Zizek and Ecology

      I found Zizek’s overall argument quite interesting. He is right in that although we are aware of the realities of global warming, our common sense makes it difficult for us to believe that something catastrophic will ever occur. According to Zizek, part of the problem is that we assume that the “world is part of reality as an ordered and seamless Whole” (444). When we look outside and see the trees swaying in the wind and hear the birds chirping, we see the sublimity of nature, but as Zizek points out, we are blind to many of the ecological changes (and its affects) to the environment. Part of the essay briefly mentions the mysterious disease that caused a huge decline in our honey bees, although many of us may have heard something on the radio or on the local news regarding the problem, I don’t think most of us seriously thought about how this will directly affect our lives. Until it becomes a catastrophic event, we continue to move on without giving the problem a second thought. And, when something horrible occurs, the desire or urgency in finding a solution to the problem quickly declines. For some reason, we cannot seem to sustain the public’s interest long enough to contend with the ecological crisis we are faced with today. 

Zizek’s first call to action is to follow Dupuy who suggests that we should first submit to the idea of a possible catastrophe and “perceive it as our fate, as unavoidable, and then, projecting ourselves into it, adopting its standpoint, we should retroactively insert into its past (the past of the future) counterfactual possibilities...upon which we then act today” (459). But  how do we know which “doom” to submit to? There are numerous scientific arguments that suggest we should focus on one potential catastrophe over another, which are we to chose? Also, when he argues that we should then “mobilize ourselves to perform the act,” it sounds as if there is one act in of it self that would fix the problem. Now, I’m not at all an expert on the details of our ecological crisis, but it would seem necessary for us to take on multiple acts simultaneously in order to evoke some kind of substantial change to the natural environment. Even if we were to attempt to solve the problem “retroactively,” there is no guarantee that the solutions we would come up with would work. 

He ends his essay with Badiou’s theory, the “eternal Idea” of revolutionary-egalitarian Justice (460). The first part argues for a strict egalitarian justice. Initially, this sounds fantastic. If I was king of the world, I would consider it, but I would first need to understand its meaning. What would be its guidelines and who would be responsible in overseeing this kind of policy? Would it be an international collective body? If so, then more than likely the same world powers would intercede and exploit it to serve their own political agenda. 

Cronon and Nature

         Our relationship with nature has always been complicated to say the least. It seems rather impossible for us to figure out how we relate to the natural environment.  What I enjoyed most about Cronon’s article is that he was able to find common ground between what is nature and what we want it to be. 

I think Cronon is right in that the problem lies with how society defines nature and/or the wilderness. If we see it as something wild, then we immediately take ourselves out of the equation. If nature is at its purest when it is not inhabited by humans, then how are we supposed to interact with it?  More often than not, it is easy for us to forget that nature is not something “over there,” but in fact, it is all around us. 

I appreciated Cronon’s article because it provided a more balanced approach to nature. If we only focus our attention to the wild, then we run the risk of losing ourselves in the process. Cronon argues that “idealizing the distant wilderness too often means not dealing with the environment in which we actually live” (85). I think sometimes it might be easier for us to focus on protecting the latest endangered animal instead of dealing with more controversial issues such as, “the toxic waste exposure to the ‘unnatural’ urban and agricultural sites” because the solutions to toxic waste may more difficult to grapple with. Cronon is correct in that if we do not pay more attention to the environmental issues at home, “then too many other corners of the earth become less than natural and too many other people become less than human, thereby giving us permission not to care much about their fate” (85). 

By examining and processing our urban world, not only can we work toward confronting some of the environmental issues at hand, but as Cronon explains we can also experience nature without going “over there.” Before I signed up for this class, I never really tried to define nature; I just thought that it was anything nonhuman and not man made. When I heard birds chirping on my balcony, or if I saw my dog running outside chasing a squirrel, I considered it apart of nature. I Never thought of nature as something far removed from me, I only thought that there was less of it my daily life. I also don’t think it is very realistic to preserve nature in its “purest form” because that would mean we couldn’t be apart of it. What we need to do is figure out how we can live with nature in a way that is environmentally responsible. No matter what we do, we will always have some kind of impact on the natural world. Regardless of how much we try to protect nature, it will always be affected by us. The truth is, we can’t just stop progressing as a society for the sake of nature, instead we should take Cronon’s advice and “set responsible limits to human mastery” (87). Now, we just need to figure out what those limits are...

General thoughts on Muir's My first summer in the Sierra

I started reading My first Summer in the Sierra when I happened to be at a park just beneath the Burbank foothills. As Muir was describing his natural setting, I couldn’t help feeling more in tuned to my environment. His narrative makes numerous connections with nature and the sublime, but what really caught my eye was the way he describes the Native Americans. He initially explains that the natives have lived for centuries with scarcely hurting Nature “hardly more than the birds and squirrels, and their brush and bark huts last hardly longer than those of wood rats...” (38). He seems to admire the way they have preserved their land without inflicting permanent damage. He then compares the Native Americans’ treatment of the landscape with the Anglo-Americans who have “imprisoned [the natural world] in iron pipes to strike and wash away hills and miles of the skin of the mountain’s face, riddling, stripping every gold gully and flat” (38). Muir expresses his disappointment with how white Americans have in a “few feverish” years imposed irreversible damage to the earth without giving it a second thought. When I first read these two particular passages, I didn’t pick up on any racial undertones. In fact, I thought it was quite refreshing to read positive remarks being made toward our indigenous neighbors. It wasn’t until I finished reading the next few pages that I thought I might have over estimated Mr. Muir. As soon as he praises them for their respect for Nature, he then precedes to describe an old native woman dressed in rags as being “far from clean” (40). He says that “In every way she seemed sadly unlike Nature’s neat well-dressed animals, though living like them on the bounty of the wilderness” (40). I was honestly surprised and bothered by these remarks and other racial statements he makes throughout the text. On one hand, he applauds them for maintaining the natural order of things, but on the other hand he is perfectly comfortable with calling them savages and highlighting their so-called inadequacies; I wasn’t sure what to make of this. 

The other thing that I thought was interesting was how Muir associates music with Nature and the sublime. He makes many references to birds, waterfalls, and streams singing softly to him. He also discusses the natural setting as if it is alive and connected to him. Toward the end of his journey, he articulates that “when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe” (96). This comment immediately reminded me of Neil Evernden’s  “Beyond Ecology” where Evernden argues that since we are intermingled with natural world, we need to reconsider how we contend with Nature. I think this idea of intermingling or interconnectedness provide a nuanced way of examining our relationship with Nature, and it seems that Muir was also interested in exploring these very same ideas. 

Nature in Mansfield Park

  After Garrett’s warning about this week’s novel, I was hesitant to begin reading Mansfield Park. Like Amber, Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors and I did not want to struggle reading any of her novels. Usually, I find myself immersed in her narratives enjoying the quirks she brings to many of her characters. I didn’t like the idea that there was a possibility that I wouldn’t like the character of Fanny. The thought of having to read a novel in which one dislikes the main character can be a tedious task, but after reading the first thirty pages or so, I was rather surprised by the narrative and by the character of Fanny. Although I did not immediately take to her demeanor, I found her character intriguing. She is nothing like the other characters in Austen’s novels; I became very interested in her story. I also found myself frustrated with the way in which other members of her family treated her (excluding Edmund). Mrs Norris in particular makes it a point to remind Fanny of her social status in the household every chance she has. The more Fanny is reminded of her inequalities, the more we see her shy away from others and from the novel itself. 

