Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This podcast explores death and law from a rich variety of disciplinary perspectives, including law, anthropology and philosophy. The podcast explores such issues as buried goods, data protection, dignity and memory. It forms part of a broader project in the University of Aberdeen's School of Law entitled, 'Death and Law – Interdisciplinary Explorations' and is generally sponsored by the Aberdeen Humanities Fund Staff Research Award 2024.
Hello, and welcome to another episode of Death in Law podcast series. I'm Nevena Jevremovic. I'm a Lecturer in Law at the University of Aberdeen School of Law, and I'm an Associate Lead of the Death & Law Interdisciplinary Explorations Project. We have quite an ambitious episode in front of us today, with the title Non Anthropocentric Death. And really at the core of our discussion today is the question, does our human understanding of death or our human centred understanding of death limit how we perceive loss, extinction, or degradation in non human beings and entities such as dead forest, extinct species, or contaminated rivers.
I am primarily a scholar of international economic law, and I'm interested in the structural relationship between law, power, and capital. And as a scholar in that space, I'm often faced with examples of economic activity having a destructive, impact on people's communities, ways of life, environment, climate change around the world. And as part of this project, what, that experience kind of led me to think, can we conceptualize that loss and extinction and destruction as a death? And if yes, how and to what extent? And despite clear scientific evidence of accelerating ecological and climate crisis, law is often criticized quite persuasively so, you know, as as failing to offer a meaningful a meaningful response.
So in today's episode, we are going to try to at least open up the conversation around the the main question that I mentioned and and try to narrow it down into questions. For example, where do we draw the boundaries between life and death in this context? Can that carry meaning beyond human experience? How might the temporalities of nonhuman life and death, such as geological time or microbial time, challenge our human centred narratives around life and death and our human centred frameworks, including legal frameworks around death? And can legal systems recognize nonhuman death as such?
And if yes, in what shape or form or with what implications. And I'm joined today in this conversation by two wonderful scholars, Dr Saskia Vermeylen, who is a Reader at Law School, University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, and a legal phenomenologist with over twenty years of experience working alongside indigenous communities in Southern Africa. So, Saskia, welcome. It is wonderful to have you on board of this project. Thank you.
And Dr Arnar Árnason, who is a Senior Lecturer in social anthropology at the University of Aberdeen School of Social Sciences. In his work, he has carried out fieldwork in England, Japan, Iceland, and Scotland. And his research interests include, among others, death, emotion, memory and forgetting, embodiment, identity, and landscape. He's also a Co-Convener of the Death Studies at the University of Aberdeen, and with Dr Vikki Entwistle, has created a wonderful interdisciplinary space for scholars in Aberdeen and outside of Aberdeen to share their experiences and ideas. And under that umbrella, our very own Death and Law Project emerged.
So, Arnar, it is a great pleasure to have you join today's discussion. Because we are trying to challenge today the human centred narratives, we start off our discussion by asking the question, is that human centredness, or anthropocentrism, the first obstacle that that we must confront? Oxford dictionary defines anthropocentrism as a worldview that sees humans as the source of all value. And as the concept of value itself is a human creation, therefore, nature, has value, merely as a means to the ends of human beings. So, Arnar, let's start with you and, start our discussion with a reflection on that human centred view, and how does that, function as an obstacle in conceptualizing death beyond that human centred approach?
Not a small question. So, I mean, I suppose what what I would start is, amongst the things that anthropology does is, on the one hand, of course, document, let's call it ways of being in the world that are really quite radically different from the ones that, those of us who grew up in a broadly speaking, be it imprecise and, abstract Western context, are are are used to. And I suppose the one of the other things that anthropology does, at least sometimes does, is to, take those descriptions, if I call them that, and have them speak back to that very, understanding that kind of a way of being that, that we might characterize as as as Western. And, I suppose in that kind of a context, various things become clear. On the one hand, the extent to which, much of western thought is characterized by drawing a radical distinction between the human and the and the rest of, can I call it, creation here, just because it's a nice word?
Of course, not unproblematically so, and not without it being challenged, but, the kind of idea that that that the human is a sort of a being that is in some ways distinct and different in a qualitative sense from any other beings. And, of course, I mean, the very idea of anthropology to some extent is is a sort of a reflection and the embodiment of of that that notion. And and one of the things that anthropologists then then kind of assume come across and, Tim Ingot talked about this many times that to the extent to which anthropology is then seeking to, to document different ways of being. One of the differences that you frequently see is that this kind of conception of the human as as kind of distinct as different from the rest of creation this kind of an idea that there is such a thing as humanity is by no means no means universal. But, what kind of, of course, is attached to that distinction that follows on from it is, in relation to what we are talking about here is that that somehow human deaths are qualitatively different from other deaths.
And as we all know, one of the things that is certainly paraded in in kind of in public culture as a mark of when we recognize in the evolution of of of humanity as a species when we are kind of ought to be starting to recognize our predecessors as as as human is. One of the indications that is often flagged is did they do something to mark the death of the people, of of the beings, I should maybe say, that, that that passed? But, again, that human deaths are in one way or another more important and more significant than another deaths. And, which, of course, then sort of tends to relegate the rest of creation, other animals. Of course, in some context, sometimes other human beings too, let let alone the environment more generally, to something that is conceived as relatively inert material that, is only really given life through human activity that is itself, as it were, mute.
That that that essentially has no significance as such, you know, in its being, let alone its passing to the extent to which we could kind of talk about passing in that in that context, as opposed to, what what what what human life has. I think this idea of human being, you know, qualitatively, as you say, distinct from the rest of of creation, is something that is very much embedded in in legal thinking. And if and, you know, contemporary scholars, and we will talk about, some of their work later on in this podcast, show how the governance models with law as its central feature, including environmental environmental laws, kind of legitimize and promote the view of nature as, an object, as something that is to be exploited, dominated and controlled. I just want to add that, and then, I mean, death and maybe more specifically the dead human body is, of course, one of the things that serves to highlight the, the problems with a radical distinction like that. But, the dead human body having lost kind of the qualities that we would ordinarily associate with subjecthood, with being a subject and such like, is still not, of course, ordinarily treated as a as a mere object, which the kind of ontology maybe might suggest that it ought ought to be.
And, and, of course, you know, while maybe the vast majority of animals tend to be treated in such a way that, that kind of description of them as an object would seem to be accurate. They are owned as opposed to being owners and such like of course, there are then the exceptions in in in some very, precious pets that people might have whose deaths, of course, are now increasingly marked in in a way that maybe isn't the same as human deaths, but, you know, a kind of a version of that. I I think what anthropology brings to this conversation and, you know, with my my limited understanding and based on the discussions that we've had so far and outside of this episode, of course, is this the ease with which that distinction can be challenged and alternative use can can be put put forward and and explored. Whereas in law, we often face limitations to changing that that thinking. So, I would like to turn to Saskia now between the human and the economic activity and with with the nature would, of course, come through environmental laws.
But environmental laws with themselves carry on carry, a limitation. So so what is it in the current framework of environmental law, Saskia, that that doesn't really allow us to, effectively deal with or disperse with this distinction between human as a subject and the nature as an object? Yeah. Also a really big, big, kind of question. But, yeah, one of the problems, that we're dealing with in in our history of environmental law is that it's been very, anthropocentric, or indeed very human oriented, and that environmental laws are primarily designed to serve human interests and are actually placing human needs and and our desires, to live well, actually, above any kind of environmental consideration.
And, obviously, I'm I'm I'm sort of projecting here a, kind of, essential understanding of environmental law, but it is it is one of of of the problems. And to give an example is is is, a human right to a healthy environment where we really see that there is a consideration that we need to think about our relationship with with with nature, but where that human right, that sort of human centric thinking is still kind of primarily driving that desire, so that there is a real kind of human centric approach to our environmental legislation. And that has actually led to a framework within environmental law that often still prioritizes economic and social dimensions and developments, instead of really thinking more carefully about our ecological well-being and and sort of an understanding that in terms for humans to thrive that we also need to think about, to, you know, to look after nature and and that the two are kind of related. Now according to, a really important environmental lawyer, Boselman, he kind of places, this idea around a kind of a critique around this kind of very anthropocentric approach to environmental law into in sort of the the nineteen seventies.
But, other scholars, in in including myself, and and maybe also Baselmann to to to a certain extent, but some have been a bit more explicit than than than Baselmann, make the point that we actually have a very kind of that we need to have a more kind of genealogical perspective and that actually we can trace our, you know, our idea around anthropocentrism within environmental law and and law in general to a Judeo Christian tradition. And that sort of links back then to a dichotomy that we've created throughout history between nature and people, nature and humans, and that we've placed ourselves, human species, as as the masters of the natural world. And that we haven't seen this kind of interrelated, connectedness or kinship, to use a term, of anthropology, that we see ourselves not as as kind of connected in the world as a kinship with with nonhuman species, but that we placed ourselves as the masters of the natural world. But so although, you know, there is a huge critique emerging now within environmental law around this anthropocentrism, I think we also need to be a little bit careful around the term anthropocentrism, and I would like to refer here to a recent book, that's been published by Paleson, called Ecological Jurisprudence.
And in that book, they correctly, make the point, that when we define anthropocentrism that it's really very important, and that kind of links to the work that Arnar has been discussing, that depending on our world views and from from where we're kind of thinking about, anthropocentrism, you know, there is not a universal human and thinking about anthropocentrism will actually really differ according to our worldviews and also our standpoints. And a similar kind of critique has all also be mentioned by, Yusuf in their book on a billion black anthropocenes, making the point that we need to be careful not to say that the human impact on Earth has been the same everywhere, but that there is actually, you know, that we need to take into account racism, colonialism, gender issues, and that our our footprint and our experience of anthropocentrism is actually really very different depending on on where we are and and how we are situated in in the world. And that kind of and that's sort of part what we're going to unpack further, I hope, in in the podcast that it's really very important, that we, you know, when we talk about environmental law anthropocentrism and our relationship with with with death is that we need to, particularly from a legal perspective, is that we need to look across different disciplines.
And and even though it may be a very legal question, in environmental law, In order to do justice, to what we're dealing with, we need to look into, you know, different histories, disciplines, and that we need to understand anthropocentrism, and and how it's related to to environmental law. And Pelizon makes that point really nicely starting with Greek philosophy, but that we also need to have an understanding of the evolution within law starting with Roman legal and and, Roman legal law and political traditions that we also need to look into theology, look critically at the Judeo Christian, theology, but that we also need to have an understanding of our humanistic values and also the evolution of science, and particularly have a very critical view on on on how science has been positioned since the enlightenment. And there we see a real parallel between positivist law and positivist science, how how nature has been seen as something that can become commodified, and and and used as a resource. So it it it requires yeah. If if we want to understand anthropocentrism from a legal environmental law perspective, it also requires opening up the discussion in into other disciplines.
I I think that's a very that's a very valuable and and quite important point that, you know, it's it's in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work that that is ahead of us. I think on on some level, we can even say that, environmental law maybe carries too big of a burden, whereas it's tried through environmental law. Legal systems are trying to remedy this asymmetry of of power and and and, you know, these embedded racialized gendered class and other structures that have enabled, again, going back to international economic law, that have enabled for, extractive industries to to thrive, and the costs of those extractive industries to be borne by the most vulnerable, communities, people, environment. And and there is that, you know, there's a reason why we keep coming back to western centred, ideas around nature, human, human nature, relationship because they are the ones who have through their colonial entities that have been exported for a lack of better word word elsewhere and then, you know, constructed in a way that allows for these extractive industries to to to dominate. And and therefore, today, we have that, critique that reveals, the role of law among other things in in these in these, systems and in these structures.
So I think before we go forward with thinking about where that interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity might, go and evolve, it would be helpful, to briefly mention how, you know, what is the history of intellectual thought, primarily Western intellectual thought, as you mentioned Saskia, that, looks at or sits at this intersection between Western philosophy, legal and political traditions, and and science and theology and and and so forth, that has shaped this this thinking and and underpins, I guess, not just environmental law, but but other legal systems and frameworks that touch upon that relationship between, the human and and the nature. Yes. Thank you. And I I would like to start answering this question again by referring to to Palleson's, book, also because it's a very recent, book. It just came out.
But it makes a really nice link to ecofeminisms. And, obviously, this is something that has been picked up by, other scholars in in environmental law and sort of critical legal thinking. And I'm thinking of the work of Anna Greer, for example, which has been really, yeah, very well developed, and and I can highly recommend, reading. But, so but when thinking critically about, you know, where is that death of nature argument coming from and how has it been, you know, critiqued within environmental law, ecofeminists do indeed have have have quite a big contribution to make. And Peloton, sort of refers to the work of the German sociologist, Maria Mies and, the Indian scholar, Vandana Shiva.
