I am taking a class in ecocriticism, an interdisciplinary branch of study that is interested in illuminating, fixing, and seeking the relationship between humans and the earth we inhabit and participate in.
One of the readings this week was about the idea of Wilderness. The chapter was informative, rather than argumentative. The author of the book (Ecocriticism: The New Critical Idiom), Greg Garrard, explained the evolution of view about the idea of Wilderness from the 18th Century up through the 20th. To me, the clearest issue that came up again and again, poking holes in the different theories, was dichotomy: Wilderness v. Civilization, masculine wilderness v. feminine domesticity, chaos v. order. Dichotomies seem to lose complexity and simplify an idea to the point of absurdity. There is a beauty to dichotomy: for example, the black and white of Ansel Adams photographs. But there is so much of the picture that is left unseen. A dichotomy is only strong for a static moment, like a photograph, but, if life does not continue into the complexity of color and flux of time, the photograph will disintegrate.
An NPR interview discussed the book Why Expert Predictions Fail and Why We Believe them Anyway. In it are described two types of experts: fox-type and hedgehog-type. Interestingly, the hedgehog type was more like the experts on FOX news who make bold and simple statements and predictions often claiming that a specific and solitary thing will happen. The more you push and ask questions the firmer they stick out their spikes and say they are right without allowing for more than one angle. The fox-type, interestingly, tend to hedge more, not in a weak way, but they allow for the complexity of sides, shifts, and probabilities. Two guesses which type is more often correct.
The fox-type, who eschew simplifying dichotomies, are more accurate more often.
This seems to indicate that a complex view of interrelationships is necessary to understanding the unpredictable patterns of life. Carrying this into Ecocriticism, I think complexity and relationships is the best way to understand the relationship between humanity, nature, flora, fauna, and the globe that we call home. To boil it down to a single conflict between Wilderness and Civilization, male or female, technology versus plants and animals, is unhealthy and inaccurate.
Towards the end of the chapter was a sentence I appreciated: "One way of guarding against this risk is to subvert the dualistic construction of wilderness and civilisation (sic) [by bringing] the 'wild' closer to home" (Garrard 83). By merging the ideas of home and wild, the ties between the two--in other words, the relationship--becomes clearer. The clearer the relationship--a two way give and take, ebb and flow--the better we, as humans, can participate in said relationship for a more positive interaction.
I hope this can happen. I believe that as Christians we are called to be both caretakers of and members in the society of earth. Only by acknowledge how truly deep the familial relationship is can we begin to make it a more positive interaction. The earth is something that on the whole is both beyond us and deeply a part of us. Thinking about wild and home: our bodies are a wilderness, both known to us and unknown. I'm still working it out and not quite sure where all I'm at.
I know I am part of the community of earth. And I know that I respect and care of the this place and family in which I live and breath. It affects me and I affect it. How to live that the most responsibly, lovingly, and pragmatically? I am not sure. I do know that I will recycle, I will seek sustainable living options, and I will endeavor to be kind and courteous to the earth and my fellow creatures in all the ways that I know how. I also know that, just as the creatures of the earth live in food chains and cycles, I too am part of the cycle. I live on and off of the earth; the earth lives and will live on and off of me. But I want to be conscious and respectful in the way that it happens.
I like my ecocriticism class a lot. =) I hope that it goes on pushing my brain.
One of the readings this week was about the idea of Wilderness. The chapter was informative, rather than argumentative. The author of the book (Ecocriticism: The New Critical Idiom), Greg Garrard, explained the evolution of view about the idea of Wilderness from the 18th Century up through the 20th. To me, the clearest issue that came up again and again, poking holes in the different theories, was dichotomy: Wilderness v. Civilization, masculine wilderness v. feminine domesticity, chaos v. order. Dichotomies seem to lose complexity and simplify an idea to the point of absurdity. There is a beauty to dichotomy: for example, the black and white of Ansel Adams photographs. But there is so much of the picture that is left unseen. A dichotomy is only strong for a static moment, like a photograph, but, if life does not continue into the complexity of color and flux of time, the photograph will disintegrate.
An NPR interview discussed the book Why Expert Predictions Fail and Why We Believe them Anyway. In it are described two types of experts: fox-type and hedgehog-type. Interestingly, the hedgehog type was more like the experts on FOX news who make bold and simple statements and predictions often claiming that a specific and solitary thing will happen. The more you push and ask questions the firmer they stick out their spikes and say they are right without allowing for more than one angle. The fox-type, interestingly, tend to hedge more, not in a weak way, but they allow for the complexity of sides, shifts, and probabilities. Two guesses which type is more often correct.
The fox-type, who eschew simplifying dichotomies, are more accurate more often.
This seems to indicate that a complex view of interrelationships is necessary to understanding the unpredictable patterns of life. Carrying this into Ecocriticism, I think complexity and relationships is the best way to understand the relationship between humanity, nature, flora, fauna, and the globe that we call home. To boil it down to a single conflict between Wilderness and Civilization, male or female, technology versus plants and animals, is unhealthy and inaccurate.
Towards the end of the chapter was a sentence I appreciated: "One way of guarding against this risk is to subvert the dualistic construction of wilderness and civilisation (sic) [by bringing] the 'wild' closer to home" (Garrard 83). By merging the ideas of home and wild, the ties between the two--in other words, the relationship--becomes clearer. The clearer the relationship--a two way give and take, ebb and flow--the better we, as humans, can participate in said relationship for a more positive interaction.
I hope this can happen. I believe that as Christians we are called to be both caretakers of and members in the society of earth. Only by acknowledge how truly deep the familial relationship is can we begin to make it a more positive interaction. The earth is something that on the whole is both beyond us and deeply a part of us. Thinking about wild and home: our bodies are a wilderness, both known to us and unknown. I'm still working it out and not quite sure where all I'm at.
I know I am part of the community of earth. And I know that I respect and care of the this place and family in which I live and breath. It affects me and I affect it. How to live that the most responsibly, lovingly, and pragmatically? I am not sure. I do know that I will recycle, I will seek sustainable living options, and I will endeavor to be kind and courteous to the earth and my fellow creatures in all the ways that I know how. I also know that, just as the creatures of the earth live in food chains and cycles, I too am part of the cycle. I live on and off of the earth; the earth lives and will live on and off of me. But I want to be conscious and respectful in the way that it happens.
I like my ecocriticism class a lot. =) I hope that it goes on pushing my brain.
No comments:
Post a Comment