Please post your questions, comments, and concerns here.
As a reminder: while I'd obviously prefer that you read everything, if forced to economize, here are some suggestions.
1) After reading chapter two in Westling's The Green Breast of the New World, choose from either chapter 3 or 5.
2) Feel free to skim through the data of Warren's first chapter and focus instead on her second chapter.
3) Contrary to what I suggested in class, I think you should read Sandilands carefully. Her chapter is the most nuanced of the readings; and, as such, she assumes a bit of background knowledge, but she also discusses directly some of the key questions at issue that we'll want to address in class.
Until Wednesday,
kevin
8 comments:
Ben Crozier
27 February 2008
In Sandilands' Ch.3, she states that ecofeminists need to shift their focus away from identity politics. As she points out, there are several problems with identity politics, namely that not all people (in this case women) view nature through the same lens (51). Additionally, ecofeminist identity politics often do not consider questions of race and class, and finally, that the identity of ecofeminists maintain and support patriarchal stereotypes of women (63). Though she makes some persuasive points, she doesn't seem to indicate what ecofeminism will look like if it divorces itself from identity. At their core, don't all politics relate in part to identity? I agree that ecofeminists should consider alternative perspectives to an identity of white Western women, but I don't understand how one would go about wholly removing identity from the politics of ecofeminism-- maybe someone coould enlighten me.
I had another question about this section-- who are the "Southern women" that Sandilands refers to on page 56? She distinguishes them from white Western women, but I thought they were the same.
Moving on, I thought that Westling's article on Faulkner and Hemingway was very interesting. I skipped over parts of the Faulkner section because I hadn't read all the books, but I was interested in what she had to say about "Go Down, Moses." I was particularly intrigued about the bear being gendered feminine. There were certainly connections made between Sam and the bear, and I hadn't really thought before about how Native Americans are often associated with feminine qualities in the traditional American pastoral. What I want to know is this: what is Westling saying about Hemingway and Faulkner, particulalry in their writing? There is no question that as individuals they posessed many sexist qualities, but is she making judgments about their writing for promoting these patriarchal stereotypes, or is she praising these authors for shedding light on these issues?
Okay, see y'all in class.
February 26, 2008
John S. Sonin
Eng. 423—Ecocriticism
Blog entry-6
Effort
As much as I concur with Westling’s connectedness of Ecocriticism to Ecofeminism—in the un-Westernized ecological evaluations pinpointed by the Formalist’s and Kolodny’s pastorally-esteemed social constructions of nature and the respectful appreciation for females, pre-Enlightenment, before morphing into the mechanistic/ patriarchal/power-centered domination of women-oppressive-ideology of today, and appreciate Sandiland’s argument to reproof the paradox of objective/subjectivity, attempting to assess relations removed from them, but I think I most directly troubled (and Kolodny has made me weary of language and how much it determines my thoughts and attitudes) by the egocentrism that allows females to take credit, albeit through the English language evolution, for the opinions toward the Wild—in Western Culture—paralleling opinions toward s women.
Most troubling is the high esteem culture placed upon women before capitalism being the trend that must be pursued, and critics are to look-out for, as a holistic-revering canon of literature.
Respect for Nature is a simple synchronizing, fulfilling thing, because that which is natural is a simple, perpetually moving-ahead or growing thing, and to synchronize and also be fulfilled, humans need persistently push-on in a positive manner We can’t linguistically confuse natural recuperation with being lazy for getting lazy is a selfish and selfishness is not part of the Wild. The Wild pushes-on, always. Am I wrong?
Warren, in my opinion, has the clearest sense of what ecofeminists believe: “there are important connections between unjustified dominations of women, people of color (worldwide- my parentheses), children and the poor and the unjustified domination of nature.”(1) But with all the other issues that are raised by Sandiland, Plumwood, Brown, Shiva etc.. it is hard to distinguish the goals of ecofeminism. In Warren’s argument, it appears that ecofeminism is a broad spectrum philosophical movement geared towards the commonality of nature and the feminine depravity caused by patriarchal hierarchies. Warren goes on about how different interconnections affect multiple social groups- Western, Southern, other human Others. Sandiland argues that Warren is too broad in her terms of ecofeminism but not inclusive enough (54). “But even with the addition of new voices and the specification of new relations that intersect… One cannot fine “woman” simply by reversing “man”, even if one takes intersecting relations into account.”(56) So my question is, I guess, how does the theory of ecofeminism play out in ecocriticism? Is it just a sect of ecocriticism? A sect of feminism? Both? Is it more productive and effective in environmental movements? Can there be no identity politics in the concept of ecofeminism? Do you have to be a women to be an ecofeminist? These are more than a few questions and I think that I’ll answer some of them in my presentation.
Recently I read Edward Abby’s take on Thoreau (“Down the River”), which is considerably different that the approach that Westling does in The Green Breast of the New World (which Wetling somewhat acknowledges when making a passing comment about Abby’s environmental writings). Overall, this seems to affirm what Nicolson spoke of in her “Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory,” when she said (and I know I’ve said this a few times now):
“Like men of every age, we see in Nature what we have been taught to look for, we feel what we have been prepared to feel” (1).
Perhaps Nicolson would have been more precise to state that Nature can be personified and spoken of in terms that address the most pressing societal questions and issues of the times – for Thoreau it is Nature and lifestyle, Abby preservation of environment (and to a degree lifestyle), and for Westling Nature in the abstract and its relations to gender discrimination. I’ve defiantly simplified (if not distorted) the writing here, but nevertheless it seems that depictions and discussions of Nature can certainly pertain to a wide variety of issues and concerns ranging from the very anthropocentric abstractions of the metaphysical to its application within societal justice between genders.
I guess the question we come around to then is – who’s right? Or perhaps more correctly, when do we go beyond what was written and meant to our own ideas and contemporary concerns that surround nature? Certainly the value in good literature is in the universality of its themes and underlying claims, but when do we extrapolate too far? I do not deny that images and conceptions of women within the West and elsewhere carry heavy overtones of misogyny, oppression, and domination, which have been handed down through manipulated ancient traditions, which not only influence depictions and understanding of nature but also objects and relationships. When we start to integrate those ideas with psychoanalytical claims surrounding Thoreau’s struggles in justifying appropriating (or Killing) parts of nature to survive, I think indicates a dramatic shift (and what I think Karl Marx would call an extreme Commodity Fetishism) in contemporary society – or a great distance between our sustenance and its source. Okay I am done rambling.
Andy Lounsbury
27 February 2008
I'll start by confessing that i haven't finished all the readings yet, so some of these questions may not apply.
I guess my biggest question, particularly after reading Warren, is: are the goals of ecofemenism really any different from any other field of ecocriticism? or are they just more narrowed? At their core, all fields of ecocriticism adress the same problems (sanitation, deforestation pollution etc.), so when warren mentions all the women specific health risks of, say, contaminated water, why bother narrowing the lens? it seems to me that pretty much everything Warren talks about (particularly the health issues) should be dealt with in their entirety, as opposed to focusing on groups of people.
This is going to be redundant, since Ben already brought it up, but I feel the need to mention it anyway. Sandiland says ecofeminists should not focus on identity politics. I view all politics as identity politics at their core, so to me Sandiland is suggesting that ecofeminists remove themselves from politics altogether. is this even possible? also, if it is possible, how can you remove yourself from identity politics and still consider yourself an ecofeminist (as opposed to any other ecocritic).
Matt Boline
The problem with Ecofeminism and all other subsets is that there is too much importance placed on identity, it does need to be "divorced from identity," but then it wouldn't be ecofeminism anymore and would not be a state of contention any longer. The more that questions on environment focus on the human identity the less it is focussed on environment. It is important to have a discussion on identity, but placing it under the guise of ecology is self-defeating. Rhetoric of sex, class, and ethnicity does have an important role in ecology, but in the terms of discussing Patriarchal patterns in the demeaning of women over time is a bunny trail that steers us away from issue of how rhetoric has dominated the way that sex, class, and ethnicity interacts with our environment.
More emphasis needs to be placed on the how patriarchy has affected the way that men and women use the environment rather than on how men and women use each other. This, I believe is the distinction between Ecofeminism and Feminism. The question that I arise to in this is...Can we have a dialogue about Ecofeminism objectively without getting into the rhetoric of Feminism? It is important to talk about the way in which men over time have spoke of the environment in terms of being a women and using, raping and pillaging the environment, and it is important to talk about some of the related rhetoric and why this happens. But, we need to then move on to issues of how rhetorical tradition is used to define these identity roles.
I liked the Westling artical becuase of the history how western civilization moved from female to male gods and how this has influnced enviromental writers to the present. Ch. 3 was Too much thought,maybe this is becuase male.
February 26, 2008
John S. Sonin
Eng. 423—Ecocriticism
Blog entry-6
Once again I ran-out of time to edit amnd catch the bus so I know, Kevin, you'll likely not see my clarification before class but the ideas are always in my head so my contribution the "Mind" our class creates won't be different.
Effort
As much as I concur with Westling’s connectedness of Ecocriticism to Ecofeminism—in the un-Westernized ecological evaluations pinpointed by the Formalist’s and Kolodny’s pastorally-esteemed social constructions of nature and the respectful, divine appreciation for females, pre-Enlightenment, before those appreciations started morphing into the mechanistic/ patriarchal/power-centered indifferent domination of “women-oppressive-ideology,” today, and as much as I appreciate Sandiland’s argument to reproof the paradox of being objective without subjectivity criticism (attempts to assess relations removed from them whereby for the sake of our being it’s impossible), but I think I’m most directly troubled (and Kolodny has made me weary of language, now, and how much it determines my thoughts and attitudes) by the egocentrism that allows females to take credit, albeit through the (r)evolution of the English language, for the opinions toward the Wild—in Western Culture—paralleling opinions towards women, pre- the darkened enlightenment of science.
Most troubling is the high esteem culture placed upon women before it favored capitalism, and this “reverence” (which should be held for all of creation) now being correlated with the respect and symbiotic relationships with all of creation that humanity must adopt as I see the holistic-revering canon of literature ecocriticism hopes to be assessing..
Respect and symbiosis with the Wild, or all of Nature, is a simple synchronizing, and therefore fulfilling thing. Humanity is natural, along with all of the Wild, and that which is natural is a simple, perpetually and eternally moving-forward/ahead or is a reproductive growing cycle that doesn’t try to determine its direction. And to synchronize and also be fulfilled, humans need persistently push-on/engage/develop/work in a positive manner We can’t linguistically confuse nature’s recuperative abilities with being lazy, for getting lazy is a selfish thing—and anything “selfish” is “lazy”—and selfishness is an ego (egocentric) thing that is not a part of the Wild. Ecofeminism’s adoption of the requirement for fulfilled human existence (emotionally, homeostatic-ally, spiritually) was not done self-consciously so can’t be faulted. But even than as a male I should be able to be called an ecofemnist without fear being thought womanly—for that word’s cultural construction.
The bottom-line is, the Wild (Nature), like REO Speedwagon, keeps “pushing-on,” unself-consciously… always. That need be the dominant social force, am I wrong?
Post a Comment