WEBVTT Kind: captions; language: en-us NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 90% (HØY) 00:00:01.500 --> 00:00:10.000 Welcome back we now move on to another author who tackles the same set of issues and questions from 00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:14.300 a very different perspective namely Anna Tsing. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:00:15.700 --> 00:00:18.500 NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 89% (HØY) 00:00:20.800 --> 00:00:31.900 She's making the same point that Ingold is making that much of of our thinking has been marked by a 00:00:31.900 --> 00:00:41.900 distinction about the human social and the natural non-social, but she approaches the issue from a 00:00:41.900 --> 00:00:50.700 different perspective and uses the idea of sociality. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 87% (HØY) 00:00:50.700 --> 00:00:59.400 she argues that when we as anthropologists or westerners divide the world into nature and 00:00:59.400 --> 00:01:08.700 Society sociality belongs merely on the social side of that divide i.e. it's persons humans who 00:01:08.700 --> 00:01:17.100 are social beings and nature is not seen as having sociality in and of itself, if you study the 00:01:17.100 --> 00:01:20.250 social you study humans. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 77% (HØY) 00:01:20.250 --> 00:01:27.450 She starts out with a puzzle, when she spoke to a natural scientist who studied mushroom 00:01:27.450 --> 00:01:39.400 and ask what that person did for her PhD work she was told that she studied mushroom sociology and 00:01:39.400 --> 00:01:47.800 that for anthropologists sounds a bit strange. When do mushrooms also have social relations? but then 00:01:47.800 --> 00:01:50.300 she thought about this more and realised NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 84% (HØY) 00:01:50.300 --> 00:01:56.700 that of course they do and the reason why they think they don't is that we operate with the same 00:01:56.700 --> 00:02:08.500 kind of distinction that Ingold has been arguing against as well. She then came to realize that 00:02:08.500 --> 00:02:17.100 of course many disciplines such as natural history and field biology have been studying relations 00:02:17.100 --> 00:02:20.250 between different entities very critical very NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 87% (HØY) 00:02:20.250 --> 00:02:28.500 similar to the way that anthropology and other social sciences have. So maybe she says we can learn 00:02:28.500 --> 00:02:35.500 from this disciplines and develop a method that she calls critical description. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 87% (HØY) 00:02:35.600 --> 00:02:44.400 Like anthropology these are all field disciplines and in the field you do tend to study relations 00:02:44.400 --> 00:02:53.950 between different entities, so this is a call for incorporating thinking from the natural sciences 00:02:53.950 --> 00:03:02.500 and biology at least those part of those traditions that relates to field and see 00:03:02.500 --> 00:03:04.850 what that does to our concept of the NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:03:04.850 --> 00:03:14.000 the social. In this short article then she structures discussion or argument around four 00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:24.900 different questions. First how come we didn't realize this? that of course non-human entities also have 00:03:24.900 --> 00:03:34.000 social relations and that we relate to them as well. Second how do we study these 00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:35.649 social NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 89% (HØY) 00:03:35.649 --> 00:03:43.600 life's or relations then? when the species we study can't talk to us. I mean this is what we usually 00:03:43.600 --> 00:03:50.200 do in anthropology we learn a language we speak to people and we try to understand the people who 00:03:50.200 --> 00:03:56.600 We study their life's worlds and reality by speaking to them. so what do we do then when we can't speak 00:03:56.600 --> 00:03:59.800 directly to mushrooms? NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 76% (HØY) 00:04:00.700 --> 00:04:10.750 Third she asked how can we understand other species when we are bound by human form? when 00:04:10.750 --> 00:04:18.399 we obviously have to approach the world as humans so how do them understand relations between 00:04:18.399 --> 00:04:26.200 entities that are not human? and finally what use is this in knowing the world at all? NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 90% (HØY) 00:04:26.900 --> 00:04:38.900 so first why have we not realized that sociality or indneed sociology can exist between 00:04:38.900 --> 00:04:48.500 non-human entities as well. She goes back to Immanuel Kant who we encountered 00:04:48.500 --> 00:04:56.650 in Ingolds article as well, and at least point out that in a western tradition it might NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 86% (HØY) 00:04:56.650 --> 00:05:06.900 have something to do with freedom in moral thinking, in much western thinking 00:05:06.900 --> 00:05:15.500 freedom is bound up we doing the right moral choice, and since plants and animals are not seen as 00:05:15.500 --> 00:05:23.550 exercising moral choices they're not seen or experienced as having freedom in the same way. 00:05:23.550 --> 00:05:26.650 Rather at least in classical thinking NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 84% (HØY) 00:05:26.650 --> 00:05:36.300 animals and plants were seen as mechanical toys, this is similar to the point that Ingold was making 00:05:36.300 --> 00:05:45.100 when we discussed biological determinism or genetic determinism for instance that these nonhumans at 00:05:45.100 --> 00:05:56.150 least we used to think we're pre-programmed to express or develop their capabilities. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 87% (HØY) 00:05:56.150 --> 00:06:05.700 if humans are unique and have a moral we are also unique in having freedom the argument went, but as she 00:06:05.700 --> 00:06:13.700 points out this presupposes intentional planning, it's only when humans actually make a plan and have 00:06:13.700 --> 00:06:20.300 an intention for the outcome of that plan that we exercise freedom in this specific way so might 00:06:20.300 --> 00:06:26.400 there not be other ways of expressing freedom as well. She points out further that even if NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 89% (HØY) 00:06:26.400 --> 00:06:33.400 humans have the capacity to have an intention set a goal and then rationally plan for it this is not 00:06:33.400 --> 00:06:39.800 how we usually act most of the time, there are exceptions such as this lecture where I have something 00:06:39.800 --> 00:06:46.100 that I really want to convey to you I make a plan and executed it but for most part when humans 00:06:46.100 --> 00:06:49.300 act we do not act like that. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:06:49.700 --> 00:07:01.000 so we can define if you move away from moral choice as a prerequisite for freedom other entities or 00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:05.300 Other living organism also have freedom in that in a similar way NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 90% (HØY) 00:07:08.100 --> 00:07:16.200 so then second how do we study the social life of species that we cannot talk to? and she has two 00:07:16.200 --> 00:07:24.900 answers to that again drawn from field biology and from anthropology first is to look at 00:07:24.900 --> 00:07:32.550 assemblages i.e. relationship between different entities, this is what we do as anthropologists as well 00:07:32.550 --> 00:07:37.050 if we study a human social gathering NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:07:37.050 --> 00:07:43.799 in a culture that we don't know we will start by looking at who is there who is relating to whom 00:07:43.799 --> 00:07:49.200 what are the kind of interaction that is going on. Well you can actually do something and biologists 00:07:49.200 --> 00:07:56.950 do something similar in the natural field as well. Fungi mushrooms which is Anna Tsing 00:07:56.950 --> 00:08:07.100 specific answer almost always enter into relationship with other species, most pines most trees are NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 89% (HØY) 00:08:07.100 --> 00:08:13.100 dependent on living together with mushrooms in order to exist at all, and that they work in a symbiotic 00:08:13.100 --> 00:08:16.400 way so that it benefits both. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 86% (HØY) 00:08:16.400 --> 00:08:24.000 you can also look at a landscape and determine what kind of species went in first and what kind of 00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:31.500 relationship they have established with others later. So it's possible to tell a natural and a social 00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:37.799 history by looking at the assemblages and relations, though the argument she makes is that we have to 00:08:37.799 --> 00:08:44.900 think a bit new about bodily form and this is not something that we usually consider when we study 00:08:44.900 --> 00:08:46.800 human social life NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 85% (HØY) 00:08:46.800 --> 00:08:55.800 because humans have fixed bodily forms, but many others do not she points out again mushrooms tend to 00:08:55.800 --> 00:09:05.400 shape and shift the bodies to fit the environment they grow a bit raw if they meet competitor, expand 00:09:05.400 --> 00:09:12.800 if they find an opportunity so you can actually study relationship between fungi and its environment 00:09:12.800 --> 00:09:15.849 by looking at the form and shape itself. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:09:15.849 --> 00:09:22.700 Through that is possible again to trace out the relationship between different species and how 00:09:22.700 --> 00:09:29.050 they have interacted in a landscape NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 86% (HØY) 00:09:29.050 --> 00:09:36.900 She also points out that this what she proposes here isn't really new to anthropology 00:09:36.900 --> 00:09:44.000 including evidence from nonhumans has been done for a long time in classical environmental 00:09:44.000 --> 00:09:51.100 anthropology many of the kind of things she talk about today has been self evident when we looked at 00:09:51.100 --> 00:09:56.700 how people adapted and lived with and was shaped by relationships with the natural world and the 00:09:56.700 --> 00:09:58.450 resources that they utilized NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 86% (HØY) 00:09:58.450 --> 00:10:04.300 And how in turn that environment was shaped by human intervention in it. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 85% (HØY) 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:14.400 but how can we then study species when we can't really speak to them at all? when our knowledge has 00:10:14.400 --> 00:10:17.800 to be necessary specifically human. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 81% (HØY) 00:10:18.400 --> 00:10:29.700 she said this is more of an extreme version of a problem that is quite universal in anthropology 00:10:29.700 --> 00:10:36.900 we know that all anthropological knowledge is situated and this is just an extreme problem with what 00:10:36.900 --> 00:10:43.200 we do when we usually try to understand I will that is different and foreign to us is to try to 00:10:43.200 --> 00:10:47.900 insert ourself in it and interact with it and learn from the difference between NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 69% (MEDIUM) 00:10:47.900 --> 00:10:54.500 ourselves and the kind of sociality we encounter. And through that and being honest and open 00:10:54.500 --> 00:11:02.100 about how that kind of relationship developed is how anthropological knowledge is produced and the 00:11:02.100 --> 00:11:10.600 same happens here when you try to understand a nonhuman social world, you try to insert yourself in 00:11:10.600 --> 00:11:17.750 it and understand what is going on in that world through your own senses NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 87% (HØY) 00:11:17.750 --> 00:11:27.100 and she uses landscape as an example of that this is a word that or a concept that she has 00:11:27.100 --> 00:11:34.000 developed together with colleagues and it is not the landscape of the famous 00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:43.600 paintings for instance of walking in them in a forest or over mountains and appreciating a 00:11:43.600 --> 00:11:47.900 landscape, landscape for Anna Tsing and colleagues is a complex assemblage NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:11:47.900 --> 00:11:56.100 of different relations human and non-human if you take a specific area you can start to look at 00:11:56.100 --> 00:12:05.600 how that area is made up of relations between nonhumans how these again related to humans and how 00:12:05.600 --> 00:12:11.800 that whole intercept that history if you will is traceable as a set of relation as it set up 00:12:11.800 --> 00:12:17.849 assemblages, and you can study it really concretely in front of you NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 79% (HØY) 00:12:17.849 --> 00:12:23.800 the kind of examples she has given up to now is kind of a landscape perspective a trained eye would 00:12:23.800 --> 00:12:30.400 be able to tell you what has been going on in the landscape by looking at the species how they 00:12:30.400 --> 00:12:38.500 have been shaped by each other and by human intervention and so forth, and the landscape she uses as 00:12:38.500 --> 00:12:43.900 an example here is one she has been working with for a long time and that is what is called the 00:12:43.900 --> 00:12:47.850 Satoyama landscape in Japan this is a traditional NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 76% (HØY) 00:12:47.850 --> 00:12:57.100 in the meaning of an important cultural landscape as well for many Japanese people and it is 00:12:57.100 --> 00:13:05.400 sort restored in many in many areas what is interesting about that landscape is that it is not 00:13:05.400 --> 00:13:15.000 nature in the abstract as separated from humans rather it's a landscape that depends on use. The most 00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:17.849 similar thing I can think of is 'utmark' NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 82% (HØY) 00:13:17.849 --> 00:13:29.300 where the plants and species exist because animals having been gracing there the 00:13:29.300 --> 00:13:37.200 landscape has been used right so is likewise something Satoyama forest exist because trees have been cut 00:13:37.200 --> 00:13:44.800 the plants have been collected and that kind of disturbance creates a the right conditions for 00:13:44.800 --> 00:13:47.750 mushrooms for instance that is that is collected there. If NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 79% (HØY) 00:13:47.750 --> 00:13:53.650 the landscape is not used it changes and mushrooms can not live there. NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 82% (HØY) 00:13:53.650 --> 00:14:00.200 so this is a kind of landscape then which is good to think with for Anna Tsing because it doesn't 00:14:00.200 --> 00:14:07.300 divide up the landscape into the natural and the social rather the last completely depends on human 00:14:07.300 --> 00:14:13.800 processes and non-human processes and how these interact together so in order to understand that 00:14:13.800 --> 00:14:22.300 landscape we need to study non-human stories and as well as human stories and importantly you don't 00:14:22.300 --> 00:14:24.349 really give any NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 86% (HØY) 00:14:24.349 --> 00:14:30.349 more weight to argue these It's a combination of them that really matters, so for Anna Tsing 00:14:30.349 --> 00:14:37.900 this is one way of studying more than human sociality, and further if you want to understand this 00:14:37.900 --> 00:14:44.500 landscape you can't start out with a division between what are the social processes or the natural 00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:51.600 processes that we take you farther away from understanding what is going on rather than closer to it NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 81% (HØY) 00:14:51.600 --> 00:15:01.000 so I hope these two examples have been useful for you to get you starting to think a bit at least 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:07.800 about some of our own ideas about what the environment is and how we divide up the relationship 00:15:07.800 --> 00:15:14.900 between our self and our surroundings and how we should try to rethink that for anthropological 00:15:14.900 --> 00:15:22.000 analysis these are things that we will get back to you in subsequent lectures as well but hopefully 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:22.250 this has NOTE Treffsikkerhet: 91% (HØY) 00:15:22.250 --> 00:15:29.200 has given you a start and something to start to think about