Environmentalism and Aesthetics: A Brief Comparison of “Beyond Ecology” and “Coleridge and the Economy of Nature”

                Evernden, in “Beyond Ecology,” leaves the reader with a deceptively simple notion that “environmentalism without aesthetics is merely regional planning” (103). This statement, at first glance, might invoke the usual connotations of the humanities where subjectivity and “opinionated” reasoning reign supreme. I perhaps made this evaluation because of the usual responses from scientists and engineers, which usually impart little to no hope for the humanities to “understand” or discuss science or the environment. Though, Evernden supports this statement in uniting the concepts of both experiencing and interpreting the environment simultaneously while also not simply putting a value on nature. The knee-jerk reaction of the ecologist, as Evernden points out, is to “build in utility to the argument for preserving natural places” (93). This argument for utility is built upon the mutual assumption held by both social sciences as well as the physical sciences in respecting the “all-consuming importance called man” (95). As Evernden points out, the search for some sort of value present in nature for humans might be the wrong methodology for justifying the preservation of whooping cranes or other endangered creatures. Science cannot interpret the world alone but must work in tandem with the humanities to develop a mutual respect between humans and nature.

                McKusick, in “Coleridge and the Economy of Nature,” supports the idea of the sciences and the humanities working for or with one another in that “language [can be characterized] as a living thing or an integral organic system, either through the coinage of new words or the recovery of archaic ones” (8). Yes, it seems like a simple method for uniting the concepts of the sciences and the humanities, but this idea extends beyond a simple metaphor or the simplistic observation that language is our device in communicating any sort of information that is scientific or aesthetic. More importantly, it seems science and the humanities are interconnected simply because the observations that take place in poetry, such as Coleridge, display a “relation to the natural environment and his aesthetic principle of organicism likewise entails reference to the linguistic habitat of a poem as an essential determinant of its meaning” (8). Given such a relation between the environment and language, it seems there is a symbiosis or cooperation amongst the two systems. This relationship is necessary for humans to both interpret and interact within nature, but it is important to observe there is no “value” or hierarchy placed upon the “use” of nature for the benefit of society. The relationship between the aesthetic and the scientific gradually became an issue, as discussed by McKusick, “due to human intervention in the natural world [that was viewed by scientists] as tending toward the improvement of the landscape and the development of natural resources” (2). There are obviously ubiquitous benefits for the manipulation and integration of nature in modern society, but it seems there is an even greater need to spur thought for our relationship and symbiosis with our natural environment rather than assuming our unquestioned dominance over it.