![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This article contributes to the understanding of the complexity of human-nature relationships. Through hermeneutic analysis of more than 60 semi-structured in-depth interviews (2019-2021), I identify five prevalent human-nature relationship models within the Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) practice in Eastern Estonia (‘master', ‘user' and ‘steward of nature' as well as ‘partner with’ and ‘participant in nature'). As an ambiguous model, the ‘stewardship of nature’ merits my particular attention when exploring how gardeners perceive, relate to and act upon nature in general and their own gardening practice in particular.Using a relational sociological approach, I locate the observed relationship models within the so-called ‘space of social relationships with nature’ (see Eversberg et al. 2022 in this Special Issue) which allows me to capture the various ways in which humans mentally and practically relate to nature. The analysis reveals seemingly contrary yet concurrent manifestations of human-nature relationships that can only be explained by exploring their embeddedness in both social power relations and societal nature relations that constitute the individually observed human-nature relationships. Furthermore, I demonstrate how ‘immediate’ engagement with nature results in rather caring and partner-like relationships whereas ‘abstract’ and alienated experiences often feature instrumental logic with implicit or explicit hierarchy.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my interview partners for sharing their inspiring insights and for generously inviting us into their beautiful dachas. Furthermore, I am grateful to Dr Andreas Exner for helpful comments and suggestions, my colleagues in flumen – Dennis Eversberg, Jana Holz and Philip Koch, our research assistants Lara Gerlach and Clara S. Thompson and my mother, Vaike Pungas, for her ongoing support. Last but not least I want to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that improved the quality of the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The word ‘dacha’ (дача in Russian) is derived from the Russian verb ‘to give’ and has a long history, reaching to the eighteenth century, when Peter the Great handed out plots of land (dachas) as a gift to his courtiers (Lovell Citation2002, 255). During the Soviet era, dachas as summer cottages first became a luxury reserved only for the Soviet elite, yet from the 1960s increasingly a mass phenomenon. According to many scholars, dachas are a deeply rooted – and contested – tradition in the Russian soul (Caldwell Citation2011; Lovell Citation2016). For more on the history, sociocultural and economic meaning of dachas in Russia, see Caldwell (Citation2000, Citation2011), Lovell (Citation2016, Citation2002), Szumilas (Citation2014), Sharashkin (Citation2008), Galtz (Citation2000), Zavisca (Citation2003, 794–796) and Rusanov (Citation2019).
2 The junior research group ‘Mentalities in Flux’ (flumen), funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), explores from a sociological and historical perspective how people’s basic mindsets, attitudes and shared imaginaries as well as the socio-economic structure of societies change in the course of transitions toward bioeconomies. Project website: www.flumen.uni-jena.de
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Lilian Pungas
Lilian Pungas is a researcher and PhD candidate at the Institute for Sociology at Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena and at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in the Hague. Originally from Estonia but based in Berlin her research interests include political economy and ecology in Eastern Europe, agriculture, degrowth and sufficiency-oriented lifestyles. In her work she seeks to apply (eco-)feminist and decolonial approaches.