I was inspired by Dr. Oliver's DQ: "Is there a better concept or term than 'stewardship,' that still conveys the fundamental point of humans' responsibility for their actions that impinge upon or impair the Earth's capacity to sustain itself as a healthy and habitable planet for our form of life and others?" I started to write a comment response, but I quickly realized that I apparently had a lot to say on the topic, hence, this essay.
White Mountain National Park, NH
I come from Christian upbringing and this concept of god-given stewardship is very much entrenched in those circles. Typically, proponents of the stewardship point to Genesis 1:26-29 and 2:4-20 which states that god specifically made humans to rule the over the natural kingdom. The etymological origin of the term "stewardship" comes from a civil office in medieval Europe. Essentially a king or lord would entrust the day-to-day affairs of their land to a steward (for fans of Game of Thrones, the rank of steward is the rough equivalent to the Hand of the King). The steward was responsible for ruling the lands. If the region fell on hard times or was mismanaged, the steward would be held responsible to his liege lord. From this context, it is not hard to see how religious tones would be added to the concept of "stewardship." E.g. a liege lord (god) entrusted his realm (nature) to an the care of an individual (humanity).
Stewardship broadly defined means "the conducting, supervising, or managing of something, especially the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care" (Merriam Webster). Despite the association with religion, I don't know if there is a better concept for describing our relationship with mother nature. We have a symbiotic relationship with nature, and we must take care of the world around us.
I guess one could characterize the concept of stewardship as anthropocentric (we should take good care of the earth otherwise climate change will screw us over). However, if I may offer an example: I have a cat. I feed her and change the litter. Not because she will chauffeur me around, nor will she make life easier--if anything, her presence is more irritating than useful! She sheds everywhere, is always underfoot, and enjoys taking a nap on my keyboard while I am trying to work on homework. Yet, I still feed her and change the litter. Why? Because she has been entrusted to my care. God did not order me to change the litter, I do it because I am in a position where her well-being depends upon my actions.
There is an underlying tone of obligation embedded within the word "stewardship." Additionally, there is a sense a altruism as well. Refer back to the roots of "stewardship." If a steward managed the realm well, he was honored--but the weregeld still went to the lord. It didn't matter how much crops the steward gathered or the amount of taxes he collected, he did not profit personally from his actions. He is obligated to care for his responsibilities because the nature of his position, not because he had a vested interest.
Nature is remarkably resilient, it can take care of itself relatively well. However, human activity is efficient at being highly destructive. For example, it is estimated in 2019 that a soccer field sized plot of forest was destroyed every second.* Resilient as nature is, it cannot compete with that. We have a unique position. We have the ability to change our behavior and eliminate/minimize destructive behavior. Maybe individuals don't personally have a vested interest in a healthy environment, but the well-being of nature still depends upon their actions.
In conclusion, I feel as though stewardship is honestly one the best terms we can use to describe our relationship to nature. Granted, it has a mystical quality/justification baked into it, but it encapsulates the idea that humanity is obligated to care for the environment for altruistic reason.
*https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/agriculture-drove-recent-record-breaking-tree-cover-loss
Weekly activity:
-Wrote essay
-Commented on Ed's post about late-stage capitalism
-Commented on Tyler Brook's post about marine preservation
-Commented on Tanner Provencher's post about religion and environmental passivity
An excellent essay Levi, and a good background for the text discussion of stewardship. I appreciate your recognizing the sense of obligation. I have expressed in other places my belief in Kant’s understanding that the highest good, the only thing that is good in itself, is the Good Will, the will to do the right thing. And that that implies an obligation, a duty, to do the right thing. You do, IMHO, have a duty to your cat, and we all have a duty to do the right thing with respect to the environment. This should be our first question: what is the right thing? That of course requires moral evaluation. I agree with you that we have, or should have, a relationship with nature that is mystical, one that has a spiritual quality, as you can see from my essay on Spinoza’s God. That allows us to experience transcendence.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate this essay. I quite like the comparison of the earth to litter. There's also a self interest in caring for the world. No one wants a gross, old litter box in their house. You also change it to benefit yourself. We should care for the world because we are the one's having to live with it either way.
ReplyDelete