A specialist in human geography, he is a leading international social scientist. At present, he is Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford and Tsinghua University, and Chair of the UK government’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Formerly, he was Executive Director of Schwarzman Scholars, based in New York and Beijing, Vice-Chancellor at the University of Warwick and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research at the University of Oxford. He is also a Fellow of the British Academy. His research covers a wide range of subjects, especially new forms of capitalism, the cultural impact of the information technologies, history and awareness of time, non-representational theory, and the role of cities and urban life, including the impacts of the Anthropocene.  - cccb.org

Key quotes:  

-What the Nazis saw “wrong” with Modernist Art = “The techniques of Dada and expressionism deform the bodies rendered by them, seeming to portray disabled people. The palette of modernism paints human faces in greens, yellows, and purples, embracing discoloration without rejecting attendant associations of disease.” (1494) 

 

The author’s take = “I am proposing a different dynamic between ­ disability in art and reality. It is not a matter of being able to view disabled people as representing works of art; it is a matter of being able to view works of art as representing disability. This fine distinction is important because it underscores that the difference ascribed to the artwork relies on the difference of disability, and as long as it remains unacknowledged, disability can be used to disqualify and oppress human beings. The distinction itself between disability in art and in reality is a function of the aesthetics of human disqualification.” (1499; emphasis added) 

-This essay wasn’t as strong of a connection.  However, when reading over the “Animals” portion of Toolbox I came across an explanation of how animals have always been seen as inferior mainly due to anthropocentric understandings of intelligence. The idea of “inferior” is an obvious cross over between texts.  In the opening of Siebers’ essay, when exploring “disqualification,” she explains a history we all know: that people of color, women, and those with disabilities were often viewed as “animals” in order to justify inhuman treatment.  In “Animals” Rivkin+Ryan cite Bentham in saying that this cruelty removes our (or oppressor’s) humanity as well.  This was explored in Sieber’s essay when documenting the negative reactions to Quinn’s Trafalgar Square installation. 

 

*Secondary Classroom:  

-For my college in the schools literature course we already focus on subjectivity (and intersectionality).  However, this essay provides some definitions and terms that I think would add additional layers.  Just the thought of applying disability theory to subjective identities (so beyond physical disabilities) and looking at how otherness is presented as “inferior” and thus a “disability,” I think could make for interesting conversations. 

-Additionally, I tend to start every unit (in my other courses) with an “Entry Event” where I display an image associated with the text.  We use a Thinking Routine (Harvard’s “Project Zero”) of either See-Think-Wonder or Step Inside.  I am interested in finding new / better images that will allow students to explore how “disability” is represented.

-Does taking disability theory beyond physical disability (i.e. and applying it to race, class, gender) help or hurt efforts to create awareness?  Does it minimize the struggle for those with physical disabilities? 

-In one of the quotes above, the author says “as long as it remains unacknowledged, disability can be used to disqualify and oppress human beings.”  So how do we “acknowledge” disability? (safely, ethically, effectively, compassionately?) 

Key DQs: 

-Well obviously there was a lot of crossover between Toolbox and this essay.  However, Toolbox (as usual) was more broad / theoretical, whereas this essay was very specific.  What Toolbox really helped with was condensing the critical (and philosophical) divide and argument down to: what (if anything) separates the human from nonhuman (animal)?  And: is there really a “human”?  However, both texts show that defining “nature” has always been a struggle.  However, I think (and I make this comment too much) we are worried too much about definitions and it leads to paralysis.  The main “frustration” (from the right or non-academia) with theory is that it’s too concerned with terms and definitions and there is no “action.”  This was a schism in the early stages of ecocriticism, and one the field still struggles with. 

 

*Secondary Classrooms:  

-Ecocriticism has always been a challenge to work into secondary curriculums (in my experience).  Mainly because nothing we read is “about the environment.”  However, as this progression essay reveals, it doesn’t just have to be about (accurate) depictions of the environment.  In fact Dr Haque’s Environmental Lit class really helped “expand” the genre (to things like crime / detective novels even).  I think what this essay made clear is there is already too much “infighting” / self-paralysis in academia, so we just need to be reading and having conversations with students, getting them to think about “the world outside the text,” and worry less about “definitions” and deconstructionist notions of “nature.” 

-Should ecocriticism be about interrogation or activism? 

-How can we help the media / Tik-Tok / instant-gratification generation see and appreciate “slow violence”? 

-What issues have you run into with trying to incorporate Ecocriticism, and what have you done about it?  If not, maybe your peers can suggest something! 😊  

populations in the seas or rivers. Indeed, many ecological systems themselves depend not upon stable relationships but upon massive intrusions of flows of species from other parts of the globe and of fire, lightning, hurricanes, high winds, ice storms, flash floods, frosts, earthquakes and so on. . . There is no silent, docile ‘nature’, especially when confronted by new forms of ‘culture’,” (1453).

This quote is important because it goes into detail about nature and the idea that even within our own minds our view of it contradicts. We think of nature as peaceful and balanced, but then we also think of it as chaotic and dangerous when it comes to various weather patterns. Can both be true at once? This quote suggests that yes it in fact can. Nature is affected by everything around it just as much as the things around it are affected by it. Humans have a large impact on nature, whether it be causing Climate Change or using our technologies and intelligence to help save a dying species. Nature is a system that is much more complex than we give it credit for. 

“These and other developments seem to herald a relatively new set of hybrid systems neither natural nor social; neither ordered nor anarchic – that display high levels of complexity. A complexity structure of feeling is underpinned by an apparent lack of proportionality between ‘causes’ and ‘effects. That we think of these hybrid systems as complex has stemmed from an array of developments within 20th‐century science,” (1453).

This quote is important because it highlights the fact that there are some systems that would not exist if nature and culture were not the way they are. There needs to be a balance between what we do as humans and what we need to do. At times it is important to step back and let nature run its course, but it is also important to see where one can help. 

“Capra (1996) argues that nature turns out to be more like human nature – unpredictable, sensitive to the surrounding world, influenced by small fluctuations. This suggests enormous interdependencies, parallels, overlaps and convergences between analyses of physical and social worlds. Indeed, the very division between the ‘physical’ and the ‘social’ is itself a socio‐historical product and one that is in part dissolving under the sway of the complexity turn,” (1456). 

This quote talks about how nature like humans can be unpredictable and affected by the world around it. If humans did not exist, it would not seem like that big a jump to conclude that nature would move along on its own. Time did not exist before the big bang, but the animals of earth did not care about time, until humans came around. And once humans started messing with nature for their own benefit, they made it so culture and social and nature would be forever intertwined. Yes, eventually nature would probably go back to normal if humans were not around, but it would have to go through a time of stabilizing things that humans kept in line and in check. Because like the butterfly effect, one small detail can change many things in the future. 

“ANT is a powerful tool to destroy spheres and domains, to regain the sense of heterogeneity, and to bring interobjectivity back into the centre of attention (Latour 1994). Yet it is an extremely bad tool for differentiating associations. It gives a black and white picture, not a coloured and contrasted one. Thus it is necessary, after having traced the actor‐networks, to specify the types of trajectories that are obtained by highly different mediations. This is a different task, and the one that will make ANT scholars busy for a number of years to come,” (1469). 

So basically this chapter focuses on the Actor Network Theory. It talks about some misunderstandings of what this theory is and then goes into detail on what it is. The basic premise is that everything is connected in a way, and therefore affects one another. The connections between things may not be as obvious as we think, but they are all there. The author states, “For ANT on the contrary, there is a continuity, a multiplicity of plugs between the circulating objects in the text, the claims outside the text in the “social”, and what the actants themselves really do in “nature,” (1468). So ANT is another way to look at how social and nature interact with one another. There is both the surface level effect they have on one another, but also the under the surface effect. 

This quote is important because it shows how broad the idea of nature and society is. If we look at it via just surfaces or spheres, then we will miss a large portion of the idea. The connections between the two have multiple dimensions and nodes. (Similar to an ogre and an onion, it has layers). ANT tries to explain some of these connections. Because like humans' nature is more complex than we had originally thought and is affected by outside sources. 

“Far/close: the first advantage of thinking in terms of networks is that we get rid of “the tyranny of distance” or proximity. Elements which are close when disconnected may be infinitely remote when their connections are analyzed; conversely, elements which would appear as infinitely distant may be close when their connections are brought back into the picture,” (1460). 

The example the article gave to this quote, is how someone at a phone booth may have a closer connection to their mother miles away, then the person in the phone booth right next to them. It is stating that physical closeness is not the only important closeness when it comes to connections. One needs to consider all forms of close and farness when determining the effect, they will have on one another. 

“Small scale/large scale: the notion of network allows us to dissolve the micro‐macro‐distinction that has plagued social theory from its inception. The whole metaphor of scales going from the individual to the nation state, through family, extended kin, groups, institutions etc. is replaced by a metaphor of connections. A network is never bigger than another one, it is simply longer or more intensely connected,” (1461). 

