1. Ecocriticism

POSITIONS

Garrard outlines 4 competing ecophilosophies:

1. Cornucopia
2. Environmentalism
3. Deep Ecology
4. Ecofeminism

CORNUCOPIA

This proposes that ecological concerns are overexaggerated, and that humanity (represented by capitalist economics) will generate solutions as problems arise. Such an argument is often used by anti-environmentalists. It has many weaknesses but cannot be completely dismissed – capitalism does respond to changes in consumer attitudes although these are influenced in turn by environmental activism.

A key question would be can population growth create the wealth needed to pay its way? This would depend, at least in part, on how you define wealth. For example, how do you value natural resources. Scarcity of resources is a concern, although the word mostly makes sense as an economic term. I note that my old landlord Mike Norton-Griffiths, wrote a controversial paper proposing that the amount of land required to maintain biodiversity is actually far smaller than believed. However how much faith should be placed in economic science (“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable” Ezra Solomon in The Hill) – the risks are high and existential if the calculations are wrong. Most scientists oppose the cornucopian viewpoint, accusing it of “brownwashing” the issue with dodgy science, although its relatively small number of supporters command a disproportionately loud voice in the argument.

ENVIRONMENTALISM

Garrard allocates this viewpoint to people who are concerned about environmental issues but wish to maintain or improve their standard of living. In practice this probably encompasses the largest group. An issue with this category is that they may be appeased by “greenwashing”.

There is considerable disagreement as to the way forward, however. For example in Green Delusions (1992) Martin Lewis implies that cities with concentrated populations, surrounded by natural green space, are less environmentally costly than suburban sprawl. Lewis also discusses active management of the natural environment, which I strongly believe to be required. See for example The End of the Game (Peter Beard) or less dramatically the growth in the deer population on Ashdown Forest, my local habitat. Where animals are restricted within protected areas lack of population control is followed by environmental pressure and eventual collapse with corresponding famine in those populations. This is referred to as a “Promethean” as opposed to an “Arcadian” perspective.

The biggest issue with concentrated cities is that they will continue to expand with population growth, if standard of living is to be maintained or improved. In practice this nearly always occurs, since the surrounding green space is inadequately protected.

DEEP ECOLOGY

The notes outline two important pillars of this viewpoint:

1. The well-being of non-human life has intrinsic value beyond the use value to humans
2. Non-human life requires a smaller human population to flourish, a state which can be compatible with the flourishing of human life

Note the second term depends on the term flourish (essentially differentiating it from “growth”).

Hence deep ecologists differ from environmentalists in that the former are ecocentric as opposed to anthropocentric. As noted above environmentalists may be appeased by environmental programmes that are in fact driven by anthropocentric concerns (hence “greenwashing”).

It’s interesting to note that nature-centred beliefs are key to primal religions such as animalism and the worship of trees/forests – and hence should be taken seriously as part of any consideration of indigenous people – but also have some correspondence in Buddhism.

Concerns with the deep ecological approach include the fact that often harbours extremists that are regarded as misanthropic, alienating the majority, and the more practical question of how to take decisions in a world where everything is regarded as equal.

ECOFEMINISM

Ecofeminism seeks common ground between feminists and ecologists by emphasising the female = natural link and opposing it with the male = scientific/cultural i.e. gynocentric vs androcentric.

I studied land art in the landscape course (https://land515050.home.blog/2020/01/04/land-environmental-art-survey/) and there is a strong overlap here with the work done by many female land artists that emphasise or create female shapes in the landscape. My Tutor asked me to look at the under-representation of female land artists (for example Agnes Denes only had a retrospective recently (https://land515050.home.blog/2020/02/05/agnes-denes/) and while there is some evidence of this I suggested that one reason was that the appeal of gynocentric work is far greater for a subsection of humanity. However when other forms of landscape art – particularly implementation strategies – are considered representation is much more even.

Garrard points out that the fact that gender is a cultural construct works to dismantle the claims of ecofeminists. Given that they position themselves against science they are also effectively opposed to the strong ecological arguments presented by the vast majority of scientists (and the solutions that are proposed as a result).

“A truly feminist perspective cannot embrace either the feminine or the masculine uncritically, but requires a critique of gender roles, and the critique must include masculinity and femininity” (Biehl & Warren in Davion, 1994:9).

Garrard draws out parallels between ecofeminism and eco-Marxism as political as much as ecological movements. A key concept here is how value, or wealth (concepts discussed above) or utility are calculated. While the Marxist approach may appear seductive it has completely failed everywhere it has been tried, returning us (if reluctantly) to more capitalist utility functions until something better comes along.

Hence Garrard dismisses ecofeminism as both anti-feminist and anti-ecological. While this is somewhat sweeping, it is hard to disagree with his conclusion. In my own blogs on gender subjects I have advocated strongly for an inclusive spectrum as opposed to the division that seems to be increasing and unhelpful.

Indeed Garrard proposes that the real issue is “hyper-separation” (Garrard, 28) – distinguishing humans from nature to the point of opposition and denying and links. However Garrard also dismisses monoism (a concept of singleness e.g. one universe with only arbitrary division of the one).

The conclusion is to encourage an “earth community” that accepts “earth others”, although this rather utopian prospect has a long way to go before it is taken seriously!

“These images are meant as metaphors to the dilemma of our modern existence; they search for a dialogue between attraction and repulsion, seduction and fear. We are drawn by desire – a chance at good living, yet we are consciously or unconsciously aware that the world is suffering for our success. Our dependence on nature to provide the materials for our consumption and our concern for the health of our planet sets us into an uneasy contradiction”

Burtynsky, whose recent project is titled “Anthropocene”, is a rather obvious choice, but I felt this was a good place to start as well as an opportunity to dig a little deeper into his work.

I found it difficult to select a single image as he uses several strategies.

• An aesthetic representation of a man-made structure on the environment
• A contrast picture showing the environment before and after
• A more raw image, often involving people living with the results of man-made destruction

While I have a strong sense of the importance of the aesthetic in this type of “art” – the need for the viewer to be drawn into (attracted to) the image before the message is made I felt for the purpose of the exercise an image of humans living with the impact of humanity made the point better:

Fig. 1 Dandora Landfill #1, Nairobi, Kenya (2016)

As a critique, the immediate environment has been totally destroyed by waste (literally wasted). Human figures give scale to the enormity of the landfill mound. The presence of the humans eking out an existence on top of the rubbish tip (including building huts on the top) also leads us to consider how the behaviour of the more affluent is affecting the lives of the poorer. But there is perhaps an alternative message of recycling as well, since that is what the people who live here are effectively doing.

The colours and textures in the image, of very high quality so that it can be printed large, have a certain visual aesthetic that is not unappealing until the viewer brings the knowledge of what is being depicted. Hence while the image is at the raw/shocking end of the scale of Burtynsky’s oeuvre, it can be argued that it still fits.

Given the quote at the beginning, Burtynsky follows a photographic strategy of asking rather than answering questions. Nevertheless he would appear to be located somewhere between the environmental and deep ecological positions. He acknowledges the difficulty in “selling” a decrease in living standard to the environmentalists, while making a strong visual point of the continued destruction via his imagery.

It should also be remembered that Burtynsky sells his photographs into the art market. This gives him an obvious economic motive which would tend to distance him from the deep ecological position, even while his images may highlight this position.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Burtynsky, E. (2016) Dandora Landfill #1, Nairobi, Kenya. At: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ed-burtynsky-anthropocene (Accessed 27.6.2022)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Garrard, G. (2012) Ecocriticism. London:Routledge At: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucreative-ebooks/detail.action?docID=738705&query=ecocriticism (Accessed 29.5.2022)