In his work on ecocriticism “The future of environmental criticism”, Lawrence Buell gave definitions for anthropocentrism ans ecocentrism. To put it in simple terms, the former is focusing on the interests of humans over the interests of the environment, while the latter is the opposite. We have seen that when it comes to environmental texts, there is no clear distinction between the two views, both can be applied to the same text.
When choosing environmental literature as a class, I thought I was choosing a class that would focus on literary ways to increase consciousness on environmental protection. My expectation will surely be met when reading Rachel Carson. Buell’s definitions made me wonder, what do our actions regarding environmental protection say of us? Do they make us more anthropocentric or ecocentric?
All of our actions are different, and I believe we can make a distinction between day to day gestures and worldwide campaigns and meetings. As individuals, when paying attention to our way of life, we directly protect nature, in the most common sense of the word. A concrete example I have in mind is separation of waste in public places. When moving to Eugene, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there are recyclable bins all around the city and – even better – all over campus. This is what I would call an ecocentric gesture. By sorting out recyclables, we try to limit the amount of raw materials we will need to extract in order to produce more goods.
Environmental protection has a more theoretical aspect, which I think lies in political and educational campaigns. I have in mind is the 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference, which – though it wasn’t as successful as hoped – led to a great number of debates ans helped spreading the issue. An example of educational campaign is the documentary Home released in 2009, initiated by the French reporter Yann Arthus-Bertrand and dubbed in English bu Glenn Close, which depicts Man’s impact on planet Earth through aerial footage. Both examples focus on the role we must have in saving our planet if we want to save ourselves, therefore giving theoretical actions a more anthropocentric view.
There is one principle that I consider to be both practical and theoretical, and that is sustainable development. It is both a matter of day to day gestures and a matter of political and economic discussion. The 1987 “Brundtland Report”, quoted by Buell, describes sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. This definitions leads me to thinking that sustainable development is an action that is both anthropocentric and ecocentric. We try to control our impact (anthropocentric) over our environment (ecocentric) to ensure that future generations (anthropocentric) benefit from an identical environment (ecocentric).
Ultimately, there is no choosing between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. Just like an environmental text, our action are at times centered on human interests and at other times on environmental interests.
Links for Home :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014762/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
I found this to be a particularly interesting post, especially your point at the very end about how we can’t choose between either. However, once you mentioned it, it made perfect sense. We are ultimately concerned with both aspects. We want to help the environment, but the reason being is that we want to help future generations. This post has changed my mind completely about how I look at the reason for our “green” programs. Great job!
I watched the film “Hope” you linked to. What a great documentary. For me, the most powerful scenes in the movie were the flybys of both environments seemingly untouched by human presence and those that were scarred by infrastructure. It is a effective way to reconcile our collective impact on our planet. As McKibben said in his 2005 article, climate change is so big it becomes a constant backdrop that’s easy to ignore. I believe the filmmakers here are bridging that gap and offering viewers an important ecocentric critique of humanity. It makes me think that mass media, specifically imagery in photographs and film, is a vital tool to promote changes in everyday habit.
Great post and comments! You make an astute point that there is “no choosing between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism” and you are correct in noting that the two are often in tension. This tension manifests not just in our environmental values and actions, but also in environmental literature. Some of the best environmental literature–like Emerson and Thoreau–is that which doesn’t neatly or easily resolve the tension but instead brings the tension to the fore and asks us as readers to grapple with it.