And they argue in in their work, that we actually need to be quite critical of the history of of of natural science, and they particularly highlight, fields of mechanics and physics, being at the root of the the the problem where we see that there is a subjugation and a destruction of nature. And although from an ecofeminist perspective and and but, also, if we look into, for example, the the philosophy of, you know, of biology, we see that nature is something that is obviously organic. It's it's a living entity. But we see that, some disciplines like, you know, mechanics, physics, if we look into the evolution of these disciplines, we see that nature is is has been treated as kind of a dead raw material, And and and and they kind of make a comparison between how nature has been conceptualized in in in some of these disciplines, in in a similar extent to how women have been treated as well. So there is a kind of patriarchal underpinning to some, of these these problems where nature is kind of being dissected to its very small elements and then kind of reconfigured by the kind of, and and and and I I I I quote, from their work as as a great white engineer, but that there is a system of domination that that sort of has seen nature as something that can be controlled and manipulated.
And that kind of mechanistic view, has then led according to Mies and and Shiva to a kind of violence against the earth, and and and and and kind of, yeah, viewing nature as as raw material that that supports, the violence and exploitation and and eventually led to environmental degradation. And, in in that, extent, it's also important to refer to the work of Caroline Merchant who, has a book called The Death of Nature, where she critically examines, again, this kind of rise of mechanistic science. And then particularly, during the scientific revolution where nature is transformed from this kind of living interconnected system to, to this passive, object that can be dominated and and controlled. And Merchant in in her work, really does a sort of really unpacks that that question and, the history, from a kind of Western scientific overview and, looks into thinkers like this, Carter Newton, and sort of highlights how nature is being conceptualized and and uses the metaphor as a machine. Again, this is sort of really presenting nature as as as a as a kind of mechanic, and stripping nature of its vitality and its as a living being, but sort of presenting it as a machine that is which has interchangeable parts.
Mhmm. And and and Merchant really, yeah, is is is critical of that and and and and has made a real, yeah, real critical point that that has actually this is kind of mechanistic thinking around nature stripped away from the vitality as as a way of of of, you know, that has led to environmental exploitation. And then she also makes a link that there is also an exploitation of women, that the two are sort of really going, together, which which makes it for a really, yeah, interesting development, in in ecofeminism and and and legal feminist thinking. So scientific scientific rationalism and this kind of thinking has contributed to this idea of of of death of nature and and nature being reduced to something that is lifeless, devoid of agency, and that we, you know, have justified this kind of, environmental practices that led to kind of systemic exploitation by seeing, nature as as as, you know, as something that that is mechanistic and void of of of of any life. Sorry.
Go ahead, Arnar. I was just gonna throw in that. Anthropologists have have have sometimes documented how kind of all kinds of very particular cultural assumptions are kind of smuggled in or are unwittingly some part of of the research that is, meant to reveal to us the fundamental workings of some kind of objective nature. The the one that kind of brings immediately to mind is is maybe not directly on on this, but, it's the work about thirty years ago now of Emily Martin on on how human reproduction is taught to, medical students, which reveals through the kind of careful reading of of, textbooks and, and other teaching material how how there are very gendered assumptions that infiltrate what is meant to be a depiction of a fundamental, objective, natural kind of a process whereby, where whereby the the egg is well, on one hand, the the the woman is depicted as as as wasteful because there are all these eggs that get produced that come to nothing. But then secondly, that the egg is depicted as a fundamentally, passive entity that is just waiting there for the, for the active male ingredient to come and do the actual work that needs to be done so that the the whole kind of structure of the science that is is presented as as a science, the kind of scientific revelation about this, actually has the fundamental form of a of a of a fairy tale, of a kind of a princess waiting asleep in in some keep, and then the, the the prince charming in the form of the, of the sperm comes and and ask where gets everything going.
So even in the kind of depiction of something that is meant to be absolutely fundamental biological and and given, there are all kinds of assumptions that are are very kind of cultural in in in nature and origin that gets smuggled in. You know, we are faced with these deeply rooted cultural assumptions and that we might not even be fully aware of them. So the work of revealing how they operate within our society both within and outside the law or law alongside other disciplines and so forth is is the the most important work which goes back to this idea of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity that Saskia mentioned because that's, you know, thinking in isolation doesn't doesn't really help us see the full scale of the problem and therefore doesn't really, you know, open itself up for for potential alternative views. One of the alternative views that has been attracting a lot of attention, is the rights of nature movement that tries to shift this paradigm from nature as an object to nature as a as a subject. But what is quite powerful about rights of nature is that instead of drawing from Western philosophies in this Western intellectual thought, they draw inspiration.
And that can be, you know, the advantage, but also a point of criticism from, the religions of indigenous Andean people. So it's nature as Pachamama, or views from religions of the Maori people, among others, you know, and and those that relate to concepts such as Tayau or Aotura. Rights of nature have been also attracting a lot of attention because they have been articulated through legal frameworks in Bolivia, Ecuador, New Zealand, just to just to name a few. So there's a lot to unpack there within within that that framework, and we could spend the whole podcast absolutely just talking about the the the history of that and the implications and challenges of rights of nature today. But I think they do open up the possibility of that alternative alternative use of that that they do show rights of nature movement shows that it is possible to move from a radical movement to something that is embedded in in a legal system.
And that opens up space for, for practical practical solutions. There is definitely indigenous peoples' world views and and and thinking have definitely influenced, the rights of nature movement, but also some of the theories, which have been underpinning the rights of nature, movement. And I would like to sort of refer to to to three, main figures, and some of their ideas, which has been really very influential in the development of what we call earth jurisprudence and this idea that we can actually think about not just legal theory, but also the practice of law through this kind of earth centric, perspective. The first one, and and I think his work has not always been openly or explicitly acknowledged, although he's one of the most important thinkers in around Earth jurisprudence, is, Thomas Berry, who cultural historian, theologian, passed away in 2009. And, yeah, I I consider his work to be incredibly influential in around earth jurisprudence and has also, you know, influenced some of the thinking in in in rights of nature.
As a theologian, obviously, he bridges, again, different disciplines, particularly sort of spots some signs, but also talks about spirituality and law. And it's maybe the aspect of spirituality that may have made his work sometimes a little bit unpalatable, maybe, in some academic circles. But, basically, what he's been calling for is that we need to have a kind of really big transformation in the way how we think about our relationship, between humans and and and and Earth. One of his major works is called the great work, the universe story, where, we see the groundwork and the foundation being laid for, rights of nature, and and some of that work is further developed by South African, legal practitioner Cormac Cullinan. But the basic point, Berry is making in the great work is that he he makes a point that there is a greater law than human law, and that, greater law comes from from the universe, comes from nature, comes from the Earth, comes from from all the processes.
And the the second point that then Berry is making is that all human law actually must be in accordance, to to this great law. And it's that basic kind of thinking, that Cullinan has kind of developed further in what he calls wild law, which he presents as a kind of manifesto for Earth justice. And because, Cullinan writes from from a South African perspective, he situates that really quite nicely within, the whole history of of of of apartheid and some of the things we've discussed before around that relationship, how we've treated nature with sort of wider, epistemocytes and and and and and racism, colonialism, imperialism, et cetera. But Cullinan makes the point that earth law is important because it it it kind of ensures the survival, of all species. And I actually would like to to to quote from from, his book, Wild Law, because it really summarizes quite nicely, what he conceptualizes.
So when I I I quote from his work is and and he says, the greatest contribution of Earth's jurisprudence will not be in the area of law, but in demonstrating how we may be guided by the common language of the earth community to redefine each aspect of society to align with the fundamental principles of earth's systems. We must turn back to Earth and consciously adopt and seek to conform to Earth's preconditions for well-being. Now what I really like about this quote is and and it that kind of relates to what was being previously said that these rights of nature is, to some extent, still that we can still be a little bit critical about it with all the best intention. We we we can start formulating a a kind of critique that is still very human centric and and it had also, you know, maybe, appropriated indigenous people's ways of thinking and often then being transplanted, in in in in in other parts of the world where, you know, where we may not have done justice to the to the intricacies of of indigenous peoples' thinking. But the point that I would like to make here is is that if we're really serious about this earth centric thinking that we need to move beyond maybe conceptualizing law as we've always been conceptualizing it and what what Cullinan is is is making the point here is is that we actually need to start listening to an earth community.
And it's that listening which I think is really very important, because that sort of really goes to, you know, to ideas that Margaret Davis, has been, put forward in in one of her latest work on ecolaw where she engages with with biologists and and really tries to bring a big paradigm shift within laws that we need to think beyond the law and that we need to start thinking about law in tandem with other disciplines, where we maybe move away from understanding law from from kind of human processes, but that we need to learn from biological processes where we need to learn in in my own work, I'm very much interested in biosemiotics is is this idea that we have, a language beyond the human language that that signs are given in nature as well, that we can learn from the rhythms of nature, that there is a language there as well, and that we need to bring that into into the law. And then, obviously, Cullinan writing from and within the perspective of South Africa makes really nice links with African customary law as well and and where we see that we can actually learn from other, you know, other world views, other ways of thinking about the law where law is not sort of seen and and and and and experienced in a very positivist scientific kind of way, but something that is living, something that resides within nature, something that constantly evolves and develops further through these human, nonhuman, relationships.
And the final, scholar that I would like to mention and and who's a really big name in in Earth's jurisprudence is Peter Burdon, who's written quite a few, really important works around, Earth jurisprudence. And, Burdon really acknowledges the importance of of, Thomas Berry's work and and the great law. And, Peter Burdon is actually, within the sort of theme of this podcast, actually really, quite a significant scholar. And and, again, I would just like to give a very small quote of his work where he refers to how our biosphere he he refers to it as being sick and and behaving like an infected organism. And we really see here, yeah, some interesting links with with with this idea around death, of nature.
But but Burdon is answering in a way this question of where is this great law coming from? How can we how can we, you know, if if the human law needs to be, needs to be dictated and that it can't go against the great law. Where do we get how do we understand the great law? Maybe, Berry would have said, like, well, you know, there is, if we look into the natural law tradition in the past, maybe this law could be given by God. But but but Burdon, makes the point that this this great law is actually something that we where where we can use science, to understand, this great law and and and how we can conceptualize this idea of an Earth community.
And, again, that sort of make links then that how we can see science as a communicative device, and a persuasive mode of of communication. And he he singles out three developments within this the the kind of sciences where we can actually, you know, where we can we, us as legal scholars, can actually learn learn from how to think differently about law as as as a discipline. And, the first one he refers to is quantum physics and, really positions this idea that how, you know, how when we study on a very micro scale of of an existence, that that goes really against this kind of Cartesian, dualism, where we put, you know, mind, body, human, nonhuman, and and sort of really deal with that kind of very anthropocentric reductionism, through through quantum physics by looking at the at the microscale. Second, discipline, he he singles out is ecology and that law can learn from ecology by studying precisely that relationship between, organisms, and their environment and and humans. And that we all you know, that there is not such a distinction between nature, humans, environment, humans, but that we're all just one organism and that we're all in that web of life and that we're all part of an ecological, community.
And then he also refers to Gaia theory, which is also, the the legal theorist Margaret Davis also refers to to that body of work, where we describe and that sort of goes back to to I started, you know, some some of my earlier, reflections around anthropocentrism, is that we need to see organisms and minerals as as a living matter, and that, you know, that we need to work with these biological ideas of of how we need to think about nature as as as a living matter. So all these ideas will help us to develop a different, not only a different practice of environmental law, but also this really important paradigm shift that we need to think differently about the theory of law as well and and sort of really embrace, this interconnectedness, and, that we're all kind of, yeah, part of this this web of life, and and that, yeah, that we need to think about law not through this human centric idea, but but but but through this earth's prudence idea of of all being interconnected. I I really like the the idea of interconnectedness and, you know, the work of the of the scholars that that that you mentioned because, I mean, in a not in a nutshell, but, you know, we come to this point of not just changing the paradigm of, you know, nature as an object to nature as a subject, but also our, you know, recognizing and restoring, the relationship that we have with with nature.
And and I'm I'm mentioning this because, the questions of grief and mourning are so closely connected with, our witnessing the, the scale of ecological crisis and and and destruction. And and there are communities in either to say every corner of the world that experience that sensation of grief and loss either in their immediate surrounding or surroundings or on a on a greater scale. And I think that emotion of grief and loss that that sits shows that, you know, that relationship, despite, this, this, intellectual history that aimed at severing that relationship by forcing us to treat or forcing that view of nature as an object didn't necessarily, succeed in at least severing that relationship in in all of us. So I think it's quite important to recognize that relational aspect that still exists there and that perhaps gets its most, tangible reflection, or an experience through that sensation of loss and and grief. So, Arnar, this is then a cue for you as as, you know, an anthropologist who deals with both death and emotion.
So so maybe you can, guide us through a little bit how can we understand, grief and mourning and relationship or relationality between human and and nature. And is that potentially a way, to recognize or is that a potential way for, recognizing not only destruction as death, but also recognizing the the relationship as as as something that that law needs to take a bit more seriously than it currently does. Yeah. Again, very good. And, and where exactly to start.
I'm taking a little bit of a step back here, and and this is slightly kind of, specific to my particular history as it were. But, that that that there was a time in the sorts of certainly in the therapeutic thinking around death in in broadly speaking the western world where but death was very much understood to be the end of the relationship between the person who died and the person who the person who survived. And, the understanding was that, the person who survived was left with all kinds of complex emotions that they then had to find a way of, coming to an understanding of, find a way of, expressing, understanding where these emotions were coming from and what they were about to then kind of, move on to a place where they could then form, form new new relationships. And and kind of that the, if you want success of new relationships was seen as being to large extent dependent on having done that emotional work, before. Now I'm I'm I'm imagining this because in that there is this kind of, of course, the recognition of the of the importance of emotion then, but also a recognition of the of the kind of severity of of death.
But at the same time, there is the kind of understanding that, that death brings about an end of of of relationship. And, of course, I mean, again, kind of look looking across the ethnographic record, there there are numerous I mean, practically complex examples, of course, of a different way of conceiving this where, where death is not understood to signify the end of a relationship, a a change in it, but but, an on but there still is an ongoing relationship that needs to be carried on. It needs to be I mean, managed sounds too kind of managerial, but, it's it's not something that can't just be abandoned, kind of what you might be experiencing as as a bereaved person is then also understood to be, not, disconnected from that that relationship. And kind of my dad as an aside in the therapeutic think thinking I was referring to, some of the thinking has also also changed. So I mean, I I I I think for me in kind of thinking about this, Judith Butler has been a very good starting point.
The emphasis she places on vulnerability and interdependency and, the need to recognize that. And, of course, when she is talking about that, in in many places, she she's talking about that in relation to violence and and in relation to death and and how it is that some lives and, of course, with with with with that in mind, we might think kind of the the loss of some beings or even what we might ordinarily not have considered a being in its own way. How some deaths are recognized as being important and others are are not. Some lives are agreeable and and others are not. And then kind of a coming to the to the question as to what extent is it might it be helpful for, for any attempt to to arrest the nature of death, to kind of stop it as it were, if if that's not too crude the way of putting it.
To what extent might it be helpful to recognize, the grief that, ecological loss very clearly generates, to what extent it might be helpful to, as some people have done kind of very, very deliberately makes it sound as if other the method very deliberately construct kind of rituals to mark though, but but passing partly or even kind of a largely on the understanding that that if you recognize it in in in that kind of an important way, then that is more likely to serve as motivation for for action that may actually be. You know, I think there is some very interesting and important quest questions there about the kind of relationship between the emotional experience and the and the ritual, and the extent to which kind of the emotion and or the ritual can and needs to be, even if it is a kind of a necessary condition for mobilizing the the kind of action that, very clearly needs to be taken. And that this may be kind of, to some extent, a question that we we could think of as being in sort of calling back to as it were kind of on the idea of Earth jurisprudence in possibly interesting ways in in the in the sense that is is is that something that kind of, can support the work that earth jurisprudence is doing?
Are the two kind of a a light? Can they work together? Would there be in in kind of emphasizing, the kind of ritual aspect, and the and the need to kind of mark the passing, is is that something that fits in with kind of ideas of earth, earth jurisprudence? I I think the idea of ecological grief is is something that's quite quite interesting. And and I think that the biggest question, I guess then is, you know, does even even if we conceptualize that destruction as death, or do we need to go through this pathway of changing the fundamental assumptions that that are embedded in the law as Saskia mentioned, listening to the nature and drawing from this, law that exists outside of law that we find in quantum physics and ecology and Gaia theory and so forth to rethink, what law is, what is its function in in society, and how can that help us, restore the relationship between nature nature and human.
So, I would love to hear both of your thoughts, especially as we are kind of getting to the end of of the of the episode, and I'm afraid that we didn't even that we didn't even unpack, you know, the tip of the iceberg in in where this conversation where this conversation, can can go. One point I would maybe want to make is that, I mean, for for for me, the the thinking that that would then be about, I think, sort of seeking to recognize really kind of how radically relational beings humans are. And and with implication, everything else that humans are are in relation to that, that the kind of a loss one suffers when somebody close to one dies or indeed when, there is ecological loss of an area that is important. It isn't I mean, obviously, it isn't just kind of loss of resource and kind of and and and and financial value or something like that. And it isn't only a kind of a loss of something that, one might kind of recognize as being significant and and important.
But there is you know, if if we take kind of if we accept a relatively kind of radical relational approach, then then then who I am is so much the making of something that, from the outside, seems to be outside of me. But when that's something something that is outside of me, dies, then, you know, there is a I mean, the way I'm putting it now is terribly, terribly corny. I mean, I was about to say there's a part of me that dies, and that just sounds like I'm speaking in some kind of a goddamn awful romantic film. But the distinction between so, I mean, one one way of thinking of relations is, you know, that we have kind of units and then the relations between them. And these units might be individuals and other individuals and might be individuals in the environment.
But another way of thinking about the relationship is that the actual is, you know, whatever, you know, I am just a kind of a you know, I said, you had a slight sort of, kink in a in a sort of a in a in a web of relations. And so in that kind of a sense, I'm trying to say this as unromantically as is my better nature. I am implicated in that kind of a sense in the loss of something else. It's just not it's not just something external to me that is then kind of being lost. I I I think the the relational or if if framing that relationality as, you know, very close to interconnectedness that that Saskia mentioned is is does bring to the forefront, the need to deal with well, recognizing the the extent and the consequences of ruptures in those relation relationships that come with, some form of of death, death of our, you know, fellow humans or the death of eco ecosystems.
And I and I think there's something quite important that we maybe need to recognize, even more explicitly. But the extent to which we do experience loss, I think, is is important. And and and, if there is to be a transformative change that the experience of that loss, I think, needs its voice. People do experience it quite deeply as a result of that, connect connection that that we inherently have with the world around us. One of the quotes, Saskia, that you, I think would be a wonderful quote to to conclude from, Deborah Bird Rose's wild dog dreaming, love, and extinction.
You shared some some, wonderful quotes that I think would be a great way to to conclude this this episode. So perhaps you can, you can share those. Yeah. Yeah. Delighted to to to, put a spotlight on Deborah Bird Rose's work.
She makes the point that we need to, kind of lean into this feeling of of loss and grief, and maybe not just for these romantic kind of purposes, but but precisely to bring about change, and that by leaning into into the grief and, that that is being provoked by by extinction, we we might respond in a more kind of responsible way, and with with care, and grief definitely serves as as a purpose. She writes in a very kind of poetic way, and, and I really like that kind of work. And you also see it, for example, in sort of, scholars working in black studies who are using, to to, the the kind of loss that has been experienced during the slave trade and how their ancestors are at the bottom of the sea and how they become entangled with with, you know, with life and nonlife at the bottom of the sea, and how they grieve for that as well, but that something profoundly different will come out of that that grief, something that is maybe a bit more speculative, that there is that there is a hope and that there is something positive that can come out of of of that grief, which really sort of changes the whole paradigm and changes our thinking and and and, yeah, things about both the past and the future in a very different progressive, kind of way.
But, yeah, to come back to to, Bird Rose's work, she she really invites us to sit with with the grief and the weight of of of of it all. And she makes the point that we, you know, that we need to sit with that grief in order to mend the world. And there's a few quotes that I I think are indeed worth, maybe mentioning, and, and they're both from from her her book, Wild Dog Dreaming. And the first one, is, the death of each creature diminishes a world. Each death brings a whole life world closer to extinctions.
These are not just lives lost. They are worlds ending. And then a second quote, which is, yeah, quite profound is that mourning is part of our, responsibilities as humans. It enacts the recognition that we are not alone and never were. So really sums up really nicely in these quotes that through the loss, that we we see that interconnectedness, you know, that by species loss, that we're also losing, ourselves, these entanglements that we cannot see these these two as as, you know, as disentangled and as separate things.
But by each, you know, animal or or, fauna flora extinguishing, we also make ourselves extinct and and and that we, yeah, that that we are together, in this world. But importantly, by that awareness, that this the extinction of of, let's say, an animal that's that it also affects us, that it also calls upon us a responsibility that we as humans that may may more so than than than nonhumans, that we have that responsibility, to act, and that we're not alone in this world, but that we are interconnected. But it's up to us to, yeah, to to take our responsibility, and to act. That's, we have come quite a long way from the introduction notes to this to this podcast to the ending. Thank you very much, Saskia, for for for bringing that all of that together through these two quotes, and, of course, to both of you for for for an engaging conversation.
I am mindful that we've covered or just touched upon, different ways in which we can approach this this topic. And, of course, the research within around this within Death and Law project will will continue. And I'm hoping that we will perhaps share other or unpack other questions at a later stages of this research project. But thank you very much both for joining me. You're welcome.
Thank you.