What accounts for the comforting presence of plants? What makes them different from other material objects, including human beings and other animals? We can talk about 'energy' that is specific to various ontological forms: dogs, cats, fish, humans et cetera, which all charge a space with feelings that are quantitatively and qualitatively different, in accordance with their varying characteristics, which change also of course according to features that are present in all of them: for example, size, age and health, as well as innumerable individual differences that cannot or have not yet been categorized.
Just as there is variability on the production side, there is also variability on the reception side. Are some people more susceptible to the charms of plants? Probably, but I suspect it has much more to do withe personal and cultural influences than it does to any kind of innate difference, but this is something that needs to be studied, if it has not been already. Are human beings genetically coded to like trees or is such affection a cultural construct? I am sure there are many anthropological engagements with the question, but to what extent are these conducted within Anglo-Eurpean geographical contexts that are tree-laden, even in urban settings? Peter Wohlleben's observation that trees planted in an urban setting, like soldiers lining streets and boulevards (my description), suffer in this deployment, supports my long-held suspicion that these trees are being abused, separated as they are from their natural familial clusterings as found in forests. We may derive some pleasure from their presence, but if we were really tuned into their wellbeing, we would be distressed by their condition, just as we would be distressed by the appearance of a kitten or puppy who had been left alone on the sidewalk or in some alley, separated from its mother.
On that note, I have run out of books to review on the topic of the social nature of plants, so I will turn my attention to journal articles as well as my own investigations, in future posts.
Just as there is variability on the production side, there is also variability on the reception side. Are some people more susceptible to the charms of plants? Probably, but I suspect it has much more to do withe personal and cultural influences than it does to any kind of innate difference, but this is something that needs to be studied, if it has not been already. Are human beings genetically coded to like trees or is such affection a cultural construct? I am sure there are many anthropological engagements with the question, but to what extent are these conducted within Anglo-Eurpean geographical contexts that are tree-laden, even in urban settings? Peter Wohlleben's observation that trees planted in an urban setting, like soldiers lining streets and boulevards (my description), suffer in this deployment, supports my long-held suspicion that these trees are being abused, separated as they are from their natural familial clusterings as found in forests. We may derive some pleasure from their presence, but if we were really tuned into their wellbeing, we would be distressed by their condition, just as we would be distressed by the appearance of a kitten or puppy who had been left alone on the sidewalk or in some alley, separated from its mother.
On that note, I have run out of books to review on the topic of the social nature of plants, so I will turn my attention to journal articles as well as my own investigations, in future posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment