Kopytin, Alexander. ECOLOGY OF CULTURE AND NATURE: EXAMINING CULTURAL ISSUES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY FROM AN ECOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT (USING ART THERAPY AS AN EXAMPLE)

ECOLOGY OF CULTURE AND NATURE: EXAMINING CULTURAL ISSUES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY FROM AN ECOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT (USING ART THERAPY AS AN EXAMPLE)

Alexander Kopytin

Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Department of Psychology, St. Petersburg Academy of Postgraduate Pedagogical Studies (St Petersburg, Russian Federation)

Abstract

This article discusses a trend in the development of expressive/creative arts therapy related to the increasing attention to cultural and environmental context. Culture is viewed through the lens of ecological concepts, that is, as a "home" for human communities with their characteristic sets of material and spiritual values. Various forms of cultural organization and intercultural relationships are analyzed, reflecting various forms of environmental awareness and people's attitudes toward their environment. The concepts of colonization and decolonization and their connection to the relationships of human communities with each other and the natural world are also considered. Selected publications on creative/expressive arts therapy addressing the impact of colonialism and decolonization in the helping professions, are commented on.

Keywords: culture, art therapy, creative/expressive arts therapy, ecology, eco-human approach, ecopoiesis, colonization, decolonization

Introduction

Art therapy and creative/expressive arts therapy in general, like various forms of psychotherapy, exist in specific natural and cultural environments. They are themselves phenomena of spiritual culture that are shaped by it, reflect its specificity, and serve as means of transmitting and renewing cultural experience. As a multidisciplinary field of science and practice working with individuals, small groups, and communities addressing issues of their health and functioning in society, various methods of psychotherapy, in particular arts therapy, contain untapped potential for development and are characterized by a number of "blind spots" associated with an insufficient understanding of the phenomenon of culture.

Cultural anthropology, cultural studies, and art history play a significant role in the successful development of arts therapy, as they enable us to understand humans as cultural subjects. Ecology, as a scientific discipline traditionally used to describe ecosystems, has in recent years been increasingly applied to the study of various phenomena related to the humanities, as well as the analysis of social, psychological, and cultural phenomena. An ecological lens allows us to rethink these phenomena and create new, effective models for addressing the diverse needs of modern individuals and society, including a new perspective on arts therapy and psychotherapy in general.

Culture as an ecological phenomenon

The concept of "culture" has many definitions, including:

- defining culture as established values, norms, customs, beliefs, knowledge, skills, technologies, ways of thinking, acting, interacting, and communicating;

- as the totality of non-biological human manifestations;

- as the practical realization of universal and spiritual values;

- as a historically determined level of development of society and humans, expressed in the forms of organization of life and human activity, as well as in the material and spiritual products they create, etc.

The Latin word cultura means "I cultivate" for example, the land (Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language). The connection of this word with the relationship of humans with the environment and the diversity of its constituent elements, including natural ones such as soil, is obvious. The word cultura first appears in Latin sources in the treatise on agriculture by Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder (234-148 BC), De Agri Cultura (160 BC), the earliest work of Latin prose. This treatise is devoted not simply to tilling the land, but to tending the field, which presupposes not only the cultivation of the soil but also a special spiritual attitude toward it. Thus, the very origin of this word in its many meanings indicates its close connection with the ecological principles of human existence, human involvement in the environment with a special ethic of relations with it.

The relation of culture and nature is one of the key issues in cultural studies. Introducing the concept of culture, Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder related it primarily to the cultivation of the land. In this understanding, culture is seen as a collaboration between humans and nature, aimed at mutual benefit. Humans receive material components from nature, learn by comprehending natural laws, and in return enrich nature through their labor, bestowing it with rich cultural implications, as if it were ‘spiritualizing’ it.

Later, the word "culture" was introduced into European scientific vocabulary beginning in the 18th century, associated with the distinction between "natural" and "civilized" or "cultural" in the works of philosophers such as Johann Gottfried Herder and Immanuel Kant. These thinkers presented culture as a rational, free activity through which humans master nature and satisfy their needs.

The first use of this word in Russian scientific lexicon is associated with the works of D. M. Vellansky, Academician and Distinguished Professor of the Imperial St. Petersburg Medical-Surgical Academy and Schellingian philosopher [2]. His work, "Basic outlines of general and specific physiology or physics of the organic world," marks the beginning of the formalization of cultural and philosophical ideas in Russia. Indicative are his ideas such as "nature, cultivated by the human spirit, is Culture; the material objects of Nature correspond to the ideal concepts of Culture"; "Objective concepts relate to the study of physical objects, while subjective ones concern the happenings of the human spirit and its aesthetic creations."

Culture as civilization. Colonial conquests and intercultural relations

Beginning in the 18th century, a tendency to view culture as civilization also emerged in Western Europe, emphasizing the connection of this concept both with different groups of people within Europe itself and with the differences between the cultures of metropolitan countries and their colonies around the world. By that time, the colonization of new territories by European metropolises had reached its apogee. From the perspective of European thought, beginning with the formation of colonial empires, culture was associated with order, the development of technology, state institutions, civil rights, and the primacy of reason, while the absence of culture was associated with chaos, anarchy, technological backwardness, and the primitive state of people. Clearly, Western Europeans identified themselves as the bearers of civilization, viewing the colonized parts of the planet and their inhabitants as linked to a state of savagery. The process of colonization itself was tantamount to the "acculturation" of "savage" peoples and territories.

The colonizers' invasion of the territories they appropriated was usually accompanied by changes in their ecosystems and economic practices, disrupting the indigenous population's established relationships with nature. For example, the Australian Aborigines' attitude toward the land can be seen as the opposite of the attitude toward the land that was characteristic of European colonists, who treated it as property. Gare notes [3] that aborigines, who never practiced slavery and engaged in minimal trade, considered themselves to belong to the land, not to own it. Studying such cultures allows us to understand what it meant for people to feel part of a biotic community and to better understand the position of European colonizers, who spread their civilization, which was associated with the enslavement of other peoples: “Therefore, the enslavement of colonized peoples proceeded in parallel with the spread of relations with land as property and the further expansion of markets and global imperialism, and then the gradual commodification of almost everything with any material value" (p. 407).

The impact of colonization on the cultural, natural, and political landscape of developed territories is ambiguous: it not only accelerated the development of these territories and their integration into the economic and political systems of metropolises, but also led to the genocide of indigenous peoples, the destruction of their cultures and local ecosystems. Forms of synergetic interaction between the indigenous population and the natural environment, which had been formed over centuries and millennia before the invasion of the colonizers, were, as a rule, supplanted by the pragmatic, exploitative attitude towards it on the part of the colonizers, which led to the degradation of the natural and human resources of the colonized territories, a decrease in their sustainability.

As Abram [16] emphasizes, the monoculture of colonizers causes “the loss of cultural and biotic diversity, the depletion of soils, and the destruction of ecosystems. As the civilization of total commerce makes its way to every corner of the planet, countless species are pushed to the brink of extinction…” (p. 92). As a result of colonization, “planetary metabolism is disrupted, and every region of the planet is forced to behave like every other region, since different landscapes and cultures must operate according to a single mechanical logic, as interchangeable parts of an undifferentiated, homogeneous environment” (ibid., p. 92).

In the second half of the 20th century, new definitions of culture emerged, associated with its recognition as a dynamic set within which processes of intercultural interaction take place, with varying consequences for both the cultures themselves and the environment. It began to be recognized that all communities participate in processes of diffusion, struggle, interpenetration, and dialogue among cultures. As a result of colonial expansion, migration, economic development, and information exchange, some communities acquired significant heterogeneity; others were "absorbed" or displaced by more expansive communities and cultures.

Some scholars argue that human communities can be united by a common, inclusive culture, the advantage of which is the ability to integrate disparate elements into subcultures. It is also recognized that disparate cultural elements can form a multicultural community. The spread of the doctrine of multiculturalism in the late 20th century coincided with a surge in self-identification and national revival movements, recognizing the cultural uniqueness of different social communities. The existence and interaction of cultures began to be viewed through the prism of globalization and regionalization. Moreover, these processes are often understood in terms of the different types of human relationships to the environment and the natural world, characteristic of different cultures and types of environmental awareness.

Cultural ultra-communities and the capacity of people and cultures for cooperation

Multiculturalism as an alternative to the cultural homogeneity that develops under conditions of colonization has found a unique expression in the works of the Russian-American evolutionary scholar and historian Peter Turchin [22, 23], with his optimistic view of the future of humanity, despite the fact that his research focuses on the experience of war. Using a structural-ethnographic approach, he views the "ultra-community" [23] as demonstrating the capacity of people and their communities to cooperate. According to this author, 10,000 years of constant warfare have made modern people more cooperative than in previous historical eras.

The main concept developed by Turchin is that of "asabiyyah," borrowed from the 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406). Turchin [22] argues that historically, asabiya developed most fully in "meta-ethnic" societies that used their capacity for asabiya to survive and expand while creating empires—large, multinational states with complex power structures.

Turchin points to the collaborative nature of such "empires," or modern superpowers, such as the United States and Russia. The project to create, for example, a Russian-American space station required the coordination of approximately three million people, significantly exceeding any joint projects undertaken by previous civilizations. Such coordination, Turchin argues, is difficult to achieve and easy to lose. Turchin believes that without real threats of mass destruction, asabiya and the ability to coordinate the actions of superpowers, as well as the trust necessary for their cooperation, begin to weaken. The environmental crisis and the threat of a third world war could serve to revive asabiya on a global scale, facilitating the international coordination of efforts across states, necessary for the creation of a more sustainable civilization. Maintaining asabiyah requires a more egalitarian and humane order, from local communities to the global scale of cooperation between ultra-communities (superpowers).

The importance of the ecological (eco-human) approach for understanding culture

Recognition of the importance of ecology for understanding culture has been characteristic of the last decades of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Ecological concepts have been particularly actively used in understanding cultural issues recently, which is reflected in the development of the eco-human approach [1, 6, 12, 13], which unites nature and humans as two subsystems of the whole--"human-living environment" into a single subject of study.

In Russian science, the concept of the importance of ecology for understanding culture was initially developed in the works of D.S. Likhachev, N.N. Moiseyev, and V.I. Danilov-Danilyan. N.N. Moiseyev, for example, wrote about the "coevolution of society and nature." At a conference devoted to environmental education and awareness, the Russian economist, ecologist, and statesman V.I. Danilov-Danilyan expressed his position as follows: "Culture cannot grow without ecological culture." Today, ecological culture is recognized as a crucial component, an integral part of universal human culture and the moral development of society.

In recent years, entire scientific fields have emerged in which ecology is used as a metascientific position, allowing us to define human meanings and ethical criteria in human relationships with various phenomena, including economics, culture, society etc.

Cultural ecology is a concept introduced into science by D.S. Likhachev. In his book "Native land" [9], he included a section titled "Ecology of culture." He understood cultural ecology as the science of the unity of phenomena in the cultural space of a country inhabited by a culture-forming community, the mutual influence of cultural and material forces, and the cultural characteristics of regions inhabited by different nations within the cultural space of a multinational country.

This scientist defined the unity of culture and proposed applying to culture the ecological method of systems analysis of a multi-level megasystem, developed in ecology for biosphere objects. In the academician's work, the goal of cultural ecology largely coincides with the goal of ecological science. If ecology serves as the theoretical basis for sciences concerned with the protection and rational use of the natural environment and its diverse resources, then cultural ecology is the theoretical foundation for the preservation and development of culture and humanity. According to D.S. Likhachev, the theoretical principles of cultural ecology are as follows:

- the systematic nature of culture, evident from the interconnectedness of its individual branches (music, architecture, literature, agriculture, crafts, etc.), as well as from the interconnectedness of the cultures of related peoples;

- the basing of national culture on a material medium – the people;

- the possibility of a people's existence as bearers of traditional culture only within the preserved natural environments of its national territory.

The scholar argues that national literature, painting, and theater largely express the characteristics of the natural conditions in which nations and their communities live. In his article "The ecology of culture" [10], he wrote: "I have long been saying that our 'home,' in which humanity lives, consists not only of a natural complex (which includes humans as part of nature), but also of a cultural complex. We live in an environment of historical monuments, works of art, the results of scientific research, technological achievements, etc. Therefore, ecology, in my view, consists of two parts: one concerned with nature conservation and the other with cultural conservation. "The latter is all the more important because it touches the very essence of humanity" (p. 54).

"World Heritage" is an international megaproject proclaiming that outstanding cultural and natural values ​​constitute the heritage of all humanity. In 1975, the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage entered into force. Nature and culture are a unity that requires understanding as values ​​and the only path to a sustainable future for humanity.

The ideas of the ecology of nature and culture have been particularly actively developed in recent years. New advances in ecology, increasingly influencing the entire complex of sciences, create the basis for addressing issues of preserving not only nature but also culture and humanity. Ecology forms the basis for a different vision of the future in accordance with the model of an ecological civilization [8, 12], radically different from previous civilizations (agricultural and industrial).

Robert Ulanowicz [24, p. 6] argues that ecology should be viewed as providing a new perspective for examining various systemic phenomena, emphasizing the importance of symbiosis for the emergence of new species and communities of living beings through their cooperation. This ecological perspective can be contrasted with Darwinian notions of natural selection, which influenced social Darwinism's ideas about the competition and struggle of human communities, leading to the "natural" selection of individuals, peoples, and cultures. Ecological perspectives currently support resistance to the global hegemony of the Collective West and the creation of a new world order based on multipolarity, mutual respect, and the sovereignty of different cultures and human and more-than-human communities. This occurs in parallel with the strengthening of ecological principles for the existence of peoples and cultures in their close connection with ecosystems.

The ecological approach recognizes that, through interaction, organisms transform their environments, creating niches (or "homes") for themselves to ensure their sustainability and explore new opportunities for development. This means that biotic communities realize the function of ecopoiesis, that is, they create their own shared "homes" in which many living beings can thrive, and in which new life forms can emerge, enriching the life of the entire community.

The concept of ecopoiesis [3, 6, 8] places emphasis on the processes of cooperation, co-creation, and mutual exchange in ecosystems for the benefit of their health and adaptability. By denoting a special type of existence and development of sustainable human and biotic communities in their unity with each other, ecopoiesis provides a basis not only for rethinking economics but also for political philosophy and cultural policy.

The concept of ecopoiesis is associated with the support and development of conditions for individual and collective self-realization, the fullest utilization of the potential of different ecosystems, human communities, and cultures. Through this, biotic and human communities, including nations, and humanity as a whole, create suitable conditions for their life. They should be understood not separately, but as conditions and components of each other.

As Gare [17] writes, "...with the help of ecology, it is possible and necessary to construct a grand dialogical narrative of ecological civilization... promoting justice at all levels of human and natural community and affirming life as the highest value" (pp. 415-416).

Currently, the processes of decolonization and the affirmation of ecological principles of coexistence between peoples and cultures are closely intertwined. Decolonization affects not only the relations of the populations of territories that were formerly colonized (now designated by the concept of the Global South) with their metropolises (associated with the concept of the Global North), which control a significant portion of the planet's material and information resources, but also their attitude to the land. Alongside globalization, processes of regionalization are underway, associated with the conquest by regional centers of influence, peoples, and local communities of the right to build their relations with other countries and cultures on an equal basis, protecting their autonomy from the encroachments of neocolonial forces.

