Exercise 3.8. What does it mean to say nature is culture? Can be there one without the other? What would it be like? Look up for the term “binary opposition”- does it apply to nature and culture? Write this in three paragraphs- for, against and a conclusion.

My answer:
According to Oxford Reference online dictionary, “binary opposition” is “a pair of mutually exclusive signifiers in a paradigm set representing categories which are logically opposed and which together define a complete universe of discourse: for example, alive or dead. In such oppositions, each term necessarily implies it’s opposite and there is no middle ground”. 

According to Aristotle’s specification, “there are four senses of the term “opposition”: 

1. One thing maybe for relatively opposed to something else, as the knower to the known;
2. one thing may be contrary of another, as odd to even;
3. one term can signify a deficiency or privation about something naturally possessed, as blindness in relation to sight;
4. statements may oppose one another by affirming one thing true, and it’s opposite false, as in “he is human”/”he is non-human,’ all above as per Maxine Sheets Johnson ( April 1996); 

Arguments for the statement: “nature and culture as a binary opposition.”

Human culture emerged and have been evolving as an adaptational response to surrounding natural forces. All material and non-material culture of any social group is deeply signified and influenced by natural conditions of the group’s existence. Natural forces/environment put humans ` s existence in front of an inevitable survival problem, and culture is our human way of dealing with this existential problem – how to survive. No nature means a total absence of critically needed stimulation for culture emergence and development. Nature determines and guides how any culture develops. Nature wants to kill the man, and the man wants to be independent of Nature’s oppressing and aggressive force, developing his survival technologies. The opposition increases as we develop our technologies and change Nature, endangering it.

Arguments against the statement “nature and culture as a binary opposition”: 

“Many philosophers have challenged nature versus culture” binary opposition. First of all, we have enough scientific evidence about human’s biology that puts us at a particular place within Nature. Second, humans are just another biological manifestation of Nature. Neo Darwinians insist that this is a natural evolution that produced humans who influence, manipulate and exploit the environment as other biological species. 

Conclusion: After doing my readings on this topic, I consider the concept of “critical dialectic perspective” (Degrowth, 2014) a most appealing philosophy. Degrowth refers to Christoph Gorg’s concept of social relations with Nature:”….Society is never just a society on its own, but is always positioned in a dialectic constellation to nature” (Gorg 2005: 57). This concept described a dynamic interdependence of Nature and society. Nature reveals itself in 2 ways: in its inaccessible way and dependent on us as reproduced. Degrowth further refers to Gorg (2003, p.121): “nature and society are neither ontologically divided entities nor divided subject matters at all”. This concept tells us to avoid looking for just an opposition between Nature and society/culture. Either we are victims of Nature, or we must conquer it and become its masters.

The strongest argument for the dialectic perspective concept is in analysing the relationship between Nature and Society=culture. As Degrowth puts it, I find that attitude to Nature is shaped not only by the different material influences of Nature but also through our thought and ideas, “mental modalities” which put us in Nature exploiting and a struggle with natural crisis direction. But we must understand that “… the natural crisis is is not a crisis in Nature, which has to be managed, but a crisis of our relationship with Nature. As long as the idea prevails, that we have to master the Nature to solve the crisis, we will hardly be able to overcome the current logic of subsuming it under our proper (capitalist) aims”. This concept finds this division between culture/society and Nature as an outdated culture and approach to life. I especially like ideas of Descola brought by Degrowth in the essay, which point to the fact that any relationship exists in 2 dimensions: the first one which is about the exchange, predation (hunting), gift (giving) and a second one which is about protection, production and transmission. If we oppose Nature and culture, our focus is fragmented and reduced to one piece of relationship such as hunting and production, which became dominant in our attitude toward nature. At the same time, we must also think about giving and protection.

Bibliography:

1. Oxford Reference, Definition of “binary opposition”, online on http://www.oxfordreference.com, (accessed on May 21, 2021).
2. Kuper A., Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009), Nature 462, 862 (2009), online on http://www.nature.com; (accessed on May 21, 2021);
3. ‘Human Versus Non Human: Binary Opposition As an Ordering Principle of Western Human Thought,’ Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, April 1996, University of Oregon, online on http://www.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194765759.pdf (accessed on May 22, 2021);
4. ‘Degrowth,The Nature -Culture -Dualism in Western Societies and its Relevance for mental Infrastructures,’ A critical glance from Buen Vivir and Theravada-Buddhism, 2014, Leipzig, Section: Living Convivality, full paper, online on http://www.co-munity.net, (accessed on May 23, 2021);

Exercise 3.9. In what sense is Whiteread`s House indexical and why this matter for an interpretation of the work? Would someone overlooking this feature be wrong or would that simply be a different interpretation?

Rachel Whiteread, House, at 193 Grove Road, London E3, 1993.  © Rachel Whiteread. Photo by Sue Omerod. Courtesy of the artist and Gagosian, image via http://www.artsy.net (retrieved on May 26, 2021)

Before I answer the question about the particular artwork, the « House » created by British artist Rachel Whiteread, I want to bring some theory about the notion « indexical ». « Indexical » is considered as a linguistic expression when reference can shift from context to context. The term « index » in its philosophical sense was introduced by Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914) as a part of his semiotics sign theory where he proposed that the signs can be categorised in 3- triadic elements: representamen, object and interpretant, further classified according to their qualities, facts, laws and conventions which are associated with the things. The way the interpretant refers=determines the sign; Pierce brought up his three main modes of signs operations: symbol, icon and index. In comparison, the « Symbolic sign» means something socially accepted and highly conventional, such as letters of the alphabet, number systems, national flags, banknotes, etc. The «Iconic sign», the ‘icon’ signifies the object as possessing its qualities, for example, a religious icon or a portrait. The «Indexical Sign»- ‘Index” mode happens when the signifier might not resemble the signified object; the link between the representamen and its object may only be concluded, learned, inferred. For example, thunder, smoke, footprints. The Iconic and indexical modes are both characterised by a less direct relationship between the sign and the object signified when the referential context exists outside the sign system. According to Pierce, the sign can be placed as one or a combination of two or all three modes.

Before I answer the question about the particular artwork, the « House » created by British artist Rachel Whiteread, I want to bring some theory about the notion « indexical ». « Indexical » is considered as a linguistic expression when reference can shift from context to context. The term « index » in its philosophical sense was introduced by Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914) as a part of his semiotics sign theory where he proposed that the signs can be categorised in 3- triadic elements: representamen, object and interpretant, further classified according to their qualities, facts, laws and conventions which are associated with the things. The way the interpretant refers=determines the sign; Pierce brought up his three main modes of signs operations: symbol, icon and index. In comparison, the « Symbolic sign» means something socially accepted and highly conventional, such as letters of the alphabet, number systems, national flags, banknotes, etc. The «Iconic sign», the ‘icon’ signifies the object as possessing its qualities, for example, a religious icon or a portrait. The «Indexical Sign»- ‘Index” mode happens when the signifier might not resemble the signified object; the link between the representamen and its object may only be concluded, learned, inferred. For example, thunder, smoke, footprints. The Iconic and indexical modes are both characterised by a less direct relationship between the sign and the object signified when the referential context exists outside the sign system. According to Pierce, the sign can be placed as one or a combination of two or all three modes.

Since the House is considered an indexical art object, I researched the context of its creation and public polemics about it. This was a very controversial object of art: it had many fans and haters, receiving a notable amount of public attention. The House sparked political debates. It became « …a lightning rod for all kinds of public housing debates” (Moly Donovan in Alina Cohen’s Rachel Whiteread’s « House » Was Unviable, Controversial and Unforgettable, Sep.24, 2018). As Cohen also points: “Her monumental sculptures appear, upon first glances, like familiar architectural forms-yet they are devoid of utility, leaving the viewer to simply look and consider the meaning embedded in plaster and concrete”. This note of Cohen is in total compliance with Pierce’s semiotics triadic theory, which included an element of the interpretant. The sign always requires the interpretant. We look at the art object, we gaze, trying to understand it = to interpret its meaning for us. The House is an indexical art object because it sparked a large variety of interpretations what means its referential context, as a sign, was outside it, and the relationship between the sign itself and the object it signified was not direct and clear, as a between the coin and “money”, for example; 

Answering the second part of the question:” Would someone overlooking this feature be wrong, or would that simply be a different interpretation?”. Even if I am overlooking or denying the indexical character of the art object, I am still interpreting its meaning for myself. Thus, overlooking the indexicality of the House would make me theoretically wrong or ignorant in the sense of philosophy of science. However, even if I am, I am still in a triadic paradigm of sign and Representation, bringing my unique opinion-different interpretation of the art object. 

Bibliography:

1. Rachel Whiteread`s « House » Was Unviable, Controversial and Unforgettable,Alina Cohen, Sep.24, 2018, on http://www.artsy.net (accessed on May 25th, 2021);
2. Editors of Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Indexicals, Sep.14, 2001, online on http://www.plato.stanford.edu (accessed on May 25th, 2021);