So what do you all think of the lyrics and the video?
Showing posts with label ecocritical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecocritical. Show all posts
Saturday, October 8, 2011
The Group Who Couldn't Say
Lesley shared this video with Blake and I a couple of weeks ago, and I kept forgetting to post it here. The band is Grandaddy, and the song is "The Group Who Couldn't Say."
So what do you all think of the lyrics and the video?
So what do you all think of the lyrics and the video?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Abstract #5
[Jay Jay]
Philippon, Daniel J. “Is Early American Environmental Writing Sustainable? A Response to Timothy Sweet.” Early American Literature. 45.2 (2010): 417-23. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 23 June 2011.
Daniel J. Philippon’s essay addresses the contributions of American literary history to the project of ecocriticism, and the ways in which early American concerns do apply to works from later periods, which should not be dismissed by ecocritics. Philippon identifies the inclusion of the “nonhuman world in literary and cultural criticism” as “an unqualified good on both philosophical and biological grounds” (432). It is important to acknowledge that environmental problems cannot be solved without the cooperation of academics and professionals from fields of science, technology, and humanities. The essay by Timothy Sweet clearly demonstrates the benefits of interdisciplinary study, which ecocritism relies upon, by pursuing both a temporal sense and spatial sense of “the continuities and discontinuities of environmental discourse” (433). While Sweet prefers the eco-economic approach, Philippon broadens the perspective by including the “three pillars” approach or the “triple bottom line” (“social, ecological, and economic” and “people, planet, and profit”) (434). An additional criticism of Sweet’s essay includes too little emphasis on the discontinuities between early and later periods, especially “in terms of the pace and scale of technological change,” such as biotechnology and information technology (435). Lastly, the georgic critical approach ignores texts that “exist outside the purview of the pastoral” as well those that include a “built environment” (436).
Philippon, Daniel J. “Is Early American Environmental Writing Sustainable? A Response to Timothy Sweet.” Early American Literature. 45.2 (2010): 417-23. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 23 June 2011.
Daniel J. Philippon’s essay addresses the contributions of American literary history to the project of ecocriticism, and the ways in which early American concerns do apply to works from later periods, which should not be dismissed by ecocritics. Philippon identifies the inclusion of the “nonhuman world in literary and cultural criticism” as “an unqualified good on both philosophical and biological grounds” (432). It is important to acknowledge that environmental problems cannot be solved without the cooperation of academics and professionals from fields of science, technology, and humanities. The essay by Timothy Sweet clearly demonstrates the benefits of interdisciplinary study, which ecocritism relies upon, by pursuing both a temporal sense and spatial sense of “the continuities and discontinuities of environmental discourse” (433). While Sweet prefers the eco-economic approach, Philippon broadens the perspective by including the “three pillars” approach or the “triple bottom line” (“social, ecological, and economic” and “people, planet, and profit”) (434). An additional criticism of Sweet’s essay includes too little emphasis on the discontinuities between early and later periods, especially “in terms of the pace and scale of technological change,” such as biotechnology and information technology (435). Lastly, the georgic critical approach ignores texts that “exist outside the purview of the pastoral” as well those that include a “built environment” (436).
Monday, July 25, 2011
Research Abstract: Searching for Sustainability in Early American Literature
[Blake's Abstract # 5]
D aniel J. Philippon says issues which Timothy Sweet raises in his article “Projecting Early American Environmental Writing” and his book American Georgics: Economy and Environment in Early American Literature deserve more critical attention because exploring ways in which humans and nonhumans can work together towards a sustainable future is increasingly relevant. Critical studies of nonhuman nature is now accepted and expected among academics addressing cultural concerns. Also, addressing environmental concerns from an academic perspective is relevant because a lack of sustainable living practices damages the environment and prospects for human and nonhuman survival.
Philipon identifies Sweet’s central concerns as determining what early American literature can add to ecocriticism and discovering how early American paradigms can help the ecocritical cause today. Philippon argues that the humanities—including studies of early American literature—are as important to the ecocritical cause as the sciences because human behavior and beliefs are at the root of the damage to the environment; therefore, to truly find solutions to our environmental problems we must examine ourselves, our definition of “human,” and ultimately change our behaviors. Looking back at early American writing is valuable to ecocritics because they can study trends in human behavior towards the environment and beliefs about nature over time and across the space of geography.
