I really enjoyed reading this book because as we talked about in previous classes we are really starting to look past literature as being the only source by which we can participate in ecocriticsm. I think that pop culture is something that has a major impact on the way in which people perceive and interact with the environment and that it deserves some serious attention.
We have also talked about how we are always asking what can we do. I think her critique of the way in which focus on the individual efforts is not really answer to these problems. She quotes Hossay who states, "Riding a bike to work, recycling, carrying a reusable shopping bag, or planting a ree will not make the current global system either morally or physically sustainable." I think that this is a very relevant aspect that more people need to be aware of. The fact that our consumer society is trying ot tell us that by purchasing a, b, or c we can be the ones who make the difference is a little bit silly to me. In relation I was kind of surprised at the end of the chapter when she says that green consumerism if paired with social equity issues has the ability to "press for real change" and I am curious as to what this would like with our current economic system and globalization.
Chapter 5 goes back to the arguments made in "Queer Ecology" and decontructs the attempt to connect LGBTQ people to nature as being as specious as the attempt to connect heteronormativity to nature. Penguins serve as a mascot for both groups but ultimately fail both camps due to their fluidity in gender and sexuality. If anything, the penguin is a symbol for the celebration of variety when it comes to sexual expression rather than validation for any one form of it.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about gender lately, so it's pretty cool that you assigned chapter five for this week. This chapter has helped me understand how it is the Republican party could possible garner so many lower-class supporter. One quote in particular, on page 122, gave me a lightbulb moment: "... the wedge issues that he portrays being used to whip up feelings of anger, oppression, and fear among those who support the extreme right wing... are all centrally about beleaguered gender expectations." I couldn't understand why these people would support a party whose economic policies actively undermine their quality of life, but apparently that's not really what it's all about. I also appreciate the breakdown of the ways in which right-wing Christians gather support through the ability to switch between "normal, natural, and divine." This is another thing which I am grateful to have spelled out for me, since these people and I live in completely different mental worlds.
Another thing that stuck me about this chapter was the overt racism associated with the issue of overpopulation. The fact that the populations of First World countries are considered less of a problem that those of Third World countries is disturbing in its privilege. Also, the assumption that population will continue to grow because reproduction is a "natural" urge fails to take into the account the severe pro-natalism in most First World countries. Part of the "joys of parenthood" that lead many people to reproduce are cultural constructions that effectively act as propaganda and which socially favor those who do. Pro-natalism is a far bigger contributor to overpopulation than is the growth of Third World countries.
Chapter 7 is where the "global" part of Sturgeon's mission statement possibly comes into play. She ties environmental justice together with social justice in an attempt to bring these issues to a global scale. She does, however, stick to a First World perspective in her analysis, making it difficult if not impossible for her to claim the title of "global." She expresses concern for the issues facing those in Third World countries but she doesn't do much to go into them aside from talking about them as a generalized "brown" people, and especially "brown women." I realize that this is meant to be a critique of Western society's generalization of these people but Sturgeon ends up participating in it herself.
Chapter seven gives a good context to the dangers of keeping environmental and social issues separate. With the case of WalMart “greening” its products, there will inevitably be changes in the means of production and what constitutes a “green,” “natural,” or “organic” product. Organic apples may be more nourishing, while keeping the consumer safe from toxic chemicals. But what is really at stake when organic produce is demanded. The absence of toxic chemicals, and supposedly greater nutrition sound great. But these benefits are only available to those who can afford to pay the high price for food that has an organic label put on it. And I would assume that it is just another well-calculated capitalist endeavor to make a corporate body a shit load of money. Does this mean that we should say fuck it and go back to buying food that doesn't have the organic label? Who knows. But I do think that the organic label has been strategically fetishized in order to promote the purchase of high-priced food, and to instill the notion that we are all nothing besides on-your-own individuals who must look after themselves—your survival is in your hands (and you can make it possible by buying our product). So I guess ultimately I am suggesting that it is needed to relentlessly bash the environment/social, nature/culture binaries and expose the naturalization and fetishization of commodities (like organic food) because—while claiming to be socially or environmentally just—perspectives that presuppose an ethical obligation to one side of a binary opposition are the devil; and they're trying to hurt Nature, which I love.
I haven't watched the Penguin movie but the reading this week reminds me of the movie "The Planet Earth" series because they also featured Penguins in Antarctica, and also the last part of the episode, the director of this movie was saying that one of the difficulties of making this kind of movie was, they were spending a lot of money and filming endangered species in Africa and try to protect it, but at the same time, they witnesses local people are suffering diseases and starvation.
After I heard this comment from the movie director, I felt we as people in developed countries are so lucky and selfish in a way that we are enjoying the beauty of nature and tries to protect it but at the same moment, and very close distance from those animals we have seen in the movie, people are having hard time just surviving it but never seen on screen. It is not about which is important or valuable, these are both ver important for us and should solve these issues at the same time as she argues in this book.
