Research Abstract: Ecocriticism and "Real" Nature

[Blake's Abstract #3]

Phillips, Dana. “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology.” New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 30.3 (1999): 577-602. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 30 June 2011.

Dana Phillips explores how an ecocritical approach which focuses on real nature as opposed to representational nature is actually unproductive.  Simply focusing on real nature results in a dismissal of the fact that nature is inextricably tangled with culture and that culture is inextricably tangled with nature.

Some scholars praise ecocriticism for abandoning abstract theory and focusing on actual, physical nature and activism.  However, Phillips states that excluding theory from the realm of ecocriticism, because poststructuralism argues that nature is a construction of culture, is unproductive. This dismissal of theory misses many ways that it could be used to aid the ecocritical cause, for example destabilizing the canon.  Instead of research and an understanding of criticism, this dismissal of theory is based upon the unfounded claim that theory is destructive to society.  Phillips also charges some ecocritics with being too ignorant of recent developments in the science of ecology.  He says ecocritics who cite the orderly, unified ecosystem a justification for their moral values ignore the new ecological theory that nature should be viewed as separate patches, which are constantly changing and reacting to stimuli.  Phillips notes that when viewing ecology in light of this new paradigm it actually has similarities with poststructuralist theories.

Specifically, Phillips examines Laurence Buell’s Ecocritical Imagination in order to reveal some problems with an antitheoretical ecocritical approach.  Buell engages with theory only to dismiss the idea that nature in literature is simply a product of ideology.  He argues that nature in literature can connect the reader with “real,” non-simulated, non-ideological nature, which allows the ecocritic to make a positive environmental impact by working with literature. 

Phillips disagrees with Buell that nature can be free from ideology; he asserts that theory should be used as a resource to further the ecocritical cause.  The weakness in Buell’s argument is that he ignores that nature an culture are intertwined when he attempts to only look at “actual” nature in texts.  A critical obsession with the realistic portrayal of nature in literature leaves ecocritics acting as mere judges of accurate representation. 

Buell attempts to claim that because A Field Guide to the Birds can put readers in contact with real nature literary representation of nature function in the same manner.  Phillips says that Buell does not support his claim and doubts the ability of the images of birds in field guide to connect humans with actual nature.  He explains that the guide acknowledges that the drawings of the birds are reduced and stylized for identifying purposes; the images are not the only aid used to identify a bird; the guide was developed with the assistance of birdwatchers for functionality, while literature is not written by readers; the guide may not allow positive identification of a bird. In short, instead of using theory to support his claims Buell relies on the argument that literary devices work to enhance a reader’s engagement with real nature, an argument that Phillips is able to weaken and make a case for using theory in all ecocriticism.