Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Flipped questions and ecological complexity

Flipped questions and ecological complexity

marian.bechtel's picture

I agree with Purple Finch that I felt occasionally overwhelmed by all that was presented in this chapter - it felt like a lot to absorb. I ended up taking away from it the same sort of message though, that everything is interconnected, that we cannot be "objective observers" but all of our actions affect the ecosystem around us, and that our human-centric view of the ecosystem is not always right.

A lot of this relates back to things we were saying in class on Thursday, and things we Barbara Smuts discussed on Tuesday in our small group meeting. One idea that really grabbed me in the reading during the section about Smuts was how her questions flipped as she studied the baboons. "The question was not, Are the baboons social subjects? but, Is the human being? Not, Do the baboons have 'face'? but, Do people?" We humans see ourselves as the "culmination" of evolution in a way, the smartest species, the most curious species, the only ones who are able to study themselves and other species, but this is a skewed view. What I love about these flipped questions is that is reveals this biased, egotistical mindset humans have about their place in the ecosystem, and Smuts' humbling experience to show her otherwise. Though other species, say baboons, may not necessarily go out of their way to create experiments to study other species, they do in fact study them in their own way when it directly affects them. Smuts' presence among the baboons was directly affecting their comfort and safety, and however much Smuts tried to be a neutral object, looking in on the interactions of a group of baboons, it was impossible for her to remove herself from the equation. She became apart of it just by being there, and became a study subject for the baboons. They learned how to communicate with her, and she learned to respect and respond to their communication. Simply her presence amongst their pack shaped their interactions, and changed her own behavior, as she says. We humans are not part of (and certainly not at the top of) a linear, hierarchical chain of being, but rather an interwoven and complex ecosystem, and no matter how smart we think we are, we are still present in that ecosystem, affecting and being affected by other species.

Clarifying

 

Supporting

In their post, Marian said "we humans see ourselves as the "culmination" of evolution", and it really resonated with me. We, as humans, have been so socialized to see ourselves as the most advanced, most adapt, most "fit" species--the crowning jewel of the tree of life. This mindset is introduced and perpetrated in subtle (and all the more dangerous ways). Remember learning about evolution in high school? Many of us were shown the image of “the evolution of man”, a stooped figure slowly walking his way through intermediate species to a “fully evolved” man.

Complexifying

Like Marian has pointed out, to look at things from Haraway's point of view, we must understand that we are implicated. Despite her obfuscation, I certainly felt implicated--although probably not at the point Haraway expected. I'm not sure if it's coindence or just another odd, spiraling complexity, but our dogs share a name. Cayenne, named after the pepper (in fact my Cayenne has already made an appearance).

Weaving

 

Challenging

 

Unspecified