Anthropocene – For starters, this term implies that humans, in general, maybe even all humans, are responsible for the the climatic chaos and mass extinction that are unfolding rapidly. But for most of our kind’s tenure on Earth, the effects were local to regional, and not much different than other large predators. So this term is an insult to earth-integrated peoples the world over. Also, the naming of this geologic era Anthropocene has been warmly accepted by those who wish to manage (see below) the planet, to shape it for human use, sometimes giving lip service to the rest of life, but rarely acting as if life is sacred. Furthermore, as Donna Haraway teaches, among her eight objections to the word as a “tool, story, or epic to think with,” Anthropocene sciences are too much contained in systems theories that have failed to integrate symbiosis and collective creation, which are the foundations of life on Earth.
Ecosystem – Over the centuries, the word system changed from meaning “whole,” which is something we get to be part of, to meaning “organized,” which is something done, something we do to others, be they land, other kinds of people, numerals, or beliefs. Nowadays, more often than not, systems are things which are controlled. So ecosystem is a weird merger of the relationships within communities of life with a controlling overlay. The beliefs embedded in this word want to manage and organize the symbiotic world. This way of thinking has created many, many mechanisms, now called systems, to do it. We have simply stopped using the word when we refer to the living world, as its corruption is too rooted in the minds of most English speakers these days. So instead of “ecosystem,” we like “community of life.” Instead of solar system, we’re veering toward “the Sun and their children.”
Manage – see Steward below
Nature – Calling the other-than-human world “nature” while referring to the civilized world with the language of mainstream religion, politics or science further separates us from the source of our concoction and well-being, and ignores that for most of our kind’s existence on Earth, we apparently knew ourselves to be inseparable from the rest of creation where we lived. As this word has become synonymous with this belief of separation, we are trying to steer clear of its use.
Property – see Community of life in our Terms We Use Frequently and Resource below
Primitive – In and of itself, this can be a useful word in some instances, but it seems its use is more often than not derogatory, so we simply steer clear of using it.
Resource – Originally, this seems to have been a lovely word: from French resourse “a source, a spring,” noun, use of feminine past participle of Old French resourdre “to rally, raise again.” By 1779, the word had evolved to its present meaning, which is rooted in exploitation and extraction, which are the foundation of capitalism. Life itself is perceived a commodity to exploit. Capitalism is about converting life/land to economic profit for a few individuals. Seeing life as “resources” displays the separation from the natural world that is now nearly ubiquitous among the society-at-large. This way of seeing the world is instilled into nearly everyone born into industrialized society, so from an early age most “first world” people have a worldview that is incompatible with living in a genuinely sustainable manner. Capitalism is considered a given, a necessity. Rivers so clean you can drink from them are not.
We prefer “community of life” for a lot of reasons. We have read that many indigenous peoples use language that more-or-less means “kin,” “relative,” or “relations.” We like these terms too because they are grounded in living in a way that ensures the continuation of your people. Sure, day-in and day-out, people have to kill some of their relations to survive. But the killing is matched to the land’s fecundity, so the human population waxes and wanes with the land’s expansions and contractions, as do those of all other animals. Also, there is a vast difference between the very personal experience of killing a relative to survive and the kinds of impersonal killing of beings/land that are required by nearly all of the economic activity around the globe today. One way of living embraces being indebted to, and reverent of, the world who sustains us. The other tends to make people indifferent to almost all other life and devalues the priceless physical reality of the entire world we are lucky enough to call home.
Restoration – see Reparations in our Terms We Use Frequently
Right relationship – see Responsible relationship in our Terms We Use Frequently
Species – see People, Persons, Kind, Beings in our Terms We Use Frequently
Steward – This heavily used term is seen as a positive word these days. But to us, it is habituated language of the story of separation which has lead to rampant and unquestioned human supremacism. It is born of the story we industrialized peoples are taught, the story of civilization, of progress, of individualism. It says we humans are at the top of the great chain of being, so we have the right to treat the rest of life indifferently, to manage the Earth to our liking. Ideas and words, like “manage” and “steward” come from this old story. Let’s look at their Merriam-Webster definitions.
