Braun is a geographer, but you can see in his work that he brings literary critical theory questions-- humanistic questions if you rather-- to bear on field research. That is, he engages Foucault, Haraway, and Bruno Latour (another theorist we should and could be reading in this class, but are not). And his "texts" include eco-tourism operations, Emily Carr's paintings, television programming, 19th-century geological texts, 20th-century forestry maps, billboards, and national park promotional materials. This is an impressive range!
What is he saying about these forms of discourse?
What's wrong with them?
What is "nature" in all this, to Braun?
And, most important, how might his insights be applied to your own observations about SE Alaska?
Perhaps after reading his chapter on Clayoquot, you'll want to do a discourse analysis of this film: Fury for the Sound: The Women of Clayoquot: http://www.furyforthesound.org!
Sammy
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading Intemeprate Rainforests. Chapter 4: Landscapes of Loss and Mourning was really interesting to me, especially because I can relate to it on a very personal level. When I first saw the title I was totally confused while at the same time eager to learn why he would choose to pair the terms of loss with that of adventure travel. The entire time I was reading this chapter I was attempting to find a way in which I could formulate a good argument against adventure travel being modernity’s most pure expression, but alas I failed. On some level I most definitely agree when Braun states that adventure travel is a form of “imperial nostalgia.” I have been on adventure trips just like the one in which Braund described and at times it was really hard for me to feed people the idea of Wilderness in the way that they wanted it; which was pure and untouched. I still think there is something missing though and I really don’t know if I want to believe Braun’s argument in regards to “self-making” as reaffirming western modern identities. What about us, those of us in this class who are clearly thinking critically about all of these things, while at the same time living amongst them. We live in a tourist destination, yet we are surrounded by National Forest that has a still prevalent Native Alaskan history that we are surrounded by, and many of us participate in “adventure travel” type things. What about will who is taking Tlingit, what does this mean for his idenity being bound to place? Braun states, “like most native groups identity is closely tied to the land” (152), does that mean that my identity is not? Which I guess I could be convinced of because I have only been in Juneau for a few years, but still I think that for those of us who are thinking critically about the way in which we define nature, and thinking critically about the place in which we live that there is something to be said for us. Something more than us mourning what is lost.
Oops. Forgot there were questions, my apologies.
ReplyDeleteThis may not be entirely on topic and perhaps my reading of Martin Heidegger may be too focused but I see problems arising when referring to him and his work, especially in the context of cultural creation. This is not necessarily aimed at Heidegger’s affiliation with the Nazi’s nor with his lack of regret or reanalysis, though when one refers to Heidegger or his work these contexts should not be erased or even masked as this may be a vicious act that rationalizes or justifies his actions. More directly the problem is that Heidegger’s poststructuralist work on cultural construction was associated with a search for authenticity that found its limit and only approximation in death. This may pose another problem of scale, one that removes the individual and their effect from responsibility (or weight) in a culture. In Heidegger’s non-relational individuality it is hard to see formations wherein common ground amongst individuals is found and cultural creation occurs. If we view each other as non-relational and the only individual authenticity lies in death we run the risk of positing cultural as a massive, external force that mediates and is not mediated in any way individually. It is not that any one of the two terms is more important, as the formal goal of poststructuralism entails, but that culture and the individual represent a sliding scale that must transversed in deconstruction to lay bare the power relations between the two terms. Perhaps this is where my interpretation of Heidegger is incorrect, as he is varyingly considered a poststructuralist, or perhaps Heidegger’s work is situated between the structuralists and poststructuralists. If the latter is the case Heidegger’s work and placement amongst his peers is prime territory for the discussion of Vancouver Island and the inability to find a single unitary voice for nature and the forest. In cultural construction’s massive context we can see the non-relational aspect of cultures over issues such as this, but Braun will explain that the attempt must be more fluid, plural and accepting, all of which imply a relational aspect to individuality. In this light a more critical approach to Heidegger models the intent of Intemperate Rainforest and provides an excellent area for reinterpretation of refutation.
A minor caveat is that since understanding erasure is fundamental to understanding the Northwest Pacific region of North America, amongst others, why then is Heidegger’s history not mentioned upon our introduction to him in this book?
I agree with Sammy that it feels like this book is missing something, a second half that goes beyond deconstruction and answers the question, "so what do we do with this?". Deconstructing the commodification and fetishism that is the root of adventure tourism and photo essays like Dorst and Young's "On the Wild Side" is a useful endeavor in attempting to understand our culture's motivating forces but it leaves an empty space with no attempt to fill it. Adventure tourism and nature photography, rather than merely playing out the same colonializing tropes, can be used as tools to move beyond the non-equation of nature with culture and modernity's imperial nostalgia.
