Chapter II Roots of Ecocriticism - INFLIBNETshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33847/2/chapter2.pdf · Chapter II Roots of Ecocriticism The study of literature has long been

Chapter II

Roots of Ecocriticism

The study of literature has long been preoccupied with historical approaches.

However, in recent years critics are increasingly aware of the relation between literature

and geography, and drawing insights from the mutual study of these two fields. Nature

and literature have always shared a close relationship as is evidenced in the works of

poets and other writers down the ages in almost all cultures of the world. Today the

intimate relationship between the natural and social world is being analyzed and

emphasized in all departments of knowledge and development. The literary critic tries to

study how this close relationship between nature and society has been textualized by the

writers in their works. In this context two terms have become very important today –

‗ecology‘ and ‗ecocriticism‘. The two components of nature, organisms and their

environment are not only much complex and dynamic but also interdependent, mutually

reactive and interrelated.

Ecology, relatively a new science, deals with the various principles which govern

such relationships between organisms and environment. Today, ecology is defined as the

way in which plants, animals and people are related to each other and their environment.

In this relationship they are so much interdependent on each other that any disturbance in

one disturbs the other. History has proved this every now and then that with every change

in the civilisation the relationship of animals and human beings have also changed and

the effect on civilisation of the changes in environment has been so acute that sometimes

it has wiped the whole civilisation from the face of the earth. Therefore, concern for

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

ecology is one of the most discussed issues today. It is the concern of every country to

replenish the diminishing factors of ecology which threatens human beings the most.

Literature well known for reflecting the contemporary issues could not have remained

unaffected from this theme.

The world of literature throngs with works dealing with beauty and power of

nature. However, the concern for ecology and the threat that the continuous misuse of our

environment poses on humanity have only recently caught the attention of the writers. It

is this sense of concern and its reflection in literature that have given rise to a new branch

of literary theory, namely Ecocriticism. There have also been numerous debates on

whether to include human culture in the physical world. Despite the broad scope of

inquiry all ecological criticism shares the fundamental premise that human culture is

connected to the physical world, affecting it and affected by it. Dr. Mark C. Long in an

interview found on OSLE India‘s Newsletter, in this context, first differentiates between

ecology and environment. He says that ecology is mostly used by humanists as a

metaphor for describing the natural world. In this sense, ‗ecology‘ is a way of thinking

about nature. ‗Environment‘, on the other hand, he considers as a more inclusive term

that describes the natural and human world. He says ―I use the term ‗environmental

writing‘ more than ‗nature writing‘ because I am interested in writers concerned with

natural as well as cultural experience‖ (OSLE India Newsletter 3). The view that culture

is produced by human beings and is therefore separate from nature bypasses the fact that

all human culture resides in the natural world. The human beings owe our very existence

to its processes. Therefore, our every action toward the natural world is eventually an

action toward oneself and toward one‘s culture.


Its practitioners explore human attitudes toward the environment as expressed in

nature writing. It is a broad genre that is known by many names like green cultural

studies, ecopoetics and environmental literary criticism, which are some popular names

for this relatively new branch of literary criticism. Literary criticism in general examines

the relations between writers, texts and ―the world‖. In most literary theory ―the world‖ is

synonymous with society--- the social sphere. Ecocriticism expands the notion of ―the

world‖ to include the entire ecosphere. Ecocriticism takes an earth-centered approach to

literary criticism. Ecocritics and theorists are concerned with the questions like if the

nature is being represented in a piece of literature or if the physical setting has a role in

the plot or if the values expressed in the work are consistent with the ecological wisdom

or if in addition to race, class, gender and place should become a new critical category

and in what ways and to what effect the environment crisis is seeping into contemporary

literature and popular culture. Literary scholars specialise in questions of value, meaning,

tradition, point of view, tradition and language and it is in these areas that we are making

a substantial contribution to environmental thinking.

