While it's impressive in terms of the scope that she covers within the five pages, such as 20th century human advocacy despite her later countering with humanity's lower levels of activism and higher levels of "violence, greed, waste, contentiousness, cynicism, and a sense of futility," it falls to the matter of "making connections across borders," or finding common ground.
In other words, while this essay is riddled with a variety of excellent word choice, I think that with all of the examples of human's conflicts is distracting from the essay's main message that "Earth is screwed because humans literally can't get along with any cause." This is especially referring to the political spectrum such as money vs. environmentally friendly.
My question comes from this quote:
"The future of the environmental essay lies in making new connections and feeling our way beyond the constraints of the polarized arguments (nature versus culture, science versus religion, aesthetics versus politics, jobs versus owls, them against us) that plague our public life."
The human environment has a stubborn mentality about thinking that we, ourselves, are always, mostly correct across multiple topics.
Out of the debates listed here in this quote, what controversial topic is the most threatening plague to the environment when considering human, animal and plant life? (Nature, culture, science versus religion, aesthetics, politics, etc.)
This article by Alison Hawthorne Deming was, in fact, a lot to take in a mere five pages. While this is true and "distracting", her overall theme was still echoed to the reader, like you, who concluded the "Earth is screwed because humans literally can't get along with any cause" message. So, I do not believe it was a complete distraction from her reasoning, but I do realize the potential for a murky cloudiness.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I see Hawthorne Deming as a writer who writes, not for the majority, but for her circle or field of study/concern. More of the academic types will follow along and debate as to whether she represents a truth or her truth. This detracts her article from those in the silent or passive majority that want to learn and aid but are unsure how.
Lastly, what a question to sneak in at the end! This is turbulent and has probability to be riddled with a fury of a thousand sandstorms. But, we shouldn't fear the inevitable, so here is a (generative) opinion: the most threatening plague to the environment when considering organism life is nature vs. culture because is a base claim that involves others (like science vs. religion or politics vs. aesthetics). Whereas "them vs. us" seems like a simple escape route (because it is), the pinning of nature vs. culture is both more forewarning and forbidding to Earthlings as we know it presently. The main concept behind this battle is not complex: we must understand that nature is our culture and culture is our nature. This is nearly what Hawthorne Deming was reaching for with much more grandiose diction. Our nature can be our literal William Turners and Claude Monets, yes, but it can also be our mental and social spaces. Do you agree with these assertions? Is it always them vs. us in come manner? Why do these topics have to be "controversial"? How can we take steps do allow a mass populace understand the environment is still worth it?
Yours critically,
PanLibDem