# 自然に働きかけて



## Pot-Bouille

Hello,
I'm reading a school book printed in 2001 (中学社会、公民). 
In the chapter about "culture", the authors give the following definition of "material culture":
「物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化」
I'm having trouble with the part in red, shouldn't it be : 自然に働きかけられて? "Influenced by Nature"? 
Or maybe 働きかける　has a different meaning here?

Thank you all for your help!


----------



## Aoyama

働きかける = work on, get to work (dictionary).
Now, for me 自然に does not mean "by Nature" but "naturally".
Material(istic) culture is a culture naturally produced (something like that), a natural result ...


----------



## Wishfull

Hi.
I would like to say the 3rd interpretation.
*Nature* is the *object*.

「物質的文化」とは、*「人間」が「自然」にたいして　働きかけて*、作りだした文化。
「自然」に働きかける、とは、言いかえるなら「人工的」なものに変えてしまう、という意味である。
まわりの自然は、破壊されて、環境破壊になる可能性がある。

これに対して、「精神的文化」とは、「人間の頭の中」で営まれる活動なので、まわりの「自然」に手を加えることはない。よって「環境破壊」は生じない。


----------



## Aoyama

Then, Pot-Bouille is right or close in her understanding (by Nature).
BUT, two questions or two comments (and sorry, no Japanese here) :
. Shouldn't it be "自然に*yotte* ..." even if *ni taishite *can make sense, but it sounds like an "added" meaning
. where does the "*人間"が *come from (I understand it can be "understated", but how/why ?)


----------



## almostfreebird

<<物質的文化とは（人間が）自然に働きかけて作り出した文化>>

In my opinion, this sentence itself is abstract, it looks/sounds nice, the writer makes it sound as if he were intelligent; that's it. It sounds as if humans are asking nature to cooperate to create culture. For me this sentence doesn't make sense, I mean it should be more realistic than philosophical in junior high school textbook(social study), it's not philosophical study.

"働き掛ける" means to encourage someone to cooperate.


----------



## Aoyama

> For me this sentence doesn't make sense, I mean it should be more realistic than philosophical in junior high school textbook(social study), it's not philosophical study.


that is a point of view I can relate with, but still, how can a "normal" reader come up with <<物質的文化とは（*人間が*）自然に働きかけて作り出した文化>> ?


----------



## Wishfull

Hi.
The　verb 働きかける needs an object. An object must be necessary with 働きかける。
If 自然に　is an adverb, which means "naturally", "automatically", we have to guess the object.
物質文化とはnaturallyに、人間が（　　）に働きかけて作りだした文化である。

What　is the object?
物質文化とはnaturallyに、人間が*神に*働きかけて作りだした文化である。
物質文化とはnaturallyに、人間が*地球に*働きかけて作りだした文化である。
物質文化とはnaturallyに、人間が*環境に*働きかけて作りだした文化である。

Here,　"naturally" means *human nature *to do it, in a deep meaning.
言いかえるならば、
*物質的文化を創り出すのは、人間の本能である。

*それでは、「精神的文化」は、人間の本能ではないのか、ということになり、意味をなさなくなる。
つまり、「自然に」をnaturallyと解釈すると、この定義がdoesn't make sense, となってしまいます。*

この定義が、適切か不適切かは別として、この定義を意味をなすように解釈しようとすると、必然的に（自然に ）　「自然」が目的語と考えるしかないと思いますよ。
*


----------



## almostfreebird

(A) 物質的文化とは（人間が）自然に働きかけて作り出した文化

This sentence literally means: The material culture is the one that humans created, cooperating with nature.

Sentence(A) actually says: 物質的文化とは（人間が）自然を利用して作り出した文化である。

自然　here means natural resources like trees, minerals and everything humans can utilize.