Philipon notes that Sweet purposes a georgic focus, as opposed to a pastoral focus, for ecocritical analysis of early American texts in order to expose the fact that our economic system relies on ecological capabilities for its success. However, Philipon cautions against prioritizing the economic oriented environment because it creates a hierarchy, which reduces the importance of noneconomic nature. In this light, a georgic orientation seems reductive because all elements of sustainability must be addressed; in addition to economic concerns, social and ecological ones must be addressed as well. For example, asking who are the labors working on the land and who else is affected by this labor can be one way of investigating economic justice perspectives. Asking what role religious arguments for sustainability have in the ecocritical cause further necessarily complicate the georgic perspective by engaging with Puritan and Quaker philosophy.
Philippon, Daniel J. “Is Early American Environmental Writing Sustainable? A Response to Timothy Sweet.” Early American Literature 45.2 (2010): 417-23. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 30 June 2011.
Philipon identifies Sweet’s central concerns as determining what early American literature can add to ecocriticism and discovering how early American paradigms can help the ecocritical cause today. Philippon argues that the humanities—including studies of early American literature—are as important to the ecocritical cause as the sciences because human behavior and beliefs are at the root of the damage to the environment; therefore, to truly find solutions to our environmental problems we must examine ourselves, our definition of “human,” and ultimately change our behaviors. Looking back at early American writing is valuable to ecocritics because they can study trends in human behavior towards the environment and beliefs about nature over time and across the space of geography.
Philipon notes that Sweet purposes a georgic focus, as opposed to a pastoral focus, for ecocritical analysis of early American texts in order to expose the fact that our economic system relies on ecological capabilities for its success. However, Philipon cautions against prioritizing the economic oriented environment because it creates a hierarchy, which reduces the importance of noneconomic nature. In this light, a georgic orientation seems reductive because all elements of sustainability must be addressed; in addition to economic concerns, social and ecological ones must be addressed as well. For example, asking who are the labors working on the land and who else is affected by this labor can be one way of investigating economic justice perspectives. Asking what role religious arguments for sustainability have in the ecocritical cause further necessarily complicate the georgic perspective by engaging with Puritan and Quaker philosophy.
While Sweet says that exploring the reoccurrence of beliefs about nature throughout history is important, Philipon adds that addressing the changing context in which these similar ideas are presented in is vital. For example, technology is a contextual factor that must be taken into account when examining attitudes about nature because it not only transmits these beliefs but shapes them. Technology is even valuable to the ecocritical because it can aid in the transmission of solutions for sustainable living. In conclusion, Philipon admits that if Americans do still operate from a colonial paradigm, like Sweet believes, then ecocritical analysis of early American texts can reveal much about our current eco-economic relationships.
Research Abstract: Early American Environmental Writing
[Blake's Abstract #4]
Timothy Sweet makes a case for how studying early American environmental writing can contribute to the current ecocritical cause.
Sweet identifies the contrastive model of early American environmental studies, which examines discontinuities in beliefs about the environment. Thoreau is considered the inventor of the nature essay, which signals the official shift from anthropocentric thinking to a concern for nature and the impact of technological advancements on undeveloped nature. Early American environmental genres identified in the pre-Thoreau period include promotional, travel, scientific, historical, and even religious documents. Early American ecofeminists also acknowledge a shift to more eco-conscious writing around the same time; however, they generally concentrate on fiction, beginning in colonial America that attempts to domesticate nature or pursue a nondomestic space in nature.
In contrast with the discontinuity model, the American origins model of studying environmental writing is primarily concerned with studying continuity in attitudes about the environment and identifying the beginnings of the attitudes in colonial texts. An example is the denial that our eco-economy is based on limited natural resources; the origin of this belief can be tracked from the separation of scientific texts from common literature; to the specialization of economics, which denied the existence of an environmental foundation; and ultimately to the pastoralization of nature, which only considers non-economic environments “nature.” Therefore, because the American ecological economy is still viewed with a colonial attitude, studying the colonial origins of this eco-economic paradigm will help Americans acknowledge that an eco-economy based on imagining inexhaustible production capabilities is impossible and unethical. A georgic perspective denies the human/nature separation and urges humans to acknowledge that we do not live outside nature—nature is not separate from economic environments. In contrast, the pastoral glorifies the escape from urban life to non-economic nature and acknowledges human alienation from nature because of our development.
A biogeographical approach examines both discontinuities and continuities in American environmental thought but it contextualizes these beliefs with a global perspective. A biogeographical approach also studies the effect people have on human and nonhumans in regional ecosystems as they move throughout the globe. From this paradigm, the concept of American wilderness is invalid and American nature was never “pure” because before European colonization because it was occupied by Native Americans who hunted and farmed the land.
Sweet calls for an expansion of the American nature writing canon to include nonliterary genres because environmental writing often took these forms in early America. He also proposes that a survey class of colonial nature writing can be used to expose a concern with environmental issues, which disappears in later American writings. Sweet concludes that early American nature writing holds much potential for the contemporary ecocritical cause in examining sustainability can be achieved with consideration for humans and nonhumans.
Sweet, Timothy. “Projecting Early American Environmental Writing.” American Literary History 22.2 (2010): 419-31. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 1 July 2011.
Sweet identifies the contrastive model of early American environmental studies, which examines discontinuities in beliefs about the environment. Thoreau is considered the inventor of the nature essay, which signals the official shift from anthropocentric thinking to a concern for nature and the impact of technological advancements on undeveloped nature. Early American environmental genres identified in the pre-Thoreau period include promotional, travel, scientific, historical, and even religious documents. Early American ecofeminists also acknowledge a shift to more eco-conscious writing around the same time; however, they generally concentrate on fiction, beginning in colonial America that attempts to domesticate nature or pursue a nondomestic space in nature.
In contrast with the discontinuity model, the American origins model of studying environmental writing is primarily concerned with studying continuity in attitudes about the environment and identifying the beginnings of the attitudes in colonial texts. An example is the denial that our eco-economy is based on limited natural resources; the origin of this belief can be tracked from the separation of scientific texts from common literature; to the specialization of economics, which denied the existence of an environmental foundation; and ultimately to the pastoralization of nature, which only considers non-economic environments “nature.” Therefore, because the American ecological economy is still viewed with a colonial attitude, studying the colonial origins of this eco-economic paradigm will help Americans acknowledge that an eco-economy based on imagining inexhaustible production capabilities is impossible and unethical. A georgic perspective denies the human/nature separation and urges humans to acknowledge that we do not live outside nature—nature is not separate from economic environments. In contrast, the pastoral glorifies the escape from urban life to non-economic nature and acknowledges human alienation from nature because of our development.
Sweet calls for an expansion of the American nature writing canon to include nonliterary genres because environmental writing often took these forms in early America. He also proposes that a survey class of colonial nature writing can be used to expose a concern with environmental issues, which disappears in later American writings. Sweet concludes that early American nature writing holds much potential for the contemporary ecocritical cause in examining sustainability can be achieved with consideration for humans and nonhumans.
Research Abstract: Ecocriticism and "Real" Nature
[Blake's Abstract #3]
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Conference Proposal
[Blake]
In the introduction to Chapter Three of William Bartram, the Search for Nature's Design: Selected Art, Letters, and Unpublished Writings, Laurel Ode-Schneider analyzes Bartram’s views on the relationship between human and nonhuman nature as presented in two previously unpublished letters. She finds that Bartram’s anthropomorphosis figures in these letters are used to reverse the human/animal hierarchy in order to illustrate its unbalanced nature. Ode-Schneider remarks that the anthropomorphosis figures found in Travels fail to function in a similar manner as the ones in his letters; she states that they operate only as unserious metaphors.
Examining the Ecofeminist Elements of Bartram’s Anthropomorphosis Figures in Travels
In the introduction to Chapter Three of William Bartram, the Search for Nature's Design: Selected Art, Letters, and Unpublished Writings, Laurel Ode-Schneider analyzes Bartram’s views on the relationship between human and nonhuman nature as presented in two previously unpublished letters. She finds that Bartram’s anthropomorphosis figures in these letters are used to reverse the human/animal hierarchy in order to illustrate its unbalanced nature. Ode-Schneider remarks that the anthropomorphosis figures found in Travels fail to function in a similar manner as the ones in his letters; she states that they operate only as unserious metaphors.
I disagree with Ode-Schneider that the anthropomorphosis figures in Travels are insignificant. Instead, I agree with Charles H. Adams who proposes that Bartram’s anthropocentric metaphors work to illustrate the interrelatedness of humans and animals and remind his readers that they should observe themselves in nature because nature is essential to humans. I expand upon Adam’s ecological argument, and find that when examined with an ecofeminist lens the anthropomorphosis figures reveal Bartram’s recognition of (an)other in nature, human and nonhuman interdependence, and the necessity for diversity instead of domination. Therefore, an ecofeminist analysis proves that Bartram’s anthropomorphosis figures in Travels function to expose the false nature of patriarchal Enlightenment ideology, which espouses that man is superior to animals.
Because Adams demonstrated that Bartram’s anthropocentric literary devices are used in a liberating instead of oppressive manner, I believe the term “anthropomorphosis” is more appropriate because the metaphors are not employed to show that humans are central to the universe, but they are a means to oppose the Enlightenment idea that “a mere mechanical impulse” drives nonhuman animals instead of reason and emotion.
I will examine three specific anthropomorphosis figures in Travels to illustrate my claim: a bear cub that Bartram describes as crying like a child after hunters kill its mother, which shows that animals are not something Other than human, but instead are Another being with their own families and emotions; a spider that he imagines is a Native American hunting prey demonstrates that animals and humans are similarly interdependent on the web of life for sustenance; also, by painting a group crayfish as soldiers fighting a school of fish, he demonstrates a need to acknowledge that the diversity of biota expands beyond narrow categories of Linnaean classification and includes diversity in characteristics such as temperament, intelligence, strategy, building ability.
Bartram’s expression of ecofeminist-like philosophical beliefs through his anthropomorphosis figures proves that they are not merely “whimsical,” like Ode-Schneider says, but that they function to reject patriarchal ideology. It is essential to recognize these figures in Travels as one of Bartram’s devices to express his opposition to the Enlightenment man/nature hierarchy because it further clarifies how Bartram was resistant to colonial ideology of his time. Future exploration of the relationship between the anthropomorphosis figures in Travels and the metaphors in his subsequent letters might show that the letters reveal views that Bartram had always held but did not feel they could be blatantly stressed in a published text because his primary audience was Enlightenment America.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Preliminary Bibliography
[Blake's Working Bibliography]
Primary Source:
Harper, Francis, ed. The Travels of William Bartram, Naturalist’s Edition. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1998. Print.
I have chosen to use this scholarly edition of Bartram’s Travels, because it is the most commonly cited version in academic articles. The editor’s notes state that Travels was reproduced “with practically the same exactness as if it were the 1791 edition,” even indicating the original pagination (vii). I have confirmed this after reviewing a microfilm copy of the 1791 version and comparing the two.
Secondary Sources Used to Formulate My Claim:
Adams, Charles H. “Reading Ecologically: Language and Play in Bartram's Travels.” The Southern Quarterly: A Journal of the Arts in the South 32.4 (1994): 65-74. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 14 June 2011.
In this journal article, Adams demonstrates how with an ecological lens Bartram’s metaphorical language, along with other devices, function as a way for him to explain the interrelationships and diversity that he observes in nonhuman nature (67-69). Adams proposes that Bartram’s anthropocentric metaphors—such as a laughing trout—work to illustrate the interrelatedness of humans and animals and remind his readers “to find [their] reflection in nature” because nature is essential to humans (73). I agree with Adams, and plan to use his article to support my claim that the anthropocentric metaphors in Travels are significant because they express Bartram’s theory about human and nonhuman nature. I will suggest that in addition to reading his anthropocentric figures ecologically, reading them with an ecofeminist paradigm yields the additional insight into the metaphors—that they also express Bartram’s opposition to a conception of the man/nature hierarchy as expressed in patriarchal Enlightenment ideology.
Magee, Judith. The Art and Science of William Bartram. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State UP, 2007. Print.
This book provides me with information essential to understanding the context of Bartram’s views of nature including an explanation of his non-traditional Quaker background, the Enlightenment ideas that he would have been exposed to, and how his philosophy regarding nonhuman nature differed from the Chain of Being theory, which espoused a hierarchical relationship of organisms (151). Magee states that Bartram related animals and plants to humans in order to reduce the “gradation” of separation expressed in the Chain of Being theory. However, I claim that by applying an ecofeminist lens to examine the anthropocentric figures it becomes evident that Bartram used them to oppose the patriarchal ideology of the Enlightenment. I purpose a more confident stance than Magee, stating that scholars can now understand Bartram’s view of nature as not just “more egalitarian than the standard hierarchical structure” but as a heterarchical relationship between human and nonhuman nature (151).
Murphy, Patrick D. Literature, Nature, and Other: Ecofeminist Critiques. Albany: State U of New York P, 1995. Print.
This book provides me with my ecofeminist theoretical foundation which I will apply to Bartram’s Travels to prove that his use of anthropocentric metaphors work to oppose patriarchal ideology; for example, I will use Murphy’s concept of “anotherness” to examine the manner in which Bartram raises the nonhuman to a status that is equal with humans through his metaphors, ultimately illustrating that he acknowledges the interdependence of all life, which is contrary to the dominant Enlightenment beliefs of his time.
Ode-Schneider, Laurel. “Chapter Three: ‘The Dignity of Human Nature’ William Bartram and the Great Chain of Being.” Introduction. William Bartram, the Search for Nature's Design: Selected Art, Letters, and Unpublished Writings. Eds. Thomas Hallock, Nancy E. Hoffmann, and Joel T. Fry. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 2010. 340-46. Print.
I formulated my thesis in opposition to an idea presented in this book chapter introduction. Ode-Schneider analyzes Bartram’s views on the relationship between human and nonhuman nature as presented in two previously unpublished letters. She finds that Bartram’s anthropocentric figures in these letters are used to reverse the human/animal hierarchy in order to illustrate its unbalanced nature, thereby exposing the false ideology. Ode-Schneider remarks that the anthropocentric figures found in Travels are used “merely as a lighthearted troupe” (341).
I disagree with Ode-Schneider that the anthropocentric figures in Travels are insignificant; I find that when examined with an ecofeminist lens, they reveal Bartram’s recognition of (an)other in nature, human and nonhuman interdependence, and the necessity for diversity instead of domination. Bartram’s expression of these philosophical beliefs through his anthropocentric figures proves that they are not merely “whimsical,” but that they also function to reject Enlightenment patriarchal ideology, which claims nonhuman nature is inferior to man, should be divided into static categories and classifications, and valued as a commodity for man to dominate and use.
Other Sources Consulted:
Arner, Robert D. “Pastoral Patterns in William Bartram's Travels.” Tennessee Studies in Literature 18 (1973): 133-145. Print.
Buell, Lawrence. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture. Cambridge: Belknap P, 1995. Print.
Cox, John D. “Representing America: The American as Traveler in the Work of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur and William Bartram.” Traveling South: Travel Narratives and the Construction of American Identity. Athens: U of Georgia P, 2005. 19-62. Print.
Hallock, Thomas. “On the Boarders of a New World: William Bartram’s Travels.” From the Fallen tree: Frontier Narratives, Environmental Politics, and the Roots of a National Pastoral, 1749-1826. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2003. 149-173. Print.
Kolodny, Annette. The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in American Life and Letters. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1975. Print.
Kornegay, Burt. “Nature, Man, and God.” Kathryn E. Holland Braund, and Charlotte M. Porter, eds. Fields of Vision: Essays on the Travels of William Bartram. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 2010. 81-90. Print.
Ralston, Ramona. “Signs of Science and the Sublime in Bartram’s Travels: Subverting the Colonialist Agenda.” Semiotics 1998. 290-298. New York: Lang, 1999. Print.
Schiebinger, Londa L., and Claudia Swan. Colonial Botany: Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2005. Print.
Slaughter, Thomas P., ed. Travels and Other Writings. By William Bartram. 1791. New York: Literary Classics US, 1996. Print.
Terrie, Philip G. “Tempests & Alligators: The Ambiguous Wilderness of William Bartram.” North Dakota Quarterly 59.2 (1991): 17-32. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 12 June 2011.
Examining the Ecofeminist Elements of Bartram’s Anthropocentric Figures in Travels
Primary Source:
Harper, Francis, ed. The Travels of William Bartram, Naturalist’s Edition. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1998. Print.
I have chosen to use this scholarly edition of Bartram’s Travels, because it is the most commonly cited version in academic articles. The editor’s notes state that Travels was reproduced “with practically the same exactness as if it were the 1791 edition,” even indicating the original pagination (vii). I have confirmed this after reviewing a microfilm copy of the 1791 version and comparing the two.
Secondary Sources Used to Formulate My Claim:
Adams, Charles H. “Reading Ecologically: Language and Play in Bartram's Travels.” The Southern Quarterly: A Journal of the Arts in the South 32.4 (1994): 65-74. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 14 June 2011.