The historiography of environmental consciousness and Its influence on ideas of cultural ecology

The phenomenon of colonialism and the relations between different cultures would be difficult to understand without the historiography of environmental consciousness. In this context, the problem of periodization of the development of human relationships to nature is of great importance. Such periodization allows us to identify qualitative transitions that can play a significant role in understanding the connections between colonization and changing forms of environmental consciousness and human relationships to nature, since a culture that supported human dominance over nature "provided the conditions for the Industrial Revolution, a new kind of imperialism and the dominance of European civilization over the world, unbridled technological development and economic growth, and a massive concentration of power, which led to catastrophic environmental change. The result of all this is resource depletion, ecosystem collapse, mass extinction of species, and the enslavement of most of humanity by a globalized market based on free trade" [17, p. 399].

Currently, there are various approaches to the periodization of the development of the human attitude towards nature and the associated changes in environmental awareness. In the most general terms, the change in the relationship between humanity and nature is outlined, for example, by Markovich [11].

A detailed analysis of the evolution of attitudes towards nature was conducted by S.D. Deryabo [4]. He approaches this problem from the standpoint of cultural periodization, examining the features of the perception of nature in the following types of culture: mythological (archaic), ancient, medieval, Renaissance, baroque, classicism, romanticism, realism, and avant-garde. This author notes that "if we speak about the very trends in the development of human attitudes towards nature, then the most optimal model is one that distinguishes three stages, since it is built on the most basic characteristic: "inclusion vs isolation" of human beings from nature" [4, pp. 10-11].

He demonstrated that the development of individual subjectivity determines a movement from an "inclusive" to an "oppositional" understanding of nature. The more strongly persons perceive themselves as subjects in a given type of culture, the more objectively they perceive nature, opposing themselves to it. From this perspective, one can explain why, during the development of social organization and the formation of civil liberties in different historical periods, the development of subjectivity and the increasing opposition of people to the natural world prove to be closely linked to historical progress.

Further scientific research concerning the periodization of the development of the human community's relationship to nature was carried out by V.I. Panov [7]. Taking into account Yasvin's [15] periodization of forms of environmental consciousness, Panov uses the qualities of subject and object as a basis for examining the evolution of human relations to nature.

The archaic type of relationship between people and nature was distinguished by object-subject relations. This type is characterized by humans’ subordination to the influences of the natural environment and their limited ability to influence natural processes. The anthropocentric type of relationship between humans and nature, which replaced the archaic one, was characterized by subject-object relationships, in which humans are the subject of exploitation or, conversely, the protection of the natural environment, while nature is the object of their influence. The prevalence of this type of relationship to nature is characteristic of a long historical period, beginning with the great civilizations of antiquity and ending with the modernity.

Throughout this historical period, thanks to the development of science and technology, the degree of human influence on the natural world steadily increased. Along with science and technology, significant factors in the development of the anthropocentric worldview were also the development of social organization.

The anthropocentric worldview was supported by the development of the Cartesian model of scientific knowledge. Thanks to the technological and social achievements of Western civilization, coupled with colonial conquests and the appropriation of resources from large swaths of the planet, until the second half of the 20th century, this development model, with its characteristic anthropocentric stance, was imbued with a spirit of social optimism and a belief in economic progress and increasing material well-being.

Anthropocentrism is enshrined in philosophical, religious, social, and scientific concepts, closely linked to humanist values, and was initially shaped by Western societies. The great colonial conquests, cultural and linguistic expansion, and dominance of European states (the metropolises of the Collective North) over much of the world from the 16th to the 20th centuries were driven by the development of this worldview.

This periodization of the development of human relations to nature is paramount primarily to the sociogenesis of Western societies. In Eastern cultures and other regions of the planet, the periodization of the development of human relations to nature differs significantly. Following the archaic form of environmental consciousness, these cultures often developed an ecocentric form of environmental awareness, characterized by a greater conformity to nature and the human ability to engage in subject-to-subject relationships with the natural world. For example, the Taoist or Buddhist worldview is characterized by people structuring their development by considering the peculiarities of the planet's evolution as a natural habitat for various living beings, adhering to the ethical imperative, that is, not disturbing the ecological balance with their actions. However, this type of environmental consciousness was supplanted during the process of colonization by dominant forms of anthropocentric environmental consciousness. Nevertheless, Eastern cultures, under new historical conditions, continue to play an important role as factors influencing the development of society. Thus, one of the significant landmarks in China's development over the past two decades has been the concept of an ecological civilization, supported not only by the modern environmental movement and the concept of sustainable development, but also by the country's traditional culture.

The colonial past, neocolonialism, and decolonization in the context of the international development of arts therapy

Currently, colonization as a strategy of dominance in interstate relations primarily takes the form of the management of controlled territories, exploiting their natural, human, and economic resources with the inevitable limitation of their sovereignty by hegemons. This form of interstate relations is associated with the concept of neocolonialism, which denotes the continued imperialist governance by a state (usually a former colonial power) of nominally independent states (usually former colonies). Neocolonialism involves economic and cultural imperialism and conditional aid to exert influence or control over developing countries, in lieu of the former direct military control or political governance.

Neocolonialism in the context of globalization differs from non-colonial forms of cooperation between states and aid from more economically and socially developed states to developing countries in that it typically results in dependence, subordination, or increased financial obligations to formally independent states. A similar situation, characteristic of neocolonial interstate relations, can also be observed in relations between professional organizations and communities, including those associated with arts therapy and arts-based therapeutic/healing practices.

Discussing the development of dance movement therapy (DMT) in Sri Lanka, one of the pioneers of this field in that country, Sudesh Mantilake [20], notes that DMT can develop here according to various scenarios – colonial, ethno-nationalist, and decolonial. He notes that DMT often takes on a colonial (colonialist) character when introduced to a particular country through transatlantic versions of DMT. At the same time, when local specialists try to impart an ethnic flavor to DMT, associated exclusively with the country's dance tradition, in the interests of preserving cultural specificity, this gives it an ethno-nationalist character.

The author advocates a third approach, calling it decolonial. Citing Grossvogel [19], he defines the decolonial approach as associated not with a fundamentalist or anti-European critique, but as "a perspective that is critical of both Eurocentrism and colonialism, as well as of Third World fundamentalism or nationalism with their glorification of the precolonial past (p. 212). When TDT is introduced into a postcolonial environment, it carries with it colonial baggage. Therefore, decolonization requires an examination of the hierarchies of "racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, and economic relations" between the colonized and the colonizer's Eurocentric knowledge structures [18, pp. 18–19].

Some of the tools and knowledge used in DMT, as well as other arts-based therapies, are derived from Europe and the United States, which greatly limits their application elsewhere. The global political and economic structures behind the methodologies and systems of human knowledge, such as psychoanalysis or Gestalt therapy, effectively maintain colonial relations. This means that therapy can be used to control human resources, transforming work with trauma, ideas, values, affect, or the body into tools of colonial control. Global control is a structure in which the Global North plays a dominant role, using therapy as a specific system of ideas and technologies to achieve its colonial goals.

According to Pupavac [21], therapeutic interventions are "infused with Anglo-American social psychology" (p. 56). This is a colonial approach, both in epistemic and practical sense. She argues that by adopting Anglo-American psychotherapeutic methods, DMT and other arts-based therapies in Sri Lanka approach their work through a Eurocentric colonial framework of perceiving the world and human beings, which maintains the dependent position of the local population. The colonial power structure is transmitted through therapist-client relationships. When these relationships are realized in a postcolonial environment, such as Sri Lanka, they are "charged" with colonial relations. Thus, in a postcolonial environment, the relationship between therapist and client is one of competent and incompetent, privileged and unprivileged, authoritative and subordinate, white and non-white subjects.

