1. Introduction
A newecologicalorder seems to be surfacing and aims to question a now multi-secular foundation whose point of departure will have been the Christian book of Genesis. Such is Luc Ferry’s [1] theory, by which he intimates his contemporaries to renounce all anthropocentrism so as to establish an order in which nature would no longer be the object that subjects are content to exploit. Without renouncing a foundation that has brought much to the Occidental Christian, the philosopher invites another partnership between the living beings who comprise this nature and the human who, in this cultural context, is the one who must manage, as a good guardian, the creation of the Wholly-Other. The potential powers deployed by this human are sources of a disharmonious cohabitation:
Ilnousfautfaireunpassupplémentaire, prendreenfinlanatureausérieuxetlaconsidérercommedouéed’unevaleurintrinsèquequiforcelerespect. Cetteconversion—lamétaphorereligieusen’estpasicidéplacée—supposeunevéritabledéconstruction«duchauvinismehumain» [1].
[Wemusttakeanadditionalstep, takenatureseriouslyatlastandconsideritasbeingendowedwithanintrinsicvaluethatcommandsrespect. Thisconversion—thereligiousmetaphorisnotdisplacedinthisinstance—supposesaveritabledeconstructionof “humanchauvinism”.]
As for Edgar Morin, he does not shy away from contesting centuries of thought. He refuses to be the administrator of a way of thinking that no longer has cause to be. A new ecological conscience prevents him from doing so. Recusing every ethnocentric reflex, Morin declares: «C’estdonctoutel’idéologieoccidentaledepuisDescartes, quifaisaitdel’hommesujetdansunmonded’objets, qu’ilfautrenverser» [2]. [Soitisallofoccidentalideology, sinceDescartes, thatmademanasubjectinaworldofobjects, thatmustbereversed].
These two ways of thinking join that of Hervé Kempf [3] who invites l’Occidentàsortirduclivagehomme-nature [theOccidenttoexitfromtheman-naturecleavage]. This anthropocentric dogma is no longer tenable.
In the distant Antillean context, despite the effects of a politics of assimilation via education, serious reserves subsist with respect to a vision of the world that would be solely occidental. Whence the difficulty to define the subject according to exclusively European categories. In this sense, is it possible to be a subject in an animist context? De même le serait-on dans un contexte qui fait fi du je au profit du nous? [ThesamewouldbetrueinacontextthatignorestheIinfavorofthewe]. This enquiry seems [to us] to be fundamental in apprehending this subject in his idiosyncratic singularity. For Elisabeth Vilayleck [4], L’attitude [del’Antillais] vis-à-visdumondevégétalesttoutàfaitdifférentedecequ’elleestchezlesEuropéens. Pourlaphilosophieoccidentaleeneffetlanatureestextérieureàl’hommequientireprofit, latransforme, ladénatureoul’admire, communieavecelle, commechezlesRomantiques, maisluidemeuretoujours “étrangers” [Theattitude (oftheAntillean) withregardtothevegetalworldisaltogetherdifferentthanitisforEuropeans. ForOccidentalphilosophyineffectnatureisexternaltomanwhodrawsprofitfromit, transformsit, denaturesoradmiresit, communeswithit, asdidtheRomantics, butremainever “foreign” toit].
We are among those who are convinced of the existence of this subject. In fact, two societal models come into confrontation:
The first: man is at the summit of the chain of the living.The second: the human being lives in fusion with nature.
The subject then cannot be defined in the same way. Because the process presiding over his emergence under these two auspices are not the same.
To apprehend our research, we have consulted many works on the subject of anthropology. We also refer to an interview with an eco-agro-forestry specialist in Saint-Lucia (Rose Leon).
This article’s objective is to present him in his relationship to the environment. The first point concerns the presentation of the subject in his relationship to the environment in the Christian Occident. The second point is this subject in Creole societies. The third moment of demonstration is the (Creole) subject in his relation to nature.
2. Being a Subject in Occidental Thought: New Horizons
Occidental philosophical thought has been considering the figure of the individual known as the subject since the end of the Middle Ages. The individual appears progressively as an agent on the social scene. A position that is reinforced with the emergence of reasoning-reason as the faculty of each to assume his destiny as a human. In these historical conditions this new social operator emancipates himself of any tutelary power to exist for himself alone alongside other operators endowed with the same potentialities as he. The Enlightenment constitutes this effervescence of ideas that arise in the space henceforth occupied by the individual. A transformation of Occidental man following scientific progress, medicine, industrial technologies. Furthermore, the arts and letters are nourished by a certain elevation of the mind among those who intend to play the score of being.