In this journal article, Adams demonstrates how with an ecological lens Bartram’s metaphorical language, along with other devices, function as a way for him to explain the interrelationships and diversity that he observes in nonhuman nature (67-69). Adams proposes that Bartram’s anthropocentric metaphors—such as a laughing trout—work to illustrate the interrelatedness of humans and animals and remind his readers “to find [their] reflection in nature” because nature is essential to humans (73). I agree with Adams, and plan to use his article to support my claim that the anthropocentric metaphors in Travels are significant because they express Bartram’s theory about human and nonhuman nature. I will suggest that in addition to reading his anthropocentric figures ecologically, reading them with an ecofeminist paradigm yields the additional insight into the metaphors—that they also express Bartram’s opposition to a conception of the man/nature hierarchy as expressed in patriarchal Enlightenment ideology.
Magee, Judith. The Art and Science of William Bartram. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State UP, 2007. Print.
This book provides me with information essential to understanding the context of Bartram’s views of nature including an explanation of his non-traditional Quaker background, the Enlightenment ideas that he would have been exposed to, and how his philosophy regarding nonhuman nature differed from the Chain of Being theory, which espoused a hierarchical relationship of organisms (151). Magee states that Bartram related animals and plants to humans in order to reduce the “gradation” of separation expressed in the Chain of Being theory. However, I claim that by applying an ecofeminist lens to examine the anthropocentric figures it becomes evident that Bartram used them to oppose the patriarchal ideology of the Enlightenment. I purpose a more confident stance than Magee, stating that scholars can now understand Bartram’s view of nature as not just “more egalitarian than the standard hierarchical structure” but as a heterarchical relationship between human and nonhuman nature (151).
Murphy, Patrick D. Literature, Nature, and Other: Ecofeminist Critiques. Albany: State U of New York P, 1995. Print.
This book provides me with my ecofeminist theoretical foundation which I will apply to Bartram’s Travels to prove that his use of anthropocentric metaphors work to oppose patriarchal ideology; for example, I will use Murphy’s concept of “anotherness” to examine the manner in which Bartram raises the nonhuman to a status that is equal with humans through his metaphors, ultimately illustrating that he acknowledges the interdependence of all life, which is contrary to the dominant Enlightenment beliefs of his time.
Ode-Schneider, Laurel. “Chapter Three: ‘The Dignity of Human Nature’ William Bartram and the Great Chain of Being.” Introduction. William Bartram, the Search for Nature's Design: Selected Art, Letters, and Unpublished Writings. Eds. Thomas Hallock, Nancy E. Hoffmann, and Joel T. Fry. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 2010. 340-46. Print.
I formulated my thesis in opposition to an idea presented in this book chapter introduction. Ode-Schneider analyzes Bartram’s views on the relationship between human and nonhuman nature as presented in two previously unpublished letters. She finds that Bartram’s anthropocentric figures in these letters are used to reverse the human/animal hierarchy in order to illustrate its unbalanced nature, thereby exposing the false ideology. Ode-Schneider remarks that the anthropocentric figures found in Travels are used “merely as a lighthearted troupe” (341).
I disagree with Ode-Schneider that the anthropocentric figures in Travels are insignificant; I find that when examined with an ecofeminist lens, they reveal Bartram’s recognition of (an)other in nature, human and nonhuman interdependence, and the necessity for diversity instead of domination. Bartram’s expression of these philosophical beliefs through his anthropocentric figures proves that they are not merely “whimsical,” but that they also function to reject Enlightenment patriarchal ideology, which claims nonhuman nature is inferior to man, should be divided into static categories and classifications, and valued as a commodity for man to dominate and use.
Other Sources Consulted:
Arner, Robert D. “Pastoral Patterns in William Bartram's Travels.” Tennessee Studies in Literature 18 (1973): 133-145. Print.
Buell, Lawrence. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture. Cambridge: Belknap P, 1995. Print.
Cox, John D. “Representing America: The American as Traveler in the Work of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur and William Bartram.” Traveling South: Travel Narratives and the Construction of American Identity. Athens: U of Georgia P, 2005. 19-62. Print.
Hallock, Thomas. “On the Boarders of a New World: William Bartram’s Travels.” From the Fallen tree: Frontier Narratives, Environmental Politics, and the Roots of a National Pastoral, 1749-1826. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2003. 149-173. Print.
Kolodny, Annette. The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in American Life and Letters. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1975. Print.
Kornegay, Burt. “Nature, Man, and God.” Kathryn E. Holland Braund, and Charlotte M. Porter, eds. Fields of Vision: Essays on the Travels of William Bartram. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 2010. 81-90. Print.
