Tag Archives: Environmental humanities

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.

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 9: Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
2

Chapter 1 of the book “The Environmental Humanities: A Critical Introduction,” edited by Robert S. Emmett and David E. Nye. The Environmental Humanities is an interdisciplinary field that explores the relationship between humans and the environment through various lenses. What stuck with me from the reading was that, “Human beings do not have special rights relative to other species. Rather than view animals and plants in terms of their usefulness to humanity, we can see them as having an intrinsic right to exist. And when an entire form of life disappears, its loss diminishes human culture too.” (Nye, 11) They argue against the idea that humans have special rights over other species and advocate for acknowledging the intrinsic value of animals and plants. By emphasizing the intrinsic value of non-human life forms, the authors promote a more holistic and ethical approach to environmental management. They highlight the interconnection of all life forms, arguing that the extinction of an entire species or ecosystem has ecological effects as well as a negative impact on human culture. Species extinction can destroy cultural legacy, disrupt traditional traditions, and reduce the variety of human experiences and viewpoints.

I agree with the authors that humans should not feel themselves superior to other creatures. Instead, we should acknowledge the inherent worth of all living beings. By considering animals and plants to have an inherent right to exist, we recognize their role in preserving ecological balance and biodiversity. Furthermore, I agree that the extinction of a species has far-reaching cultural consequences in addition to environmental ones. Every species contributes to our world’s richness and diversity, and their extinction reduces the fabric of human civilization as well.

Week 9: Humanities

Posted on by
1

so this time it was a reading and not quite from the penguin book or the other one which is an interesting change of pace. It talks about how environmental humanities have been in the works for awhile, which I believe: we’ve been aware of climate change since the 60s at the earliest (if I recall correctly). But reading it really reaffirmed a theme that we touch upon in class which is that of humanity’s role within nature.

”human beings are not merely observers they are an active part of nature”. (Page 8) We have shaped nature all throughout history physically and figuratively (through stuff like folklore and mythology). Even today we’re still trying to understand nature more and more (especially since we have a profound effect on it)In a way, it makes sense why environmental humanities became more and more relevant (with understanding comes widespread knowledge, and more awareness). At the same time, though, I hope we aren’t too late with it. Maybe being so divorced from nature has made us care less? Not to say that the developed world is horrible and we should revert back to a simpler life, but the more we move forward, the less we seem concerned with our planet

I had to type this on my iPhone. .

Week 9: The Emergence of Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
1

It was interesting to learn in this week’s reading that the environmental humanities did not emerge until the 1970s and 1980s. The field is one that I personally find a lot of interest in and believe has assisted in many other fields of study and discoveries. “The environmental humanities has become a global intellectual movement that reconceives the relationship between scientific and technical disciplines and the humanities, which are essential to understanding and resolving dilemmas that have been created by industrial society” (Emmett, Nye, 4). This quote from the reading helps explain that point. Throughout time historians and researchers have used the humanities to assist in scientific discoveries. Art and literature play a big role in understanding history and are essential to learning about the past. This leads me to agree with the suggestion by arts and design advocates to shift the term STEM to the term STEAM. The arts contribute so much to science, technology, mathematics, and engineering and deserve to be appreciated and studied just as much. Without the arts, there would be much more unknown about history and the development of society. I believe that many of the progressions we have made as a society are credited to the arts and humanities which further surprises me that the environmental humanities were discovered so recently.

The reading also focuses on the term “resilience” and the idea of equilibrium. There are opposing opinions about whether or not resilience is a good argument and method for a sustainable environment. Resilience “suggests that a healthy ecological system is self-regulating and is able to adapt to external challenges within certain limits. A system, rather than being a balanced arrangement that has persisted for millennia, is always in a process of change” (Emmett, Nye, 20). This idea can be compared to the readings on Wilderness from last week. We spoke about the idea of humans living in balance with nature to create a healthier planet and ecosystem. This raises the question of whether or not we can live in balance with nature as people and if that would lead to more resilient ecosystems. The environmental crisis is important to address and I think the connection of “The Emergence of Environmental Humanities” with “The Trouble With Wilderness” can help us better understand it.

Week 9: Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
1

I found the reading on environmental humanities extremely interesting because it brings up a lot of the themes that we have been discussing in class and has also introduced me to some new ideas. An idea that enlgihtened me was that in order to solve the climate issue, multiple disciplines need to come together to create a solution. I have heard a variation of this idea before, but it was a more political version. The idea was that scientists needed to come together with community members in order to create specific solutions for that city, state, etc because community members know what they need and what would work in their specific area better than politicians or scientists who’ve never been to that area. But this reading is a lot more inclusive because instead of just limiting it to scientists coming up with a solution, it suggests that a wide variety of people from different academic backgrounds need to come together. I find this fascinating because it seems like such a simple recommendation, but is so revolutionary because of how Western culture separates academic disciplines in order to make it much harder for them to mix. 

Another topic I found fascinating was that recognizing humans as being a part of nature could help with establishing a solution to the environmental crisis. A portion of the text mentions how humans play an active role in nature and that needs to be recognized if we are ever going to come up with any sort of solution or make any progress. This reminded me of the conversations we’ve been having in class the past few weeks because we tend to think that we are above nature but that way of thinking is what has allowed humans to harm the environment in the first place. Emmett and Nye explain that humans need to have a mindset shift so that instead of viewing “animals and plants in terms of their usefulness to humanity, we can see them as having an intrinsic right to exist” (2017, p.11). Thinking of the environment in this way changes our perception of the world from revolving around humans and instead places us on the same level as animals and plants. As much as we have a right to exist in this world, so does every other living organism and that is what makes our world function properly. I wonder if keeping this idea in mind when thinking about solutions for the climate and environmental crisis will produce more effective or safer results for the environment and us. 

Week 9: Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
2

For this week’s reading I found it to be quite interesting and thought provoking to be able to have perspectives on environmental humanities. I have often heard this term of environmental humanities but I have not known much of what it is about and throughout the reading I was able to get the general idea of their purpose. They “Show how humanists are improving our understanding of the problems and contributing to their solution … humanists must offer constructive knowledge as well as criticism” (Emmet & Nye page 2). It is more about just giving the public data and numbers to display the negative effects humans have caused to the Earth and about global warming. We all know that the Earth is damaged but they focus more on deepening the public’s understanding of the issue of the negative impacts humans have on the environment. I noticed as well the influence of gender in the reading and the idea that nature, similar to women, have suffered in the hands of men’s desire to control others and everything; “They pointed out that the very idea of humans standing outside of and controlling nature was based on a conception of the natural world that was passive and feminized … Apparently neutral terms such as “man and nature,” though they still appear in policy discussions of climate change, often have masked unequal social relations and exploitation of resources” (Emmet & Nye page 4). Also I noticed that the main theme of the reading and thus connects to the purpose of the class is the idea that man and nature need to live in harmony with one another, cause in the end we are sharing this land with “non-humans” as well, and maybe shifting our ideas and tactics to a more “feminine” and nurturing nature; “Such a new ethic requires a new narrative. This new story, “would not accept the idea of subduing the earth, or even dressing and keeping the garden, since both entail total domestication and control by human beings. Instead, each earthly place would be a home, or community, to be shared with other living and no-living things” (Emmet & Nye page 6). 

My question is, how do we incorporate these new ideologies into the school curriculum, and change years of past ideologies from others?

Week 9: Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
1

“Human beings are not independent of the natural world, but are part of it” (pp 10). We’ve been exploring this topic a lot in our readings and it is so interesting to me the different perspectives people have about it. I think it is important to recognize our interconnectedness to nature in order to have a good relationship with it. We ultimately rely on natural processes to support our lifestyles, but still choose to disrespect the world around us. The mindset that we are separate from nature has led to pollution, the exploitation of natural resources, and habitat destruction. These impacts effects not just the environment but also human lives, which seems ironic to say considering they’re both interconnected parts of the same system.

The concept of human mortality and our place in the natural world is viewed differently from groups, as some ideas don’t align with their beliefs. In the reading, it talks about how some conservative Christians don’t accept the theory of evolution, so their viewpoint is more from the idea that animals are a separate entity of the natural world than humans. According to this perspective, humans are not simply products of evolution but are intentionally created with a divine purpose. They possess rationality, morality, and free will, which are seen as reflections of God’s nature. This view emphasizes the special relationship between humans and God, which may suggest that humans have a higher status and purpose than other creatures. Although some viewpoints may be different between religious teachings and the environmental humanities, I like how the reading points out that they can and are still in support of environmental humanities. Using the Garden of Eden as an example is insightful, as it has traditionally been viewed as Adam and Eve having dominion over the land. In the reading, it suggests that we can instead view it as an ecological system that they were responsible for. This aligns with the idea that we have a responsibility to coexist with other species and ecosystems. By reframing the relationship between Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in ecological terms, the perspective switches to a more conscientious approach where we are not separate from nature, but a part of it. I think if people were able to think about these traditional stories from their original interpretations, it could invite them to think about our role in caring for Earth and can help promote ecological health.