As Mantillake [20] notes, in this context, the expert (who is typically a white person) is in control, leading to local populations becoming increasingly dependent on the expert group. Helping professionals in Sri Lanka, including arts therapists, typically require some form of licensing from professional organizations in the US or UK to gain professional status. While licensing and certification may be useful for maintaining professionalism, when licensing procedures are carried out with the participation of organizations from the US, UK, or other countries of the Global North, they perpetuate colonial relationships. According to Mantillake [20], a colonial or ethno-nationalist approach to arts therapy cannot address the real problems of postcolonial societies. A colonial approach maintains the supremacy of transatlantic structures and their influence on the human sphere related to psychological assistance. In turn, the ethno-nationalist approach can be repulsive to certain groups of the population, as it is often fraught with national and cultural intolerance and discrimination. Both approaches are associated with the restriction of the rights of certain social groups and can maintain them in a dependent position through psychological support, effectively regulating social tensions: "However, these approaches cannot address or even discuss the root causes of social problems such as poverty, hierarchy, privilege, injustice, discrimination, and ethnic violence" (ibid., p. 34).

The role of indigenous cultures and their representatives in arts therapy

Recently, an increasing number of arts therapy publications have appeared that discuss providing assistance to so-called indigenous populations (those who lived in certain territories before the arrival of European colonizers), as well as the use of their cultural heritage in therapeutic interventions. This applies, for example, to the use of the spiritual culture of indigenous peoples—stories, legends, rituals, forms of fine and applied art, music, and dance. However, returning their heritage to the cultural environment often proves fraught with great difficulties due to the fact that this heritage was lost as a result of centuries of genocide (as is typical, for example, of the indigenous population of North America).

Furthermore, as arts therapists from India, Dua et al. [5] note, indigenous knowledge has historically been marginalized and influenced by Western-oriented research paradigms, which have changed the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. These authors emphasize that indigenous arts practices may have significant potential for application in arts therapy. However, its integration into arts therapy requires an understanding of their therapeutic implications, taking into account cultural sensitivity and ethical considerations associated with the need to avoid appropriating these practices or interpreting them from the perspective of colonial thinking.

Arts therapists are increasingly interested in exploring indigenous cultures and traditional arts practices for their healing properties. They support the revival of these practices after long periods of cultural oppression and genocide, and they promote cultural inclusivity, intercultural communication, and the empowerment of indigenous peoples.

Conclusion  

Arts therapy and arts-based therapeutic/healing practices, as a form of modern psychotherapy and psychosocial support, is an interdisciplinary field of scientific knowledge addressing and working with people through the means of arts. Arts therapy, and psychotherapy in general, require a new understanding of the phenomenon of culture. In this article, the concept of culture was examined through the lens of ecological concepts, the perspective of an eco-human approach, which unites nature and humans as two subsystems of the unified whole, into a single subject of study.

Based on the eco-human approach, a range of problems facing modern society and its members were examined, including those related to colonial legacy, the self-determination of peoples and cultures, and the emergence of a multipolar world. Particular attention was paid to how culture is connected to various forms of environmental awareness and ecological culture, reflecting the different types of people's attitudes toward their environment and the natural world.

All of this is directly relevant to the practice of arts therapy and arts-based therapeutic activities, as they are implemented in a specific cultural environment, working with cultural subjects. Culture also represents a crucial resource for modern society. Just as any ecosystem, losing its diversity and the richness of internal and external connections between its constituent elements, loses its resilience and capacity for development and adaptation, so too, a human community, degrading its cultural ecology, loses its capacity for healthy growth and functioning.

One of the key concepts used in examining culture from an ecological perspective has been the notion of ecopoiesis, denoting the creation of "homes" or "niches" for natural and cultural life. Ecopoiesis essentially represents an alternative to a consumerist attitude toward the world, an attempt to creatively respond to the natural and cultural environment and transform it in the interests of human and biotic communities. The concept of ecopoiesis can also be used to address many practical issues faced by modern society and representatives of different cultures in their relationships with their environment and each other.

