From the desk of the emotional ecologist – 05/08/2024
On Saturday the 27th July 2024, The Guardian published an article titled- “What is ‘nature’? Dictionaries urged to include humans in definition”. In it, the author Damien Gayle introduces luxury interior decorator and businesswoman Frieda Gormley and environmental lawyer Jessie Mond Wedd, the founders of the ‘We Are Nature’ campaign.
‘We Are Nature’ argue that the current consensus definition of nature used by UK dictionaries is wrong, since it does not include humans. Indeed, nature is often framed as the opposition to humans-
– e.g., “The phenomena of the physical world collectively; esp. plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans or human creations” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2024).
They believe that this commonly held definition represents a false hegemony, since it denies the growing body of scientific evidence that humans are part of nature and wider ecosystems (Lawyers for Nature, 2024; We Are Nature, 2024). In turn, these false definitions give us a false belief that we are distinct from, and superior to nature, which in-turn perpetuates the environmental crisis.
‘We Are Nature’ essentially lobby dictionaries to change their definition of nature to include humans, ignoring the important role that dictionaries play in describing how words are actually being used, as opposed to dictating how words should be used. This sets a dangerous precedent, wherein political groups can control language to suit their ambitions (Oliver, 2024).
‘We Are Nature’ claim that their definition of nature reflects both cultural and scientific consensus. However, their definition was, in fact, crowdsourced from a select pool of intelligentsia- academics, writers, activists, environmentalists, lawyers- as well as some school children, and is in no way actually representative of a genuine cultural consensus (Lawyers for Nature, 2024). Nor does it reflect any scientific consensus, for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of nature amongst ecologists, due to the perceived lack of clarity around the term (Johnson & Lidström, 2018; Simberloff, 2014; Worster, 1994). As a result, the use of nature as a serious scientific concept has been all but abandoned by the environmental science community.
Such an all-encompassing definition of nature, which seemingly includes everything under the sun, might seem baffling. However, it might help explain how two professionals from the world of luxury interior design and law, in a marriage of the most laughably cosmopolitan sectors imaginable, could possibly come to the conclusion that they were appropriately positioned to speak on behalf of nature. The plugging of Frieda Gormley's 'House of Hackney' luxury design brand within 'We Are Nature's' promotional material makes me question the extent to which this activism represents a serious campaign versus a cynical advertising push. Take this example from the very top of 'We Are Nature's' "About us" webpage-
"House of Hackney is the B Corp brand inspiring people to protect our common home by bringing the beauty of Nature into theirs." (We Are Nature, 2024 b).
The idea that £200 rolls of recycled floral wallpaper are going to save the environment must be quite a hard sell to the increasingly environmentally conscious bourgeois clientele that 'House of Hackney' caters to. Their involvement in an environmental activism campaign might be just enough to justify their virtuous ethos, which would otherwise sound quite vacuous, given the indulgent nature of their products.
Ironically, ‘We Are Nature’s’ all-encompassing definition of nature includes those very mechanisms which have accelerated and magnified the pace of climate change and environmental degradation, like industrial fossil fuel technology and modern agriculture, as these are all parts of humankind and thus nature. Therefore, this change in definition could have the exact opposite effect of the one desired, being used as a green-washing tool to justify the so-called “naturalness” of techno-industrial complexes, in an embarrassing facilitation of the natural fallacy by the environmentalists to the benefit of the polluters.
Enlightenment, Eden and ecology
Furthermore, the organisation advances a theory for the origins of the supposedly false nature – human dichotomy that is itself entirely spurious. They claim, with support from Professor of Ecology Tom Oliver of the University of Reading, that the human – nature split is derived from 17th and 18th century Enlightenment thinkers like René Descartes, who, according to Professor Oliver, put “forward the view that the mind is divine and God-like, and our bodies, and the bodies of other creatures, are just kind of lifeless matter”. These figures believed that we should move away from states of nature where life was considered to be, as Thomas Hobbes put it, “…nasty, brutish, and short”.
Now of course, it is the case that these were indeed the views of many enlightenment thinkers. However, it is a convenient coincidence that of all the Enlightenment figures Professor Oliver cites, he fails to mention Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the most influential thinkers of his time, who believed that humans should return to nature to escape the corrupting influence of civilisation, contradicting the neat framing of Enlightenment thinkers by the Professor. Clearly the milieu of the Enlightenment was, at the least, just as conducive to ideas of reconnecting with nature, as they were with splitting from nature, despite what ‘We Are Nature’ and Professor Oliver have to say.
Furthermore, it is wrong to assume that the enlightenment represents the beginning of the nature-human dichotomy in Western Culture. The Bible, which contains stories that date back to the 10th century BCE and further, is filled with references to the dualistic relationship between humans and nature, reflecting a much deeper conceptual history than ‘We Are Nature’ and Professor Oliver would like to admit.
Be it for the purposes of dominion or stewardship, Genesis clearly states a belief that we humans were made in the image of God, so that we could stand out from nature and rule over it (i.e., Genesis- 1:26-28). The Israelites flee from the tyranny of Egyptian civilisation, by embracing the hardship and terrors of the wilderness, leading them to dream of the “land flowing with milk and honey” symbolising the necessity to create their own perfected society from out of the poverty of nature (i.e., Exodus & Deuteronomy; Exodus 3:8). Jesus Christ himself becomes a microcosm of this dualistic relationship when he removes himself from society to engage in a struggle with the wilderness, an environment which simultaneously expresses and magnifies the spiritual struggle that he engages in internally. Only after he confronts Satan, does he then feel worthy enough to return to the ordered life amongst his followers in civilisation (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13).
Indeed, the dichotomy can be traced back even further, to the pre-Judeo-Christian world of the pagans. The Greek Titan Prometheus defies the gods who preside over nature, to gift fire, the primordial tool, to humanity, so that they may create a more civilised world. While In the Epic of Gilgamesh, which dates back to between ca. 2100-1200 BC, the Ancient Mesopotamians contrast Gilgamesh, the king who maintains the boundary between society and nature from within his walled city, with Enkidu, a being of nature who lives alongside animals beyond the defined limits of civilisation.
I would argue that the dualism even extends beyond the Western tradition and is in-fact a universal motif independent of culture and economy. It can be found in the Chinese traditions of Confucianism and Feng Shui, in Hindu culture, and perhaps most-surprisingly, even amongst tribal indigenous societies. These indigenous cultures, who we so often treat as being "one with nature", use myth and ritual to express an implicit, and sometimes explicit, tension between the desire to live in harmony with nature and the desire to be different from nature, contrary to our popular romanticised beliefs.
Many indigenous cultures believe that humans have a distinct role to play in maintaining harmony between the spirits out in nature and the physical realm (Eliade, 1964; Mazzocchi, 2020), while the common cultural practice of designating certain natural sites, like- rivers, mountains, and forests-, as sacred often entails a kind of separation between nature and humans, which humans can sometimes overcome through ritual (Ball, 2000; Castiglioni et al., 2020).
In ignoring the deep history and universality of the nature-human dichotomy, ‘We Are Nature’ and Professor Oliver are able to rig a straw-man origins story for the commonly accepted definition of nature. In their account, the idea of nature being separate to humans is a mere perversion of the truth by the inflated egos and ascended intellects of a hand-full of Enlightenment philosophers detached from reality. These thinkers, who set the stage for so much of our modern materialist society, believed themselves to be divinely rational, an obvious absurdity which taints the dualism idea by association, leading Professor Oliver to conclude that they and their ideas were “…slightly insane in the sense that it reflects a kind of insanity in our modern society, or a delusion perhaps” (Gayle, 2024; Oliver, 2024).
It is, in short, a dog whistle for the romantics out there who see in rationality the Luciferian intellect of John Milton’s Satan, a motif which may make for sublime poetry but certainly does not make for a balanced and sober review of the historical evidence. In reality, the idea is as old as culture itself and has existed in nuanced tandem with the belief that we are, in some respects part of nature, revealing a duality of conceptual models in how we relate to nature. Far from being the result of the abstract machinations of a detached group of philosophers, the dualistic idea of nature is actually embodied in the myths and stories which reflect our ancestors as a common people, ideas that were generated from the ground-up, around the campfires and dinner halls, and not from the top-down of lofty academia.
These ancient stories fail to fit into the sanitised political narrative that ‘We Are Nature’ and Prof Oliver espouse, since almost all of them involve the innate hostility of nature and express the intuitive desire to separate ourselves from nature in order to survive and thrive. Even the great poet Dante, would sooner descend into the bowels of hell, where there is at least a chance at redemption, than remain lost in the wild woods.
