Killingsworth and Palmer’s introduction in Ecospeak reminds me of the dilemma of eco-rhetoric. The eco-discourse they map out resembles the kind of lectures telling people to treasure things that are crucial but unobtrusive—speeches such as “time is life,” “live in the present,” or “treat the people close to you extra nicely when you still have the chance.” And it’s not easy to make those speeches eloquent. Killingsworth and Palmer point out some significant characteristics of eco-discourse for us, including its “relational” (Millennial Ecology 42) attribute, the direction of appeals, (Ecospeak 17) and the influential power-relation (12-16). The analysis is well applied to the reading of Silent Spring.
Aside from their discussion in “Millennial Ecology,” Herndl and Brown’s theory of environmental rhetoric can also be projected upon Silent Spring. I find their rhetorical model for environmental discourse very helpful in discovering the eloquence of successful eco-speech. A big part of the reason of Rachel Carson’s smooth delivery may due to her natural combination of all of those important components of eco-rhetoric: the rhetorical model that interact among the ethnocentric, ecocentric, and anthropocentric role of environmental speech, the critique of hegemony, the local and global lens of observation, and the embedded responsibility of human etc.
However, there are something that I wish Herndl and Brown could have explained further in details. First, the use of Ogden and Richards’ rhetorical triangle as the ground of the their rhetorical model appears to be a bit problematic to me. Aside from the shapes they use in the diagram, I’m having trouble finding the relation between Richard’s triangle and brown’s. Second, they mention the rhetorical theories such as Burke’s dramatism provides learners with “equipments for living” (10). This appears to be a broad statement to me. However, I do like the connection with living they expose in the discussion. Thinking of the readings we have done so far, we are moving from writing of personal living state with nature to local level, and then discourse in the global sphere. The process of development is also embodied in Carson’s essay. From a fable to some global view of environmental relation involving England, the scale of critique in Silent Spring is cautiously managed. I think it is very important to the eloquence of eco-discourse, as it also meets Burke’s building of dramatism.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Localize the Uprooted Ones
Heise argues that environmentalism needs to “foster an understanding of how a wide variety of both natural and cultural places and processes are connected and shape each other around the world, and how human impact affects and changes this connectedness” (21). I think Bell Hooks’ “Touching the Earth” put the idea into play with racial and cultural approaches. Her essay interweaves the relationship among race, history, cultures, and location and relocation. Although I consider her angle of argument falls on the issue of racial identity primarily, I think it speaks well to any generation or individuals who search for their spiritual immersion in soil as members of the “uprooted” urban population. Hooks’ essay displays a view of localization that is loaded with racial, cultural, and psychological concerns.
The sense of place to African Americans under Hooks’ representation is destabilized with historical burdens and culture. She clashes agrarian African American’s perception of harmonious being (represented by Onnie Lee Logan) with the identity struggle that the city people displays. The lost of sensual experience of that population embodied by Toni Morrison resonates with Osden’s description of “sentience without senses” and the alienation cast by environment (18). This form of “presence without mind” (18) is also referred to as “soul loss” derived from “cultural shock” (106) by Hooks. In this sense, the topic of awareness of being based on place entails observation of not only culture or history, but also the mind/body split that can be communicated globally.
In addition, in consideration of Hooks’ discussion of African Americans’ place in large cities as well as her juxtaposition of native Americans and African Americans, can I say that she demonstrates a special form of localization that is derived from the situated and culturally specified state of being.
.
The sense of place to African Americans under Hooks’ representation is destabilized with historical burdens and culture. She clashes agrarian African American’s perception of harmonious being (represented by Onnie Lee Logan) with the identity struggle that the city people displays. The lost of sensual experience of that population embodied by Toni Morrison resonates with Osden’s description of “sentience without senses” and the alienation cast by environment (18). This form of “presence without mind” (18) is also referred to as “soul loss” derived from “cultural shock” (106) by Hooks. In this sense, the topic of awareness of being based on place entails observation of not only culture or history, but also the mind/body split that can be communicated globally.
In addition, in consideration of Hooks’ discussion of African Americans’ place in large cities as well as her juxtaposition of native Americans and African Americans, can I say that she demonstrates a special form of localization that is derived from the situated and culturally specified state of being.
