Week 10: A Continuance of Attempting to Link Human and Ocean

Posted on by
1

I felt as though that the readings this week was another spoonful of humans trying to redefine the ocean to the humans who crafted its definitions and boundaries prior. Each text attempts to combine oceanic history with human history; supposing that there should be no distinction between the two. In my pessimistic view on this situation remains the same: to solve the problem of humans intrinsically destroying our own environment, we must convince people that they should care. In order for this to happen any producer of literature should aim to romanticize the ocean or anthropomorphize it. Many people care about things other than themselves like animals, but the world isn’t 100% vegetarian, though some are, and that niche population helps more than not. The only way people will do anything is if it immediately, or in a short amount of time, gives them a reward in return. The world faces so many environmental issues created by humans, but the average person living their daily life will not concern themselves with what happens to the planet when they drive their car to work, what happens to the trash when they throw it in the bin, what happens to the single use plastics they use after going out for a bite to eat, because why would they? If the effects of these decisions seem harmless then why bother to make sure? In my opinion there is one introduction that I felt missed the mark in terms of successfully pulling in the reader to ultimately make them care about the ocean.

The intro for The Ocean Reader had a strong first page as it directly spoke to the reader and dramatically challenged preconceived notions. One being that, “—the Ocean [has] also seemed unchangeable, inexhaustible, and impervious to the onslaught of the harvesters. But such is not the case.” (Duke UP, 1). I feel as though many people, including myself, have seen the ocean to be this huge, mighty force, that couldn’t possibly be affected by tiny little humans. Therefore, by debunking this perception of the ocean, the author shifts the perception to the idea that we are hurting, for lack of better words, the ocean by the things we do in our daily lives ie: pollution, CO2 admissions, overfishing, etc. This take is very effective in my opinion, but where he lost me as a reader, and in effectiveness, is when he goes on a spiel of numbers on the depths and reach the ocean has. As a reader, I cannot even fathom such numbers and if I can’t imagine it, then it’s not real, in tern not having an effect on me. Therefore, the direct approach to make me rethink my own ideas or to make me see the ocean in a new light is much more effective in terms of making me want to get up and save the ocean.

Week 10: Deterreiorializing Preface

Posted on by
2

In ‘Deterritorializing Preface,’ the text reveals how descriptors and common word associations with the land are a conscious act that centers land over the ocean. This reading offers precise language to recenter the ocean as a place with its own merit and agency outside of its proximity to land. Even before presenting these alternative definitions, the author states that ‘moving offshore reshapes our vocabulary (xv),’ which allows for the structure of the text itself to also deterritorialize as it provides a mental shift that moves the reader’s focus from the land to the ocean. In all seven alternative vocabularies, the author places the word ‘formerly’ next to the terrestrial-based vocabulary and is enclosed within a parenthesis. This confined position within the parenthesis minimizes the presence of the terrestrial vocabulary and highlights the aquatic/ocean-based vocabulary. This visual focus on the oceanic word continues to shift the gaze of the reader toward the ocean and further pushes them into the open waters of a new way of interacting with language. In the last section of the text, the author states that they nearly wrote down the phrase ‘change the world’ instead of ‘change the ocean.’ The phrase ‘change the world’ has been used as a call to action to inspire individuals to try to fix injustices or problems that Earth faces. However, the ‘world’ usually calls to mind images of land and solid ground and largely excludes the 70% world that’s covered in water. By changing this common phrase to ‘change the ocean,’ the text once again centers on the ocean as a physical place where an active change can occur, especially one that involves connotations that certain vocabularies can bring.  

Steve Mentz, Ocean (Bloomsbury, 2020): “Deterritorializing Preface” (pgs. xv-xviii)

