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.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm glad you bring up the fact that people are not "being poisoned equally." That was one of the most effective quotations for me in Buell's text. It solidified the Environmental Justice Movement's creed for me. This is very important in considering how both humans and environments inseparable in the "threatened category" as you put it.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mention Hogan's narration as eco-psychology. This invites a notion of understanding environments as if they were human; this was what Silko was getting at I think.
Great ideas here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I posted this once, but it didn't go through, so sorry if this shows up twice.)
ReplyDeleteFirst off, really interesting observation that the authors in our reading are not in danger. But is this true? While it is true that they are not in physical danger like the nature that surrounds them, I do wonder if there is something else at stake for them, some alternative endangerment?
Also, about poisoning not being equal: While we discussed this in class, I couldn't help thinking about McDonald's. (No--not because I was starving.) In the U.S. the concentration of fast food restaurants is much denser in poor areas, and buying local and/or organic is often much too expensive for poor folk. So therefore the rich are enabled to avoid such toxins, while the poor are being pumped with poison in the form of McNuggets. In any poor area (I'm specifically thinking of Bowling Green, KY where I did my undergrad work) the fast-food restaurants make a significant imprint on the idea of place, and clearly contribute to the poisoning of the poor.
@ Sam,
ReplyDeleteIt's really great that you brought in food as a component of the issue. I hope that we can get some chance to discuss it if it's possible.Ecocriticism shouldn't just be about the physical place.
Yes, I like Sam's point about McD's. There is even a term for poor areas without acess to fresh food: "food deserts." We are going to get a major serving of info and arguments about this in our week of food discourse.
ReplyDeleteHaving already read Di CHiro's chapter on environmental justice, I know that she frequently refers to the point about human cultures being threatened and also the social, racial, and other causes of alienation from nature. Maybe this connects to Sam's question about "alternative endangerment."