Author Archives: smccomas@uoregon.edu

Literature and Environmental Justice

Posted on by
1

I have found our recent class discussions about pesticides to be very intriguing and applicable to present environmental issues.  First, I was intrigued by the scientific, yet understandable writings of Rachael Carson in Silent Spring. I am also enjoying the fiction novel, Under the Feet of Jesus, by Viramontes.  I feel as thought the two complement each other well.  Silent Spring presents the factual results and consequences of careless pesticide use, while Under the Feet of Jesus portrays the emotional and more easily relatable aspects of such pesticide use.

I found the use of the familiar to evoke feelings of concern in both texts fascinating.  In the first chapter of Silent Spring, entitled “A Fable for Tomorrow”, Carson utilizes the familiar idea of fruitful life in spring and turns it into an apocalyptic vision of a miserable world.  She accomplishes this through vivid imagery such as seen in the use of, “browned and withered vegetation” (3) as well as, “The few birds seen anywhere were moribund; they trembled violently and could not fly.” (2).  She also employs a lack of auditory imagery, for example she states, “no bees droned” (2) and  “It was a spring without voices.” (2).  Both of these effects evoke feelings of sadness and revulsion when spring should be considered a time of happiness and renewal.  These results are then related to the actions of the people themselves (i.e. using pesticides carelessly).   She explains that all these incidences actually happened in real places and could potentially increase in commonality. This is supposed to have a shocking effect intended to awaken the reader to the seriousness of the problem.

Continue reading →

Darwin’s Creation Story

Posted on by
1

I have always assumed On the Origin of Species to be a purely scientific book.  I had never considered what literary tools might be at work in complex manners within the text.  However, after our discussion in class, I now realize that metaphor is a major literary device used within the text to simplify and intensify the ideas presented.

The metaphors Darwin uses help to put his complex ideas into more relatable terms and ideas.  This was clever and useful of him as he published On the Origin of Species because it was published for the general public, not specifically for other scientists.  Perhaps these metaphorical aids were part of the reason that it was and is still so popular?  Some of the major metaphors that Darwin uses are the metaphors of the tree, of war/struggle, and of an entangled bank or web.  Most of these metaphors seem to have persisted through the years and are familiar to us today.  Many people have seen pictures of the branching tree of species that Darwin describes and many of us have heard the term “struggle for existence”.  The problem is that many people have not read On the Origin of Species.  This is a problem because while they hear the general ideas from other people, they interpret the broad ideas in ways that Darwin did not intend.  This is most likely because of the lack of information they receive from others compared to if they would read Darwin’s ideas straight from the text (which is much more in detail then what they are exposed to). If people read On the Origin of Species, they would have much more of a firm comprehension of Darwin’s ideas of evolution and the ecosystem, than if they simply saw a diagram of a tree in the manner he described.  This is not only because of the great detail Darwin uses in describing the metaphors, but also the text sparks ideas and feelings through the use of intense language.

Continue reading →

The Green Imaginaries Lecture

Posted on by
Reply

The lecture “Green Imaginaries: Biosemiotics, History, Memory and the Future”, led by Dr. Wheeler, discussed biosemiotics and how it affects life.  Biosemiotics strives to find meaning and purpose in the environment and life.  During the lecture, Dr. Wheeler attempted to explain biosemiotics, how it affects our life, and how and where it is found in life.

One of the points in the lecture that I found to be most interesting was when Dr. Wheeler talked about the biosemiotic theory of life.  She outlined three parts to it.  The first was that nature learns/evolves, culture forms meanings and has a history that feeds the present and the future, and nature and culture are both deep within us.  The second point was that we are semiotically made.  The third point was that life has a biosemiotic history.  Continue reading →

Response to Jodi Adamson Lecture

Posted on by
1

When I attended the Joni Adamson,”Rethinking the Commons” lecture, she discussed many topics.  Some of them were more in depth than others and some were very confusing.  Due to this variety of topics, I have chosen to write this blog about one topic that I felt most familiar and interested by.  The topic I chose was the issue of “who has access to the global commons”.   The specific example that she gave was that the Amazon forest is considered a “global common”.  She mentioned how many people in Northern America view the Amazon rainforest as the “lungs” of the planet.  While the people in Northern America and other more industrially developed countries are rather passionate about the conservation of the rainforest, this often pits them against the native people who reside in the Amazon.

Continue reading →

Nature, God, or Spirit?

Posted on by
2

One of the topics that I found to be most intriguing from our class discussions were our talks about Emerson’s, Nature, piece.  However, I found his spiritual associations with nature a bit confusing.  The “transparent eyeball” piece we analyzed in class addresses this aspect of his perceptions, as do some other areas of the text.

We learned that Nature has come to be thought of as the “manifesto” of transcendentalism.  We also learned that reason versus understanding and finding divinity in nature are interests of transcendentalists too.  To myself, these ideas seem conflicting. Emerson writes, “In the woods, we return to reason and faith.” (29). This seems very foreign.  Reason and faith are very different ways of thinking.  I have always viewed faith as believing in something without needing reasoning, while reason seems like something involving little faith and mostly facts.  So the juxtaposition of the two feels shocking and contradictory. Emerson abandoned his life of organized religion, so I wonder to what kind of faith is he referring?  Especially, since later in the essay he writes that “religion and ethics” have an, “analogous effect with all lower culture, in degrading nature…” (48).  Although Emerson references and makes many comparisons of nature with religious topics, I am led to believe that perhaps he is not directly referencing a religious faith, but rather faith in oneself, or perhaps something else?

Continue reading →

Is Coexistence Possible

Posted on by
2

In a society where the exchange of information and goods are so easily transacted, it is not difficult to see how many people can be affected by the beliefs and choices of others.   Many people do not know where their food or other “necessity” products come from, however, through commercialism and the “keeping up with the Jones’” attitude, we know that we must consume them.  Whether it be a belief system or physical product, there are many people who will blindly believe what they are told, without much investigation into where it comes from, or its possible validity.  I, myself, fall victim to this mindset sometimes too.  In a society so out of touch with reality, how can it recognize the actual dire circumstances of the ecosystem it is a part of?

Continue reading →