The Forest Spirits of Myanmar | Exploring a Polycentric Ontology
The global conservation movement is used to acting in isolation. Now, modern scientists & conservationists are realizing the abundant ecological knowledge of indigenous traditions.
Introduction
In 2020, a trio of Myanmarian & Dutch Researchers teamed up to study the 3rd largest ethnic group in Myanmar. The Karen People primarily inhabit Kayin State which is home to one of Asia’s most biodiverse regions. Boasting 16 million hectares of intact forest filled with tigers, rhinoceros, wild water buffalo, clouded leopard elephants, monkeys, alligators, cobras and pythons.
Yet, while Myanmar houses some of the largest intact natural ecosystems in Southeast Asia, the remaining ecosystems are under threat from land use intensification and over-exploitation.
With so much at stake here in Myanmar, the researchers set out to answer a question which might improve global conservation efforts… With the Karen people being the original inhabitants and preservers of this vibrant, dynamic and vital ecological stronghold, why has the modern scientific conservation movement not worked more intimately with them to protect and conserve the land?
To answer this question, they dove deep and realized that there are fundamental differences of ontology which makes collaboration between modern conservationists and indigenous Karen difficult.
Understanding Animism and its Distinction From Naturalism
The researchers prefaced their study by making the crucial distinction between animistic and naturalistic modes of identification. A mode of identification according to Descola’s theory, is the way in which an individual relates to the objects of the world.
Animism is a mode of identification which holds that all entities, animate & inanimate, share the same soul but have different bodies. This means for example that within the Animistic mode of identification, while a tree might appear as different from you; within its appearance, it partakes of the same essential consciousness as I do.
While this may seem exotic to the modern mind, scientific research continues to report the plausibility of this perspective.
For a long time, within the scientific worldview it was held that trees and plants do not communicate with one another, that is until recently. If you’ve seen the Fungi Documentary, you’ll know that there is now sufficient evidence in the scientific community to confirm that the forest is in continuous communication in what is called the 'Wood Wide Web’.
While it seemed to modern scientists over the past 200 years that plants did not have this capacity for communication, now we know that they positively do. We could consider this a sort of ‘Animistic revelation’ that our modern scientific tradition is just beginning to recognize.
Animism can be seen as a distinct “mode of identification” from Naturalism. A Naturalistic mode of identification holds that all entities have the same bodies (DNA, atoms, organs) but have a different soul. The researchers point out that the modern science-based approach of nature conservationists uses the naturalistic mode of identification.
While the Karen people can be seen to partially have both of these modes of identification, they are far more Animistic than Naturalistic.
This means that they find “sameness in interiority (the mind, the soul and consciousness - including intentionality, subjectivity, reflexivity, and feelings) [which] paves the way for humans and nonhumans to share ‘humanity’ at an ethical level. Both can be capable of reason, rational thinking, and acting with intention while being logically understood to share communication, feelings, and relationships.”
Researchers believe that it is the Animistic mode of identification which makes it possible for the indigenous Karen to communicate with forest-dwelling spirits.
While in the past the modern scientific rationale would have found this ontology to be ‘hocus-pocus’, the current reverberation in the scientific community is saying, “hold on, maybe it’s not hocus-pocus… maybe they know things we don’t.”
Decolonizing Science to Make Space for Multicultural Conservation
Now we arrive at this curious word - ontology.
While it sounds complicated, it’s in fact quite simple.
An ontology concerns “understanding the nature of reality to determine what exists and how all that exists relates to each other.” The researchers also state that, “An ontology is shaped slowly in society, often across multiple generations and usually changes slowly over time.”
Within the given context of this article an ontological statement would be to say, “That tiger right there is a manifestation of this part of the forest’s spirit (nat)”.
A differing ontological statement would be one which says, “That tiger right there is a tiger made of flesh and bones, an organic automaton.”
One can see how the difference of ontologies is stark when they’re placed right next to each other.
While the communicative difference is overt and one can see how it leads to issues in coordination & collaboration, there is a more subtle difference whose effect is perhaps more important to note.
This subtle difference is the following:
Is the ontology which perceives the presence of a spirit wrong? Or, does the original inhabitant of the land have a connection and understanding (ontology) which is far more refined and subtle than the alien’s awareness (ontology)?
Is there perhaps an entire field of knowledge which tradition has granted the local indigenous which is lost upon the scientific mind of today?
What the global conservation movement should be asking itself is, how can it use this knowledge to leverage an embedded ontological awareness in order to create wider, stronger and more intelligent conservation alliances?
Historically, the scientific tradition of conservation has acted in a manner which monopolizes the discourse. Just as the catholic church couldn’t hear Galileo, so to, modern conservationists have a hard timing integrating indigenous perspectives.
As the researchers write, “The many cases of attempted integration between Indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge show that western scientists tend to be interested in the knowledge that fits in their own frameworks and does not require a shift in ontological perspective.”
In consideration of the preceding assessment of the situation of modern global conservation, the researchers wanted to intimately study indigenous ontology in action. In what follows, they reported their findings.
How the Indigenous Connect to Forest Spirits
The Karen people’s ontology reveals to them spirits of the forest - what they call Nats.
Nats control everything occurring in the forest. While they don't necessarily exist nor operate on the physical plane, they manifest in it using various methods of metamorphosis (such as appearing in the form of a tiger). They cause accidents, surprises, mishaps and take on different energies in different places.
The presence of stronger and more relaxed spirits are felt in different parts. As one female Karen farmer noted in the study, “in the forest, every tree and every mountain has their own Nat. The bigger the tree, the more powerful the Nat”.
Others noted that in the forest, Nats can also be found “in the ground, in streams, on mountain slopes, and at paddy plots”, with muddy places being frequently noted as a particularly favorite place where Nats like to live.
The Nats are guardians of the forest. Many rules and regulations stipulated by the local indigenous Karen of how to treat the forest come from their interactions with Nats. A wood collector listed three places in the forest that are home to such bad Nats that “you are not allowed to farm around there; just let it be wild, stay away from there and let the trees grow there”.
Nats effectively regulate behavior in the forest. The local experts interviewed noted that keeping the Nats appeased is the duty of anyone entering the forest. As a traditional bone doctor explained, “there are lots of dos and don’ts in the forest. You can’t just do what you like, if you do so, the Nats will take your soul… You should refrain from doing anything. If you cut the tree, it has a Nat. If you do taungya (traditional shifting cultivation), that area has a Nat”.
A hunter noted that one has to behave appropriately when in the forest, “you can’t just enter areas with powerful Nats and behave badly and pee there. If you do that, you and your family get a punishment”.
A honey hunter stressed that “one cannot swear and say bad words while harvesting the honey”.
As was clearly identified in this ethnographic research project, in the indigenous Karen ontology, the spirits of the forest are real, palpable and relatable entities towards which a high degree of awareness can be cultivated.
How Christianity and Buddhism Affects the Indigenous Ontology
An interesting part of the finding as well was observing the way in which the formal religions of Christianity and Buddhism affected the Indigenous Karen Ontology.
The researchers highlighted the ways that formal religions overlaid the Indigenous Ontologies and had an effect on customs, understanding and tradition.
Both Buddhist and Christian perspectives can be found in this region, with literally two different townships creating an entire division between Christians (Anglican, Baptist, or Catholic) & Buddhists.
What is fascinating is that of all the people who identified as Christian or Buddhist, it was only a senior Buddhist monk “(in part)” and the Catholic father “(more explicitly)” who professed that they did not believe in Nats.
What this indicates, is that people who have entirely entered into the doctrine of dominant formal religions are more likely to have lost their animistic mode of identification, or nature-spirit ontology. Hence it should be no surprise that the Modern Scientific Tradition has lost its connection to the manifesting spirit dimension of nature as it was born from Christendom.
Of further interest are the differences of ontology between Indigenous Karen Buddhists & Christians. On the whole it seems that the Buddhist tradition created more of an intimate relationship of the human to the forest when compared to anecdotes from the Christian tradition.
The Buddhists in particular expressed a resonant relationship with the trees of the forest. This is because, as a senior Karen monk explained,
“19 trees are seen as the ‘equipment’ or ‘utensils’ that belong to the Buddha: “Under those tree species, one or more of the 28 historical Buddhas attained enlightenment or, in the case of the Maitreya Buddha, will do so in future”. Out of these 19 trees, two carry particular importance. These are the Banyan tree (Ficus benghalensis) under which the most recent Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment, and the Gankaw tree (Mesua ferrea), the tree under which the future Matreiya Buddha is believed to obtain enlightenment.”
