By Yufang Gao, School of the Environment, Department of Anthropology, Yale University. Editorial Note: This post is part […]
By Yufang Gao, School of the Environment, Department of Anthropology, Yale University.
Editorial Note: This post is part of our series highlighting the work of the Anthropology and Environment Society’s 2022 Roy A. Rappaport Prize Finalists. We asked them to outline the argument they made in their submission and to situate their work in relation to the field of environmental anthropology. Yufang Gao is the 2022 Winner of the Rappaport Prize.
Photo of a snow leopard captured by camera traps. Credit: Yufang Gao.
ABSTRACT: Livestock depredation by snow leopards is a significant concern for herders and conservationists seeking harmonious coexistence in China’s Sanjiangyuan National Park. Drawing from 30-month ethnographic and ecological fieldwork (2019-2021), I investigate the interactions between snow leopards and Tibetan herders and compare how conservation professionals and Tibetan Buddhist monks view snow leopard-herder interactions. Results show that local herders experiencing substantial livestock losses are tolerant of snow leopards. The natural, social, and cultural dimensions of coexistence are inextricably interwoven and rooted in fundamental ontologies. Whereas conservationists dichotomize conflict and coexistence and consider conflict unnatural and unwanted, monks believe that conflict is integral to coexistence. The conservationists’ perspective is rooted in an ecological model of interspecies interaction which presupposes competition between constant, bounded, essentialized selves. In contrast, the monks’ perspective has its origin in the Tibetan Buddhist concept of non-self. All sentient beings are in a flux of interdependent origination, and thus coexistence is the precondition of existence rather than the result of deliberate human efforts. This case demonstrates that not just the perception but also the very ontological assumptions of coexistence can vary. Tibetan ontology of non-self offers a promising avenue for a more profound engagement with the ontological turn.
My dissertation project, “Envisioning Coexistence: Snow Leopards and Tibetan Herders in China’s First National Park,” studies coexistence as both a proclaimed aspiration and a lived experience in a politically sensitive ethnic minority area of ecological significance to China and Asia. From 2019 to 2021, I conducted participant observations and interviews with herders, monks, and conservationists, as well as carried out camera trapping, livestock depredation monitoring, and microscopic analysis of snow leopard scats.
The paper I submitted for the Rappaport Prize is one of my dissertation chapters, which focuses on the ontology of coexistence. I draw upon Yale anthropologist Paul Kockelman’s definition of ontology, which refers to the ensembles of assumptions regarding the underlying constitution of, or salient patterns in, the world. My study aims to address two questions: 1) How do snow leopards and Tibetan herders interact? 2) How do two groups of actors—Tibetan Buddhist monks and Han Chinese conservation scientists—think about the leopard-herder relationship? I contrast the dominant perspectives among each group to highlight their differences, so as to reveal the ontological assumptions underlying the conventional discourse on human-wildlife coexistence.
My results reveal that snow leopards and Tibetan herders in the valley share an integrated landscape that is not characterized by separated habitats. Yaks and sheep contribute to more than 60% of the snow leopards’ diet, yet local herders experiencing substantial livestock losses are tolerant of the snow leopards. Despite some internal heterogeneities, the ideas of conservationists and monks differ markedly:
whereas conservation scientists attempt to establish the importance of snow leopards, monks emphasize that all sentient beings are equal in the sense that every individual being wants to pursue happiness and avoid suffering. Conservationists tend to dichotomize conflict and coexistence, viewing conflict as unnatural and unwanted. Monks, on the other hand, believe that conflict is integral to coexistence, that certain magnitudes of conflict are normal as part of the interdependency between humans and nonhumans. Furthermore, conservationists primarily focus on the material and economic aspects of the problems and recommend science-based technocratic solutions. In contrast, monks emphasize the moral dimension and sociopolitical origins of the problems and call for cultural solutions. To some extent, conservationists argue that snow leopards will be better off without human disturbance, whereas the monks think that specific snow leopards and specific herders are interdependent due to their individual and collective karma across present and past lives. Just as Jacob von Uexküll’s example of the spider and fly forming an integrated whole, with the spider preying on the fly as part of a harmonious melody, in the context of the leopard-sheep-herder collective, various interactions are part of their interdependence. Although Buddhism discourages killing, my monk interlocutors recognize that there are situations where it may be unavoidable. They view this as a manifestation of the imperfect nature of samsara, a collection of imperfect worlds. As a result, they advocate for compassion and a sense of responsibility towards nonhuman sentient beings.
