Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Michael%20Pollan%20or%20Michel%20Foucault-%207A.jpg Michael%20Pollan%20or%20Michel%20Foucault-%207B.jpg action-ogm-mais-6.jpg

Shaka Freeman’s photo posts asking the question “Michael Pollan or Michel Foucault?” are hilarious, because the two Mickeys really do look alike and are sometimes difficult to tell apart. For the sake of a bit of entertaining triangulation, I’ve added Foucauldian ecologist and Greenpeace Canada activist Eric Darier to the mix.

But the site also subtly suggests that there may be a potentially powerful convergence between Pollan‘s insightful politics of food and Foucault’s incisive biopolitics that could help steer us in an appropriate direction throught the agrotechnoscientific minefields of the coming century. Perhaps Nikolas Rose’s The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century could be an initial meeting point – though one would have to add a chapter specifically on agro-industrial technologies to make it so. (Darier’s Discourses of the Environment would make a welcome supplement to that discussion.)

Thanks to Scu at Critical Animal for alerting me to these. His critique of Pollan’s and Donna Haraway’s biopolitics can be read here.

koblin1.jpg

Those links to some of the art pieces Andy Revkin has posted on Dot Earth could be easily missed on my previous post, so I’m posting them separately here.

Aaron Koblin’s “Flight Patterns” series animates airplane flight patterns over the United States:

Revkin has a brief interview with Koblin as well. I find that the upbeat electronica soundtrack (on the above YouTube video) trivializes the images, making them almost an advertisement for air flight and visualization technology; I would have used something more reflective (recall, for instance, Stars of the Lid’s Environmental Defense Fund NYC subway campaign “Polar Bears” piece). Compare it with the silent version here.

As an accompanying reading, I would suggest Barry Lopez’s hypnotic account of flying on air freighters around the world, “On the Wings of Commerce,” reprinted as “Flight” in About This Life.

Revkin’s “Happy Birthday, Earthrise” post commemorates the original Earthrise photograph. Reading Denis Cosgrove’s “Contested Global Visions,” Sheila Jasanoff’s “Image and Imagination,” or even Heidegger’s “The Age of the World Picture” could set up a little productive tension with these images.

Boe.jpg

Another thing I found interesting at the conference was a growing overlap between ASLE and what goes on under the rubric of “environmental communication.” (The COCE conference, incidentally, is at the end of this month.) The plenary on “New Publishing Environments: The Changing Landscape of Reading” was a particularly clear instance of this. It featured award-winning New York Times environment reporter, author, and blogger Andrew Revkin, with brief responses by Orion‘s Chip Blake and Milkweed‘s Daniel Slager. Revkin’s talk was a rich and upbeat summary of the possibilities of the new networked environment for environmental communication; Slager’s comments were a relatively downbeat assessment of the crisis of publishing and the perils of the digital era for reading and writing; and Blake’s comments were mainly a somewhat ambivalent report of the ways Orion, the magazine and the Society, are responding to the crisis. (David Suzuki, the Andy Revkin of a previous and more slow-media generation was in the audience and I wanted to ask him his thoughts about it all, but he left before I could get to him.)

Revkin focused much of his talk on his blog, Dot Earth, which really has become a ‘first stop’ source on all manner of environmental news. Revkin argued that as the news has gone digital, it has also gone global and interactive (his blog gets responses from all over the world, with rich conversations generated in the process), as well as contestable and dynamic (we’ve gone from Walter Cronkite’s “And that’s the way it is…” to a never-ending Deleuzo-Guattarian ellipsis “. . .”, and, a little less reassuringly, to a situation where, in his words, “For every Ph.D., there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.”). Stories, which according to Revkin take the form “Did you hear that…?”, will always be with us, but the storyteller, he suggested, will not be, or at least has become multiplied and fragmented (just as Foucault, Barthes, and others pointed out with their “death of the author” pronouncements, well, three or four decades ago). Both Blake and Slager supported this death of the book/author thesis with factoids about the vastly increased death rate of magazines — e.g., that 29 magazines of over 100,000 readers have gone under since March 2008 as a result of conglomeration, loss of advertising revenues, and increased production and distribution costs.

