AVATAR: Cross Cultural Conservation

When analyzing the movie the AVATAR for it content of cross cultural conservation, the entire movie is at your disposal. the film is a mass media pleasing way to express a story while instilling greater concepts of ecological thinking, bio-cultural conservation and the and a link between multiple cultures for a holistic idea of conservation of all.

The story is began with humans in an advanced society where resources are valued to the point to where the conservation of life is'nt even a deterrent for obtaining these nessesitized resources, an absolutely anthropocentric based society. In the beginning the main character jake sully is seen to follow the excepted master narrative of the human race at the time. The resources the humans are trying to obtain are from an alien world, where the native people have a bond with their ecological environment so strong that they can actually feel each other and can network energy to and from each other. The trouble that obviously arises with a being that is completely anthropocentric and rooted in expansion and colonialism and a being that loves all and its land and the value it holds to them becomes the climax of the movie. The main character, after interacting with the natives develops this "world traveler" sort of view and intern try's at the end of his abilities to defend the society and their prized land because of these developed heroic ethics learned from the realization that the human is not the greatest being and that their is more to think about. which is funny because another leading character, the lead scientist, has religiously been denying the continuation of the human paradigm to continue their degradation of other cultures.

What you see happening is three groups of beings become triangulated by this lack of efort towards this "cross cultural conservation" we talk about, the navii(the natives), mother tree(their home planet and source of their happiness and energy) and the humans(who for the most part just want to obtain recourses to better themselves regardless of the impact elsewhere). the navii love and embrace their land and use it in a way that is respectful and non harmful, the humans see the land as a monetary stepping stone. the gap that i'm making is a tough one to leap but the concept is non the less there.... In gaard the issue of the makah tribe and the ecofeminist conservationalists presents itself in a similar but opposite way to prove the same point. follow close! the humans don't respect the way the navii use whats sacred to them, the conservationalists don't respect the way the makah use what's sacred to them. the humans think the navii are over passive and lack the drive to take advantage of the fiscal value of its most sacred possession. the conservationalists think the makah abuse the use of its sacred being, the whale, and don't let the makah have their sense of "self" intact. at first glance the ideas are completely different but looking deeper the idea that the more powerful society is in disagreement with the lesser community because of the lack of cross cultural conservation, the idea is the same. Gretta Gaard says "The concept of the "truncated narrative" reminds feminists and ecofeminists to ask for the whole ethical narrative, and provides a strategy for avoiding ...essentialism... remember that indigenous cultures are not static, timeless or unchanging, nor are they untainted by internal hierarchy and domination. Finally, feminists and ecofeminist must recognize the difficulty of cross-cultural communication between cultures with power imbalances, and in situations involving matters of cross-cultural justice, we should seek out, build relationships with , and support cultural border crossers who's values and goals coinside..."

What a beautiful way to say, no matter what the issue, if their is a cultural issue between two societies, lets not degrade each other and force one to hide its narrative and self and culture as a whole, instead lets build a cross-cultural bridge to help aid the struggle and enable healthy positive work towards a commonality. Her view point on cross cultural relations could have provided much help to the human and navii issue.

Avatar: The Trouble With Nature

Avatar Blog (Cronon)

For many years, members of our society have perceived nature to be a romanticized entity, disregarding the inevitable dangers that it entails. One film that captures this theme effectively is James Cameron’s Avatar. The main character, Jake Sully, fights against the master narrative that his country has instilled in him by his country. The master narrative that Jake initially follows refers to his country commanding him to colonize at Pandora, a foreign planet, in order to mine for a rare mineral, unobtainium. Jake’s military until plans on expanding its frontier and utilizes “avatars”, engineered na’vi-human bodies, in order to deceive the native people and convince them to allow mining of the valuable commodity. Eventually, Jake develops his own self-narrative, independent of the intentions of his country, when he decides to fight for the existence of the native tribe of Pandora.

