Welcome to the Rhetoric R1B.003 class blog! Post your informal blog entries here, as well as comments on your classmates' posts. Our goal is to sustain a thoughtful and lively discussion about the issues and problems we begin to broach in class.
This is also a great place to pose questions, to admit uncertainty, and to explore paper topics with the help of your peers and your instructors. We are looking forward to a great semester!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In his introduction to the collective work Uncommon Grounds, William Cronon questioned society’s perception of ‘nature’ and those things that are ‘natural.’ In explaining the premise for the book (a product of an academic seminar at UC Irvine) Cronon stated that he and his colleagues were not hoping to dispel the ideas of environmentalists and their views of true nature, but rather were hoping to strengthen environmentalist arguments with humanity support. “Our goal in writing this book is to contribute to an ongoing dialogue among all who care about the environment. The outcome of that dialogue, we hope, will be a renewed environmentalism...protecting the natural world by helping people live more responsibly in it" (Cronon, 26).
ReplyDeleteCronon and his colleagues approached their goal by observing what he called ‘found objects.’ These objects, newspaper clippings, ads, pictorials, etc. enhanced the discussion of ‘Redefining Nature’ that the professors at UC Irvine were having in October of 1993. Nature left it’s defined realm of forests and lakes and entered into a far more ambiguous territory. I perceived, after reading Cronon’s introduction, that because of social constructions, expectations, and perceptions, our human view of nature is something that is mentally conceived but not necessarily tangible. ‘Nature,’ previously an all-pervading term for most things anti-industrial, is actually more symbolic than it is believed to be. In the end, what is natural is something that is debatable and, ultimately, a matter of personal preference.
At first, it is alarmingly difficult to concede to the idea that urban communities or virtual realities seen in video games could be defined as natural. This simply proves the seminar’s point, that ‘nature’ is part of a social construction. An elementary school-age child can easily draw two pictures, one of something ‘natural’ and one of a more urban scene. This child may have never seen a scene as ‘natural’ as the one they drew (perhaps filled with large pines and fields of flowers) but they know that such a scene is the socially acceptable form of ‘nature.’ Another example of perceived nature can be seen in the recent film Avatar in which a world completely animated by computers, thus traditionally ‘unnatural,’ teaches environmental morals of respecting a mother nature figure.
As time goes on, and as the lines between reality and virtual reality begin to blend more, the question of what is ‘natural’ may be answered more largely by the community as something multi-faceted. As Cronon and his colleagues decided, nature may be a native reality, a virtual reality, a moral imperative, an artifice, a self-conscious cultural construction, or a sellable commodity. It may also be, as I believe we will see in later readings, all of those definitions combined.
(Please note that this information and many of the definitions were gained from reading William Cronon's introduction to Uncommon Grounds. I was not sure how to cite on this blog.)
Jordan: Thanks for providing a very apt summary of the Cronon introduction. I do think we can push back a bit on the "social construction" of nature position that Cronon and his contributors espouse, and perhaps the scientists in the class can put their two cents in here. How do we reconcile this valid idea that our conceptions of nature and the values we ascribe to it are always mediated with the fact that there is a "real" and tangible world "out there" that we can touch and experience?
ReplyDeleteI'm also excited that you bring up the Cameron film, Avatar, and the gendering of nature that seems to occur in the movie. The film is ripe for analysis on many levels, including virtuality, colonization, and ecology.
Alenda: I am actually uncertain of how society will adapt to the idea of nature as something conceptual. I feel that like other progressive ideas (social, scientific, and the like) that it will take several generations for the idea of, say, nature as a virtual reality to sink in and be 'acceptable.' I wonder if, in the future, what is tangible 'nature' may require a different name than what is conceptualized 'nature.'
ReplyDeleteBy the way, because it was my first post, I wasn't sure if a summary was necessary. If you would rather not have it, I will do better in future posts. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of virtuality and simulated reality, Cronon remarks something noteworthy in a few passages starting at page 47. He argues that while natural phenomena, specifically global warming, are, in his own words, "probably real," our knowledge of them are simulated and virtual. He gives a single example as proof for this proposition, which disregards entirely all the other types of evidence for global warming.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how you can argue that global warming is flawed with human virtuality if you disregard one of the most important properties of several pieces of evidence - consistency. The different kinds of evidence for global warming point to the precise same conclusion, and this further implies that the conception of global warming is not virtual, or humanly influenced; it is derived directly from several types of immediate interactions with reality, or nature, if you will. The actual situation of the investigation of global warming bears little resemblence to the idea he gives, even back in 1995. The reason we are quite certain of the existence and of the properties of global warming is precisely that there is a plethora of evidence to back it up - however, Cronon seems to ignore this, and cherry-picks a single example of a piece of evidence with large drawbacks, and infers that this evidence proves that our knowledge of global warming is virtual and constructed.
An objection to this criticism of this particular passage may be that Cronon, in fact, actually claims that global warming probably is real. That is a distraction from the main argument, however; the discussion is about his claim of a simulated understanding of global warming, not about global warming itself. In addition, directly after the first paragraph on global warming, he seems to suggest that global warming has little or no consequences anyway, at least none in our control. However, again, look to scientific evidence, based directly off nature: there is lots of evidence to suggest precisely the contrary, that global warming is in our control, and that it is within our reach to halter the majority of the effects. In short, I think this particular section of our reading was, perhaps not intentionally, deceitful.
Jordan: You don't have to spend too much time summarizing, but neither is that prohibited. Feel free to branch out in new directions.
ReplyDeleteJonah: It's a fair criticism, and I have a feeling that Cronon would certainly not deny the amount of physical evidence for global warming. This is not the last time we will see this tension between "social construction" and "scientific reality" made famous from the "science wars" of the 1990s. I was actually on a panel about climate change and so-called "polar media" in December, and one of the artists on my panel was Kalle Laar, who has an interesting art project about the melting of the world's glaciers: http://www.callingtheglacier.org/Calling_the_Glacier.html. If you get a chance and have the phone plan to support it, try calling his glaciers, though right now there won't be as much of a torrent.
I forgot to mention, regarding Jordan's post, that my brother alerted me to this apparent phenomenon of "Avatar depression" across the nation following the release of Cameron's movie. Apparently, some people find the world of Avatar so compelling that they are experiencing depression over the return to reality: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html.
ReplyDeleteIn William Cronon's introduction of Uncommon Grounds, he addresses the multiple faces of nature—some of which I was familiar with and some of which I was not. The idea of nature as artifice and the idea of nature as virtual reality were particularly stimulating to me. I also feel that nature as artifice and nature as virtual reality are practically the same thing—both are constructed realities and the only real difference that I can see is that nature as virtual reality is completely based on human perceptions of nature while nature as artifice is manipulation of tangible nature. Basically, nature as virtual reality is one step up the rung of human constructed "nature."
ReplyDeleteFirst, on the topic of nature as artifice—I might have known this subconsciously, but I never actually consciously thought about how many of my ideas and images of nature are constructed. Namely, I was reminded of this one scene in the movie The Sound of Music. In one of the scenes in the grassy hillsides/countryside of Austria, the heroine of the movie sings her way through a small grove of trees and a brook—both the grove and the brook are constructed. The crewman placed the trees in an ideal location for the shoot and actually had to dig that brook for the scene. The only reason I know this is because I watched one of those behind-the-scenes special features included in the DVD. This sort of constructed nature would probably affect the view of anyone who watched it, misleading them into thinking that such a place actually exists. Such things like this shape our expectations of what nature should look like and whether or not a place so beautiful exists "naturally"—that is without human manipulation—is left unclear. The differences between constructed nature and "natural" nature are so minute that I become confused about what to believe in since I'm one of those people who think (or at least, thought) that nature is, or should be, outside of human control—left to grow wild.
Second, in the section about nature as virtual reality, Cronon mentions how "many of us no doubt recoil from such a vision" of a virtual future where we are able to obtain immortality by uploading our minds into computers (p. 45). I'm not sure it directly correlates, but I was reminded of this one time where I stumbled across a user on DeviantART who took "photographs" of plants and scenery in… a video game. I'm still not exactly sure why that memory popped up when I was reading that section—maybe it had something to do with the fact that I think the person who took those screencaps would probably enjoy immortality in a computer, but I don't believe that's the complete reason. Either way, it's food for thought.
When reading Cronon’s introduction, I found my thoughts drifting to a variety of related topics, so my post will be a combination of random, yet relevant examples/thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI found a few of the quotes regarding Irvine really striking while reading the introduction: “[I]ts idealized nature reflects underlying assumptions about community and order” (42) and that the city layout reflects the “planner’s impulse to keep everything neatly segregated from everything else” (42). I immediately recalled one of my high school teachers (who had grown up in Irvine) telling us that he had heard that part of the reason why Irvine had a virtually non-existent homeless population was that city officials and/or police officers would hand out one-way bus tickets to homeless individuals in order to get them out of the city. After reading Cronon’s introduction, I started to try to find evidence of this phenomenon. While I didn’t find much about Irvine, I did discover that NYC employs the one-way bus ticket tactic (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper). Personally, I feel that this is just merely a way for the city to compartmentalize, quarantine, and eliminate that which is unpleasant and morally discomforting. Furthermore, I think it reflects the idea that we do not feel that homelessness should be treated as something natural (especially since most of us feel guilty in such situations) and that it does not reflect the ideals of community and order (as Cronon mentioned), so cities search for ways to hide such problems. As Cohen mentions in the NY Times article, this does not at all address the societal problem or cause at all, it merely displaces it.
Another quote I found interesting discussed the “tenuously ambivalent relationship between nature and humanity” (29). This made me wonder why it is rare for humans to consider ourselves as part of nature, which made me think about “The Lion King” and how Mufasa reminds Simba that we are all part of the circle of life. I understand that for many of us, nature implies something untouched by human hands, but at the same time, I cannot help but ponder the fact that we too (not to be cliché) are part of the circle of life…
One more thing: similar to Regina, the idea of nature as virtual reality had me thinking about something seemingly unrelated. I recalled a preview I had seen over the summer for a movie called “The Surrogates” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwTJ7mCcFoY&feature=player_embedded), a movie which I at first felt was an inversion of virtual reality. The surrogate would be existing in the “real” world (not some idealized version of a natural world), thus changing the idea of virtual reality. But, the more I thought about it, I realized that it was still offering a not-so-inverted virtual reality since all (or most) of the individuals who were “out there” were surrogates… thus making it an artificial experience altogether. The ad for surrogates in trailer even says that you can “become anyone you want to be from the comfort and safety of your own home.” The more I thought about it, this was describing *human* nature as virtual reality…
ReplyDeleteCronon's purpose of "Rethinking the human place in nature" gives rise to a number of interesting new possibilities. As he points out early on, the wildfires seem strikingly unnatural, even though they are a completely expected part of the ongoing cycle of growth and death of the forest. Why does something that occurs completely independent of humanity seem somehow unnatural? In fact, there are any number of animal or plant species that look VERY unnatural. In many cases it's easier to create something that would appear natural than to look at a flounder and consider it normal.
ReplyDeleteAs we mentioned Avatar earlier, I feel compelled to point out that the creators needed to invent a number of fictional flora and fauna, but wanted them to seem "natural" to us. most certainly, they did good research, and developed a completely fabricated set of creatures that wouldn't cause you to raise an eyebrow if you saw one in a zoo. The designers had to create new creatures that could be recognized as natural, yet different from any we had ever seen before. So: by looking at what they came out with, and how effective they were, we can gain an understanding of what is perceived as natural. The Leonopteryx (yeah, I looked it up, it's the flying thing) has multiple eyes, but they're still arranged on it's head in a recognizable way. Similarly with the Direhorse, which has horse nostrils, except there are many, and they're on it's neck. They managed to change enough things about the animals that they can be otherworldly, but not enough that they strike us as bizarre or "unnatural". In fact, someone unfamiliar with Earth's zoology wouldn't be able to pick a Direhorse out as something that doesn't belong alongside cows, sheep and oxen.
It seems that the human conception of "nature" is very rooted in some sort of picturesque forest, mountainous or plains setting with peacefully grazing mammals, with a few buzzing insects, trickling water, etc etc. This image of nature seems to be almost universal, at least in our culture. A more interesting question perhaps, is why we've become conditioned to recognize nature as such. An initial thought might be that the image has been reinforced repeatedly in media portrayals of wild or untouched settings, but I hope we discover in this class that there is more to it than that.