I argue that the conservationists’ perspective is rooted in an ecological model of interspecies interaction. This model presupposes that people and large carnivores naturally compete for space and resources, and stable coexistence requires niche differentiation and resource partitioning. Its underlying premise is the existence of a constant, bounded, essentialized Cartesian self. On the other hand, the monks’ perspective has its origin in the Tibetan Buddhist idea of non-self. While Western philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle aim to uncover the essence or substance of a thing, the Buddha and his students argue that all phenomena, including the self, are momentary and compounded and thus empty of inherent existence. According to the Buddhist ontology (or perhaps more accurately, non-ontology), all sentient beings are in a flux of interdependent co-arising in an endless cycle of rebirth. From this perspective, coexistence is the precondition of existence rather than the result of deliberate efforts. Through contrasting Buddhist and conservationist perspectives, I show how ontological assumptions influence our understanding of and approaches to human-wildlife coexistence.
The author, Yufang Gao, conducting interviews with Tibetan Buddhist monks.
Many multispecies ethnographies on human-nonhuman relationships tend to postulate the existence of the self to discuss the agency of nonhumans. Their focus is often on the “umwelt”—the self-centered world—of an individual being. Popularized by the work of animal ethnologist Jakob von Uexküll (1864-1944), the concept of umwelt emphasizes that every organism is a subject rather than an object.
Von Uexküll frequently used two metaphors to illustrate his theory of umwelt: soap bubbles and musical instruments. The first metaphor has left a lasting impression on many scholars, whereas the second is often neglected. Von Uexküll compared an umwelt to a soap bubble to emphasize the closedness of a self-centered world that precludes both penetrating from the outside and escaping from the inside. From this perspective, true and complete mutual understanding between two living individuals is, in theory, unattainable. If this is the case, is harmonious coexistence possible? Von Uexküll went on to write, “[e]very subject spins out, like the spider’s threads, its relations to certain qualities of things and weaves them into a solid web, which carries its existence” (von Uexküll 2010:53). Although the spider’s perceptual world is inaccessible to outsiders, its effect world or action is interwoven with those of other subjects with which it shares the same physical surroundings. The umwelt bubble of each organism is confined but not isolated. This is where the second metaphor of umwelt comes in: every bubble is also a musical instrument that harbors a certain number of tones, which enter into “harmonious relationships” (Ibid.,172) with the tones of other instruments to form a beautiful melody.
How can sentient beings be simultaneously independent and interdependent? While von Uexküll believed that “Nature’s overall plan” (Ibid., 86) coordinates and creates “harmony,” I propose that the ontology of Tibetan Buddhism provides an alternative explanation based on the concept of non-self. From a Buddhist perspective, our self-centeredness leads us to categorize beings as “self” and “other,” “us” and “them,” and assign different values to different beings. The primary obstacle to achieving sustainable human-wildlife coexistence is not anthropocentrism, human exceptionalism, or a lack of awareness regarding nonhuman agency; It is the delusion of the self. An ontology centered on the self, positing a substantial core with attached properties in the Aristotelian sense, may be insufficient and even harmful. Instead, an ontology of non-self grants us the conceptual framework to transcend our independent world while grappling with our interdependence with other equal worlds. I believe that this approach offers greater hope for human-wildlife coexistence in the Anthropocene.
The author, Yufang Gao, and a new-born yak calf.
This post is part of our series, 2022 Roy A. Rappaport Prize Finalists.