Ecocriticism

Ecocriticism is one of the most recent literary theories, only beginning in the US in the late 1980’s and in the UK in the 1990’s. Although some scholars say that the field did not emerge as a distinguished theory until well into the 90’s. Ecocriticism, as its name suggests, means that literature is analyzed or critiqued using ecology, or consideration of the natural environment. Unlike the other theories we’ve studied this semester, ecocriticism differs because it concentrates on non-human priorities or focuses. In fact, while other theories seek to make human issues and concerns the center or focus, ecocriticism resists those approaches. Another way to think about this is that the other theories focus on linguistics (language building blocks), stylistics, or socially constructed ideas (based on humans’ culture). However, either way, it is very human-focused and not focused on nature, first and foremost, as ecocriticism is.

Therefore, Ecocriticism seeks to position humans in a more humbled, lower position than the other theories. Ecocriticism cares first and foremost about nature and the natural environment, including but not limited to ecology (ecosystems, plants, trees, wildlife, living organisms, forests and jungles, etc). If ecocriticism considers humans’ involvement in the natural realm, usually they are considered only as animals. (Hence, humans exist within the natural world but only as animals that exist at the top of the food chain, as predators, but still an animals and not as spiritual beings or made in God’s image, etc.) Religious or spiritual matters are also not a focus of ecocriticism.

Ecocriticism is sometimes known by the name of ‘Green Studies’ within UK. (On the other hand, ecocriticism is more of an American term.) Both fields of study focus on the natural environment, as discussed above. However, the focuses tend to be slightly different. Because ecocriticism emerged from the United States, the criticism tends to be more optimistic. Whereas, green studies from the UK tends to be more pessimistic (Barry, 161). This may seem puzzling at first, but if you think about it a bit more from an ecological perspective it makes sense. America is a very spacious country. There is a lot of land and although the population is ever increasing, it still is not as overly populated as some countries. What is more is that the United States is a relatively new country. While Native Americans lived on the land for centuries before Europeans arrived, the Native Americans did not decimate (or destroy and pollute) the land as much as the whites have since arriving in the fifteenth century. In contrast, the United Kingdom has a relatively small land mass compared to America. Additionally, England’s lands have been filled with cities for many more centuries than in the US. In fact, smog pollution was first discovered in London. Therefore, given the differences in geographical positions and their dissimilar histories, it makes sense that ecocritics from the UK would tend to be more criticizing of humankind and the destruction that they are having on the land and natural environment. While Americans tend to be more uplifting and reassured that there is hope, because their environment is not yet so damaged.

That being said, the two different focuses are not universally true. By that I mean this: not all green studies pieces are negative and not all ecocritical pieces are positive. It greatly depends on the specific text that is being analyzed and it depends on the approach of the author and on what his or her objective is. It is also important to realize that sometimes ecocriticism is used as a general, broad term to mean both green studies (UK) and ecocriticism (USA).

Ecocriticism: Bringing humans down to size

            As human beings, we tend to think of ourselves as the center of the universe. Humankind measures past, present, and future by culture, history, and human events. We tend to be very egotistical and human-centric. Ecocriticism, on the other hand, tries to consider the very limited time span we humans have inhabited the earth. Science has proven that plants, animals, trees, and other natural living organisms have long predated human beings. (This means that nature was here before humans ever showed up.) Furthermore, human beings can only exist because of nature. As we frequently see nowadays in “go green” ad campaigns, we have no other earth to turn to if (or when) we destroy this current one. As such, ecocritics also encourage ‘green’attitudes, or to become more environmentally conscientious.

            Let me give you a real life example. Think about Satya Wacana’s campus (well known as a green campus). While Marxism may look at our lovely UKSW campus and see only the money that it cost to build it and to continue to operate and maintain it, ecocritics may see the green space. They may appreciate the efforts to keep it green. However, ecocritics may also critique the notion that it is a “green campus.” After all, what does ‘green’ really mean? How many trees and grass need to be present to be considered green? And, how green is green? The campus still has a great deal of buildings, a great deal of people; perhaps an even greater amount of people and human-made things exist compared to the natural environment. (When we think about human-made objects we may think of: cars and motorcycles, buildings, cement and gravel sidewalks and roads, desks and papers and computers, etc). Also consider this: UKSW likes to use “green campus” as a promotional tool, because humans like the still natural settings. But ecocritics may ask: how natural is it REALLY? And what’s more, is it fair for us human beings to destroy a lot of nature (in order to build a university, essentially destroying trees and ecosystems that had previously lived here)? And then, how ironic that we destroy nature in order to construct something new (this educational institution), only then to advertise so students will come and get their education here because it’s “green?” A similar logic is used if we consider that humans destroy trees to create paper to write “save the trees” on it.

