“Theorizing Ecocriticism: Toward A Postmodern Ecocritical Practice” By Serpil Oppermann: Summary And Critique

The Crisis of Realist Epistemology in Ecocriticism

• Oppermann begins by highlighting a fundamental issue within ecocriticism: its reliance on realism. She critiques this approach, which limits the field’s theoretical depth, stating that “ecocriticism today finds itself struggling with hermeneutical closure” due to its alignment with outdated realist frameworks.
• The realist perspective, according to Oppermann, fails to account for the complexity of language and its central role in literary interpretation. She argues that “no interpretive theory can be conceived of without language occupying its center,” a fact that ecocriticism has underestimated.

Call for a Postmodern Ecocritical Approach

• Oppermann advocates for moving ecocriticism beyond the confines of realism by integrating postmodern theory, which she believes will provide a more dynamic and flexible interpretive framework. She notes that “postmodernism challenges our mimetic assumptions about representation” and can offer a more reconstructive approach to both literature and environmental criticism.
• She critiques the realist-oriented critics for ignoring the “conceptual problems” their perspectives create, stating that “those who promote ‘a realist variety of ecocriticism’…fail to understand that no interpretive theory can be conceived of without language.”

Postmodernism as a Solution

• Oppermann suggests that postmodernism, with its emphasis on multiplicity, connection, and heterogeneity, is well suited for ecocriticism. Postmodernism, in her view, “subverts the very concepts it challenges,” making it a natural partner for an ecocentric perspective that recognizes the interconnectedness of nature and culture.
• She calls for a “reconstructive postmodern theory” that will allow ecocriticism to expand its boundaries and better engage with complex environmental and literary discourses. Oppermann asserts that “ecocriticism needs to be more fully engaged in a dynamic interaction with literary theory” to realize its full potential.

Critique of Referentiality in Ecocriticism

• Oppermann criticizes ecocriticism’s overemphasis on the referential properties of literature, arguing that this approach leads to simplistic interpretations. She refers to this tendency as a “referential fallacy,” wherein critics mistakenly assume that environmental literature provides a direct, transparent representation of nature.
• She draws on postmodern critiques to highlight the limitations of this view, emphasizing that “representations of reality in literature are always already culturally encoded” and that any claim to unmediated access to reality is inherently flawed.

Integrating Textuality and Contextuality

• One of Oppermann’s key proposals is to bridge the gap between textualism and contextualism in ecocriticism, fostering an approach that accounts for both the constructed nature of texts and the real-world environmental issues they address. She writes, “studying environmental literature from a more stimulating perspective of its ‘ecological conception of textuality’ would actually reveal that all texts are ‘complex fabric of signs.’”
• Oppermann advocates for a “dialogic construction of human/nature interactions,” which integrates literary and scientific discourses to offer a more nuanced understanding of environmental texts.

The Role of Language in Shaping Nature

• Oppermann emphasizes the role of language in shaping our understanding of the natural world, asserting that “theories are ways of experiencing the world, conceptual frameworks in terms of which the world is interpreted and made sense of.” She warns that ecocriticism’s neglect of this insight limits its effectiveness in addressing the complexities of environmental representation.
• She argues that postmodernism’s focus on language and representation is crucial for developing an ecocritical theory that recognizes the constructedness of both literature and nature, avoiding the traps of realist and purely referential readings.

Ecocriticism’s Future: Toward a Multiperspectival Approach

• Oppermann concludes by calling for an ecocritical approach that is “polysemic and multivocal,” capable of incorporating conflicting viewpoints and engaging with the dynamic flow of environmental and literary discourses. This approach, she argues, is necessary to address the challenges posed by the global ecological crisis.
• She believes that by adopting a postmodern ecocritical perspective, the field can “offer a multiperspectival approach that probes into the problematic relationship of representation and the natural environment,” thus expanding its theoretical horizons.

1. Contribution to Ecocriticism

• Broadening Ecocriticism’s Theoretical Framework: Oppermann critiques the limitations of realism in ecocriticism, arguing that it confines the field to simplistic interpretations of nature and literature. She advocates for an expansion beyond these limits by integrating postmodernism, which allows for a richer, more complex understanding of texts and their relationship to the environment.
  • “Ecocriticism today finds itself struggling with hermeneutical closure as well as facing an ambivalent openness in its interpretive approach.”
  • “Ecocriticism needs to be more fully engaged in a dynamic interaction with literary theory, not in a derivative sense but to develop its own unique theoretical footing.”
• Introducing a Multiperspectival Approach: Oppermann suggests that ecocriticism can benefit from a “polysemic and multivocal” approach, which opens up new strategies of reading and interpreting environmental literature. By embracing postmodernism, ecocriticism can become more dynamic and less constrained by realist epistemology.
  • “Postmodernism challenges our mimetic assumptions about representation” and fosters a more reconstructive, flexible approach to both nature and literary criticism.

2. Contribution to Postmodernism

• Integrating Postmodernism with Ecocentrism: Oppermann argues that postmodern theory can significantly contribute to ecocriticism by offering new ways to conceptualize nature, representation, and interconnectedness. She notes that postmodernism’s emphasis on “multiplicity, connection, heterogeneity, and rupture” aligns well with ecological principles.
  • “The ideas of postmodernity and those of ecology are complementary halves of a new multidimensional environmental ethics and practice.”
• Critique of Textualism in Postmodernism: While many ecocritics criticize postmodernism for its supposed denial of the “real” world, Oppermann clarifies that postmodernism does not deny reality but instead highlights the complexities of representation. She suggests that postmodernism can offer “new insights about how language shapes our understanding of the nonhuman world” without falling into the trap of extreme relativism.
  • “Postmodernism does not deny the existence of reality, but what it claims is that in the ‘shifting epistemological terrain that comprises the contemporary world,’ reality is already mediated by representation within a set of discourses.”

3. Contribution to Mimetic Theory

• Challenging Mimetic Representations of Nature: Oppermann critiques the traditional mimetic theory, which assumes that literature reflects reality in a straightforward manner. She argues that this assumption is a “referential fallacy” in ecocriticism, where environmental texts are mistakenly believed to provide transparent representations of nature.
  • “Representations of reality in literature are always already culturally encoded, and because they are cognitive constructions, the answer to this question remains a matter of contestation.”
• Promoting a More Complex View of Representation: By integrating postmodernism into ecocriticism, Oppermann advocates for a more nuanced understanding of how texts represent nature. She emphasizes that “the representation of reality is a verbal construct in which meaning is achieved by reference from words to words, not to things,” highlighting the importance of language in shaping our interpretations of the natural world.

4. Contribution to Dialogism (Bakhtinian Dialogic Construction)

• Promoting Dialogic Interactions in Ecocriticism: Oppermann introduces the concept of “dialogic construction” into ecocritical practice, emphasizing the need for a multiplicity of voices and perspectives when analyzing environmental texts. She suggests that a dialogic approach can help bridge the gap between textualist and contextualist interpretations of nature in literature.
  • “A dialogic construction of human/nature interactions would also conjoin literary and scientific discourses.”

5. Contribution to the Theory of Referentiality

• Critique of Referentiality in Ecocriticism: Oppermann highlights the limitations of referential criticism, which assumes that environmental texts can directly refer to or represent the natural world. She argues that this approach oversimplifies the complex relationship between language, meaning, and reality.
  • “This approach disregards the question of how accurately literature can represent the natural environment, or to be more precise, how exactly language refers to reality.”
• Proposing a Postmodern View of Representation: Oppermann advocates for a postmodern ecocritical theory that recognizes the complexities of textual representation. She argues that “there are only competing interpretations to truth claims and no ultimate grounds of explanation for a preexisting reality.”

6. Contribution to Interdisciplinary Literary Theory

• Fusing Literary and Ecological Discourses: Oppermann emphasizes the need for an interdisciplinary approach that combines literary and ecological discourses. She proposes that “ecocriticism can enrich postmodern thought by its more salient worldly and moral footing,” while postmodernism can enhance ecocriticism through its critique of referentiality and meaning-making processes.
  • “The postmodern ecocritical theory fosters not only ecological perceptions of our connection with the natural world, but also contests the dominant ideological discourses behind various representations of nature.”

Overemphasis on Postmodernism

• Some critics might argue that Oppermann’s heavy reliance on postmodernism undermines the tangible, real-world environmental issues that ecocriticism aims to address. By focusing too much on textuality and the constructed nature of meaning, the urgency of ecological crises could be overshadowed.
  • Critics may assert that “postmodernism challenges our mimetic assumptions about representation” but, in doing so, it risks losing sight of the material realities of environmental degradation.

Undermining the Role of Realism

• Oppermann’s dismissal of realist epistemology may be seen as too extreme by some ecocritics. Realism is often considered important for drawing attention to actual environmental issues, and its role in ecocriticism can be valuable for grounding literary analysis in concrete ecological problems.
  • Critics could argue that her critique of realism as “theoretically discredited” fails to recognize its ongoing relevance in literary studies, particularly when representing the natural world in accessible terms.

Lack of Practical Solutions

• While Oppermann advocates for a postmodern ecocritical approach, critics may point out that she does not provide concrete methodologies for applying this framework in practical literary analysis. This can leave scholars uncertain about how to implement her ideas in real-world studies of environmental literature.
  • The theoretical depth of her argument might be seen as abstract, without enough guidance for ecocritics on how to move beyond the “referential fallacy” in their analyses.

Ambiguity in Theoretical Application

• Some critics may find Oppermann’s proposal for a “multiperspectival” and “polysemic” ecocritical approach too ambiguous. While flexibility is valuable, this openness can also result in a lack of clarity and cohesion in critical practices, making it difficult to establish consistent interpretative methods.
  • This approach might be critiqued for fostering “hermeneutical confusion” rather than providing a clear path for ecocritical analysis.

Neglecting Non-Western Perspectives

• Oppermann’s focus on Western postmodern theory could be criticized for neglecting non-Western perspectives and indigenous ways of knowing, which are critical in understanding the relationship between humans and the environment. These perspectives could offer alternative, non-dualist frameworks that complement or challenge her postmodern approach.
  • The absence of these voices could be seen as limiting the scope of her “ecocentric postmodern theory” and failing to fully embrace the diversity of ecological thought worldwide.

Potential Disconnect with Ecological Activism

• Oppermann’s approach may be seen as too focused on theoretical constructs, potentially creating a disconnect between ecocriticism and ecological activism. Critics may argue that by concentrating on language and representation, the field risks becoming isolated from the real-world environmental movements it seeks to support.
  • The critique of “pure textuality” could be seen as distancing ecocriticism from its activist roots, where tangible action and engagement are key.