Ralston, Ramona. “Signs of Science and the Sublime in Bartram’s Travels: Subverting the Colonialist Agenda.” Semiotics 1998. 290-298. New York: Lang, 1999. Print.
Schiebinger, Londa L., and Claudia Swan. Colonial Botany: Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2005. Print.
Slaughter, Thomas P., ed. Travels and Other Writings. By William Bartram. 1791. New York: Literary Classics US, 1996. Print.
Terrie, Philip G. “Tempests & Alligators: The Ambiguous Wilderness of William Bartram.” North Dakota Quarterly 59.2 (1991): 17-32. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 12 June 2011.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Actually, I Felt Sorry for the Gator.
While reading Jay Jay's post about our first ecocritical brainstorming session, I realized that I am also interested in studying this theoretical approach because I feel that it can provide a lens to view the travel journals that I have read in a new perspective and perhaps answer some of my many questions about them. Like Jay Jay, my primary research interest is in early American studies, and I am curious to see what I can discover about these texts by applying ecofeminist theory to them.
I wonder, where does the simultaneous American love and abuse of nature that Lawrence Buell describes originate?
Well, like the female student that Nina Bayam describes as feeling sorry for the lion killed in Ernest Hemingway's The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber, I admit to feeling sorry for the gator that Bartram shot. It is this dissonance in the text that disturbed me and sparked my curiosity.
I wonder, where does the simultaneous American love and abuse of nature that Lawrence Buell describes originate?
I took my first course in early American literature as an undergraduate. One of the travel narratives that I read struck me because I was not sure what to make of it; my survey class did not offer much time to deconstruct it. I am referring to William Bartram's Travels through North and South Carolina Georgia West Florida . I was intially excited to read this because I am from Jacksonville , Florida St. John's River
 |
| Copy of title page of 1792 reprint for J. Johnson. First published Philadelphia, 1791. Image from Florida Photgraphic Collection at http://www.floridamemory.com/ |
I learned that Bartram was a Quaker naturalist and botanist whose stories and sketches of Early American wilderness inspired writers such as Coleridge and Wordsworth. Unfortunately, I was dismayed by Bartram's description of a violent brush with alligators while fishing on the St. Johns River , which ends in him shooting a gator that climbs onto the shore after he pulls his canoe onto the dry ground.
This text was disturbing to me because as a peaceful Quaker, botanist, and naturalist I did not understand why would Bartram be so aggressive with these creatures. Yes, he might have been in danger is they attacked him, but he invaded their swamp to fish. He also mentions that for the most part they did not molest him. He even seems to take pride in shooting the large gator at the end even though he is not threatening.
It puzzles me that the introduction in The American Tradition in Literature, edited by George Perkins and Barbara Perkins, describes Bartram as only killing large animals "if hard pressed" (271). From the brief excerpt from his journal, I see an early example of the current contradictory American "love" for nature, which disappears the moment nature is in between us and what we want.
Like Bartram beating the gators in the head with an oar to get to a good fishing spot, even today Americans will move endangered Joshua trees in the high desert to build the latest development of identical suburban homes. So, what does Bartram's travel journal mean through an ecofeminist lens? Can we say that it is one of the sites of the origin of dualistic relationship to nature? Perkins et al. assert that this text, "helped fix in European minds pictures of an American wilderness lush and untamed . . .it depicted a world both inviting and threatening" (271).
First, I need to see what other scholars have said about this text. Second, I need to learn more about the origin of this text, and about the impact on its readers. Yes, the text was widely published inLondon England Florida
First, I need to see what other scholars have said about this text. Second, I need to learn more about the origin of this text, and about the impact on its readers. Yes, the text was widely published in
I pulled up a photo of Bartram's drawing of alligators in the St. Johns River and I was surprised that they looked almost like dragons. What does this drawing say about how the gators looked in his eyes? What bearing does it have on the text? I will need to think about this more.
 |
| Photo of William Bartram's Sketch of Two Alligators in the St. Johns River, 1773 or 1774. Image from Florida Photographic Collection at http://www.floridamamory.com/ Bartram's notes with the sketch: Figure 1 represents the action of this terrible monster when they bellow in the Spring Season. They force the water out of their throat which falls from their mouth like a Cataract and a steam or vapour from their nostrils like smoke. Figure 2 represents them rising up out of the water when they devour the fish. From the standpoint of natural history, perhaps the most important drawing ever executed by Bartram. |
Until next time, don't go fishing where there are alligators.
Blake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)