            Another thing that ecocritics sometimes do is reposition or re-visualize what we see as “norms” and tries to create some space in order to de-familiarize (or make unfamiliar) what we believe is normal, familiar, or ordinary. For example: we know by looking at the desk you’re sitting on and the paper you’re using to take notes as (of course) a desk and paper. However, if we removed human beings’ norms and ways of knowing, how would nature recognize these items? Perhaps the desks’ original composition is from wood. Or, how would nature know the paper? Perhaps nature would only know the paper as yielding from tree material. Removing our biased human perspectives can help us to see things new and fresh, from nature’s point of view. This is what ecocritics sometimes tries to do.

            In English we often use the word “nature” or “natural environment” but we use these terms to refer to our human understandings or human perceptions of what these terms mean.  Whereas perhaps what we are saying is more reflective of our culture or our human priorities. Let me give you another example: In English we may think it is natural to be thirsty and so we buy water in order to satisfy our thirst. This may seem normal or reasonable enough. However, how do we buy water? We go to the little toko or café on campus and buy a bottle of water. Yes, the water is natural but the toko is not natural (as in deriving from nature) and nor is the plastic bottle which holds the water. In our human way of understanding we think of these things as “nature” because it is in our culture and everyday life to see them as natural. However, nature (green, natural, biological ecosystem kind of nature) would not view it in the same way.

            As ecocritics challenge the idea that nature can and should only be seen through humans’ perspectives, they consider the “pathetic fallacy.” Pathetic fallacy is a term created by John Ruskin. He originally wrote this idea about art, but the concept can also be used for literature or other arts. Pathetic fallacy means that we attribute human emotion to our environment (Barry, 168). (This happens a lot in movies, TV shows, books, poems, etc.) Surely you have noticed this. When a movie shows a violent thunderstorm then usually there may be a fight or a struggle,  a scary moment when the killer comes or something ominous happens (or is about to happen). Rain with no storm often indicates romance between two characters as they flirt, kiss or make love. On the contrary, if it is nice weather perhaps a character is happy and/or believes that something good will happen.  Perhaps you think, of course, this happens. But ecocritics flip or reverse our way of thinking about this: do humans really think that they can control the weather? Are we that self-obsessed and egotistical that we think that weather mirrors (or shows) our emotions? Do we think humans are that powerful, like God? (Ecocritics do not think so. They remind us to “get over ourselves.”)

            Sometimes writers describe nature as having emotions based on our own human perceptions. For example, “the cruel sea” or “the angry wind.” However, do these natural happenings hold our same human emotion? It may seem that way, but that is because we are, again, hopelessly human-centered. These are some points of ecocritics.

            Essentially ecocritics contest or question the use of the word “natural” and critique the way that human beings use this word to mean human nature, rather than going back to where nature really began: green nature, ecosystems, environment, etc.

Ecocriticism’s Roots

            In the 1978 William Rueckert wrote a piece entitled, “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” This text is recognized as the start of the theory and the coining of the term “ecocriticism.”However, Karl Kroeber also wrote a piece entitled, “Home at Grasmere": ecological holiness'” which also had an impact on bringing together the fields of ecology and literature (Barry, 161). Though the terms were brought together several decades earlier, it was not until the late 80’s that more people started to discuss ecology and literature, giving rise to ecocriticism as a field of study, rather than just from a few individual researcher’s pursuits.

            Although scholars did not recognize the field of ecocriticism, this does not mean that writers have not long been writing about nature and the environment for centuries. On the contrary, American ecocritics recognize: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller and Henry David Thoreau as three very influential American nature authors (Barry, 161). For more nature writing examples, please refer to Thorea’s Walden, Fuller’s Summer on the Lakes, During 1843 and Emerson’s Essays: Second Series (Barry, 162). Additionally, Romance era of literature often focuses on nature as a topic; this recognition has been of interest to ecocritics as well.

Breaking Down: Considering Categories of “Outdoors”

            Very often we humans just think of outdoors as nature. Where we see green, we think of the environment as still being natural. However, author Peter Barry breaks this premise down into several categories so we can think more specifically about (what we really mean when we say) nature.

Area one: 'the wilderness' (e.g. deserts, oceans, uninhabited continents)

Area two: 'the scenic sublime' (e.g. forests, lakes, mountains, cliffs, waterfalls)

Area three: 'the countryside' (e.g. hills, fields, woods)

Area four: 'the domestic picturesque' (e.g. parks, gardens, lanes (Barry, 165).

Again, to us, these groupings above may seem very similar, or it may seem like what is the point of dividing them up into these groups? However, remember: the point is to construct a way of thinking and understanding in which the humans are not the center. The above categories are not all the same to nature. And therefore, we need to consider the differences between these categories, because the four areas above are not all the same to ecology or animals or other non-human beings.

