Garrard’s Ecocriticism

In Ecocriticism, Greg Garrard proposes a comprehensive vision of the relationship between nature, culture, and literature. Using an ecocritical framework, he argues for the study of the physical environment from a literary perspective which takes into account the interdisciplinary nature of the field of ecocriticism and its diverse applications. The nature-culture dialogical approach that Garrard adopts in his book gives him the proper foundation to argue for the integration and the cause-effect relationship between these elements, and to investigate major tropes related to ecocriticism, such as pollution, wilderness, apocalypse, dwelling, etc. Garrard calls for a serious consideration of the effect that nature has on culture and vise versa as he writes, “ecocriticism is essentially the demarcation between nature and culture, its construction and reconstruction” (179). Rather than dealing with nature and culture as two extremes of the dichotomy and disregarding the effects of their encounter, Garrard urges us to investigate “the shifting, pragmatic sense of the relationship of culture and nature” (179). This is not to limit the exploration of nature and culture, but to suggest that within a globalised frame, nature and culture can be explored in relation to other genres and fields.

Garrard’s ecocritical approach goes beyond the physical “place” used in literary theory, which refers to the social implications of a certain setting (society/ culture/ community), to include the entire ecosystem. He addresses the domino effect that each entity has on the other in this complex system. In other words, humans are not only affected by the ecosystem, but also affect the ecosystem. In a sense, ecocriticism functions as a mediator between humans and non-humans, and negotiates the interaction between materialism and “reality” on the one hand, and aestheticism and literature on the other hand. Applying the ecocritical tropes to our interpretation of a novel or a literary text expands our understanding and enhances our appreciation of the literary text since these tropes are “assumed to take part in wider social struggles between genders, classes, and ethnic groups” (8).




According to Garrard, ecocriticism does not only resist a human-centered philosophy and the logic of domination, but also rejects the fixed entities and categories; everything is socially constructed and liable to development and change (9). For example, being aware of the historical development of the ecocritical metaphor, the pastoral, enhances one’s interpretation of Wordsworth’s poetry. Wordsworth’s enthusiasm for nature goes beyond the appreciation of nature as a physical entity to the “relationship of the non-human nature to the human mind” (43). This encounter between the non-human and human/ nature and culture suggests multiple venues for us as readers to explore. Garrard addresses a variety of topics and concepts, from ecofeminism and its rejection to the “androcentric dualism man/woman” and the “logic of domination” (23) to the differences between American and British readings of pastoral and their ecocritical connections. Garrard believes that the main challenge that faces ecocriticism is its engaging/ reinterpreting texts that are not directly related to nature and the environment.




What I find fascinating in Garrard’s approach is his ability to incorporate scholarship from different disciplines, such as philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, etc. into the study of ecocriticism. In my mind, his interdisciplinary approach works both ways—it expands the field of ecocriticism to reach other disciplines and expands other disciplines to encompass ecocriticism. On the other hand, taking such an interdisciplinary approach might raise the question of the validity of such an evolving “theory”/ "discipline" since it lacks specific subject matter per se. After all, its subject matter is the interconnections between nature and culture (the interconnections of two different fields).

The publication of Garrard’s book indicates the change that is taking place in English studies since the integration of ecocriticism into our field reflects the recognition of ecocriticism as an important “theory” and indicates the status of environmental approaches in English. This integration raises some questions for me: What role does “place” in general and “nature” in particular play in English studies? How can we use Garrard’s tropes to expand rather than limit our interpretation of a literary text? How does “place” affect our performance as English teachers, writers of English texts, and audience of English texts? What limitations and possibilities does “place” entail? If ecocriticism became a new critical theory, how would that affect our interpretation of space in English in general and literature and composition studies in particular? How does “place” affect the writing process? How does composing in cyberspace (blogs, for example) differ from that on paper? How does "place" complicate the perception of public and private?