ReplyDeleteI am currently in the middle of Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and have been reading about Joel Salatin's self-termed "post-organic" farm. He and his family, rather than stripping the land of nutrients and pumping chemicals into it as is normally the case with industrial agriculture, took a few thousand acres of badly mismanaged land and actually enhanced the health of the soil and surrounding biodiversity through the carefully managed rotation of different farm animals. This way of farming is achieved by an intensive local knowledge as well as an understanding of the complex interrelations of the plant and animal life. Rather than perpetuating the parallel of progress and decline that Braun talks about in "Intemperate Rainforest," Salatin paralleled progress with increased regional health.
If it is possible to pair progress with growth in agriculture, a notoriously ecologically harmful business, then it is possible to apply this new parallel to other fields as well. Nature photography and adventure tourism have the potential to move away from the old tropes and portray the landscapes that they enframe not as something which is lost or rapidly disappearing, but as something which can be encouraged through knowledgeable interaction with these landscapes in order to increase ecosystem health. These sorts of interactions with nature can be seen in regulated burns, where a forest is encouraged to optimal health not through the complete abstinence of forest fires but through the careful timing of burning at the most beneficial stage in regrowth. This portrayal of human interaction within nature as being possibly beneficial also allows Natives back into the picture in a form other than an inextricable part of nature that is vanishing right along with the landscape or is already gone. If we are careful to navigate this mindset in such a way that places Native interactions within nature as holding an equal potential for good or harm as Western interactions within nature, we can avoid the pitfall of the Ecological Indian as well.
By shifting the narrative focus from a lost past to a future goal, nature photography and adventure tourism can play a positive role in shaping how our culture views ecologically healthy landscapes as well as the roles of First Nations people in our society.
Local V.S. Global
ReplyDeleteIn the little village that I grew up in Japan, logging was going on very small scale by local company and I hated it because it was really noisy, dusty, and many trucks were running around in a small town, and at that time I wished they should logging somewhere else and not my hometown. People care about local more than global because they have personal connections, history and feeling with local landscape. On the other hand, people tend to less care places they don’t have connection. As he mentions in this book, photograph can tell stories and give connection to viewers, and as a result, people from many countries participated protest against logging around BC.
Canada hold alomost 10% of all forest on earth and multinational companies and even Canada’s government still thought these wild forests as huge “resources” and they have been logged in many areas and ignoring local and indigenous people’s rights and voices. Many people from all over the world who doesn’t have personal connection with this area must have thought this place was perfect for logging because there are massive trees in remote places in Canada where has little population. Although Canada’s case is very serious, if we think about global scale, there are more place facing deforestation and logging my multinational companies especially in developing countries. We all care about local, but we also should start caring about global scale too, because your local place is global place for other people, and your global place where you less care is someone’s local place where they really care. As this book says, telling stories whats going on in your local landscape using photographs, books and media helps people to pay attention to more global scale.
I thought this book was really interesting and the first chapter summarized a lot of thoughts I've had over the course of this semester. From as early as I can remember, I've had a strong connection to "nature" and aligned myself with conservation efforts. I firmly believed that technology and development were essentially the root of all evil and were going to destroy the planet. While these ideas become more complex with time, I held on to the dichotomies of nature and culture, traditional and modern, etc. However, these things are not necessarily in opposition, that they are really much more intertwined. What I think Bruce Braun is trying to do is explain how multifaceted a place is. To one, it is a playground for exploration, sports and recreation. To another, a habitat of many different organisms, beautiful landscapes fit for a post card. Many inhabitants have deep historical roots in these places, generations and cultures intertwined with the trees. Others see their livelihoods, sources of income and resources for constructing homes, buildings and other materials essential to our modern way of life. I've always felt there was one essential truth behind matters of "natural" places, but in reality, there are many.
ReplyDeleteBraun brings up the tropes in ideology and other problematic aspects of the environmental movement in chapter 3. While not making the claim that the movement is worthless or wrong, Braun explains how this one-sided perspective isn't necessarily the forests salvation. By using rhetoric like "pristine" and "untouched by man" to describe the forest, it draws support for the cause, but ultimately paints a false picture of the landscape. This erasure and alienation of the indigenous groups of the area is not only harmful but perpetuates colonialism's eviction of native cultures. This time, instead of logging, the resource extracted is the scenic photo stop. The ultimate argument is that we need to accept people and their interactions with place as dynamic and move away from the "simple matter of speaking nature's 'truth'".
So, if the interaction between the Nuu-chah-nulth and the forest is important, and so is the preservation of organisms and economy based on timber, where do we go from there? I agree with Sammy in that Braun antagonizes outdoor adventure sports and recreation. But there is more to it than just imperial nostalgia, it's a modern cultures way of identifying and interacting with place. So how do we decide on human-environment interactions? It is clear that the answer isn't black and white.