From the wilderness back to the city, this week we imagine apocalypse, toxic events, and we take stock of the environmental justice challenge to ecocentric ecocriticism.
Please post your comments here.
Also, if you've missed the last two class sessions, there is still a fancy, green course reader in my departmental mailbox. Come pick it up!
Until Wednesday,
kevin
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
February 19, 2008 John S. Sonin Blog 5- Apocalypticism Many issues were brought to our “frontal lobes” this week and I hope to address more than a few in the report I’ll write for tomorrow, later today. But this specific topic labeling the genre’ of literature that seems to be gaining popularity, though according to Gerrard it’s a genre’ of human thinking that has been around for “3000 years,” has me cursing the maturing ideology of the world’s dominating culture. Mostly because the uneducated thought processes use this “I give-up!” default/common-denominator, as an excuse for amoral, care less, inhuman(e) behavior and the only way to human progress (maybe eventual transcendence!, but that’s a private spiritual matter) is consideration of more then just self. Ultimately, if one doesn’t think anyone or anything else will be impacted by what one does, what does one care about who gets hurt, injured (both economically and physically), or deprived of their potential? Without a sufficient liberal education, unbiased by some other “self” -centered information controller, a proficient education that can come through experience and intuition (intuition that isn’t ignored), the natural maturation process ought (“ought” in a fair and just world which is more so at the top end of the socioeconomic scale as opposed to the lower end) be sufficient to recognize how working together we produce (and work is essential to a life worth living) more than if we worked apart. Children may not recognize this for they haven’t, as yet, attained socialization, but until society reverts to a “Lord of the Flies” scenario, children do not have the control of resources, nor are they in roles of leadership, to be influencing the dominate ideology. But if the ideology created by adults is exposing the children, children who have unfixed mindsets, to a perpetual barrage of a pessimistic, dying future, images (in whatever way culture is transmitted), they’ll never even attempt to alter the community, world, situation they live-in to one more suited to providing opportunity for their success. And personal success in becoming a “whole, matured-adult,” means human success in a maturing, growing reality. If all the kids imbibe as they grow into the propagating age of the species is a dying perception of the future, hope is lost! And “hope” is all that can motivate anyone to try. I could relapse into my argument for entropy on that note (entropy being the only physical constant in the universe wherein to avoid its veracity humans need continued application of human energy to at least maintain what has yet to decay) but I won’t. What the kids must learn is not only how to “build” a future but also how to maintain what they, and humanity, already have. Unless we, and Christian evangelists, with their ideological/media/senior citizen or cultural elder influence, can revert back to a “comedic” perception of Apocalypticism that stresses stewardship of God’s creation, and alter the hopeless future for subsequent generations by living by the principles of Environmental Justice, “quite desperation” of the human majority will continue for the next 3000-years.
In a couple of ways I find Michael Bennett’s insights and arguments very persuasive and incredibly poignant. When speaking about the writings of Ross, Bennett remarks that he
“is attuned to the ways in which dubious natural science – e.g., sociobiology - generates theories of nature which can provide justification for repressive social arrangements on the false premise that such theories are objectively revealed rather than culturally determined” (13).
This is similar to the ideas that were on my mind last week when I spoke of the societal and cultural influences upon ‘objective’ science. Overall, Bennett’s essay clarifies some of the ideas that Cronon discussed – that old dichotomies need to done away with for a more radical change. Bennett takes it a step further though by saying that (note he is speaking about Buell here);
“A market-driven economy frames and shapes the ways in which we appropriate the environment…raising individual consciousness cannot directly counteract these larger forces” (15).
I think the larger goal of Bennett’s essay, as he states, is to better theorize ecocriticism to make it a ‘legit’ discipline of study (no matter how interdisciplinary it is, it must have an encompassing theory [I guess]). What we come around to with Bennett’s insights and findings is that while he claims older conceptions of nature and wilderness need to be radically altered, and that ecocriticism itself needs to recognize this, how are we than to claim that contemporary ecocriticism (so entwined with these ideals) can integrate what Bennett calls the “distaff branches” – wouldn’t we than have to radically alter what ecocriticism is and what it means?
I think that the question that the ecocritic should and would ask would be to ask why the apocalyptic rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. Throughout all of the sections for the week a common theme amongst them was that they continued to cite and give mention to toxic discourse written about for years. If the same message is given time and time again, in different countries and different languages, and the messages is still not received. What is wrong with the message? It's not that people are not believing the message it is just that the message does not have any significance for the mass population. For some people, hearing the message that the worldwide destruction is a reality is enough. Preserving the global ecosystem is a noble task for some. For others the idea that our ecosystem is finite is not in question. However, the idea that the Earth is worth preserving at the risk of changing an individual's lifestyle is not a risk worth taking. The bottom line is that a lot of people are just too selfish. The rhetoric of toxic discourse needs to take on a metamorphosis. To actually affect the morals of selfish people, reaching far into the future will not work. The threat needs to be immediate. But, if the science of global warming and destruction of the planet is correct the threat to humans will not be immediate for quite a while. The only discourse that seems to make a change in people's perception of planetary obliteration is that of the immediate threat to the lifestyles or interests of individuals. Exploiting these self-serving interests has proven to get some self-centered individuals on board with eco-centric quests. The Pebble Mine debate has many members on board with preserving/conserving the Bristol Bay fishery. The fisherman are interested in stopping the mine because they rely on killing the fish to make some money. Just as some oppose the mine because of the lack of tax legislation that would make the mine profitable for all. Some people really believe that poisoning the water and damaging an entire ecosystem is wrong just on the basis that the plants and animals in the ecosystem deserve to be there. Blurring the lines between conservation and preservation and driving home the message of impending doom growing ever closer will bring us one step closer to universal realization. It is manipulation, but telling people what they want to hear or speaking to a particular audience in a particular way has proven to be effective in many arenas.
I really wanted to post this earlier, but at least I got it down before class this time.
In Michael Bennett’s “From Wide Open Spaces to Metropolitan Places” quite a few interesting points were raised. I admit I thought the part where he talks about the “arrogance” of Session’s statement that real humans must have intimate contact with wild ecosystems was pretty funny, “Yet anyone who has spent some time in the great outdoors knows that there are plenty of unevolved, anthropocentric, close-minded folk residing in remote areas” (6?). Not to get in trouble under that political policy notice, but the blue states tend to encompass more urban areas where a lot of the red states are those less populated. I mean, what’s that all about? Possibly it’s because people in cities have a tendency to care more about social issues because they are more exposed to homelessness, school budget cuts, etc. (though not really driven by environmental issues until the environmental justice movement came along). It could be, as Bennett brings up on page 10?, that rural dwellers rely more heavily on the extraction of resources so are more likely to favor economic development instead of protection of the environment. It’s also a very different nature experience when someone chooses to go outside and admire the scenery like Wordsworth or Thoreau then when they have to be outside because they have no home or that’s where their living comes from, directly. I do think that with the onset of environmental justice there is now a greater tie between social issues and environmental issues. Even though there isn’t really a political party that broadcasts greater affiliations with environmental protection (besides the green party of course) it seems now that those party’s with greater social consideration also envelop greater environmental protection. So, anyway, my real interest is in how the environmental justice movement has changed the face of environmentalism in general, particularly racially. It has been stated in both Buell’s “Toxic Discourse” and Bennett’s paper that the environmental movement was predominately white males before EJ came along, so I wanted to find out how different ethnic groups compared when it came to more current environmental issues. I was also curious what are the predominant socioeconomic factors involved in the prevalence of specific kinds of environmental issues (urban versus pastoral). These questions will be addressed during class tonight when I give my report.
One thing that I noticed in reading Gerrard and Buell is that the apocalypse has been happening since the moment Christ died and possibly before. The thing that gets me and both authors is it still hasn’t happened but everything prophesized leading to death, mayhem and genocide has happened. Do we conform to apocalyptical literature/ orature because it scares us? In other words, do we make this happen to ourselves with our inability or refusal to recognize the things initiated by us? Is there a flip side to the down side of apocalyptic writings? I probably won’t be able to answer all of those questions myself, but here are my thoughts. Yes, we conform to apocalyptical literature and orature. Buell, or perhaps Gerrard, give the example of the great potato famine in Ireland in 1845 that was ‘prophesized’ earlier in the century. But part of our conformity to the ideas of apocalypse seems to be a resistance to it. We learn to live with the general idea that something colossal could or will happen in the distant or not so distant future. We live in the fear, although we may not realize it, of nuclear warfare everyday. Do we conform our lives around this? I would argue that we do in minute ways. We drive faster, study harder, do more drugs, get less sleep, do more dangerous things. Now maybe these things aren’t directly connected to my generation, maybe it has been bred into me by my parents and surroundings. But to the next question, is it our inability to recognize the apocalypse we bring on ourselves? Carson uses the example biological warfare, it was created to kill large quantities of ‘its’ and yet we used it every day to kill smaller, insignificant ‘its’. But at the same time we see that Carson did some good with her apocalyptic Silent Spring. Legislation and action followed in her wake. Really I’m just ranting though. Apocalyptical writings have and will be in literary genres, why we call the apocalyptical and not pastoral eulogies, I don’t know. But it seems to me that they could very well be interchangeable.
I have a few questions after completing the readings--Gerrard in particular. First: how exactly would you define "apocalypse" from the point of view of an ecocritic? obviously it's not the religious idea --the messiah coming to save all who are worthy from all that is evil--but I didn't get the impression that Gerrard really had a clear idea of how ecocriticism views the idea of an apocalypse. I don't really have any answers to this question, so I'll move onto my second: does instilling the fear of an apocalypse really work? Gerrard seems to believe, to a limited extent, that it does--I disagree. Maybe it did at one point, but by now the idea has been pummelled into our brains that it has lost just about all of its meaning. Combine that with the media portraying just about everything--from sports to politics--as some kind of disaster for somebody, and I think it becomes pretty clear why people don't respond to the idea like they used to, if they respond at all.
My third question pretty much assumes that people agree with how I answered the last one, so skip this paragraph if you didn't. If the concept of an apocalypse doesn't motivate people anymore, why are we still using it? Besides the obvious desire to make money (people will by a headline that reads "1,000,000 die in China" before one that says "Clinton loses Utah"), I think it actually serves as a reason NOT to do anything. For one thing, and Gerrard says something to this effect, if the world is going to end anyway, why bother? Besides that, though, I think the people think of the apocalypse as something distant, that won't happen for a long time, and as such preventing isn't as important. As an example, until recently most people acknowledged global warming, but passed it off as a problem of "the next generation"--something that won't have any consequences in our lifetime. I think the idea of an apocalypse allows people to pass off problems in a similar manner.
7 comments:
February 19, 2008
John S. Sonin
Blog 5- Apocalypticism
Many issues were brought to our “frontal lobes” this week and I hope to address more than a few in the report I’ll write for tomorrow, later today. But this specific topic labeling the genre’ of literature that seems to be gaining popularity, though according to Gerrard it’s a genre’ of human thinking that has been around for “3000 years,” has me cursing the maturing ideology of the world’s dominating culture. Mostly because the uneducated thought processes use this “I give-up!” default/common-denominator, as an excuse for amoral, care less, inhuman(e) behavior and the only way to human progress (maybe eventual transcendence!, but that’s a private spiritual matter) is consideration of more then just self. Ultimately, if one doesn’t think anyone or anything else will be impacted by what one does, what does one care about who gets hurt, injured (both economically and physically), or deprived of their potential?
Without a sufficient liberal education, unbiased by some other “self” -centered information controller, a proficient education that can come through experience and intuition (intuition that isn’t ignored), the natural maturation process ought (“ought” in a fair and just world which is more so at the top end of the socioeconomic scale as opposed to the lower end) be sufficient to recognize how working together we produce (and work is essential to a life worth living) more than if we worked apart.
Children may not recognize this for they haven’t, as yet, attained socialization, but until society reverts to a “Lord of the Flies” scenario, children do not have the control of resources, nor are they in roles of leadership, to be influencing the dominate ideology. But if the ideology created by adults is exposing the children, children who have unfixed mindsets, to a perpetual barrage of a pessimistic, dying future, images (in whatever way culture is transmitted), they’ll never even attempt to alter the community, world, situation they live-in to one more suited to providing opportunity for their success. And personal success in becoming a “whole, matured-adult,” means human success in a maturing, growing reality.
If all the kids imbibe as they grow into the propagating age of the species is a dying perception of the future, hope is lost! And “hope” is all that can motivate anyone to try. I could relapse into my argument for entropy on that note (entropy being the only physical constant in the universe wherein to avoid its veracity humans need continued application of human energy to at least maintain what has yet to decay) but I won’t. What the kids must learn is not only how to “build” a future but also how to maintain what they, and humanity, already have.
Unless we, and Christian evangelists, with their ideological/media/senior citizen or cultural elder influence, can revert back to a “comedic” perception of Apocalypticism that stresses stewardship of God’s creation, and alter the hopeless future for subsequent generations by living by the principles of Environmental Justice, “quite desperation” of the human majority will continue for the next 3000-years.
Forgot I wanted to include this verse!
"Ebbing Life?"
By John S. Sonin
Turning tides.
Cycling seasons
burnished hues
banished, what reasons?
Autumnal brilliance,
senior wisdom.
Ebbing tides yet,
fecund fiefdoms.
Simply cycling health?
Renewing reality?
Nay, a wincing withdrawal,
simply a finality.
The death of life gives
life to death.
Can nature respire back
For another breath?”
In a couple of ways I find Michael Bennett’s insights and arguments very persuasive and incredibly poignant. When speaking about the writings of Ross, Bennett remarks that he
“is attuned to the ways in which dubious natural science – e.g., sociobiology - generates theories of nature which can provide justification for repressive social arrangements on the false premise that such theories are objectively revealed rather than culturally determined” (13).
This is similar to the ideas that were on my mind last week when I spoke of the societal and cultural influences upon ‘objective’ science. Overall, Bennett’s essay clarifies some of the ideas that Cronon discussed – that old dichotomies need to done away with for a more radical change. Bennett takes it a step further though by saying that (note he is speaking about Buell here);
“A market-driven economy frames and shapes the ways in which we appropriate the environment…raising individual consciousness cannot directly counteract these larger forces” (15).
I think the larger goal of Bennett’s essay, as he states, is to better theorize ecocriticism to make it a ‘legit’ discipline of study (no matter how interdisciplinary it is, it must have an encompassing theory [I guess]). What we come around to with Bennett’s insights and findings is that while he claims older conceptions of nature and wilderness need to be radically altered, and that ecocriticism itself needs to recognize this, how are we than to claim that contemporary ecocriticism (so entwined with these ideals) can integrate what Bennett calls the “distaff branches” – wouldn’t we than have to radically alter what ecocriticism is and what it means?
Damn the sophists.
I think that the question that the ecocritic should and would ask would be to ask why the apocalyptic rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. Throughout all of the sections for the week a common theme amongst them was that they continued to cite and give mention to toxic discourse written about for years. If the same message is given time and time again, in different countries and different languages, and the messages is still not received. What is wrong with the message?
It's not that people are not believing the message it is just that the message does not have any significance for the mass population.
For some people, hearing the message that the worldwide destruction is a reality is enough. Preserving the global ecosystem is a noble task for some. For others the idea that our ecosystem is finite is not in question. However, the idea that the Earth is worth preserving at the risk of changing an individual's lifestyle is not a risk worth taking.
The bottom line is that a lot of people are just too selfish. The rhetoric of toxic discourse needs to take on a metamorphosis. To actually affect the morals of selfish people, reaching far into the future will not work. The threat needs to be immediate. But, if the science of global warming and destruction of the planet is correct the threat to humans will not be immediate for quite a while. The only discourse that seems to make a change in people's perception of planetary obliteration is that of the immediate threat to the lifestyles or interests of individuals. Exploiting these self-serving interests has proven to get some self-centered individuals on board with eco-centric quests. The Pebble Mine debate has many members on board with preserving/conserving the Bristol Bay fishery. The fisherman are interested in stopping the mine because they rely on killing the fish to make some money. Just as some oppose the mine because of the lack of tax legislation that would make the mine profitable for all. Some people really believe that poisoning the water and damaging an entire ecosystem is wrong just on the basis that the plants and animals in the ecosystem deserve to be there.
Blurring the lines between conservation and preservation and driving home the message of impending doom growing ever closer will bring us one step closer to universal realization. It is manipulation, but telling people what they want to hear or speaking to a particular audience in a particular way has proven to be effective in many arenas.
I really wanted to post this earlier, but at least I got it down before class this time.