This singular being who is connected to the idealistic tendency of European philosophy “a été assimilé à l’êtresoi (ou à l’amour de soi) et opposé à l’êtreensemble” [5] [was assimilated to being-oneself (or the love of self) and set against being-together]. The human and social sciences and anthropology in particular go so far as to critique this subject instituted by philosophy. The expression that emerges from it is:
Qu’enfaisantdecesujetunpursignifié, latendancedominantedelaphilosophieeuropéenneglisseenpermanenceversdesdiscoursquisont, finalement, théologiques, lesujetsevoyantattribuerlaplaceréservéeàDieu, alorsqueseulslesrapportssociauxetculturelssuccessifsquelesujetentretientavecdessignifiantsnoussontanthropologiquementaccessibles. Danscetteperspective—anthropologiqueetnonplusphilosophico-théologique—desprocessusdesubjectivationseconstruisentdemanièreréactionnelleàtraversdesexpériencesradicalesd’extériorité […] Lesujetnenaîtpasmagiquementdesprofondeursd’uneconsciencequiseraitintériorité […] maisdanslessurfacesdesinteractions, c’est-à-diredesusagessociauxdessignifiants [5].
[Thatbymakingapuresignified (signifié) outofthissubject, thedominanttendencyofphilosophyisinpermanentslippagetowarddiscoursesthat, whenallissaidanddone, aretheological, inwhichthesubjectisattributedtheplacereservedforGod, whereasonlythesuccessivesocialandculturalrelationsthesubjectmaintainswithsignifiers (signifiants) areanthropologicallyaccessibletous. Fromthisanthropologicalperspective—andnotaphilosophico-theologicalone—processesofsubjectivationareconstructedinamannerthatisreactionaltoaconsciousnessconsideredtobeinterior (…) butatthesurfacesofinteractions, inotherwordsofthesocialusagesofthesignifiers].
In this ethnographic frame, it is a matter of becoming emancipated from European thought in order to apprehend it through realities other than the ontological European reality of Hellenic and Judeo-Christian inspiration. A difference is established between an abstract perception of the subject and a perception that reveals him through contact with realities that are determining for him: lesujetn’émergeraitetn’évolueraitqu’enrelationauxautres. Iln’estjamaisdonné, carilestcetteaptitudeàdevenirlui-mêmeentransformantcequivientdesautres [5] [the subject would emerge and evolve in sole relation to others. He is never given, because he is this aptitude of becoming himself by transforming what comes from others].
The direction proposed by anthropology seems to prevail in a context of globalisation in which cultures enter into contact with one another and intermix [se métissent] [6]. Bernard Sichère goes so far as to say that lesujetestcequiseproduitcommesingularitéàpartirdesforcesculturellesetselonlesloisd’uneculture [7] [thesubjectiswhatisproducedasasingularityresultingfromculturalforcesandaccordingtothelawsofaculture].
The determinations of the subject are therefore inscribed outside of all ethnocentrisms that would consider certain cultures to be minor. All cultures are intrinsically sufficient to bring the individual to resolve the equation of the subject. The context in which he is placed proves to be more than necessary to offer the same field of possibles that are observed in the Occidental context.
The result depends only upon the conditions in which individuals live in their relations to alterity and to their physical environment. Upon these foundations, François Laplantine [5], who did fieldwork in Brazil, doesn’t hesitate to affirm: Lacultureducandomblénousarracheàuneconceptionnonseulementeuropéocentriquedusujet, c’est-à-direàl’illusiondenouscroiresujetparrapportàunmonde-objet. Lesséparations (d’aveclesautres, d’aveclanature) constiitutivesd’un “dedans” etd’un “dehors”, d’un “intérieur” etd’un “extérieur” sontlefaitd’uneopérationnonseulementd’objectivitémaisd’objectatlité;ellesrelèventdecetteillusiondenouscroireséparés [Candombléculturetearsusfromaconceptionofthesubjectthatisnotonlyeurocentric, inotherwordsfromtheillusionwherebywebelieveourselvestobesubjectsvis-à-visanobject-world. Theseparations (fromothers, fromnature) constitutiveofan “inside” andan “outside”, ofan “interior” andan “exterior” arethefactofanoperation, notonlyofobjectivitybutofobjectality: theyarisefromtheillusionwhereinwebelieveourselvestobeseparate].