To a commenter’s suggestion — following up, I’m guessing, on Slager’s more doom-laden comments — that this somehow signifies the end of literary art and the blurring of the distinction between information and literary art, I would respond that literary art can and is making a transition to digital media, and that the blurring of information and art has always been with us — in fact, in other media (visual, audio, performative) it’s never really been there to start with. Or have I just been reading too much Latour, who would suggest that the dualities of orality and literacy, like those of science and politics, sacred and profane, and so on, are specifically modern distinctions, and that before/outside of modernity it’s all a big bundle of possibilities (his term is “plasma”) which get crafted into specific assemblages through the network-building of very particular cultural-ecological practices?

Revkin’s blog, like many blogs, is primarily informational, not artistic. But art there is, presented in innovative ways like this and this, and there’s no inherent reason why creative writing and the crafting of poetic, artistic, performative, and communicative worlds couldn’t be present in a digital medium. I like books, too — love them, have shelves of them climbing my walls — and for me Kindle and its soon-to-be-released competitors will never replace them physically and texturally. But skin, flesh, folds, bodies and limbs in motion (and in recline) carrying and holding objects made of things mixing felt and imaged beauty (like a good book cover) and symbolic meanings (squiggles on a page) will continue in other forms. Do we need to lament the decline of the book when there are so many rich possibilities, not to mention other obviously important tasks, staring us in the face? And as for magazines, they’re already online — not so much literally (though that’s true, too), but in their format, their particular mixture of columns, pages, image-text rhythms, and the rest.

A visit to Victoria’s (wonderful) Royal British Columbia Museum reminded me that even museums are learning from digital media; their organization mimics a great set of well crafted web pages, with links, simulations, hands-on object pieces, etc.

One of the more striking pieces there is a Nisga’a white man mask, with stubbly fur for facial hair, that seems to radiate a deathly, smallpox-carrying emptiness like a laser out of the hollow of its eyes. (The photo below doesn’t convey this nearly as well as the original.)

nisgaa%20white%20man%20mask.jpg

Intrigued by the number of times the name of Bruno Latour came up in conversations at the ASLE conference, I counted the mentions of different theorists and philosophers (i.e., not literary writers, artists, et al.) in the titles of conference papers and presentations. (Unfortunately, neither the program nor the conference website provides full abstracts. Note to conference organizers: these are useful to conference attendees and for reference purposes like this one.) Based on titles alone, by my count Latour and Maurice Merleau-Ponty had the highest number of mentions, with full sessions dedicated to them. Mentioned as well, but less frquently, were Agamben, Deleuze & Guattari, Derrida, Dewey, Appadurai, and Haraway, with an implicit nod or two to Heidegger.

But titles alone show a much greater focus on creative writers, which is what I would expect at a literature and environment conference. From just a very quick scan of paper and session titles, those receiving the most mentions were Wordsworth, Thoreau, Melville, Linda Hogan, Shakespeare, Gary Snyder, Leslie Marmon Silko, and Kim Stanley Robinson — which tells us that the same old sources (and a few younger ones, like Robinson’s) are continuing to generate productive scholarly conversations. That said, I would guess that the number of new writers, young writers, and non-North American and non-white writers continues to increase in proportion to the overall mix.

The most commonly focused-on topics included eco-poetics, animal studies, globalization, climate, area/regional themes (of various kinds), urban ecologies, film, islands (both because the conference was held on an island and because this was prominent in the call for papers), toxicity, environmental justice, rhetoric, and science. Most of these were mentioned in the call for papers, so none are particularly surprising, though the themes of animals/animality, film, and toxicity did impressively better than a glance at the CFP would have predicted. (I’ll have more to say on film in an upcoming post.) Longitudinal data spanning several conferences could give us a much more complete picture of the evolution of ASLE and of ecocriticism — which should be of interest to anyone thinking about the future of the latter (and a few responses to my previous blog on this topic, including from both of the plenarists discussed there, convince me that that is a topic of interest).

All in all, the conference was rich in words, readings, meetings, conversations, book exhibits, and presentations, all punctuated with wanders through the most beautiful ravine bordering a university campus I’ve ever encountered or even imagined possible (to which photos just don’t do justice).

There are rabbits all over the lawns of the University of Victoria campus. Like little furry grass-eating balls, they scurry forward a little from time to time but otherwise placidly chomp away at the lawns, oblivious to humans or anything else. Sometimes they just sit there, or lay themselves out and stare forward, cutely extending their forepaws. (And yes, they leave behind a carpet of little brown pellets as evidence of their grazing.) While I’m not sure what kind of rabbits they are, Vancouver Island does have European rabbits as well as Eastern cottontails, which are native to the eastern side of the continent but established themselves here after a 1964 release near Sooke.