We are cultivators
The myths of old reveal the fly in the ointment of the snake oil salesmen, that we humans have long desired to escape from the deterministic shackles of nature- from hunger, thirst, disease, and predation- and create for ourselves a safer and more harmonious world through those distinctly human qualities- art and craft. No other aspect of nature can write, calculate or consciously design in the way we humans can, and it has led to immense transformations of our environments and bodies. For all the remarkable nests that animals might build, they are mere piles of mulch compared to our great cities. We have achieved these cultural feats at a pace and scale that is utterly incomparable to anything else that has happened in the history of life on Earth, becoming a planetary force that exceeds even the great geological processes in terms of our rapacious ability to transform the land, sea, and sky (Lewis & Maslin, 2015).
It is for this reason that we are distinct from nature, because we emerged from out of nature and learned to look back into nature and became more than nature as a result. How could it possibly be the case otherwise? If we were truly indistinguishable from the rest of nature, we would be completely unconscious of the fact, since we would be little more than a writhing body of instincts and emotions. So much of what makes us human is the lived experience of this conflicting duality that exists within ourselves.
We are the species cast out from the garden, simultaneously cursed and blessed to stand outside of unconscious nature through our knowledge of good and evil, while the memory of our roots within nature lingers on through our embodied instincts and unconscious impulses- our human nature. This is the beautiful and haunting nostalgia of the Romantics, the subconscious dreamworld of the psychotherapists, and the feeling of transcendental wholeness revered by so many faiths, which brings so much vitality and beauty to life. But it is also the root of so many of our murkier qualities, our aggression, paranoia, and ignorance which leads to so much violence and political polarisation.
It is the defining feature of the human condition that we should be pulled between these two great forces, caught between Prometheus and the Leviathan, in a constant struggle to cultivate a new garden for ourselves, both within our souls and out in the world. Our approach is remarkable in that, unlike any other species, we can simultaneously apply tools forged by an intellect in opposition to the overwhelming odds of our evolutionary past, while also being able to see the benefits of a relinquishing approach, surrendering control to experience natures majesty and medicine. It is a tragic poeticism that the environmentalists, in their coddling attempts to reconnect us to a benevolent Mother Earth, end up further alienating us from our own inner natures.
As you can no doubt tell, my personal definition of nature is somewhat more nuanced than the one presented in the Oxford English Dictionary but that is beside the point since I do not ever plan on changing the dictionary to suit my ends. Indeed, I do not believe that such infantilising techniques of persuasion need be applied, since I believe that a balanced definition of nature, which combines the tensions of lived experience with the deep wisdoms of our past, speaks for itself. Any other definition, which leans further into either our oneness with nature or our intellectual separation from nature, will inevitably lead to the obfuscation of the truth, which will either alienate us from the nourishing roots of nature, or will blind us from the unceasing horrors of the wilderness.
The nature-human dichotomy is part of the fundamental experience of life which forms the bedrock for our society, since it in-turn provides the support for the great pillars of civilisation- our sense of self and of community- since it defines the boundary, not only between civilisation and nature, but also between the part of the self that thinks and the part that spontaneously feels.
When ‘We Are Nature’ lobby to change the definition of nature to suit a handful of creatives and academics, they do so at the expense of a basic clarity of mind found across cultures. Intellectuals must question the validity and permeability of these boundaries, in order to establish the true nuance that exists within the human-nature dichotomy, but they must acknowledge the great risk that comes from such questioning given the fundamental importance of the duality, and act with the utmost caution.
If we forget the innate tensions that exist between us and nature, and naively accept we are no different from nature, we risk losing sight in the importance of the boundaries that we have spent so long constructing. When we forget the value of the city’s walls, we stop maintaining them, and we risk being swallowed up by weeds and vipers, like so many ruined civilisations before us. It is a physical manifestation writ large of what happens when we forget the distinctions and limitations that define us as individuals.
Clear boundaries demarcate our autonomous sense of self from everything else in the world, giving us the confidence and clarity of thought needed to stand tall. When we lose sight of these boundaries our orientation in the world is replaced by anxiety, as we no longer recognise our proper place amongst the near infinite range of possibilities and responsibilities that could be evoked on behalf of our completely interconnected relationship to nature, as expressed by the immense variety of forms and behaviours found in the natural world.
