Weekly Reading Response #6

[Jay Jay]

Murphy, Patrick D.  Literature, Nature, and Other: Ecofeminist Critiques.  Albany: State U of New York P, 1995.  Print.

Chapters Read:

• “Prolegomenon for an Ecofeminist Dialogics”
• “Ground, Pivot, Motion: Ecofeminist Theory, Dialogics, and Literary Practice”
• “Voicing Another Nature”
• “ Reconceiving the Relations of Woman and Nature, Nature and Culture: Contemporary Environmental Literature by Women”
• “Sex-Typing the Planet: Gaia Imagery and the Problem of Subverting Patriarchy”

First, let’s get a basic definition out of the way.

dialogic (adjective): of, pertaining to, or of the nature of dialogue; sharing in dialogue. (OED)

Also, I need to preface this reading response by saying I have little working knowledge of Mikhail Bakhtin—my only encounters with Bakhtin occurred in my theory survey course three years ago.

The first chapter, “Prolegomenon for an Ecofeminist Dialogics,” addressed the need Murphy sees for scholars (and ecological, ecofeminist activists) to use Bakhtin’s dialogical method to transform the fields of ecology and feminisms.  The method, previously used only for “literature, language, and thought” can become a “livable critical theory” if used as a foundation for the intersection of ecology and feminisms (4).  It is necessary to recognize the differences and use of things-in-themselves, things-for-us, and us-as-things-for-others as descriptors for the relationships of interdependence between humans, nonhumans, and the environment.  Murphy states scholars must develop a criterion of ecological values based on three variables: interrelationship, maintenance, and sustainment (6).  These variables would allow us to evaluate the health of the ecosystem as a foundational judgment, allowing actual nature and the environment to become a subject rather than object.

While Murphy urges us to embrace Bakhtin’s method of dialogics, he recognizes the limitations of the methodology and points towards corrections that must be made.  For example, Bakhtin’s method makes it impossible for the nonhuman to become the speaking subject, which contradicts the goals of ecofeminist and ecocritical theory (12).  Bakhtin also often erases the physical environment as an integral part of the self-formation.  Scholars also need to recognize there will always be two voices: that of the nonhuman speaking subject, and that of the rendering human author.  Theoretical traps that we should be wary of include becoming too attached to the centers that appear on the margins (ecofeminism is situated on the margins), and nostalgia (it is static idealization).  

Seeing Another Instead of Other: Weekly Reading Response # 6

This week Jay Jay and I are reading Literature, Nature and Other: Ecofeminist Critiques, by Patrick D. Murphy.

Here are some of my notes on the first chapter, “Prolegomenon for an Ecofeminist Dialogics”:

Sitting outside and trying to see my computer screen as I write this post reminds me of one of the dilemmas of our society: We need to find the point where nature and technology meet and exist without harming the planet. How many of our modern conveniences do we need to surrender before we can ensure the safety of our planet? How do we even get people to realize that the way we treat nature is a problem? I like ecofeminist theory because I think teaching people to ask questions such as these is the first step to a better way of life for humans and nonhumans. Though sometimes, I fall into that patriarchal hole; How far can I escape from the ideology that makes me “I”? 

This brings me to the reading from this week.  Now, I see that I am interdependent on the rest of the human and nonhuman world and that the indepent "I" is a destructive myth that must be abondoned to truly see the world as it is.  

Patrick D. Murphy proposes an Ecofeminist Dialogics in order to develop a praxis that encourages and reinforces new thinking (instead of the dominant patriarchal ideology) in a way that other theory has failed to do. What can be revealed through this combination of Bakhtin dialogics, ecology and feminisms is that “while human forces are always at work centralizing, quantifying, and coding phenomena, other human forces are always challenging and breaking up such reductions and constructions in order to sustain themselves” (4).

The basis of this theory also recognizes the fact that individual beings (human and nonhuman) are interdependent on each other in a heterarchical relationship.

Because hierarchy is an illusion and absolutes are an illusion the limited social categories of male/female are myths. Also, because nature balances itself we should value things for their ecological value instead of their capital exchange value. Therefore, biological and cultural diversity should be seen as necessary for survival. Ecology cannot reach this perspective without integrating feminisms because one of the reasons nature is devalued is because women are also devalued and linked to nature (7).

One of my favorite passages in the first chapter gives me a clear picture of what role ecofeminists serve as they attempt to dismantle patriarchy: “Given the cultural and ideological hegemony of capitalism in the United States, ecofeminists must necessarily comprise part of the margin, serving as centrifugal force which attempts to break up and fragment the totalizing discourse that perpetuates business as usual” (15).

Looking at this passage, I realize that my assumption, that examining early American texts is not productive, is incorrect. Change has to start from many different points and engage many different levels of society before it can be realized. Every step to destabilize the center of the dominant ideology is a productive step—even an ecofeminist exploration of an Early American text.

“Ground, Pivot, Motion: Ecofeminist Theory, Dialogics, and Literary Practice”

In this chapter, Murphy illuminates how, once the world is viewed from a dialogical paradigm, ecofeminist theory reveals that the “other,” as our society conceives it, is flawed because it cannot describe the diversity and interdependence that is necessary for human and nonhuman survival: “A dialogical orientation reinforces the ecofeminist recognition of interdependence and the natural need of diversity” (22).

Murphy then introduces the concept of “anotherness, being another for others,” and proposes that if anotherness is ignored “then the ecological process of interanimation—the ways in which humans and other entities develop, change, and learn through mutually influencing each other day to day, age by age—will go unacknowledged” (23). He continues by explaining that “a theory of volitional interdependence among human and nonhuman” will work towards a productive realization of our true state of interanimation, and that theories of autonomy and independence are actually detrimental because they deny our true interconnectedness (23).

In terms of centers of power and margins, Murphy demonstrates how the dialogic “can expose the false dichotomy of center and margin that is utilized by oppositional groups notwithstanding that such use codifies the existing power structure’s claim to centrality, legitimacy, and authority . . . . There can be no real margins except as ideological constructs. Nor can there be any centers; rather, there exist cultural and physical pivots that may or may not resist the inevitability of a next step” (23).

 After reading this chapter, I understood clearly how the idea of worrying that I was working on the margins is nothing to be concerned about. I know see that the mere concept of a “marginal” position is only an ideological construct, which I do not have to acknowledge and give power to. When the world is see through the perspective that we are in an interdependent web, I can see how small ripples made in one corner of the sea of life can make large waves.

To be continued...

 ~Writing from one node in the web of life