HOW “CULTURE VS.
NATURE” DICHOTOMY AS A COLONIAL BINARY AFFECTING
THE CLIMATE JUSTICE
The “culture vs. nature” dichotomy is a conceptual framework that separates humans and culture from the
natural world. This division first appeared in Western philosophy, especially during the Enlightenment. The
emphasis that thinkers of the time, such as René Descartes and Francis Bacon, placed on human reason and
mastery over the natural world led to a worldview in which nature was something to be studied, controlled,
and used for human benefit. Later, European powers used this dichotomy to justify their colonial expansion,
viewing their own cultures as "civilized" and superior, while colonized countries and peoples were seen as
belonging to a "wild" or "natural" world that needed to be dominated and "civilized." (Carrillo, 2003) This
dichotomy reinforces hierarchy by associating “culture” with progress and human superiority and devaluing
“nature.”
Indigenous peoples were not considered fully "cultural" beings during colonial times but rather as a part of
the natural environment. Colonizers used the "Culture vs. Nature" divide to excuse resource extraction and
environmental degradation, exploiting both the lands and the Indigenous tribes that depended on them.
Because of this history of exploitation, these environmental differences are still present today. (Anthias and
Asher, 2024)
This contradiction has significant implications for climate justice. An approach to climate change known as
"climate justice" places a high priority on fairness and human rights because it acknowledges that indigenous
groups, who bear the least responsibility for the phenomenon, frequently suffer the majority of its
implications. However, the “culture versus nature” division undermines climate justice by perpetuating
attitudes that marginalize non-Western knowledge systems and emphasize extraction rather than
stewardship. For example, indigenous groups see themselves as part of nature rather than separate from it,
and they often have a deep awareness of and respect for the environment. Because of the colonial binary,
global climate policies that are dominated by the Western, extractive perspective frequently overlook their
knowledge and sustainable practices. (Anthias and Asher, 2024)
Furthermore, this colonial duality frames environmental stewardship as something that is carried out by
"developed" nations while portraying Indigenous and other marginalized people as obstacles to development.
(Anthias and Asher, 2024) Such framing fails to acknowledge the fact that these communities have a small
ecological impact and frequently contribute the least to the emission of greenhouse gases. Climate strategies
frequently lose out on sustainable solutions grounded in traditional ecological knowledge when Indigenous
perspectives are excluded. Indigenous fire management techniques, for example, have been demonstrated to
lessen the intensity of wildfires, yet government policy rarely incorporates this expertise. (Whyte, 2017)
Deconstructing the "culture vs. nature" dichotomy is crucial to attaining climate justice in the future.
Understanding the relationship between humans and the environment promotes a change from exploitative
methods to a more inclusive and sustainable approach. Addressing historical injustices and the pressing
needs of climate change could result in more equitable solutions if Indigenous knowledge is embraced, and
colonial legacies are reconsidered in climate policy. (481 words)
Bibliography
1. Marilou Carrillo, “THE COLONIZER/COLONIZED DICHOTOMY: Is That All There Is?,” WMST 500
Spring Symposium, April 16, 2003.
2. Penelope Anthias and Kiran Asher, “Indigenous Natures and the Anthropocene: Racial Capitalism,
Violent Materialities, and the Colonial Politics of Representation,” Antipode, July 15, 2024,
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.13078. (accessed on 2nd November)
3. Kyle Whyte, “Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the
Anthropocene,” English Language Notes 55, no. 1–2 (March 1, 2017): 153–162,
https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153. (accessed on 2nd November)
