ECOCRITICISM: 1.

Week Reflection Paper

Doğan Çadırcıoğlu
4031930006

Howarth, William. “Some Principles of Ecocriticism.” (pp. 69-92). The Ecocriticism Reader. Ed. by
Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm.

In this essay, William Howarth interprets and forms a framework of the basic principles and
foundations of Ecocriticism, starting from the terminology itself. Then he moves on the generally
mistaken notion of distinction between culture and nature. They might seem different and distanced
from one another when judging from the surface, judging from the peaceful and harmonic view of
the nature, but when we look closely, we will discover that it is also undeterminable and unstable,
like the culture. Moving on, in the part named “Ecology and Ethics”, he describes mankind’s relation
and perception towards nature, in its historical process. He starts from the early history of mankind,
which goes back to the shamans and tribes, which lived consistently with the nature. Howarth then
moves to the point when Cartesian thought has revaluated human-nature relation in the context of
objectivity-subjectivity, which points to a master-slave connection. Howarth also underlines the
“biological quest for naming species by form and function”, which is important, because science
becomes a tool for the naming process and naming something means becoming master of it and
taming it via knowledge. Another important point in the article was Howarth’s argument that ecology
has transformed from oikonomia to oikologia, in which the species were considered as partners, not
resources. Later on, Howarth summarizes ecology’s development throughout modern history, and
then after the World War II.

The most important part of the article, according to our literary stand point, was where he
analyzed language and criticism. Basically, Howarth argues how the human action and behaviour
towards nature is shaped by literature and discourse. He also points that most important social
problem of our time is not the minority problem or other problems but the human damage that has
been done to nature, as he says “science fears a coming extinction”. Howarth suggests that literature
also has to play his part in nature’s salvation.

Love, Glen. “Revaluing Nature: Toward an Ecological Criticism” (225-241). The Ecocriticism Reader.
Ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm.

Love, in the beginning of the essay, summarizes the main problems that nature faces in our
time, and underlines the importance of nature and ecology, in order to be able to live in Earth. He
underlines the population growth, pollution, loss of groundwater, and extinction of species. He sees
the main reason as “placing self interest above public interest”, which is pointing us the human
selfishness and desire for power and domination. Among all his arguments, I have found very
interesting and true the following part: “we are accustomed to live with crisis, but environmental
degradation is not a crisis, it is a climacteric”. This simply explains the carelessness of public towards
climate problems. It is happening surely but slowly, actually getting faster and destructive day by day,
but the minor changes in nature is undetectable by the public which is already living so far from the
nature and distanced and estranged from it. But as we don’t care and see those changes, nature
 ECOCRITICISM: 1. Week Reflection Paper
Doğan Çadırcıoğlu
4031930006

reminds of itself more powerfully. But this carelessness of ours actually is causing the potential
extinction of our species, and likely the all living biosphere with us.

Another interesting point was that “animals should have lawful rights”. It is actually a quite
expanded idea at this point, but still not enough. Claptrap regulations also don’t mean anything.
There are regulations about fishing and hunting and about agriculture, but there is no governance at
all. It is only possible to save the planet, if all the people play their parts. Therefore, I think we should
raise awareness among people; it could be done via media, literature, discourse and etc. This is the
crucial role of literary and social studies, in saving the environment. Love’s ideas about how pastoral
poetry still reflects the anthropocentric thoughts are also another point where I agree with him
without hesitation. In my final paper of last semester’s Literary Criticism class, I was also arguing that
how Russian poet Yesenin’s poetic images of village and nature were actually simulacra. The nature,
in the pastoral-romantic tradition, is only there as a means of expression. Finally, Love suggests that
we need to make humankind right for the nature, not the other way around.

Rueckert, William. “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism” (105-123). The

Ecocriticism Reader. Ed. by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm.

William Rueckert too, underlines the unconscious suicidal tendency and paradox of
humankind, as Love does. And he also states that we need to coexist, cooperate and flourish with
nature, in the biosphere, as a part of it. Another idea he shares with Love, is that “nature should be
protected by the human laws”, which I’ve discussed above. He has an interesting theory of “poetry
as an unlimited energy”, which seems a little romantic to me. Even though I’m suspicious about this
theory, it is not without logic. What I understand from it is that he basically highlights poetry’s ability
to create certain effects on the reader, and it is a rare case for a poem to lose this ability throughout
the time. It actually reminds me of Russian-Soviet writer Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky’s novel “The
Yellow Coal”, in which the humanity is facing a threat of extinction of energy sources in the Earth,
and scientists are finding a new way to create energy, which is the energy of the “malignancy” or
“evilness of people”. Therefore, the government produces new policies in order to trigger evilness of
the people, for example, government forbids people to help each other and etc. I don’t actually know
how these two things are related, but the theory reminds me of this novel anyway.

There were other interesting parts, such as the Garret Hardin’s population projection and the
fact that humanity is not free to violate the laws of nature. Also the idea that “each individual has
responsibility for the entire biosphere and is required to engage in creative and cooperative
activities” is a fact and a good summarize of our part in saving nature. Finally, his question at the end
of the essay was quite essential and important, which I think must be thought by every literary
academic: “How can we do something more than recycle WORDS?”
 ECOCRITICISM: 1. Week Reflection Paper
Doğan Çadırcıoğlu
4031930006

Westling, Louise. “Literature and Ecology” (75-90). Teaching Ecocriticism and Green Cultural
Studies. Ed. byGregGarrard.

This was one of the most interesting essays that I’ve read in the last week. I have know the
fact that there is a conflict of misunderstanding between the “positive sciences” and the
“humanities”, but I’ve never researched for its roots through history, and I also didn’t thought about
the relation between these two areas. It was interesting for me to read that they were not so distant
until some point. Westling actually gives the idea that cooperation is possible and necessary. And
there is also great need for “spreaders of scientific developments”.

Westling also reminds us the writers, which have subscribed the developments in the
positive sciences and get inspired by them, who turns these developments into themes of their
literary works. Social breaking points and this kind of important events in culture always have found
its way into literature, but to think that the “rocket technology” or a development in quantum
physics or etc. also finds place in literature was actually a thing that I didn’t thought of and came
across before. Well, I am familiar to Sci-fi but not quite a fan, but in Sci-fi there is fiction, and what
Westling suggests is something different from Sci-fi and more important. It is applicable for the all
study areas, and would be a great spreader of scientific facts among public, in a more
understandable and easy language. Thus Louis Westling suggests that literature should do the same
and dramatise the ecological dangers that we are facing. For the best way to gain knowledge is
through experience, and the best way to raise empathy is through placing oneself to the position of
another, for which literature is a great means to accomplish this.