In Michael Bennett’s “From Wide Open Spaces to Metropolitan Places” quite a few interesting points were raised. I admit I thought the part where he talks about the “arrogance” of Session’s statement that real humans must have intimate contact with wild ecosystems was pretty funny, “Yet anyone who has spent some time in the great outdoors knows that there are plenty of unevolved, anthropocentric, close-minded folk residing in remote areas” (6?). Not to get in trouble under that political policy notice, but the blue states tend to encompass more urban areas where a lot of the red states are those less populated. I mean, what’s that all about? Possibly it’s because people in cities have a tendency to care more about social issues because they are more exposed to homelessness, school budget cuts, etc. (though not really driven by environmental issues until the environmental justice movement came along). It could be, as Bennett brings up on page 10?, that rural dwellers rely more heavily on the extraction of resources so are more likely to favor economic development instead of protection of the environment. It’s also a very different nature experience when someone chooses to go outside and admire the scenery like Wordsworth or Thoreau then when they have to be outside because they have no home or that’s where their living comes from, directly. I do think that with the onset of environmental justice there is now a greater tie between social issues and environmental issues. Even though there isn’t really a political party that broadcasts greater affiliations with environmental protection (besides the green party of course) it seems now that those party’s with greater social consideration also envelop greater environmental protection. So, anyway, my real interest is in how the environmental justice movement has changed the face of environmentalism in general, particularly racially. It has been stated in both Buell’s “Toxic Discourse” and Bennett’s paper that the environmental movement was predominately white males before EJ came along, so I wanted to find out how different ethnic groups compared when it came to more current environmental issues. I was also curious what are the predominant socioeconomic factors involved in the prevalence of specific kinds of environmental issues (urban versus pastoral). These questions will be addressed during class tonight when I give my report.
One thing that I noticed in reading Gerrard and Buell is that the apocalypse has been happening since the moment Christ died and possibly before. The thing that gets me and both authors is it still hasn’t happened but everything prophesized leading to death, mayhem and genocide has happened. Do we conform to apocalyptical literature/ orature because it scares us? In other words, do we make this happen to ourselves with our inability or refusal to recognize the things initiated by us? Is there a flip side to the down side of apocalyptic writings?
I probably won’t be able to answer all of those questions myself, but here are my thoughts. Yes, we conform to apocalyptical literature and orature. Buell, or perhaps Gerrard, give the example of the great potato famine in Ireland in 1845 that was ‘prophesized’ earlier in the century. But part of our conformity to the ideas of apocalypse seems to be a resistance to it. We learn to live with the general idea that something colossal could or will happen in the distant or not so distant future. We live in the fear, although we may not realize it, of nuclear warfare everyday. Do we conform our lives around this? I would argue that we do in minute ways. We drive faster, study harder, do more drugs, get less sleep, do more dangerous things. Now maybe these things aren’t directly connected to my generation, maybe it has been bred into me by my parents and surroundings. But to the next question, is it our inability to recognize the apocalypse we bring on ourselves? Carson uses the example biological warfare, it was created to kill large quantities of ‘its’ and yet we used it every day to kill smaller, insignificant ‘its’. But at the same time we see that Carson did some good with her apocalyptic Silent Spring. Legislation and action followed in her wake. Really I’m just ranting though. Apocalyptical writings have and will be in literary genres, why we call the apocalyptical and not pastoral eulogies, I don’t know. But it seems to me that they could very well be interchangeable.
Andy Lounsbury
I have a few questions after completing the readings--Gerrard in particular. First: how exactly would you define "apocalypse" from the point of view of an ecocritic? obviously it's not the religious idea --the messiah coming to save all who are worthy from all that is evil--but I didn't get the impression that Gerrard really had a clear idea of how ecocriticism views the idea of an apocalypse. I don't really have any answers to this question, so I'll move onto my second: does instilling the fear of an apocalypse really work? Gerrard seems to believe, to a limited extent, that it does--I disagree. Maybe it did at one point, but by now the idea has been pummelled into our brains that it has lost just about all of its meaning. Combine that with the media portraying just about everything--from sports to politics--as some kind of disaster for somebody, and I think it becomes pretty clear why people don't respond to the idea like they used to, if they respond at all.
My third question pretty much assumes that people agree with how I answered the last one, so skip this paragraph if you didn't. If the concept of an apocalypse doesn't motivate people anymore, why are we still using it? Besides the obvious desire to make money (people will by a headline that reads "1,000,000 die in China" before one that says "Clinton loses Utah"), I think it actually serves as a reason NOT to do anything. For one thing, and Gerrard says something to this effect, if the world is going to end anyway, why bother? Besides that, though, I think the people think of the apocalypse as something distant, that won't happen for a long time, and as such preventing isn't as important. As an example, until recently most people acknowledged global warming, but passed it off as a problem of "the next generation"--something that won't have any consequences in our lifetime. I think the idea of an apocalypse allows people to pass off problems in a similar manner.
Post a Comment