This week's article was written by Paul Kingsnorth, who brought up the intriguing idea that if "we can imagine how a character feels, why can't we imagine how the land feels?" He moreover questions what our writing would look like if I we took this notion seriously; in particular, what our
fiction would look like. With this claim, a particular quote that stuck out to me was the idea "that the world is a machine is one story; that the world is alive and aware
is another. The results of it – climate change, mass extinction, factory farming – should be
enough to make us wonder if this story is badly constructed, badly told, or just plain wrong."
Do you think that if we, as fiction writers and humans living in an animate world, told the story of our animate world and the lands we tread, that the perception on climate change, mass extinction, factory farming, and other global-political issues would enlighten the world, or do you think it would only cause less involvement surrounding the topic? In other words, do you think we would be more willing to enlighten ourselves of these problems if we could envision the land with feelings? In fact, what do you think about the notion the the land we tread on can feel? Do you think that we as humans would take it less for granted if we thought that way? Or, if we don't think of the land as living, why, and how would you write about the same global-political issues if not?
My first instinct to these questions would be yes: by giving the earth thoughts and emotions, it's harder to imagine hurting it. Isn't that one of the reasons why people choose to be vegetarian (the ethical/moral decision not to consume something that experiences pain because of our choice to consume it?)? By imagining that the damage done to the earth is not only damaging to humans, but is actually causing real pain to a conscious being might compel people to reimagine the way we approach the political issues surrounding environmentalism.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I've been thinking a lot about what we talked about in class a few weeks ago: the question if giving nonhuman animals and objects human emotions is a good thing or a bad thing. Are we harming our cause by humanizing the earth (imagining it as something closer to human than not human?)? By associating the earth with consciousness, aren't we still putting the focus on humans, supporting this idea that we only care about things that are similar/beneficial/ or are in relation to ourselves?
I suppose then, that I definitely support that rethinking the way we portray the earth can (and will be) helpful cultivating our relationship with the environment. But how do we characterize the earth without humanizing it? What might be ways/craft techniques in representing the earth that doesn't put the focus on human beings?