Mapping the Contours

Text: Greg Garrard, Ecocriticism. First two (2) chapters.

Definitions:
Pollution: to defile (polleure, Latin); in its early English usage reflects it "theologico-moral origins" (8). What's wrong with that?

Science: "both a  producer of environmental hazards and a critical analyst of them" (8) - reminds me of many a conversations I've had with a good Biology major friend who's caught in the middle of guilt and love when it comes to developing pesticides, growth hormones, etc.

Quote from Baarschers: "In dealing with environmental reports or policies or regulations we must always keep in mind that what was zero today will no longer be zero tomorrow" (11). Wow, just wow. Once again, reminding us of the difficulty of defining "purity" or "pollution." Exactly how much is too much? What is zero contamination anyways? Can we ever achieve it? Or, a step back, should we ever achieve it?

Buell's phrase: "mythography of betrayed Eden" (12) is really interesting, seeming to hint at the idea of fallen nature being a complete fallacy. I don't know where I stand on the spectrum yet....

Garrard intends to "drag [the discussion] away from pastoral and nature writing towards postmodern concerns such as globalisation and 'cyborg' interfaces of humans with technology" (15). Why? Should we not have a grounding in classic nature writing, in canonical literature and poetry, in additional to engagements with contemporary issues? I think I would be very lost if Contemporary Lit was all taught to me as an English major. I don't believe in, at all, the deification of dead white males, but  Dostoevsky, Keats, Shakespeare have been the irreplaceable catalyst and inspiration in my life unlike any others....

Various Ecocritical Positions
Garrard differentiates surface-level, convenient environmentalists from those involved in deep ecology, who believe in a "monistic, primal identification of humans and the ecosphere" (21)


Ecofeminism: point to the inherent oppressive label of "Earth Other" (26)


Eco-Marxism: scholars who "lament the individualism and pervasive mysticism of deep ecologists, which, they  argue, represent a retreat from rational thought and real political engagement"  and propagates "a planned economy based on need rather than greed" (29) ---but let's consider human nature here. I'm speaking as one who has actually gone through communist indoctrination. It just doesn't work with real people. The vision Clark writes, of

 "a commune, a closely knit, small community based on love, friendship, shared values, and commitment to a common life [...] mutualistic associations for child care and education, for production and distribution, for cultural creation, for play and enjoyment, for reflection and spiritual renewal" (29-30) 

sounds fine, and in fact, sounds awfully like something Shane Claiborn would have said. I'm a Christian Marxist, whatever that means. I believe in the commune, which is perhaps only possible with supernatural strength, with divine love. Without the fear of God, who's going to commit to anything/any one outside selfish desires?


Note on Anarchism: it has "the advantage of not requiring an elusive revolutionary proletariat for its realisation, and is clealry amenable to a range of counter-cultural movements" (30) - lol


Heideggerian Ecophilosophy: everything said about this man wows me,  his writing "combines a poetic awe before the Earth's being with a savage deconstruction of the death-denying project of world mastery that we are taught to call 'progress'." (30) WOW.

"Heidegger's starting point is the fundamental difference between mere material existence and revelation of 'being,' or the thing-ness of things. To 'be' is not just to exist, but to 'show up' or be disclosed, which requires human consciousness as the space, of 'clearing' in and through which it is disclosed. [...] Thus responsible humans have an implicit duty to let things disclose themselves in their own inimitable way, rather than forcing them into meanings and identities that suit their own instrumental values." 

He believes that poetic language, disclosing both language and beings to us as mere instruments of our will, calls us toward meditation and respect before the natural world. I don't really care who lumps him with Nazi environmental ideology. Maybe there is something to it.... In psychological personality terms, the intuition of an individual when combined with a J, or judgmental decision-executing faculty, can be devastating indeed, tending to slide toward extreme perfectionism, thus the Nazi annihilation of all those who do not conform to "pure race."* I'm indeed fascinated by the idea of there being elements of environmentalism in early Nazism. Regarding Ecofascism, the "official term" I suppose, Garrard has written about it, Mary Frohlich mentioned it also in her article "Under the Signs," and this article has certainly expanded the discussion. Let's see where this actually takes me...

*The psychological personality type of INFJ may be exactly that of Crake in Atwood's novel, Oryx and Crake. I think this spells out some of the aspects of his view on nature and world-wide domination.