Deterritorializing Preface

Posted on by
3

It is interesting that for so long the ocean has been considered a place where change does not take place even though it’s literally a place that is constantly undergoing movement. This week’s reading show that to believe the ocean to be ahistorical and un-dynamic says more about the way we as humans have shaped our beliefs and how the very language we create reinforces this “offshore” way of thinking. I am interested in comparing and contrasting our western relationship with the ocean with the relationship that other coastal cultures have with the ocean. It would be particularly interesting to analyze how language differs based on the geographical proximity to the ocean. Based on the readings we have been assigned these past couple of weeks it’s clear that in the environmental humanities it is crucial to listen and learn from people of all backgrounds, who have differing relationships with the natural world. It is a collective labor that will help re-examine ever sifting relationship with the environment. The Deterritorializing preface excerpt further examines how our language shapes the reality in which we live in. The examination of these aquatic terms helped me understand how more terrestrial terms can often limit our thinking. For example, the term current as opposed to field; It is clear that the usage of field connotes an understanding of safety in the reliable but it does not prepare us for when the reliable fails the way that the word current does. In such a rapidly changing world and one in which humans are in constant movement, I’m thinking particularly of immigration, is it not easier to accept change and difference with a word like current? It allows us to view the world as one of constant ebbs and flows and therefore something that we can all move in rhythm to rather than resistance. It seems like now more than ever, we can benefit from moving from terrestrial thinking, into a more “liquid” manner of thinking. I am getting a better understanding of the blue humanities and what it seeks to explore. After all, I believe it was last week’s readings that mention that the solution to our environmental crisis does not rely on technological innovation but rather in reshaping how we relate and think of the environment and that includes even the language we use.

Week 10: Thoughts on Vast Expanses

Posted on by
1

I found the discussion of ocean history extremely interesting in this week’s readings. In the Introduction of Vast Expanses, Rodzadowski mentions that we must pay attention “to questions of how, by whom and why knowledge about the ocean was created and used” (Rodzadowski, p. 9). When discussing ocean history, there is a need to understand what information came from which culture because that plays large in role in understanding the relationship to the ocean at the time. As we have discussed in class, some cultures view the ocean as something to work with and others view it as an object to use. Additionally, this quote makes me question the knowledge that we have of the ocean. When I think of how we gain knowledge, I think of books, and while I know that information can also be passed orally, what information was published about the ocean, and what cultures’ knowledge was included? That shapes and influences our views of the ocean’s history and our history with the ocean. 

Since technology has evolved and humans have expanded their impact on the environment, it’s interesting to read about the different stages of human relationships with the ocean. I was fascinated with the idea of the modern relationship with the ocean. Rodzadowski describes how in the 1970s there was “concern for the great whales and about the dangers posed by major oil spills..but [this concern] did not translate into worry about the ocean itself, only its coasts and a handful of its more charismatic inhabitants” (p.11). Using sea animals that appeal to the masses to protest certain actions or policies is something that we still do today. 50 years ago people used their concern for the whales to protest oil spills and four years ago people used turtles to bring awareness to the amount of plastic being dumped in the ocean. This idea of concern for certain animals rather than the ocean as a whole is so fascinating because the state of the ocean directly impacts these animals but we had not acknowledged that until recently. I wonder how our relationship with the ocean will change in the coming years and if there will be any major changes culturally that will shift our outlook on the ocean. 

Earth’s Second World and The Right to Understand

Posted on by
1

Good evening Class,

Did anybody else get goosebumps reading the introduction to The Ocean Reader? Because those measurements made a shiver run down my spine.

It wasn’t until very recently that I’ve been able to better accurately visualize distances and lengths mentally – because of this newfound ability, I had to do double take after double take when reading the introduction to The Ocean Reader. I do all of my mental measurements in yards because its easy for me to visualize the length of a football field in my head than a kilometer. So if one kilometer is 1,093, and some change, yards long – or a little less than 11 football fields – then that means the Mariana Trench is about 27,887 football fields deep… please, somebody tell me I’m not the only one freaked out by that idea.

To think that a majority of the Earth’s crust is underwater is baffling. This means a majority of OUR planet is not easily accessible by any means. I’m personally conflicted by this. I see myself as a part of Earth – I believe that just because I can ask questions about how the world operates and what life means doesn’t necessarily mean I’m entitled an explanation. I do not want to meddle with the natural order of the planet just to scratch any philosophical itch I may conjure up. I WAS content with living in a world full of mystery and I DO enjoy looking at the sky and day dreaming about the universe and its plethora of mysteries. But seeing just how much of the world is underwater (and really being able to visualize it) has made me a little more curious than I was before. The ocean is truly another world existing within our own, and this realization is becoming more and more apparent to me the more we read in this course.

EDIT: I think I might have gotten my calculations wrong. My bad, everyone.