Manage
1 : to handle or direct with a degree of skill: such as
a : to make and keep compliant can’t manage their child
b : to treat with care, husband managed his resources carefully
c : to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of manage a business manage a bond issue manages a baseball team
2 : to work upon or try to alter for a purpose manage the press manage stress
Steward
1 : one employed in a large household or estate to manage domestic concerns (such as the supervision of servants, collection of rents, and keeping of accounts)
2 : shop steward
3 : a fiscal agent
4a : an employee on a ship, airplane, bus, or train who manages the provisioning of food and attends passengers
b : one appointed to supervise the provision and distribution of food and drink in an institution
5 : one who actively directs affairs : manager
So, to manage is basically to be in charge, and a steward is a manager. The origins of steward come from what the one who was the ward of the sty was called.
Fans of the word may wonder what’s wrong with “managing land as a steward” if you love the land and try your best to help maintain or increase biodiversity?
We answer that with a comparison.
The old way: As a person lucky enough to steward this land, I work hard to keep native trees protected because their presence usually ensures a more biologically diverse species mix.
The new way: As a person who has made living among oak woodlands a priority in my life, I spend much time observing the land, waiting for clues or ideas, which are gifts from the land, to guide me in how I might participate.
Our old way of thinking and acting and speaking is driven by valuing doing, working, accomplishing, knowing, having goals and using data gathered through science as a measurement of success.
The new way is driven by trust in the intelligence of the other-than-human world. And faith that what is best for them (the soil, the trees, the bugs, the lizards, the toads, the water, the air, and so on) is best for me.
The old way is linear and is attached to accomplishments within human life timeframes. The new way trusts that every being, every place, every community of beings, operates at their own pace.
The old way is driven by one’s own thoughts. The new way is trying to understand the natural patterns through observation and curiosity.
Example: The old me wanted to mulch-mow a particularly unpalatable non-native grass when they were in seed, knowing that doing so in the past has spurred the proliferation of some deeper-rooted forbs, even some native ones. Knowing that deep-rooted plants bring more mineral nutrients to the topsoil and that diversity of plants increases diversity of insects increases diversity of birds, etc., I felt confident in what I was doing. The new me says, “Sure, that is an acceptable thing to do if that particular spot is one that I need to control, but in doing so, am I not embodying the mindset–the way of living–that feels my goals trump those of the kinds of people involved?”
How would an earth-integrated human from here describe their similar actions, such as burning to discourage acorn worms? Aren’t they trying to control, to manage, that particular spot for their own preferences? Couldn’t their tending styles be looked at this way, from creating patches of black oaks in coniferous forests and patches of grass in chaparral to increasing the quantity of Dichelostemma on a certain slope through the timing of burns, harvesting and replanting?
We think the difference is that once a culture was established for enough time (hundreds to thousands of years), they knew their well-being was tied to that of the land, and their relationship to the places they lived were so intimate that they knew the long-term effects of what they were doing. They knew the patterns of life right in that spot. Maybe some of these wise cultures still diminished what is called ecological integrity, but evidence shows that what we civilized perceive as abundance is what their relationships with place generated (or at least didn’t undermine). And from what we understand, they probably never did anything to other beings without some spiritual (moral) guidance. And other beings included rocks, rivers, songs, that particular drop of rain, and baskets, for example. The closest we think we have experienced to this kind of connection is what we, the authors, share as lifemates. We know that when the other thrives, I thrive, that when the other is distraught so am I. Do we try to manage each other, or to support the other? Does support sometimes look like management from outside the relationship? Probably. Is that how either of us experiences it? No. Does our experience of our relationship matter less than someone else’s observation of it?
Does all this seem like nitpicky semantics? We don’t think it is. Management is about control over. A managed relationship is one based on that. Knowing that you and the land are part of each other leads to a different kind of relationship, one where you feel guided as to when and how to take action for the benefit of the whole. People who live in the story of separation see the former indigenous cultures as “managers” and they see what we do here on the land as “management.” Our experience has made us less and less comfortable with this label. Maybe it is time to honor our experience. Sharing our beliefs is one way we are doing that.
Is this idealistic? Is it romanticizing the indigenous? Yes on the first part and maybe on the second. But for us, this story of interdependence feels way better than the story of separation and control, so that is the story we are drawn to, and the one we want to share. Are we stewards? No, we are students. And those who have claimed us are our teachers.
Uncivilized, non-civilized – see Natural, Earth-integrated and Civilization on our Terms We Use Frequently and Terms We Use Carefully pages.
| Terms We Use Frequently | Terms We Embrace But Use Carefully |