![]() ![]() The abstract way in which modern culture relates to nature-evident even in the language we use to talk about it, in distant terms like ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ and ‘Anthropocene’ itself-is both a result of anthropocentric thinking and the reason for the Anthropocene problem in the first place. 5 But really, it was always a communications issue, in that relationship with the land is culturally shaped, through language, history, and belief systems-and science comes second, as a component of one particular cultural frame and as a way of measuring the consequences of that frame. David Schindler has touched on this point, saying that the ecological crisis is no longer a scientific issue it is now a communications issue. For it is obvious that a particular culture has led to the destruction, and this culture is not universal, and it did not exist throughout time. 4 However, what the academic discourse has yet to fully grasp-and a misunderstanding now shared by the public-is the extent to which the problem is cultural. 3 Over the past few years, there has been a flurry of discourse in many academic fields on the Anthropocene: the concept ‘has been institutionalized in a short period of time: networks have been formed, conferences organized, websites established, research programs elaborated and journals launched’ to discuss it, and the concept has now passed into the general cultural sphere as well, through art, film, and museum exhibitions. The term was first proposed by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000, 2 and affirmed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy in the journal Science in early 2016. The planet has now entered the so-called Anthropocene geological epoch, in which the earth’s very processes have been altered by humans. 5 Personal communication, March 23, 2017.ĢSince that conference in 2007, it is clear that modern relationship with the land has not been righted, even though more has been written about it, including by a host of academics in Alberta and globally, ecological destruction has only intensified.4 Ralph Lidskog and Claire Waterton, ‘The Anthropocene: A narrative in the making’, in Environment an (.).Waters et al., ‘The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the H (.) Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, ‘The Anthropocene’, IGBP Global Change Newsletter, 41 (2000), (.) We would not simply write about the abuse of a family member, so why would we do this when we witness abuse of the land? Rather, ‘righting’ surely means aiming for a ‘right relationship’ with nature, to use the Quaker John Woolman’s term, 1 and any right relationship involves deep connection, active protection, respect, reciprocity, and care anything less is dysfunction. ‘Writing’ is not automatically the same as ‘righting’. But on the other hand, I can’t help but think the statement reveals the depth of the problem-and that is modern culture’s abstract relationship with nature. On one hand, of course he had a point: the job of writers is indeed to write, and this is a powerful act. I have mulled over this reply many times since then. Rudy Wiebe, who was one of the keynote speakers, replied, ‘the role of the writer is not to directly act it is to write about it’. ![]() ![]() But at one point, I expressed my frustration at the lack of direct action against the destruction. At this time, there was still little open discussion of this problem, or even acknowledgement that there was a problem, and it felt like a relief to talk about it. 1 Quaker Earthcare Witness, Living in Right Relationship (n.d.), (.)ġIn 2007, the Writers’ Guild of Alberta’s annual conference, held in Grande Prairie, was themed ‘Writing/Righting the Land’, and it focused on the ecological destruction caused by Alberta’s oilsands. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |