Social Construction of Nature

There is a long tradition within geography in which study of the human relationship with nature is central. What nature is considered to be would thus seem to be of crucial importance to this tradition. Yet until very recently, the nature of nature has not been considered much. Nature is usually assumed, absorbed as taught, unquestioned, and generally commonsensed to be something independent of the human world. According to this view, the human world affects nature, but the two realms remain distinct.

The notion of the social construction of nature resulted from the attempt made by many scientists to reconsider this common understanding of nature in relation to humans. To do this requires questioning all received wisdom with regard to both sides of the nature-society relationship, and even the idea that this is a relationship between two distinct phenomena. Characterizing nature as socially constructed is meant to be provocative because the received wisdom is so entrenched. Specifically, how nature is considered from the perspective of social construction is twofold. First, what humans understand as nature is considered as always an interpretative construct, a nature for humans. This does not mean that no nonhuman nature exists, only that what humans can know about this nature is only through their own interpretations.

The second way in which nature is considered is more novel. This is the idea, particularly among those who speak of the social production of nature, that humans actively construct social natures in the process of materially reproducing themselves and their societies. In this view, humans are considered not as separate from nature, influencing it from without, but rather as an active part of nature, imagining and influencing it thoroughly from within, whether in the scientific laboratory or in the process of material reproduction. In terms of the latter, cities are as much a part of natural ecosystems as the nearest estuary.

What follows is a brief consideration of the idea of the social construction of nature on the basis of this analytic; but in reality, the distinction between those who consider nature to be interpretatively constructed and those who consider nature to be constructed by human activity is not very clear-cut, because those who take the latter view recognize that human action is driven by interpretation.