Without boundaries we become increasingly malleable, making us vulnerable to the forces of persuasion by the unscrupulous, which only hastens the pillaging of the spirit. As we become increasingly convinced that we are indistinguishable from everything else, our soul flattens out into depression, as everything special about us drains out from the crumbling crucible of our hearts and into the sodden streets.
I fear that the so-called “eco-anxiety” epidemic of the younger generations is not so much due to environmental degradation itself, as much as it is a result of this radical and blunt attempt by environmentalists to reshape the philosophical underpinnings of our relationship to nature, exposing them to levels of existential chaos that no young person should have to contend with until they have become resilient and fully formed adults.
Japan- nature lovers and whalers
Even if ‘We Are Nature’s’ goal was achieved, and the definition of nature was changed to be inclusive of humans, there is no real robust basis to assume that this will lead to the desired effect of increasing sustainable behaviours. We need only look to a culture like Japan for proof that a personal and cultural identification with nature need not translate into sustainable policies. The two primary religions of Japan- Shinto and Buddhism- both emphasise the wholeness of being, and a profound connection to the natural world, and yet the country is still marred by environmental woes, despite 80% of Japanese people engaging with these faiths (Breen & Teeuwen, 2010; Rots, 2017).
Japan ranks fifth in the world for greenhouse gas emissions and of all the G7 countries it is the one that has made the least progress in meeting its 2030 climate ambitions (CCPI, 2024; Clark & Umekawa, 2023; Maguire, 2023). It is the second highest producer of plastic packaging waste, almost two-thirds of which it incinerates, releasing dangerous persistent environmental pollutants (i.e., dioxins) into the atmosphere and food-chain (Jagath et al., 2022; USVA, 2024). Fish stocks have been in decline since the1990s (Ichinokawa et al., 2017; Yang, 2023), and Japan remains one of only three countries that still practices commercial whaling, leading to international criticism (BBC, 2019; IWC, 2024).
Indeed, Japan’s one major environmental credential on the world stage- its remarkably high forest cover compared to other developed nations, with 67% of the country being covered in forest- is much more a product of geography and economics, than any spiritual closeness to nature. The country has a mountainous topography, which precludes agricultural development, and over 40% of the forests are man-made plantations which have been grown since the 18th century to secure timber demand (Totman, 1986).
The failure of the ecologists
I say all of this not only to call attention to the deficiencies of ‘We Are Nature’, but to also highlight the failings of my own profession. Instead of engaging with the fascinating philosophy and history which make up our professional intellectual inheritance, we have instead abandoned them.
We made this decision not because nature has become obsolete as a term, as we have merely substituted it with slightly more specific concepts such as "ecosystems" and "biodiversity" (Johnson & Lidström, 2018), but because we are unwilling to engage the humanities, even though humans now significantly influence ecosystem dynamics.
As a result of our abandonment, we have created a vacuum that political radicals and unscrupulous business people, from both sides of the aisle can exploit for their own ends. I believe that the responsibility on the part of me and my fellow environmental professionals, to curate an honest discourse around our society’s relationship to nature, could not be greater than it is currently, given the importance of our intellectual contributions to the debates surrounding climate change and biodiversity loss and the fever-pitch atmosphere in which these debates increasingly take place in.
Yet I see time and time again, a pandering amongst my colleagues to the radical political perspectives that dominate the environmentalist milieu. These panderers are often in considerably more senior positions than I, and some of them, like Professor Oliver, are directly complicit in spreading misinformation for the sake of political aims. Shockingly, Professor Oliver publicly acknowledges a similar concern to my own- that there is a distinctly Orwellian tone in these attempts to manipulate our common language for political ends (Oliver, 2024). Yet his overall critique of ‘We Are Nature’ is weak, and he seems to accept rather half-heartedly that the ends justify the means, while the question of tyranny over language is left hanging uncomfortably in the air (Oliver, 2024).
In our inability to contend with history and our desire for political relevance, we ecologists have played our part in obfuscating the common-sense experiences of life and have totally lost sight of the forest for the trees. Let it be known that this ecologist, at least, does not support the manipulation of language and the distortion of facts. I will continue to fight for the nuanced truth that we are rooted to nature while also being more than nature.
References
Ball, M. (2000). Sacred mountains, religious paradigms, and identity among the Mescalero Apache. Worldviews: Global Religion, Culture and Ecology, 4, 264-282. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43809174
BBC. (2019). Japan whaling: Why commercial hunts have resumed despite outcry. British Broadcasting Company, London. Access: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48592682 (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Breen, J., & Teeuwen, M. (2010). A New History of Shinto. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
Castiglioni, A; Rambelli, F., & Roth, Carina. (2020). Defining Shugendo: Critical Studies on Japanese Mountain Religion. Bloomsbury Academic, London
CCPI. (2024). Japan. Climate Change Performance Index. Access: https://ccpi.org/country/jpn/ (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Clark, A., & Umekawa, T. Japan’s emissions up for first time in eight years in blow to climate goal. The Japan Times, Tokyo. Access: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/04/21/national/japan-emissions-rise/ (last access: 05/08/2024)
Eliade, M. (1964). Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Gayle, D. (2024). What is ‘nature’? Dictionaries urged to include humans in definition, The Guardian, London. Access: https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jul/27/campaign-include-humanity-dictionary-definition-nature (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Ichinokawa, M., Okamura, H., & Kuroto, H. (2017). The status of Japanese fisheries relative to fisheries around the world. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(5), 1277-1287. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx002
IWC. (2024). Commercial Whaling. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge. Access: https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling/commercial (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Jagath P., Gamaralalage, D., Abeynayaka, A., & Hayashi, M. (2022). Japan’s Plastic Waste Management – Challenges and Potential Solutions. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Access: https://www.iges.or.jp/en/pub/japans-plastic-waste-management/en (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Johnson, A. F., & Lidström S. (2018). The balance between concepts and complexity in ecology, Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2, 585-587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0507-5
Lawyers for Nature. (2024). We Are Nature - the campaign to change the dictionary definition of Nature. Access: https://www.lawyersfornature.com/we-are-nature-the-campaign-to-change-the-dictionary-definition-of-nature/ (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519, 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258
Maguire, G. (2024). Japan has serious work cut out with carbon cutting ambitions. Reuters, London. Access: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/japan-has-serious-work-cut-out-with-carbon-cutting-ambitions-maguire-2023-10-12/ (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Mazzocchi, F. (2020). A deeper meaning of sustainability: Insights from indigenous knowledge. The Anthropocene Review, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619898888
Oliver, T. (2024). A new campaign wants to redefine the word 'nature' to include humans - here's why this linguistic argument matters. The Conversation, Melbourne. Access: https://theconversation.com/a-new-campaign-wants-to-redefine-the-word-nature-to-include-humans-heres-why-this-linguistic-argument-matters-229338 (last accessed: 06/08/2024)
Oxford English Dictionary. (2024). Nature (noun), The Oxford University Press, Oxford. Access: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/nature_n?tab=meaning_and_use#34906657 (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Rots, A. P. (2017). Shinto, Nature and Ideology in Contemporary Japan: Making Sacred Forests. Bloomsbury Academic, London
Simberloff, D. (2014). The “Balance of Nature” – Evolution of a Panchreston. PLoS Biology, 12(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001963
Totman, C. (1986). Plantation Forestry in Early Modern Japan: Economic Aspects of Its Emergence. Agricultural History, 60(3), 23-51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3743653
USVA. (2024). Public Health: Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington D. C. Access: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/sand-dust-particulates/atsugi.asp (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
We Are Nature. (2024). We Are Nature: We are part of Nature, not apart from it. Access: https://wearenature.org/ (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
We Are Nature. (2024 b). About us. Access: https://wearenature.org/who-we-are/ (last accessed: 06/08/2024)
Worster, D. (1994) Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Yang, S. (2023). Japan loves its sushi. But the fish are disappearing. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles. Access: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-23/japan-scrambles-save-fishing-industry-sushi (last accessed: 05/08/2024)
Music-
38534292. (2024). Sakura dance background music, traditional Japanese. Access: https://pixabay.com/music/world-sakura-dance-background-music-traditional-japanese-165338/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
C418. (2011). Minecraft – Volume Beta, tracks: 8. Biome Fest, 10. Haunt Muskie, 18. Dreiton. Ghostly, New York City
Faescpencer. (2024). Baroque. Access: https://pixabay.com/music/classical-string-quartet-baroque-194637/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Lorenzobuczek. (2024). Vivaldi. Access: https://pixabay.com/music/classical-piano-vivaldi-147363/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Simoulix. (2024). Concert for Piano, Violin and Flute. Access: https://pixabay.com/music/classical-string-quartet-concert-for-piano-violin-and-flute-219240/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Xethrocc. (2024). Analog Dreams – lofi vibes. Access: https://pixabay.com/music/beats-analog-dreams-lofi-vibes-216040/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Video-
Avery, F. (1939). A Day at the Zoo. Warner Bros, Burbank, USA
Barbour. (2022). Barbour x House of Hackney: Spring Summer 22 Interview. Access: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwtHpnNdfYQ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Calvin Company. (1960). Your Name Here. Calvin Company, Kansas City, USA
Chevrolet. (1960). The Corvair in Action. Detroit, USA
Clark, K. (1969). Civilisation, episodes: 3. Romance and Reality, 5. The Hero as Artist, 7. Grandeur and Obedience, 9. The Pursuit of Happiness, 10. The Smile of Reason, 11. The Worship of Nature, 13. Heroic Materialism. British Broadcasting Company, London
Coppola, S. (2006). Marie Antoinette. Columbia Pictures, Culver City, USA
Coronet Instructional Films. (1949). Dating: Do’s and Don’ts. Coronet Instructional Films, Glenview, USA
Culvert, I & Matthews, R. (1984). The Living Planet, episodes: 3. The Northern Forests, 10. Worlds Apart. British Broadcasting Company, London
Grilli, P & Westphal, D. (1977). Shinto: Nature, Gods, and Man in Japan. Japan Society, New York City, USA
John Huston. (1966). The Bible…In the Beginning. Dino de Laurentiis, Cinematografica, & Seven Arts Productions, Hollywood, USA
Jonathan Stedall. (1972). The Story of Carl Gustav Jung. British Broadcasting Company, London
Kneitel, S. (1948). Screen Song: Little Brown Jug. Paramount Pictures, Hollywood, USA
Life On Super 8. (2024). Monkey’s Bali. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/monkey-s-bali-20018223/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Life On Super 8. (2024). Old Footage Of Trees Dancing With The Wind Blows. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/old-footage-of-trees-dancing-with-the-wind-blows-3698047/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Life On Super 8. (2024). River Rapids. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/river-rapids-2527423/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Life On Super 8. (2024). The View Of The Sydney Opera House From The Other Side Of The Harbour. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/the-view-of-the-sydney-opera-house-from-the-other-side-of-the-harbor-3209972/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Life On Super 8. (2024). View Of Front Gate Of A House. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/video-of-front-gate-of-a-house-3223856/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Life On Super 8. (2024). View Of Sunset Over A Body Of Water. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/view-of-sunset-over-a-body-of-water-3223853/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Life On Super 8. (2024).Video of a Flowers. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/video-of-a-flowers-6982054/ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Meyer, R. C. (1980). Aldo Leopold: Prophet for all Seasons. Public Broadcasting Service, Arlington, USA
Radford, M. (1984). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Virgin Films, London
Smith, T. G. (1973). Newspaper Story 2nd Edition: The World of Work. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, USA
The Edison Company. (1900). Kissing. The Edison Company. New York City, USA
The Socialite Family. (2018). CHOUQUETTES- Épisode 30 - Frieda Gormley et Javvy M Royle. Access: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TCavRay5OQ (last accessed: 19/08/2024)
Time Life Films. (1987). After the Whale. Time Life Films
United States Army Pictorial Centre. (1944) The Big Picture: Paris 44. United States Army Pictorial Centre, Long Island City, USA
Universal Newsreel. (1945). Execution of Mussolini. Universal Studios, Universal City, USA
WeStarMoney REC. (2024). 16mm Footage of Two Seagulls Fighting for Food. Access: https://www.pexels.com/video/16mm-footage-of-two-seagulls-fighting-for-food-14636341/
Wolff, P. (1969). The Japanese. Columbia Broadcasting Company, New York City, USA
Yashin, D. (1940). Experiments in the Revival of Organisms. Moscow Studio of Technical Films, Soviet Union
Comments