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 theen 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.
#similaritiesbetweendeepecologyandpoststructuralism #similaritiesbetweendeepecologyandpoststructuralismaccordingtosueellncampbell #dissimilaritiesbetweendeepecologyandpoststructuralism #similaritiesbetween #similaritybetweenecocriticismandfeministtheory #similaritiesbetweenecocriticismanddeconstruction #ecocriticismessay #ecocriticismincriticaltheory #landandlanguageofdesirebysueellencampbellsummary #ecocriticism #criticaltheory #literarystudies #englishliterature #environment
0 Comments