Constant, Conquering, and Claiming ( The Ocean)

Posted on by
1

The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics. ‘Introduction” by Eric Paul Roorda explores the pivotal societal changes around the ocean in language and action. “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.” This quote is extremely important when understanding the concept of conquering the ocean and how modern scientists, explorers, etc. constantly desire to claim something as their own. The difference between the word “constant” in connection to the ocean and the phrase ” changed drastically” with the ocean is based upon false realities. The ocean is one of the most non-constant regions in the world yet it is marketed as a place that is “constant” and “without history.”

The ocean is difficult to claim as it is constantly moving yet claiming the ocean and discovering it is a huge pursuit of our modern-day explorations. The text states, “The stylebook spelling of “ocean” diminishes it as a geological reference. To capitalize on Ocean is to challenge the conventional wisdom that the sea can be taken for granted. They cannot.” I like this quote because it specifically showcases the wording and how we use the word “Ocean” to represent the world’s relationship to it. Throughout history, society has led through the action of claiming and conquering and has never failed to attempt to establish boundaries and borders. It is in human nature to want to claim something as “mine,” it is one of the first few words we are able to say as children. The issue or should I say upside is that the ocean cannot be conquered, it is almost physically impossible as it is so large and so fluid. I added the image down below due to the theme of conquering through “flags,” we discover something and we place a flag, the moon landing, place a flag… but in the ocean, there is nowhere to place a flag. How do we conquer something that is constantly shifting and moving? Is it possible to truly establish boundaries in the ocean?

Week 9: The Thing about “The Thing in Itself”

Posted on by
3

Our reading for this week references philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “das Ding an sich”–or “the thing in itself.” “The thing in itself” refers to an individual’s difficulty to truly comprehend an object because of the meanings and definitions attached to the object. Those meanings and definitions, which differ from person to person, cloud the “prior truth” attached to the object.

It’s an interesting way of viewing the world as this school of thought asks its student to examine their personal biases, but it’s also an incredibly removed and admittedly-Western way of viewing the world. The text states: “…every object and being is defined by its relationships. It is part of networks and only has meaning in relation to its surroundings. Scientists studying nature had sought to know the “thing in itself” and to isolate an organism in a cage or a glass container. Yet to grasp fully any form of life requires studying it in its habitat, where its existence is defined by relations with others of the same species, and by the plants, animals, insects, and microscopic organisms that share its environment. As the analysis becomes more detailed, it must include more and more about the environment, including the climate, food sources, predators, competitors, procreation, and so on.” (9)

In essence, this means that no object exists in a vacuum and its meaning comes from the things that surround it. A spool of thread and a shirt aren’t just two separate objects that happen to be in proximity; there’s a story that can be created around these two objects. One could say the spool of thread was used to fix a hole in the shirt or that the thread was used to sew together the parts of the shirt. We could even go as far as to say that the spool of thread might be embroidery floss and could be used to embroider a pattern on the shirt. The individual meanings of a shirt as a garment and canvas for creation and a spool of thread as a tool for creativity and creation are only created because of each object’s relation to each other.

This relational existence is what makes the conversation about humans, anthropocentrism, and the environmental humanities’ denouncement of said anthropocentrism so interesting. While we as a species have created a lot of problems for nature by distancing ourselves from it, we have also still made ourselves a part of it through our interference. Have you ever seen what a banana or watermelon looked like before humans came up with GMOs, natural or otherwise? Nature shapes us just as much as we shape nature and human interference, in a way, becomes a part of nature.

Reading post: Week 9

Posted on by
2
When reading the Emergence of the environmental humanities, it was very interesting to hear more about the effects we humans have on the environment. As the first section we read discusses the human effects on the earth and environment, and how the way we are living is not sustainable for the earth to thrive. I like how this article points out the fact that researchers and scientists can help identify the problems of o overconsumption and human affects on the earth, but they alone can not change it. This is a very important point a lot of people miss, because a small group of the population cannot solve this crisis, the article states “Solutions will require political and cultural expertise as well” (pg. 1). Not only do political and cultural changes need to be made, but other people need to make this effort to change and adapt as well. When trying to make these solutions in our cities and homes, the public, scientists, and excerpts need to be consulted before big cooperations try to be “eco-friendly.” This is a point that is talked about numerous times in this article, as efficient change cannot be made without efficient resources and consults, in order to do the job right. It states in the article “That brings us to a final strongly held position across the environmental humanities: that humanists use offer constructive knowledge as well as criticism” (pg. 2). This is the point of the article, they are not saying they have the solutions but they are saying that if more people consult humanists for solutions and criticism, progress could be made. I really liked the display of knowledge in this article, after every statement or argument the authors made we’re backed up with facts. Not only was this beneficial to their claim, but also to help me better understand the humanists too. The evolution of ecologists, scientists, and humanist’s is how we have gotten to where we are today, and society needs to turn to them for assistance. This goes through the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and etc, which helps paint a picture on the evolution of their knowledge. The environmental humanities was shaped postcolonial and feminist studies, shaping the ideas that have evolved today. These new ideas challenged some of the older ones, about the environment and such, shaping the way people think today. I found this evolution and aspect very interesting the read about. and see how it has effected new ideas today.

Week 9: Politics and the Environment

Posted on by
2

“The Emergence of Environmental Humanities” by Robert Emmett and David Nye defines environmental humanities as an interdisciplinary field that explores humans’ relationship with the environment through the lens of humanities such as history, philosophy, political theory, and art. Emmett and Nye advocate for integrating humanities with natural and social sciences, as doing so will help develop more sustainable and effective solutions to the current environmental crisis. One observation I found particularly interesting was how corruption in government and politics has obstructed efforts to address environmental issues.

On page two, Emmett and Nye write about a plan established in 2010 that called for an “ecological community of 50,000 to be built on marshy land near Shanghai” (2). However, “nothing was built” as “local farmers [and scientists] were never consulted” and “the politicians involved were removed after fraud convictions” (2). Such examples demonstrate politicians’ failure to understand the complexity of environmental sustainability. Creating policies without consulting those most knowledgeable about the environmental impact of human activities prevents policymakers— and the general public— from making effective informed decisions. Politicians’ “agendas” and “initial goals” are “affected by political ideologies and economic interests” (5). Those who hold the power to make substantial change prioritize short-term gains or personal interests over the long-term health of the environment. This leads to neglect of pressing environmental issues like pollution, deforestation, and global warming.

Politicians’ skewed priorities have led to a disconnect with the public. Emmett and Nye argue that “the environmental humanities [enact] a positive response to complex social-environmental issues” (9). This is because “writers, photographers, and artists” hold the ability “to communicate the complex relationships of societies and their environment” (7). For example, a photographer might use images to document environmental degradation and the communities affected by it. These images provide visual evidence of the interconnectedness of human and environmental dynamics. Additionally, political corruption often results in the marginalization of vulnerable communities such as indigenous populations or those in poverty. Emmett and Nye observe that while there is some effort to help the enviornment, there is a lack of consideration for how these efforts “affect the poor and ethnic minorities” (17). For example, “toxic waste sites were located near communities of African Americans” (17). The failure to consider the interconnectedness of the enviornment and social issues results in policies that exacerbate rather than alleviate the burdens of current sustainability efforts.

Overall, Emmett and Nye’s observations underscore the urgent need for environmental efforts to connect with the humanities— highlighting how systemic inequality and political corruption prevent humanity from connecting with the natural world.

The Emergence of the Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
4

“We have not searched for straw men to demolish; rather, we
have focused on what seems the most intriguing and potentially productive
approaches.” The closing statement of the introduction suggests that the authors would like to provide an observation of some environmental humanities approaches in the past. One early criticism that I have is that it was claimed very early on that environmental humanities as a field has only been around for the last one hundred years. Although the article does discuss the exploitation of indigenous/native people in the US (including the creation of national parks), it fails to give much context to the Western creation of science. I think it would be useful for readers to understand some of the practices that indigenous peoples have passed down to preserve their local communities. For us to see the whole picture, we need to realize why the concept of environmental humanities was even created. Last time I checked, Native Americans weren’t given much credit for their ability to exist symbiotically with their surrounding environment. This concept of Environmental Humanities seems to cover the scale of the whole Earth because we now have a globe that is connected not only physically by roads but a vast network of communication creating a place with little isolation. Because of this, it creates the assumption that the Environment includes everything on Earth. Now more than ever, actions that affect the environment on a local scale may cause some environmental damage on a large scale.

I like the dilemma of conservation brought up by the authors. It’s a difficult question to answer sometimes. Do we conserve this so-called pristine wilderness and kick out those who have been living symbiotically in that area? In Africa, there have been issues of gorilla conservation which requires locals to be removed from the land they’ve always lived on. Do we value the gorillas more than the livelihood of our own kind? Where do we draw the line of morality when it comes to conservation? I’d like to see what happens in the future of conservation and preservation, the balance has proven difficult.