            Let us also consider: perhaps now in the year 2013, there is notrue “wilderness” that exists anymore on our planet. Or if there is, this uninhabited wilderness is becoming less and less every day as humans encroach on the nature’s territory. Also, the world population continues to rise rapidly, trees and forests are destroyed, and land is taken over. Therefore, perhaps it goes without saying, but anything that disrupts or damages nature (pollution, smog, litter, decimating forests or wildlife, global warming or climate shift, etc) is important to ecocritics.

            Likewise, we can shift our view of natural happenings: for example, the rain. We have different words to explain whether the rain is coming down hard or lightly, from sprinkling to drizzling to down pouring. However, to nature—does it recognize the differences? In terms of language differences--maybe not? In quantities, perhaps not? It is all water or precipitation for nature, essential to survival (for animals and trees, not only for us).

So what is and what is not ecocriticism?

            I wish I that I could provide you with a simple definition that all ecocritics agree on. However, like so many of the other theories we’ve read this semester, not all theorists or writers agree. They are frequently putting forth their own ideas or definitions of what ecocriticism means or what it should mean.

1--In fact, one writer, Michael P. Cohen has observed: “If you want to be an ecocritic, be prepared to explain what you do and be criticized, if not satirized.” (This means that ecocritics are frequently met with other writers or scholars challenging their work or their ideas. Another reason he wrote this is because ecocritics are often times considered to be a less serious form of literary criticism. Of the theories we’re studying this semester, some argue that ecocriticism is the most marginalized of the theories.)

2--Glotfelty's working definition in The Ecocriticism Reader is that "ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment" (xviii). One of the implicit goals of the approach is to give some dignity to this "undervalued genre of nature writing" (xxxi). Another writer, Lawrence Buell defines “‘ecocriticism’ ... as [a] study of the relationship between literature and the environment conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis.”This is a very fancy way of saying that he thinks that yes, ecocriticism is about the connection between literature and environment. But it does not focus only on the human aspects, but it gives special attention to the environmentalist ways of thinking about life and matters.

3--Simon Estokstated that “ecocriticism has distinguished itself, debates notwithstanding, firstly by the ethical stand it takes, its commitment to the natural world as an important thing rather than simply as an object of thematic study, and, secondly, by its commitment to making connections” (“A Report Card on Ecocriticism” 220). This is a long sentence, but rather than ‘othering’ or marginalizing nature, ecocritics take an activist stance or a political commitment to change the way that humans see nature. Rather than just studying ecology as though it were an object, humans commit to it, give it value and emphasis, revere or respect it greatly. (This is because when we study something we objectify it, but ecocritics do not want to think about their relationship with nature like that. This may be because they recognize that humans must respect nature because our survival depends on her.) Ecocritics may find it ethical (or ‘right’) to commit to the seeing the importance of nature and writing to convince others of the same belief, through their criticism.

4--According to Camilo Gomides, ecocriticism is  "the field of enquiry that analyzes and promotes works of art which raise moral questions about human interactions with nature, while also motivating audiences to live within a limit that will be binding over generations" (16). The last part is a fancy way of reminding us all that humans are living in ways that are destroying our earth. Many of our lifestyles will not be sustainable. This means that humans will not be able to maintain this way of living, because we are too quickly destroying natural resources, natural environment, etc.

What do ecocritics do? What are some examples?

1.      They show positions about “nature” that seem to contradict positions about everyday life that we (human beings) tend accept as true or right. Or in other words, they problematize our limited humans’ perceptions of nature (especially when nature is shown as socially constructed).

2.      They re-read major literary works (or revisit canonical works) from an eco-centric perspective, with particular attention to (there presentation of) the natural world. (They may mean critiquing human-centered ways and trying to de-familiarize common ways of looking at literature and life.)

3.      They apply a range of ecocentric concepts, using things other than the human centered natural world. Some examples of those concepts actually sound more biological, and may include: growth and energy, balance and imbalance, symbiosis and mutuality, and sustainable or unsustainable uses of energy and resources, etc.

4.      They pay special attention to writers who make nature as a major part of their piece, such as the American transcendentalists, the British Romantics, the poetry of John Clare, the work of Thomas Hardy and the Georgian poets of the early twentieth century.

5.      They branch out (or go beyond) literary genres, to focus on essays, travel writing, memoirs, and regional literature that focus more on nature.

Works Cited

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: an Introduction to Cultural and Literary Theory. 2^nd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Buell, Lawrence. Writing for an Endangered World: Literature, Culture, and Environment in the U.S. and Beyond. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001.

Cohen, Michael P. “Blues in Green: Ecocriticism Under Critique.” Environmental History 9. 1 (January 2004): 9-36.

Estok, Simon C. (2001). “A Report Card on Ecocriticism.”AUMLA 96 (November): 200-38.

-This literature is dedicated for my beloved friend and lecturer Danielle E. living in United States, and now pursuing her PhD program. This literature is part of the introduction of literature study when I was in a college. Written by my beloved lecturer. The reason I post this because I would like people to read this literature so that they will get more knowledge and be more critical toward perspectives and any literature texts. Thank you :)-