Day: October 22, 2024

Introduction: “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa

“The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa, first appeared in Philosophy & Social Criticism in 2004, explores the widening gap between ethical and socio-political frameworks and the fast-evolving realm of techno-science. Kurasawa argues that the unprecedented growth of science and technology, with its significant impact on market profitability and state power, has created a democratic lapse and an “ethical vacuum.” His main idea centers on the need to “ethicalize” and democratize techno-science by reintegrating it within public spheres where ethical debates and democratic deliberation thrive. The importance of the article in literature and literary theory lies in its critical analysis of the social and ethical challenges posed by modern scientific advancements. It contributes to discussions about autonomy, democracy, and ethics in the context of techno-science, emphasizing that technological progress must be governed by public responsibility and moral reflection to avoid dystopian consequences.

Summary of “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa

• Techno-Science and the Ethical Vacuum
• Kurasawa begins by addressing the central issue of the growing divide between modern ethical frameworks and the advancements in techno-science. He notes that while techno-science has become a dominant force in shaping market profitability, state power, and administrative control, it has also created an “ethical vacuum” (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 160). This vacuum refers to the lack of ethical reflection and public engagement surrounding the social and moral implications of new scientific and technological developments. Major breakthroughs, such as atomic energy and genetic mapping, introduce revolutionary possibilities, but society remains largely unprepared to manage their consequences.
• Democratic Lapse and the Instrumental Imperative
• Another critical issue Kurasawa highlights is the “democratic lapse,” where the increasing integration of techno-scientific activities with state and market imperatives has endangered social autonomy (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 161). This lapse occurs when decisions about science and technology are made by experts and institutions without sufficient public input or ethical oversight. As a result, society risks adopting the “instrumental imperative,” where what science and technology can do becomes what society ought to do, leading to potential technocratic determinism (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 160).
• The Need for Ethicalization and Democratization of Techno-Science
• Kurasawa argues that in order to counteract the ethical vacuum and democratic lapse, techno-science must be both ethicalized and democratized (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 161). Ethicalization can only occur by embedding techno-scientific advancements in vibrant public spaces where citizens can engage in discussions about accessibility, responsibility, and social impact. Similarly, democratization requires public arenas where science and technology are scrutinized, and citizens can participate in decision-making processes about the direction of research and its applications (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 162).
• Challenges to Public and Individual Autonomy
• Kurasawa identifies three primary challenges to autonomy posed by the current configuration of techno-science: the displacement of ethics onto institutions or private life, the neutralization of ethics by bureaucratization and commodification, and the colonization of ethical autonomy by instrumental rationality (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 161). He suggests that overcoming these challenges requires a collective and individual effort to bind ethical and democratic considerations into the management of techno-science.
• Techno-Science’s Role in Ethical and Social Responsibility
• Kurasawa emphasizes that scientists and technologists must also take on personal responsibility for the ethical implications of their work. He calls for a reintegration of moral responsibility into scientific practice, urging those involved in techno-science to view themselves as public actors accountable to society (Kurasawa, 2004, p. 162). Public deliberation on techno-scientific developments must be nourished by a sense of social responsibility, ensuring that science serves the public good while being open to democratic oversight.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa

Contribution of “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa

Criticism Against “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa

Representative Quotations from “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Ties To Bind” by Fuyuki Kurasawa

1. Kurasawa, Fuyuki. “Show and Tell: Contemporary Anti-Slavery Advocacy as Symbolic Work.” Contemporary Slavery: The Rhetoric of Global Human Rights Campaigns, edited by ANNIE BUNTING and JOEL QUIRK, Cornell University Press, 2017, pp. 158–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1w1vjxf.10. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
2. KURASAWA, FUYUKI. “A Cosmopolitanism from Below: Alternative Globalization and the Creation of a Solidarity without Bounds.” European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, vol. 45, no. 2, 2004, pp. 233–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23999133. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
3. Kurasawa, Fuyuki. “The ties to bind: Techno-science, ethics and democracy.” Philosophy & social criticism 30.2 (2004): 159-186.
4. Kurasawa, Fuyuki. The ethnological imagination: A cross-cultural critique of modernity. Vol. 21. U of Minnesota Press, 2004.