As I continued reading the  novel, I found myself in search of questions relating to the theme of Nature, and I thought it was interesting how Austen parallels the cultivation of the gardens at Mr. Rushworth’s home with the way in which society must cultivate social appearances. The gardens, according to Mr. Rushworth, are not acceptable as they are; in fact, he contemplates hiring a landscaper to adjust and improve the grounds. The idea of a garden is in itself man made and artificial, and the desire to readjust it raises many questions about the natural environment. Is the natural setting not good enough as is? If the natural environment is tampered with, is it still apart of the natural setting? When does it stop being natural and starts to become artificial?  After rereading this particular scene, it struck me that not only is the natural environment readjusted to fit social expectations, but the characters themselves are also preoccupied with maintaining social appearances. Mrs. Norris constantly attempts to follow the rules of proper etiquette by maintaining a clear divide between herself and those “below” her that she inevitably makes a mockery of herself. She easily forgets that if it was not for the help of Sir Thomas, she would not have much to live off of. Although social status is clearly a construction of society, in the novel, Austen points out how class distinction seems to function as something natural and instinctive. 

Even with Fanny’s character development, we see Austen playing with the notions of nature verses nurture. Initially, Fanny is a plain and dependent character who is robbed of any charm or wit. Her personality seems “natural,” but as she interacts with others, one could argue that the manner in which she was treated over the years led to her fragile and insecure disposition. Then, as she develops into a young woman, her beauty and grace is noticed by those around her. Characters such as Mr. Crawford take keen interest in her, and she begins to break out of her shell (Although her modesty and strong sense of morality never falters). Slowly, she starts to move up the social ladder in such a way that seems natural. Throughout the text, Austen continuously blends the already murky lines between nature and nurture encouraging her readers to question the notions surrounding social conformity, nature, and gender performativity.

Beyond Ecology

I thought that Neil Evernden’s article “Beyond Ecology” raises many interesting points regarding humankind and its relationship to the non-human environment. He discusses this relationship within the context of “interrelatedness” but he takes this issue far beyond the notion of a casual connection. Instead, he interrogates whether or not humans and non-human elements are completely independent entities. In one instance, he explains that different bacteria can transfer an extra chromosome to other bacteria or to another species in general. This example undercuts preconceived notions that each creature is completely distinct from the other and highlights how the natural world is dependent on each other. I think Evernden is alluding to the idea that the boundaries within nature (including mankind) are much more fluid than we thought. It seems that he is encouraging us to take a more holistic approach when we consider what is natural and what is not. He argues that the only way we can understand human nature is to also study man within the context of the natural environment, not outside of it (95). We are accustomed to perceiving man onto himself and easily forget that man is deeply connected to his surroundings. Everden’s article attempts to bridge the gap between our preconceived notions of man with the reality of our relationship with the natural world. Although he makes a valid point, I think it becomes quite difficult to do so because over time, we have hidden nature from our sight. 

With the onset of urbanization, we do not see a inherit connection to nature; it seems as though mankind and nature are independent of one another. Evernden argues that “we not only see ourselves not part of the environment, we are not even part of the body. We, the real us, is concentrated in some disputed recess of the body” (98). Even on the few occasions when we attempt to connect with the natural world, we do so within the context of modernization. This eliminates any possibility of noticing our interconnection with the natural world. In order to perceive the interrelatedness that Evernden refers to, we must first begin to reframe our perception of man and nature, otherwise it will be difficult to reimagine the boundaries between them as anything but stable.  

Evernden brings up another interesting point when he urges us to include humanities within the conversation of ecology. He points out that we are misguided to believe that only the natural sciences are capable of understanding nature. He explains that the “significance of a place is a personal thing, and the battle for the right to know ‘where I am from’ is not one to won by environmental impact assessments and benefit-cost analysis” (102). I think he is right in the sense that since we are interconnected with the natural world, we need to utilize the social and the natural sciences in order to have a better understanding of our relationship with nature.  I think the field of humanities opens many opportunities for exploration that goes beyond the functionality of nature, but I’m unclear on how it would do so. Although Evernden stresses the importance of including humanities within the study of the natural environment, he does not provide a clear explanation on how this new approach would translate in practice. 

Lines Written in Early Spring

In the poem “Lines Eritten in Early Spring,” Wordsworth seems to grapple with many of the issues discussed in Kevin Hutching’s overview of ecocriticism in Romantic Studies. Although the term “deep ecology” was not coined until the twentieth century (Hutchings 181), Wordsworth demonstrates his appreciation for the natural world beyond its usefulness to mankind.

          The poem initially situates the narrator in a grove observing nature, while he contends with the imperfections of man. Wordsworth does not describe the servitude of nature, instead he uses the natural surroundings to provoke questions about the current state of man.  After taking in the “sweet mood” he is must contend with “sad thoughts to the mind” (418). His connection with nature seems to move him away from simply appreciating the aesthetics of the natural world, instead it compels him to consider man’s position within nature. There is an implication that what man has become is the antithesis to his surroundings. In the second stanza, he acknowledges that his heart “much it griev’d” as he ponders, “what man has made of man” (418). This suggests that there is a desire to reconnect mankind to the natural world not for material incentives, but for the simple pleasures that arise from one’s connection with nature.  His desire to return to nature underscores his recognition of its inherit value as a whole. Wordsworth seems to move away (ever so slowly) from an anthropocentric ideology and desires to live within nature, not outside of it.       

          What is also interesting, is that the concluding lines in stanza three demonstrate that Wordsworth views nature as an active agent. He notices that even the flower “enjoys the air it breathes” (418). Although Wordsworth appropriates personified characteristics to the natural surroundings, he is still able to see the flowers and birds as lively beings that are participating within the world. Yes, his idea of the natural world is socially constructed, but at least he is attempting to figure out how man and that natural world can coexist with one another as opposed to living in conflict of each other.

          I think the poem also suggests that Wordsworth is alluding to a desire for a continuous interconnectedness with the natural world beyond its service to man. In the poem, the only service that nature brings to man is the realization that nature is also apart of his world. In fact, the birds and flowers described operate as independent self functioning entities that seem to have a greater purpose than just performing duties that fit the need of mankind. Even though it is not explicitly stated in the poem, I think it suggests that man and nature should not be separated; they are apart of one another, but the problem seems to be that they have lost their way of coexisting.

Gender, Science, and Language

 

               Keller brings up an interesting point as she explores the trading zones between nature, gender, and science. Both Keller and Haraway articulate the inherit subjectivity of gender embedded within the natural sciences. Although Keller does not explicitly state that there is subjectivity in scientific reasoning, she does explain that science is a story about nature (37). Even though science is founded upon empirical evidence, it is expressed within a narrative framework which is ultimately influenced by societal norms. Regardless of the evidence discovered, the way in which the knowledge is disseminated will dictate an ideology that is influenced by the social constructions of gender. She uses the literature that was historically used to describe the human reproduction process to underscore her point. When scientists and/or society in portrays the sperm as an active agent who penetrates through a passive and ineffectual egg, one can easily see that the narrative framework and the language used to describe this scientific or  “natural event,” is embedded and conflated with gender stereotypes. Keller recognizes that what is described as natural is also firmly based on the construction of gender, race, and class (37). What is considered natural cannot be isolated from our social and political constructs, because the way in which we communicate with one another is deeply engrossed in language. This then raises the question, what is natural?  If even science is also bounded by societal constructions, then what constitutes nature? Even though Keller does not dive deeply into answering these questions, she seems to skirt around the issue of nature. She does not state that science is simply socially constructed; instead, she seems to allude that science/nature constantly interacts with societal norms and ideologies. She does not explicitly state what is natural and what is not, but she is highly aware that one cannot discuss science without examining societal constructs, particularly gender constructs.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s essay “The Vindication of the Rights of Man” also raises some of the same questions about nature; however, with Wollstonecraft, she views certain liberties such as reason, as a natural right of mankind. She argues that these liberties are not simply reserved for men only and should be considered for women as well. She seems to suggest that reason is a part of the natural world and that women should also be able to utilize their reason just as men do.

            With both authors, the issue of what is natural underscores both of their arguments, but what is glossed over is how the language that is used to disseminate these ideas or narratives regarding nature/science continue to perpetuate gender norms and stereotypes. Even though Keller calls for gender in science to not only be recognized and integrated within the history of science, it may also be helpful for her to go beyond gender in the general sense and explore how language in particular effects and influences our constructions gender, science, and gender in science. By isolating the English language, one might be able to then see how language itself gendered and how it then shapes our various modes of thought.