This week our attention turns outward from the (relatively) narrow confines of the pastoral literary tradition toward the Big Woods and all its messy problems. As always, please leave your questions and commentary in the comment section here. It'd be really good for me to have these posted by 3:15 on Wednesday, so I can read and prepare based on your interests.
If you missed the last class session, you may not know that the bulk of the reading can be found in our fancy new course reader. I've left copies of the green, plastic-bound collection in my departmental mailbox. Please stop by and pick one up.
kevin
7 comments:
February 12, 2007
John S. Sonin
Eng. 423—Maier
As Cronon discusses in “The Trouble …,” the duality of historical consideration for the wilderness places left on earth—as ideological symbols shift from a reality that it is amorally and unforgiving-ly wild, smitten with “…satanic temptation…” wherein the basic survival-mode of self-preservation motivates most to action, to one of supplicating-reverence for a “…sacred temple…”—and Plummer reiterates in her comparison of the “wild” to the dichotomy of how females have been considered in a male-dominated social agenda, I can’t help but consider the reality of ecocriticism as one which attempts to unify these adversarial positions and critique literature, culture, and the hegemon-izing human society in a more progressive, let’s move-on from euphemistically putting-out these “brush fire” flare-ups and confront the issue of human success in the biotic/evolutionary reality. My question for the class then, and historically to this point in the human race this issue has been irreconcilable, can this focus on the “brush-fires” be answered?
I think maybe it can if the ideological stream of consciousness is redirected. The future is like an unfolding flower and at any point, from this moment on, the direction the future takes (opening blossoms in each successive moment in whatever direction it wends towards) is a consequence of the choice we make, now.
As in a poem I read a couple decades-ago, some of us in this –race can “row facing forward” while most of us “row with our backs to the direction we are going,” can eco-critters not worry about the “awkward, uneven strokes,” that may look foolish to the spectators watching the –race, but avoid going-over the looming “waterfall” that the majority is unwittingly having “their backs thrown into?”
The selections of Cronon’s and Waller’s writings I found to be particularly interesting this week. The discussion and to a certain degree the debate that they are engaging in seem to be very similar to the issues that surround last week’s topic of Pastoralism and the arguments posited between Marx and Buell. More specifically, where Buell sees a path to use Pastoral sentiments to benefit environmental ends, Waller argues that traditional perceptions of wilderness (which I would argue are deeply tied into American Pastoralism) are also useful in promoting beneficial environmental public policy and sentiment. Also, Cronon’s insistence that paradoxical perceptions of American’s view of Nature have contributed to a stream of misfortunate environmental degradations, which calls for an adjustment of world view, seems to parallel partially with Marx’s argument concerning the negative effects on the environment produced by pastoral traditions within American literature and culture. So it seems, though with different approaches, all are entering into a discussion that on the one hand calls for re-definitions and fundamental adjustments and on the other there are arguments to simply expand on the positive aspects of traditions already in place.
Beyond this broad comparison, there are several more detailed criticisms in regards to this weeks readings. For instance, Cronon gives us a brief essay that persuasively indicates the developments of American perceptions of Wilderness and Nature in conjunction with the Sublime and the American ‘Frontier Myth’. Through Cronon’s interpretation we are led to the conclusion that both these ideals or perceptions, either independently or meshed, have contributed toward the perceived separations of humans from nature, which perpetuates a paradoxical relationship with wilderness and nature in which we live in awe and terror or peace and serenity, only when we are ‘out there’ and not ‘in here’ (within civilization). Cronon argues that through these perceptions we are not only separated from nature and wilderness but we are also removed from history and blame from the environmental (and social) issues and problems we’ve created. Waller’s arguments, on the other hand, suggests that the fundamental dichotomies between ‘wildness’ and not, within a scientific and biological standpoint, are essential in preserving biological diversity and environmental stability (though he does point out that aspects of the sublime and frontier myths are environmentally self-defeating). What I find interesting is that Waller comes to suggest in the latter part of his essay that, scientifically and biologically speaking, the traditional dichotomy that has developed, which promotes the portioning off of large tracks of land as wilderness areas, coincides with contemporary efforts to preserve biological diversity and stability. While I don’t disagree with Waller’s science and explanations, it is reveling to me that he doesn’t make explicit the traditional sentimental perceptions in relation to more recent scientific findings. More precisely, Waller seems to suggest that scientific findings stand essentially independent of traditional sentiments concerning nature. Examining some of the social histories of science produced during the 1960s, it is clear that though a degree of objectivity can be maintained in scientific study and research, it is done within the context of social interests and pressures.
Further, and I know I am growing long winded here, Waller makes a comment that taken at a glance is insignificant but taken more critically reveals a fundamental (in my opinion) incongruity in Waller’s thinking. In commenting on some of the famous naturalist (e.g. Leopold, Muir, Thoreau, etc.) Waller states:
“One might…suggest that their deep understanding of wild species and natural events contributed to their moral perspective rather than the other way around” (561).