Week Nine Reading Response

Posted on by
1

It occurs to me, after this week’s reading, that I knew nothing about what the environmental humanities were. I am thinking that the environmental humanities seem like a response to some of the important points of our reading of Cronon last week. Reading “The Emergence of Environmental Humanities” further solidifies some of our discussion point from last week. Western views of our relationship with nature are deeply narrow and do not allow for the communication and open mindedness required to provide solutions to our ecological problems. It’s no coincidence that the study of environmental humanities grew through the contributions of different fields of study like gender and indigenous studies both being intersectional studies that try to de-centralize the western narratives. On discussing what topics are covered by the study of humanities the text says, “a new range of concepts emerged that provide a framework for environmental humanities, such as ecoracism, environmental justice, ‘naturecultures,’ the environmentalism of the poor and the posthuman.” It never occurred to me how important these topics are when considering environmentalism and that new technology is not always the only answer or even the answer to our environmental crisis. I like how the text mentions that science does not always consider the knowledge that is readily available to us. I remember discussing early in the semester how indigenous peoples have so much knowledge of the land that has been dismissed by science as nothing but folklore without actually considering what knowledge they have to offer. It is how we learn that controlled fires in a forest are necessary to bring about new life.

 I have recently read Greg Grandin’s book “The end of the Myth” and in it he re-contextualizes the conditions that led to the dustbowl famine during the great depression. A big part of the reason for the famine was the destroying of land by unsustainable farming practices used for the production of cotton. The book explores the idea that plantation owners were not interested in sustainability of farming because the myth of the frontier gave them a false sense of confidence that when the land was spent they could just extend further west. Pairing this book with the topics being discussed in this class helps reinforce why environmental humanities are necessary.

Humanity is Nature’s Greatest Parasite

Posted on by
2

In this weeks reading of “The Emergence of the Environmental Humanities” by David Nye, I found the breakdown of humanities treatment of nature to be extremely interesting. I had never considered how much information about societal constructs could be told from analyzing humanities poor treatment of nature. From the very beginning, we are coerced into realizing that environmental humanities is a relatively new thing, which I had never considered. Its creation shows a lot about how people are realizing their mistakes with their treatment of nature. Society has unintentionally made the poor treatment of nature the standard for nations to thrive since the Industrial Revolution. While there are now people trying to fight back against this unsustainable way of survival, many nations and industries will not dare to accept a change because it could mess with profits or disrupt the flow of a lot of populations.

What interested me the most is idea of ecoracism. Ecoracism is the concept that wealthy nations will “outsource their pollution” (p18) to poor countries in order to maintain a clean and healthy country. While one nation will benefit, the other country will see the build up of an unsustainable ecosystem. For a superpower to create an unhealthy environment for a less fortunate country shows that we are blatantly allowing modern day imperialism. This is a huge problem in itself because it paints the average person as either ignorant, an enabler, or too lazy to do something about the issue. The lack of unity against the issue matters because solving the environment crisis is not an attainable goal without unity. Even if people choose to ignore the issue, eventually everybody is going to feel the effects. Nature does not know any borders. Natural resources are being depleted from the planet that is shared by all of humanity. Eventually, superpower nations will not be able to throw their pollution in other countries.

It is incredibly alarming that people have access to this information and do nothing about the impending issues that will be impossible to ignore. Humanity is derived by nature, and I personally believe humanity could thrive with the natural resources we have access to if greed and comfortability were not an issue. While there are some true efforts to fix the environment, if people are not unified it will not be able to be fixed.

Week 9: Environment Humanities

Posted on by
1

This weeks reading, “The Emergence of Environmental Humanities”, adds to and further expands on topics we discussed last week. The book traces the emergence of environmental humanities, tracings it back from when the field first originated in the 1970s and 80s, through not just the field of science, but also through fields of literature, philosophy, history, geography, gender studies, and anthropology. The author argues that in order to find a solution to climate change, “It is imperative to abandon narrow disciplinary traditions in order to grasp these interconnections” (4). Meaning, the solution is not singular, science, math, literature, art, etc. are not separate, but connected. Touching on our class last week, “Human beings are not independent of the natural world, but are part of it” (9). Similarly, we cannot separate disciplines and then expect to find the solution. To understand the environment, all things must be taken into account: environmental humanities.

The global environmental crisis we are facing requires new ways of thinking, “the crisis cannot be addressed solely by finding technological solutions”, but rather an, “interdisciplinary approach to environmental change that includes the humanities, the arts, and the sciences” (7). We must bridge the academic barriers between humanities and sciences. This interdisciplinary approach applies to ideas we have known since we were young. For example, the acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), is being proposed to be expanded to STEAM to “recognize how the arts contribute to inventiveness in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”. Storytelling, visual, and various kinds of art media through historians, writers, photographers, artists have constantly been used to “communicate the complex relationships of societies and their environment” throughout history (7).

The book also discusses the cultural/ethical implications of environmental humanities and our history with nature. Environmental humanities did not evolve from only early Western thinkers, but rather the “field has been shaped by postcolonial and feminist studies and by scholars working outside of Europe and the United States” (4). Westerners often hold an implicitly racialized ideas of the natural world: white, male, European. In policy discussions of climate change, unequal social relations and exploitation of resources often go undiscussed, revealing the importance of including the humanities in these discussions.

The book comes back to last weeks topic of untouched, pristine, and almost virginal ideas of wilderness. Yet, this pristine wilderness never existed, in order to get there, Native Americans had to be removed, “the notion of a pure, untouched wilderness implied that no human beings had ever lived there…when creating American national parks in the nineteenth century, to remove Native Americans from sites such as Yosemite and Yellowstone” (18). Again, the inclusion of all disciplines is imperative to such issues.

Understanding the Ocean: Art vs. Science

Posted on by
1

While reading The Blue Humanities, by John R. Gillis, I kept thinking about the relationship between art and science.

I believe that both art and science are ultimately trying to accomplish the same goal – albeit by taking different steps. To me, the goal of art is to spread awareness and an overall understanding of any specific issue or topic by creating something an audience can observe and explore with their imagination. Whether its a movie, song, painting, etc. it is my understanding that art is to be carefully crafted in order to raise a question in the viewers mind that they are supposed to answer for themselves. Science, seems to be the opposite. Where art aims to ask questions, science wants to provide an answer. Science produces theories that are meant to be tested and experimented with to get the greatest understanding of the subject as possible.

So where does the Ocean come in with all of this? Well, with the ocean being so vast and mysterious – it is no question why so many works of art have been produced with the ocean being the main character. It’s unpredictable and violent while also being calm and serene. It is the perfect canvas to paint upon the fears, desires, and wonders of the human mind. But how does writing a book affect the ocean? Making a movie? Writing a song? The biggest influence art has on the ocean is how we view this integral part of our world. Could it lead us to wanting to investigate it.

Where we observe the ocean through art, we could disrupt it with science. While we can learn a lot about the ocean through research, there’s a difference between observing it as it currently exists and observing it with a plethora of variables. Human beings have an impact on everything they decide to get themselves involved with. I am not against science in the slightest, but I do tend to associate the urge we have to “understand” the world around us with the tendancy to try and control it. I think that we cant fathom the perfectly chaotic synergy of the Natural World. We require structure in our lives to make the world go ’round, so we intend to implement that structure on a world that would be better off without it. The way I see it, we are product of the Natural World, but we are in no way a part of it. I dont think we can return to it, so ultimately this debate on whether understanding the world through art is better than doing so through science or vice versa is rather moot.

Sorry for the downer post, I’ve just been chasing this idea around in my head and reading The Blue Humanities somehow made the idea click into place.

Reflection on “The Blue Humanities” by John R. Gillis

Posted on by
3

The article discusses many aspects of humans’ understanding about the ocean. It begins by stating that humans know more about the moon than the depth of the ocean, which is amusing considering we live alongside it. Because of it being unknown, the article explains the ocean was feared before the 19th century. It was perceived as “dangerous and repellant, ugly and unfit for literary or artistic representation” (Gillis). However, in the 19th century it was through literary and artistic representation that humans began to connect with the ocean and use it to reflect their own lives. I thought this was fascinating because it became a sort of trend for people and even those who didn’t associate with the ocean, still represented traces of it in their daily lives, the article quotes, “the ocean entered the minds, homes, dreams, and conversation of ordinary people.” It was in the 19th and 20th century that the sea was finally associated with life rather than death as a “three-dimensional living thing with a history, geography, and a life of its own.” In relation, Writers and painters turned their attention to the ocean when nations turned away and allowed for the ocean to be a place for metaphors. Another big part of this cultural shift is archeology and anthropology because it brought us more knowledge about the history of the ocean through scientific studies. The ocean began to shift from a lifeless place to a place filled with life. Today, we are able to explore the history of the ocean and its characteristics, “ocean currents, tides, and waves.” Overall, blue humanities, as mentioned in the article, “recognizes the close relationship between modern western culture and the sea” which highlights the cultural shift humans have had and continue to have with the sea.