Research Abstract: Searching for Sustainability in Early American Literature

[Blake's Abstract # 5]

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.

Daniel 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. 

 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: 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.  

Weekly Reading Response #4

[Jay Jay]

Gaard, Greta, and Patrick D. Murphy, eds. Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1998. Print.

Chapters Read:

• “Introduction” by Greta Gaard and Patrick D. Murphy
• “A Root of Ecofeminism: Ecoféminisme” by Barbara T. Gates
• “‘The Women Are Speaking’: Contemporary Literature as Theoretical Critique” by Patrick D. Murphy
• “Toward an Ecofeminist Standpoint Theory: Bodies as Grounds” by Deborah Slicer
• “Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Reading the Orange” by Josephine Donovan

I think Blake and I are in agreement: we wish we had read this anthology of essays the first week of our independent study instead of Buell.  This collection is comprehensive, wide-ranging, and best of all, provides definition(s) of ecofeminism by the second page of the introduction.  What I did not realize is that ecofeminist literary criticism, or ecofeminist literary analysis, is a very recent branch off the ecofeminist tree, so to speak.

The introduction provides a clear definition of ecofeminism: “a practical movement for social change arising out of the struggles of women to sustain themselves, their families, and their communities” (2).  As the definition suggests, ecofeminism is based on “resistance and vision, critiques and heuristics” (2).  However, as I learned in my readings from this anthology, ecofeminism is not a static, all-encompassing theory.  Rather, there are different branches and approaches based on the individual applying ecofeminism.  Despite the fluid nature of ecofeminism, Gaard and Murphy have found what they believe to be a common thread in all ecofeminist theories: transformation (3).  Specifically they state:

ecofeminism is based not only on the recognition of connections between the exploitation of nature and the oppression of women across patriarchal societies.  It is also based on the recognition that these two forms of domination are bound up with class exploitation, racism, colonialism, and neocolonialism. (3) 

From my understanding, ecofeminism seeks to make visible these connections and then take action to fight against the domination of nature and oppression of women—to enable transformation on cultural, social, economic, and political levels.  What does this mean for my literary project?  It means I should look for literary instances of the domination and nature and the oppression of women and see if they are artificially linked; if so, what are the consequences of this link?  Is there any resistance to this artificial link in the literature?  Are there attempts to transform this link to the advantage of certain persons?  What types of women are being linked to the domination of nature and do any groups of women escape this forced relationship?  Is it lower class working white women?  African American slaves?  Indentured white servants?  Non-Christians?  Native Americans?  I’m incredibly fascinated to read through early American literature with this new filter of ecofeminism.

I’m going to provide you with what I thought were the highlights of chapters one through five, but I would strongly encourage anyone interested in ecofeminism and ecocritical theories to purchase and read all of the selections.  The combination of “ecofeminist literary theory, criticism, and pedagogy” provides for a wide range of material that showcases the fluidity of ecofeminism and its practitioners (2).