環保理論無用論（英文）

當代文化界產生一門稱為環保批評（Ecocriticism）的新興學派，本學派引用當代文化理論來分析環保議題，並提出人與自然的重新思考。本文持相反看法，認為環保是政治（politics）議題，而非道德或學術問題，評論當代文化理論在環保議題中的無力與無用。

The Dawning of Ecocriticism and The Impasse of Theories

Contemporary literary studies have been unaware and, to some extent, blind to the environmental concerns. As Cheryll Glotfelty states, “literary studies have apparently remained untinted by environmental concerns” (xvi). [1] Related humanities disciplines have not been “greening” until the 1970s. Early collaborative works of literary studies only took place in the mid-eighties, and grew in the early nineties. It is only until the year 1993, when the formerly scattering scholars came to an alliance of interest group, that literary ecological studies had emerged as a recognizable critical school.

Ever since the 1970s, the status of ecocriticism as a branch of literary studies in Departments of English has been established. Scholars started to rethink the long-ignored relationship between human beings and nature. Theories of anthropology, psychology, philosophy are applied to reexamine the values, meanings, and traditions of human beings held toward nature. Not only this, ecocriticists initiated a pervasive inspection and reevaluation of literary canons, intending to wake up the slumbered tradition of human-nature harmony implied in literature, or to scrutinize the mistaken human-nature relationship.

As we may also aware of the significance of the 1970s, the timing of the emergence of ecocriticism coincided with the rise of modern literary theories: the 1970s is also the prime time of so-called post-structuralism in a broad sense. As “ecocritical scholarship [becomes] ever more interdisciplinary, multicultural, and international” (xxv), in Glotfelty’s words, appliance of post-structuralist theories into the field of environmental writing has become a trend indispensable to ecocriticism.

The alliance, or application, of theories is so obvious that readers may know the trend from the title. Basically, virtually all the modern theories have been reassembled into new theoretical terms starting with a prefix eco-: feminist theories are integrated into “ecofeminism,” Marxism into “eco-Marxism,” social theories into “Social Ecology.” [2] Major philosophers or theorists also dominate the discourse of ecocriticism. Michel Foucault still takes up an important role in the analysis of exercise of power onto the environment; Edward Said provides the basis required for analysis of the social and cultural construction of the environment, while Mikhail Bakhtin, Martin Heidegger, and Jacque Lacan all take up conspicuous positions in accordance with their overwhelming influence in modern literary theories.

Sueellen Campbell’s comparative study of deep ecology and post-structuralism implies the explicit and firm intertextuality (yet most of the time, deep ecology adopts theories of post-structuralism) between the two. Campbell ’s argument that there are differences and similarities between the two ends up confirming the similarities: both are “revolutionary” and “largely polemical in overturning old hierarchies.” Both take reading and meaning as “situated” and “constructed”; and both suffer from “experience of lost unity” and claim to seek for “new ways” to “understand our place in the world.” [3]

The affiliation of poststructuralist theories in ecocriticism demonstrates an unavoidable tendency in the establishment of theoretical schools at the early stage. In order to increase the sophistication and complexity of theories, it is not unnatural for new theories to seek for well-established resources for enhancement. The emergence of ecocriticism is no exception.

The application of post-structuralist theories by ecocriticism also reflects the tendency to the invention of tradition at its early stage. Whether out of a gesture to highlight its heritage of theories, or simply to make believe the legitimacy to exist and prosper as a theoretical school, the invention of tradition seems also an indispensable part for the establishment of theories at its embryological stage.

The first step of the invention is to set up a monument that represents the grand beginning of the theory. In ecocriticism, the founding of monument begins with Rachel: “It is generally agreed that modern environmentalism begins with ‘A Fable for Tomorrow,’ in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962)” [4] The monument of the theory marks not only the initial of its development, but also the grand legitimacy of itself. Fabulous glamour and emphasized significance would also be bestowed upon the monument.

The next step is to retrace the heritage to a longer tradition. The reexamination of the pastoral tradition back to Shakespeare’s time in English literature proves the ambition to extend the tradition to a grander history. [5]

The growth of ecocriticism from the embryological stage to well-establishment is not a long process. The fact that ecocriticism attracts profound and pervasive response not only in the US but also in academic fields around the world exemplifies that this relatively new theory does carry upon itself some charm and potential and even promise far exceeding previous theoretical schools. The purpose of ecocriticism does not simply aim at academic disputes in conference, nor intending to provide endless epistemological debates. The mission upon ecocriticism should be clear and simple: to convey the awareness of the environmental identity of modern human beings, and to sparkle the ambition to put theories into actions. For this reason alone, there should always be some awareness and sense of danger in the application of theories into ecocriticism: theories are to be acted upon, not to the consumed in academic ivory towers.

For this point, I argue that theories of ecocriticism are to be understood by all people, to be acted by all people, and to be applied by all people in everyday life. The integration of difficult theories may enhance the profoundness of theories; however, it would be futile to do so to promote any public awareness of our earth on the brink of destruction.

Too much immersion in theories would hardly do any good for the promotion of the awareness of environmental conservation, nor would be slow down the emission of carbon dioxide or the destruction of ozone layer. For this reason, too much immersion into theories would only prove the impasse of theories.

I do not imply that education of ecocriticism is not important, or the profound discussion of any of those theories is useless. Quite the opposite, I do highly evaluate the value of ecocritical education. Without education, there is nothing we can achieve to save the already endangered world. However, the education of ecocriticism should never confine itself with complicated philosophical terms or puzzled arguments that no one except professors will understand. Too much delicacy in theories, I am afraid, would only decrease the probability of implementation of theories.

After all, most issues of environmental concerns are political and it takes education and action to prevent us from heading toward the point of no return, not seminars after seminars of complicated literary studies. After all, theories of ecocriticism are for implementation, not for academic consumption.

[1] Cheryll Glotfelty. “Introduction.” The Ecocriticism Reader.

[2] Greg Garrard. “Positions.” Ecocriticism.

[3] Sueellen Campbell. “The Land and Language of Desire: Where Deep Ecology and Post-Structuralism Meet.”

[4] Greg Garrad. “Beginnings: Pollution.” Ecocriticism.

[5] Terry Gifford. “Pastoral, Anti-Pastoral, Post-Pastoral”