Introduction: “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman

“Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman first appeared in the Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment in the Summer of 2002. In this seminal article, Newman explores the intersection of Marxist theory and ecocriticism, arguing that an integrated approach is necessary for addressing the environmental crisis. He emphasizes that the environmental destruction caused by capitalist exploitation cannot be separated from social issues such as class, race, and gender oppression. Newman critiques mainstream ecocriticism for its idealist tendencies, which often focus on changing ideas and values, arguing that true ecological sustainability requires addressing the material conditions of capitalist production and the unequal distribution of power. The article is significant in literary theory as it calls for a synthesis of Marxist materialism and ecological thought to foster a radical, socially engaged ecocriticism that promotes both environmental justice and human emancipation.

Summary of “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman

1. The Challenge of Ecocriticism: Newman begins by addressing the foundational concerns of ecocriticism, specifically its role in responding to environmental crises. Ecocriticism is a movement that links literary scholarship with activism, focusing on the impact of literature on how humans understand and relate to the environment. He references William Rueckert’s call for ecocriticism to apply “ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature” to encourage a political commitment to environmental issues.
2. Ecocriticism’s Idealist Tendencies: Newman critiques mainstream ecocriticism for its idealist perspective, which focuses on changing human ideas and consciousness rather than addressing material conditions. He argues that many ecocritics see environmental issues as arising from destructive habits of thought, leading to a reliance on the “power of awareness” to inspire change. Ecocritics, according to Newman, primarily aim to “change our minds” as a route to altering societal behavior.
3. Thoreau and Ecocriticism’s Contradictions: The article discusses the central place of Henry David Thoreau in ecocriticism, portraying him as a model of ideal human relations with nature. However, Newman points out contradictions within Thoreau’s work and in the ecocritical movement itself. He writes that Thoreau’s retreat into nature during a time of social upheaval in Massachusetts reflected a broader cultural critique. Ecocriticism, “despite its materialist approach to literature,” often overlooks the social and political realities that shaped Thoreau’s writing.
4. The Importance of Marxist Analysis: Newman introduces Marxism as a necessary complement to ecocriticism, emphasizing the materialist critique of capitalism and its role in environmental degradation. Raymond Williams’ Marxist analysis, particularly in The Country and the City, offers a framework for understanding how capitalist societies exploit both labor and nature. “The conquest of nature” in Marxist theory, Newman notes, is directly tied to the exploitation of human labor, which has ecological consequences.
5. Ecocriticism’s Shortcomings: Newman argues that ecocriticism has not been “ecological enough” because it often disconnects ideological shifts from the material conditions that sustain them. He critiques the ecocritical focus on ideas and values without adequately addressing the capitalist structures that drive environmental destruction. As he explains, “ideas are not static things; they are dynamic processes” shaped by and responsive to material conditions.
6. A Red-Green Synthesis: The article advocates for a “red-green” synthesis that merges Marxist analysis with ecocritical insights. Marxist ecology, which emphasizes the exploitation of nature as an extension of capitalist exploitation of labor, offers a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental crisis. Newman suggests that the study of nature writing and ecocritical texts can benefit from a materialist approach that recognizes the “combined and uneven” processes shaping human relations with nature.
7. Pedagogical Implications: In the final sections, Newman turns to the role of education in ecocriticism, urging scholars and teachers to incorporate historical consciousness into their environmental studies. He calls for “ecocentric consciousness” that is tied to an understanding of the social and economic systems that produce environmental harm. The goal, he argues, is to move beyond ethical individualism and towards a politically engaged ecocriticism.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman

Contribution of “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Contribution to Ecocriticism:
   Lance Newman’s article expands the scope of ecocriticism by emphasizing the necessity of integrating it with Marxist materialism. He critiques the traditional ecocritical focus on changing ideas and consciousness as insufficient to address the environmental crisis, arguing instead that it is capitalism’s material exploitation of nature that must be confronted. Newman challenges the idealist tendencies in ecocriticism, asserting that ecocritics need to focus on the underlying social and economic structures that drive environmental destruction. He stresses that ecocriticism must become more materially grounded, writing that “it is not ecological enough” and advocating for a “materialist approach to understanding human relations with nature.”
2. Contribution to Marxist Literary Theory:
   Newman enriches Marxist literary theory by integrating ecological concerns into its framework. He highlights how Marxism, traditionally focused on the exploitation of labor under capitalism, can also be applied to understand the exploitation of natural resources. In doing so, Newman underscores the systemic relationship between capitalist production and ecological degradation, showing that environmental destruction is a product of the capitalist mode of production. He argues that “no history is adequate if it abstracts any one analytical category—economy, technology, ideology, or environment”, thus urging a more holistic Marxist critique that includes ecological factors in its analysis.
3. Contribution to Cultural Materialism:
   Building on the work of Raymond Williams, Newman contributes to the field of cultural materialism by applying its principles to ecocriticism. He advocates for a materialist reading of literature, particularly nature writing, that takes into account both social and ecological histories. Newman emphasizes that literary texts are not merely reflections of nature but are shaped by material conditions, especially under capitalism. He references Williams, stating that the “analysis of all forms of signification, including quite centrally writing, within the actual means and conditions of their production” is critical to understanding the interaction between literature, society, and nature.
4. Environmental Ethics and Literature:
   Newman also contributes to the dialogue between literature and environmental ethics by challenging the anthropocentrism prevalent in many ideological narratives. He advocates for the development of an “ecocentric consciousness”, which acknowledges the interconnectedness of humans and nature and critiques capitalist ideologies that prioritize human profit over ecological sustainability. His work encourages ecocritics to use literature, particularly nature writing, as a means of promoting a more ethical relationship with the natural world. He critiques “anthropocentric narratives of the triumph of human reason over nature” and pushes for a more ecologically sensitive and ethically grounded literary approach.
5. Ideological Critique:
   Newman advances the role of ideological critique within ecocriticism by exposing the deep connections between capitalist ideology and environmental degradation. He argues that mainstream ecocriticism often focuses too heavily on ideological shifts without addressing the material conditions that sustain capitalist exploitation of nature. Newman stresses that “ideas are not static things; they are dynamic processes” and critiques the tendency to view environmental problems as merely the result of bad ideas or habits of thought, rather than as products of capitalist social structures. He insists that a more rigorous, materially grounded critique is necessary to fully understand the roots of ecological crises.
6. Contribution to Red-Green Political Theory:
   Newman makes a significant contribution to the emerging red-green political theory by advocating for a synthesis of Marxist and ecological thought. He calls for political solidarity between socialist and environmental movements to address both social and ecological injustices. His “red-green synthesis” brings together the ecological focus of environmentalism with the social justice aims of Marxism, emphasizing that ecological sustainability cannot be achieved without addressing the exploitative structures of capitalism. Newman argues that “Marxism, like ecocriticism, is, or should be, thinking in service to a politics of world emancipation”, thus aligning the goals of both movements in the struggle for environmental and social change.

Examples of Critiques Through “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman

Criticism Against “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman

1. Overemphasis on Capitalism as the Root Cause
   Newman’s focus on capitalism as the primary cause of environmental degradation may be viewed as overly simplistic. While capitalism undoubtedly contributes to ecological crises, other factors such as cultural, historical, and technological dynamics also play significant roles. Critics might argue that reducing environmental issues solely to economic systems fails to address the full complexity of the problem.
2. Marginalization of Ecocriticism’s Ethical and Philosophical Contributions
   In critiquing ecocriticism’s idealism, Newman risks downplaying the ethical and philosophical dimensions that are central to fostering environmental awareness and advocacy. Critics may argue that efforts to change human consciousness and values are essential to addressing ecological issues, and Newman’s materialist focus could marginalize these important aspects of ecocriticism.
3. Lack of Engagement with Indigenous and Non-Western Ecological Perspectives
   Newman’s analysis is rooted in Western Marxist frameworks, which may overlook indigenous and non-Western ecological perspectives. These perspectives often provide alternative models of environmental stewardship that are not necessarily tied to capitalist or Marxist critiques. Critics may suggest that Newman’s work lacks cultural diversity and fails to engage with more global approaches to environmental issues.
4. Risk of Alienating Ecocritical Scholars
   By critiquing the idealist tendencies within ecocriticism, Newman risks alienating scholars who emphasize the importance of ethical, philosophical, and literary contributions to environmental discourse. Instead of outright rejecting ecocriticism’s focus on changing ideas and values, critics might argue that Newman could advocate for collaboration between materialist and idealist strands within the field to create a more comprehensive approach.
5. Over-reliance on Marxist Framework
   Newman’s strong reliance on a Marxist framework may be seen as limiting, particularly when addressing ecological issues that transcend class-based or materialist lenses. Environmental crises often affect all social groups, and critics might argue that a more flexible, interdisciplinary approach—beyond strict Marxist theory—is necessary to fully address the complexities of environmental challenges.