----------



## Aoyama

> The material culture is the one that humans created, cooperating with nature.


that is an interesting (and pertinent) _interpretation_ (not _translation_), but it requires some _added element._
Wishful says :





> Here,　"naturally" means *human nature *to do it, in a deep meaning.
> 言いかえるならば、
> *物質的文化を創り出すのは、人間の本能である。*


and almostfreebird adds :





> Sentence(A) actually says: 物質的文化とは（人間が）自然*に*働きかけて/自然*を*利用して作り出した文化である


I understand both meanings, but somewhere I still think it is an interpretation (or even a _comment_) of what almostfreebird already qualified as originally 





> (a) sentence (that) doesn't make sense


.


----------



## Flaminius

Aoyama said:


> that is a point of view I can relate with, but still, how can a "normal" reader come up with <<物質的文化とは（*人間が*）自然に働きかけて作り出した文化>> ?


Very simple.  First, inanimate subject is loathed in Japanese.  If the subject is just implied in a sentence, the natural candidate is at least animate and possibly human.  Second, the verb _hatarakikakeru_ needs a _ni_-marked compliment to fully express its meaning, which is readily supplied by 自然に in this sentence.  This disqualifies "nature" as the subject of the verb.

One more thing about the verb.  The primary meaning of はたらきかける is to act upon something.  I find it is very close to 作用する.  Or, if you want to paraphrase the sentence from the textbook, 利用する is another good replacement.


----------



## Aoyama

Thank you for the explanation.
First of all, I understand that 自然 followed by に cannot be a subject, obviously.
It could either be an _adverb_ or an _agent_.
I also understand that 





> inanimate subject is loathed in Japanese


.
Maybe a passive form (tsukurareta) would be better than 作り出した, giving :
"Material(istic) culture is a culture that is the result/product of [the laws of] nature" ?


----------



## Wishfull

"Material culture is a culture that is the product made from natural resources."


----------



## Aoyama

> "Material culture is a culture that is the product made from natural ressources."


Yes, that makes (more) sense.
Or also :  "Material culture is a culture that is the result of what is produced by/from nature".
I wonder whether this could have been said more clearly in Japanese ...


----------



## Flaminius

Aoyama said:


> Maybe a passive form (tsukurareta) would be better than 作り出した, giving :
> "Material(istic) culture is a culture that is the result/product of [the laws of] nature" ?


First of all, you misunderstand the sentence.  It says that material culture (as opposed to spiritual culture) is the product of human agency on nature.  I admit that its explanation of 物質的文化 is in a watered-down-for-high-school-"kids"-but-turned-out-to-be-more-vague-than-clear way.  A more satisfactory definition, therefore, can be found here:
*1* 人間の、物質的な文化的所産。機械・建造物・交通手段など、*人間が*環境に適応したり、生活の便を追求したりするために*つくった*事物の総称。​This English definition wouldn't hurt, either.

物質的文化とは、自然に働きかけて作り出された文化 (needless to say in the same meaning as forgoing) is grammatically possible and one sees sentences like this all the time.  Yet, I find it unnecessarily convoluted.  As one reads till 自然に働きかけて, one understands that there is an implied subject to the verb that has not been explicitly mentioned.  A likely subject is 人間 as culture is a human activity.  [I do think that omitting the subject (humans, an ethnic group etc.) is bad style, but this is another story.]  Now, at the next verb, one has to think again what the subject is as the former implied subject has to be discarded due to the passive marker.  In contrast, the original sentence can recycle only one implied subject throughout the sentence.  I don't think passivisation makes the sentence better.


----------



## Aoyama

Thank you for that enlightening and thorough explanation.
I did misunderstand the sentence. That shows that my Japanese is not what it should be.
But I understand much better the _satisfactory definition _given.


----------



## almostfreebird

Example sentences using "~に働きかけて":


[A] この新しい薬は、直接ガン細胞に働きかけて（それを）破壊します。
   This new drug have a effect directly on tumor cells and kills them.

In this example: ”~に働きかけて”=”~に刺激を与えて(stimulating)”＝”～に作用を及ぼして(having a effect)”


* この本を出版するためには、　大きな出版社に働きかけていくべきです。
　　　　To publish this book, you should appeal to big publishing company.

In this example: ”~に働きかける”="~に協力をお願いする。(appeal to~, ask to cooperate)”.

---------------------------------------------------
Now back to original topic sentence: 
     物質的文化とは（人間が）自然に働きかけて作り出した文化である。

If "自然" here means natural resources, the sentence sounds strange, 
or maybe spiritual.
If it means "God's creation", the sentence sounds too religious for a social study text book in junior high.



物質文化=物質的文化=material culture=materialistic society




.*


----------



## Wishfull

この新しい薬は、直接ガン細胞に働きかけて（それを）破壊します。
我ら人間は、　　直接自然（または自然にある物質）に働きかけて（それを）人工的な物質に変化させて利用します。その文化を物質的文化というのです。


つまり、物質的文化とは人工的な物質の文化であります。自然なままの物質を利用する文化ではありません。　自然なままの石を投げて狩りをするのは物質的文化ではなく、自然なままの石を矢じりに加工して（石器）使用するようなのが、この定義による「物質的文化」です。
この定義を作成した著者は、原始時代の原始人の初期の文化は、｢物質的文化」には含めないけれども、石器を作るようになった時点では「物質的文化」に含める、と考えているのではないでしょうか。

Hi.
To say the truth, I can't catch up with these discussions here.
I think the definition is well understandable, and not so bad.
Please tell me what is the problem with that definition. ??


----------



## almostfreebird

Why didn't the writer(of the textbook) put it like this: ”物質的文化とは、機械・建造物・交通手段など、人間が環境に適応したり、生活の便を追求したりするためにつくった文化、社会である。”, which is definitely clear to understand.


<<我ら人間は、　　直接自然（または自然にある物質）に働きかけて（それを）人工的な物質に変化させて利用します。その文化を物質的文化というのです>>
In my opinion, this sentence is a little too tortuous.


----------



## Wishfull

OK, I understand your point.
I agree with you that <<我ら人間は、　　直接自然（または自然にある物質）に働きかけて（それを）人工的な物質に変化させて利用します。その文化を物質的文化というのです>> is poor definition.
But this is what I wrote, for the explanation/interpretation of the original definition. 

A more concrete definition might be easy to understand, but it might be redundant.
On the other hand, old people say that "*Simple is best*."

I think
物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化 is very simple and good definition, after thinking a while.
Though it might be a little difficult for foreigners and high-school students, it might be understandable to native-adults, mightn't it?

Because we already know what 物質的文化　is, instinctively.
"How to describe it" is the matter.  
The author chose a simple way.
And I think it is not so bad thing........


----------



## Aoyama

First of all, thank you AFB for your thoughful explanation (with examples) of xxに働きかけて, enlightening.


> <<我ら人間は、　　直接自然（または自然にある物質）に働きかけて（それを）人工的な物質に変化させて利用します。その文化を物質的文化というのです>>
> In my opinion, this sentence is *a little too tortuous*.


that may be true (with all due respect).
In fact, Flam's example (#14) is roughly the definition you find for 物質的文化 as opposed to 精神(的)文化 in all relevant Japanese dictionaries (Kojien and Daijisen notably).
It is clearer there and one may wonder why someone changed this _satisfactory_ definition to 物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化, which is both quite unsatisfactory and tortuous.


----------



## almostfreebird

You think "物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化" is very simple and good definition, *because you were taught what the sentence actually said/says, and the idea was fixed in your mind/brain.* 
Besides, the sentence sounds beautiful because the "~に働きかけて" can be interpreted two ways: one is "having a effect" or "acting" upon nature(natural resources); the other is "appeal to, or ask the nature to cooperate", in this case "nature" is kind of personified, which sounds poetic and maybe a little *spiritual* or religious. So actually this sentence is ambiguous.
*
Edit: This comment is replying to #19.*


----------



## Aoyama

> You think "物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化" is very simple and good definition, because you were taught what the sentence actually said/says, and the idea was fixed in your mind/brain.