Sammy
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this book because as we talked about in previous classes we are really starting to look past literature as being the only source by which we can participate in ecocriticsm. I think that pop culture is something that has a major impact on the way in which people perceive and interact with the environment and that it deserves some serious attention.
We have also talked about how we are always asking what can we do. I think her critique of the way in which focus on the individual efforts is not really answer to these problems. She quotes Hossay who states, "Riding a bike to work, recycling, carrying a reusable shopping bag, or planting a ree will not make the current global system either morally or physically sustainable." I think that this is a very relevant aspect that more people need to be aware of. The fact that our consumer society is trying ot tell us that by purchasing a, b, or c we can be the ones who make the difference is a little bit silly to me. In relation I was kind of surprised at the end of the chapter when she says that green consumerism if paired with social equity issues has the ability to "press for real change" and I am curious as to what this would like with our current economic system and globalization.
Chapter 5 goes back to the arguments made in "Queer Ecology" and decontructs the attempt to connect LGBTQ people to nature as being as specious as the attempt to connect heteronormativity to nature. Penguins serve as a mascot for both groups but ultimately fail both camps due to their fluidity in gender and sexuality. If anything, the penguin is a symbol for the celebration of variety when it comes to sexual expression rather than validation for any one form of it.
ReplyDeleteI've been doing a lot of thinking about gender lately, so it's pretty cool that you assigned chapter five for this week. This chapter has helped me understand how it is the Republican party could possible garner so many lower-class supporter. One quote in particular, on page 122, gave me a lightbulb moment: "... the wedge issues that he portrays being used to whip up feelings of anger, oppression, and fear among those who support the extreme right wing... are all centrally about beleaguered gender expectations." I couldn't understand why these people would support a party whose economic policies actively undermine their quality of life, but apparently that's not really what it's all about. I also appreciate the breakdown of the ways in which right-wing Christians gather support through the ability to switch between "normal, natural, and divine." This is another thing which I am grateful to have spelled out for me, since these people and I live in completely different mental worlds.
Another thing that stuck me about this chapter was the overt racism associated with the issue of overpopulation. The fact that the populations of First World countries are considered less of a problem that those of Third World countries is disturbing in its privilege. Also, the assumption that population will continue to grow because reproduction is a "natural" urge fails to take into the account the severe pro-natalism in most First World countries. Part of the "joys of parenthood" that lead many people to reproduce are cultural constructions that effectively act as propaganda and which socially favor those who do. Pro-natalism is a far bigger contributor to overpopulation than is the growth of Third World countries.
Chapter 7 is where the "global" part of Sturgeon's mission statement possibly comes into play. She ties environmental justice together with social justice in an attempt to bring these issues to a global scale. She does, however, stick to a First World perspective in her analysis, making it difficult if not impossible for her to claim the title of "global." She expresses concern for the issues facing those in Third World countries but she doesn't do much to go into them aside from talking about them as a generalized "brown" people, and especially "brown women." I realize that this is meant to be a critique of Western society's generalization of these people but Sturgeon ends up participating in it herself.
Chapter seven gives a good context to the dangers of keeping environmental and social issues separate. With the case of WalMart “greening” its products, there will inevitably be changes in the means of production and what constitutes a “green,” “natural,” or “organic” product. Organic apples may be more nourishing, while keeping the consumer safe from toxic chemicals. But what is really at stake when organic produce is demanded. The absence of toxic chemicals, and supposedly greater nutrition sound great. But these benefits are only available to those who can afford to pay the high price for food that has an organic label put on it. And I would assume that it is just another well-calculated capitalist endeavor to make a corporate body a shit load of money. Does this mean that we should say fuck it and go back to buying food that doesn't have the organic label? Who knows. But I do think that the organic label has been strategically fetishized in order to promote the purchase of high-priced food, and to instill the notion that we are all nothing besides on-your-own individuals who must look after themselves—your survival is in your hands (and you can make it possible by buying our product). So I guess ultimately I am suggesting that it is needed to relentlessly bash the environment/social, nature/culture binaries and expose the naturalization and fetishization of commodities (like organic food) because—while claiming to be socially or environmentally just—perspectives that presuppose an ethical obligation to one side of a binary opposition are the devil; and they're trying to hurt Nature, which I love.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched the Penguin movie but the reading this week reminds me of the movie "The Planet Earth" series because they also featured Penguins in Antarctica, and also the last part of the episode, the director of this movie was saying that one of the difficulties of making this kind of movie was, they were spending a lot of money and filming endangered species in Africa and try to protect it, but at the same time, they witnesses local people are suffering diseases and starvation.
ReplyDeleteAfter I heard this comment from the movie director, I felt we as people in developed countries are so lucky and selfish in a way that we are enjoying the beauty of nature and tries to protect it but at the same moment, and very close distance from those animals we have seen in the movie, people are having hard time just surviving it but never seen on screen. It is not about which is important or valuable, these are both ver important for us and should solve these issues at the same time as she argues in this book.