This idea gives the person looking into the connections between nature and society the chance to look at both the bigger picture and the smaller details. Something that may seem like a smaller deal now, may grow into a larger issue later. The best way to describe this is the butterfly effect. This theory suggests that even the smallest detail such as a butterfly flapping its wings could affect the wind across the world. Often when the idea of time travel in the future is brought up, this theory comes up. 

“Inside/outside: the notion of network allows us to get rid of a third spatial dimension after those of far/close and big/small. A surface has an inside and an outside separated by a boundary. A network is all boundary without inside and outside. The only question one may ask is whether or not a connection is established between two elements. The surface “in between” networks is either connected – but then the network is expanding – or non‐existing,” (1461). 

This idea helps give the reader another way to analyze the connections between nature and society. Everything has both an inside and an outside that is separated by a boundry and these can also be affected by their connections. One needs to consider this in between networks and how they function when looking at the effect of the ACT as a whole. 

This quote brings up the concern of representing a group that cannot represent itself. The chapter talks about how this animal theory often will force up the feminism theory and minority writings. In those cases the oppressed were often used as tools, like animals were, and when it came time to change that it was important to let the oppressed speak for themselves when it came to writing. But since the oppressed now are animals, this is a little harder. So although writing this way is important to give voices to the voices who cannot speak, it is also just as important to remember that the voices read may not be represented exactly the way they would have wanted. 

“How can attention to animals and their life worlds help us to think differently about aspects of literary form – fable, metaphor, story, say – that are shaped by ideas of human or animal being or by the logic of species? How do texts represent the animality that resides both within nonhuman and human animals? Or affective (emotional) or relational bonds between humans and animals? Other primary concepts might include the question of anthropomorphism, the history of human perceptions of animals, the reception of evolutionary theory, or pressing contemporary issues of our age such as biomedicine, climate change, zoos, species extinction, conservation, the animal industrial complex and biopolitical power,” (1472-1473). 

This quote brings up some very important thoughts on this theory. It forces the reader to consider who one can write a story from the perspective of a creature they do not know. And then how can they express it in a way the reader is able to understand and grasp. It can be done in a way that allows the reader to fall into the familiar feel of storytelling they recognize. It also considered how broad a term “animal” is and how within animals there are various different kinds and species that when looked at under a lens, one can see would probably think differently. The story of a well loved dog who lives on a ranch would be very different from a stray cat who lives in the city. 

“One literary end of animal studies is the imaginative and empathetic identification with other animals’ lives, and with the philosophical and ethical questions raised by that engagement. The methodological work of animal literary studies includes deconstructing representations of animals that appropriate the animal as merely literary and mythological figures (Derrida, 2002; Haraway, 2008) as well as critiquing the tendency to observe real animals without attempting to meet their gaze,” (1474). 

This quote is important because it discusses the idea that when writing about animals one must attempt to understand the animal first. Before people used to think of animals as unfeeling and unthinking. But more recent studies have shown that often animals do show morning and are saddened by the loss of another. If one just writes about an animal they know little about they would probably miss little details that make the animal what it really is. 

*Key DQs:   

-This essay had more to do with the “Animals” section of our Toolbox chapter.  Lee’s essay endeavors to explore how Carroll was a pioneer, and essentially using Thing and Actor Network Theory to explore our relationship to things and animals.  Much of the animal section of Toolbox focused on the ethics of animal cruelty, and learning to live “with” (Donna Haraway) animals instead of (ruling) over them. 

-Although Lee didn’t touch on it, Toolbox mentions Freud as an initial inspiration for things like animal studies, since he believed (among other things) that we are driven by instinct.  Lee references other critics (Feminist and others) who view eating in Alice as Victorian suppression of female agency.  However, his exploration into thing theory and the cats of Alice (especially Latour’s “borrowing”) could provide an intersectional look at (“animal”) “instinct.” 

 

*Secondary Classrooms:  

-Since Alice is so well known / read (between Disney’s version and the original) I think excerpts of this essay would be interesting.  I can honestly say this was a struggle, but the section on cats was much more digestible and understandable. 

-We also teach a lot from the Victorian period at my school, and I think this context of commodification and “Victorian Commodity Capitalism” could be interesting for my students.  Commodification is definitely already a buzz word (around PoC, gender, etc), and so looking at its “origins” (or at least older version) could be interesting for students to unpack. 

-How would you “sell” thing theory to those resistant to theory in the first place?  I’ll admit there are many that see theory as overly erudite and is nothing but “talk” (i.e. no action).  How could we help frame thing theory as questioning ideology, hierarchy, other dominant-non dominant binaries?