Unpacking a definition of ecology
Because I have been interested in
applying the concept of ecology as a theoretical construct since I took Dr.
Phelps’ Productive Theory Building class last summer, I started reading the
Cary Institute’s information about ecology by unpacking their definition of ecology and applying it to writing studies in a tentative sort of
way. According to their definition,
ecology is “the scientific study of the processes influencing the distribution
and abundance of organisms, the interactions among organisms, and the
interactions between organisms and the transformation and flux of energy and
matter.”
I started by supposing that if
writing studies is not scientific study, it should at least be a systematic
study of processes. Next, I asked myself
what processes might be entailed. Also,
once texts are written, how are they distributed? Of course, to be distributed, they need to be
created. Thus, how are they produced,
shaped and then distributed? What types
are there? Why these types? What
generates, shapes, and guides the distribution of these types (genres)? Next, I considered the concept of
“interactions,” the next item in the definition. Texts interact. Writers interact. Readers interact. Literate activity, then, involves complex
interactions.
Finally, I endeavored to apply the
idea of “transformation and flux of energy and matter,” by assuming, first,
that we might metaphorically connect this to Foucault’s discursive formations. In other words, “energy” may correlate with
cultural capital, with ideas, with, if you will, knowledge. Ideas have consequences. Ideas are picked up
and carried away. They are shift and
change as they collide with other ideas.
Ideas live at different levels and big ideas, like forces, can attract
or propel many smaller ideas. Last, “matter”
in the world of semiosis can be, indeed, matter. Writing uses objects and technologies, which
in turn, shape what is communicated and how.
These are things that can be grasped and examined, seen and touched.
I also looked at the Cary
Institute’s unpacking of their own definition to stimulate a few more ideas. They
start by calling attention to various “unique” aspects of their definition,
such as “a starting focus on organisms, aggregations of organisms, or systems
incorporating organisms or their by-products.”
Organisms in writing studies probably correlate most obviously with the
main organism at issue in all social theory—human agents. Starting with a focus on human beings in
terms of their “aggregations,” we can draw in ideas like that of community, of
collective, or more specifically even, discourse community. Looking at “systems” we might consider
education and literate activity more specifically. Looking at “byproducts,” we might then reach
texts in whatever sense we wish to take the term, broader or narrower. In any case, texts are inarguably the
“by-products” of human activity.
The next point was “the bounding of
ecology by both the biological and physical sciences.” I’m not sure that we can
take this very far metaphorically, except to note that literate activity like
ecology overlaps multiple disciplines, reaching from the general human sciences
of sociology, psychology, anthropology, semiotics, and linguistics, to mixed or
specialized fields like economics, geography, political science, education,
literature, communication, and so on, and even extending, arguably to the
natural sciences, at least in minor ways.
The next few points can be dismissed
with fairly quick comments. For example,
“the breadth of subject matters within ecology” simply reminded me that rhetoric
and writing studies as conceived more ecologically have also attained more
breadth than in the past. Because I
didn’t know the terms biotic and abiotic when I first read the article, I’ll
skip the next couple of points. However,
the fact that “the relationships between organisms and the physical world can
be bidirectional” definitely makes sense for writing studies. It reminds me of the structuration theory of
Giddens (1984). Agents change society,
society changes agents.
Applying the core idea of ecology
to writing studies could be productive.
Again to quote, “the disciplinary focus is on ‘processes’, ‘interactions’
and ‘relations’ rather than on the physical entities per se.” I think that this
idea could be a game changer for writing studies. In other words, the focus will not only be on
humans as writers (not process studies, like all those 1970s and ‘80s studies),
nor as subjects with identities (postmodernism), nor on texts as standalone
products, but rather on the flux and flow between multiple texts, between texts
and world, between text and writers, between cultural concepts and texts, and
all of the above as mediated through genres.
I think we can also embrace this notion: “The hallmark of ecology is its
encompassing and synthetic view of nature, not a fragmented view.” All in all, it was at least
interesting for me to think about the ways that ecology might be a productive
metaphor for my purposes, and this article was interesting to think with.
Some terms from Spellman
Etymology from Spellman (p. 4)
photo taken in Puerto Rico, December 2015
Spellmen offered a collection of terms that I may find
useful when (or if) I apply ecology as a theory. In fact, I didn’t realize that he offered a
glossary until I got to the end of chapter 1, so my notes here come from the
body of the chapter rather than the glossary.
- Abiotic—Means “non-living”
- Habitat—Refers to the“physical and biological environment in which an organism lives” (p. 14)
- Niche—Defined as “the role the organism plays in the environment” (p. 14), it is metaphorically linked to “profession” by Odum (see p. 15).
- Homeostasis—Can be defined as the “dynamic balance... maintained among all biotic and abiotic factors” (p. 15).