What is an interesting and unifying finding is that in both formal traditions, Buddhist and Christian, all hunters and gatherers interacting with the forest follow rules of the lunar cycle. In fact, all of Kayin State, Myanmar, follows a lunar calendar, influencing the day-to-day actions of humans and nonhumans in the forest.
For instance, the full moon and new moon are considered off limits for hunting. Or alternatively, bamboo should only be harvested from the forest during a waning moon.
Yet also, the indigenous Karen are aware that there are different fluxes and occurrences in the forest which repeat themselves according to the lunar cycle. The honey gatherer explains that he only gathers on a new moon because, “there is a lot of honey in the hive”.
It is also the local perspective that animals, including fish, look to the moon to know what time it is and gather in certain places at certain moments in the cycle of the moon to eat together.
While both Buddhists & Catholic traditions are unified by the indigenous Karen’s ontology of the significance of the lunar cycle in affecting the habits of the forest, there is a somewhat sharp distinction for the Christians.
It was found that some Christian Karen now enter the formerly off-limits deep forest because they no longer believe that Nats live there. As one farmer put it, “in the bible it says that everything is created by God, including trees and animals. But we are not animals, we are above animals.” One can see quite clearly in this quote how the Christian Tradition reduces the Animistic mode of identification which in-turn affects an individual’s ontology.
Embedding Indigenous Learning Into Conservation Efforts
The researchers did this study because they believe it contributes to the wider discourse which modern conservation needs to be having.
How can we make a more robust & effective global conservation movement?
The diverse & diffused Indigenous traditions of the world represent a very critical cultural apparatus which has the potential to bolster conservation efforts. In fact, these various heterogeneous cultures have entire specializations of knowledge particular to the socio-ecological interface which humanity shares with nature.
Moving forward both scientific & conservation efforts will be immensely advanced if the modern scientific conservation movement can recognize & integrate indigenous ontologies.
As the authors of this research write, “Recognising indigenous ontologies means that natural scientists are no longer the only, nor dominant, experts on nature conservation.”
The researchers follow up this pithy and poignant polemic, stating, “Therefore, knowledge of forests can no longer be found only in universities and academic publications but also inside the forest itself and in indigenous accounts and reports of life in the forest. As Indigenous Peoples are the ultimate experts of their ontologies, they should be in the driver’s seat of nature conservation efforts in their territories, effectively through their own institutions.”
However, the necessity for ontological exchange is not a one-way street. In order to create a properly imbricated global conservation movement of infused indigenous & modern agency, both cultures must learn to walk a mile in the other's shoes.
That is to say, natural scientists need to be able to leave behind their predispositions and dwell for a period, living intimately and innocently within the original indigenous socio-ecological interface. Yet, conversely, indigenous peoples as well must “dwell in the realm of the natural scientist: mainstream conservation organizations, intergovernmental conferences, peer-reviewed publications and academic institutions.”
Putting Theory Into Practice
Embedding & Imbricating the original indigenous and the cosmopolitan modern is one of the greatest vehicles for transformation and evolution which our age has offered.
It means returning to the wise & socratic notion - all I know is that I know nothing. It means embracing ignorance and humility infused with the yearning to learn and grow anew while never losing a grasp on our agency.
There is a vibrant & harmonious global civilization which may exist on planet earth. Yet, to arrive there may mean questioning and subverting many notions which we once held as true. Perhaps we don’t already know best, and perhaps there are others who do.
There are many simple acts which may put the theory of multi-ontological awareness into practice.
For instance, when working with a new culture (which may be interpersonal or inter-group), perhaps really listen and understand before judging and assuming.
This albeit simple practice can have many wonderful ramifications, both ethical & practical. In fact, Strauss Zelnick - a well-known media executive and businessman stated in a recent interview that he wished he had gotten better at understanding and listening earlier in his career.
Conclusion
What the scientific community is beginning to realize is that perhaps it doesn’t have the only and best answers for questions of conservation, but perhaps other systems of knowledge are equally or better credentialed.
If the global modern conservation movement can begin integrating & embedding indigenous perspectives, it has the capacity to bolster its efforts at scale.
There is much knowledge, talent, growth and development which can be put on everybody’s plates, indigenous & modern, it’s our choice to make the most of it.
