Gregory Bateson's “Uncovery” Of Ecological Aesthetics

  • Peter Harries-Jones
Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 2)

UN reports generally concentrate upon quantitative analysis of the direct drivers of ecology on global poverty and ecosystem change, but the contributors to the Millennial Ecosystem Assessment (MA) have initiated a discussion of ‘indirect drivers’ – the relation of culture, aesthetics and spirituality to global climate change – and, for the first time, have made this qualitative evidence endogenous to their models. The MA validates ecological aesthetics as a science of quality but finds difficulty in presenting evidence in support of its claim. Ecological aesthetics has achieved prominence at local level as well, among those in forestry management of national, provincial and state parks in the United States and Canada. Yet they too find difficulty in assessing evidence; indeed their attempts to derive a match between perceptual categories of aesthetic beauty and ecological sustainability have generally failed. The qualitative science of ecological aesthetics which Bateson developed towards the end of his life offers several avenues out of the near impasse in these two cases. Bateson studies ecological aesthetics at a second order level, stressing the contextual difference between industrial society’s understanding of basic categories of space, time and connectivity, and the same categories perceived from a more ‘holistic’ point of view – ecological aesthetics as a form of “conservation of time”.

Keywords

Climate change difference as second-order event ecological indicators meta-pattern sustainability and aesthetics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adam, Barbara. 2004. Time. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, Gregory. 1975. Notebook 63, late 1975 [unpublished archive].Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, Gregory. 1977. Box 6 Manuscripts “Mind in Nature”. November 17, 1977 [unpublished].Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson. 1987. Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, S. 2001. Can a Fresh Look at the Psychology of Perception and the Philosophy of Aesthetics Help Contribute to the Better Management of Forested Landscape? In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing pp. 125–148.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, Wendell. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, A. 2001. Aesthetic Preferences for Sustainable Landscapes: Seeing and Knowing. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
  8. Daniel, T. C. 2001. Aesthetic Preferences and Ecological Sustainability. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
  9. Gobster, Paul H. 1999. “An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management”. Landscape Journal 18(1) pp. 54–64.Google Scholar
  10. Gobster, Paul H. 2001. Foreward. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. xxi–xxvii.Google Scholar
  11. Harries-Jones, Peter. 1995. A Recursive Vision.: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hassan, Rashid M., Ed. 2003. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: A Framework for Assessment (Tr. Elena Bennett). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kimmins, J. H. 2001. Visible and Non-Visible Indicators of Forest Sustainability: Beauty, Beholder and Belief Systems. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  14. Luymes, D. 2001.The Rhetoric of Visual Simulation in Forest Design: Some Research Directions. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. 191–204.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, Geoffrey F. 2005. Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Online: www.apa.org/divisions/div10/articles/miller.html. Retrieved July 28, 2005.
  16. Orland, Brian and Jori Uusitalo. 2001. Immersion in a Virtual Forest–Some Implications. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
  17. Reid, Walter V. et al. Millennial Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report: Strengthening Capacity to Manage Ecosystems Sustainability for Human Wellbeing. United Nations, March 23, 2005 (Online).Google Scholar
  18. Rossler, O. E. 1979. Recursive Evolution. Biosystems 11 (2, 3) pp. 193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sheppard, S.R.J. and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. 2001. Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. New York: CABI Publishing in Association with The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO Research Series 6).Google Scholar
  20. Sheppard, S.R.J., H.W. Harshaw and J.R. McBride. 2001. Priorities for Reconciling Sustainability and Aesthetics in Forest Landscape Management. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw, Eds. Forests and Landscapes. New York: CABI Publishing. pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
  21. Umpelby, Stuart A. 2004. Physical Relationships Among Matter, Energy and Information. Online www.gwu.edu/~umpelby/recent_papers.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Harries-Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations