Please post your reading questions and responses to this week's material in the comments section here.
I've enabled anonymous comments, so you should be able to post even if you can't sign in--or don't want to give your vitals to google. Last week's comments were great, by the way. Keep up the good work.
Until Wednesday (@5:15),
kevin
PS if you didn't get a copy of the introduction to The Ecocriticism Reader, I've tacked a few up outside my door.
7 comments:
Let me just say from the preliminary reading of Lawrence Buell’s The Environmental Imagination he is an insufferable long winded very dense intellectual. Besides having to read unbearably carefully, I also found myself asking about the text that ecocriticism seeks to address. Buell addresses what an ‘Environmental Text’ is by using four principals, which he states are not exhaustive and loose enough to allow for a broad range of literature (pg. 7-8). I wonder if his principals are a bit exclusive. If we take some of the literary approaches that Eagleton discusses like Phenomenology, Structuralism or Psychoanalysis it seems apparent that these approaches can be ‘universally’ applied to the slew of literary works in existence. If we take literary text like Scott F. Fitzgerald’s “The Last Tycoon,” or “The Great Gatsby,” or some of Hemingway’s works like “The Sun Also Rises,” or perhaps some poetry of Langston Hughes, it seems apparent that we can use Phenomenology or Psychoanalysis to examine any one of these literary text. However, in the terms that Buell lays out, examining these texts through the guise of ecocriticism might prove fruitless or pointless. While elements of the natural environment may have a place for setting or otherwise, questions of nature and ecology in these text seems to be absent. We can certainly glean some insights by the simple absence of ecological concern or regard, but any other venture through the lens of ecocriticism might be a short road ending in a simple statement – this text is anthropocentric (as so many of our great literary works are). I guess the question I am coming around too is wondering weather ecocriticism can actually be considered a ‘pure’ literary approach since it seems only applicable and useful to what might be considered “environmental texts.’
Ben Crozier
1/29/08
So the main question I'm wondering is this: how does environmental criticism actually work, especially if it is supposed to promote political activism? Several of the pieces I read from the 1994 ASLE convention mention that literary critics have lost touch with the rest of the world. I guess I'm wondering who, besides us, actually reads these critics. It seems to me that the vast majority of people don't read critical responses to literature-- they just read the books themselves. And if that is true, then it seems that in most cases a text is either obviously environmental or else only very few individuals would pick up on its subtle references to the environment. Anyone who reads Edward Abbey understands that he is arguing for the preservation of wilderness; I don't need to read an ecocritical response of Desert Solitaire to know this. So who are ecocritics trying to convince? If they are really trying to promote political change, then couldn't they be more successful by doing something that more people are aware of? Couldn't they, for example, be promoters of books that are obviously environmental, as supposed to writing critiques which very few people read? And I understand that the field of ecocriticism is interdisciplinary, and that it encompasses more than just the study of literature. I'm not saying that ecocriticism is a bad thing, but I'm wondering how it works rhetorically and how effective it is. This was just a thought I had.
Also, I'm going to post my summaries in case anybody wants to write about different ones than I read (and also so that my post will appear longer):
“What We Talk About When We Talk About Ecocriticism”
In this article, Ralph Black describes his most recent trip to theater, where he saw King Lear and became aware of its environmental implications. Black argues that ecocritics should pay attention to more than just the nature writings of Thoreau or Abbey, and that they should be aware of other literary works which may not focus solely on the environment.
Okay, so what does this have to do with Raymond Carver? Why the title?
“Survival Stories: Toward an Ecology of Literary Criticism”
In this article, Mark Schlenz discusses a student who berates Frost’s “The Woodpile” for being anthropocentric and not adhering to a modern environmental ethic. He argues that ecocriticism should be interdisciplinary, that it should relate to questions of race, class, and gender, and that it should ask whether certain literary texts aid in our survival or promote our extinction.
“Some Principles of Ecocriticism”
Here, Don Scheese outlines five components of ecocriticism. He argues that ecocriticism is political, interdisciplinary, incorporates fieldwork, benefits from other literary theories, and that it should be tolerant of dissenting viewpoints.
“What is Eco-Criticism?”
Thomas Dean outlines what he believes ecocriticism to be; because it studies the connectedness of all things, ecocriticism is inherently interdisciplinary. Dean also says that ecocriticism may be, but doesn’t have to be, political.
January 28, 2008
John S. Sonin
Blog Entry
In Love’s diatribe of the condition humanity has cornered itself in through industrialization—“post-pastoral” living in throws of the post-structuralist’s idealized vision of pre-industrial simplicity—many of his criticisms of post-structuralism’s complacency with the ego-centered valuation of literature rang a bell that I have seen tolling for the past 25-yrs. I agree that a new paradigm must be adopted. One in which the stress is relational rather than dominative.
But leaving alone my belief in what kind of transition is needed—to be put as simple and direct as possible, or eco-centrically, it would be to recognize similarities rather than differences—won’t it be necessary to reassess or redirect that ego-driven misconception of dominating our reality? Buell is making an inquiry into the need to restate literary pursuits by altering thought processes and the normal understanding of relationships, and I support his pursuits, but I see it from a natural “thought process” change that comes through maturation.
As adolescents, it’s natural to be focused on self. But as adults who have let natural mind-maturity to work (the pursuit of immediate gratification, natural to “profit-seeking,” often inhibits this natural process), we recognize some things are more important than “self.”
So I suggest we move away from the ego-centered profit motive as the first step in actually being able to grasp this ‘bigger picture.’ In this way, societies can allow the natural mind to mature and concern for the “train wreck” patterns of relating will come natural and listeners of literature will recognize other implications of our art.
As writers, in order to explore this solution, I think it high-time our ego-centered attitude, shift its motivation to “explore and discover” from the pursuit of “knowing” to one of simply “understanding.” To “know” something suggests I comprehend what makes it work. To “understand” that thing, on the other hand, means SIMPLY, to appreciate how it functions in the scheme of the bigger picture, Earth’s system. I don’t need to know how it does what it does—kind of like literary Structuralism—simply that it does what it does, and more importantly now, how I feel about that.
I don’t know if I want to pursue that line of reasoning because I could end-up back at Formalism and would such a line of inquiry amount to social digression, devolution; starting over? It is kind-of like my thinking that the Stone Age set us on this scientific course that for every study, no matter how far into the inquest we explore, is only resolved, and seems to bring us right back to, not knowing.
Maybe this is what Pastoral-criticism might be like? Do I want to tear-down all that’s been constructed in the study of Literature for the past 150-yrs. Or just critique the system from a simpler perspective?
All I know is that we must alter our “reverence” for all life, initial respect (not needing to be earned) for its Relational value, and the way to do that might be through cultural anthropology’s study of human-adaptive diversity. Many non-Westernized societies, if any truly un-infected still exist, have a more sustainable and respectful approach to our Mother and her bountiful gifts.
Andy Lounsbury
In Lawrence Buell's introduction he brings up the idea of the non-human. He basically says that people efforts are driven primarily by thoughts of self preservation, and that no real progress can be made until this changes. No shit (pardon the language). With very few exceptions, everything is driven by self interest--it's natural. People want to save the rainforests because of the medicines and resources they contain. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether it's really plausible to think that there will ever really be any sort of change that isn't motivated by self interest. It's a wonderful idea, but other than the cute, pretty or fuzzy animals that appear on the posters of many conservation programs, i don't think it will ever happen on as grand a scale as Buell says is necessary. Which leads me to my other question: why is such a change even necessary? Especially considering the more pressing issues facing us today, isn't it enough to simply solve the problem? Everything in nature is motivated primarily by selfor species preservation, why is it necessary for humans to be any different?
At the risk of sounding like a follower I must echo Forest in the the question that Buell continued to rise in me was what constitutes an Environmental piece of literature. Buell went on and on about what is not an ecocentric piece, but didn't exactly say what was. I have to admit that for the last third of Buell's argument I wasn't really paying attention to what he was saying but instead was debating in my head what would or wouldn't be classified, in his definition, as an ecocentric piece. I agree with the writers in which Buell noted an exceptional level of ecocentrism. But, I struggled to come up with another writer or source outside of the list that Buell provided that could be considered ecocentric. At first I thought Dharma Bums, that is ecocentric, but no that is more anthropocentric and revolving around the human quest for absolute Dharma. Then I thought what about some of Vonnegut's novels and perhaps the greater implications made, nope, Vonnegut thinks too much about people although misanthropically, but still human centered. Alas I thought of a contemporary piece that was not on Buell's list. The Simpson's movie, the greater message surrounding the movie, although there are other themes as well, but the main focus of the movie is the environment.
That last comment was Matt Boline, sorry I forgot my sign in from last time
Better late then never, yeah? Anyway, I just wanted to address the question of whether texts should be read for their environmental implications just as much as they are read for social implications like race, class and gender. I personally feel like the environment is all inclusive and that my viewpoint is analogous to Eagleton's viewpoint that language comes first, whereas I believe the environment comes first. Our social problems are in response to our environment. I mean, skin color itself is an adaptation influenced by the amount of incoming solar radiation and is generally divided by geographic location. Also, class is determined by how many resources we have. Before society got ultra complicated those villages with the most resources were the wealthiest. Heck, I believe it was the accumulation and trading of resources that first established a more stationary lifestyle for early humans, enabling the beginnings of society today. Anyway, it carries on to these days... many class and race issues are intertwined with environmental mistreatment. For example, the worst environments- dumps, nuclear test sites, industrial contamination etc. are reserved for those humans who do not have the monetary power to fight back. The interesting thing though that I wanted to bring up from the reading comes from the social ecologist's viewpoint as written by Garrard on pages 28-29. This part of the book is addressing human relationships with nature and the idea of an "ecocentric monism" versus a dualism between nature and human. It is suggested under the eco-Marx/social ecologists viewpoint that neither exist, instead human society has evolved naturally from the birth of humanity in "first nature" to a "second nature" which includes our current values and institutions. So with our societal evolution we have created our many social issues, which cannot be entirely separated by our "first nature" roots, influencing movements today like environmental justice. So how does the environment we live in today influence our social issues and how the heck did we evolve into the society we have now?
Post a Comment