In what ways can ecocriticism’s relationship with other post-structural theories be measured? How does ecocriticism perceive and respond to Anthropocene?

Topic: Critically examine the definition and development of ecocriticism. In what ways can ecocriticism’s relationship with other post-structural theories be measured? How does ecocriticism perceive and respond to Anthropocene? Discuss.

During the last few decades, Environment has posed a great threat to human society as well as the mother earth. The extensive use of natural resources has left us at the brink of ditch. Under these circumstances, there arose a field of literary and cultural criticism that analyses the relationship between people and the natural world. It is a worldwide movement which came into existence in 1990s as a reaction to man’s anthropocentric attitude of dominating nature. While it does not seek to alter the course of any of these real factors, its task is to see how theoretically informed readings of cultural texts can contribute not only to consciousness raising but also look into the politics of development and the construction of nature. Ecocriticism focuses on the material contexts of industrialisation, development, pollution and ecocide while developing a frame for reading. 

Cheryll Glotfelty is a prominent scholar in the field of ecocriticism who is known for her contributions to the theory and practice of literary ecology. She co-edited the seminal anthology The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology in 1996, which is considered a foundational text in the field. Glotfelty’s work focuses on the interaction of environmental issues and literature, arguing that literary studies can help us better understand the multifaceted relationships between humans and nature and aid us in developing critical environmental literacy. In her seminal essay Glotfelty asserts that literature can serve as a powerful tool for raising awareness about environmental issues and shaping cultural attitudes towards nature. She, in the very introduction of her essay, “Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis”, defines ecocriticism as “the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment”. In this essay Glotfelty argues that literary studies must engage with the environmental changes and crises of our time.

Cheryll Glotfelty begins the essay “Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis”, by acknowledging the vast scale and complexity of environmental issues, from climate change to biodiversity loss, and how these problems have grown increasingly urgent. She states the sad state of affairs of ecocriticism. She notes that English Literary studies are in a constant state of flux. Literary criticism for the last fifty years has addressed a lot of issues and has been reinventing itself. Social issues like race, class, gender, etc were hot topics of the twentieth century but literary criticism had not put much effort in addressing bout the earth’s life systems which were under a great stress, even though news paper reports during the same period mentions oil spills, lead and asbestos poisoning, toxic waste contamination, extinction of species, growing hole in the ozone layer, predictions of global warming, acid rain, illegal dumping, droughts, floods, etc. Hence, the essay starts by stating a problem- Literary theory has been “remapping” itself with changing times yet it has not yet addressed the ‘global environmental crisis’. It was only in the 1990s the US president declared that it “the decade of the environment”. And in the year 1989, The Time Magazine declared the person of the earth to be “The Endangered Earth”. Goltfelty also notes that although there were many cultural scholars and disciplines working on the field of ecology since the 1970’s onwards, but unfortunately they were all scattered and not united. So in this anthology The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology Glotfelty along with her co-author Harold Fromm have brought together many theorist and literary studies that speak about the environmental crisis. She traces the environmental literature from 1885 to 1993 and points out that it was in the year 1985 Frederick O Waage edited “Teaching Environmental Literature” which sought to foster environmental concern and awareness in literary disciplines. Again, in 1989 Alicia Nitecki founded “The American Nature Writing News Letter”. Glotfelty continues by stating that in 1990s the University of Neveda created the first academic position in literature and environment and in 1991, MLA identified environmental crisis as a important issue and conducted a special session on “Ecocriticism the greening of literary studies”. Only in the year 1993, ecological literary study emerged as a recognisable critical school.

Cheryll Glotfelty, notes that the term ecocriticim was possibly first coined in 1978 by William Rueckert in his essay “Literature and Ecology: an Experiment in Ecocriticism” and that it takes an earth centered approach to literary studies. By ecocriticism, Rueckert meant “the application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature”. Other means in circulation include ecopoetics, environmental literary criticism and green cultural studies. But the term ‘ecocriticism’ is preffered by most scholars. Ecocriticism asks questions like how literature is presented, the role physical setting plays in novel, et cetera and it shares the fundamental premise that human culture is connected to the physical world. 

