By Kamran Nayeri, June 11, 2026
For readers familiar with my
thinking, it would be reasonable to expect me to conclude this multipart essay
with a review of the concept of human nature among the world's indigenous
peoples. However, indigenous cultures, for the most part, lacked a notion of
human nature because they viewed humanity as part of nature rather than
separate from it. The very concept of
human nature presumes a certain separation between humanity and nature, which
at least warrants explanation.
Indeed, there has been such a
separation between humanity and the rest of nature in all civilizations. Thus,
the philosophers and social and natural scientists I sampled in this essay have
all noticed this separation and attempted to bridge it, at least through an
understanding of “human nature.”
The problem of alienation
According to David Leopold (2022),
the term “alienation” emerged in modern Europe. In English, the term had
emerged by the early fifteenth century, already possessing an interesting
cluster of associations. It was to refer to an individual’s estrangement from
God and to mental derangement by psychiatric doctors. G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831)
introduced the term in German, which included the sense of property transfer. Leopold suggests that the first philosophical
discussion of alienation was in French, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (1712–1778)
Second Discourse. The concept of
alienation is central to Karl Marx’s theory of socialism from the Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 to his later work, including Das Kapital.
Thus, in Marx’s theory, alienation is implied in human nature as an assemblage
of social relations created by the dominant mode of production. The central
task of socialism is to do away with capitalist alienation centered in the
capitalist mode of production.
Thus, it is no surprise that indigenous peoples lack a concept of “human nature,” as they have considered themselves part of nature rather than estranged (alienated) from it. As I have explained elsewhere (Nayeri, 2013), alienation from nature arose with the emergence of the first agrarian cultures some 12,000 years ago because farmers needed to domesticate plants and animals to develop farms, the first artificial ecosystems, and to protect them from wild nature. The transition implied an estrangement from nature, thereby conferring moral superiority on the farmer (humans). Social alienation arose when the early farmers produced an ongoing economic surplus, leading to social differentiation, domination, and exploitation. Thus, to rid society of social and ecological alienation requires a transition from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism at the same time as a socialist revolution, hence Ecocentric Socialism.
The indigenous peoples often have
not yet made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers and civilization,
or are in the process of doing so, and hence still carry with them essential
aspects of their ancestors’ ecocentrism.
Let me outline how some indigenous
peoples view themselves and their relationship to the rest of nature.
Robin Wall Kimmerer
Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous
Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants is a 2015 book by
Potawatomi professor of
botany Robin Wall Kimmerer that explores the role of Indigenous knowledge as an
alternative or complementary approach to mainstream Western scientific
methodologies.
The book consists of interconnected
essays rather than a single linear argument. Kimmerer uses Sweetgrass, an aromatic
herb, as a symbol of reciprocity and cultural renewal. The "Three
Sisters" (corn, beans, and squash) serve as a model of cooperation in
nature. Maple syrup harvesting exemplifies the ethical use of natural
gifts. She emphasized the importance of language in shaping
relationships with the natural world.
Kimmerer underscores the core of
the Indigenous culture as follows:
1. Nature is a community of relations.
She argues that plants, animals, rivers, and landscapes are not merely
resources but part of a larger ecological community. Drawing on Potawatomi
traditions, she emphasizes reciprocity rather than domination. A recurring idea
is that the world is full of gifts—sunlight, water, food, fertile soil—and that
receiving these gifts entails responsibilities.
2. Indigenous knowledge and
Western science. As a trained botanist and a Potawatomi woman, Kimmerer
explores how scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge can complement one
another. She argues that science often tells us how ecological systems work,
while Indigenous traditions can help answer questions about how humans ought to
live within them.
3. The Honorable Harvest. One
of the book's most influential concepts is the "Honorable Harvest,"
an ethical code for taking from nature: Take only what you need. Never take
the first or the last. Use what you take. Give thanks. Give something back.
Kimmerer presents this as a practical ecological ethic that promotes
sustainability and respect.
4. Gratitude as an ecological practice.
The book contrasts a culture of
consumption with a culture of gratitude. Kimmerer suggests that gratitude
changes our relationship with the world, making exploitation less likely and
stewardship more natural.
5. Critique of capitalism and resource
extraction. Without developing a systematic political theory,
Kimmerer criticizes economic systems that treat land and living beings as
commodities. She argues that ecological crises stem partly from relationships
based on ownership, extraction, and profit rather than reciprocity and care.
Kimmerer's central message is that
ecological sustainability requires more than scientific knowledge or
technological solutions. It requires transforming our relationships with the
living world. She put it this way: “The
ecosystem is not a machine, but a community of beings, subjects rather than
objects. What if those beings were the drivers?” (Kimmerer, 2023, p. 331). Humans
flourish when they see themselves as members of an ecological community bound
by reciprocity, gratitude, and responsibility. Kimmerer presents a
worldview in which agency is not confined to humans alone; plants, animals, and
ecosystems participate in shaping life, while humans are called to enter
respectful relationships with them rather than stand outside nature as its
rulers.
Vine Deloria Jr.
Vine Deloria Jr. (1933–2005) was a Standing Rock Sioux scholar,
author, theologian, and activist whose writings transformed the study of Native
American history, religion, and law. Through his scholarship and leadership, he
became one of the 20th century’s most influential Indigenous intellectuals,
advocating for tribal sovereignty and reexamining Western conceptions of
science and spirituality. In his book, God Is Red (1973), he explores
Native American religious traditions and critiques the dominance of Western
Christianity in shaping U.S. society. The book is regarded as a foundational
text in Native American studies and Indigenous theology. Deloria expresses the
same themes as Kimmerer.
Arturo Escobar
Arturo Escobar, a Colombian
anthropologist and activist-scholar, has been recognized for pioneering post-development
and political ecology thought. His work challenges Western notions of progress,
focusing on ecological design, territorial autonomy, and “pluriversal”
worldviews that embrace multiple ways of living and knowing.
Escobar’s Encountering
Development (2011) framed the concept of post-development, arguing that
traditional development models perpetuate colonial power structures. He
advocates for locally grounded alternatives rooted in environmental care,
cultural pluralism, and autonomy rather than economic growth alone.
Escobar’s later books—Designs
for the Pluriverse (2018), Pluriversal Politics (2020), and La
relacionalidad (2024)—extend his ideas toward “ontological design” and
eco-social transitions. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences in 2021, in recognition of his influence on global debates about
sustainability and decolonial futures.
Eduardo Viveiros de Castro
Viveiros
de Castro is perhaps the most influential interpreter of Amazonian thought. He
was born in Brazil in 1951 and trained as an anthropologist. He is a professor
at the National Museum of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. His theory
of "Amerindian perspectivism" proposes that many beings are people,
that morality is not an exclusive property of humanity, and that different
species inhabit different perspectives on the same world. His work is
theoretical rather than political, but it offers powerful conceptual resources
for animistic materialism to which I subscribe. Viveiros de Castro has written
a number of books, including Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and
Elsewhere, Hau Masterclass Series (vol. 1) (2012). In this book, he
develops the concept of “perspectivism developed by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro,
which is one of the most influential ideas in contemporary anthropology. It
emerged from his study of Amazonian Indigenous.
Perspectivism is the philosophical
position that one's access to the world through perception, experience, and
reason is possible only through one's own perspective and interpretation. It
rejects both the idea of a perspective-free or an interpretation-free objective
reality.
Western thought generally assumes: One
nature (the same physical world for everyone)
Many cultures (different human
interpretations of that world). Viveiros de Castro argues that many Amazonian
peoples hold something close to the reverse: One culture (all beings share
personhood, intentionality, social life); many natures (different bodies
generate different worlds). He calls this multi-naturalism, contrasting it with
Western multiculturalism. In Amazonian perspectivism, animals, spirits, and
other beings are not regarded as mere objects. Many are considered people.
Concluding remarks
Let me summarize the contributions
I considered on human nature and the human mind from different intellectual
traditions—historical materialism, dialectical biology, cybernetics and systems
theory, neuroscience, and Indigenous cosmologies—that all challenge the
liberal image of the autonomous individual.
Karl Marx viewed humans as a
social, productive, self-creating species. He recognized that humans are part
of nature, transforming nature through collective and historical praxis. Human
nature develops historically as an assemblage of social relations.
There are two fundamental
weaknesses in Marx’s theory. He intentionally leaves out nature in his
consideration of human nature, society, and history, although he admits humans
are embedded in nature, and his anthropocentric theory is limited to the history
of class societies, which constitute a mere 5,000 years out of 300,000 years of
the existence of Homo Sapiens and 2.5 million years of our ancestors in the Homo
genus. Throughout this “prehistory,” our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, a way
of human existence that precedes the emergence of modes of production, central
to Marx’s theories.
Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
view the organism and environment as co-creating each other in a |dialectical
interaction. They reject genetic and environmental determinism. The weakness in
their view is that they do not clearly admit the primacy of nature over
culture, as is clearly admitted in the theory of evolution to which they
subscribe. Consequently, they remain within the bounds of Marx’s
nineteenth-century socialism.
Gregory Bateson, relying on
cybernetics and systems theory, views the human mind as part of a larger
ecological mind. He correctly insists that the human mind exists in networks
and relationships that operate according to the laws of systems and not
according to individuals or groups of individuals. While Bateson was not
interested in the theory of socialism, his theory of ecology of mind is
indispensable to thinking about socialism and how to transition to it.
For Robert Sapolsky, human behavior
emerges from biology, natural and social history. Humans are biological organisms
embedded in their environment. He offers a multi-level analysis that supports
questioning of free will. Notably, while Sapolsky offers biological evidence
for human behavior, he is not a genetic determinist, as he places equal
emphasis on biology, culture, and society; in fact, he argues that the
nature/culture debate is obsolete. Indeed, his argument against the existence
of free will, for greater consideration in judging fellow human beings, and for
the importance of building institutions that support the development of virtues
and inhibit vices must become the cornerstone of a democratic and libertarian
socialism that has been missing in the history of socialism so far.
For Robin Wall Kimmerer, humans are
members of a community of living beings. She calls for reciprocity with plants,
animals, and ecosystems. For Vine Deloria Jr. humans belong to sacred places
and relationships. Nature is alive and
communicative. He offers a critique Western anthropocentrism. Arturo Escobar believed
humans live in relational and in radical interdependence with nonhuman worlds.
He calls for a collective ecological and relational ontology. For Eduardo
Viveiros de Castro, humanity is a condition of personhood, not species | Humans
and nonhumans are all persons from their own perspective. He advocates Amerindian
perspectivism and multinaturalism.
A note on ontology
It is necessary to conclude with a note
on ontology. Nineteenth-century materialism was a philosophical and cultural
shift that rejected religious and spiritual explanations, asserting instead
that matter is the fundamental reality of the universe. Driven by rapid scientific
advancements and the Industrial Revolution, it fundamentally transformed how
humans understood nature, society, and themselves. Marx shared this ontology. In
historical materialism, Marx and Engels developed a framework to critique
capitalism and explain societal conflicts through class struggles and the means
of production.
In modern times, Materialism has
been refined to include the idea that all of reality is composed of physical
objects, including both material objects and energy. Thus, nineteenth-century
materialism has been redefined to explain quantum physics and the uncertainty
principle. The uncertainty
principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental
concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision
with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum,
can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property
is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.
This poses fundamental Limitations
on philosophical materialism about what can be known about particles,
challenging the materialist view of complete knowledge of the physical world.
First, there is the observer effect: It highlights the role of the observer in
measurement, complicating the materialist perspective that reality exists
independently of observation. Second, it introduced non-determinism: The
principle introduces non-deterministic elements in quantum mechanics,
conflicting with materialism's often deterministic framework. Third, it raises
questions about the nature of reality itself, suggesting that at a fundamental
level, reality may not be as straightforwardly material as philosophical
materialism posits. The limitations on knowledge imply that materialism may not
fully account for the complexities of existence and consciousness. Quantum
entanglement is the phenomenon in which the quantum state of each particle in a
group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the
particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement
is at the heart of the disparity between classical physics and quantum physics:
entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical
mechanics. These challenge the materialist view of objects' separateness and
individuality, suggesting interconnectedness that materialism struggles to
explain.
These have been reintroduced in panpsychism,
the view that mind or conscious experience, of some type or other, is a
fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality, including for all physical reality.
Panpsychism is also described as a
theory that the mind is a fundamental feature that exists throughout the
universe. It is one of the oldest theories in the philosophy of mind, possibly
overlapping in some interpretations with animism, the spiritual or religious
worldview of many indigenous societies, though panpsychism is usually regarded
as a philosophical (metaphysical) stance. Physicists and cosmologists increasingly
believe that the universe itself must be viewed in a relational sense.
“The idea that
existence is fundamentally relational – that nothing exists in complete
isolation – is not new to philosophy. But today, the sciences are independently
arriving at the same conclusion through their own rigorous methods. Across
disciplines as different as physics and meteorology, the emerging picture is
consistent: the universe’s deep structure is one of interconnection, mutual
influence, and dynamic interdependence. To understand this, we need to look
carefully at three major scientific frameworks: the theory of relativity,
quantum field theory, and chaos theory (Philosophy Institute, no date).”
It must be evident that the
nineteenth-century materialism of Marx, just like his theories of human nature,
society, and history as embedded in historical materialism, must be revised in
light of what we know and the problems we face in the twenty-first century. I
trust this multipart essay lends additional support to my theory of Ecocentric
Socialism, founded on ecological animistic materialism Nayeri, 2023, Chapter 19; Nayeri, 2021).
References:
Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the
Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. 2018.
Leopold, David. “Alienation.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022.
Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding
Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants.
2015.
Kopenawa, Davi. The Falling Sky.
2013.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and
Elsewhere. 1998
Nayeri, Kamran. “Economics,
Socialism and Ecology: A Critical Outline, Part 2,” Our Place in the World:
A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 29, 2013.
_____________." “The Case for Ecocentric Socialism.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. July 4, 2021.
_____________." Whose Planet? Essays on Ecocentric Socialism. 2023.
Philosophy Institute. “Unveiling
the Fabric of the Universe: Insight from Contemporary Science.” No date.
No comments:
Post a Comment