Someone said yesterday, “there’s only so many rabbits a cougar can eat.” Vancouver Island is apparently a hotspot for cougar attacks. According to one study, of 53 documented North American mountain lion (cougar) attacks on people between 1890 and 1990, twenty, or about 38%, occurred here on this island off the coast of British Columbia. One explanation that’s been forwarded for this high concentration of attacks is that their common prey species – porcupine, opossum, coyote, bobcat, badger, and spotted and striped skunks – are absent or nearly absent here (or at least they were up to the 1980s). I guess they don’t hang around the campus much, but they do appear in the city from time to time: one found its way into the parking garage beneath the Empress Hotel, and there are occasional school closings after a cougar has been sighted in the neighborhood.

Which brings me to the ASLE conference, which, like all of these biennial gatherings, defines and redefines the field of literary and, to some (growing) extent, cultural ecocriticism. Each field has its rabbits, quietly plugging away at the grasses of its institutionalized lawns – analyzing poems and novels by this writer or that school of drama, a quiet luxury allowed us by our (in this case, mostly English lit) departments. And each field has its cougars, who appear from the surrounding hills, cast long sidewards glances over the territory, then send broad salvos to shake things up a bit now and again.

Okay, the metaphor has its limits. But some of the names that cropped up repeatedly at today’s plenary are a bit like those cougars, except that their presence is a bit more in evidence than the ones of Vancouver Island. I’m thinking of Dana Phillips, Tim Morton, Stacy Alaimo, Cate Sandilands (one of the plenary speakers) — the ones who bring in uninvited names like Judith Butler, Lacan and Zizek, Haraway and Latour, among others, to “queer” a field that began, in many respects, as an outright repudiation of culturalist “high theory.” Doing that alone is not difficult, and the field by now has plenty of Foucauldian, Harawayan, and Derridean readings of nature, but doing it well, in ways that helps redefine the field, requires a cougar-like crafty brilliance.

Today’s plenary on “Our Critical Challenges: What’s Next for Ecocriticism?” featured two speakers who define the field’s recent growth (if not its origins) rather well: Bath Spa University literary critic Greg Garrard and York University “recovering sociologist” and ecopolitical theorist Cate Sandilands. Both were asked to comment on each other’s work and to provide pointers for the future of the field, and here is where some profound and interesting theoretical differences emerged.

Continue Reading »

Another Thomas Berry quote worth spending a bit of time with:

“Acceptance of the challenging aspect of the natural world is a primary condition for creative intimacy with the natural world. Without this opaque or even threatening aspect of the universe we would lose our greatest source of creative energy. This opposing element is as necessary for us as is the weight of the atmosphere that surrounds us.” (The Great Work, p. 67)

Berry defines “the wild” as “the root of the authentic spontaneities of any being” (which sounds Deleuzian to me) and which is counterposed to a second constituent force in the universe, discipline or form. “The wild,” as my colleague Stephanie Kaza paraphrases in her review of The Great Work, “is the expansive force, the disciplined is the containing force, ‘bound into a single universe and expressed in every being in the universe’ (p. 52).”

I wonder how this dyadic understanding stacks up against the more monistic, Deleuzian-Spinozian (and Whiteheadian) views that see form-building, or morphogenesis, as part of the same process of spontaneous becoming (e.g. as developed by Manuel DeLanda in A New Philosophy of Society, Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, and A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History). This could probably be boiled down into the question: can the two (the expansive and the containing, the Yin and the Yang) also be one (the Dao)? Is Deleuze/Guattari’s ‘desiring-production’ (connection, becoming, subjectivation) analogous to the Dao, as Deleuzian acupuncture theorist Mark Seem has suggested, with any perceived differences being only differences of emphasis — Deleuze focusing more on the open-ended possibilities of becoming, and Daoism focusing on the patterns by which that process of becoming works itself out in time and in space, territorializing and deterritorializing as it goes?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. It’s time to go hear what wisdom my friend Cate Sandilands and British lit crit Greg Garrard can impart about “Our Critical Challenges: What’s Next for Ecocriticism?” (I’m at the ASLE conference in Victoria, British Columbia. More on it soon.)