Cheryll Glotfelty continues by noting that the common motivation of all eco-critical work. The first motivation for common in all eco-critical work is a troubling awareness that we have reached the age of environmental limits. The second is, human actions are causing and damaging the planets basic life support systems and the third is, how as human being can we contribute to environmental restorations. Glotfelty shares that all disciplines have identified the importance of ecology in their works including History, Anthropology, Psychology and Philosophy, long before Literary criticism. She then traces the growth of ecocriticim in three stages using Elaine Showalter’s feminist model, where the first stage in feminist criticism, the “images of women” stage is concentrating on hoe women are portrayed in in canonical literature. Showalter’s second stage in feminist criticism, the women’s literary tradition stage reconsiders literature by women. In ecocriticism, recuperate the hitherto neglected genre of nature writing. The third stage that Showalter identifies in feminist criticism is the theoretical phase, which questions about symbolic construction of gender and sexuality within literary discourse. Analogous work in ecocriticism too includes the symbolic construction of species. It is a link between the oppression of women and the domination of nature. Glotfelty feels that ecocriticism would redraw the boundaries of literary studies. Strong voice in the profession will enable ecocritics to bring about important changes in the canon, the curriculum, and university policy. She feels that ecocriticism has been predominantly a white movement. It will become a multi-ethnic movement when stronger connections are made between the environment and issues of social justice, and when divergent views are encouraged to contribute to the discussion.

Glotfelty’s work has helped to establish ecocriticism as a vital area of inquiry within literary studies.

The essay by Sueellen Campbell, “Land and Language of Desire : Where Deep-ecology and Post-structuralism Meet” which was published on the anthology The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology by Cherylly Glotfelty, is an important contribution to both environmental and literary studies. Campbell in this essay very vividly traces the points of intersection between deep-ecology and post-structural theory. 

SueEllen Campbell has identified several ways in which ecocriticism's relationship with other post-structural theories can be measured.

 According to Campbell, ecocriticism shares a number of similarities with deconstruction. Both approaches seek to destabilize dualistic thinking by disrupting binary categories such as nature and culture, self and other, human and non-human. By highlighting the ways in which these categories are constructed and contested, ecocritics and deconstructionists a like aim to generate new insights into the complex relationships between humans and the natural world.

Like Marxist theorists, ecocritics are concerned with issues of power, inequality, and social justice. They seek to understand the ways in which environmental problems are shaped by economic and political systems, and to use literary analysis to critique and challenge these systems. However, Campbell notes that while Marxism tends to focus on human labor and production, ecocriticism takes a more holistic approach, considering the interrelationships between humans, non-human animals, plants, and landscape. Campbell suggests that ecocriticism has much in common with feminist theory. Both approaches seek to challenge dominant paradigms and hierarchies by examining the ways in which gender, race, class, and other social constructs affect the way we understand and interact with the world. Feminist ecocritics are particularly interested in how the gendered construction of nature has contributed to the marginalization of women and other groups traditionally excluded from environmental discourse. Ecocriticism and postcolonial theory also share common ground. Both approaches seek to explore the impact of colonialism and imperialism on the natural world and on human relationships with the environment. Postcolonial ecocritics examine the ways in which literature represents the complex relationships between colonizers and colonized ecologies and draws connections between environmental issues and questions of race, identity, and cultural heritage.

Deep ecology and post-structuralism are two distinct philosophical schools that have different roots and different aims. However, there are some similarities and points of intersection between them as well. Deep ecology is a philosophy that recognizes the inherent value and interconnectedness of all life and aims to create a sustainable future by fundamentally changing human attitudes towards nature. It is often associated with a spiritual or ecological consciousness, and advocates for the conservation and preservation of all living beings, for their own sake rather than for their usefulness to human beings. Post-structuralism, on the other hand, is a theoretical framework primarily associated with literary and cultural studies that emphasizes the role of language and power in shaping meaning and identity. This theory focuses on the ways in which societal structures and norms shape our understanding of the world, and how this understanding is produced through discourses of power. 

Campbell argues that while these two fields have different origins and methodologies, they both challenge the dominant paradigm of anthropocentrism and seek to decenter human dominance over the natural world. Both deep ecology and post-structuralism critique the human exploitation of nature, but they approach this problem from different angles. While deep ecology emphasizes the spiritual and ecological connection between humans and nature and calls for a fundamental change in human attitudes, post-structuralism emphasizes the power dynamics that create and perpetuate harmful discourses surrounding nature. In this way, Campbell suggests that these fields can learn from each other and work together towards a more holistic vision of environmentalism.

The first significant similarity that Campbell discusses is the shared critique of the human-centric worldview. Both deep ecology and post-structuralism recognize the flaws in the Western cultural discourse that sees humans as separate from, and superior to, nature, which has led to the exploitation and destruction of the environment. Both the worlds, questions the concepts on which the old hierarchies are built, such as the ‘great chain of being’. Both fields believe that the hierarchies are not absolute in nature rather are accidental, so they question the traditional authority. Both argue that it is crucial to understand humans as interdependent members of an ecological community that includes non-human beings. Another ground in which both ecocriticism and post-structuralism share premises is the questioning of the concepts on which old hierarchies were constructed. The basis on which old hierarchies were constructed, are always binaries. The binaries of nature and culture, man and reason, fact and fiction, human and animal, self and the other, scientific and unscientific, civilized and primitive, even male and female, good and evil- poststucturalism always questions the justification of binaries. The binaries justify the practice of othering. Ecocriticism too, believes in questioning these binaries. Criticism of binaries is carried on in an implicit manner by both the world thinkers. Both deep ecology and post-structuralism recognize the importance of language and discourse in shaping our understanding of the world and our relationship to nature. Deep ecology argues that the way we talk about the environment and our place in it has a profound impact on how we treat it. Similarly, post-structuralism suggests that the ways in which we use language reflect underlying power dynamics that shape the way we think about the environment and our relationship to it. Both deep ecology and post-structuralism emphasize the importance of interconnectedness. Deep ecology holds that all living beings are interconnected, and that humans should seek to live in harmony with the natural world. Post-structuralism, in turn, emphasizes the ways in which various aspects of our world, including humans and nature, are interconnected and mutually constituted by various cultural and linguistic forces. Both deep ecology and post-structuralism suggest that science and technology alone cannot solve the ecological crisis. Both fields critique the reliance on technological solutions that do not take into account the complex socio-ecological systems in which humans exist.

Finally, both deep ecology and post-structuralism emphasize the importance of fundamental transformations in our attitudes, values, and belief systems towards a more sustainable and just relationship with the natural world. Campbell suggests that understanding these shared perspectives can help us create a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of environmental issues, and that both fields have much to offer each other in terms of perspective and insight.

However, there are also limitations to these two approaches. For example, deep ecology can be criticized for being too essentialist and romanticizing nature, while post-structuralism can be criticized for underestimating the impact of material reality on the natural world. Therefore, it is important to recognize the commonalities and differences between these philosophical approaches and to engage in ongoing dialogue in order to develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of environmental issues. Campbell says, “For theory, to read - to describe – to interpret – is to act… But for ecology, simply to observe is not always act”. Ecocriticism goes beyond other post-structural theories. It is not confied to just text and interpretations. It is in a way inclined to a more activist sort of motivation. Along with the books it focuses on the environmental crisis. One of the important differences between ecology and theory arises from the philosophical contrast. According to Campbell, theorists consider their deeds as intensely moral. But the response of ecology is rather different. Preserve and stability are the two words which are uncommon in post structuralism and common in ecology.

