Advertisement

Naturalism, Estrangement, and Resistance: On the Lived Senses of Nature

Chapter
Part of the Contributions To Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 92)

Abstract

The tension within environmental theory between the view that humans are “part of” nature and the view that humans are alienated from nature cannot be resolved by endorsing either position, since both perspectives are motivated by structures of human experience: “unrestricted” nature, which incorporates everything that exists, including humans and their technology, and “pure” nature, which contrasts with the artifactual. This distinction resolves quandaries that emerge in environmental debates over, for example, restoration and wilderness preservation. Yet this resolution of our paradoxical relationship with nature raises the deeper problem of whether the correlation of experience with nature is fundamentally anthropocentric and consequently eliminates any descriptive access to nature “as such.” Phenomenology is uniquely poised to address this concern, since our experience of nature also reveals to us, albeit indirectly, the manner in which nature withdraws from that very experience. As descriptions from Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty suggest, and as developed more recently by Amanda Boetzkes, certain works of art prove especially valuable for revealing a fundamental duplicity of nature by which it retains an uncompromised autonomy.

References

  1. Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  2. Boetzkes, A. (2010). The ethics of earth art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bramwell, A. (1989). Ecology in the 20th century: A history. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Callicott, J. B. (1998). The wilderness idea revisited: The sustainable development alternative. In J. Baird Callicott & M. Nelson (Eds.), The great new wilderness debate (pp. 337–366). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  5. Callicott, J. B. (2003). A critique of and an alternative to the wilderness idea. In A. Light & H. Rolston III (Eds.), Environmental ethics: An anthology (pp. 437–443). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Callicott, J. B., & Nelson, M. (Eds.). (1998). The great new wilderness debate. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and the environment: The appreciation of nature, art and architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Casey, E. S. (2003). Taking a glance at the environment: Preliminary thoughts on a promising topic. In C. Brown & T. Toadvine (Eds.), Eco-phenomenology: Back to the earth itself (pp. 187–210). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, D. (2004). The aesthetics of nature and the environment. In P. Kivy (Ed.), The blackwell guide to aesthetics (pp. 306–324). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Elliot, R. (2000). Faking nature. In W. Throop (Ed.), Environmental restoration: Ethics, theory, and practice (pp. 71–82). Amherst: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  11. Godlovitch, S. (2004). Icebreakers: Environmentalism and natural aesthetics. In A. Carlson & A. Berleant (Eds.), The aesthetics of natural environments (pp. 108–126). Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  12. Heidegger, M. (1993). Basic writings. Rev. Edn.. Ed. David Farrell Krell. San Francisco: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  13. James, S. (2009). The presence of nature: A study in phenomenology and environmental philosophy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, E. (2000). The big lie: Human restoration of nature. In W. Throop (Ed.), Environmental restoration: ethics, theory, and practice (pp. 83–93). Amherst: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  15. Kohák, E. (1997). Varieties of ecological experience. Environmental ethics, 19, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Light, A. (2000). Restoration or domination? A reply to Katz. In W. Throop (Ed.), Environmental restoration: Ethics, theory, and practice (pp. 95–111). Amherst: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  17. Meillassoux, Q. (2010). After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency (R. Brassier, Trans.). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  18. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964a). Sense and non-sense (H. Dreyfus & P. Dreyfus, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964b). Signs (R. McCleary, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003). Nature: Course notes from the Collège de France (R. Vallier, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. Landes, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Mill, J. S. (1961). Nature. In M. Lerner (Ed.), Essential works of John Stuart Mill (pp. 361–401). New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  24. Roach, C. (1996). Loving your mother: On the woman-nature relation. In K. Warren (Ed.), Ecological feminist philosophies (pp. 52–65). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rogozinski, J. (2008). The chiasm and the remainder (How does touching touch itself?). In F. Raffoul & E. S. Nelson (Eds.), Rethinking facticity (pp. 229–252). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Culture, politics, and the non-human. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Toadvine, T. (2013). Nature’s wandering hands: Painting at the end of the world. Klēsis Revue Philosophique, 25, 109–123.Google Scholar
  29. Toadvine, T. (2014). The elemental past. Research in Phenomenology, 44(2), 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vogel, S. (2015). Thinking like a mall: Environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whitmoyer, K. (2010). Ontological lateness: Merleau-Ponty’s meta-philosophy. Chiasmi International, 12, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations