“Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips

“Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips first appeared in 1999 in the journal New Literary History, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. The article critically engages with the intersections between ecocriticism and literary theory, questioning the romanticized notions of nature often embraced by ecocritics. Phillips challenges the ecocritical movement’s preference for realism and critiques the idealized portrayal of nature in literature, arguing that such representations are deeply entwined with cultural constructions. He draws on the work of Umberto Eco to explore the complexities of “truth” in ecology, emphasizing that nature, like culture, is complicated and cannot be understood through simple, reductive narratives. Phillips’ work is significant in the field of literary theory as it urges scholars to reconsider the assumptions underlying ecocritical approaches and calls for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between literature, culture, and the environment.

Summary of “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips

• Ecocriticism’s Simplistic Realism Phillips criticizes ecocriticism’s reliance on realism to represent nature, arguing that this approach is limited and often misguided. He points out that ecocriticism assumes “that the representation of nature in literature can be straightforward and unproblematic,” which he considers overly simplistic. He questions ecocritics’ belief that a return to realism can somehow restore our understanding of nature.
  • “I doubt whether the ecocritics’ preferred counter… is all that powerful a response, based as it is on some dubious ideas about the nature of representation and the representation of nature.”
• Challenges of Representing Nature Phillips emphasizes that nature, as a subject of literary representation, is far more complex than ecocritics acknowledge. He argues that both nature and its representations are interwoven with cultural processes, making it impossible to “represent” nature in literature without cultural mediation.
  • “Nature is complex; Nature is thoroughly implicated in culture, and culture is thoroughly implicated in nature.”
• Critique of Ecocriticism’s Anti-Theory Stance Phillips criticizes ecocriticism’s rejection of literary theory. Many ecocritics view theory as unnecessary or even harmful to their goals. Phillips sees this as a significant flaw, arguing that without engaging with theory, ecocriticism risks becoming intellectually shallow.
  • “Ecocritics also run the risk of being labeled reactionary and getting lumped with the neoconservatives.”
• The Construction of Nature by Culture The article questions the ecocritical rejection of postmodern and poststructuralist ideas, particularly the belief that nature is a cultural construct. Phillips highlights the ecocritics’ discomfort with this idea, but he insists that acknowledging the cultural construction of nature is crucial for any meaningful analysis.
  • “They are bothered, though, by theory’s contention that nature is constructed by culture.”
• Ecocriticism’s Misinterpretation of Ecological Science Phillips argues that many ecocritics have a flawed understanding of ecology itself. He critiques their reliance on outdated ecological models, which present nature as harmonious and unified. He references contemporary ecological science, which views ecosystems as fragmented and constantly in flux, contrasting this with ecocriticism’s nostalgic view of nature.
  • “The ideal of the ecosystem as a model of unity, ‘of order and equilibrium,’ has been supplanted in recent ecological theory by ‘the idea of the lowly “patch.”‘”
• Misapplication of Scientific Terms Phillips also critiques ecocriticism’s careless use of ecological terminology. He notes that terms like “ecosystem,” “organism,” and “wilderness” are often borrowed and applied metaphorically in ways that misrepresent their scientific meaning.
  • “Ecocritical analysis of literary texts then proceeds haphazardly, by means of fuzzy concepts fashioned out of borrowed terms.”
• The Limits of Ecocriticism Finally, Phillips calls for a more intellectually rigorous approach to ecocriticism, one that engages seriously with both literary theory and contemporary ecological science. He believes that ecocriticism, in its current form, fails to address the complexities of both literature and the environment.
  • “Ecocriticism needs a rationale that will enable it to use the ‘resources’ of literary theory while retaining some respect for the force of theory’s ‘premises.'”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips

Literary Term/Concept	Description
Realism	A literary technique that attempts to represent nature and life accurately without idealization or romantic subjectivity. Ecocriticism often turns to realism to represent nature, but Phillips argues that this approach is too simplistic.
Representation	The act of depicting or portraying subjects (e.g., nature) in literature. Phillips critiques the idea that nature can be straightforwardly represented, as representation is always culturally mediated.
Ecocriticism	A form of literary criticism that explores the relationship between literature and the environment. Phillips critiques its romanticized and often simplistic views of nature.
Postmodernism	A literary and philosophical movement characterized by skepticism toward grand narratives and the belief that truth is relative. Ecocriticism’s rejection of postmodern ideas, such as the construction of nature by culture, is critiqued by Phillips.
Poststructuralism	A theoretical framework that challenges the stability of meaning and representation. Phillips highlights how ecocritics are uncomfortable with the poststructuralist view that nature is culturally constructed.
Hyperreality	A concept borrowed from Umberto Eco, where reality and simulations of reality are blurred. Phillips uses this to discuss how representations of nature in spaces like zoos contribute to a sense of hyperreality.
Cultural Construct	The idea that concepts like nature are shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts. Phillips emphasizes that nature, as we understand it, is inseparable from culture.
Metaphor	A figure of speech that implies a comparison between two unlike things. Phillips critiques the ecocritical use of scientific terms like “ecosystem” as metaphors without acknowledging their figurative status.
Ideological Screen	A concept in literary theory referring to the ways in which ideology shapes our perceptions and representations of the world. Phillips discusses how ecocritics often ignore how representations of nature can function as ideological screens.

Contribution of “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips to Literary Theory/Theories

Summary of Contributions:

• Phillips critiques ecocriticism for its anti-theoretical stance and romanticization of nature.
• He challenges the realist tradition in ecocriticism, questioning the possibility of directly representing nature in literature.
• Phillips aligns with poststructuralism and postmodernism, defending the view that nature is a cultural construct and that representation is inherently mediated by culture.
• He applies hyperreality to show how representations of nature can become simulacra, distancing themselves from actual ecological realities.
• His work calls for a more sophisticated engagement with theories of representation, moving beyond simplistic and reductive portrayals of nature in literature.

Examples of Critiques Through “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips

Literary Work and Author	Critique Through Dana Phillips’ Ecocritical Lens
Walden by Henry David Thoreau	Phillips critiques the romanticized view of nature in Walden. He argues that Thoreau’s depiction of nature reflects an idealized, unrealistic portrayal, disconnected from the complexities and cultural constructions of nature. Thoreau’s idea of living “in harmony with nature” overlooks the intricate interdependence of culture and ecology.
Imagining the Earth by John Elder	Phillips critiques Elder’s analogy between poetry and ecosystems, arguing that the comparison is overly deterministic and flawed. He points out that Elder conflates literary form with ecological processes, which leads to a problematic view of nature as indivisible and unified. Phillips rejects Elder’s romantic vision of ecological “wholeness” as scientifically outdated.
The Environmental Imagination by Lawrence Buell	Phillips critiques Buell’s call for a return to literary realism to reconnect with nature. He argues that Buell’s advocacy for realism in environmental literature ignores the complexities of representation and falls into a nostalgic view of nature that is disconnected from contemporary ecological science, which emphasizes instability and fragmentation in ecosystems.
A Field Guide to the Birds by Roger Tory Peterson	Phillips critiques the notion that Peterson’s field guide achieves “realistic” representation of nature. He argues that Peterson’s illustrations are abstractions that simplify and stylize nature for practical identification purposes, not accurate depictions of ecological reality. Phillips uses this example to demonstrate the limits of realism in representing nature.

Criticism Against “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips

• Overemphasis on Theoretical Abstraction Critics may argue that Phillips places too much emphasis on abstract theoretical concepts, distancing his analysis from the practical and activist goals of ecocriticism. His heavy reliance on poststructuralist and postmodern theories could alienate readers who are more focused on environmental advocacy and real-world ecological issues.
• Undermining Ecocriticism’s Activist Goals Phillips’ critique of ecocriticism’s romanticization of nature may be seen as undermining its purpose to inspire environmental consciousness and activism. By focusing on the theoretical limitations of ecocriticism, Phillips could be seen as dismissing the movement’s broader goals of fostering a connection between literature and ecological awareness.
• Dismissal of Ecological Realism Some may criticize Phillips for dismissing ecological realism as a valid literary strategy. His argument that realism oversimplifies the complexities of nature could be viewed as an overly narrow interpretation, failing to acknowledge that realist depictions of nature can still serve important pedagogical and aesthetic functions.
• Insufficient Engagement with Ecocritical Texts Phillips could be criticized for not engaging deeply enough with the broader body of ecocritical literature. While he critiques the movement’s theoretical foundations, some might argue that he selectively engages with ecocriticism and does not provide a comprehensive critique of its diverse methodologies and approaches.
• Neglecting Ecocriticism’s Cultural Impact Critics may argue that Phillips underestimates the cultural and educational impact of ecocriticism in raising environmental awareness through literature. By focusing too heavily on its theoretical flaws, he may overlook the ways in which ecocriticism has successfully influenced public discourse on environmental issues.

Representative Quotations from “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Ecocriticism needs a rationale that will enable it to use the ‘resources’ of literary theory…”	Phillips argues that ecocriticism must engage with literary theory rather than reject it. He suggests that ecocriticism needs to use theoretical frameworks to deepen its analysis of nature in literature.
“Representation is always already inadequate.”	Phillips highlights the limitations of representation, particularly in literature’s attempts to portray nature. He aligns with poststructuralist ideas, suggesting that language cannot fully capture reality.
“Nature is complex; Nature is thoroughly implicated in culture, and culture is thoroughly implicated in nature.”	This quote emphasizes the interconnectedness of nature and culture. Phillips rejects the notion of a pure, untouched nature, arguing that our understanding of nature is shaped by cultural processes.
“Ecocritics often seem impatient with any intellectual activity entailing traffic in abstractions.”	Phillips critiques ecocritics for avoiding theoretical complexity. He believes that ecocriticism should engage with abstract concepts and philosophical ideas to strengthen its intellectual rigor.
“The hyperreal is not just a bad idea or the product of a lapse in taste, but a full-blown cultural condition.”	Drawing from Umberto Eco, Phillips discusses the concept of hyperreality, where simulated or idealized representations of nature replace authentic experiences. This is a critique of how nature is often represented.
“The constructedness of nature is a basic tenet of postmodernism, poststructuralism…”	Phillips explains the postmodern and poststructuralist view that nature is not a fixed reality but is constructed through human culture, language, and ideologies. Ecocriticism often struggles with this idea.
“Ecocritics have a knack for overlooking this irony…”	Phillips points out that ecocritics tend to ignore the irony that the very concept of nature they celebrate is constructed by the same cultural forces they critique.
“Realism is, in fact, a ‘metropolitan’ form…”	Phillips critiques ecocriticism’s reliance on realism, describing it as a form rooted in cultural and urban contexts. He argues that realism cannot provide an authentic representation of nature.
“The ideal of the ecosystem as a model of unity has been supplanted… by the idea of the lowly ‘patch.'”	Here, Phillips refers to contemporary ecological science, which rejects earlier models of ecosystems as unified and stable. He argues that ecocriticism often relies on outdated ecological models in its analysis.
“Ecocriticism may be reactionary after all, albeit in its own way.”	Phillips critiques ecocriticism for its nostalgic longing for a return to a “simpler” understanding of nature, calling this stance reactionary, as it opposes modern theoretical and ecological complexities.

Suggested Readings: “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology” by Dana Phillips

1. Phillips, Dana. “Ecocriticism, Literary Theory, and the Truth of Ecology.” New Literary History, vol. 30, no. 3, 1999, pp. 577–602. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057556. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
2. Markku Lehtimäki. “Natural Environments in Narrative Contexts: Cross-Pollinating Ecocriticism and Narrative Theory.” Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, vol. 5, 2013, pp. 119–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/storyworlds.5.2013.0119. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
3. OPPERMANN, SERPIL. “Ecocriticism’s Theoretical Discontents.” Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 2011, pp. 153–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44029514. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
4. OPPERMANN, SERPIL. “Ecocriticism’s Theoretical Discontents.” Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 2011, pp. 153–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44029514. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.