Not ME. I still think, as you said, that this sentence is tortuous or ambiguous. I didn't understand it clearly at first. I said that I understand better the definition given by the dictionaries, from which this sentence gets it inspiration.


----------



## Wishfull

For example;

神の定義
A)　神とは人間を超えたもの。
B)　神とは現実逃避の手段。
物質的文化の定義
C)　物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化。

If you say all A,B and C are both quite unsatisfactory and tortuous, I would agree.

If you say A and B are OK, but C is unsatisfactory and tortuous, then you might be just not familiar with the verb 働きかける, literally. 

I somehow feel Japanese vocabulary's level and definition's level are confused.
I think it is a completely natural and well understandable Japanese sentence.

You don't think A and B are unnatural Japanese, don't you?
Then you don't think C is unnatural Japanese, don't you?  So do I (edit, _So don't I_ . or Me too.)

If you think A and B's definitions are OK, yet C's definition is not OK,
then it might be the matter of language-usage, not definition.

You might just not familiar with the sentence structure of　に働きかける.

(Probably I can not convince you, and it will remain as parallel lines forever. 
I wish to look for another Japanese person who thinks the definition would be fine.
I would like to look for the 3rd person who thinks the definition would be fine, just like me and the writer himself.    But it seems it will never happen. )


----------



## almostfreebird

Replying to #23:

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't think I was talking about God.

And when you say "Probably I can not convince you", it sounds like you're trying to proselytize me.


----------



## Wishfull

たとえ話ですよ。神の話は。
AやBの定義は、「神」というものがまったくわからない子供に教えてもナンセンスですよね。Aで言えば、たとえばスーパーマンは神なのか、スーパーコンピュータは神なのか、ってな屁理屈を言われると、定義としてはとても弱いものになりますよね。Bは、斜にかまえた言い分ですよね。AやBの定義は不十分である、と考える人もいれば、共感する人もいるわけです。

　Cの文章は、”自然に”をnaturallyと勘違いされるノンネイティブの方もおられるでしょうが、ネイティブであればnaturallyとは読み違えませんよね。
　ただ日本人でも、「自然に働きかける」を「自然をして、人類に協力せしめる」と読む解釈がある、とは思ってもみませんで、あくまでも「人類が、自然に対して、作用を及ぼす」としかこの文脈では読めないと思っている次第であります。
　この日本語の文章の解釈については、AやBの文章と同様にCの文章もクリアカットであり、他の解釈は文脈からしてありえない、と思っている次第です。

　もちろん、そこから先の解釈は、抽象的すぎる、とか、かっこつけている、とか、哲学的過ぎる、とか、高校生にはむずかしすぎる、とか、は、私も同じことを思っています。その一方で、「定義」というのは抽象的であったり、それこそ小難しいことを並べ立ててケムに巻く、というのも常道手段であるので、この定義も「定義」としてはオーソドックスで、シンプルで、素敵な定義かも知れんぞ、と思っている、ということです。

　これは私が勝手に思っていることなので、他の人を説き伏せて、私の考えを押し付けるつもりはないのですが、私のほかに、私と同じように考えている日本人が、（この著者の他にも）もう一人ぐらいいないかなあ。

というのを英語で書いたつもりでした。Offensiveであったらごめんなさい。神の入ったたとえ話が、難しいならごめんなさい。忘れてください。
私の英語力が絶対的に不足しているようですので、もうちょっと修行して、出直してきます。では。


----------



## almostfreebird

Wishfull said:


> ただ日本人でも、「自然に働きかける」を「自然をして、人類に協力せしめる」と読む解釈がある、とは思ってもみませんで、あくまでも「人類が、自然に対して、作用を及ぼす」としかこの文脈では読めないと思っている次第であります。



Replying to #25:

Assuming "自然" is personified:

「自然に働きかける」 is totally different from 「自然をして、人類に協力せしめる」.