While trying to draw similarities between the theories as well as the points where post-structural theories and deep- ecology differ, he site an example of Lacan’s “symbolic order” according to the theory, as Lacan said, we emerge from the unity of infancy only when we begin to experience ourselves as separate from everything else, especially from our mother’s bodies. This happens at the moment when we enter into the network of language, “the symbolic order” that will determine what we become. At the core of our sense of self, then, is our feeling of loss and the desire for unity that is born of loss. Ecologists also see an experience of lost unity and a desire to regain it as central to our human nature. They are more likely, though, to see it as coming from separation from the rest of the natural world. 

In the essay “The Anthropocene – Questions of Definations”, Timothy Clark explores the concept of the Anthropocene, a term used to describe current geological epoch characterized by human impact on the earth’s ecosystem. This essay is the first chapter of the book Ecocriticism on the Edge: The Anthropocene as a Threshold Concept. The term’ anthropocene, was first coined by atmospheric scientists as a name for the geological epoch that the earth entered with the industrial revolution, around 1800. It is characterized by the very unprecedented fact that human activities have become so pervasive towards the environment that now things have become unreturnable, thereby leading it to suffer terra incognita. The term mostly applies to the year 1945, that is since the Great Acceleration, which is a term used to describe the rapid and widespread increase in human activities and its impact on Earth’s natural systems.

Clark explores the concept of the Anthropocene and the ways in which it challenges traditional conceptions of nature and human history. Ecocriticism, a branch of literary criticism that examines the relationship between literature and the environment, has responded to the Anthropocene in various ways, according to Clark. He notes that some ecocritics have embraced the Anthropocene as a starting point for rethinking the relationship between humans and the environment. By recognizing that humans have become a geological force, ecocritics can better understand the ways in which literature and culture reflect and shape environmental issues. For example, ecocritics may analyze representations of the environment in literature to understand how authors reflect on environmental change and human impact. Other ecocritics have been critical of the Anthropocene as a concept, that emphasize alternative concepts, such as the Capitalocene or the Plantationocene, as a way of rethinking the origins of human impact on the environment. These ecocritics may also emphasize the importance of recognizing the diversity of ecological systems and the ways in which different human cultures have interacted with the environment.

Despite these differences, Clark argues that ecocriticism, as a field that foregrounds environmental concerns in literary analysis, has an important role to play in responding to the Anthropocene. Ecocriticism can help to contextualize and interpret the cultural implications of the Anthropocene, as well as contribute to wider discussions about environmental policy and activism. Ultimately, he suggests that the Anthropocene calls for a more interdisciplinary and holistic approach to understanding the relationship between humans and the environment, and that ecocriticism can contribute to this important project.

Clark provides an introduction to the concept of ecocriticism and the importance of the Anthropocene as a threshold concept. The chapter begins by highlighting how the study of literature and culture can help us develop new ways of thinking about human-nature relationships. He argues that ecocriticism is a critical approach that examines the relationship between literature and the environment. 

One of the key concepts Clark addresses in this chapter is the "Overview Effect." This term describes how astronauts, looking down on Earth from space, experience a sense of awe and wonder at the planet's beauty and fragility that changes their perspective of the environment. He argues that the Overview Effect is a powerful example of how cultural representations can shape our understanding of the environment. He points out that, like the astronauts who have experienced the Overview Effect, readers of literature and viewers of cultural works can gain a deeper appreciation for the natural world and develop new ways of thinking about human-nature relationships. Clark expands on this idea by highlighting how the concept is particularly valuable for ecocritical study. He argues that the concept can be used to explore how cultural narratives shape our understanding of the environment and our place within it. The Overview Effect is, therefore, an important reminder of the importance of developing new and imaginative ways of thinking about human-nature relationships. 

Throughout the chapter, Clark draws on a range of literary and cultural texts to illustrate the importance of the Anthropocene as a threshold concept. For example, he discusses the work of Ursula K. Le Guin, who created utopian and dystopian worlds that offer insight into human relationship to nature. Clark also highlights how science fiction and environmental documentaries like David Attenborough's "Planet Earth" can be used as valuable resources for engaging with environmental issues.

Clark discusses the three levels of complexity required to understand the Anthropocene - the geological, the historical, and the ecological. In comparison, Allenby and Sarewitz offer a different perspective on these levels of complexity in their book "The Techno-Human Condition." Allenby and Sarewitz argue that the Anthropocene represents a new stage in the relationship between humans and technology, which they call the "techno-human condition." They suggest that this new condition features three levels of complexity that correspond to Clark's three levels: the technological, the institutional, and the ecological.

The first level, the technological, refers to the way in which technology has become an essential part of the human experience. Allenby and Sarewitz argue that we live in a world where technology is not just a tool, but an extension of our collective consciousness, shaping the way we perceive and interact with the world. The second level, the institutional, refers to the ways in which technology is enmeshed in institutional structures, such as government, business, and education. Allenby and Sarewitz suggest that the Anthropocene requires us to rethink the relationship between institutions and technology, in order to create more sustainable and resilient systems. Lastly, the ecological level refers to the wider ecological implications of the techno-human condition. Allenby and Sarewitz argue that the Anthropocene highlights the interconnectedness of ecological systems and calls for more holistic approaches to environmental problem-solving. They suggest that the techno-human condition requires us to move away from a reductionist view of the environment and towards a more integrative understanding of ecological systems. Overall, both Clark and Allenby and Sarewitz argue that understanding the Anthropocene requires engaging with multi-dimensional and interrelated factors. While Clark emphasizes the geological, historical, and ecological levels of complexity, Allenby and Sarewitz focus on the technological, institutional, and ecological aspects of the techno-human condition. Both perspectives highlight the need for interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene. However,there are some contrasting elements between these perspectives. Clark's approach is more heavily focused on the natural systems and ecological aspects of the Anthropocene. He emphasizes the geological, historical, and ecological levels of the Anthropocene, noting that the human impact on the physical environment is changing the Earth's systems in fundamental ways. In contrast, Allenby and Sarewitz's perspective is more heavily focused on the social and cultural dimensions of the Anthropocene. They highlight the technological, institutional, and ecological levels of the techno-human condition, suggesting that the human relationship with technology is changing the way society operates. Rather than emphasizing ecological systems, Allenby and Sarewitz are focused on the ways in which institutional norms and cultural values are shaping our relationship with technology and the natural world.

When discussing the ecological level, Clark relates his perspective to the work of ecocritic and philosopher Timothy Morton. He notes that Morton's concept of "dark ecology" is particularly relevant to understanding the ecological implications of the Anthropocene. Morton argues that we need to move beyond a simplistic understanding of "nature" as something separate from human beings or as a harmonious balance of natural systems. Instead, Morton suggests that we need to recognize the darkness and complexity of ecological systems - including the interdependence of different species, the unpredictability of ecological processes, and the impact of human activity on these systems. Clark notes that Morton's perspective is helpful in understanding the ecological level of the Anthropocene. In particular, Morton's emphasis on interconnectedness and complexity resonates with Clark's argument that the Anthropocene highlights the systemic interconnections and complexities of ecological systems. Morton's work suggests that we need to move beyond simplistic dichotomies between "nature" and "culture" and engage with the messy, unpredictable reality of environmental change. Overall, Clark's approach to the ecological level of the Anthropocene is shaped by Morton's perspective on the complex and interconnected nature of ecological systems. By engaging with the complexity and interconnectedness of ecological systems, he suggests that we can better understand the environmental changes taking place in the Anthropocene and work towards more sustainable and equitable futures.

In conclusion, ecocriticism is a diverse and interdisciplinary field that seeks to understand the complex relationshiops between literature, culture, and the environment. Through its engagement with a range of theories including the post-structural theories, ecocriticism provides nuanced insights into questions of power, representation, and environmental change. As the world faces the challenges of Anthropocene, ecocritical approaches will continue to be vital in helping us to understand and respond to the complex environmental issues facing our society.

#anthropocene #timothyclark #overvieweffect#landandlanguageofdesirebysueellencampbell #ecocriticism #criticaltheory #literarystudies #TheAnthropocene–QuestionsofDefinations#cheryllglotfelty