Unlearning our bias
Anthropocentrism in Nature and Ecology, by Jasmine Qureshi
Today’s article has been in the pipeline for some time. It’s a slightly longer read than is usual on here. I’m grateful to Jasmine for putting this together. I don’t have a great deal to say other than the themes of human separation and superiority, hierarchies and binaries, and domination in this piece are so central to so many of our issues. Not least the colonial violence we see being wrought in the world right now. It’s no surprise that we keep returning to these concepts. They are at the heart of how many of us have been taught to see the world, which in turn influences how we behave and relate, not just to each other but also to our more-than-human kin. Many ideas are explained in this article, which we’ve attempted to make digestible. I think it’s worthwhile to spend some time trying to understand and unpick how we are where we are. To paraphrase James Baldwin, we cannot change something if we don’t face it first.
Anthropocentrism in Nature and Ecology, by Jasmine Qureshi
As a trans, non-binary, Pakistani Muslim woman who has worked in the natural history, conservation and writing industries for a number of years I have a personal interest in queer ecology, its history and its links to my own identity.
It has, fundamentally, been about unlearning the bias we are taught via binary based ecology and biological understanding. A key concept I am interested in is Anthropocentrism. This is the idea that at the centre of our scientific discoveries that involve the natural world is a perspective rooted in human behavioural study and which is projected onto the world around us.
For centuries we have studied the planet and referenced our own social constructs in these studies, using them to progress our understanding of the world we see. However, through my research and own lived experience, I would say that this has heavily limited our progress as scientists, and extrapolating off of this, as a society. The societal norms we have created in modern western societies, stem from eurocentric standards of excellence, heteronormative and cis normative standards of existence, and patriarchal standards of hierarchy.
Using this as a blueprint, we have projected false gender roles, incorrect and often vague sexual and other behavioural identities, eugenic and racist biology and then used these biases and false studies, to confirm and prop up laws and policy that continues to harm vulnerable communities around the planet.
Here, I would like to delve into Anthropocentrism in ecology, how it has harmed us as a society, and how we must discontinue its practice, if we are to care for our planet and provide a more intersectional understanding and awareness for future generations.
Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism means to centre the human being (derived from the ancient Greek words Anthropos and Kentron). As an ideology, it is the belief that human beings are the most central and most important organisms present in our universe. It has not only leaked into our understanding and learning of the natural world, but has come to dominate it.
As a hierarchical structure, it suggests the entity that is deemed most important cannot truly be the same as those deemed lesser. Humanity is seen as superior to any other organism - but also importantly - separate. This separation, and the coveting of our position as “higher beings”, led to the demotion of other organisms as “resources”. The crux of the problem could be seen to be the issue of “assumption”. All of our understanding of science and nature comes from assumptions; facts are assumptions themselves, the only difference between shallow assumption and fact is that facts should be constantly tested and questioned in order to prove their reliability.
However, the foundations of our understanding of everything cannot be constantly questioned down to their deepest, darkest secrets every time a new hypothesis is formed – there must be a set of facts (assumptions) upon which to build new understanding, and so we see the development of an “average”, or a norm, as a foundation upon which we can build. With an average in mind, assumptions can be made faster, so there needn’t be a constant rebuilding of the entire scientific study so frequently.
The goal is to be efficient, which is the reason for this format of “scientific method”. Efficiency is developed from the desire for short term growth. A need to see results in a shorter amount of time, whether it be for the purpose of pleasure, survival, or any other reason, births a requirement for efficiency, and efficiency is made more effective via an increased amount of assumptions, so less work is required for more output, and hey presto - we have faster growth.
If constant assumption, and the development of averages in this way, leads to a more efficient system, we can clearly see the source of an increase in “unreliable assumption”.
This brings us back to the development of anthropocentric viewpoints in biology and nature. It stems from assumption and the requirement of efficiency - a dynamic induced by the rise of capitalistic tendencies; themselves a result of a “survival of the fittest” mindset evolving in certain communities. The obtaining of capital by some at the exclusion of that capital from others, allowed those with more capital to control the flow of product, which established their hierarchical importance and identity. In our current society, information gathering, and thus anthropocentric perspective, have arisen as the most mainstream understanding of science and nature, because of a recent set of ideologies – those of colonialist, Eurocentric scientists, and thinkers.
Hierarchies
Some of the first examples of anthropocentrism being used to “dominate” or identify human beings as higher organisms, is suggested as existing in early versions of the Christian bible; verses attribute man’s image to that of God, and then suggest that humans should have dominion over all other organisms of the planet (criticisms of this origin are based on the usage of language and the suggestion that the bible encourages us to live alongside and benefit from other organisms, but not to control them as resources).
