“Marxism and Ecocriticism” by Lance Newman: Summary and Critique

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

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference in the Article
Ecocriticism	A literary and cultural approach that examines the relationship between literature and the environment, often advocating for environmental awareness and political activism.	Newman describes ecocriticism as a movement that aims to address the “increasingly severe environmental crisis” through literature and scholarly activism.
Marxism	A theoretical framework developed by Karl Marx, focusing on the material conditions of society, class struggle, and the effects of capitalism on human relations and the environment.	Newman emphasizes the need for a Marxist materialist analysis to understand the environmental crisis as rooted in capitalist exploitation.
Materialism	The belief that material conditions, including economic structures, determine social relations and ideas. In contrast to idealism, which focuses on ideas as primary drivers of change.	Newman critiques ecocriticism for being too idealist and stresses the importance of “a materialist approach to understanding human relations with nature”.
Ideology	A system of beliefs, values, and ideas that shape the worldview of individuals and societies, often serving the interests of dominant social groups.	Newman critiques “anthropocentric” ideologies that justify the exploitation of nature under capitalism, showing how ideological shifts are driven by material conditions.
Idealism	A philosophical perspective that emphasizes the role of ideas and consciousness in shaping reality, often criticized for neglecting material factors.	Newman critiques ecocriticism’s idealism, noting its focus on “changing minds” without sufficiently addressing the underlying material conditions driving environmental degradation.
Cultural Materialism	A critical approach that examines literature and culture within the context of material conditions, including economic and social structures.	Drawing on Raymond Williams’ cultural materialism, Newman advocates for analyzing the “material history of human labor in nature” in ecocriticism.
Ecocentric Consciousness	A worldview that places intrinsic value on all living things and ecosystems, recognizing the interconnectedness of humans and nature.	Newman discusses the goal of fostering “ecocentric consciousness” through literature and education, to challenge anthropocentric views and capitalist exploitation.
Anthropocentrism	The belief that human beings are the central or most important entities in the universe, often leading to the exploitation of nature.	Newman critiques the “anthropocentric” attitudes that underlie environmental exploitation and links them to capitalist ideologies.
Scholar-Activism	The idea that scholars, especially in the field of ecocriticism, should engage in activism and work beyond the confines of academia to effect social and environmental change.	Newman highlights the tension within ecocriticism between scholarship and activism, referring to “scholar-activists” who work to change both intellectual and practical relationships with nature.
Red-Green Synthesis	The combination of Marxist (red) and ecological (green) perspectives to address both social and environmental injustices.	Newman advocates for a “red-green synthesis”, emphasizing the need to integrate Marxist materialism with ecological insights in literary and cultural analysis.

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

Literary Work	Critique through “Marxism and Ecocriticism”	Key Concepts from Newman
Henry David Thoreau’s Walden	Thoreau’s Walden is often viewed as a key text in ecocriticism due to its deep engagement with nature. Through Newman’s lens, however, Walden can also be critiqued for its idealist and individualist approach to environmental issues. While Thoreau advocates for a return to nature, Newman would argue that the work lacks a critique of the material social conditions that led to environmental degradation in the first place. Thoreau’s withdrawal into nature reflects a critique of industrial capitalism, but it is insufficient as it overlooks the need for systemic change in society’s relationship with nature.	Newman critiques idealist tendencies in ecocriticism, emphasizing the need to address the material conditions underlying environmental degradation. He writes that “ecocriticism must recover the full materiality of the capitalist social order” in order to enact true change.
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring	Silent Spring is a foundational environmental text that exposes the dangers of pesticide use and its impact on ecosystems. While Carson critiques industrial practices, a Marxist ecocritical reading through Newman would further examine how capitalist production pressures, driven by the profit motive, necessitate environmental destruction. Carson’s critique could be expanded by applying Newman’s focus on how the capitalist mode of production not only endangers ecosystems but also reinforces class and social inequalities. The environmental harm Carson documents is not just an ethical failure but a systemic consequence of capitalism’s demand for growth.	Newman argues that “deforestation and pollution are symptoms of a society in which our ethical priorities have been disordered by a culture of materialism”, and Carson’s work illustrates this within the context of industrial agriculture. He would push for a critique that connects these practices to capitalist exploitation.
John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath	Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath provides a powerful critique of the exploitation of labor during the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Through Newman’s Marxist ecocritical lens, the novel can be seen as highlighting the interconnectedness of social and environmental crises under capitalism. The environmental degradation of the Dust Bowl, exacerbated by unsustainable farming practices, is closely tied to the exploitation of the migrant labor force. Newman would emphasize how the ecological disaster and the suffering of the working class are both products of capitalist agricultural practices designed to maximize profit at the expense of human and environmental health.	Newman’s “red-green synthesis” would highlight how capitalist systems of exploitation harm both workers and the environment, as seen in Steinbeck’s depiction of industrial farming and its consequences for both land and people.
Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek	Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is celebrated for its meditative and descriptive exploration of nature. However, through Newman’s critique, Dillard’s work might be seen as lacking an awareness of the social and economic structures that shape human interactions with nature. While Dillard’s focus on personal observation and ecological reflection is valuable, Newman would argue that the book remains idealistic by failing to engage with the broader material conditions driving ecological degradation. A Marxist ecocritical reading would push the analysis beyond personal engagement with nature to include a critique of the capitalist forces that shape and destroy the natural world.	Newman critiques works that focus solely on individual awareness and idealism without engaging with the material realities of capitalist exploitation. He writes that “most ecocritics set themselves the task of changing our minds” but stresses the need for a deeper engagement with the “capitalist social order.”

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

Quotation	Explanation
“Ecocriticism must recover the full materiality of the capitalist social order—not only in its account of nature writing, but also in its account of itself as a force for social change.”	Newman emphasizes the need for ecocriticism to address the material realities of capitalism, arguing that environmental degradation cannot be understood without acknowledging the economic and social structures that drive it. This quote encapsulates his call for integrating Marxist materialism into ecocriticism.
“Ideas, like forests, are not static things, they are dynamic processes responsive to a wide range of determinants.”	This quote highlights Newman’s critique of idealist approaches within ecocriticism. He argues that ideas about nature and society evolve in response to material conditions, much like ecosystems evolve, challenging the view that changing ideas alone can resolve environmental issues.
“Most ecocritics set themselves the task of changing our minds, of convincing us to think in ways that will, in turn, change how we behave.”	Newman critiques the dominant approach in ecocriticism, which focuses on altering individual consciousness and values rather than addressing systemic and material changes. He argues that this approach is insufficient for tackling the root causes of ecological crises.
“The conquest of nature … will always include the conquest, the domination or the exploitation of some men by others.”	This quote reflects Newman’s Marxist view that environmental exploitation is inextricably linked to social exploitation. He argues that capitalism’s domination of nature is paralleled by the domination of people, particularly through class-based systems of inequality.
“Ecocriticism is not ecological enough.”	Newman uses this succinct phrase to critique the limitations of ecocriticism, suggesting that it focuses too much on ideas and ideals without addressing the ecological and social realities shaped by capitalism. He calls for a deeper, more materially grounded analysis.
“We need to explain why the habits of thought and action that we deplore became and remain dominant within this specific ecosocial order.”	Newman calls for an investigation into how destructive ideas about nature—such as anthropocentrism—have come to dominate. He argues that these ideas are not isolated but are the products of capitalist social systems that must be understood and critiqued in that context.
“Marxism, like ecocriticism, is, or should be, thinking in service to a politics of world emancipation.”	Here, Newman links the goals of Marxism and ecocriticism, asserting that both should serve the broader goal of social and environmental justice. This quote highlights his vision of a “red-green synthesis” where Marxism and ecological thought work together toward global emancipation.
“Most environmentalists assume that deforestation and pollution are symptoms of a society in which our ethical priorities have been disordered by a culture of materialism.”	Newman critiques this common view in environmentalism, suggesting that such an interpretation focuses too narrowly on ethics and fails to address the broader capitalist systems that perpetuate environmental destruction. He advocates for a more systemic analysis.
“Anthropocentric narratives of the triumph of human reason over nature serve above all to obscure that we live in a specifically capitalist society.”	Newman critiques the anthropocentric view that places humans above nature, arguing that it serves to mask the real issue: the capitalist system that prioritizes profit over ecological balance. This quote emphasizes his rejection of purely ideological explanations for environmental harm.
“Nature writing is not a stable form of reaction to a stable problem; it is a dynamic tradition of response to the rise and development of the capitalist ecosocial order.”	This quote encapsulates Newman’s argument that nature writing evolves in response to changing material conditions, particularly under capitalism. He challenges the idea that nature writing is a static genre and encourages a more historically informed critique of these texts.

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.