Lessons from the past for a sustainable future. Timothy Ingold’s vision
Timothy Ingold, Emeritus Professor of Social Anthropology, University of Aberdeen - Ph. Serena Campanini
The British anthropologist, one of the most original voices in contemporary thought, will be among the guests of the Euroluce International Lighting Forum in April. We interviewed him about his views on light and his advice for overcoming the environmental crisis
Professor Emeritus of Social Anthropology at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and author of important texts such as Making and The Life of Lines, Timothy Ingold (1948) has devoted much of his career to following the lines that connect people to each other in a network of social relationships and with nature. His interest in ecology was born in long before it became fashionable, starting with his first field research, a sort of rite of passage for anthropology students, which led him among the very frugal Sami populations of Lapland, and from the first university course he held – in Manchester, starting in 1974 – entitled Environment and Technology. The ideas he is currently working on include a new humanism that helps us to stop pursuing unbridled progress to restore our relationship with nature by following the teachings of our ancestors. In just over a month he will arrive in Milan to take part in a round table (11 April, 2 p.m. ) as part of the Euroluce International Lighting Forum, a project directed by Annalisa Rosso, editorial director and cultural events advisor of the Salone del Mobile.Milano, in collaboration with APIL. In the meantime, we had a conversation with him touching on various topics, from global inequalities to the cities of the future.
I would like to offer a philosophical point of view, simply by asking the question what light really is. It is a question that is very difficult to answer. And I would like to make people think of light in terms other than purely scientific or technical ones, as something we experience and that is not necessarily the same for everyone. One thing that struck me is that before the advent of electricity most of the world’s population, if asked about the nature of light, would have mentioned its warmth first and foremost. In their stories there would necessarily have been a torch, a candle, or at least a flame, something that burns. Today, however, when we think of light, we imagine rays emanating from a light source. Another interesting concept is brightness.
Physicists describe light as a form of electromagnetic radiation that is recorded by our eyes. We could draw a straight line from the light source, the sun or something else, to the eye and say that light travels from point A to point B. In this type of account there is no place for brightness, for radiance, a phenomenon that we experience in real life. Our view of light has gradually shifted from an experiential to a physical-objective model, and this changed outlook is not without its implications.
There are certainly places where the availability of electricity is limited or unreliable, and where people cannot assume that if they flick a switch a light will come on instantly. I conducted my first field research as an anthropologist, in the early seventies, among the Sami in the far north of Finland. They didn’t have electricity, and in that part of the world the sun barely rises above the horizon during the winter. So they’re accustomed to using different types of combustion devices: paraffin lamps, candles... Perhaps the fascination I feel for light is the result of that experience.
Certainly, nowadays, living in houses with large windows that let in natural light is a sign of wealth and prestige. Another thing that comes to mind is that the absence of light, meaning darkness, impacts men differently from women, who may feel it is very dangerous to walk in a poorly lit street at night. It is an issue that should be taken into consideration by those responsible for urban policies.
The humanism we inherited from the Enlightenment is a doctrine of progress, based on the idea that each new generation will live a better life than the previous ones. However, we have realized that this type of progress is no longer sustainable, for two reasons: firstly because what is an improvement in the life of some can mean oppression for others, and then because we have paid a very high price for it, namely the devastation of our ecosystem. The Enlightenment doctrine of progress has led to a spiral of environmental degradation and social injustice. That’s where we are right now, caught in a vice between a neoliberal elite that is grabbing all the wealth and a vast majority that feels oppressed and trampled on.
If we want to be able to pass on a healthy planet to future generations, we need to try another approach. Post-humanists tell us that we have to get rid of anthropocentrism and the idea of the exceptionality of human beings, but I say that what is exceptional is the responsibility we have towards other species. We need a philosophy that puts humanity at the centre of things and fights for a sustainable world based on the principle of the continuity of life. We have to think about this in terms not only of innovation or progress but also of repairing and renewing what exists.
There are three great ideas that in my opinion continue to be very relevant, but they should be understood in their pre-modern meaning: human beings, nature and culture. The concept of humanity as we understand it today, for example, is the offspring of the Enlightenment, but the term “humanus” is much older. The Catalan mystic Ramon Llull wrote in the 13th century that “homo est animal homificans”. This teaches us that “being human” can also be a verb and it points to our special ability to continue to reinvent ourselves.
As I understand it, the bubble of the digital revolution is bound to burst sooner or later. There is a lot of talk about rare earths, those elements present in some minerals that are essential to produce our electronic devices, and the fact that their extraction has destructive effects on the environment. Demand will certainly continue to grow, and the ecological damage will be such that it will pale in comparison to the ravages of the industrial revolution. To this we have to add the enormous energy consumption of artificial intelligence. If we want to be good ancestors for those who come after us, we need to take care of the non-digital skills they will need: maintaining a bond with the earth. I believe that in the future we will continue to live in situations with high population density, and that in cities there will be some form of interpenetration between architecture and agriculture, because our descendants will still need to feed themselves. The cities of the future could resemble very ancient models. Mayan civilization, for example, generated rather large and complex conurbations with irrigation systems for the cultivation of different types of cereals and plants.
