Anthropocentrism A Faltering World View

Human beings as the centre point, controlling everything: biologist and philosopher Andreas Weber believes that this world view is long since obsolete – and that we can learn plenty from indigenous cultures.
 

Andreas Weber, in your book “Indigenialität” (Indigeneity; 2018) you write the idea that “only humans possess a mind, morals and the claim that they are saved” is “long dead”. As you also explained, this idea is based on a form of metaphysical dualism, which still has a significant influence on Western world views today. How should we envisage this dualism?

By Western “dualism” I understand the idea that in reality there are two different substances or dimensions that are not compatible with each other. One of them consists of material – that would be for instance nature – the other of something non-material – which could be mind, culture or language for instance, depending on which cultural epoch we’re in at the time. Incidentally that also corresponds with the idea that God as creator stands outside the world, not in the world. According to this Western world view, globalised as it now is, only humans have access to the non-material dimension. Humans are separated from the rest of the creatures as a result. At the same time, this form of dualism gives humans the opportunity to rule over the rest of the creatures.

From this a second definition can be postulated, which has a different emphasis. It reads: dualism means believing that the world is divided into those who are supposed to obey and those who give the orders. Or: human beings have the right to make life and death decisions for the others – for animals, plants and other “things” that make up the world. This definition is less abstract and shows clearly what we humans are practising the whole time, specifically a form of subjugation of all other creatures.

So dualism is associated with the idea of human beings being the centre point of reality – in other words hierarchically superior to other creatures. This means dualism and anthropocentrism are essentially coupled to one another. But why, in your opinion, are dualism and anthropocentrism “long dead”, to what extent are they questioned today?

From a scientific perspective you could say that humans are slowly realising that their actions on Earth are having terrible consequences, which in turn influence their own lives. Today we call this “Anthropocene”: the conclusion that nature and culture are not as different as we thought, and just as our culture changes nature, so it changes us as well. The big lightbulb moment of the Anthropocene is realising that we are not separate from other creatures and from the planet itself. This is illustrated for instance by the climate disasters.

Furthermore science shows that animals and plants also have characteristics that we have attributed solely to humans for a long time, especially here in the West: they feel, communicate, want to survive, have relationships – in other words they are aware of a social dimension. These days there are lots of books about the feelings of plants, for instance, or the “secret lives” of trees. New findings along these lines are coming to light practically every day, for example the fact that spiders dream too. Biology shows that all living creatures are subjects as well, not just humans. This also means that there is no reason to place human beings in a fundamentally different category from all other creatures because of the quality of their cognition, their self-awareness or how they experience feelings.

But there’s also a third point whereby dualism and anthropocentrism are questioned. In the phase of radical change we are currently experiencing, the awareness of cultures in which dualism was never a core element is on the increase. Nowadays we listen more to people from indigenous cultures in which human beings have always lived in reciprocity with everything that exists. These cultures show us that this reciprocity does not lead to total destruction. So for some people it becomes clearer that maybe the concepts of the world we’ve had up to now lead to self-extinction and are therefore wrong. However this view is unfortunately not yet in the mainstream.

Why are the principles of world views held by indigenous peoples, which offer an alternative to the anthropocentric model, so difficult to communicate in cultures characterised by Western values?

The approach of many indigenous peoples has a fundamentally emotional and experience-based component. Although it is an intellectual approach, it isn’t a primarily intellectual approach. As a result, many people in the West do not take it seriously. The awareness that we humans share the world with all other living creatures is predominantly a feeling. At the same time, this form of emotional comprehension is the reason why very different indigenous cultures understood the world as a place suffused with creative forces, and therefore as something profoundly alive. Western influenced thinking, which always requires logical arguments, still has difficulties with that.

And yet you might think that there are indications of a certain crisis in the anthropocentric model in Western societies – such as the aforementioned interest in the so-called “secret” lives of plants, mushrooms and animals, the spread of vegetarianism and a shift towards nature in contemporary art. Is it actually possible to talk about a crisis in anthropocentrism?

In fact the model has always been in crisis. After all, life is designed to thrive on reciprocity. Anything that disrupts this reciprocity can only last a short time. And in truth we’re only happy deep inside if we are able to exist in a state of reciprocity. So the anthropocentric model always was a crisis model and for that reason it has always given rise to incredible violence. It’s just that now the crisis has intensified – partly because of actors like the ones you mention, who have decided to behave differently or take an interest in different world views and cultures.

How do you see the future: are there opportunities to mitigate the anthropocentric world view and its damaging consequences to nature, non-human life forms and ultimately also for human beings?

My feeling is that the people who are actively committed to large-scale change are only tolerated by the political powers as long as they stay away from the power structures and don’t interfere with them. I’m talking about people such as the diverse groups of climate activists, who have in fact now become something like outcasts.

People are feeling for themselves, more and more as each year passes, what is happening with the climate and with nature. Despite that, most of us don’t want to be bothered with such things. And that’s how I see many of today’s phenomena or movements that question our dominant world view, mainly as a sort of jester’s privilege, a valve – but not as a sign of profound change. Quite the opposite. I see the forces attempting to prevent political change becoming stronger rather than weaker. We don’t know what the next US election will bring, but we know that there are systematic attempts to suspend the entire climate and environment legislation in the United States. Even Russia’s war against Ukraine has arisen out of an insane greed that’s destroying the planet and also blocking the possibility of tackling climate change collectively. In fact I believe it’s possible that there’s an enlightened minority with a fundamentally different perspective on life, who want to live in loyalty to nature. But I don’t envisage a major political change. Unfortunately the people who want to change things are still seen as dissidents.