ASLE Connect

Science Studies and Ecocriticism Seminar

I've just been a spectator at most of the seminar led by Stacy Alaimo, and it was great. This isn't a form of session I've seen at conferences before. In procedure it was like a student seminar. Participants had read each other's papers in advance, so that each person was only required to give a short introduction and summary, after which there was discussion. Papers were discussed in clusters, three at a time. What was so good was the uninhibited, informal but always energetically enquiring nature of the discussion: a real conversation, in short. It felt as if people were really being helped to develop their ideas, and real sharing was going on. The interruptions, digressions, anecdotes, grumbles, jokes and tentative workings out of new ideas were all part of a shared creative process. So much more - a much greater range of tone - seemed to be possible than in the question from the floor, answer from the stage format, good though that can be. I suppose the one drawback is that you have a less public conversation, but still, I hope we're going to have more of these in future.

Richard Kerridge

Thursday night, part 1

Canadian poet Di Brandt and Fred Chappell, Poet Laureate of North Carolina from 1997 to 2002, were the speakers.

Thursday night Q&A

Di Brandt and Fred Chappell take questions from the audience.

opening plenary w/ Bill McKibben

photos by Mark Olencki

What a stud!

Everything's Cool

This afternoon I attended the viewing of a new, not yet released global warming documentary film called Everything's Cool. The general premise of the film was to highlight how the media and government are twisting, burying, and flat-out denying the existence of the global warming phenomenon and what other activists are doing to push forward through the fog of...well, flat-out lies.

The film featured a wide variety of people adopting different ideas and approaches when it comes to combating money hungry corporate America in the fight for planet Earth: writers, former government employees, entrepreneurs, scientists and even a few garage-chemists. ASLE's own Bill McKibben played a major role in the film as he demonstrated the ways in which he promoted global warming activism within his own community. So much so, that he managed to convince (in writing) his state representatives to pledge to fight for the cause. Also featured was writer/journalist Ross Gelbspan who spoke on his reservations of the global warming movement. "It's a curse to know this stuff and to even say 'why bother?'," said Gelbspan after being continually let down by the government despite his hard work. This raised an inconclusive question for me. I have often been frustrated into asking myself "why bother?" But it is, of course, important to try to avoid these feelings of despair. Optimism is the reason why people act.

Aside from the typical (but necessary) environmental activism, two young essayists and authors of The Death of Environmentalism, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, argue that environmentalists are the core reason for most of the conflicts between the government and mother earth today. According to their theory, images of lonely, stranded polar bears and falling glaciers just aren't enough to spur people into taking action. It is, on the other hand, more important to highlight the lives of the individual-- their personal needs and comforts. Only then can we convince the "average" American that creating an eco-friendly community will put money in our pocket. And although the duo did come off a bit "smarmy," as one of the film-goers described, they do bring up a very intriguing idea.

I don't want to spoil the movie for everyone so I'll leave it with that. Host of the film viewing, Paula Whilloquet-Maricondi, Marist College, will air the film again tomorrow, Friday night at 9pm. She will introduce the film and lead a follow-up discussion. I recommend checking it out, as the movie is not yet available for retail (they're awaiting the right publisher for the job). I'm really glad to have had the opportunity to participate in an extremely thoughtful and enlightening discussion on global warming and what it's going to take to eliminate THE MOST important world issue to date.

-Hannah Ranck

Relative poverty

I enjoyed Cecilia Tichi's talk and felt powerfully challenged by it (unfortunately it seems that something went wrong with the podcast and it won't be available). What are the ecocritical angles on this? I suppose the assumption that seemed to be there for Cecilia and the questioners, that it was no use in the present political culture to advocate more powerful trade unions (or any trade unions), or any kind of social-democratic solutions, was grimly accurate. We are left with such questions as how to talk to corporations and businesses without our concerns simply being dismissed.

Do we, as environmentalists, accept the notion of relative poverty as compared to absolute poverty? There has been some debate about this in Britain recently. For many reasons we should, but in environmental terms relative poverty is a dangerous idea, because it implies that aspiration - and social justice, on one model - demands an endless ratcheting up, an endless raising of the affluence threshold, and therefore endless economic growth on the capitalist model. Can we find an alternative to this that is genuinely an idea of social justice but environmentalist? Can we propose alternative aspirations that have genuine potential to make a difference to the working conditions Cecilia was describing?

It was good to have this question put to us.

Richard Kerridge

Wednesday evening panel, part 2

Wednesday evening panel, part 1

Home Ground: A Literary and Scientific Collaboration.

Thursday Panel, Part 2

Thursday Panel, Part 1

Orion Magazine Panel On The New, New Environmental Writing