Nevertheless, the concept of the subject is a problematic one. Such is anthropologist Sherry B. Ortner’s [6] assertion. This researcher defends arobustanthropologyofsubjectivity [...] ananthropologythatquestionstheculturalformsofsubjectivity. By subjectivity, she intends: thequestionofthesubjectasanessentiallycomplexbeing, afeelingbeing, thinkingandreflecting, abeingthatmakesandthatseeksmeaning.
The aforesaid subject is the one that is of interest to us, and whom we wish to discover, not in his social interactions, but in his relationship to his environment.
3. Does a Subject Exist Within Creole Cultural Liquidity? An Anthropological Perspective
This question continues to be asked by certain researchers. Two positions confront each other. One that defends the idea of the non-existence of the subject. The content of this affirmation is nonetheless not declined. This truth is enunciated by two Antillean researchers: by S. Mulot and by P. Donatien. The anthropologist admits:
Quelesindividusontdumalàsevoirentantquepersonnesubjectivesets’envisagentplutôtdefaçoncollective: “Onparletoujoursdenous, Antillais, denous, Caribéens, denous, Français, denous, descendantsd’esclaves […] Lesgensontdumalàexprimerleurindividualité. Etpourtantilfautréussiràseconstruireentantquesujet, s’autoriseràexisterenfonctiondesespropresdésirs [8].
[Thatindividualshaveahardtimeseeingthemselvesassubjectivepeopleandratherenvisionthemselvescollectively: “Wealwaysspeakofwe, Antilleans, ofwe, Caribbeans, ofwe, French, ofwe, descendantsofslaves […] Peoplehaveahardtimeexpressingtheirindividuality. Andyetitisnecessarytobeabletoconstructoneselfasasubject, togiveoneselfpermissiontoexistaccordingtoone’sowndesires.]
According to Mulot, it is necessary to transform one’s (collective) life experience to envision the emergence of the potential subject. The characteristics of the subject would be inhibited by a life managed from outside by the community. The individual cannot come to be as a subject. A logical dynamic shared by P. Donatien: Nousavonsétédéconstruitcommesujetparlecolonialisme […] Ilya [même] unralentissementautourdusujetmartiniquais [9] [We were deconstructed as subjects by colonialism […] There is (even) a delay around the Martinican subject].
The difficulty of articulating the subject is explicit in these two reflections. If one takes to task the community, the other underscores the nefarious effects of colonisation. Two explanations which, though not false, are not redhibitory for the emergence of the Creole subject. The first explanation could find a sure and solid foundation in an African way of life. Very young, the individual is caught in a web of relations. The corollary is: qu’endehorsdelarelation, l’individutendversl’inexistence [10] [thatoutsideofrelation, theindividualtendstowardexistence]. The second explanation is not to be disavowed. Colonisation completely deontologised those deported from the black continent [11]. A property that doesn’t escape historian Olivier Grenouilleau who sees in toutelaluttedel’esclave [latentation] derecréerdesespacesd’autonomieetdelibertédansunesociétéquil’écrase [12] [ineachoftheslave’sstruggles (thetemptation) torecreatespacesofautonomyandlibertyinasocietythatcrusheshim].
The other is the one we defend: the subject exists and presents characteristics that are specific to him. The subject exists and presents his own singularities in a society in which disorder reigns [13]. But he is damaged by the historical circumstances and its repercussions in modernity to the point of having difficulty assuming one’s identity: blackskin, whitemasks, according to the Martinican psychiatrist Frantz Fanon, or the constant reference to the colonial past. This must be taken into account to apprehend this subject who is problematic in all respects and who must waver between his own emancipation and the need for the other, for the community, in order to come to be [13]. There is an ambiguity that is important to lift. The writer, P. Chamoiseau, is intimately convinced of this:
Quel’unedesplusgrandesmodernitésdusystèmeesclavagisteaétéjustementdedétruiretoutcollectif. Danslescalesdesbateauxnégriers, aucunecommunauté, aucunecosmogonie, aucunabsolunetientplus. Onseretrouveseuletnu… [14].
[Thatoneofthegreatestmodernitiesoftheslavesystemwaspreciselytodestroyallcollectivity. Inthehullofslaveships, nocommunity, nocosmogony, noabsolutelastsanymore. Onefindsoneselfaloneandnaked…]
So many conditions that preside over the coming-to-be of this subject, if one omits life conditions that add to the heavy burden of negative emotions that constitute captivity and the middle passage. Marronnage is an example of this will to reconstitute oneself that is soon squelched to avoid the creation of examples to follow.
Which means that the characteristics of the modern subject exist and ask only to flourish. Nonetheless, a certain socio-political reality persists. It is the case of cultural assimilation and the alienation it induces.
Here we intend to demonstrate the impact left on the environment by the deported and the context’s influence on them. The dynamism of realisations such as the jardinscréoles (creole gardens) are visible, the transformations imposed through dwelling on these islands. Only those individuals determined to surpass their conditions and become de facto subjects could have deployed such energies and succeeded. If they did not invent gunpowder, it was necessary for them as continentals to confront the oceanic flows and master them: the driftwood borrowed from Amerindians; the yole to benefit from the products of the sea; The basketwork of Morne-des-Esses area (in the North) is a Caribbean heritage which is still practiced and has been modernized to the point of offering stuffed bottles of local rum or transformed stylized bakoua (panadanus) hats. A perspective that opens other horizons for the becoming-subject.
4. The Emergence of the Subject in the Appropriation of His or Her Environment
It is quite rare to attempt to apprehend the subject in his or her relation to the surrounding nature. Interactions that vary according to the period, according to the societies in question. The ethnologist Édith Planche who produced a reflection on this relationship between L’hommeetdesonenvironnementetlanotiondesujet (Manandhisenvironmentandthenotionofthesubject) [15]. She confronts her point of view to the manner in which other (traditional) societies negotiate the living. The anthropomorphic whole must give way to other paradigms.
AvecleXXIesiècle, onchercheàredéfinirlerapportHomme/nature, àcréerunesociétédifférente, surfonddecriseetdeparoxysmedelachosificationdesêtresvivants. Lescertitudess’effondrent, lescatastrophesnaturellesetlapollutionréajustentlaplacedel’Homme…Lescurseursdelaclassificationsedéplacent: laclasse «Animaux» signifietelleencorequelquechose? […] Àl’opposédel’anthropomorphisme, onestauseuildepenserquecesderniersévoluentdansd’autreparadigmescertes, maislégitimes…, commeenuntempslesdits«primitifs»rejetésdel’humanitépensante, ontgagnédesesituerdansdescosmogoniesdifférentes. Noussommesdanslesiècleoùl’onrevisitelesculturesexotiques, nonplusconsidéréescommehistoriquement «premières» maiscommesingulièresdansunepluralitédescultures […] Sommes-nousenfinauseuildepensertoutautrecommesujetconscient, émetteurd’unpointdevuelégitime?Laculture, lascienceetlatechnique, produisentdelamaîtrisedelanature, delavie, duvivant;quipeutdevenirnégative (clonage, etc.). Lasociétéprotectricedelabiodiversitépeutmettreenavantlanécessitédelasauvegardedel’espèceavecpourinterfaceladestructiondel’individuanimalentantquesujet. Qu’enest-ildescochons, veaux, poules, lapinsetautrescanardsexploitéscommedeschoses, mutiléspourmieuxentrerauservicedel’Homme?Ons’alerterapourlasauvegardedel’espèceanimaledanssavaleurdepatrimoine. Maislorsqu’onpeutreproduirelavieetlamultiplierenengendrantveaux, vaches, cochonsd’élevage, onvaaussisepermettredel’éteindreàsouhaitlorsquecelanereprésenteaucundommagepourl’espèce. Lepointdevueimpliquelanotiondesujet. Quelanimald’élevageintensifest-ilprisencomptecommesujetsensibleetdanssonpointdevuesingulierd’êtrevivant?
[Withthe 21stcentury, theMan/naturerelationshipseekstoredefineitself, tocreateadifferentsociety, againstabackdropofthecrisisandparoxysmoftheobjectificationoflivingbeings. Certaintiescollapse, shift: doesthe “Animal” classstillsignifysomething? (…) Contrarytoanthropomorphism, weareatthethresholdofthinkingthatthelattercertainlyevolveinotherparadigms, butthatarelegitimate…, suchasatagiventimeso-called “primitives” rejectedbythinkinghumanity, benefitedfromsituatingthemselvesindifferentcosmogonies. (…) Areweatlastonthethresholdofthinkingaltogetherotherwiseasaconscioussubject, atransmitterofalegitimatepointofview? Culture, scienceandtechnology, producethemasteryofnature, oflife, oftheliving;whichcanbecomenegative (cloning, etc.). Asocietythatisprotectiveofbiodiversitycanprivilegethenecessityforthesafeguardingofthespecieswithasaninterfacethedestructionoftheindividualanimalasasubject. Whatofthepigs, calves, chickens, rabbitsandotherducksexploitedlikethings, mutilatedtobetterentertheserviceofMan? Wearealertedtothesafekeepingoftheanimalspeciesforitsvalueasheritage. Butwhenitispossibletoreproducelifeandmultiplyitbyengenderingcalves, farmedcows, wewillalsoallowforitsextinctionatwillwhenitrepresentsnodamageforthespecies. Thepointofviewimplicatesthenotionofsubject. Whatfactoryfarmedanimalistakenintoaccountasasensiblesubjectinhissingularpointofviewasalivingbeing?] [15].
A way of thinking that is inscribed in keeping with the afore-cited reflections and whose intention is to redefine the subject. Édith Planche is describing a typical subject stemming from Occidental civilisation. This ethnologist’s intuition guides her in an enquiry that suits our context: Areweatlastonthethresholdofthinkingaltogetherotherwiseasaconscioussubject, atransmitterofalegitimatepointofview [15]?
There is one certainty in her analysis: there are models other than the model willed as universal. These models opt for a true and sincere dialogue with all of nature and don’t make man into a purely cogito being who thinks to be. He is dialogue with every being that bears vital energy.
Our experience of the Creole subject opens us to other horizons and allows us to conceive of [admettre] a being who, despite several centuries of assimilation, remains deeply holistic in his everyday endeavour, pragmatic in his lived experience, his feet rooted in the soil of his calabash island. He is not the fruit of dogmas that vary from one philosophical trend to another. His sole certainty: to make of his existence an interaction of each instant with the earth, with nature. It’s that «les sociétés traditionnelles […] cultivent le dépassement de la société rationnelle qui coupe l’Homme de la nature et de son lieu au monde» [15] [“traditional societies […] cultivate surpassing rational society that cuts Man from nature and from his place in the world”]. This subject (of anthropology) is the one that is also described by Marc Augier [16]: a subject in situation. Anthropology cannot satisfy itself with an abstract concept that is empty of all concrete realisation. The programme of field social sciences is to consider that there are «non seulement des subjectivations, mais il y a une formation du sujet […] dans un espace et un moment donnés» [“not only subjectivations, but there is the formation of the subject […] in a given space and moment”] [16].
From our point of view, three time-spaces allow us to better know this subject:
The jardincréole: a creation that fascinates research and which in our view reveals the complexity of the Creole subject. He will go as far as transporting, into an urban context, this model garden. The “hollow teeth” of the city-centre are full of vegetals that comprise this very garden.Nature is that topos that inspires in order to express his fellow being and to concern himself with the mysteries of existence.As for animism, it carries the vision of a manner of being for this subject with this environment. In other terms, they interact and are mutually fecund.
4.1. The
<italic>Jardin Cr</italic>
<italic>éole</italic>
According to certain researchers, it would be fair to say:
Quedansunenvironnementperçucommehostile, lejardindecaseestconçucommeunespacedeprotectionoùlesforcesdelanaturesontmaîtrisées, etdanslequelcertainesplantesprotègentl’individudespuissancesnéfastes. Cen’estpaslepaysageenlui-mêmequiesthostile, maislesforcesquiletraversent, l’habitentoulepeuple [17].
[Thatinanenvironmentperceivedashostile, the jardin de case isconceivedasaspaceofprotectioninwhichtheforcesofnaturearemastered, andinwhichcertainplantsprotecttheindividualfromnefariouspresences. Itisn’tthelandscapeinitselfthatishostile, buttheforcesthattraverseit, inhabitorpopulateit.]
This vision surpasses anthropological research to join E. Vilayleck’s observations [4]. The thinking unrolled by this research allows the garden to be seen, not as a place of production in an economic sense, but as production in the sense of the mastery of natural forces [4].
This garden, long denigrated because disorganised, is a model today for agronomic research. In this sense, the promiscuity of species arose from a logic, which, today, astonishes, even impresses, those who analyse it. An intuitive model, but that responded to a concern for the cohabitation of species such that they be good for one another. One serving the other according to an idea that has been current since the period of slavery, yonnalòt, yonnépilòt, yonnpoulòt. A proverbial formula that, manifestly, was not only relevant for humans but also for the living for whom an almost human dignity was configured.
The aforesaid garden remains a remarkable ecological model, produced from a hybridisation of knowledge between different civilisations; a source of inspiration and socio-cultural resistance. Everything is cultivated, from nourishing plants to aromatic plants through medicinal plants. This memory that we cultivate comes to us from our grandparents’ garden. We learned to cultivate plants by drawing a maximum of its benefits—whether culinary or cosmetic. It’s the case of the gombo (Abelmoschusesculentus) whose fruit we consumed and made use of its leaves as a shampoo.
The researcher Harry Ozier Lafontaine [18] describes this model, that can be qualified as a genial agricultural model, in these terms:
Lejardincréoleraconteunehistoire. Àlafoisgarde-manger, pharmacie, réservoirdebiodiversitéetdesavoir-faire, ils’impose, parladiversitédesespècescultivées, lacoexistencededifférentesstrates (desherbacéesauxarbres) multifonctionnelles, commesourcederésistanceetd’inspiration, faceàl’hubrisconsuméristedestempsmodernes (2000).
[The jardin créole (creolegarden) tellsastory. Atonceapantry, apharmacy, areserveofbiodiversityandknow-how, itimposesitselfbythediversityofthecultivatedspecies, thecoexistenceofdifferentmultifunctionalstrata (fromgrassestotrees), asasourceofresistanceandinspiration, inthefaceoftheconsumeristhubrisofmoderntimes.]
Note that the rural exodus of the 1960s moved these Creole gardens to the capital. Each family grew ornamental, medicinal, and magical plants in pots.
Before such high praise, what must be concluded as to the capacities to transcend suffering and misery and model one’s space as a space that nourishes, heals, and gives birth to an informal economy of barter beyond the constraints of servility. A characteristic of individuals becoming the agents of their existence, taking care of their own and giving birth to a society that is characterised by solidarity. Nonetheless, no one is dupe and mistrust reigns. It’s that nature instructs: fireflies, poultry, mammals will aid in formalising the relationship to the other. Whence the emegence of these proverbs:
Chakbèt-a-fèkaklérépounanmli [eachfireflylightsupitsownsoul].Bèfdouvanbwèdloklè [thefrontoxdrinksclearwater].Ti-poulsuivti-kanna, imònéyé [the chicks followed the ducklings, they drowned].
Nature is the place that nourishes minds and allows for the cultivation of living-together. The school of life forges characters; inspires a philosophy of existence: anlanmenkalavélòt [it’sonehandwashingtheother] but each must fight in this existence disrupted by the vicissitudes of the climate, whence chakbètafèkaklérépounanmli [eachfireflylightsupitsownsoul]. The dialectic of a simple life embellished by bèlè and other dances invented in exile. A dialectic in which the je and the collective nous address one another on familiar terms. In this sense, this subject is never alone. He feels himself to be a member of a human community inscribed in an order that surpasses him—saoupakonètpligranpasé’w [whatyoudon’tknowisolderthanyou]—before feeling fully a subject. In reality, this dichotomy is maintained by solidarity in certain circumstances such as death (traditionally a time of coming together), but is quickly counterbalanced by individualism in other circumstances such as driving a car.
4.2. Nature to Describe the Human
During a study of cultural practices (tales, proverbs, etc.) in Sainte-Lucie, the collected date allowed us to measure the sense of observation of slaves and their survival strategy in a situation of alienation. In effect, a meeting with a specialist of eco-agro-tourism in a very touristed forest, provided the opportunity to measure the connection between nature and language. The specialist seeks to transmit what is called: «La connexion avec la terre, les arbres et tout ce qui constitue la nature» [“The connection with the earth, the trees and everything that comprises nature”] [19].
By evoking each tree, he hears tell the story hidden there; the history of the deported who made the forest a living space. The first species he presented to us is a palm tree bristling with spikes (gwigwi or Aiphanesluciana)—atreesimilartococonut [20]. The agro-touristic practitioner defends the idea that the proverb, toutzandolisavkilespiébwaikamouté, emanates from the observation of this palm tree upon which no lizard ventures. An aphorism that is often applied in human situations. Likewise whoever has a rough character is nicknamed piégwigwi.
Aside from the gwigwi, logwood (Haematoxylum) serves as a referent to describe the heart of a person who is hard. The similarity comes from the hardness of the wood and the hardness of the heart of the person labelled as tjèkanpèch. Besides the description of a personality trait, the hardness of this tree allows for the qualification of one who is a strapping guy in labour.
The trumpet tree (cecropia) is the tree of meteorology (aweatherplant). The hidden face of its leaves whiten in a gale. A keen observation that is not always disavowed by modern science. This indication is not its sole utility. In effect, the infusion of trumpet tree leaves put in check sore bellies during women’s menstruation. Yet others deserve the attention of researchers for their usage in social life and for their virtues.
If the utilitarian aspect of the forest is not to be obliterated, the constant recourse to describe the existence of those who are animated by the same dignity as these vegetal beings cannot be ignored. A place of refuge, a place in which life is to be found, a place of provision. The forest is the privileged space of observations and by extension of the possibility to establish analogies of the human character.
Only a subject that is conscious of him- or herself and his environment can attain this observational and analytical precision. During the encounter with the Saint-Lucian specialist, he insisted on the scientificity of his observations:
Whentheyobservewhichplantsarepoisonous, whichplantshavemedicinalproperties, whichplantsyoucanuse, allofthingsistroughobservationaswell. Thefolklore, thetraditionisknowledge [18].
The myths developed also contribute to preserving the capital that is the forest, its rivers and the other resources it contains. A balanced ecological management that includes the individual-subject in this totality: earth, air, water, trees. Intuitions that are in keeping with current research in environmental psychology. The perspective adopted by researchers in this field is to surpass the whole subject-environment dichotomy to facilitate a holistic and dynamic perspective [21]. The emancipation of the subject passes henceforth by this global perspective: to be in relation with this nature that it had indeed been necessary to domesticate but for which it is nearly impossible to become its master and possessor. On the contrary, a harmonious approach is worth more than an approach that would be aggressive, and which, in turn, would wound the subject. A charter of mutual understand must prevail in this optic.
4.3. Animism: An Alliance to Resist
In the hostile context that was the discovery of the islands by the deported Africans, they needed nature as an ally in order to resist and to live. In this respect, the maroons of whom it is said that they were veritable ecologists persistently defended this hostile nature against the colonizer. They fought against the deforestation by those who were educated with the idea of dominating nature. In this configuration, the Creole shaman is the ally who masters the positive energies of nature in order to convert the negative ones. The therapy depends upon the circumstances while also being annual. Thus the change of calendar imposes a bath of plants called bendémaré. It involves reinforcing one’s defences against all hostile forces and approaching the new year under better auspices. A practice that persists even in modernity or, for us, in Creole post-traditionality—this bath comes thus in modern forms: delivery of plants in boxes by companies specializing in the plant trade, tourist caravans allowing you to take part. Only the bank balance counts. Moreover, in the collective unconscious, cutting down a fromager (Ceibapentandra) was an ecocide. A group of residents in the South opposed the felling of a fromager, sacred tree in Creole culture.
The plant specialist is familiar with its medicinal virtues, but also masters their gathering. For it is not a matter of not respecting what modern science calls the chronobiology of these plants. In addition, for a long time on the plantation, he is the one who also has knowledge of their poisonous effects (pharmakon).
This knowledge of nature, this fusion say, was of a great help. It’s that this nature, despite its hostility, was able to be vanquished, in part thanks to the Amerindians who practised slash-and-burn agriculture. Their knowledge of the canopy was of a great service. As for the maroons, when escaping from the plantations, they needed to be able to vanquish external forces: venomous plants, venomous animals, meteorological conditions. Plants, remedies issuing from animals are given by the dead—in the Antillean cosmogony the living and the dead frequent one another and maintain relations. This variable defies any logic developed by Occidental science and thought.
According to Philippe Descola [22]:
Danslesenscommunoccidentalmoderne, onadmetquel’hommepartagelemêmemondephysiquequeleslerestedesêtresquipeuplentl’univers. Enrevanche, leshumainsestim [ent] êtredifférentsdesanimauxoudesplantesparlefait [qu’ilssont] dessujets, possédantuneintériorité, desreprésentations, desintentions, qui [lui] sontpropres.
[Inmodernoccidentalcommonsense, manispermittedtosharethesamephysicalworldastherestofthebeingsthatpopulatetheuniverse. However, humansconsiderthemselvestobedifferentfromanimalsorplantsbyvirtueofthefactthattheyaresubjects, possessinganinteriority, representations, intentionsparticulartohimself].
The anthropologist opposes this naturalism to animism. As a way of inhabiting the world, animism does not oppose species but grants them the same vitality, indeed a human dignity. There are not subjects on one side and objects (even living) on the other side, but beings who possess the same potentialities as subjects, leaving aside different forms.
[L’animisme] attribueàtouslesêtreshumainsetnonhumainslemêmegenred’intériorité, desubjectivité, d’intentionnalité. Ilplaceladifférenceducôtédespropriétésetmanifestationsphysiques: apparence, formeducorps, manièresd’agir, comportements […] Ilattribueàtouslemêmegenred’intentionnalitéquenousdirions “humaine” [22].
[(Animism) attributestoallhumansandnon-humansthesamekindofinteriority, subjectivity, intentionality. Itsituatesdifferenceonthesideofphysicalpropertiesandmanifestations: appearance, formofbody, mannersofacting, behaviours (…) Itattributestoallthesamekindofintentionalitythatwewouldcall “human”.]
In accordance with this reading, there cannot be a double reality that would decline the concepts of nature-culture, of subjects-objects. In this frame, subjectivity is property that would not be the prerogative of some living beings. Man and nature share it for the good of all. The researcher does not see here a simple belief, but an epistemological positioning that reveals the living. Once this scheme is in place, the (human) subject no longer has the anguish of his true knowledge in opposition with other categories that are submitted to him. Henceforth, it is a matter of sharing the dignity of the subject and of no longer being in permanent anguish, of having this concern to the point of exhaustion. The sociologist speaks of the fatigued’êtresoi [thewearinessoftheself] [23].
In sum, the animist individual who sees in animals and in plants beings such as himself, with good or bad intentions, is no less the subject of his existence. He can have the need to struggle against the forces that inhabit those beings and that constitute a threat to his existence. The kapok tree (Ceibapentandra) is that tutelary tree that houses forces that are hostile to humans, where evil spirits dwell. The subject is never the ruler/master of the surrounding elements. He is therefore not at the centre of the world; at the centre of life; and not at the centre of his psyche [24].
5. Conclusions
The omnipresence of the vegetal world in the lives of individuals in these insular territories enabled them to develop a singular relation with this universe. A relation that surpasses the simple need for nourishment to become an ally that makes possible a way of dwelling in a world initially unfamiliar to these continentals.
In the relation to the other, it was necessary to draw inspiration from the practices of the first inhabitants, to borrow from their cultural techniques to envision the future. Slash-and-burn agriculture, the technique of transforming cassava—still thriving today—is a borrowing that demonstrate a will on the part of Creoles to become agents upon their arrival on Antillean soil.
As for the divinities they left in Africa, it was necessary to provide a legitimate frame for them to cohabit with the masters’ divinities. What could be more intelligent than to travesty the dominant worship and to carefully conceal the gods of the Vaudun pantheon. True fervor was dedicated to them through this travesty that the colonizer must have underappreciated. As for the clergy, all that mattered to them was the number of baptisms they could inscribe in the parish ledgers.
In this context, another individual is born, who wishes to assume his existence, and become a subject. Nature is an ally through which different pathways are risked:
marronnage and subsequent liberty;the expression of dance practised with or without his master’s approval; the quest for greater physiological well-being through knowledge of medicinal plants. The latter can involve borrowings from Amerindian shamans; spiritual greater well-being while seeking to appropriate a reserve of vital forces in this space that he knows better than the colon;each year, for easter festivities, in order to commune with nature, families go to the beach, the river, the campsite, the forest. Such connection is a ritual act, while they are eating specific local food. Overall, it seems to be a need for healing in the face of a past that has wounded bodies.
In this, he potentialises the characteristics of the subject (Touraine’s sociology) for whom: «[Tout] est affirmation de liberté, de capacité d’assumer, de maîtriser son expérience personnelle» [(Everything) is affirmation of liberty, capacity to assume, to master, one’s personal experience] [25].