Skip to main content
Log in

Old and New Perspectives on the Nature/Culture Opposition in Biology and Anthropology

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article explores a change taking place today in the fields of biology and social anthropology, signaling a shared desire to transcend the heuristic effects of the opposition between nature and culture. Acceptance of the idea that random mutations are the sole driving force behind the process of natural selection overlooks the agentive capacity of non-human living beings, revealing an anthropocentric inspiration. To critique the rhetoric surrounding the principle of natural selection, I turn to the anthropology of Tim Ingold and his analysis of the metaphors that illustrate the principle. I disagree with the author, however, when he argues that these metaphors do not adequately illustrate neo-Darwinian premises. Instead, I believe that they are faithful since their apparent contradiction expresses the unease of neo-Darwinian theory itself when it combines randomness and teleology. New currents in biology, such as biosemiotics, attribute evolutionary importance to epigenetic changes. From the evolutionary perspective, they also highlight the importance of recognizing that the entire lived world possesses the capacity for agency, not just human beings. Within social anthropology, the so-called ontological turn and multispecies ethnography have been working with a new conception of the person, extendible to non-human beings, including the latter to compose a single collective with humans. Thus we can observe an attempt on the part of biologists and anthropologists alike to move beyond anthropocentrism, producer and product of the opposition between nature and culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the present text, the expression Great Divide always refers to the nature/culture opposition as established by Latour (1994).

  2. Latour includes objects in the category of non-humans. Here the term refers to animals only.

  3. There is an analogous idea in Uexküll, as will be seen below, that animals are “subjects,” which is also a point of reference for Ingold (2000: 176).

References

  • Canguilhem, G., Lapassade, G., Piquemal, J., & Ulmann, J. (2003 [1962]). Du développement à l ' évolution au XIX siècle. PUF.

  • Canguilhem, G. (2012). Estudos de História e de Filosofia das Ciências Concernentes aos vivos e à vida. Editora Forense Universitária.

  • Cobley, P. (2010). The cultural Implications of Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 3, 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9089-6.

  • Darwin, C. (2004a). A Origem das Espécies. Belo Horizonte, Editora Itatiaia.

  • Darwin, C. (2004b). A Origem do Homem e a Seleção Sexual. Editora Itatiaia.

  • Descola, P. (2013). A antropologia da natureza de Philippe Descola (entrevista). Revista TOPOI., 14(27), 492–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, L. F. D. (2004). A pulsão romântica e as Ciências Humanas no Ocidente. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 19(55), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans-pritchard, E. (1978 [1940]). The Nuer. Clarendon Press.

  • Favareau, D., et al. (2017, 2017). How can the study of the humanities inform the study of biosemiotics? Biosemiotics, 10, 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9287-6.

  • GALE, Barry G. (1982). Evolution without evidence. Charles Darwin and the origin of species. New Mexico Press.

  • Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2010). The evolution of associative learning: A factor in the Cambrian explosion. Journal of Theorical Biology, 266, 11–20.

  • Gould, S.J.. (2003). A falsa medida do Homem. São Paulo, Martins Fontes ed.

  • Gould, S.J. (2007). Punctuated equilibrium. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Harvard, Harvard University Press.

  • Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto. Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2012). The Natural History of Intentionality. A Biosemiotic Approach. In T. Schilhab et al. (eds) The Symbolic Species evolved. Biosemiotics 6. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2336-8_6. Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2012. 97–116.

  • Ingold, T. (1986). Evolution and social life. Cambridge University Press.

  • Ingold. (2002). On the distinction between evolution and history. Social Evolution & History, 1(1), 5–24.

  • Ingold, Tim. (2007). Introdução a "O que é um animal? Antropolítica. Revista Contemporânea de Antropologia, n 22. Niterói, EDUFF.

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.

  • Ingold, T.. (2011). Estar vivo. Ensaios sobre movimento, conhecimento e descrição. Petrópolis, Editora Vozes.

  • Ingold, T. (2004). Beyond Biology and Culture. The meaning of Evolution in a Relational World. Social Anthropology, n.12, v.2, p. 209–21.

  • Ingold, T. (2013a). Making. Anthropology, Archaeology, art and architecture. London and NY: Routledge press. Pp 61-73.

  • Ingold, T. (2013b). Prospect in: INGOLD, Tim & PALSSON, Gisli. Biossocial Becomings. Integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge un. Press, p. 1-21.

  • Ingold, T. (2019). Evolution without inheritance: Steps to an ecology of learning. [forthcoming] in Learning Ecologies, Ronald Barnett and Norman Jackson. (eds) Abingdon, Routledge, 2019.

  • Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. (2010). Evolução em quatro dimensões. Companhia das Letras.

  • Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), 545–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, E. (2013). How forests think. In Toward an anthropology beyond the Humana. Un. California Press.

  • Kull, K. (2014). Adaptative evolution without natural selection. The Linnean Society Biological Journal., 112(p), 287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K., et al. (2004). Uexküll and the post-modern evolutionism. Sign Systems Studies 32. 1 / 2.

  • Kull, K. (2016). What kind of evolutionary biology suits cultural research. Signs Systems Studies, 44(4), 634–647

  • Kull, K. (2017). Biosemiotics and humanities: A manifesto. In: Favareau, D. et al. How can the study of humanities inform the study of biosemiotics? Biosemiotics (2017) 10:9-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9287-6

  • Laland, K., & O’brien, M. J. (2010). Niche construction theory and archaeology. Journal Archaeol Method Theory, 17, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-010-9096-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1983). Comment redistribuer le grand Partage? Revue de Synthèse. N 110.

  • Latour, B. (1994). Jamais fomos modernos. Ensaio de Antropologia Simétrica. Coleção Trans. Rio: Editora 34.

  • Latour, B. (2000). Ciência em ação. Como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade afora. Ed. Unesp.

  • Lévi-strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Lewontin, R. (1998). A Tripla Hélice. Lisbon: Ed 70 Ltda.

  • Lewontin, R. (2001). Gene, organism and environment: A new Introduction. In OYAMA, Susan; GRIFFITHS, Paul & GRAY, Russell. (eds). Cycles of Contingency. Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2001, pp. 55–66.

  • Lima, T. S. (1996). O dois e seu múltiplo: reflexões sobre o perspectivismo em uma cosmologia Tupi. MANA, 2(2), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima, T. (1995) Claude Lévi-Strauss. Regarder, Ecouter, Lire (resenha). MANA. Rio de Janeiro, v1, n 1.

  • Nadasdy, P. (2007). The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human-animal sociality. American Ethnologist, 34, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D. (2021). The illusions of the modern synthesis. Biosemiotics., 14, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09405-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, S. (2000). Evolution’s eye. A Systems view of the biology-culture divide. Durham e Londres: Duke University Press.

  • Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. & Gray, R.. (2001). Introduction: What is Developmental Systems Theory. In: OYAMA, Susan; GRIFFITHS, Paul & GRAY, Russell. (eds). Cycles of Contingency. Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2001.

  • Popper, K. (1975). Conhecimento objetivo. Uma abordagem evolucionária. S. Paulo, Ed. Universidade de São Paulo e Ed. Itatiaia.

  • Serres, M. (1992) [1990] Le Contrat Naturel. Éd. Champs-Flammarion. Paris.

  • Silva, G. (2012). Os antropólogos devem, sim, falar de biologia: a contribuição de Tim Ingold para uma reflexão sobre o darwinismo hoje. In: Steil, Carlos e Carvalho, Isabel (orgs). Cultura, percepção e ambiente. A contribuição de Tim Ingold para uma mudança de paradigma. São Paulo, Ed. Terceiro Nome. pp. 121-136.

  • Silva, G.. (2017). Is natural selection a chimera? Reflections on the ‘survival’ of a principle. Vibrant, Virtual Braz. Anthr., 2017, vol.14, no.3. ISSN 1809-4341.

  • Silva, G. (2020) Seleção natural como narrativa sobre o grande divisor, biossemiótica e atnografias das pessoas humanas e não humanas. Revista Interseções. vol. 22 n. 2.

  • Silva, Glaucia & Duarte, Luiz F. D. (2016). Epigênese e epigenética: as muitas vidas do vitalismo ocidental. Horizontes Antropológicos. Porto Alegre, dez, vol 22, n 46 p. 425–453.

  • Spencer, H. (1893). The inadequacy of natural selection. Contemporary Review., 63, 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengers, I. (2002). A invenção das ciências modernas. S. Paulo, Editora 34.

  • Tønnessen, M. (2015). The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent. Agency. Biosemiotics, 8, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9229-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. (2008). Dos animais e dos homens. Digressões pelos seus próprios mundos. Doutrina e Significado. Editora Livros do Brasil.

  • Viveiros de Castro, E. (2002). A Inconstância da Alma Selvagem e Outros Ensaios de Antropologia. São Paulo: Cosac & Naify, 552 pp: University of Minnesota Press

  • Viveiros de Castro, E. (2015). Metafísicas canibais: Elementos para uma antropologia pós-estrutural. Cosac & Naïf

  • von Uexküll, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(I), 25–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gláucia Silva.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silva, G. Old and New Perspectives on the Nature/Culture Opposition in Biology and Anthropology. Biosemiotics 14, 459–478 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09436-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09436-w

Keywords

Navigation