- Ecosystems—“Defined as a geographic area and includes all the living organisms, their physical surroundings, and the natural cycles that sustain them. All of these elements are interconnected…the major ecological unit in nature” (p. 15)
- Autotropic—Meaning “self-nourishing,” this “component does not require food from its environment but can manufacture food from inorganic substances” (p. 15). An example is photosynthesis.
- Heterotrophic—Autotrophic components serve as food for heterotrophic ones.
- Population—“A population in an ecological sense is a group of organisms, of the same species, which roughly occupy the same geographical area at the same time” (p. 62).
The Three Ecologies: A summary
What is driving Guattari’s essay is the sense that
overpopulation, capitalism, mass media and other forces have converged to
create an “ecological disequilibrium” that “will ultimately threaten the
continuation of life on the planet’s surface” if action is not taken (p.
19). The only solution is “an
ethico-political articulation,” namely, the three ecologies, “environment,
social relations and human subjectivity,” which together he calls ecosophy (p. 19-20). This program will only succeed if it “brings
about an authentic political, social and cultural revolution, reshaping the
objectives of the production of both material and immaterial assets” (p.
20). Some consequences of the
disequilibrium to which he is referring is that even communist countries have
succumbed to “mass-media serialism,” that underdeveloped countries have seen
“the long-term establishment of immense zones of misery, hunger, and death”
caused by global capitalism (p. 21), and that developed countries have seen
“chronic unemployment and increasing marginalization” of large parts of the
population, along with “an exacerbation of questions relative to immigration
and racism” (p. 22). The hope that he
articulates here is that “social ecosophy will consist in developing specific
practices that modify and reinvent the ways in which we live as couples or in
the family, in an urban context or at work, etc.” (p. 24). At the same time, “mental ecosophy will lead
us to reinvent the relation of the subject to the body, to phantasm, to the
passage of time, to the ‘mysteries of life and death,’” which will lead
individuals from the homogenizing forces of the mass market, media, fashions,
and pop culture.
Quotes I Like
This is a long quote, but for me, it captures the main idea
of Syverson. Interestingly, I first read
this excerpt last summer, and I was interested to see that this passage had
caught my attention then, too:
“I would argue that writers, readers, and texts form just such a complex system of self-organizing, adaptive, and dynamic interactions. But even beyond this level of complexity, they are actually situated in an ecology, a larger system that includes environmental structures, such as pens, paper, computers, books, telephones, fax machines, photocopiers, printing presses, and other natural and human-constructed features, as well as other complex systems operating at various levels of scale, such as families, global economies, publishing systems, theoretical frames, academic disciplines, and language itself. For my purposes, then, an ecology is a kind of meta-complex system composed of interrelated and interdependent complex systems and their environmental structures and processes. And my principal question is this: Can the concepts currently emerging in diverse fields on the nature of complex systems provide us with a new understanding of composing as an ecological system?” (Syverson, 1999, p. 5)
The following quote from Spellman (2008) seems valuable to
me not only because it captures a key idea about ecology as a science, but
because it also reminds me of Bateson’s ideas from last week and because the
emphasis on relationships here demonstrates why “ecology” has been a productive
metaphor for some in writing studies.
“Ecology shows us that each living organism has an ongoing and continual relationship with every other element that makes up our environment. Simply, ecology is all about interrelationships, intraspecific and interspecific, and on how important it is to maintain these relationships—to ensure our very survival.” (p. 6)
“We need to ‘kick the habit’ of sedative discourse,
particularly the ‘fix’ of television, in order to be able to apprehend the
world through the interchangeable lenses or points of views of the three
ecologies” (p. 28). This quote reminds
me of a political blog by Matt Taibbi where he traces Donald Trump’s current
success in his presidential campaign, ultimately, to the dumbing down effects
of television.
Which leads me to another quote, which I’m afraid will indicate
my political bias: “In the field of
social ecology, men like Donald Trump are permitted to proliferate freely, like
another species of algae, taking over entire districts of New York and Atlantic
City” (p. 29)—and entire swaths of delegates?
A final quote on the same theme: “It is not only species
that are becoming extinct but also the words, phrases, and gestures of human
solidarity” (p. 29). The shrill and
mean-spirited political discourse that we’re seeing these days made me feel
that this quote was quite apropos.
References
Cary Institute.
(2016). Definition of ecology. Retrieved from http://www.caryinstitute.org/discover-ecology/definition-ecology
Giddens, A. (1984). The
constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Guattari, F.
(2012). The three ecologies. London: Continuum.
Spellman, F. R.
(2008). Ecology for nonecologists. Lanham, Md: Government Institutes.
Syverson, M. A.
(1999). The wealth of reality: An ecology of composition. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment