Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): International Conference on Advanced Multidisiplinary Studies (IConAIS 2024)
Articles

Defending Interconnectedness of Nature, Culture, and Local Belief in Anthropocene Age: A Latourian Perspective

PDF
  • Aan Arizandy
Aan Arizandy
Raden Intan State Islamic University of Lampung, Indonesia

Published 2025-07-30

Keywords

  • Nature, Culture, Sedekah Bumi Tradition, Anthropocene Age, Latourian Perspective

Copyright (c) 2025 Aan Arizandy (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In the Anthropocene age nowadays, the relationship among nature, culture, and local belief is frequently posited as separated-opposite entities, and even puts them in a dominated circulation in which humans serve as superior subjects to subjugate non-human objects. This study thus aims to re-challenge such positivist-reductionist thesis by observing “Sedekah Bumi” tradition annually held by a community in Sumur Kumbang village, South Lampung Regency. Ethnography is employed as the research method in this study in which data is collected through live-in with community, following the whole processions of Sedekah Bumi tradition, participative observations, depth-interviews, and utilizing other relevant resources as well. This study much owes to Bruno Latour’s thoughts, particularly his concept of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), used as a theoretical lens. As a result, unlike modern-anthropocentric claims, this study instead would show that the existence of nature, culture and local belief in fact mutually corresponds and interconnects one another. It obviously manifests that (1) Sedekah Bumi tradition serves as a means for a community to bind with transcendent actors; (2) as a medium for a community  to  intertwine with nature and other non-human agency; (3) as a collective action involving networks among human and non-human actors to encourage a shared action.        

PDF

References

  1. Blok, Anders, and Torben Elgaard Jensen. Bruno Latour: Hybrid Thoughts in A Hybrid World. London and New York: Routledge, 2011.
  2. Campbell, Colin. Easternization of the West: A Thematic Account of Cultural Change in the Modern Era. 1st ed. Routledge, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635064.
  3. Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and The Rising Culture. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.
  4. Carleheden, Mikael. “Rethinking the Epochs of Western Modernity.” In The Transformation of Modernity. Routledge, 2001.
  5. Cary, John. “The Nature of Symbolic Beliefs and Environmental Behavior in a Rural Setting.” Environment and Behavior 25, no. 4 (July 1993): 555–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593254001.
  6. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “Anthropocene Time.” History and Theory 57, no. 1 (March 2018): 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12044.
  7. Chandler, David. “The Death of Hope? Affirmation in the Anthropocene.” Globalizations 16, no. 5 (July 29, 2019): 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2018.1534466.
  8. Deane-Drummond, Celia. “Laudato Si’ and the Natural Sciences: An Assessment of Possibilities and Limits.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (June 2016): 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040563916635118.
  9. Harrison, Anthony Kwame. Ethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2018.
  10. Harun, Martin. “Taklukkanlah Bumi Dan Berkuasalah: Al-Kitab Ibrani Dan Dampaknya Untuk Lingkungan Hidup.” In Agama Ramah Lingkungan Perspektif Al-Qur’an, 1st ed. Jakarta: Paramadina, 2001.
  11. Hobswam, Eric, and Terence Ranger. The Invention of Tradition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  12. Howell, Edward Henry. “Modernism, Ecology, and the Anthropocene.” Temple University. Libraries, 2017. https://doi.org/10.34944/DSPACE/1448.
  13. Hrynkow, Christopher, and Dennis Patrick O’Hara. “The Vatican and Ecospirituality: Tensions, Promises and Possibilities for Fostering an Emerging Green Catholic Spirituality.” Ecozon@: European Journal of Literature, Culture and Environment 2, no. 2 (December 19, 2011). https://doi.org/10.37536/ecozona.2011.2.2.425.
  14. Keraf, A Sonny. Filsafat Lingkungan Hidup: Alam Sebagai Sebuah Sistem Kehidupan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2015.
  15. Kolbert, Elizabeth. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Great Britain: Bloomsbury, 2014.
  16. Latour, Bruno. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. London and New York: Harvard University Press, 2004.
  17. ———. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. United State of America: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  18. ———. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. United State of America: Harvard University Press, 1987.
  19. ———. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
  20. ———. We Have Never Been Modern. United State of America: Harvard University Press, 1993.
  21. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
  22. Lee, Robert D. Overcoming Tradition and Modernity: The Search for Islamic Authenticity. United State of America: Westview Press, 1997.
  23. Lezaun, Javier. “Actor–Network Theory.” In Social Theory Now. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2017.
  24. Malhi, Yadvinder. “The Concept of the Anthropocene.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42, no. 1 (October 17, 2017): 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060854.
  25. McNeill, William H. History of Western Civilization: A Handbook. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press, 1986.
  26. Milovanovic, Dragan. “Dueling Paradigms: Modernist versus Postmodernist Thought.” Humanity & Society 19, no. 1 (February 1995): 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059769501900103.
  27. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London: Harpercollins, 1991.
  28. Onebunne, Jude I, and Success O Okechukwu. “African Cultural Beliefs and Eco-Spirituality.” In African Ecological Spirituality: Perspectives in Anthroposophy and Environmentalism-A Hybrid of Approaches. South Africa: The Association for the Promotion of African Studies, 2021.
  29. Sadowski, Ryszard. “Roots of (and Solutions to) Our Ecological Crisis. A Humanistic Perspective.” Ecological Civilization 1, no. 1 (2023): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10001.
  30. Shils, Edward. Tradition. United State of America: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
  31. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. “The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, no. 1938 (March 13, 2011): 842–67. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327.
  32. Tatay-Nieto, Jaime. “Sustainability, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the Catholic Church’s Ecological Turn.” Religions 11, no. 10 (September 25, 2020): 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11100488.
  33. Toynbee, Arnold. “The Religious Background of the Present Environmental Crisis: A Viewpoint.” International Journal of Environmental Studies 3, no. 1–4 (January 1972): 141–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207237208709505.
  34. White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155, no. 3767 (March 10, 1967): 1203–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203.
  35. Zeng, Chuanhui. “Marxist View on the Religious Ecological Culture: A Review of the Western Studies in Religion and Environment and Their Discourses.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 79, no. 5 (December 22, 2023). https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v79i5.9244.