"をして...せしめる" is a causative expression(rigid, formal and archaic), 
the same as "～に...させる" as in "彼に始末させよう。"(Let's get him to take care of it.).

「自然をして、人類に協力せしめる」 means to get Nature to cooperate with us humans.(sounds forcible and overbearing) 

"~に働きかける" means to appeal to~, ask~ to cooperate.


----------



## Wishfull

おやおや、日本語も修行しなおしてこないといけないようですね。
（もちろん主語は「Wishfullが」です。）　では。

*人間が、自然に、「人間に協力してください」と依頼する*　という解釈は間違っていると思いますよ、と申し上げたいのですが・・・・
構文の話をしているつもりなんですが・・・・
何とか歯車がかみ合えばよいのですが、そうなるように、出直しますね。
では、ごきげんよう。


----------



## almostfreebird

Wishfull said:


> おやおや、日本語も修行しなおしてこないといけないようですね。
> （もちろん主語は「Wishfullが」です。）　では。
> 
> *人間が、自然に、「人間に協力してください」と依頼する*　という解釈は間違っていると思いますよ、と申し上げたいのですが・・・・
> 構文の話をしているつもりなんですが・・・・
> 何とか歯車がかみ合えばよいのですが、そうなるように、出直しますね。
> では、ごきげんよう。



Assuming "自然" is personified:

"人間が、自然に、「人間に協力してください」と依頼する" doesn't sound poetic.

"自然に働きかける" sounds poetic in a way.


----------



## Flaminius

Aoyama said:


> Not ME. I still think, as you said, that this sentence is tortuous or ambiguous. I didn't understand it clearly at first. I said that I understand better the definition given by the dictionaries, from which this sentence gets it inspiration.


The beauty of a dictionary definition is that it explains the headword in just a few sentences (or a large single sentence).  The sentence we are discussing was quoted from a school textbook which may devote a few paragraphs or pages to define, explain, elaborate on what they mean by material culture; perhaps with a few diagrams and a lot of colourful illustrations.  If that is the case, a little fanciful opening sentence like we have here wouldn't hurt at all.  In that case, again, I still object to the omission of the subject, but that's about it for my complaints.



almostfreebird said:


> Assuming "自然" is personified:


I assume you are making this assumption with a view to understanding 自然に働きかける as "appeal to, or ask the nature to  cooperate".  Maybe your intention is to criticize the "poetic and maybe a little *spiritual* or religious" tone of the text, but these nuances are too subtle and completely pass me by.  It is true that the traditional Japanese value system views nature as a reverend, living, nurturing entity, but the *word* "自然" is treated as a supine, passive thing that holds no life in it and sentences with it still make sense.  Under the convention of semantics, I might say "自然" has [- ANIMATE] (read: minus animate) property.

I believe this understanding of "自然" holds true for the current sentence, so 働きかける is not encouragement to cooperate.


----------



## Aoyama

The whole thing is a bit difficult for me to follow ...


----------



## Flaminius

Oh, we should trod carefully lest we should fall to obscurantism, a.k.a. the dark side.

We have different opinions on how to understand 働きかける.  *Wishfull* and I take it as a unilateral action, while *almostfreebird* points out that it can be negotiation.

I attempted to solve this by looking at the animacy of the word 自然 and am waiting for evaluation.


----------



## almostfreebird

Flaminius said:


> I attempted to solve this by looking at the animacy of the word 自然 and am waiting for evaluation.



In Aesop's Fables, there are stories in which Nature(sun, wind) are personified(animate, alive).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun

When you say "自然と共に生きる(living with Nature)" 

or "Bonoboは自然と折り合い共に生きている。", "自然" here is not dead thing, actually 

trees and flowers are living things.


<<almostfreebird points out that it can be negotiation.>>

What I pointed out is the sentence "物質的文化とは自然に働きかけて作り出した文化" is unclear, ambiguous, and tortuous especially for a textbook(social science) in high school unless you were already taught what the sentence actually intended, and the idea was fixed in your mind/brain.


----------