Ecocriticism has come to mean not only the application of ecology and ecological

principles to the study of literature, but also the theoretical approach to the interrelational

web of natural cultural and supernatural phenomena. It began to explore constructions of

environment in literary texts and theoretical discourse. Most ecological work shares a

common motivation, that is, the awareness that we have reached the age of environmental

limits, a time when the consequences of human actions are damaging the planet‘s basic

life support system. This awareness brings in us a desire to contribute to environmental


restoration, not only as a hobby but as a representative of literature. Ecocritics encourage

others to think seriously about the aesthetic and ethical dilemmas posed by the

environmental crisis and about how language and literature transmit values with profound

ecological implications. Ecocriticism is the central focus of this research. The

considerable increase in the emergence of Ecoconscious writers in the post-modern era

has paved a path for a new kind of critical approach called Ecocriticism. It is a fairly

recent but rapidly developing concept in the area of Literary Criticism. It has emerged as

a modern ecological literary study and is now acknowledged as a vital critical approach.

Ecocriticism not only gives emphasis on the ‗harmony‘ of humanity and nature but also

talks about the destruction caused to nature by the changes which take place in the

modern world for most of which man is directly responsible. O. J. Joycee and Evangeline

Manickam in an article, From Ego- centered to Eco-centered Humanism: A Wilburian

Perspective in The Atlantic Literary Review opine as follows:

Ecocriticism anticipates a response to the need for humanistic

understanding with the natural world in an age of environmental

destruction. The war- ravaged Twentieth Century catapulted attention to

the environment and since then there has been no dearth of theories and

movements. Our understanding of nature is at odds with another, and there

is no definitive way to judge which one is better… Nature is, therefore, an

idea that takes on different meanings in different cultural contexts. (75)

Ecocriticism gives a new meaning to place, setting, and environment. Ecocritics in their

study wanted an ecological perception of nature to change the ways humans inhabit the


Earth. Loretta Johnson in her essay Greening the library: The Fundamentals and Future

of Ecocriticism poses a variety of questions like, ―Would a shift toward an ecological

perception of nature change the ways humans inhabit the Earth? Do authors impute

certain values and make assumptions when they present the environment and nonhuman

life in their works? How does one avoid binary oppositions, or should one perceive

human nature in an I/it or I/thou relationship?‖

<http://www.asle.org/assets/docs/Ecocriticism_essay.pdf>.

Ecocriticism is a rapidly changing theoretical approach, which is different from

the traditional approach to literature. Here the critic explores the local or global, the

material or physical, or the historical or natural history in the context of a work of art. An

ecocritical approach to literature is often interdisciplinary, citing knowledge of

environmental studies, the natural sciences, and cultural and social studies. Johnson

further explains thus:

―Eco‖,from the Greek root oikos, means ―house‖… Just as ―economy‖ is

the management or law of the house (nomos = law), ―ecology‖ is the study

of the house. Ecocriticism, then, is the criticism of the ―house,‖ i.e., the

environment, as represented in literature. But the definition of ―house,‖ or

oikos, is not simple. Questions remain: What is the environment? What is

nature? Why did the term ―environment,‖ which derives from the verb ―to

environ or surround,‖ change to mean that which is nonhuman? Are not

humans natural and a prominent environment in themselves? Where and in

what does one live? Ecocriticism is by nature interdisciplinary, invoking


knowledge of environmental studies, the natural sciences, and cultural and

social studies, all of which play a part in answering the questions it poses.

<http://www.asle.org/assets/docs/Ecocriticism_essay.pdf>

Since 1990, ecocriticism has flourished. Today, a keyword search for

―ecocriticism‖ in the MLA Bibliography online produces 422 hits, three-quarters of

which are from the last eight years. Ecocriticism has entered academic course lists

worldwide, along with the creation of interdisciplinary academic faculty positions to

teach them. Peter Barry added a chapter titled ―Ecocriticism‖ to the second edition of his

Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, but correctly claims

that ecocriticism has no universal model. The essay focuses exclusively on the new

practice in this area and includes only the most important works on the relationship

between culture and nature relative to ecocriticism. Accordingly, he lists ―what ecocritics

do,‖ which includes the following:

They re-read major literary works from a major ecocentric perspective,

with particular attention to the representation of the natural world. They

extend the applicability of a range of ecocentric concepts, using them of

other things in the natural world-concepts such as growth and energy,

balance and imbalance, symbiosis and mutuality, and sustainable or

unsustainable uses of energy and resources… they turn away from the

‗social constructivism‘ and ‗linguistic determinism‘ of dominant literary

theories and instead emphasize ecocentric values of meticulous


observation, collective ethical responsibility, and the claims of the world

beyond ourselves. (Barry 254)

Glen Love in his Practical Ecocriticism answers the question of ―Why Ecocriticism is

important in today‘s world?‖ He says these words:

As the circumstances of the natural world intrude ever more pressingly

into our teaching and writing, the need to consider the interconnections,

the implicit dialogue between the text and the environmental surroundings,

becomes more and more insistent. Ecocriticism is developing as an

explicit critical response to this unheard dialogue and attempts to raise it to

a higher level of human consciousness. Teaching and studying literature

without reference to the natural conditions of the world and the basic

ecological principles that underlie all life seems increasingly short –

sighted, incongruous. (Love 18)

Some ecocritics date the birth of the word ―ecocriticism‖ to William Rueckert,

who in a 1978 essay titled ―Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism‖

wrote that ecocriticism entailed ―application of ecology and ecological concepts to the

study of literature‖ (Glotfelty and Fromm xx) which is included in The Ecocriticism

Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology by Cheryl Glotfelty and Harold Fromm. This

text remains a benchmark text in the field because of the passion of its contributors, its

scholarly breadth and depth, and the diversity of its essays. In a 1989 Western Literature

Association meeting, Glotfelty had urged literary critics to develop an ecological

approach to literature, one that would focus on the cultural dimensions of humans‘


relationship to the environment. At the same meeting, Glen Love delivered a speech titled

―Revaluing Nature: Toward an Ecological Literary Criticism,‖ and Glotfelty and Fromm

included that text in their volume.

Over the last three decades, Ecocriticism has emerged as a field of literary study

that addresses how humans relate to nonhuman nature or the environment in literature.

Today, with the development and expansion of ecocritical studies, any line between

human and nonhuman nature has necessarily blurred. So when subjected to

Ecocriticism, literature of all periods and places—not only ecocentric or environmental

literature or nature writing, but all literature is viewed in terms of place, setting, and

environment. Glotfelty's working definition in The Ecocriticism Reader is as follows:

Ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical

environment. Just as feminist criticism examines language and literature from a

gender- conscious perspective, and Marxist criticism brings an awareness of

modes of production and economic class to its reading of its texts, eco criticism

takes an earth centered approach to literary studies. (Glotfelty and Fromm xviii)

Ecocriticism is inherently interdisciplinary. Ecocriticism is most appropriately applied to

a work in which the landscape itself is a dominant character, when a significant

interaction occurs between author and place, character and place.

Landscape by definition includes the non-human elements of place--the

rocks, soil, trees, plants, rivers, animals, air--as well as human perceptions

and modifications. How an author sees and describes these elements

relates to geological, botanical, zoological, meteorological, ecological, as


well as aesthetic, social, and psychological considerations. And then there

is the historical vantage point. As Thoreau once wrote, there can be no

history but natural history--if one believes that by ―nature‖ we mean the

human as well as non-human world.

<http://www.asle.org/site/resources/ecocritical-library/intro/defining/scheese/>

Ecocritics ask several questions on the relationship between environment and

literature but one question seems to be the most important. Literary ecocriticism offers

an ecological interpretation of texts. Cheryl Glotfelty says that: ―Simply put, ecocriticism

is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment‖

(Glotfelty and Fromm xviii). She lists a number of questions which could be asked by

literary ecocritics like ―How is nature represented in this sonnet?‖ and ―What cross-

fertilization is possible between literary studies and environmental discourse in related

disciplines such as history, philosophy, psychology, art history and ethics?‖ (Glotfelty

and Fromm xix). They also point to the central concern of culture in ecocriticism:

Despite the broad scope of inquiry and disparate levels of sophistication,

all ecological criticism shares the fundamental premise that human culture

is connected to the physical world, affecting it and affected by it.

Ecocriticism takes as its subject the interconnections between nature and

culture, specifically the cultural artefacts of language and literature. As a

critical stance, it has one foot in literature and the other on land; as a


theoretical discourse, it negotiates between the human and the non-human.

