Hello All,
Below you will find the full text of my presentation notes. It comes out to four pages in Word, so feel free to skim through until you find something that is particularly interesting to you. I apologize for the length, the class handout I prepared was only two pages, the extra is what I would have said aloud in addition to what I was going to hand out. Since this is virtual, you get everything!
:) Amber
Neil Evernden - Beyond
Ecology: Self, Place, and the Pathetic Fallacy
Humanities vs. Science
-
Typically, when we think of environmentalism we think of science.
However, Neil Evernden would have us consider the benefit the humanities can
have to the preservation of the environment.
-
He sees the exclusive association of environmentalism with science as
“contain[ing] the seeds of the movement’s destruction” (92).
-
Evernden believes “Failure is inevitable because of the movement’s
willingness to address the developers perpetual question: ‘What good is it?’
Accepting the validity of that question entails denying the validity of the
preservationist movement” (92).
-
This was interesting to me because I had not realized that the question
of preservation was framed in this manner. I also did not realize that
entertaining the question is tacit approval of an attitude that I do not agree
with. If I go ahead and try to answer that question then I am already agreeing
that the basis of environmental value is only its value to humans, which is not
something that I actually believe.
Whooping Cranes and
Subjectivity
-
The example of whooping cranes illustrates how basing the justification
for preservation on that organism’s utility is completely human-centered.
-
What happens when we frame environmental debate in terms of usefulness?
What about things that are not "useful"? Without utility we are left with a
defense more in the "pathetic fallacy" realm. PF makes defenders who use it seem out
of touch with the “real world”.
Subversive Science
- Ecology appears to support preservationist aims but in the end supports the same
"wrong" conversation, that of "utility" but in a different
form: "If we can't proceed with a certain development without undesirable
consequences, then obviously it is the role of the ecologist to find a way for
us to proceed with the development while avoiding the consequences."(93)
-
Although it might appear that ecology is not really a subversive
science, it does retain a subversive element. "The really subversive
element in Ecology rests […] upon its basic premise: inter-relatedness" 93).
Inter-relatedness vs.
Intermingling
-
The Western mind sees humans as “inter-related”. We interact and have an
affect on each other but man is somehow set apart from everything else.
-
Rather Evernden would have us realize that we are actually intermingling.
-
If we stick to the idea that we are only inter-related then we will
continue to believe that there is a way to circumvent the damage caused by our
current approach to the world. Instead we need to be infinitely more careful.
He brings us back to the idea of the “subversive science”. "Ecology undermines not only the growth
addict and the chronic developer, but science itself" (93). Ecology undermines
science by showing that we can’t dissect and dissever elements of nature from
one another.
-
Evernden follows this with a bunch of examples that show how intertwined
and inter-tangled we are with other organisms. The most interesting of example,
for me, was the "realization
that mammalian evolution could not have occurred as rapidly as it did by
mutation and natural selection alone." The idea that "groups of
species, perhaps even whole communities of organisms, could, in a sense,
co-evolve" is both amazing and terrifying (95). It also clearly
demonstrates Evernden's idea of "intermingling" and the fact that we
are not in control.
-
The point of all of this ruminating has been to call our attention to
the fact that it is impossible for "the proper study for man" to only be man "if it is impossible for man to exist out of context, […] the desire
of some in the humanities to deal only with the fragment of reality they term
'human' is nonsense" (95). Again, Evernden draws our attention to the value the
humanities have to the "scientific" study of the environment/ecology/ preservation/ conservation.
-
Evernden addresses those that would resist the idea of intermingling: "It
is much easier for us to think in terms of anti-pollution campaigns than to
contemplate a fundamental error in our set of cultural assumptions" (96).
-
It is easy to think of things as segmented and separate. If we see
ourselves as integral features of the environment it is much more difficult to
deny the damage that we cause and accept the fact that the ultra-luxurious life
that capitalism tells us that we deserve is incompatible with the finite
resources of our world.
-
An example of one of those erroneous cultural assumptions would be western conceptions of religion. If someone is told all their life that God loves them and proof of
that is that he gave them the world, he even sacrificed his only son to save them,
it seems pretty clear in that scenario that the world is for them to do as they will with it, just like any other really cool present from a beloved parent. The
problem comes in thinking that this story is the only possible story. This is
not the only attitude with which we can approach the world.
Aesthetic Response
-
Evernden then moves on to the aesthetic experience to reinforce the
connection between man and the environment. He denies the aesthetics that is
dependent on measuring as another case of science interfering in the province
of the humanities.
-
He supports Dewey’s idea of the aesthetic experience, that it "lies
in the relationship between the individual and the environment, not simply in
the object viewed, nor in the mind of the viewer" (97).
-
This idea of individual-in-environment leads him to the different
conceptions of self and an explanation, perhaps, for why we see ourselves as
separate from the environment.
Dispersed Self/Bounded
Self/Cogito Self
-
Dispersed Self - Cichlid self, I am my environment, the further into my
territory you come, the more of me that you encounter.
-
Bounded Self - Non-propertarian self, an individual within an
environment, bounded by the limits of my physical self
-
Cogito Self - Essential Self, since cogito
ergo sum, I am my mind. Even if you are touching my body, you are not
encountering "me".
-
Implications of each of these "self to setting" relationships:
The further restricted the perception of self is, the less interaction there is
between the self and setting.
-
"The whole world is simply fodder and feces to the consumer, in
sharp contrast to the man who is in an environment in which he belongs and is
of necessity a part" (99).
Tourist vs. Resident
-
Tourist = superficiality, Resident = history. A resident is part of the
place and his involvement is an aesthetic one.
-
Northrup Frye – “the goal of art is to 'recapture, in full
consciousness, that original lost sense of identity with our surroundings,
where there is nothing outside the mind of man, or something identical with the
mind of man’” (99).
-
Landscape portraits rather
landscape paintings. The landscape artist is "giving us an understanding
of what a place would look like to us if
we 'belonged' there, if it were 'our place'" (99). A landscape artist helps us know a place, s/he makes the world
personal. This reinforces how the humanities can help us see ourselves as
within nature.
-
Evernden hypothesizes that we do not have a sense of place because of
the "state of sensory deprivation" that is common in the urban
environment (100). The scarcity of obvious “Nature” and the frenzied pace of
the urban environment makes “genuine attachment to place very difficult” (101).
-
The self-in-things rather than the self-in-place. The urban dweller goes
in search of commodities to fix his sense of self rather than to gather his
sense of self from his place in the environment (101).
The Pathetic Fallacy is
not a fallacy
-
The "Pathetic Fallacy is a fallacy only to the ego clencher"
or those who hang to the Cogito Self for dear life (101).
-
"Metaphoric language is an indicator of 'place'--an indication that
the speaker has a place, feels part of a place"(101). The pathetic fallacy
has been used as a false charge against those who use emotional metaphoric language
to describe the non-human because everything we encounter is part of the human
and we are part of it.
Everything is
everything
-
Evernden wants us to recognize " that the establishment of self is
impossible without the context of place” and that this “casts an entirely
different light on the significance of the non-human,” and it also “underlines
the futility of quantitative" ratings to define the value of our
surroundings (101).
-
Since there is no self without surroundings, the right to place is the province
of the humanities. "The 'deep ecological movement,' […] demands the
involvement of the arts and humanities" because without examining the
underlying causes of environmental damage we will never develop a way to live
in our environment without destroying it (102).
-
Evernden sees the arts as " vitally needed to emphasize […] the
intimate and vital involvement of self with place" and to help us see that
"There is no
such thing as an individual, only an individual-in-context, individual as a
component of place, defined by place" (102).
-
He ends with the reminder that "It's no good passing the buck to
ecologists--environmentalism involves the perception of values, and values are
the coin of the arts. Environmentalism
without aesthetics is merely regional planning."
RE: the "state of sensory deprivation" that is common in the urban environment (100). This is reminiscent of Wordsworth. Nature is the vehicle by which we venture beyond the self.
ReplyDelete"Tourist = superficiality, Resident = history. A resident is part of the place and his involvement is an aesthetic one." - I chuckled to myself when I read this. As a New Yorker, I always criticize the tourists for walking too slowly, for staring at the skyscrapers, for being completely ignorant of subway etiquette. In contrast, we praise the "lifers" who have lived in the city their entire lives because we consider them a part of the city ecosysytem. Is there an equivalent insider/outsider example in Los Angeles? Are there native Angelenos or just transplants? The ecosystem of Los Angeles, to me, seems to be more so a collection of non-natives coexisting.
ReplyDeleteExcellent summary of the main points. I was a bit confused by Evernden's overall point. We should protect nature not because it's useful but because it's beautiful, and, therefore, we need to have values, which the arts can help us with. But who will establish values? Also, we cannot get around questions of utility. We have to "use" the land and living things in order to eat. The question is, how should we use the earth and living creatures?
ReplyDeleteI found this article rather interesting. I liked his notion of intermingling with nature. I never thought of my relationship with the natural environment within those terms. I think that perspective provides more of a holistic approach when working with natural world. My only frustration with the article was that although he identifies the problem with how we study ecology, he does not provide concrete examples that demonstrate how we could infuse Humanities within the ecological discourse ( If he did, then I completely missed it).
ReplyDeleteThe idea of co-evolution may be more helpful when asking the question of how or when did these aesthetic emotions originate? It could be the case that natural selection (from a macro-evolutionary modal) imbued organisms such as ourselves with aesthetic judgements or values. But can they be shown, from an evolutionary perspective, to have their roots in the attributes bred into our species by the struggle for existence? Or are these aesthetic emotions we feel towards nature an accident, or by by-product, of nature? It seems to me, that at least the concept of co-evolution (an example of that might be what scientists refer to as the Cambridge Explosion) could offer an alternative view to these questions by suggesting that organisms do not rely on irreducible properties that are needed for a species to evolve.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I meant "Cambrian Explosion," not "Cambridge Explosion."
ReplyDeleteI found Evernden’s observations on the concept of inter-relatedness between Man and the non-human world extremely important because he debunks the binary system which Man has invented from psychological weakness. Moreover, Evernden’s ideas suggest that Life itself is not defined by binary either; that is any form of life, along with any formation of non-living things—like mountain formations—that obey no one leaving room for co-evolution of any kind. However, it seems that if one thinks this way where the line will not be drawn then the result would be a natural world that has no rules; perhaps no order, no first, no last. A natural world that is.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate Evernden's article for its focus on the often misunderstood or unrealized inter-relatedness of the human being with the biological environment, I argue elsewhere (http://csula-engl501-fall2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-distinctiveness-of-humanity.html) that he has gone too far, needlessly complicating the human being beyond recognition. As I say in the above link, by approaching and identifying what it means to be human at the biological level he does, his argument, ironically, lacks humanity. Amber: you do a great job of breaking down his article, very thorough.
ReplyDeleteAmber has done an excellent job of providing an overview/summary of Evernden and highlighting those aspects of his argument that require further attention. Like other respondents my response to Evernden is mixed, as I imagine Amber's is too if she had had the opportunity to present on the article and engage the class in conversation. Like others I like the move to re-integrate the humanities with the sciences, to reconnect aesthetics with utility, but I found Evernden pretty sketchy on how one might go about doing it. My guess is that the sketchiness can be traced to a fairly naive theoretical foundation. He wants to characterize aesthetics as really another way of discussing the interrelationship between humans the environment. OK, but where's Kant in this discussion--he could certainly invoke The Critique of Judgment to argue this claim but he sidesteps philosophical aesthetics to invoke Dewey (an interesting thinker but hardly central to the study of aesthetics). These untheorized claims surface again at the end of the article. He generalizes about our attachment to place and comments that urban environments cannot engender the right kinds of attachment to place--nothing supports this claim and it's hard to know what the "right" kinds of attachment are. This moment struck me as very Wordsworthian in a not so good way--the way Wordsworth assumes that exposure to the mighty forms of nature will produce between poets and better people. History says otherwise. Finally, when Evernden claims that all this is about the "establishment of self" he seems unaware of poststructuralism and how notions of the "self" or subject are not assumed and automatic.
ReplyDeleteIn short, great work Amber and thanks everyone for the comments.
I believe that Everden has skipped a step by suggesting that all humans have the same relationship with Nature. I think that each age of man has reinterpreted Nature to fit their own needs and realities. Furthermore, different cultures likely have different concepts of Nature depending of their level of technological progress - consider American culture and compare it to that of an Amazonian tribe. It seems that it is hard to develop a real discussion on Nature without recognizing the Protean aspect of the topic.
ReplyDeleteI like Everden's call for the liberal arts to participate more fully in ecological issues but do not quite buy his argument that the liberal arts should be preeminent in this arena. There should be more multi-disciplinary classes on campus period.
The most thought provoking aspect, for me, comes at Evernden's conclusion where he states, "Environmentalism without aesthetics is merely regional planning." This is indeed the case for parks and recreation planning around Los Angeles. The city's many attempts to erect passive parks seem to end in aesthetic nightmares akin to open parking lots with trees. This seems to be a result of a lack of funding for both design and inspiration. It seems aesthetics come at a high price the city is not willing to pay.
ReplyDeleteI really found the differences of the self (dispersed, bounded, cogito) interesting. Descartes’ notion of “I think, therefore I am” limits the self to the mind and further removes the individual from the environment. Great job Amber, I really appreciated the titled sections.
ReplyDelete