struggle over the meaning of
"anthropocentric"
Sat, 5 Dec 1998 17:07:44 -0700 (MST)
Don Roper ([log in to unmask])
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 20:53:01 -0500
From: John Janmaat <[log in to unmask]>
It seems to be a common theme by a number of people on this list that
the
problem is an anthropocentric perspective, on the part of economists,
business, politics, society at large, etc. ... these notions are
completely devoid of any content. They are true by definition, and
therefore useless when it comes to ...
The brief passage that I have quoted above is supported in detail in John's
posting earlier today. His position on anthropocentrism is similar, I
think, to the position taken by Herb Gintis which can be found at
http://csf.colorado.edu/ecol-econ/anthropocentrism
I would like to focus on the meaning of the word "anthropocentrism." By one
definition of the word, the definition to which I think Janmaat and Gintis
subscribe, humans can not make valuations that are anything but
anthropocentric. By the very fact that we are humans, our valuations are by
definition "human centered." Even if we all decided to give our highest
valuations to other lifeforms having the planet to themselves and we ceased
procreating, that would, nevertheless, be anthropocentric simply because we
are humans making that valuation -- we would have to be a non-human to make
non-anthropocentric valuations, whatever that might mean. With this
understanding of "anthropocentric," it becomes clear a remark like
"anthropocentric human valuations cause ecological degradation"
is, in John's words, "devoid of content."
Given the Janmaat-Gintis definition of the word, I agree. But I want
to champion a different meaning of the word.
In Webster's Third Unabridged Dictionary, the word "anthropocentrism" is
defined as "an anthropocentric theory or outlook." The dictionary is
presumably talking about the outlook of humans. Using the Janmaat-Gintis
definition of "anthropocentrism," this line from Websters is devoid of
content, like how could humans have any outlook other than a human outlook.
I don't want to lean too heavily on my definition of "anthropocentric"
being in greater conformity with Websters than the Janmaat-Gintis
definition since there are other lines in Webster that lends support to
their definition and as well as other lines which are open to
interpretation.
My position is, instead, that the use of the word that differs from the
Janmaat-Gintis definition conveys meaning in a reasonably clear way to most
people and, therefore, is appropriately used in discourse.
I think that the word as I use it and as Mila Paul and Alan McGowen have
used it, conforms to ordinary usage (that's an empirical issue), I'm sure
it's understandable by many people, and it may or may not be the meaning
that is most in conformity with formal definitions that currently prevail
in
dictionaries. If one does a search for the word "anthropocentric" in
the http://csf.colorado.edu/ecol-econ archives, you can find it used
quite often in the manner which I am championing and to which I understand
Janmaat and Gintis to be objecting.
Persons who use "anthropocentric" with a meaning that differs from
Janmaat and Gintis are often, I think, trying to argue something like
the gillions of human valuations like
"bears in the zoo" are worth as much as "bears in the wild"
cause ecological destruction
We need a succinct way to characterize that set of human valuations
which we think are causing ecological destruction. It's not only
more efficient or succinct to make the utterance
anthropocentric human valuations causes ecological destruction
than verbose statements like
the gillions of human valuations like
"bears in the zoo" are worth as much as "bears in the wild"
cause ecological destruction
but our definition of "anthropocentric" is, I argue, appropriate
since most people understand what we mean -- our definition is
useful because it works to get the job of communications accomplished.
don roper
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