(xviii)

The author elaborates upon the term ‗Ecocriticism‘ and provides us with his twin

explanation of the same. Jonathan Bate expresses the same idea as Glotfelty more briefly:

A central question in environmental ethics is whether to regard humankind

as part of nature or apart from nature. It is the task of literary ecocriticism

to address a local version of that question: what is the place of creative

imagining and writing in the complex set of relationships between

humankind and environment, between mind and world, between thinking,

being and dwelling? (8)

The term ‗Ecocriticism‘ (Greek oikos and kritis) is interpreted to mean ‗house

judge‘ by William Howarth. He says: ―the oikos is nature, a place Edward Hoagland calls

‗our widest home,‘ and the kritos is an arbiter of taste‖ (Glotfelty and Fromm 69). For

him, ―criticism judges the quality and integrity of works and promotes their

dissemination‖ (Glotfelty and Fromm 71). He claims the four disciplines of ecology,

ethics, language and criticism are essential for the reading of nature writing:

To me they offer combinations of theory and method that explore

environmental literature. As an interdisciplinary science, ecology

describes the relations between nature and culture. The applied philosophy

of ethics offers ways to mediate historic social conflicts. Language theory

examines how words represent human and nonhuman life. Criticism

judges the quality and integrity of works and promotes their


dissemination. Each discipline stresses the relations of nature and

literature as shifting, moving shapes – a house in progress, perhaps,

unfinished and standing in a field. (Glotfelty and Fromm 71)

For Howarth the aim of ecocriticism should be ―to redirect humanistic ideology,

not spurning the natural sciences but using their ideas to sustain viable readings‖

(Glotfelty and Fromm 78). Thus the working definition of literary ecocriticism is the

analysis of literature‘s expression of humanity‘s place on Earth, our oikos or home. This

wholly includes the cultural aspect through literature and the biological aspect through

the Earth as our ecosystem. Karl Kroeber in Ecological Literary Criticism: Romantic

Imagining and the Biology of Mind points to the importance of this intersection between

the cultural and the biological:

An ecologically oriented criticism directs itself to understanding persistent

romantic struggles to articulate meaningful human relations within the

conditions of a natural world in which transcendence is not an issue. Such

criticism does not dismiss the copious evidence of romantic claims that

imaginative consciousness fulfils, rather than contravenes, the dynamic

tendencies of natural life. Ecologically oriented criticism thus recognizes a

foreshadowing of its own understanding of humanity‘s relation to nature

in the romantic view that it is natural for human beings to be self-

conscious, and natural, therefore, to construct their cultures out of

complexly inter assimilative engagements with their physical and

biological environment. (38-9)


The term ‗Ecocriticism‘ is a short form of ecological literary criticism. The tendency to

drop the reference to literature distorts the full ecological implication of the discipline.

Kroeber like Howarth, points to the linking function of literary ecocriticism between

humanism and science and calls the Romantic poets ―proto-ecological‖ because they

accepted ―a natural environment existent outside of one‘s personal psyche‖ (Kroeber 19).

Kroeber admits that scientific procedures help us to understand the natural environment

because science orders external reality. But, he adds, this external reality can only be

fully appreciated through ―imaginative acts of mind‖ (19).

According to Glen Love Ecocriticism focuses on the ―inter connections between

the material world and human culture, specifically the cultural artifacts language and

literature‖ (196). Robert Kern in his essay ―Ecocriticism: What is it good for?‖ found in

The ISLE Reader: Ecocriticism, 1993-2003 aptly observes thus:

What ecocriticism calls for, then, is a fundamental shift from one context

of reading to another- more specifically, a movement from the human to

the environmental, or at least from the exclusively human to the biocentric

or ecocentric, which is to say a humanism (since we cannot evade our

human status or identity) informed by an awareness of the ‗more- than –

human. (Branch and Slovic 267)

Ecocriticism regards nature as an autonomous, active entity of its own and so can

be used as an important tool in interpreting literary texts that represent the relationship of

human beings to their natural environment. As man moved from science to modern

technology nature became the ―Other‖. All that is not man came to be called as nature. O.


J. Joycee and Evangeline Manickam in an article, From Ego- centered to Eco-centered

Humanism: A Wilburian Perspective in The Atlantic Literary Review utter these words:

Cultural anthropologists like Levi –Strauss distinguish nature and culture

by stating that which is universal and spontaneous and not dependent on

any particular culture, or any determinate form, belongs to nature.

Inversely that which depends upon a system of norms regulating society

and therefore is capable of varying from one social structure to another

belongs to culture. This ―no-culture‖ of nature may itself be considered a

culture, for nature is not an abstraction or an idea as the post – modernists

would like us to believe, nor is it mere physical entity, but a living

presence of which the human race constitute a significant part. (76)

Ecocritics can initiate change, as Lawrence Buell believes, ―admittedly nothing is more

shocking for many humanists than to find their ideas taken seriously. But it might just

happen in this case. That self- identified Ecocritics tend to be folk who seriously entertain

that possibility is one reason why the best ecocritical work is so strange, timely, and

intriguing‖(Buell 710). Christa Grewe – Volpp in the article, Nature ―out there‖ and as ―a

social player‖ found in Nature in Literary and Cultural Studies says that, ―As culture is

understood to be embedded in nature and as nature is always culturally inscribed, culture

can no longer deem itself superior to nature. It must instead respect the implications and

consequences of its embeddedness‖ (Gersdoff and Mayer 81). Grewe further explains

thus:


Nature in each case responded and responds to human interference. As an

autonomous actor it can no longer be depicted as a mere setting, but

becomes a protagonist capable of articulation… The land, for example, is

more generally, a place, subtly or explicitly influences the psyche and the

actual behaviour of individual protagonists. Climate, wilderness condition,

technologically altered landscapes, topographies and many other

environmental elements- never as pristine nature, never as mere text –

function as a powerful force that human beings have to – and do – react to.

(78)

Arthur Lovejoy‘s contribution in this field is also very eminent. He observes that

one of the strangest, most potent and most persistent factors in the western thought is the

use of the term ‗nature‘ to express the standard of human values, the identification of the

good with that which is ‗natural‘ or ‗according to nature‘. Nature has always proved to be

stronger than human. It has often shown its power by controlling manpower through

natural calamities like famine, drought, flood, earthquake etc. Human‘s life and nature

are so interlinked that it is not possible for human beings to separate themselves from its

influence. Therefore they have no choice but to accept both nature‘s bounty and

adversity. This can be said to be reciprocal as nature too is the recipient of human‘s

action. Our irresponsible actions cause irreparable damages to nature. This is how the

chain of ecosystem works in which everything is related to each other and therefore

affects each other. However, even with a term that defined a new group of writing,

Cheryl Glotfelty‘s The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology published in


1996 adeptly narrowed the term in spite of a ―postmodern age [that] exist[s] in a constant

state of flux‖ as ―the study of the relationship between literature and the physical

environment‖ (Glotfelty and Fromm xviii). The distinction between environmental

writing and ecocritical writing is critical to an understanding of ecocriticism. Glotfelty

notes that ―environmental writing supports a dualism that asserts nature as totally

separate from humanity, while ecocritical writing unifies the two, or at least analyzes the

relationship between them‖ (Glotfelty and Fromm xx). An ecocritical approach views

human‘s relationship with nature by his interaction with nature because it supports the

idea that nature, as a literary subject, surrounds all parts of life. Suresh Frederick rightly

says that, ―Ecocriticism gives human beings a better understanding of nature‖ (134).

Ecocriticism is a necessary part of literary scholarship because literature cannot separate

characters from nature and that they domesticate either destructively or productively.

Foundational to this study of work in nature is Ralph Waldo Emerson‘s definition

of nature and art and his argument about what it means to be whole through work in

nature. In his essay, ―Nature”, Emerson defines nature as ―essences unchanged by man,‖

and art as a ―mixture of [man‘s] will with [what is unchanged by man]‖ (Slater 3). Thus,

employing nature as a subject of literary study should address human will in nature.

Emerson acknowledges that environmental problems arise because of man‘s ―resumption

of power‖ and that ―[t]he problem of restoring to the world original and eternal beauty. . .

is solved by the redemption of the soul. The ruin or the blank, that we see when we look

at nature, is in our own eye‖ (Slater 45).


One of the most important ecocritical concepts that is used for the interpretation

of a work of art by ecocritics today is cultural geography. In literature importance is

given to the geographical background and it very much depends upon the lives of the

people and their environment. The two major branches of Geography are Physical

Geography and Cultural Geography. The latter can also be defined as Human Geography

which is the study of many cultural aspects found throughout the world. It also deals with

how culture relates to the different spaces and places. The interest of geographers in

cultural problems developed early, but the cultural approach was deeply modernized

during the last 20 years. The main cultural phenomena studied in cultural geography are

the language of the people, their religion, their economic status, art, music and other

cultural aspects. The study of these aspects helps to explain why people behave the way

they do in the particular environment in which they live in. These aspects of culture are

able to travel across the world due to globalization. This chapter deals with the Cultural

Geography of Ireland and how it is incorporated in the plays of Synge. G.S. Mohanty in

Social and Cultural Geography expounds in his Preface thus:

Geography, in simplest terms, is about locations, places, how people and

their cultures interact with their environments, how goods, services and

ideas move across space, and how dividing the world into regions can help

us understand it all. Social and cultural geography is about how people, as

individuals and as members of groups, create places and landscapes for

their daily lives; how people understand places, regions, and spatial

relationships; how places and landscapes are cumulative through time:


how places and landscapes are part of larger regional and global systems,

and how human societies and nature interact to create the diversity of the

humanized world. (vii)

In the studies on cultural geography, developed in the first half of our century,

some geographers focus their analyses on the material productions and expressions of

culture: artefacts, housing, food; the way they are named and spoken of; discourses and

texts; works of art. Though nature has been the subject of the works of many writers it

has been recognized as a separate field of study very recently. In simple terms what was

the study of nature in olden days has now been termed as literary geography. Wagner in

his cultural traditions says that the study of

Cultural geography can help to analyse and attack the human problems in

our own societies that attach to race and poverty, age and gender, ethnicity

and alienation. Spatial imagination, historical awareness, cultural

sensitivity and ecological insight, as well as that observational gift upon

which fieldwork depends, can all play a part in rendering service, and

committed engagement will enrich our vision as well. (8)

Before delving deeper into cultural geography it is only appropriate on the part of the

researcher to discuss the two terms ‗nature‘ and ‗culture ‗which form a major part of the

study of cultural geography. Raymond Williams in his essay ―Nature‖ in the Cultural

Geography Reader says as follows:

Indeed one of the most powerful uses of nature, since the late eighteenth

century, has been in this selective sense of goodness and innocence.


Nature has meant the ‗countryside‘, the ‗unspoiled places‘, plants and

creatures other than man. The use is especially current in contrasts

between town and country: nature is what man has not made,

though if he made it long enough ago – a hedgerow or a desert – it will

usually be included as natural. (Oaks and Price 211)

As William says nature is something that is there for man to enjoy, experience and use

but he does not have the power to create nature. Williams further explains that though

nature is one of the most complex words in the language it ―is relatively easy to

distinguish three areas of meaning: (i) the essential quality and character of something;

(ii) the inherent force which directs either the world or human beings or both; (iii) the

material world itself, taken as including or not including human beings‖ (Oaks and Price

208). The next most complex term in the English language is ‗Culture‘. The answer to the

question, ‗What is culture?‘ is very complicated. Williams answers this in his other essay

Culture also found in Cultural Geography Reader. According to Williams ―Culture is

one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language… The

immediate forerunner is cultura [Latin], from the Latin root word colere. Colere has a

range of meanings: inhabit, cultivate, protect, honour with worship‖ (Oaks and Price 18).

Williams explains that the primary meaning was husbandry which is the tending

of natural growth and culture is manifested through music, literature, painting, theatre

and film. Culture is a learned behaviour says, William Sewell. Jr. in Concepts of Culture

found in the Cultural Geography Reader. He interprets ―Culture as learned behaviour.

Culture in this sense is the whole body of practices, beliefs, institutions, customs, habits,


myths, and so on built up by humans and passed on from generation to generation. In

this usage, culture is contrasted to nature; its possession is what distinguishes us from

other animals‖ (Oaks and Price 43).

Another important theme which comes under cultural geography is the study of

landscape. Landscape is a very complex term which has a number of meanings and

interpretation. Though many have a clear image of the word landscape, defining the term

is not so simple. Descriptions of a landscape will be the same but what that particular

landscape means to them will definitely vary from person to person. Landscapes reflected

also the habits, customs and values of those who shaped them. The inhabitant of a region

will look at his landscape differently from a tourist who is just passing by. The perception

of a painter or a philosopher will definitely be different from that that of a geographer.

Langton in Homeland: Sacred Visions and the Settler State feels that ―Land and

landscapes shared by settlers and indigenes are divergently imagined, whereas settlers see

an empty wilderness, aboriginal people see a busy spiritual landscape, peopled by

ancestors and the evidence of their creative feats‖ (Adams and Robins, 16). Landscape is

not an independent composition. It reflects the conflicts which destroy the society which

creates or inhabits it. Landscape, either the one which is painted or the one which is

shaped, is a creation where views over society are expressed through transformations

imposed upon nature. In the world of geography there is more than one term for the word

‗landscape‘ and it is a large mixture of many definitions put together. Obviously

landscape has to do with the surface of the earth and it is frequently taken as a visual

medium in literature and paintings. However during the seventeenth century Meining, in


The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes found in Conzen‘s Cultural Landscape in

Geography comments ―Landscape is related to but not identical with nature; it is a scene,

but not identical with scenery; it is around us, but not identical with environment; related

to but not identical with place, and related to but not identical with region, area, or

geography‖ (3087).

Landscapes reflect a society‘s culture and Cultural Landscape is the common

geographers‘ term for ―perspective on the location of humans, their resources, significant

geographic landmarks, socio-economic status, belief systems, and why they evolved to

what they are today‖. The Geographer who first used the term Cultural Landscape as an

academic term in the early 20th

century is Otto Schluter. He defined two forms of

landscape: ―the ‗original landscape‘ or landscape that existed before major human

induced changes and the‘ cultural landscape' a landscape created by human culture. The

major task of geography was to trace the changes in these two landscapes‖. Cultural

landscapes are reflective of human and natural transformations to landscapes. ―They

hold different meanings to diverse groups of people, each of which hold within their

relative culture, varying attitudes towards landscapes‖ (Duncan, Johnson and Schein 92).

Rubenstein stated that, ―A distinctive landscape results from the characteristics of a

particular culture, including beliefs, social structures, and material capabilities. The

impact of humans on the landscape changes over time and differs from one region to

another‖ (Rubenstein 36).

Cultural geographers recognise that the cultural landscape is an ongoing process,

and not static. Rubenstein‘s book The Cultural Landscape outlined analogies between


http://www.exampleessays.com/essay_search/cultural_landscape.html

what the cultural landscape represents in theory with every day examples of living

within our communities. He described ―the deep entrenchment of cultural beliefs within

different groups of people and how these distinctive beliefs come to dominate

transformations to landscapes‖ (Rubenstein 36). Emerson writes of nature by saying that,

―We come to our own, and make friends with matter, which the ambitious chatter of the

schools would persuade us to despise. We never can part with it; the mind loves its old

home‖ (Slater 325). He also poignantly notes that ―[c]ities give not the human senses

room enough‖ (Slater 325), which suggests that a rural life allows man room to fully and

wholly love, to form relationship with the land, and to be at home in it. If farming is one

of man‘s ―natural capacities,‖ then its work must accomplish something or work toward

something greater than himself. Therefore, one new function of ecocriticism is to seek

out literature that portrays particular values and beliefs toward the unity between the

environment and man. Another function is for ecocritical writers oftentimes to focus on

nature for nature‘s sake and excommunicate human action as a part of that nature.

Finally, in the twenty-first century, a number of authors are creating works that

attempt to resolve, or at best explore, the dichotomy between nature and man through

conservation. Glotfelty‘s foundational definition of ecocriticism is that ―ecocriticism

takes as its subject the interconnections between nature and culture, specially the cultural

attitude of language and literature‖ (Glotfelty and Fromm xx). She defines this

connection in ecocritical writing as a widening discussion of the ―social sphere‖ to the

―entire ecosphere‖ in which ―ideas‖ interact as a part of a ―global system‖ (xix). Thus,

literature becomes an avenue for an expressiveness of nature that does not leave out


culture. Nature is a place of existence where living organisms flourish, wither, and die;

like nature, a person‘s interaction with the environment also reveals his or her own

development on earth.

To sum up, as a distinctive approach to the practice of literary criticism,

ecocriticism gives increased attention to literary representatives of nature and is sensitive

to interdependencies that ground the author, character or work in the natural system. This

approach shifts critical focus from social relations toward natural relationships and views

the individual as a member of ecosystem. It values highly the ‗literary sense of place‘ not

as setting but as an essential expression of bonding with or alienation from a specific

natural context. From the beginning the writers have shown interest towards nature,

culture and landscape. An ecocritical approach views man‘s relationship with nature by

his interaction with nature because it supports the idea that nature, as a literary subject,

surrounds all parts of life. Therefore, ecocriticism is a necessary part of literary

scholarship because literature cannot separate characters from nature that they

domesticate either destructively or productively.


Documents

Chapter II Roots of Ecocriticism - INFLIBNETshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33847/2/chapter2.pdf · Chapter II Roots of Ecocriticism The study of literature has long been