Please follow the instructions and provide your responses as a comment to this blog post.
After our in-class discussions and the application of "The Pentad," the next step in answering this prompt is to find a main claim from the Bookchin and/or Bradford that will become the central criteria by which you evaluate in what ways Davis and/or Didion's portrayal of life in Malibu reflects the Deep Ecology vs. Social Ecology debate. So:
Pick three (3) central claims from the Bookchin and/or Bradford and explain how they relate to the depiction of the Malibu fires in the Davis and/or Didion.
Examples:
Bookchin's criticism of our hierarchical social organization finds clear support in the way that Davis explains the class distinctions he believes have given rise to the unequal allocation of emergency resources in Los Angeles.
Or
Didion's emotional connection to the beauty and tranquility of Malibu represents a vital connection between identity and place that Bookchin's critique disregards too quickly and with too little attention to the inescapable ways in which people create a sense of dwelling. Home is, after all, as much an emotional state as it is a social construct.
As always, there are no right answers at this stage of the game. We are just trying to start putting some ideas in relation to each other. So don't let self-consiousness edit your responses. Just make some claims that we can talk about and which might ultimately find their way into your essay either as a thesis claim or a supportive assertion.
Bring these claims and a list of supportive quotes to class on Monday. Have a good weekend.
Bradford's conception of the land as an exploited social group is, to a certain extent, undermined by Davis' description of the power of the Malibu forest fires. Yes, wealthy people built their mansions and developed their infrastructure in a way that suppressed the natural cycle of fire and regrowth, but in doing so, they simply made the fires more intense. In my view, the nonhuman world is not like the oppressed proletariat, in that it trends towards a more even equilibrium, while an oppressed group will tend to stay oppressed.
ReplyDeleteBradford's criticism of the simplistic view deep ecology has of human actions and traits, seen on page 421 (that deep ecologists fail to account for internal human conflicts as a source of environmental challenges) is supported by Davis' demonstration of the vastly different situations different social groups have both on their environment and on their society. The destitute tenement dwellers consume far fewer emergency services and natural resources than the Malibu mansion-dwellers.
Bookchin's separation of the society into the oppressed and the oppressors is somewhat at odds with Didion's description of Amando Vazquez, who is a person who does not seem to be exploiting anyone, but who occupies a sort of middle ground, serving the wealthy and working with the orchids he appears to love. However, this doesn't mean that he isn't warping his nonhuman environment, which is a necessary step for growing the delicate and temperamental orchids.
Ryan Kupyn
1. Davis indisputably embraces Bookchin’s condemnation of deep ecologist’s hierarchical bourgeoisie encouragement, through his rational wrath towards the stratified society with inequality in emergency resource allocation in Los Angeles.
ReplyDelete2. Didion, through anecdotal evidence, differentiates between human beings and other species by accentuating human ingenuity and passion regarding the natural world, thus refuting Bradford’s critique of deep ecology as dualistic view that separates human beings and society from nature.
3. Bradford’s argument of the lack of social critique in deep ecology and its “simplistic dualism”, finds clear support in the way Davis constructs the environmental issue of fires in Malibu and its connection with the resource allocation related to economic social classes.
Subhang Acharya
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAccording to Bookchin, everything we do is “natural,” and can be considered a part of evolution. Davis, on the other hand, would disagree, saying that humans building houses in Malibu is going against nature and is pointless, because the wildfires that occur naturally will just destroy them anyway.
ReplyDeleteBradford claims that deep ecology ignores the social aspect inherent in all parts of life. He says that deep ecology suggests that “the rights of human beings have been firmly established,” but he believes that this is absolutely absurd. Mike Davis supports Bradford through his idea that we must fix social relationships before we can fix our relationship with nature.
Dideon’s view that there is an emotional connection to nature, as demonstrated by her experiences with Armando Vazquez, supports Bookchin’s ideas that humans are no better (or worse) than any other organism. Armando Vazquez took care of his orchids as if they were his children, and was equally as devastated when they were burned in the Malibu fire.
Victoria Ball
Bradford's view that deep ecology is naive to the structure of power and political influence is immediately apparent in Davis' explanation of the unequal distribution of public resources between the inner city of Los Angeles and Malibu.
ReplyDeleteBookchin's criticism of deep ecology as a misanthropic and unrealistic philosophy flies in the face of Didion, who feels a genuine appreciation of and attachment to the nature that was the orchids.
Bradford's argument that mankind and society are continuous with nature coincides with Davis' call for attention to the disparity between social classes in that both prescribe to the belief that mankind should take a society-centered approach when looking at the environment, rather than a biocentric approach.
1. Davis's claim about how fire emergency resource is different for different class people in Los Angeles reflects the ethical "ambiguous contrast" of what Bradford said about the "systemic value" of human beings.
ReplyDelete2. Bookchin didn't agree with "anthropocentrism" which privileges the rights of some people. This attitude coincides with the example Davis stated about how the poor suffered from the series Malibu fires.
3. Bookchin believed all of the social activities are part of natural evolution and this argument connects with what Didion talked about the greenhouses built after several Malibu fires.
1. Bookchin's view that humans have an inherent duty to "consciously change first nature by means of a highly institutionalized form of community" parallels that of Davis' examples where humans were given the ability to transform Malibu either for the better or, in this case, for the worse.
ReplyDelete2. Bookchin's claim that humans can bring about biotic diversity and diminish suffering is refuted in Davis' specific examples of animals suffering from fires caused by humans.