Representative Quotations from “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman

1. NEWMAN, LANCE. “Marxism and Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 9, no. 2, 2002, pp. 1–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44087558. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
2. Slovic, Scott. “EDITOR’S NOTE.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 19, no. 3, 2012, pp. 443–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44087128. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
3. Major, William. “The Agrarian Vision and Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 14, no. 2, 2007, pp. 51–70. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44086613. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
4. Ivakhiv, Adrian. “Green Film Criticism and Its Futures.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 15, no. 2, 2008, pp. 1–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44086718. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.

Introduction: “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde

“Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde first appeared in the Contemporary Literature journal, Volume 52, Number 3, in the Fall of 2011. Published by the University of Wisconsin Press, this review article highlights the intersection of critical literary methodologies, particularly postcolonial ecocriticism and zoocriticism. These fields explore the environmental and non-human dimensions within postcolonial literature, addressing issues such as colonialism’s impact on the environment and animals. Vadde’s review emphasizes the balance between aesthetics and advocacy in literature, particularly focusing on how literature can serve as a symbolic tool for material change. This cross-pollination of ecocriticism and zoocriticism with postcolonial theory expands the scope of literary criticism, urging scholars to consider environmental justice, animal studies, and the complexities of global power relations. The importance of this article lies in its nuanced examination of these growing fields and its contribution to the evolving discourse in literary theory

Summary of “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde

• Introduction to Postcolonial Ecocriticism
  • Vadde’s article reviews Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment by Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin, which explores the connection between postcolonial studies and ecocriticism.
  • Postcolonial ecocriticism examines how colonial histories and power dynamics impact environmental degradation and animal exploitation. Vadde highlights the field’s focus on “the specifically environmental dimensions of literary works,” especially how environmental issues intersect with postcolonial themes like resource exploitation and land dispossession.
  • Huggan and Tiffin are praised for introducing readers to postcolonial ecocriticism without oversimplifying complex debates: “They do not gloss over or simplify debates among ecocritics but map them in their complexity.”
• Focus on Nonhuman Elements
  • Vadde points out the increasing focus on nonhuman entities, such as animals and landscapes, in postcolonial literature. This broadens the critique of colonialism to include environmental justice and animal rights.
  • The authors argue that “renewed pressure on the nature/culture and human/animal binaries” challenges imperial and colonial structures of domination.
  • Huggan and Tiffin use literary examples, including works by V. S. Naipaul, Arundhati Roy, and J. M. Coetzee, to show how postcolonial literature addresses environmental crises and their impact on marginalized populations.
• Introduction of Zoocriticism
  • Vadde highlights the emergence of zoocriticism, a field rooted in animal studies, which examines animals’ roles in literature and colonial narratives. Zoocriticism and ecocriticism are brought together in this volume to analyze how literary representations of animals and nature contribute to postcolonial critique.
  • The authors position zoocriticism as “an alien term to most literary scholars,” but one that holds potential for deepening the critique of colonialism by challenging “the human/animal binary which defined Enlightenment discourses of civilization.”
• Development and Environmental Justice
  • In the first part of the volume, Huggan and Tiffin explore the theme of “development,” a term often tied to neocolonial exploitation. Vadde references the use of Ken Saro-Wiwa’s and Arundhati Roy’s works as powerful examples of environmental justice: “Saro-Wiwa and Roy are not ecocritics… They are writer-activists whose work makes use of literary and rhetorical tropes on behalf of embattled groups.”
  • The chapter also introduces Pacific Rim literature, focusing on the impact of nuclear power and industrialization on indigenous communities. These texts highlight the “toxic discourse” surrounding environmental degradation, colonial development, and global capitalism.
• Pastoral and Entitlement
  • Vadde examines the section on “entitlement,” where the authors use pastoral as a literary mode to discuss postcolonial and indigenous subjects’ struggles with legal and affective connections to land. Huggan and Tiffin argue that entitlement becomes “an ontological category of belonging instead of a juridical category of rights to possession.”
  • Postcolonial writers like Judith Wright and J. M. Coetzee challenge the idealized pastoral vision by exposing the violence and dispossession that underpins colonial land claims.
• Shift to Zoocriticism and Animal Studies
  • In the second part of the volume, the focus shifts to zoocriticism, where Huggan and Tiffin analyze how animals have been portrayed in postcolonial literature.
  • Vadde notes how the authors return to Heart of Darkness to discuss the absence of elephants in a novella dominated by ivory, while using this as an opportunity to critique “European masculinity and imperial order.”
  • Zoocriticism also examines the moral and philosophical questions of speciesism and how animal-centered readings “challenge the foundational claims of imperialism.”
• Concluding Reflections
  • The article concludes by reflecting on the posthuman turn in postcolonial ecocriticism, where scientific advancements and technological narratives blur the line between human and nonhuman entities.
  • Huggan and Tiffin’s work is positioned as a groundbreaking contribution to postcolonial studies, introducing “crossing, and refining the critical methods that promise to chart the postcolonial world through its posthuman dimensions.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde

Contribution of “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Expansion of Postcolonial Criticism into Environmental Concerns
   Aarthi Vadde’s article highlights the expansion of postcolonial criticism into ecocriticism, emphasizing how colonialism is not only about cultural and political domination but also environmental exploitation. The article stresses that postcolonial ecocriticism brings to light the “specifically environmental dimensions of literary works,” focusing on how colonial histories have shaped environmental degradation, resource depletion, and unequal distribution of environmental benefits and harms. This expansion challenges traditional postcolonial studies by connecting imperialism with ecological crises, thus broadening the scope of postcolonial critique.
2. Bridging Ecocriticism and Zoocriticism
   Vadde’s review underscores how Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin’s work brings together two critical fields—ecocriticism and the emerging field of zoocriticism—into postcolonial discourse. By integrating zoocriticism, which focuses on animal studies and the human-animal divide, postcolonial critique gains a new lens through which to understand the imperial ideologies that justify the subjugation of both animals and colonized people. As Vadde notes, Huggan and Tiffin emphasize the breakdown of “the human/animal binaries that facilitate imperial privilege and colonial dispossession.” This contribution pushes literary theory toward a more inclusive and interdisciplinary understanding of postcolonialism, incorporating ethical and philosophical questions about human-animal relationships.
3. Critique of Development and Neocolonialism
   The article introduces the concept of development as a critical term within postcolonial ecocriticism, analyzing how Western development projects often continue the legacies of colonial exploitation. Vadde points out that postcolonial writers such as Ken Saro-Wiwa and Arundhati Roy critique “Western expertise that fails to consult local knowledge bases,” highlighting the neocolonial forces that perpetuate environmental injustice. This contribution situates postcolonial critique within contemporary global politics, where ecological and economic exploitation are intertwined.
4. Introducing Pastoral as a Mode of Critiquing Entitlement
   Another key contribution of Vadde’s article is its analysis of the pastoral mode in relation to postcolonial entitlement and belonging. By engaging with works like Judith Wright’s and J. M. Coetzee’s, Huggan and Tiffin use pastoral to explore “the suppressed violence that helped make its peaceful visions possible.” Vadde’s review emphasizes that pastoral literature, often seen as idyllic, reveals the darker history of colonial land dispossession and legal claims over indigenous territories. This approach offers a fresh perspective on pastoral literature, connecting it to postcolonial critiques of entitlement and land rights.
5. Posthumanism and its Place in Postcolonial Ecocriticism
   One of the most forward-looking contributions discussed by Vadde is the introduction of posthumanism within postcolonial ecocriticism. Vadde highlights Huggan and Tiffin’s focus on “the erosion of ideological distinctions between the human and the nonhuman” in a posthuman world, where scientific advancements such as genetic engineering blur the boundaries between species. This posthuman turn pushes postcolonial theory to consider not just human subjects but the broader implications of technological and environmental changes, offering new avenues for critique beyond traditional human-centered narratives.
6. Emphasis on the Role of Aesthetic Practices in Activism
   Huggan and Tiffin, as highlighted by Vadde, argue that aesthetic practices in literature serve as a form of social and political activism. Their approach “preserves the aesthetic function of the literary text while drawing attention to its social and political usefulness.” This contribution emphasizes the dual role of literature in postcolonial ecocriticism: as a medium of artistic expression and as a tool for advocating for environmental and social justice. It reflects a growing trend in literary theory where form and content are seen as intertwined, with aesthetics playing a key role in challenging colonial narratives and advocating for material change.

Examples of Critiques Through “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde

Criticism Against “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde

• Limited Exploration of Zoocriticism
  While Vadde introduces zoocriticism as a critical method, the article acknowledges that its intersection with postcolonial critique is relatively underdeveloped. Zoocriticism is described as having a “thinner” connection to postcolonial studies compared to ecocriticism, which may limit its depth in addressing colonial and postcolonial issues.
• Ambiguity in Section Titles
  Vadde critiques the organizational structure of the work, particularly the inconsistency in chapter titles. For instance, the division between “Postcolonialism and the Environment” and “Zoocriticism and the Postcolonial” creates confusion. Vadde remarks that the parallelism, or lack thereof, “creates unnecessary ambiguity for a study that otherwise makes its intent clear.”
• Underdeveloped Connection Between Zoocriticism and Human Oppression
  Although zoocriticism challenges speciesism and anthropocentrism, Vadde suggests that Huggan and Tiffin’s attempt to connect these critiques to human racial and gender oppression is not fully realized. The quickness with which the authors move through different forms of oppression, such as speciesism, racism, and colonialism, “does little to substantiate their claim.”
• Inconsistent Application of Pastoral Critique
  Vadde finds the connection between entitlement and the pastoral mode somewhat tenuous, especially in the way pastoral is used to critique postcolonial land ownership. While the analysis eventually makes sense, the initial link “at first… felt tenuous,” suggesting a more robust connection could have been established.
• Lack of Engagement with Postcolonial Eco-Materialism
  The article notes that Huggan and Tiffin’s work distances itself from postcolonial eco-materialism, which critiques global capitalism alongside colonialism. Vadde comments that the volume’s approach “does not quite join with postcolonial eco-materialism,” potentially missing a stronger critique of economic exploitation in a globalized world.

Representative Quotations from “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism” by Aarthi Vadde

1. VADDE, AARTHI. “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 52, no. 3, 2011, pp. 565–73. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41472508. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
2. “Front Matter.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 52, no. 3, 2011. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41472501. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
3. Oliver Coates. “Hubert Ogunde’s Strike and Hunger and the 1945 General Strike in Lagos: Labor and Reciprocity in the Kingdom of Ọba Yéjídé.” Research in African Literatures, vol. 48, no. 2, 2017, pp. 166–84. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2979/reseafrilite.48.2.12. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
4. Marzec, Robert P. “SPEAKING BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT: MODERN FICTION AND THE ECOLOGICAL.” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 55, no. 3, 2009, pp. 419–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26287365. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.

Introduction: “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey

“Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges and Postcolonial Ecocriticism” by Cara Cilano and Elizabeth Deloughrey first appeared in Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment in the summer of 2007. This paper explores the intersection of postcolonial theory and ecocriticism, critiquing the universalized environmental frameworks that often dominate western ecological discourse. Cilano and Deloughrey argue that such frameworks, particularly deep ecology, tend to erase the complex socio-historical realities of postcolonial regions, privileging a biocentric perspective that can overshadow human inequalities. The authors build on the work of environmental scholars like Ramachandra Guha, highlighting the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness of human and environmental justice. The essay is significant in literary theory as it bridges two critical fields—postcolonialism and ecocriticism—urging scholars to rethink the limitations of Western-centric environmental models and promoting a more nuanced, interdisciplinary approach to global ecological issues. This work challenges traditional narratives by foregrounding the environmental impacts of colonialism and globalization, contributing to an evolving discourse that advocates for a more inclusive understanding of ecological and social justice.