.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Not Poisoned Equally
Based on Buell’s “sweeping” definition of Toxic Discourse, the selection of essays present various forms and focuses of anxiety from environmental change and hazard. While I am not sure if most of the essays can be counted as the non-analytical type of Toxic Discourse in strict sense, they embody well some features of the interaction among environmentalism, ecopopulism, anthropocentricism, and so forth within the field of ecocriticism.
-The Place of Place in the Human/Non-Human Dynamics
By classifying the connectedness of eco-writing into five categories, Buell curves out the states of being of expressed environment in ecology and ecocriticism in chapter two of Writing for an Endangered World. The concepts he emphasizes, concentric zones, fragmented local associations, place template, and identity-shaping etc. , take up important parts in the writing of place, which all correlate with the positioning of human accounts in the representation of the human-environment relationship. In a certain sense, this helps me identify the border of eco-projects in humanistic discourse. In most of the essays, everything are presented as constantly changing and subtly endangered except from human, or the writers themselves. Sander offers thick description of the change of the landscape in his hometown, and Hogan lies her eyes on every beings aside from herself in the sphere she resides. Whereas in anthropocentric or cultural-centered works, the growth of human and reality are portrayed as the unstable elements in the universe of nature. In eco-discourses, places and non-human factors seem to be cast with a tint of hazard or fragileness at the root.
- Self-identification
Derived from the thick depiction of the places and the space, the essays seem to reflect more on self-identification. This confuses me a little bit in terms of the ground of those writing as Toxic Discourse. The entanglement with the notion of home, childhood and change interacting with the space in Sander’s essay turn out to be the underlying focus; Hogan’s perception of the ecosphere presents itself more as a narration of her eco-psychology. At the time when they are stressing the state of the environment, their effort of identifying the existence of their own are revealed vividly. However, this makes me wonder if the focus of self-identification in toxic Discourse can be considered as one of the embodiment of anthropocentricism?
-Animism and the Space of Sovereignty
Hogan’s essay provides me with the application of animism which Garrard displays in his work. The amount of narration of the co-existence of her and the living things in that space almost minimizes the being of human represented by her reflections in her interpretation of dwelling. Another things I like about the essays is how the writers incorporate both human and the environment into the threatened category. It speaks well to what Buell quoted early in chapter two that everyone is not “being poisoned equally.”
-The Place of Place in the Human/Non-Human Dynamics
By classifying the connectedness of eco-writing into five categories, Buell curves out the states of being of expressed environment in ecology and ecocriticism in chapter two of Writing for an Endangered World. The concepts he emphasizes, concentric zones, fragmented local associations, place template, and identity-shaping etc. , take up important parts in the writing of place, which all correlate with the positioning of human accounts in the representation of the human-environment relationship. In a certain sense, this helps me identify the border of eco-projects in humanistic discourse. In most of the essays, everything are presented as constantly changing and subtly endangered except from human, or the writers themselves. Sander offers thick description of the change of the landscape in his hometown, and Hogan lies her eyes on every beings aside from herself in the sphere she resides. Whereas in anthropocentric or cultural-centered works, the growth of human and reality are portrayed as the unstable elements in the universe of nature. In eco-discourses, places and non-human factors seem to be cast with a tint of hazard or fragileness at the root.
- Self-identification
Derived from the thick depiction of the places and the space, the essays seem to reflect more on self-identification. This confuses me a little bit in terms of the ground of those writing as Toxic Discourse. The entanglement with the notion of home, childhood and change interacting with the space in Sander’s essay turn out to be the underlying focus; Hogan’s perception of the ecosphere presents itself more as a narration of her eco-psychology. At the time when they are stressing the state of the environment, their effort of identifying the existence of their own are revealed vividly. However, this makes me wonder if the focus of self-identification in toxic Discourse can be considered as one of the embodiment of anthropocentricism?
-Animism and the Space of Sovereignty
Hogan’s essay provides me with the application of animism which Garrard displays in his work. The amount of narration of the co-existence of her and the living things in that space almost minimizes the being of human represented by her reflections in her interpretation of dwelling. Another things I like about the essays is how the writers incorporate both human and the environment into the threatened category. It speaks well to what Buell quoted early in chapter two that everyone is not “being poisoned equally.”
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Garrard's Ecocriticism
In Ecocriticism, Garrard offers a comprehensive but incisive discussion of the idea of ecocriticism and the relationship between human, literature, and environment. Based on a critical investigation of the contemporary ideas about eco-writing and thinking (i.e. social ecology, eco-Marxism, eco-feminism etc, )Garrard argues for the interdisciplinary nature of ecocriticism which involves scholarship of not only literature, but also multiple theories including ecology, sociology, history, culture, and so forth (14). However, it is no longer a young, cross-boundary discipline in Garrard’s argument, but evolved into a progressive philosophy that welcomes practice, critiques and improvement. In this sense, Garrard’s work offers a good foundation for learners of eco-English.
The work proceeds with several key tropes framing ecocriticism: pollution as an introductory chapter of the discussion, wilderness, apocalypse, dwelling, animals, and the earth for conclusion. With the framework, Garrard proposes for a recognition of ecocriticism with human at the center of the subject. He generally defines it as “the study of the relationship of the human and the non-human, throughout human cultural history and entailing critical analysis in cultural as well as scientific terms, because they are the outcome of an interaction between ecological knowledge and its cultural inflection” (14). Moreover, Garrard stresses the political and philosophical approach of study in his work, calling for a “politicized reading practice more akin to social ecology and cultural studies than to deep ecology and traditional literary studies” (162). With his establishment of ecocriticism, it comes closer to the post-modern perception and construction of knowledge which bears science and politics in its praxis.
One interesting conflict I found in reading his work comes with this approach Garrard uses in articulating the sphere. He underlines his politicized reading and philosophical interpretation during the process, and strives to eliminate the interference of metaphysical or biocentric lenses of observation . However, a considerable amount of quotations and materials he employs displays an inevitable correlation with them. His dismissal of religious reading in the work troubles me in understanding. I wish he could have gave a bit more religious interpretations or explanations.
Some of the concepts he uses are really new to me, and in a sense, interesting. The term I wrestled with most is apocalypse. I still need more interpretations and actual practice to understand it. The second is about the responsibility that he mentions for ecocomposition. He points out that writers should "promote the poetics of responsibility that takes ecological science rather than pantheism as its guide" (71). So how would this responsibility look like in various eco-essays? What approaches could we take in embodying this responsibility as writers?
The work proceeds with several key tropes framing ecocriticism: pollution as an introductory chapter of the discussion, wilderness, apocalypse, dwelling, animals, and the earth for conclusion. With the framework, Garrard proposes for a recognition of ecocriticism with human at the center of the subject. He generally defines it as “the study of the relationship of the human and the non-human, throughout human cultural history and entailing critical analysis in cultural as well as scientific terms, because they are the outcome of an interaction between ecological knowledge and its cultural inflection” (14). Moreover, Garrard stresses the political and philosophical approach of study in his work, calling for a “politicized reading practice more akin to social ecology and cultural studies than to deep ecology and traditional literary studies” (162). With his establishment of ecocriticism, it comes closer to the post-modern perception and construction of knowledge which bears science and politics in its praxis.
One interesting conflict I found in reading his work comes with this approach Garrard uses in articulating the sphere. He underlines his politicized reading and philosophical interpretation during the process, and strives to eliminate the interference of metaphysical or biocentric lenses of observation . However, a considerable amount of quotations and materials he employs displays an inevitable correlation with them. His dismissal of religious reading in the work troubles me in understanding. I wish he could have gave a bit more religious interpretations or explanations.
Some of the concepts he uses are really new to me, and in a sense, interesting. The term I wrestled with most is apocalypse. I still need more interpretations and actual practice to understand it. The second is about the responsibility that he mentions for ecocomposition. He points out that writers should "promote the poetics of responsibility that takes ecological science rather than pantheism as its guide" (71). So how would this responsibility look like in various eco-essays? What approaches could we take in embodying this responsibility as writers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)