The blog for Albert Rouzie's ENG 780 Special Studies Seminar on ecological English Studies: ecocriticism, ecorhetoric, and ecocomposition, Spring 2010.
Ursula K. Heise argues that Environmentalism should not only consider the sense of place, but it should also encompass the global. Ideally, our perception of the environment should resemble a collage--a system in which everything is connected, but also separate. She makes this argument in five chapters, which are briefly touched on below.
Heise lays the foundation of her argue by summarizing and critiquing Ursula K. LeGuin's "Vaster than Empire and More Slow," which illustrates an environment in which everything is connected to a global network.
2. "Allegories of Connectedness: From Gaia to the Risk Society"
Here we are introduced to three ecological allegories, the Gaia Hypothesis, Spaceship Earth, and Global Commons, sparked by the infamous image Blue Planet. Heise is not really a fan of these allegories because they assume that, without humankind, the ecosystem is one of perfect balance.
Heise also addresses apocalyptic allegories and the notion of corporate conspiracy, which have contributed to turning our society into what Buell terms a "risk society."
3. "Localism and Modernity: The Ethic of Proximity"
Heise wants us to start thinking about how natural and cultural places are connected and how human impact affects this connectedness.
Aside from elaborating on the importance of equally valuing the local and the global, Heise addresses 1) Staying Put vs. Migration, 2) Problems with Ecocriticism, 3) Problems with defining local, and 4) Sense-of-place discourse. This is where she talks about the American nomad.
4. "Deterrorialization and Eco-cosmopolitanism"
Heise argues that reconsidering these ideas will lead to a more accurate understanding of how individuals and communities inhabit particular sites.
This is where we get into barrier-breakdowns; our in-class discussion touched on the idea of imported products and television and how this deterritorialization can lead to eco-cosmopolitanism.
5. "Forms of the Global:
Heise's goal here is to create a nuanced understanding of how aesthetic forms like allegory and collage have shaped the environmental imagination of the global.
Garrard’s purpose is multiple: 1) to provide a critical guide/survey for ecocriticism; 2) to critically explore the major tropes of ecocrit; 3) to push ecocrit beyond what he considers parochial, politically retrograde positions that are grounded in religion, toward a practice that is based on “postmodern ecology,” a cultural studies approach that views science and criticism as inseparable from political and social issues, and a more global, leftist, though not strictly Marxist, perspective.
His methods
Garrard
1)Identifies major tropes that recur throughout ecocriticism, tracing their sources and how they get employed by ecocritics, how they change over time, and what their implications for EC are going forward. He surveys the major positions, performing some critique as he goes (in chap. 1).
2)Employs a dialectical approach to evaluate tropes. He exposes and criticizes dualistic thinking (technology versus nature, human versus animal, rural versus urban, etc.) by considering the mystified or obscured other term. Hence, he often asks what is being left out or obscured by a particular position, perspective, or use of trope and whose interests are being protected by it.
See, e.g., his decon of the “ecocentric monism” of deep ecologists at the bottom of p. 28; also his statements about the Sierra Club on the bottom of p. 77.
See p. 86, e.g., where he states that “the dialectic in which apocalypticism both responds to and produces ‘crisis’ will be important in our evaluation of it as an ecocritical trope.”
Often deconstructs oppositions. See, e.g.: “[T]he ideal wilderness space is wholly pure by virtue of its independence from humans, but the ideal wilderness narrative posits a human subject whose most authentic existence is located precisely there” (70-71). See also, his decon of the “ecocentric monism” of deep ecologists at the bottom of p. 28; also his statements about the Sierra Club on the bottom of p. 77.
3)Garrard updates science-based ecological theory, for example, explaining how thinking about diversity, succession and “climax forests,” balance, and ecological homeostasis have changed in recent years, pointing out the ways that writers express and still maintain superannuated perspectives.
4)Uses science and materialities to ground his analytical technique. See the first paragraph of p. 10 for his position on how to negotiate the tension between a constructionist perspective and “the privileged claims to literal truth made by ecology.” So, for G, nature does exist, but is always mediated. Science has validity, but is not separable in the final analysis from political and social issues. See last par. on p. 107. See his discussions of postmodernist approaches on p. 13-14 to Delillo’s novel White Noise, and later in the text, his discussion of Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulations. G breaks with extreme pomo but embraces what he calls postmodern ecology. See, e.g., p. 178-79.
5)Reads culture as rhetoric (as advocated by Terry Eagleton in his conclusion to Literary Theory: An Introduction) and employs rhetorical analysis. In the intro chapter he lays out his rhetorical method. See p. 6-9. On. 99-100 G applies ethos, pathos, and logos to Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb. He draws on literary and rhetorical works and on literary and rhetorical critics (e.g., Killingsworth and Palmer). He defines ecocritism’s purpose as including the analysis of environmental debate, not simply ecological themes and questions as expressed in literary and cultural works. See p. 14, first full par.
6)Approaches ecocrit as multi-disciplinary, contested, and closer to cultural studies than traditional literary studies.
7)Takes distinct stands and argues for them. See for example, his advocacy of “comic apocalyptic narratives” over “tragic” ones, his preference for social ecologists over deep ecologists, his problems with Heidegger being a Nazi, etc.
Selection of Interesting, useful and provocative concepts etc. (aside from the above)
Passmore’s distinction between “problems in ecology” and “ecological problems” p. 5-6.
Buell’s four criteria of “toxic discourse” as a cultural genre, p. 12.
The two key contrasts of classical pastoral: 1) town/country and 2) past/present, p. 35.
Leo Marx’s concept of “middle landscape” as the ideal location of American pastoral.
The idea of an eco-canon that has been marginalized (Buell). See p. 53 for Buell’s criteria for inclusion.
Critique of “the metaphor of nature as a harmonious and stable machine” (56-57)
Ecocritical critique of reason and the scientific revolution as an ecological disaster and loss of authenticity (Heidegger). Nazi ecology!
“Poetics of authenticity versus the “poetics of responsibility” p. 71-72.
Jeremiad and rhapsody (as genres) p. 81
Tragic versus comic apocalypticism, p. 87-89; 107.
“[O]nly we construct apocalyptic narratives and therefore even a biocentric perspective must remain anthropogenic” (103).
“The rhetoric of catastrophe tends to ‘produce’ the crisis it describes, as in the Malthusian description of extreme poverty as ‘famine’” (105).
The three attractive features of bioregionalism and some problems, p. 118-19.
Krech’s “ecological Indian” critique
The cyborg as a key figure in the poetics of responsibility, p. 143-147.
Critiques of views of animals in nature documentaries.
Conservation and biopiracy in the context of global political and cultural conflicts, rich versus poor nations.
The two challenges for the future and the role of postmodern ecology, p. 178-79.
t really a fan of these allegories because they assume that, without humankind, the ecosystem is one of perfect balance.