Summary of “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey

• Critique of Universal Ecological Frameworks
• The article begins by critiquing globalized ecological approaches, particularly the “biocentric view” promoted by deep ecologists, as it “indicates a lack of concern with inequalities within human society” (72). Cilano and Deloughrey build on Ramachandra Guha’s argument that such universal stances often overlook socio-historical inequalities that shape environmental issues in postcolonial regions. They emphasize that these frameworks can perpetuate colonial power dynamics, leading to a “rhetorical conflation of Eastern and indigenous religious traditions” with Western ecological goals (74).
• Orientalist Methodologies in Environmentalism
• Cilano and Deloughrey critique the “orientalist methodologies” of deep ecology, which portray the Global South as passive victims of environmental destruction caused by industrial powers from the Global North (77). They argue that “deep ecologists, Guha contends, rely on orientalist methodologies to argue for the universality of their position” (74), erasing the agency of non-Western nations in managing their own resources. This is a central issue for postcolonial critics who resist colonial histories embedded in Western environmentalism.
• Environmental Justice and Postcolonialism
• The article highlights that despite apparent differences, postcolonialism and ecocriticism share a commitment to “social and environmental justice” (73). The postcolonial critique of environmentalism often emphasizes how “western ecocritics have pressed against the national frameworks of literary studies” (73) to engage more with global environmental issues. However, postcolonial critics remain wary of ecocriticism’s “naturalization of a western white male subject” as the foundation of environmental discourse (73).
• 4. Postcolonial Critique of Ecocriticism’s Eurocentric Bias
• Cilano and Deloughrey point out the limitations of ecocriticism, particularly its tendency to re-center Western narratives of environmentalism. They argue that “ecocritical discourse of the U.S. frontier […] sidestep[s] the violent history that produced white settler culture” (73). This Eurocentric bias privileges settler colonial perspectives and limits the incorporation of postcolonial agency. The authors call for “a true relationship between postcolonial and ecocritical discourse” that resists these limitations and foregrounds postcolonial agency (75).
• 5. The Role of Ecofeminism and Interdisciplinarity
• Building on ecofeminist perspectives, the authors call for integrating interdisciplinary approaches that connect social, environmental, and gender justice. They argue that “ecofeminist work has already laid the groundwork for a critique of the anthropocentric bias of deep ecology” (73). They further suggest that “postcolonial topics should not be viewed as entirely new directions” in ecocriticism but rather as bringing “increased visibility to a western-based audience” (74), broadening the scope of ecocritical analysis.
• 6. Challenges of Representation and Knowledge Production
• Cilano and Deloughrey address the issues of representation in ecocriticism, particularly how Western scholars often claim to speak for non-Western ecologies without considering the cultural and historical contexts. They call for “an open dialogue about the diverse production of local and global knowledge(s)” to address environmental degradation (75). The article critiques “American exceptionalist discourse” in environmental studies, which frequently marginalizes non-Western perspectives (73).
• 7. Conclusion: Toward a Transnational, Interdisciplinary Ecocriticism
• The article concludes by advocating for a “transnational ethics of place” that recognizes the intersection of environmental justice and postcolonial agency (75). Cilano and Deloughrey emphasize that “a true relationship between postcolonial and ecocritical discourse” requires mutual respect for diverse knowledge systems and a rejection of Eurocentric, universalizing environmental models (79). They call for more interdisciplinary and globally engaged approaches to ecological issues.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Against Authenticity:Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey

Contribution of “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey

Criticism Against “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey

Representative Quotations from “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges And Postcolonial Ecocriticism” By Cara Cilano And Elizabeth Deloughrey

1. Cilano, Cara, and Elizabeth DeLoughrey. “Against Authenticity: Global Knowledges and Postcolonial Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 14, no. 1, 2007, pp. 71–87. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44086558. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
2. Echterling, Clare. “Postcolonial Ecocriticism, Classic Children’s Literature, and the Imperial-Environmental Imagination in ‘The Chronicles of Narnia.’” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 49, no. 1, 2016, pp. 93–117. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44134678. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
3. Vital, Anthony. “Toward an African Ecocriticism: Postcolonialism, Ecology and ‘Life & Times of Michael K.’” Research in African Literatures, vol. 39, no. 1, 2008, pp. 87–106. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20109561. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
4. HEISE, URSULA K. “Afterword: Postcolonial Ecocriticism and the Question of Literature.” Postcolonial Green: Environmental Politics and World Narratives, edited by Bonnie Roos and Alex Hunt, University of Virginia Press, 2010, pp. 251–58. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrkp7.18. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.

Introduction: “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell

“What is an Image?” by W. J. T. Mitchell first appeared in New Literary History, Volume 15, Issue 3, during the Spring of 1984. The essay explores the multifaceted nature of images, not only as visual objects but as cultural, ideological, and representational tools within various disciplines, such as art history, philosophy, and theology. Mitchell critically examines the historical and theoretical frameworks through which images are understood, questioning their function as mere reflections of reality. Instead, he argues that images operate as complex signs that engage with power structures, cultural practices, and human cognition. This work is significant in literary theory for expanding the discussion on the relationship between images and language, moving beyond traditional iconography and embracing a broader semiotic and philosophical inquiry. Mitchell’s essay has contributed to ongoing debates about the power of images in shaping perception and ideology in the modern world, influencing visual studies and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding representation.

Summary of “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell

• Images are Varied and Ubiquitous: Mitchell begins by noting the incredible diversity of what is termed an image, ranging from pictures, statues, and diagrams to mental and verbal images. He points out the difficulty in formulating a single, unified understanding of the term (“the incredible variety of things that go by this name”).
• Images as Signs, Not Transparent Windows: Modern criticism no longer views images as mere transparent windows to reality. Instead, images are understood as signs that may distort or mystify what they represent (“images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance of naturalness”).
• Historical and Social Contexts of Images: Mitchell emphasizes that the understanding of images is deeply rooted in historical and social practices. He draws attention to the ideological and political dimensions that shape the use and perception of images across cultures and eras (“our theoretical understanding of imagery grounds itself in social and cultural practices”).
• Comparison to Language: Images, like language, are not stable or universal in meaning. Mitchell argues that images should be analyzed similarly to language in terms of semiotics and interpretation (“the commonplace of modern studies of images, in fact, is that they must be understood as a kind of language”).
• The Image as a Multisensory and Dynamic Entity: Contrary to the common belief that images are exclusively visual, Mitchell contends that they often involve multiple senses and interpretations, making them complex and dynamic entities (“images are not exclusively visual in any important way but involve multisensory apprehension”).
• Critique of the ‘Proper’ Image: The notion that there are “proper” or “real” images, distinct from mental or verbal ones, is critiqued. Mitchell suggests that all types of images, whether mental, verbal, or material, share similar characteristics and should not be categorized hierarchically (“real, proper images have more in common with their bastard children than they might like to admit”).
• Mental Images and Perception: Mitchell uses Wittgenstein’s critique of mental imagery to argue against the idea of mental images as private, metaphysical entities. He demystifies the mental image by bringing it into the same category as material, physical images (“Wittgenstein’s tactic is to demystify the mental image by bringing it right out in the open where we can see it”).
• The Image as Likeness (Imago Dei): In theological terms, the “image” refers not to a material picture but to a spiritual likeness, as seen in the concept of man being made in the image of God. Mitchell traces how this notion shaped broader concepts of images in religious and philosophical traditions (“the literal sense of the word image is a graphic, pictorial representation, but… this whole story could be told another way”).
• The Role of Artificial Perspective in Shaping Modern Views on Images: Mitchell argues that the invention of artificial perspective in Renaissance art profoundly influenced how images were perceived as natural and objective representations of reality (“the invention of artificial perspective convinced an entire civilization that it possessed an infallible method of representation”).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell

Contribution of “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell

Criticism Against “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell

• Lack of a Unified Definition of Image:
  Mitchell deliberately avoids offering a single, clear definition of an image, which some critics may argue weakens the conceptual clarity of the work. This ambiguity may leave readers without a concrete understanding of what an image truly is across different contexts.
• Overemphasis on Ideological Critique:
  Some may argue that Mitchell focuses too much on the ideological aspects of images (such as power, politics, and social control), potentially neglecting other dimensions of images, such as their aesthetic or emotional impact, or their role in personal and non-ideological experiences.
• Neglect of Empirical Approaches:
  Critics might point out that Mitchell’s approach is largely theoretical and philosophical, with little engagement with empirical studies from fields like psychology or neuroscience, which could provide insights into how images are processed and understood by the human brain.
• Overgeneralization of Image Functions:
  Mitchell’s argument that all images function as signs may be viewed as an overgeneralization, disregarding the specific roles images can play in different cultural or artistic contexts. Some critics might argue that not all images function semiotically, especially in non-representational art forms.
• Tendency Toward Abstract Complexity:
  Mitchell’s writing style and theoretical approach are often dense and abstract, which could alienate readers who are looking for more straightforward explanations of how images operate in society and culture. This complexity might limit the accessibility of his ideas.
• Underestimation of the Role of Physical Images:
  While Mitchell critiques the idea of images as transparent reflections of reality, some may feel he underestimates the power of physical, visual images in certain contexts, particularly in traditional art forms where the visual impact of the image is key to its meaning and reception.

Representative Quotations from “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell

1. Mitchell, W. J. T. “What Is an Image?” New Literary History, vol. 15, no. 3, 1984, pp. 503–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468718. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
2. Potts, Alex. “WHAT IS AN IMAGE.” What Is an Image?, edited by JAMES ELKINS and MAJA NAEF, vol. 2, Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 140–42. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdjx.25. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
3. Zimmermann, Michael. “THINKING THE IMAGE FROM THE INSIDE OF THE PICTURE.” What Is an Image?, edited by JAMES ELKINS and MAJA NAEF, vol. 2, Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 218–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdjx.48. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
4. ELKINS, JAMES, and MAJA NAEF, editors. “ONTOLOGY.” What Is an Image?, vol. 2, Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 35–52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdjx.9. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.