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?