The central themes presented in Avatar correspond with those included in William Cronon's highly renowned book The Trouble With Wilderness. Cronon expands further on this issue, saying, “The romantic sublime was not the only cultural movement that helped transform wilderness into a sacred American icon during the nineteenth century. No less important was the powerful romantic attraction of primitivism, dating back at least to Rousseau—the belief that the best antidote to the ills of an overly refined and civilized modern world was a return to simpler, more primitive living(Cronon 13).” In this excerpt, Cronon recognizes the dualistic nature of common human perception versus the true nature of the wild.

Cronon’s observations in The Trouble With Wilderness are exemplified in Avatar when Jake Sully wonders into the depths of the jungles of Pandora. As he travels further into the wilderness, he is attacked by various creatures whom are inhabitants of the Pandorian jungle, showing that he lacks the survival skills to cope with the dangers that surround him. Eventually, when Jake’s life is in serious danger, he is saved by Neytiri, a woman who is a native of Pandora. Once Jake is safe, Neytiri explains that the situation was “all his fault” because he was being “loud and stupid”. Clearly, Jake is not adapted to such an environment. It becomes apparent that Na’vi maintain an organic worldview, having a clear understanding of their place in nature and recognizing themselves and their planet as an interconnected whole.

Conclusively, the human outlook on wilderness shown in both Avatar and The Trouble With Wilderness forms a false paradigm in that their romanticized worldview disregards the dangers are ever present. What viewers and readers can take from these works is a message suggesting while nature can be beautiful, as it is portrayed in avatar, or thrilling, as described in The Trouble With Wilderness, there are many natural limitations for humans interacting with nature that can not be avoided. The same dangers that have existed since the beginning of time still exist today, and should be treated accordingly—with caution.

AVATAR: Beauty In Nature

While watching Avatar for the second time, I noticed many things that I did not notice the first time. The most prominant idea in the movie that I noticed was anthropocentrism, and a great deal of it. Nearly every minute of the movie showcases anthropocentrism. All of the trouble, violence and destruction was caused by the master narrtive of the human society. The desire to do whatever necessary to manipulate nature in order for it to be most beneficial for humans use took over. Throughout the movie there were a few paradigm shifts by several characters. Jake Sully begins by working with the "sky people" but realizes as it goes on that he can not go against the Na'vi people and destroy the land in which they survive off of. Along with Jake, Grace Neytiri and other members of the human military team experience similar paradigm shifts. The paradigm that is held by the most powerful people in this situation is a mechanistic worldview. "Both order and power are integral components of the mechanical view of nature" (Merchant, pg. 53). The military leaders and scientists supporting the destruction of the planet Pandora are viewing this planets resources as more mechanical and interchangable, rather than viewing it as a living organism that is supporting life. The Na'vi people environment is reduced into the rare "unobtanium", that is said to be there, and ignored in order to obtain this rare element for science.
The reigning narrative in this movie is the idea of humanism. There is a constant conflict involving the humans, doing what they want and what they feel they need to do in order to most benefit human societal advances. This becomes such a conflict because the involvement with nature is the narritave self of the Na'vi people. Humanism is also an idea discussed alot in the Merchant reading, Radical Ecology. In this reading there is a lot of history on how nature and wildlife have been percieved far in the past and throughout the years. In the Merchant reading it discusses how nature has been viewed as a machine. I feel that this idea prevails throughout the movie. To the men in the military, Pandora is much like a machine that they wish to get their use out of. The "sky people", or humans in Avatar are largely associated with war, large weaponry, destruction and a harsh appearance. While the Na'vi people are the epitome of peaceful, nature loving creatures (with their skin color being the color of calmness, blue). The Na'vi people see the beauty of nature and they love and appreciate it very much. While humans are depicted to be hateful, destructive and completely careless. The idea atomism seems very prevalent as a part of the Na'vi lifestyle. They analyze nature through the very distinct, fundamental cmponents; breaking it down in order to see and appreciate it for what it really is.
Avatar displays much of everyday life for the Na'vi and human people showing how each group interacts with the environment that surrounds them. This is what I feel most relates most to the ideas discussed in the Merchant reading. It is very easy to distinguish those who apreciate and coexist with nature from the ones who do not at all. In the eye of the human, they are doing what is most important for the individual. But what about the ones who rely on this environment to live? It does not seem right that only the desires of one group are considered in this situation. After reading the Modern Thought article, watching Avatar forced me to question 'If earth and nature are our "mother" then why do we harm them so badly?' It appears to me as though we would all be more similar to the Na'vi people if we actually were to treat nature well as though it is our "mother nature".
The ultimate dualism in the movie is good vs. evil, nature vs. human. As well as in Avatar, this is a continuing, everlasting battle in todays society. In the eyes of the Na'vi people, nature is viewed more favorably over humans. While on the other hand, from the humans point of view, their needs are put at a higher priority than that of nature of the Na'vi society. In my opinion, a great form of reductionism describing this is like a child playing with a magnifying glass burning ants with the heat of the sun, taking no consideration for how the ants may be feeling about this or what of their homes and families he may destroy. Though its on a much smaller lever, I feel that the two can be very similar. Avatar along with the Merchant reading, Radical Ecology present a very important message about how we all, as humans, treat nature along with a solution to how we should view and treat our mother nature. The environment is a crucial part of our lives that would be nonexistant without wonderful natural things. Reading and understanding Radical Ecology has urged me to view nature as more precious and valuable than I already view it. Avatar sends a really great message through the storyline about how nature should be valued and treated truly as though it is a living breathing organism that is providing an abundance for all of us, rather than something mechanical to use and dispose of.