Anthropocentrism grew from a system of “hierarchical assumption”. Hierarchies are systems where there is an order of importance and control, often emphasised and enabled by the highest entity in the order, so that they are kept at the top, and those beneath are discouraged from rising higher, sustaining this hierarchy. Hierarchies have existed since the dawn of time, before humanity came into existence, and many organisms other than humans have systems of control and hierarchical societies. To establish a hierarchy, there must be a reason for those within the hierarchy to exist at its different levels, and there must be limitations on those at the top and the bottom, usually more extreme upon the base levels, but most certainly a difference of perception and reality for each class/level, which often goes unquestioned in the progress towards a system of unchallenged control. Assumptions that humanity is the most important organism is a central trait of most of current human society, and our laws, rulings and values are aligned with the protection and continued sustaining of human life over that of wildlife and the environment. **
Enter Speciesism. This is a philosophical term dealing with the treatment of individuals of different species. A man called Richard Ryder coined the term, and defines it as, “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species”. Our justification for the exploitation of an individual of another species is based on our ignorance of their feelings towards such exploitation, which itself assumes that they do not have feelings, do not feel pain, or that their exploitation is justified because it serves the higher purpose of enabling the survival of humans. There are studies that have since suggested that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views.
A clear thread emerges here. A hierarchy has been established. One that divides humans and non-humans, and exploits non-humans as a resource, and is justified easily without the consent or understanding of non-humans as they have been demoted from organism status to resource. Assumptions are made, and rarely tested, to create efficient systems of growth for humanity, and to bypass any challenge of a system that clearly benefits some to the exclusion of others, and that often undervalues the lives of non-humans. Those that benefit most are at the top of this hierarchy. They keep their position via suppression of any questioning or protest, whether that be via indoctrination or limitation of education (self-awareness), and because they benefit the most from this system they are labelled as privileged. The hierarchy is not as clear cut as “humans vs non-humans” - levels exist in society, and there is a spectrum of benefit. Now we must ask - who are the privileged, and why do they benefit the most, and what does that have to do with ecology?
The Ultimate Human
Hierarchy has led to us centering humans over wildlife and the environment, but that hierarchy dribbles into human society as well, and forms classes or levels of importance. Those who benefit from this the most, are privileged because of this. This suggests that there must be those who are the most important and most valued in society – the elite are the most privileged, and they benefit the most. The history of colonialism and the destruction of communities of indigenous and global majority communities - because of the supposed need for efficiency and a replacement of their societies with a system of capitalism – destroys narratives that centre the victims of this destruction, while the victors are deemed the elite. This results in a Eurocentric elite arising, and the promotion of Eurocentric thought and ideas of progress. Efficiency also introduces the exploitation of others for reproduction, and the systemic patriarchy that dominates the elite (a result of Androcentrism - from the Greek for “man”, or “male”, it refers to the practice, subconsciously or directly, of placing a masculine point of view at the centre of perspective), itself lending to this normalising of male centred dominance.
The Ultimate Human encapsulates the core identities of these elite circles.
White. Male (normally cisgender and heteronormative in their presentation). Able-bodied (within the stereotype of the society that this system was developed in). Wealthy. Older.
They exist as an example of how to be powerful, in order to be deemed innately valuable. They are the lead scientists, the average of government boards, the mainstream influencers of thought and scientific progress, and through their studying and teaching of ecology, as they fill the books and media with their talks, words, and thoughts, we see a narrative emerging. Their narrative.
Lived experience is a precious, and unique gem of every organism. We view the world differently based upon our individual experiences, and thus our realities differ drastically. But we can share similar realities if we share similar traits, upbringings, and goals. Get a group of similar minded people in the same room, studying the same subject, with similar lives, similar upbringings, and a shared set of goals, and you create an echo chamber that progresses their own assumptions without question …but it also does something far worse…it excludes the narrative and perspectives of anyone not in the room.
We study biology and ecology based on assumptions that are tested continuously for reliability. Don’t we? The truth is…we don’t. The goal of efficiency is such that unreliable assumptions are made constantly, assumptions that favour human experience and a specific human’s experience at that, experiences that are then projected into natural history and environmental understanding.
Lessons from the clownfish
Let’s take the clownfish, a favourite example of mine when it comes to the demonstration of changeable identity and biological sex in nature. The clownfish belongs to a group of fish that are known for their sequential hermaphroditism – the process of sex changing sometime during a lifecycle, as opposed to simultaneous hermaphroditism - where fully formed gonads of all sexes are present at birth. Factors triggering sex change differ among species. In some species, the sex change is size dependent and eventually every fish in the population will change sex. In some species sex change is socially mediated, e.g. the male does not change sex when attaining a certain size, but only after the female’s disappearance.
These clownfish live in social groups consisting of a dominant female, always the largest in size, surrounded by small males and juveniles. Clownfish species display a strong social hierarchy based on size. If the dominant female of a family dies, all subordinates seize the opportunity to ascend in rank and grow. The male next largest is poised to become female and rapidly changes sex to assume the vacated position, while the largest "other" fish completes the breeding pair by turning into a mature male in a short time. This ability allows the formation of a new breeding pair, preventing the need for dangerous travel across the reef, but requires the presence of subdominant fish to complete the sex change. Shortly, after the female is removed, the male who used to receive orders from the female now displays aggression and dominance, beginning to court the smaller fish as the female would. The brain mediates these behavioural changes.
Receptors on the gonadal tissue receive the hormonal signals and reabsorb or extend accordingly, completing the gonadal sex change. This process involves a complete reorganization of the gonadal tissue. The gonad of the functional males has both testicular and ovarian tissues. However, while the testes are mature, the ovary is in an immature phase. At the time males begin to change sex it enters the transition phase, which is when the testicular tissue deteriorates, and the ovarian tissue grows. At the end of the transitional phase the testicular tissue is reabsorbed and shortly after females become mature.
The entire biological structure – that we often state for humans is unchangeable - of this animal has changed to suit its environmental needs. The reproductivity of these fish does not depend on its assigned gender at birth, that the sex and gender are connected but ultimately different, and that a simple switch in hormone levels via brain activity (whilst of course not at all simple in practice, but in concept more so) has changed the sexual desire, reproductive capability, and physical body of this animal. Scientific review and method disallowed such a discovery and study to be made for many years prior to these fish being understood, because of how we viewed human gender and sex, and projected it onto how we studied these animals.
The arrival of gender as a norm, and its assigned set of roles, and the stereotypes of those roles are often assumed to be present in a myriad of animal species. We then understand these animals, and their behaviours and interactions, based on our mainstream ideologies of gender - this is all anthropocentric thinking. This refers to a tendency to reason about unknown or unfamiliar biological processes or species by using human comparisons.This is tempting not only because it is a by-product of the centering of humans and the placing of ourselves at the top of a hierarchy, but it's also easier and faster.
Radical system change
Eugenics; racism that has poisoned countless communities and systems of service and care, propped up in political systems; the systematic destruction and inferiority of women in science; the gendered issues that have come about due to climate change; the exploitation of farm animals and the resultant harm to the climate and the environment; how we characterise species as invasive; how we study the marine life that props up our very way of living; the very structures of gender and biology in mainstream ecological teaching: these are all founded in anthropocentric viewpoints in nature and the environment.
To erase ourselves from the picture would be another form of divisive hierarchy - for who is worthy of erasing these narratives, as has been done to so many already. To continue as we do now will be detrimental not only to our understanding of science and ecology, but to our health as a society and species, and to the planet we live upon and share with so many.
My proposed answer is one of radical system change, one that does not centre humanity as a higher being, that does away with hierarchies in general, but particularly as a core to scientific review, that returns the earth to itself, with communities of mutual aid and respect living alongside and intertwined with the natural world, as the indigenous and global majority communities of people have done for generations. Efficiency must be decentered as the driving force. Capitalism is a fuel for questioning and reflection to be undone and is a structure through which anthropocentric thinking has moved most smoothly. We will not be efficient, we will not grow fast, but when there is a sustainable, euphoric, flexible community surrounding you, and your needs and those of the environment are met simply because you are alive, when innate importance relies upon status as a organism/being, and is not limited to those with privilege or access to standards of existence, when individual dignity and autonomy are not conditional…there is no desire to grow fast.
There is simply desire…to grow. To not just survive. But to thrive.
**NOTE: I am speaking about mainstream, influential human society today, and as such refer to global northern and western hemisphere, Eurocentric societal practices when I speak of this hierarchy, as the hierarchies, societal practices and communities of indigenous and global majority people - when they existed as a majority influencer of human existence many years ago - is based in an intertwined, intersectional understanding of natural history, ancestral conservation practices, and a mutual respect for wildlife.
Jasmine Isa Qureshi (they/she), is a journalist, writer and marine biologist, working currently as a researcher for the Mindfulness Initiative on Climate Youth Resilience. As a trans, Pakistani, non-binary, and muslim woman, she has often found that her need to intertwine her identity in her work is required for authenticity and creativity to thrive. As such, she is also a Poet, an Ambassador for the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, an advisor on the committee of RSPB England, and a presenter, speaker and wildlife TV Researcher. She is currently working on her first book at DHH Literary Agency.
Twitter: @GoWildForBees
Instagram: @wildheartwithacamera
Linktree: Jasmine Isa Qureshi (they/she) | Instagram, TikTok | Linktree
Jasmine is being paid for this article.