Callicott, I think, as well as Darwin and the philosopher Hume would disagree. Darwin’s Decent of Man, which Callicott discusses in “Holistic Environmental Ethics and The problem of Eco-fascism,” (as well as Hume’s ideas) posits a powerful argument that indicates that basic sentiments of humans are the foundations for moral and ethical mores – in essence, moral and ethical norms are not the product of rational thought (as some thinkers would argue [i.e. Socrates, Hobbes, Kant, etc.]) but fundamental sentiments towards survival and existence, which is more congruent from an evolutionary standpoint. In a befuddled way, I mean to point out that the great ‘eco-writers’ that Waller speaks of seem to be reacting to fundamental sentiments and issues concerning the environment within the context of theirs (and our) social and historical context. I also suggest that Waller’s scientific explanations that justify the usefulness of traditional worldviews of nature and wilderness, while scientifically sound, are intricately intertwined with each other – sentiment leads to interest, which leads to moral and ethical concerns that subsequently develop the rights and wrongs of understanding. It is a fairly deterministic interpretation I’ve laid out here, but there it is. I think I’ve now confused myself.
February 13, 2007
John S. Sonin
Eng. 423—Maier
Once again I’ve posted my blog entry without re-reading and noticed I hadn’t elaborated on “reversal” as I’d intended. And also, I’ve edited it somewhat for clarity.
A ‘Babbling Brook,’ Discord
As Cronon discusses in “The Trouble With Wilderness,” the duality of historical consideration for the ‘wilderness places’ (those are, everywhere Western Culture hasn’t yet infected!) left on earth, with its ideological symbols shifting from a wilderness reality that is amoral and unforgivingly wild—as it is smitten with “…satanic temptation…” wherein the basic survival-mode of self-preservation motivates most to action—to a reality of wilderness perceived as one inducing ‘supplicated-reverence’ for it as a “sacred temple,” and Val Plummer reiterates this in her comparison of wilderness to the contradicting values of how females have been considered in a male-dominated social agenda as they needing to be “domesticated” (to male masters) yet remain “wild” in their eroticism, I can’t help but consider the reality of ecocriticism as one which attempts to unify these adversarial perspectives and begin critiquing literature, culture, and the hegemonizing human society of today, in a more progressive, let’s “move-on” from the solitary extinguishing of those multitudinous, petty, “brush fire”-like flare-ups, and confront the issues addressing all of humanity’s success in the biotic/evolutionary reality in which we, “WE,” are residing.
My question for the class then, and historically up to this point in the human RACE, this issue of the positive/trusting/faith-in-(future)needs-being-gratified v. negative/suspicious/fear-of-(future)deprivation has been the opposing strategies competing in the unresolved and irreconcilable RACE where all interaction is either win or lose—as it remains focused on these “brush-fires” of petty conflict—can this question be answered? Or is the ego-centrism too inherent in the human animal disabling our transcendence to a different reality?
I think maybe it can be overcome if the ideological stream of consciousness is redirected as Buell is trying attempt.
The future is like an unfolding flower, and at any point, from this moment on, the direction the future takes (like a new blossom opening in each successive moment on the eternal continuum of Time, in whatever direction towards which our consciousness wends) is a consequence of the choices—individually and publicly—we make, now; right now and at every NOW from here on after.
As in a poem I read a couple decades-ago, some of us in this human race are able to “row [our boat] facing forward” while most of us “row with our backs to the direction we are going never knowing which stroke [can or] will [propel] us right over the falls.” Can eco-critters not worry about the “awkward, uneven strokes,” that may look foolish in the eyes of spectators (other ecocritters?) watching the –race, but because we “row facing forward” avoid going-over the looming “waterfall” that the majority is unwittingly “throwing their backs into?”
Plummer and eco-feminism offer one way to get out-of-the-box of our thinking and overcome this ‘dead-end’ spiritual dichotomy when she suggests that, historically in culture and literature, the woman’s characterization has “reversed” from a position of wild and threatening to one of cherished dignity and egalitarian respect.
My personal conversion likely has gone too far, to one of ‘honor and admiration’ (with no desire to want to carry “the cup,” believe me I’d rather wear it and serve and protect they who do carry)! Is this the “reversal” Plummer proposes? Is the human Race to become completely reversed unto a female dominated competition to have the winner’s power over the loser? I don’t think so. She’s suggesting, I suppose, that perception, how we see, the two armies embattled in the eternal conflict can be seen exactly opposite without significant discord.
Plummer, I think, supposes a more shared-responsibility scenario where uniting to circle, the lines representing “purpose” presently at odds, become whole, and I agree. The closer the social animal’s kingdom resembles the ‘entropic’ natural world, the better chance it has to become an eternal -Race.
Ben Crozier
ENGL 423
13 February 2008
I too was particularly interested in the Cronon article and Waller's response to it. I have now read Cronon's article twice, and both times I have found it to be quite compelling. At the same time, I was impressed with Waller's article; for me, the fact that he is a scientist lends credibility to his arguments. I was particularly interested in his discussion of Cronon criticizing the argumentic of biodiversity as merely being an extension of our notions of the sublime, which Waller dismisses. Waller persuasively argues that there are ecocentric advantages to wilderness areas, and he addresses important questions about how to incorporate recreation and biodiversity into our notion of wilderness. I also liked what Waller had to say about the tree in the garden, that it wasn't wild because it had been removed from its evolutionary and ecological context. Ultimately however, I wonder if these two articles aren't more or less saying the same thing. It seems that Waller's argument may be an extension of Cronon's; Cronon encourages us to change our notions of wilderness, which Waller seems to do. And while I found Waller to be very compelling in terms of his scientific points, he failed to address the points that Cronon made about environmental justice, which I am convinced by. I think that both arguments are valid; it may be important to change our notion of wilderness so as to pursue environmental justice (like the removal of Native Americans), but I am also convinced that retaining large tracts of land are important and valuable for supporting biodiversity. It ultimately seems to come down to a question of values, and trying to find some middle ground between the two.
Sorry Kevin for this being a bit late, I had some troubles getting onto the blog site, I think there may be a problem with the link on the class website.
To answer John's question I must ask another, What does "human success in the biotic/evolutionary reality," mean? If the success that you discuss mirrors capitalistic society than it isn't really a question of human success. If you believe that humans exist in the same biotic community as non-humans, than you must also acknowledge that the success of the individual necessitates the success of the whole. Economic success is not a synonym for success in life. As for the "brush fires," again I am not really sure what you are getting at. What I gather is that you are talking about conflicting ideologies, correct? Waller along with many others suggests that we combine ideologies to create a complete ideal that places importance on the historical origin of human relation to the environment as well as the more current biological/scientific findings that support other rational in our relationship the environment. Borrowing from both the Utilitarian and the rights based environmental ethic is the most currently established train of thought in discussing the human relation to the environment. But how did we get here? It's kind of a chicken and egg question as Waller suggests, this is the question that I would ask. Are proponents of Wildness/Wilderness proponents because they are expert naturalists and understand that biodiversity is essential to the longevity of the worldwide ecosystem or are they proponents because was it the "moral perspective" that causes the support for Wildness/Wilderness?
Matthew,
What I meant by the "biotic/evolutionary reality" is the reality of us, humanity, as simply another organ in the organism of organic evolution. Maybe more like a molecule in the tissue of the planet earth-organ of the biological specimen- universe! OK, maybe that's a little to abstract bit I only mean the human animal seeking survival in the Earth's biosphere. We need to make the conscious jump from the "brush fire"-like flare-ups that result from our focus on "differences" that create conflict to one...maybe, on "similarities" that facilitate union or unity. Bateson, in "Mind and Nature, a necessary unity" suggested all higher-level living things are physically alike (to state naively) in their symmetrical proportions, and that's true! Buell's trying to show us how to start thinking different. Bateson's argument style seemed not to jive with the scientific method on my first reading. I couldn't make sense of it. Second time around it seemed not onle appropriate but perfect sense. This is what Buiell's trying to show us can, and needs, to be done.
John S. Sonin
There were a few things in Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” that troubled me. I didn’t like how right off he led to the confusion of the terms “wilderness” and “wildness” where he quotes Thoreau who stated that, “In Wildness is the preservation of the World” (1). I doubt that Thoreau really meant that in the culturally constructed form of wilderness will we save ourselves or the planet. More likely, it is within Waller’s definition of “wildness” that Thoreau is placing this responsibility. Waller says, “For an organism to be considered “wild” it must exist in an ecological context essentially similar to the one its ancestors evolved in” (547). This then knocks Cronon’s ridiculous comparison of a tree in a garden and one out in the “wild”. I do enjoy a little greenery in urban settings (and think that it serves a purpose in reminding us of what lies beyond our cement walls), but I had a similar reaction to Waller’s when I read this portion of Cronon’s argument. Does this mean we should treat all areas as equal and not preserve anything then? I think Waller saw this as a real threat and inspired him to write his response which I agree mostly with. For organisms to evolve effectively, they must have enough biodiversity to pass on enough genes so that natural selection still works. It is in this way that we must preserve all environments, not just the ones that shock and awe us or those that give us pride in our nation. So I agree with Ben’s response that in a way, both Cronon and Waller are fighting for the same thing, but with different means (with or without the separation between humans and wilderness). They both want to see nature persist and they both realize that “wilderness” areas aren’t the only ones worth saving.
So what I kept wondering while reading these essays is, how do we change our perception of “wilderness” and would it really make a difference? I mean, I definitely think that a lot of our environmental issues stem from deeper societal and cultural issues, but just changing what a term represents doesn’t seem like enough to me (and how the heck is this done?). That’s why I like Waller’s conclusion which seemed more action based- scientists are evaluating areas and determining which should be allocated to wild things and which should be to humans. I mean science can’t solve everything and actually looks really scary when you put it in the same perspective Hitt did (through Bordo) at the end of his paper. He basically says that the sublime may transform from being awe by nature itself to an awe of ecocatastrophe doomed by the human idea that we can save everything with technology. Dang, now I don’t really know what to say. Not all science is good science -or- Science rules, but not everything.
Post a Comment