystems have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by us humans. We expect a strength and stability that is not always present – and are surprised when the ecosystem begins to fall apart. How is this any different than the human expectation of a stable cultural environment?
According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy (the chaos of a system) is always increasing – meaning that the overall trend of the world is toward chaos. Hess continues to support the idea of change and chaos when he states, “the phenomena of overlap and miscegenation will likely lead to such radical changes in the classification system that the very concepts of ethnic majority and minority are likely to undergo radical changes as well.” So many people expect and work towards cultural and social change, but the impacts they introduce to the cultures “break” the ecosystem of that culture causing a result not anticipated. It can be hard to understand how something as pesky as an aphid can have such an impact on an entire ecosystem. Consider a field-type ecosystem: if we removed the aphids from these fields, our goal being to remove them in order to allow the plant life to flourish (as the aphids continue to destroy the plant life – suppressing its growth), what would happen to the ladybugs who eat the aphids? Their source of food would be gone, their positive impact on the ecosystem removed. Next, the small birds and lizards would suffer, without a food source, they too would die out. As these smaller species continue to die, the plant life is taking over the landscape, this time however, the weeds have begun to flourish and are killing the beautiful flowers we had set out to save. Weeds are more durable and require less water and less transfer of seeds – they are tough. By now the entire ecosystem has changed, and for the worse. By trying to eliminate a small “problem” we undermined our own efforts. And in reality, were the aphids really such a problem? It is a matter of perspective, by looking at them and respecting the role they play in the existing ecosystem we can see their value.
The efforts to change social and cultural norms can be thought of in the same regard. Everything plays a role in the dynamics of culture, by making one small change, such as removing a well as a water source and providing running water in homes, as we discussed in class, the entire dynamic of the culture has changed – both for the better and the worse – and it cannot be changed back. Once a habit is learned, it is hard to loose that habit. Such as having the convenience of running water – imagine having to shower with a bucket. Buchanan touches on the idea of learned characteristics that build a culture. He discusses the culture of British Engineers, “Many of the engineers came from social and family backgrounds in which hard work was a prerequisite of survival, and the habit, once formed, lasted a professional lifetime.” These learned traits stayed with the young engineers their entire lives – and were the reason that the engineering culture in Britain is the way it is today – a unique ecosystem of its own.
Quotes from:
Hess “Culture and Society” + “Power and Politics”
Buchanan “The Life-Style of the Victorian Engineers”
I like the recognition of society as our human ecosystem; it allows for very interesting parallels to be drawn, especially when we allow our classification as animals to be held in true account. As we read and discussed the Nacirema ritual piece in class, we all were able to see that a lot of the things we do are petty, futile or just odd when we remove the normalcy of our behaviors. The interactions amongst ourselves and our peers create a fragile environment in which we must all coexist. And as you alluded to, there are weeds and aphids within our system that aren't pretty, but are nonetheless vital. To remove many of these weeds, to instigate social change, would certainly impart chaos upon the social orders we have become normalized to.
ReplyDeleteBut as the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. discussed in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," there exists a creative destruction which is necessary for meaningful change.
Henry David Thoreau encouraged civil disobedience in places where an unjust law should be broken to maintain a moral standard and to ensure the best situation for the people.
As inhabitants of a our social ecosystem, we must not be wary of change, but embrace it. Human beings and most other living organisms have become increasingly complex over the course of history, as our population grows, so too does the complexity of our social ecosystem.
When creatures began inhabiting land, they had to lose their gills, one of the most vital components of their livelihood underwater, in order to continue to evolve. Quite a sacrifice.
Social change can cause immense secondary and tertiary affects on society and our human ecosystem... and thankfully so! Ghandi could not foresee the impact of his movement in India holding such esteem in the civil rights movement in the United States. Radical improvements have taken hold due to his embrace of social change and its impact on the human ecosystem.
Social change should be understood as EVOLUTION! As humans, not only do we have opposable thumbs to craft great tools as engineers, but beautiful minds that allow us an opportunity to change our environment. Take hold of change. Give social change a big opposable thumbs up! We can improve our ecosystem. Evolve.
Presenting the similarities of culture to an ecosystem is a very accurate correlation. The perfect example Christina introduced of how an ecosystem can experience negative repercussions from attempting to get rid of a part of their system, in this case aphids, shows how poor or good decisions will forever effect that ecosystem in a negative or positive light. This example suggested an instant reflection on the negative and positive effects the United States has, or would have, from immigration laws.
ReplyDeleteTypically people who are pro immigration would most likely declare that the illegal immigrant would play the aphid role in society. When immigrant laws become more strict then there are more job opportunities. A lot of the general population will and can definitely prove that many citizens are without a job and, therefore, job vacancies would help the suffering economy. However, there is definitely the common argument that no legal United States citizen is willing to take the jobs that the illegal immigrants have. Once illegal immigrants are not in an ecosystem, crops they tended could suffer, for example, or employers have to pay more out of their own pockets for legal workers. So, in turn, if the employer has to pay higher wages to their workers then the consumer is going to be paying more for their produce.
I think that comparing culture to ecosystems is very interesting and made me think of other ideas. Comparing the two helps to understand how changing even ont thing can have impact on either the ecosystem or culture. Whether it be in weeks, months and years the impact of whether it be good or bad we won’t know.
ReplyDeleteComparing the two can help us understand the effects of change are but I feel it is also necessary to not forget the culture is of people and the people have a voice. That is the thought that your response made me think of. In an ecosystem, there is no voice. There is a voice for the system, such as an animal activist or environmental activist. But for a culture, there is a voice for the people. There voice is what is important, I feel, when understanding the culture. They voice their views and their beliefs. However, it is whether those voices get heard. And the question poised then would be whose voice gets heard? Whose voice is louder? Powerful? And who listens to that voice. Whether the listener understands the people where they are coming from or whether the listener sees their views as lower, as backwards. The listener needs to be aware of their own biases and where their own beliefs come from to better understand the voices of the peoples.
I understand your comparison and it helped me to better understand a viewpoint that I had a hard time explaining. I have other questions that arose too, while writing this such as, who is the person in power? The listener or the voice?