Week 10: Terracentrism and Mermaids

Posted on by
3

Eric Paul Roorda’s introduction to The Ocean Reader advocates for a more holistic understanding of the ocean, challenging the notion of “separate bodies of water named as different Oceans” (2). Roorda continues our discussion of the Blue Humanities by arguing that the challenges facing the ocean can be addressed with an interdisciplinary approach–incorporating history and culture into marine science. A major reason why most of our ocean has gone unexplored is due to “terracentrism,” a term referring to “people’s tendency to consider the world and human activity mainly in the context of land and events that take place on land” (1). Terracentrism has deep roots in our history and has heavily influenced how knowledge is constructed and perceived. This bias limits our understanding of interconnected ecosystems and marginalizes the study of the ocean.

Terracentrism influences how humans interact and perceive marine environments, including the creatures that inhabit them. This skewed understanding of ocean life can be seen in our study of mermaids. Most of the mermaid stories we have discussed thus far have portrayed mermaids as half-human. These depictions accentuate a deeper bias ingrained in Western culture. By portraying mermaids as half-human, these stories inherently suggest that only beings with human-like features can possess intelligence, emotions, and agency. This perspective not only reflects a limited understanding of marine life, but also perpetuates a hierarchical view of the natural world. Additionally, half-human mermaids reflect the tendency to project human traits and experiences on non-human entities. This lens reinforces terracentrism, which creates the risk of overlooking the complex and diverse ocean habitats.

Overall, I found Roorda’s introduction powerful as it highlights the “natural bias” (1) humans have when discussing the ocean. As Roorda says, “we all depend on the ocean” (4), and actively recognizing this bias may lead to a deeper and more empathetic understanding of aquatic life.

The Ocean as an Unconquerable Place

Posted on by
1

In this weeks readings, one of the things we read was the introduction chapter of the book “The Ocean Reader” by Eric Paul Roorda. This introductory chapter aimed to introduce people to the idea that despite the ocean being something people may consider an obstacle people must cross to reach new lands, the ocean is still a place with a lot of personality and history. I found this reading to be extremely interesting because, while it may be shameful to admit, I don’t know a lot about the ocean at all. As I follow this class, I think about how society acts towards the ocean and its qualities, but I am realizing that I am part of the problem simply by not thinking about or researching the ocean. While people may not drive to the ocean to dump their trash, a lot of people are not conscious about how even littering can pollute the ocean. The ocean takes up around 70% of the world, and polluting and ruining it will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world. By keeping people uninformed, we are letting ourselves not only disrespect the ocean and its history, but we are allowing the ocean to be polluted.

Roorda makes his point clear that although we have named several different oceans, ultimately, “There is one ocean… they all connect into one ocean” (2). Naming different oceans as if they are countries is the most humanity is willing to do in order to navigate the oceans better, but when it comes to treatment and care, humanity refuses to do anything because different countries feel they have no gain. While it is important to look out for yourself, looking out for the environment directly correlates to looking out for not only yourself, but your species. One thing I want to comment on that might not be directly relevant is how fascinating it is that I am now wondering why people are so ignorant about this, but until I took this class, I was mostly ignorant about this.

Week 10: Deterritorialization

Posted on by
2

For far too long, humans have regarded the ocean as “other”, as “terra incognita”, as a void, obscuring the mas that covers 71% of Earth’s surface from ourselves and shirking the responsibilities of it’s abuse and pillaging off of ourselves as it is not ours to own and therefore not ours to care for. Terracentrism dominates our collective psyche through our language, commonly held beliefs, and areas of scientific study. Steve Mentz’s piece, “Deterritorializing Preface” offers an interesting new shift in our vocabulary, as a means of centering the ocean, which has previously been left wholly ignored, in our research, discussion, and understanding of the world. In this way, we can broaden our perspective that shapes our action in response to environmental crisis from just land occupied by humans to the vast ocean as well. As an environmental science major, I find this criticism of research’s common tongue to be very compelling. This piece not only directs my attention to the common use of terracentric words like “Field” in my natural vocabulary, but also has me question my own motivations and understandings in entering this *current* of study. I had come to understand from William Cronon’s piece “The Trouble With Wilderness” that my pursuit of a degree in environmental science with the intention to serve the environment stemmed from an anthropocentric savior complex; how could I say I want to to save the environment if I am part of the larger issue? Becoming aware of that was a first step to readjusting my view on environmental conservation from “saving” to “making reparations”—to approaching the environment with a deep sense of regret and respect, as to avoid asserting the same control over it that led to it’s deterioration and to give it the space and support to thrive and repair itself. Now, Mentz’s piece offers me seven new ocean-centric words to broaden my understanding even further, as I’ve come to understand that not only was I entering into my career with a damaging anthropocentric outlook, but a terracentric outlook as well. Thanks to these works, I can construct a new paradigm for my approach to environmental sciences that is predominantly structured around respect and understanding, rather than control and self-gratification.

Week 10: The Ocean Reader

Posted on by
1

The introduction of “The Ocean Reader” had me thinking a lot about how we really don’t practically anything about the ocean nor do we care about the problems going on inside of it. I took Oceanography last semester and it was covered one of my GE requirements which is so interesting because how can you consider learning about the ocean general education when we really know nothing about it? It seems like we’re just scratching the surface of what is really going on. I wish we knew more about the oceans as there is so many unknowns as to what is truly in the depths. I think that’s why so many myths and legends about sea monsters and mythical creatures are stemmed from the ocean. They originate from our innate curiosity and even fear of the unknown depths. These not only reflect our fascination with the ocean but also serve as a reminder of the impact it has on our collective consciousness. And I hope as we continue to explore the possibilities of the oceans, more species will be discovered and phenomena that may inspire more myths and legends in the future.

It is also perplexing to me that the ocean covers more than half of our planet and it hasn’t been a priority to explore it. I think we often just overlook what goes on in the ocean because we can’t see what’s happening so we pretend it’s not in trouble. I like how in the text the author made the decision to capitalise Ocean as it gives it more of an emphasis and significance. I think it’s crucial for people to understand how much of an impact our ocean has on our lives.I also like how convincing this introduction is written as it draws you in to want to read more about how crucial the seas are to our survival.

Week 10: Oceanic Thinking

Posted on by
Reply

Previously, the ocean was viewed as a place of changeless space, and one without any history. “The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics”, by Eric Paul Roorda, and ” Vast Expanses: A History of the Ocean”, by Helen M. Rodzadowski, discuss how the ocean is place of vast history, guaranteeing “that we see reflected back from its surface our fears and desires” (Rodzadowski, 12). Rather than simply land, the ocean is also at the center of human history.

Our past views of the ocean have often been two dimensional, horizontal. Events that occurred at sea were were often narrated as though the ocean was flat, similar to land, having only 2 dimensions instead of three. The two dimensional view changed with the First World War. Submarine warfare introduced the three dimensional and vertical perspective in global geopolitics (Rodzadowski). It is interesting that the ocean became viewed as three dimensional when it became a place useful for warfare, a battlefield. “Because the Ocean can’t be plowed, paved, or shaped in ways the eye is able to discern, it has seemed to be a constant, while the land has changed drastically over the centuries” (Roorda, 1). In many of the early stories we read, the mermaids/creatures come out of the sea, the unknown, to live on land. Rarely are the oceanic worlds explored in these stories.

Rodzadowski explains that “Dry land is the presumed norm. Even coasts and coastal dwellers have been viewed as marginal and exceptional, as have swamps, marshes, cays, reefs and other littoral areas that are neither entirely wet nor dry” (7). As we have previously discussed in class, cultures have been connected and using the ocean throughout history, though some of these histories have often been overlooked or ignored. I find it particularly interesting that “areas that are neither entirely wet nor dry” have been viewed as “marginal and exceptional”, since mermaids are of the same classification, neither wet or dry, neither human or fish, but a hybrid.

Rodzadowski also points out that “Humans make their appearance as part of nature, within the natural history of the planet rather than separate from it, and ocean-oriented activities of early hominids and of Homo sapiens appear to have played an important role in the evolution of our species” (9). Human view and relation to he ocean is ever changing, and varies between cultures. Through learning the history of the ocean, we can learn about ourselves. However, in brief studies of early hominids and homo sapiens, I have learned very little about their relation to the ocean and the role it played in the evolution of our species, this is something I’d like to learn more about.