Avatar: Thinking like a Na'vi

The lines of avatar are drawn early in the film when Jake Sully arrives on Pandora and peers out of the shuttle and sees an industry spreading like a virus across a tropical landscape. James Cameron wanted there to be a thick defined line between the natural world of Pandora and the invading industry of earthly values. It is almost a perverse tale of the arrival of Europeans to the Americas in the early 15^th century. Numerous dualisms can be seen such as the na’vi themselves have been given. They have primitive weapons and clothing and they have been given tails and large soft eyes as to anthropomorphize them even more. They have been given characteristics to give them more of a natural alien look but it is the similarities in their looks and behavior and give more meaning to the underlying message given by the film.

Dualisms are drawn even on the intellectual level as it is the scientists are viewed as the ones with logic and compassion while it is the overwhelming military forces that are the brutes who will drive out the primitive race of the na’vi. It is the perverse anthropocentric view that also adds to the many questions of morality that the movie leaves the viewer. It is one thing to view humans as the center of importance which can be found in the majority of people, but to view an entire race of people on another planet as expendable would be considered by most people today as not only brutish but also primitive and inefficient. The way that story was written and presented was meant to give the audience that viewing the world that way is wrong because of the consequences and perspective given. It can also be seen in numerous scenes that nature will fight back against invading forces like a single organism fighting off a disease. When Jake goes missing the forest turns on him because he has not realized his place in nature’s natural system that has been already laid for him. He quickly learns his place when he is forced to adapt and survive in the natural environment of an alien world. The same thing is seen at the end when all of the creatures attack the invading military forces. This ecocentrism is forced and portrayed as a world defending itself instead of wild animals attacking.

Another dualism is in the master narratives of both cultures. Humans for the majority view the higher power as being a strong willed man. The na’vi view their supreme being as the entire world of interconnected species creating one giant system known as Eywa and she is the guiding light that they follow. God is a powerful man and Eywa is more of a loving and nurturing mother. The Na’vi also have a symbiotic relationship with a massive tree which they refer to as “Hometree” and throughout the movie is referred as a female. There is a paradigm shift as Jake Sully infiltrates deeper into the Na’vi and when people are watching the movie they humor themselves by replacing the protagonist with themselves because he is widely viewed as the “good guy”. Jake’s character is reinvented in the time he spends with the other Na’vi, “All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in the community but his ethics prompt him also to cooperate.” (page 141 Aldo Leopold: Ecocentrism: The Land Ethic) Jake earns his place among the people through many acts such as the capture of his ikran and the riding of t’urak mak tau. And through the teachings of the Na’vi he learns that he is a part of a system of interconnected organisms that covers the entire planet. This paradigm shift is meant not only to happen to the protagonist but to ourselves when we replace Jake with our own character.

Avatar: Romanticism for Dummies

At first glance, the film Avatar seems like another Romeo-and-Juliet-esque love story with fancy special effects and a happy ending. However, beneath the surface lies environmental as well as ethical symbolism for the world we live in: past, present, and future. Directed by James Cameron and released in 2009, Avatar tells the story of paraplegic Marine Jake Sully and his journey to fulfill a unique mission on the distant moon Pandora, where he finds he must choose between following the orders of a greedy corporate typhoon or protecting a newfound love and the place he feels he truly belongs.

         

The film embraces two different worldviews, the Mechanistic (first presented by Carolyn Merchant “The Wilderness Idea”, 2005) which is represented in the film by the corporate figurehead Parker, the Colonel, and the human soldiers – a paradigm through which nature is seen through the metaphor of a machine that can be dismantled and reduced for better understanding, and therefore exploited to progress society’s economic well being. The converse view – the Romantic worldview – is represented by Pandora's native race and is one that values the beauty and freedom of nature over scientific rationalization, a holistic outlook that holds everything in nature as being interconnected and intrinsically valuable.

         Jake Sully was assigned a mission to replace his recently deceased brother; he’s told that he is the only person suitable for the job for a special reason – he needs a certain biological makeup to be put into the body of an avatar that’s identical to Pandora’s native race, the Na’vi. And so, when Jake Sully is set out on the mission of infiltrating the Na’vi society and convincing them to give over their land to the humans so it can be mined, he soon realizes that the sublime, breathtaking beauty of Pandora is not worth the typhoon Parker’s final goal of dominating the frontier and exploiting it for its instrumental value. In fact, through personally embodying a Na’vi avatar and his relationship with a female Na’vi, Neytiri, Jake Sully’s narrative self embraces the Na’vi mindset of Romanticism. Neytiri introduces Sully to an organic worldview – seeing all people and plants of Pandora as deeply interconnected, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole. While Parker and gung-ho commander Colonel carelessly rip through Pandora with chemical gas, guns and bombs in pursuit of what lies beneath, Jake Sully and his comrades try to convince their leaders not to do so. Sully and his human allies realize that displacing the Na'vi people is wrong, and destroying their invaluable planet for an economic venture isn't worth the catastrophic effect it would cause on Pandora.  Yet, Parker and Colonel see the Na’vi people as different, and thus uncivilized and savage. Parker and the Colonel exemplify anthropocentrism – regarding their own kind as the most central and important element of existence. They view the Na’vi people as sub-human beings with no rights to the land they occupy. To the two leaders, the trees and plants on Pandora are all the same, homogeneous units only needed for their economic value. They follow the Master Narrative that they've inherited growing up on Earth, which leads them to believe that the Na'vi people are  a small, useless obstacle standing in the way of their ultimate goal: economic progress (at any cost). Although Jake Sully was originally sent to negotiate the Na’vi people off their land so it could be destroyed and mined, he realizes that the essence of the Na’vi people relies completely on their relationship with nature and therefore rebels against his own kind to save Pandora from destruction and the Na’vi from displacement. The film ultimately creates a dualism between Human versus Na’vi & Mechanistic Worldview versus Romanticism. The humans in the film, mainly Parker and the Colonel, think of Pandora as a potentially profitable machine, while Jake Sully, his comrades, and the Na’vi see Pandora as a priceless life-giving land of sublime beauty.

         Avatar also presents the paradox of the romantic worldview that is explained by William Cronan (1995) in “The Trouble With Wilderness”:

                  “…the central paradox: wilderness embodies a dualistic vision in which the human is entirely outside the natural. If we allow ourselves to believe that nature, to be true, must also be wild, then our very presence in nature represents its fall…We thereby leave ourselves little hope of discovering what an ethical, sustainable, honorable human place in nature might actually look like.” (pg. 17)

         In the film, this is seen when Jake Sully tells the Na’vi people of human behavior on Earth:

                  “See the world we come from. There is no green there. They killed their mother. They will do the same here.”

         Logically, If humans destroyed their mother, their planet, to the point where there is no green – the symbolic color of nature – then humans must be entirely unnatural beings that did not learn how to sustainably and ethically exist in nature through the course of their history. Through their presence in nature on Earth they caused its demise. Thus it is then implied that by allowing the human race to invade and control Pandora, history would repeat itself and the human race would ravage the planet for its valuable resources to the point of destruction. Pandora would become as barren and desolate as the planet Earth that Sully describes to the Na’vi people. Therefore, human presence on Pandora must not continue in order for Pandora to remain in its natural state and retain its sublime beauty and goodness.

         This holds true when the final battle against the humans and their vicious machines proves victorious for the native Na’vi people. With the exception of a select few, humans are ordered out and never to return to Pandora. The Na’vi people are left to continue with their way of life – living ethically and peacefully within nature. 

         Overall Avatar presents two different ways of viewing nature, the Mechanistic worldview and Romanticism. It shows the tales of both views and their outcomes. It implies that if you view the world like a machine with interchangeable, meaningless parts and exploit it, you will drive the planet to its breaking point, turning it into something empty and lifeless. The storyline favors the Romantic worldview because those who represent it, the Na’vi, respect their planet as a delicately balanced living organism, intrinsically valuing every individual and therefore existing sustainably in nature. Conversely, the film gives a bad connotation to the Mechanistic worldview, showing that the humans who think this way are bound to destroy nature despite its beauty for the sake of greediness and profitability. In turn, the humans destroy the very thing that they rely on and fail to find an honorable way to exist within nature. Overall, when it comes to living within nature, the moral of the story seems to be that the Romantic worldview is the way to go. If we can learn to intrinsically value every plant, animal, and human on Earth without homogenizing or exploiting them for economic progress, we will live as honorably and sustainably on this planet as the Na’vi do on Pandora.


- Meredith Whittier

Altering Nature

Altering Nature.

It is said by some that “what is unnatural is evil.” The same statement could be said for GMO’s. GMO is short for genetically modified organism. Now this does not mean some sort of Frankenstein walking about but some genetically modified organism that has been given some sort of gene therapy to better suit our needs. There have been many successful thriving GMO’s some of which we eat every day. Herbicide resistant and BT toxin expression are 2 FDA approved GMO’s that are on the market now. The number one argument among protestors today is that it is unnatural. The counter argument I have is what is Natural? John Stuart Mill said that you can never act against nature. One must ultimately choose “what particular law of nature they should make use of.” We are so quick to argue the unnaturalness of something and we choose to ignore everything unnatural around us. If what is unnatural is evil then are the clothes on my own back evil? There is no cotton that can be found in the shape of a shirt or pants. Are the medicines we give our children when they are ill evil? The author of the article Who’s afraid of GMO’s?ME! begins his article with a sarcastic demeanor with condescending remarks belittling the very means of her work. http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2005/ujun05b.html#afraid He makes one very good argument though that there has never been an actual study supporting or disproving GMO health risks. GMO’s in our food have only been around for a short period of time but the FDA saw that the benefits outweighed the possible risks thus allowing them to go public. Long ago when the banana was first being cultivated, it was not unnatural to strategically pick out which bananas we wish to grow which are the seedless ones. No use of gene therapy was used, yet we are the reason why they cannot naturally reproduce by means or normal pollination. The actual steps to gene therapy for a GMO can be seen on the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAP6ZtfP9ZQ. The actual video itself is educational but the only problem about the young girls argument is where is the data for these studies? Who did the studies? Under what circumstances were they done? “If we are not important, not central, not the apple of Gods eye, what is implied for our theologically-based moral codes?... the significance of our lives and our planets is then determined only by our own knowledge and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning… If we crave some cosmic purpose then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” Carl Sagan’s views on the natural world can be used to answer the question: what is natural? The definition of nature can be put Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. (courtesy of Wikipedia) what is natural is not determined by us nor a higher power. What is natural can be associated with what is possible. When we begin to separate ourselves from nature that is when the views of what is natural comes to play. The master narrative widely accepted by many is that what is natural is good and what is unnatural is either indifferent or evil. In modern times there are paradigm shifts every day due to the increased number of ways to communicate information whether it be television or the internet. Someone is publishing some study that proves or disproves something else and it is up to the people who are in charge of these means of communication that are responsible for what gets published and heard. This is not in support of any side of the argument about GMO’s I have no say in disapproving of them considering I eat them every day. Nor can I approve of them because of the lack of studies observing the long term effects of genetically modified organisms. The real question that should be asked is what is natural and who determines whether it is or not?

Anthropogenic impact on The Wild Next Door

When looking through the readings to pick one to use as a cross reference for analyzing a common day environmental issue, i could look past cronans TROUBLE WITH WILDERNESS. He makes such a valid point as the deeper meaning of the message that nature is a man made concept subject to change as our society evolves. Trying to find a good environmental issue that was directly relative to the writing i realized that their isn't a single example that fails to link the bridge. cronan makes the point that the common thought on neutrality is a state of being without the taint of a human impact. "It is an island in the polluted sea of urban-industrial modernity, the one place we can turn for escape from our own too-muchness. Seen in this way, wilderness presents itself as the best antidote to our human selves, a refuge we must somehow recover if we hope to save the planet.". What a satirical way to get at a very true statement. wilderness is a mental refuge that is always on the other side of the fence. in fact we as humans create this dualism subliminal that puts nature and the 'unnatural living style" of humans on the same field of play with not enough room for the two to coexist.

Co-author Dr Andy Radford of a late study, who leads a major project to investigate the impact of anthropogenic noise on marine animals, said: "Noise pollution is a rapidly increasing issue of global concern, especially underwater. Although lots of research has considered the potential impacts on marine mammals, we know relatively little about how.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228183849.htm

This is sort of a weak example is the sense that this is not one of the biggest topics for environmental decay, but i think because such a non beaten path subject matter displays the issue just as well it makes the point work. what Radford is getting at here, is that we as people are corrupting the so called wilderness. is their not fish that live in ponds around some of the biggest cities in the world? is their not noise distractions created by other bigger animals in the so called wild? (Go back 250 years in American and European history, and you do not find nearly so many people wandering around remote corners of the planet looking for what today we would call “the wilderness experience.” As late as the eighteenth century, the most common usage of the word “wilderness” in the English language referred to landscapes that generally carried adjectives far different from the ones they attract today. To be a wilderness then was to be “deserted,” “savage,” “desolate,” “barren”—in short, a “waste,” the word’s nearest synonym. Its connotations were anything but positive, and the emotion one was most likely to feel in its presence was “bewilderment” or terror.) cronan qt 2 trouble with wilderness. There is no better way to evoke though that ponders what something truly means than reminding your self how a “simple” concept has changed so vastly over a couple hundred years.

The sum total of all the mumbo jumbo is that the dualism between this man made wilderness and human living needs to done away with… the struggle to save the separation between man and nature needs to be put to rest…. And the fight to make our foot print on the earth needs to be brought to the next level because we can never truly get away from nature. It is the world, the air we breath, the grass we walk on… it is us.