References

1. Алексеев С.В. Гуманитарное измерение экологической культуры человека: экогуманитарный подход // Экопоэзис: экогуманитарные теория и практика. – 2020. – T. 1, № 1. [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (дата обращения: 20.12.2025).
2. Велланский Д. М. Основные начертания общей и частной физиологии или физики органического мира. – СПб., 1836.
3. Гар А. Переосмысление политической философии на основе экологии и экопоэзиса // Экопоэзис: экогуманитарные теория и практика. – 2024. – Том. 5, №1. [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (дата обращения: 20.12.2025).
4. Дерябо С.Д. Психологические особенности восприятия природных объектов школьниками и студентами. Дисс.... канд. психологических наук. – М., 1993.
5. Дуа Р., Малхотра Б., Тагер П. Использование искусства Гонд коренных народов в арт-терапии: творческий процесс, основанный на взаимодействии с природой // Исцеляющее искусство: международный журнал арт-терапии. – 2025. – Том 28, №1, - С. 24-35.
6. Копытин А.И. Экогуманистика как путь согласования бытия природы и человека // Экопоэзис: экогуманитарные теория и практика. – 2020. – T. 1, № 1. [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (дата обращения: 20.12.2025).
7. Копытин А.И. Интервью с В.И. Пановым // Экопоэзис: экогуманитарные теория и практика. – 2023. – T. 4, № 1. [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (дата обращения: 20.12.2025).
8. Копытин А.И., Гар А. Экопоэзис: манифест экологической цивилизации // Экопоэзис: экогуманитарные теория и практика. – 2023. – T. 4, № 1. [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (дата обращения: 20.12.2025).
9. Лихачев Д.С. Земля родная: Книга для учащихся. – Москва: Просвещение, 1983.
10. Лихачев Д.С. Экология культуры. М.: Искусство, 2000.
11. Маркович Д.Ж. Социальная экология: книга для учителя. –  М.: Просвещение, 1991.
12. На пути к экологической цивилизации: экогуманитарная перспектива. Коллективная монография (под ред. А.И. Копытина, А. Гара, Ж. Вана, С. Левина). – М.: Когито-Центр, 2024.
13. Экогуманитарный подход к образованию в интересах устойчивого развития: методология и практика. Коллективная монография (под ред. С.В. Алексеева и А.И. Копытина). – СПб.: Скифия-Принт, 2025;
14. Этимологический словарь русского языка https://rus-etmo-semenov-dict.slovaronline.com/
15. Ясвин В.А. Психология отношения к природе. – М.: Смысл, 2000.
16. Abram D. (2009). Wild nature, wild culture, and the earthly importance of spoken stories. Poiesis: A Journal of the Arts and Communication, 11, 88-97.
17. Gare A. (2021). Internalizing Aldo Leopold’s land ethic: the communitarian perspective on ecological sustainability and social policy. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 17, 3(2), 397-420.
18. Grosfoguel R. (2007). Colonial subjects: Puerto Ricans in a global perspective. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.
19. Grosfoguel R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn. Cultural Studies, 2007, 21(2–3). 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162514
20. Mantillake S. (2021). Decolonizing Dance Movement Therapy: a healing practice stuck between coloniality and nationalism in Sri Lanka. Creative Arts in Education and Therapy, 7(2), 149–157.
21. Pupavac V. (2005). The demoralized subject of global civil society. In G. Baker & D. Chandler (Eds.), Global civil society: Contested futures (pp. 45–58). Routledge.
22. Turchin P. (2006). War and peace and war: the rise and fall of empires.  New York: Plume.
23. Turchin P. (2016). Ultra society: how 10,000 years of war made humans the greatest cooperators on Earth. Chaplin, Connecticut: Beresta.
24. Ulanowicz R.E. (1997). Ecology: The ascendent perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.

Suggested citation note

Kopytin A.I. (2026). Ecology of culture and nature: consideration of cultural problems in therapy (on the example of arts therapy). Ecopoiesis: Eco-Human Theory and Practice, 7 (1). [open access internet journal]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (d/m/y)