3. Bradford’s belief that nothing done by civilization can completely destroy life itself, only complex life, is firmly supported by Davis’ overall depiction of the fact that Malibu’s natural life never ceases to exist despite the tragedies that occur due to human foolishness.
Christina Li
Bradford’s analysis of the power of instrumental value over intrinsic value is displayed through Davis’ portrayal of the development of Malibu as a way to satisfy social need and interest instead of maintaining the well-being of nature.
ReplyDeleteDavis challenges Bradford’s development of the deep ecological idea “humanity can thrive only by causing nature to lose.” By ignoring the fire risks associated with the coastal area, the Malibu population keeps developing houses, exploiting nature in order to fulfill their greed. However, humanity ultimately loses in this battle because nature sends wildfires to purge the area, taking Malibu’s conception of success with them.
Bradford’s claim that humans hold a “general, [environmental] obligation to preserve things of value” is exemplified through Didion’s portrayal of the Malibu orchids. Vazquez attempts to recreate a natural environment for the delicate orchids, so they can thrive under careful watch, escaping the damage that would naturally result in their typical Malaysian rain forest habitat. This calls into question the act of altering nature vs. preserving it. While Vazquez is creating an artificial nature in Malibu, he is doing so with the intention of allowing the orchids to flourish. Davis also toys with this responsibility to preserve value, but his approach is much more accusatory. By exploring the preservation duty of the firefighters of LA, Davis ultimately questions how to define value. While the firefighters focus on helping the rich preserve their multi-million dollar mansions, they consequently let poor tenement dwellers burn to death. Therefore, the distinction between what qualifies as valuable is often blurred.
Katie Larson
Davis’s perspective toward distinction in social classes, which contributes to environmental problems in both Malibu and downtown L.A. strongly supports Bookchin’s idea of social ecology which argues that social relationships are the roots of our ecological problems.
ReplyDeleteDidion’s emotional perspective toward closed relationship between human and nature at Malibu is an example of nature-to-human connection with spirituality of Naess’ deep ecology; however, her approach somehow manages to support Bookchin’s view of social ecology where “passion, money, intention, adaptation, economic value and their complicated connections” contribute to the current social problems and developments in Malibu.
Didion’s approach of a closed relationship between human and nature in the Malibu community supports Bookchin’s claim which states that human society and its relationship are all products of natural evolution. He believes that deep ecology’s idea, “the notion that a "humanity" exists that accurses the natural world,” is absurd, because it neglect the connections between human development and environmental problems.
Tony Tran
Reply
Bookchin’s sardonic attitude towards deep ecology’s belief of restoring the supernatural creation of nature is paralleled in Davis’s text as it recognizes that the imbalance in societal equilibrium, which is revealed in his portrayal of a disparate utilization of emergency support for California fires.
ReplyDeleteBookchin criticizes Didion’s illustration of an emotional relationship to Malibu as he emphasizes the utilization of deductive reasoning to establish a realistic and tangible problem accompanied by an applicable solution.
Davis evokes a sense of corruption and ignorance in society as he explains that Malibu residents, the government and courts prioritize economic and personal desires over communal safety, which is analogous in Bradford’s text as it claims that we must reconstruct societal predicaments to mend our connection with nature.
Aadit Patel
1. Bookchin claims that evolution has enabled humanity to construct a second, social nature, and Davis supports this assertion by describing nature's effect on us in the case of southern californian firestorms and revealing the social divides apparent in the way we respond to these fires.
ReplyDelete2. Bradford criticizes Bookchin's dismissal of a spiritual connection with nature, and Didion supports this critique by emphasizing how spiritually we can be connected both to other people and to the natural world.
3. Bookchin argues that deep ecology is impractical due to its refusal to treat social evils, which relates to Davis's evidence of Malibu owners' treatment of the lower class, revealing that social distinctions often stand in the way of finding solutions to environmental problems.
Joe Russ
Bookchin argues that ecological turmoil reflects the class-based struggles of society, and is supported by Davis's straightforward evidence showing that higher classes are treated more importantly than the lower class, who die by the dozen in tenement fires.
ReplyDeleteBookchin criticizes deep ecologies simplification of the human species as a single group that is assaulting nature, pointing out that policies are put into place by those with the means and affluence, who use natural resources at a much greater level; well-represented by the Malibu fires in the "game of build a bigger mansion", in which the upper-class continually uses up resources fighting fires in fire-prone areas as well as continually rebuilding in these volatile regions.
Bookchin's argument that as a product of our environment, all humans do is natural, ties into Bradford's argument that humans can only ever destroy complex life on earth (sounds like a challenge to me actually....); both of which are supported by the recurring Malibu fires, in which despite human-caused catastrophe, natural life remains abundant and continues its natural cycle.
Bradford’s arguments against dualism of deep ecology and for “ways to belonging to an ecosystem” are enforced by Davis’ scornful observation of fires repeatedly ravaging through the Malibu landscape. Some places are not meant to be colonized, and nature wins when one decides to go against it.
ReplyDeleteBradford’s observation of the paradox in humanity “defining and determining” a healthy biotic community is strengthened by Davis’ criticism of the obvious discrepancy in the value of human lives during the Malibu and Downtown Los Angeles fires.
Didion’s personal and unique relationship with the orchid greenhouse supports Bookchin’s claim that separating humanity from nature is to truncate nature itself, because humanity is a product of natural evolution. Humans evolved uniquely with the ability to think, and to degrade the “species in the name of anti-humanism” seems contradictory.
Kent Oya