ThomasBerry.jpg

The tributes are starting to come in for Thomas Berry, Catholic ecotheologian (or “geologian,” as he sometimes referred to himself), scholar, and spiritual/deep ecological visionary, who passed away at age 94 yesterday. Berry is best known for books including The Dream of the Earth, The Universe Story (with physicist Brian Swimme), and The Great Work, in which he articulated the idea that the universe is not a collection of objects but a communion of subjects. Berry wrote:

“If the dynamics of the Universe from the beginning shaped the course of the heavens, lighted the sun, and formed the Earth, if this same dynamism brought forth the continents and the seas and atmosphere, if it awakened life in the primordial cell and then brought into being the unnumbered variety of living beings, and finally brought us into being and guided us safely through the turbulent centuries, there is reason to believe that this same guiding process is precisely what has awakened in us our present understanding of ourselves and our relation to this stupendous process. Sensitized to such guidance from the very structure and functioning of the Universe, we can have confidence in the future that awaits the human venture.”

A few of the more interesting tributes are from the National Catholic Reporter and Drew Dellinger, whose tribute to Thomas is shared on Gus DiZerega’s blog. But I’m sure there will be much more about him in the coming days.

Berry’s vision is completely in synch with the views I’ve described on this blog under the terms “immanentism,” “immanent naturalism,” et al. His passion and writing will continue to nourish many.

Tree.jpg

Now that I’ve taken the time to read the growing list of responses to Lessig’s post, I have to say that I’m much more impressed with the collective hive mind — the network of respondents he’s grown around himself — than with the Queen Bee (Lessig himself) on this matter. (That metaphor is not very rhizomic, I know.) Several respondents play variations on the same themes I argued in my post yesterday, i.e. that Lessig’s use of the word “socialism” is inaccurate, somewhat irresponsible, a little alarmist, and very ethnocentric. Lessig writes in reply that

“We all need to recognize (speaking now to the cross cultural crowd) that different political systems internalize the concepts differently. So I am criticizing an American writing in an American publication about his use of a term — ‘socialism.’ I don’t pretend to understand how well the use fits other cultures, or traditions. I am speaking to one of my own about my own tradition.”

To which Kelly replies that he’s not writing as an American but is “at this point half Chinese, and, as much as possible, a citizen of the world.” He could have added that Wired magazine is read all over the world, especially on-line, and that Lessig is, too. To his credit, Kelly sticks to his guns.

An interesting side-discussion seems to be emerging from Kelly’s challenge to “Give me a better word to describe the type of governance that is emerging”, with the issue being whether what is emerging from Wikipedia, etc., qualifies as governance at all. Of course it isn’t, but it could be considered part of a larger, more diffuse network of governance mechanisms that are evolving in fits and starts at every scale from the local to the national to the global, from peer pressure and the institutionalization of accepted practice to enforceable regulations. These are neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist. They, ideally, should have something to do with nested systems of collective monitoring and adaptive governance, with mixtures of rights and obligations, checks and balances, individual and collective forms of behavior, etc. And if there isn’t an accepted word to describe them, Kevin Kelly’s attempt to test at least one of them (socialism) for its appropriateness seems laudable. At the very least, it’s nice to see this discussion happening in a public forum where political philosophers aren’t huddled together in their own, mutually exclusive camps.

See Lessig’s “On “socialism,” Round II” for continuing discussion of these issues.

humpty%20dumpty.bmp

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

— Through the Looking Glass

Lawrence Lessig has written a lengthy retort to Kevin Kelly’s article, which I just wrote about, describing the open-source movement as a form of socialism. Lessig, leading theorist of the open-source movement and a respectable legal scholar (whom I’ve blogged about here), says no way, but his argument, which he admits is a “rant,” is as sloppy as he accuses Kelly of being.

Lessig’s argument is essentially that one cannot redefine a word at will:

“Words have meaning. We don’t get to choose their meaning. If you call something “X” people will hear the equation. They won’t read the fine-print which says (“By X, I mean really not-X).”

and that the word “socialism” has a clear meaning and Kelly’s redefinition of it plays into the wrong hands. Kelly’s “sloppiness” here, as he calls it,

“has serious political consequences. When a founder of the movement which we all now celebrate calls this movement ‘socialist,’ that plays right in the hand of those would attack everything this movement has built. […] I do think that now is not the time to engage in a playful redefinition of a term that has such a distinctive and clear sense. Whatever ‘socialism’ could have become, had it not been hijacked by revolutions in the east, what it is in the minds of 95% of America is not what Wikipedia is.”

The irony here is that Lessig writes as if he hasn’t a clue of the historical meaning of the word “socialism” beyond its use as an epithet by American conservatives. He is, in effect, choosing the meaning of a word even as he diallows others from doing that. “At the core of socialism,” he writes, “is coercion”:

Continue Reading »

Responding to a post on this blog, Kvond, a little while ago, raised the question of the relationship between Arne Naess, originator of “deep ecology,” and Spinoza – which made me think of the interesting if sporadic/uneven/episodic relationships between the main traditions of continental philosophy and environmental thought. A glance at the changing editions of Environmental Philosophy, a reader originally edited by Michael Zimmerman but now collectively edited and in its fourth edition, shows us how the place of continental philosophy has grown from barely a mention in the first two editions (1993, 1998) to an entire six-chapter section in the fourth. How that came to be is a story that has yet to be written, though a few brief accounts exist, such as Michael Zimmerman’s chapter in Rethinking Nature , comments scattered through Zimmerman’s Contesting Earth’s Future, and Bruce Foltz’s brief but excellent piece in John Protevi’s Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, which I discovered as I was wrapping up this post.

What follows is a highly selective and episodic overview of key moments in that unfolding relationship. But I start with a few caveats.

Continue Reading »

byrne1.jpg

As many of us (academics) set off for various travels, a glance at David Byrne’s Journal can remind us of the value of the well-made observation. Byrne (yes, the Talking Head) has been posting his travel journals (to be published in the fall as Bicycle Diaries) alongside photographs, videos, and other observations on his blog for a few years now.

Thanks to Reese for reminding me of Byrne’s writing. I’ll be heading off to Vancouver Island for the ASLE conference next week, then to Amsterdam for the ISSRNC in July, and to Santa Fe in August for a seminar at the School for Advanced Research on the Human Experience, with a few other stops along the way, and time spent in Vermont in between. So my blog contributions may be spotty at times through the summer. But if I motivate myself, I may share some photos and observations from my travels. I will be posting other people’s stuff to the Shadow Blog regularly.

(On Kevin Kelly’s “The New Socialism,” Paul Ward’s Medea Hypothesis, Steven Shaviro’s “Against Self-Organization,” and more.)

Self-organizing adaptive systems and other networks are more than just the flavor of the philosophical month; they are a model increasingly used to make sense of the natural and cultural worlds. Generally it’s assumed that such distributed self-organization is a good thing and that our intelligence needs to mirror it as best as possible. This message is reiterated in books like Daniel Goleman’s Ecological Intelligence, a worthy recent entry onto the popular market by the psychologist who popularized the terms social intelligence and emotional intelligence. Summarizing the research of ecological economists and industrial ecologists, among others, Goleman argues that what we need is a “radical transparency” about the entire production and consumption cycle of the products we buy. I’ve only skimmed the book, but I imagine that this argument can be added to the social and emotional intelligence arguments he’s previously made, and perhaps to a “political intelligence” piece that may need to be better developed, so that what we’d get is a radical transparency about the ecological and social justice impacts of the things that make up our world.

Transparency and complexity would seem to go hand in hand, then: the more we are aware of the causal loops making up the increasingly complex systems of our uncertain world, the more capable we are of dealing with the results of those complex feedback loops. But there’s only so much knowing that can go around in a world that’s flooded with information, but in which that information comes primarily in the form of distraction. Both the distribution of knowledge and the economy of attention will be areas we’ll need to be concerned with more and more. On the latter, I highly recommend Sam Anderson’s New York Magazine piece “In Defense of Distraction,” an entertaining jaunt through the landscape of twenty-first century distraction, where attention is increasingly becoming a new currency, and attention aids, from neuroenhancement drugs to mindfulness training, will increasingly provide us with what we need to navigate the world (while remaining upwardly mobile).

To better map out the distributive politics of knowledge and of ecological (and other kinds of) intelligence, we may need to retrieve traditional ideological concepts like “socialism,” and also to examine our assumptions about the nature of the whole system (whether that be global capitalism, the biosphere, or the combination of the two). A couple of recent books and articles can help us think about the ethics and politics of globally distributed intelligence.

Continue Reading »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar