We will NOT discuss Molly Gloss, Wild Life, this week--because everyone is focusing right now on the political situation, we'll save the novel discussion for April 14th.
- Activity--Erin and Joelle: explore the use of literary sources in forest history.
Discuss the complex meanings of Wild Men in Forests. Or explore connections between the current political situation and Harrison's discussion of William the Conqueror and Forest Law in England.
In reading Harrison, one quote in particular stuck with me:
ReplyDeleteThe diversity of species in a forest belongs to the same phylogeny, so much so, that in heightened moments of perception they appear as mere versions of each other—the fern a version of the dragonfly, the robin a version of its supporting branch, the reptile’s rustle a version of the rivulet’s trickle, the wildflower a version of the ray of light that reaches through the canopy (30).
This notion of interconnectedness and of “all embodied substances pertaining in the same primal matter” as discussed amidst pre-Aristotle ideas of the forest is an intriguing precursor to the rise of logic. In the myth of Artemis and Actaeon, the forest is portrayed as a looming, intangible, enigmatic, cruel wilderness, that no human is able, or meant to see. When Actaeon accidently glimpses Artemis bathing with nymphs, nude and exposed in the forest’s hour of no shadows, he breaks that “remote and inaccessible” cardinal rule of nature that Artemis possesses, discovering her "secret." In doing so, he is doomed to forever become part of the forest—which is a “terrible” thing. This idea of truly pristine nature hiding from humanity is intriguing; it seems these myths have really informed the foundation of thought surrounding forests and wilderness still today—that we are not meant to be a part of that world, and in seeking to discover nature’s truth, we are fated to lose a part of our humanity.
Despite his logic, it seems Descartes is still caught up in myth, too—his idea that walking in a straight line through the forest must be preferred to being stuck in the middle of the woods grows out of this same fear of being lost amidst nature’s asylum. Despite the shift from myth to logic during Enlightenment, I think myth still greatly informs our ideas of nature. In dominating forest landscapes and seeing the forest through the abstracted definition of usefulness, it seems we have simply found a way to conquer our fears of the unknown. Very much still living under the influence of myth, we are furthering the dichotomy of man from the wild as the tale of Artemis has taught us to do, lest we become one and the same with nature.
-Stevie
I am interested in the initial discussion Harrison conducts about the Mother Goddess. The Mother Goddess seems to slink her way through the history of religions, taking on new forms, but not able to be eradicated by patriarchy. She appears as the outsider Artemis, and then again as the Virgin Mary. As Harrison writes, Artemis was a threat in the Pantheon of gods because she was an outsider, but I would also add she must have been quite a threat to patriarchy, considering the myth of her castrating the bulls. In this could she not be construed as the opposite of a fertility symbol?
ReplyDeleteThroughout archeology, figures of women are frequently set aside as symbols of fertility. I believe this flattens the role of the female to being strictly about reproduction. It is interesting that for years people believed that in the sculpture of Artemis she had a profusion of breasts, and it turns out the sculpture refers to a much more complex myth. No wonder the other gods had such a difficult time with her. As Harrison writes, Artemis‘ successor Mary was also a threatening figure. To which I would argue is why they made her a virgin. The men of the early church probably wanted to separate her as much as possible from the Mother Goddess, the Goddess who is “the great lap of the world” (19).
It is interesting that Harrison begins his discussion with the progression of the Goddess through religions. He means to relate the time of the Goddess, in which, “the earth and sky were not opposed, nor were life and death, animal and human, male and female, inanimate and animate, matter and form, forest and clearing” (19) to what a forest is and has been. A forest has been a place where men go and become wild. But ultimately, the men conquer the forest, as in the forests of the king, or they tame the forest as in the forest of the Enlightenment. The men make straight the path, through the tangled layers of the [feminine] forest.
I guess I do not fully believe the statement I just made. For one thing, the time of patriarchy was not necessarily preceded by a time of matriarchy, but perhaps by a time when gender was not a binary system of male and female. Perhaps the forest that creates wild men, then conquerers, and finally masters, is not a feminine forest, but rather a complex forest before the simplified age of patriarchy.
-Emily
In Harrison's first reading for this week, he discusses old world myths and tales of nature and the forest. Many of these involve goddesses like Artemis and Diana of the Woods.
ReplyDeleteThe female embodiment of the natural world is a classic, although fitting, representation of the untamed wilderness. It also suggests that human culture and nature are intrinsically linked. These goddesses are often viewed as being untouched and sacred, commonly denoted by symbolic virginity of the forests.
Myths sometimes offer a way to help understand things beyond the grasp of human comprehension. Harrison notes the common themes involving forests and wild animals as “the veiled becoming unveiled, the hunter becomes the hunted, and the master becomes the victim of his own hounds.” (25). It is interesting how in the story of Actaeon that things go deeper than that. The suggestion that Actaeon witnessed something not meant for mortal comprehension and how we tend to only see nature from the outside is a valid point. We have been using science to try to replicate seeing Artemis in the buff, and although we do have an understanding of nature, much of it continues to be hypothetical and meaningless. By using models and studying life history, we like to think we understand nature, but it is quite oblivious that we are far from the truth and will never feasibly reach the comprehension of nature we seek through science. Maybe we are not meant to.
-Cory
The goddess Artemis is portrayed as a virgin of the woodlands engulfed in a romantic mystery. She is deeply connected to the remote untraveled regions of the forest where she hides in the shadows with her nymphs. A great part of her mystery lies in her strong desire for secrecy. She refuses to be seen by any human. In the case of Actaeon, who happens upon her in the nude completely unintentionally, there is punishment. His human body is transformed into that of a forest-dwelling stag, but his rational mind remains human. He becomes prey to his own practices and is broken back down into matter. This punishment ensures the continued secrecy of the forest and Artemis herself. Harrison notes the importance of the punishment as a demonstration to the connectedness of everything in the forest. I found that of particular interest because this connectedness is proven to Actaeon but cannot be shared before he perishes. This story maintains the mystery as well as the perception of forests as being dark, fearful places.
ReplyDeleteIn the second third of the reading, this idea of forests as being places of exile and asylum remains, but there is a definite power shift. The idea of conquering the forests becomes key in building empires, but this leads to soil erosion and degradation. This outcome proves the lack of dominance over the mystery of the forest. There is a realization that a greater understanding for forest management is required to be true conquerors.
Finally, there is the argument between Manwoodians and nihilists over forest conservation. The thoughts are both deeply rooted and rich in historical background and experiences, including the histories mentioned above. I believe there needs to be a balance between both arguments to maximize human benefits of forests while at the same time maintaining their integrity.
--Amanda
Throughout history, man has long referred to the “natural world” with strong affiliations to the female gender. “Mother nature” as it is more recently known, has also been referred to as “Goddess Artemis”, “Diana of the woods”, and even in the Christian era A.D 431, in reference to the Virgin Mary, “…it was decided by the bishops of Ephesus that her following was too popular and that the church would do best to canonize her.” (21) This depiction of the female form relating to the forest is just, in that it is the forests that give life; that are responsible for the reproduction of life.
ReplyDeleteAnd then we see the threat of the female in the manifestation of such gods of War that try to destroy the very foundation in which life is built upon. I can clearly see a correlation between the raping of Rhea Silvia by Mars, and to the Greeks who destroyed so much fertile lands of forests, only to build great navies in which they could go to war with. The Greeks believed that they were entitled to this pillage of the earth, and suffered the same lack of foresight or insight into mans relation to the forest, much in the way Actaeon witnessed the de-robing of Artemis by the waterfall.
I found an interesting similarity between two key issues that were raised in these readings. In reference to the antiquity of the Greeks and Romans, to this seemingly inevitable rise, decline and eventual fall of these great civilizations; so too do the forests seem to follow this similar pattern. From the far East of the Mediterranean across Europe and North Africa, fathoms of land was cleared and cultivated only to be swept away with rain and floods, and to “baked under the summer sun”, to be nothing but unfertile desert lands.
As history demonstrates, societies will rise and fall; always alluring to a common culture, “one race, one face”… and so it begs to question whether in time “nature” and the forests will live up to their resilient pasts, and stand up against man once again.
After reading Harrison, one quote that struck me:
ReplyDelete“Civilizations institutes and grounds itself on oppositions. The great mother, on the other hand, enveloped them and drew them back into the primordial chaos and unity of origins.” (19)
I think this an important argument intertwined throughout Harrison, as despite Enlightement contradictions, especially those held between LeRoy and Manwood, ultimately we are dependent upon our preconceived ideologies of “the great mother.” To the Greeks, Artemis, the “deity of wilderness” was portrayed as remote and inaccessible, signifying the ingrained distancing we put between ourselves and the natural world. Additionally, Harrison mentions the desecration of the forests by the Greeks and Romans in pursuits of marine and agrarian conquest, ultimately destroying Ephesus and consequently the temple of Artemis. This is striking in the fact that such a civilization revering matriarchal deities, such as Artemis, can allow for the pillaging of not only a physical temple of worship, but the temple of the wilderness and forested landscape. This seems to me similar to other examples of man’s ‘conquest of nature’ in the fact it was an undeliberate act, with consequences only fully recognized afterwards. This made me wonder, are there any other examples in other religions/belief systems of the ‘goddess mother’ being destroyed or expelled at the expense of progress?
As Harrison mentions, the Age of Enlightenment allowed for legitimacy to be based on reasoning and scientific thought rather than guided on emotion and beliefs. As a result, Descartes, LeRoy, and Manwood all had varying notions of forest utility. I found Harrison’s quote to summarize the enlightenment period relevant, “…rights by nature safeguard the right of all, rights of posterity serve therefore, as a regulatory principle of enlightened forest management.” (120)
-Jo
Harrison’s opening discussion of how female goddesses, while adopting new names, have been passed from culture to culture showing how the humans have constantly referred to the natural world as at least non-male. Of this reading I was most struck by the quote:
ReplyDelete“Under the goddess’s reign, however, earth and sky were not opposed, nor were life and death, animal and human, male and female, inanimate and animate, matter and form, forest and clearing. These unconditional distinctions (which the forest forever confuses) lie at the basis of “civilization” as opposed to mere “culture” (19).
I agree with Emily in that maybe the reign of patriarchal societies was preceded not by matriarchies but systems that did not conform to a gender binary. Patriarchal societies create black and white binaries, with no room for grey; one group always dominant and the other always oppressed. This section describes how non-patriarchal cultures were not simple matriarchies that valued the opposite option in the binary, but instead cultures that did not have strict binaries. By worshiping the forest as female, these cultures probably embraced all the diversity that results from removing classifications.
Maybe it is a result of growing up in a white, catholic house, but the use of the word female applied to the goddess seems much more free compared to the expectations I generally associate with the word. The goddess is often associated with virginity, but not the meek virgin associated with Christianity, but instead a strong, vicious woman willing to turn a man into a stag for seeing her exposed. She seems the original gender bender, and maybe this is because she was worshiped before gender classifications were created.
Sam Reuter
February 21, 2011
In the second section of reading Harrison begins to look at Rome and Greece and how they took different ways to the same end. Greece had this sense of naval adventure while Rome was firmly footed on land and had an unstoppable empire building desire. Both were squarely rooted in the destruction of forests throughout the Mediterranean to reach these ends. Also in describing Rome’s rise it was briefly stated that hard labor gave them a sense of identity, “where a rustic people emerging from the forests cleared the land for cultivation and loved above all the prosaic results of their labor” (53). The sense of identity through labor (clearing of forests) is an important culture theme seen throughout the world and time. Harrison then offers a summarizing quote from David Attenborough (pp.55-56) as he says, “describes the ecological legacy of our ‘antiquity’”. The human population around the Mediterranean grew and wars were fought to expand the Roman empire which required large amounts of timber and wheat. Attenborough also discusses the particularly difficult Mediterranean habitat and the importance of the trees for water retention and soil retention and that without it the land would become infertile and succumb to desertification. Harrison then brings it back to the goddess Artemis not of the myth, but of the city built to worship her and uses pollen record to support the presence of oak then weed (seen in grazing fields) then relocation because the harbor was filled in an no longer could be used as a port. It is hard to imagine people could not be aware to some degree that what they were doing caused this snowball of effects. Probably more accurate is the fact that it stood up against the power of empire building and productivity.
ReplyDeletematt smith
While reading Harrison, I was intrigued by the bit of information of the story of Gilgamesh. I was wondering how this story of a pretty hardy gruesome looking man had anything to do with the matriarchal theme of the readings. I remembered the role of Enkidu who was sent down to protect the forests and the wild beast. Enkidu does his job until he meets a seductress and sleeps with her thus becoming civilized. It isn’t until he takes on the role of a civilized human that he has the courage to take on the daunting task of fighting Humbaba the great monster of the Ceder Forest. He teams up with Gilgamesh and they defeat the monster and they cut down the cedar forest and in particular the tallest of the cedar trees to make a great cedar gate for the city of Uruk. They end up building a raft out of the cedar and float down the Euphrates River to their city. His attempt to exploit the land doesn’t end there, as he then continues to sever the relationship with the “Mother” through the severing of the bull horns which was a symbol of fertility. I believe that this story or the though t of trying to place this story within the myths that Harrison explores emphasizes the need of power and who can own/use the land. In this story it shown through patriarchal exploitation of civilization.
ReplyDeleteAlev
In the section “From Mythic Origins to Deforestation,” Harrison discusses the fall of the Roman and Greek empires. One thing that struck me was his reference to the Iliad by Homer, I never read the entire book, but I’ve heard most of the story. It is a story of the destruction of Troy, but in the background it tells of the simultaneous decline of Mycenae. Now, when I have the time to read both the Iliad and the Odyssey I will be looking for this story of self-ruin. It subtly depicts the fall of Greek civilization, a society that could not save itself.
ReplyDeleteTo further their civilizations, both the Romans and the Greeks promoted the mindless deforestation of the Mediterranean. Before reading this I never really thought of deforestation as the reason for the fall of their empires, but after reading through Harrison’s writing, it all makes perfect sense. To create ships, the navy needed wood and to feed an increasing population, the land was cleared for agriculture. All of the clearing of the land led to irreversible erosion. Some of the most fertile lands in the world disappeared along with two brilliant and powerful civilizations.
I can’t help but wonder if we are headed down the same path with our current rates of environmental destruction? Have we learned from the Romans and Greeks? The least we can learn from this loss is the importance of forests to maintaining the health of the landscape, without the forest to hold everything together; it can all just wash away.
-Hanna
A broader concept that really struck a chord with me in the Harrison reading was the note that people looked toward earth, wind, fire and air to answer the question "What is the essence of all that is?" In a world full of mind-blowing technology, we tend to forget that everything we do/purchase/maintain/care about originates from these elements. These elements and the products of these elements truly are "all that is" but we seem to have lost touch with this concept in many corners of the world today. The eternal rebirth depicted in Mother goddess's biosphere has been almost entirely compromised, and I just wonder whether humans will be able to attach themselves to the idea that in order to be sustainable we have to maintain certain natural cycles. Also, as the growing dualism(s) of our patriarchal society becomes more prominent in environmental issues, I wonder if we have the capacity to reconnect ourselves to the idea of actually being a piece of nature rather than being enemies with it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing which stuck with me about the reading was at the end of the third one, where Harrison mentioned that Manwoodians are forced to use the language of usefulness, which is seen as the only legitimate form, but which lacks the vocabulary and thoughts to make a purely Manwoodian argument.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of an argument I came across doing a literature review of studies of news coverage of evolution and creationism. I don't want to go into the whole thing here, but basically one of the problems facing scientists is that engaging creationists in the press at all risks legitimizing the controversy by participating in the arena in which it plays out, which mostly doesn't use the scientific standards by which evolution is properly judged. On the other hand, refusing to engage in the press cedes the field entirely, which presents a whole new set of problems.
I think the same thing is happening here. It's interesting that the ideas of usefulness and value so engrained in this Enlightenment sense seem to refer to cash-style value only. There is, of course, the other version, cultural/moral value, but that type of value is pretty divorced from the financial sense of value, which now that I think about it is kind of strange.
So I think in order to talk usefully about forests and forest management, a wider definition of value has to be genuinely applied: both financial value and cultural value and the language used to speak about them have to be seem as legitimate. The fact that there's no obvious way to assign an equivalency scaling factor or whatever between them will complicate the discussion, but I think that complication is better to deal with than the simplification of omitting one side of the discussion entirely, and can produce more useful conclusions anyway if both aspects are integrated from the beginning. This would probably also require a cultural shift to admit cultural value as a legitimate contributor to the initial conversation, and is so probably something that needs to be worked toward rather than something that can be started up right away.
-Erin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRobert Pogue Harrison sheds light on the powerful and pervasive influence the Cartesian method has had on Western thinking, including attitudes toward nature. Mathematical deductionism certainly yields logical “truths,” and represents a formidable tool for rational management of resources. Ironically (to use Harrison’s word), this method rests on a deep, abiding faith in its own power to arrive at truth, gleaned by casting aside all other grounds of knowing, be they inherited bodies of knowledge or, even more striking, the wisdom derived from one’s own senses.
ReplyDeleteHarrison describes enlightenment as “a projective detachment from the past—a way of thinking which detaches the present from tradition and projects it forward into an ideal secular future ideally governed by the law of reason” (114). Such is Le Roy’s mindset when he speaks of overcoming “ignorance” that leads to frivolous uses of forests and of maximizing a forest’s utility. Echoing a sentiment in several of this week’s posts, I would argue that “enlightenment” is something of a misnomer if being enlightened means viewing a forest as a glorified woodlot whose value lies entirely in the products it will yield.
-John
I have always been interested in Greek myths, so I loved how Harrison examined them to judge the view of forests at the time. I was a little disappointed that he didn’t discuss Dionysus because it had many of the same qualities of wildness and metamorphosis as many of the ones he did discuss. I have always been intrigued, however, by the story of Artemis and Actaeon.
ReplyDeleteHarrison describes the forest as being wild and outside of civilization’s realm of the city. The forest is Artemis’s territory along with all of the wild animals and plants. Actaeon ventures too far in his quest for the stag and sees Artemis naked. This seems like a metaphor for Actaeon going further into the forest than he ought to. He cannot bring the control and authority he has for his people and domesticated animals into the wild. Therefore Artemis turns him into a stag so he is devoured by his own dogs that represent his control and dominion.
The forest was a place for wild men. They were often driven there by madness and live in savagery for years until they are regeneration into a new and better man. Such is the story of Yvain who goes into the forest until he is transformed and is “raised to a high order of moral equilibrium.” This is analogous to people living years in sin and then finding God and being reborn again. Harrison talks about this when he says that the forests can be a place for savagery and also a place where one goes to find and be closer to God.
-Mallory Berrey
Similar to many of the previous posts on the Harrison readings this week, I found the myth about Artemis and Actaeon to be very compelling in its illustration of the relationship between man and nature. This myth is one that I have not been exposed to before, and I initially found it very compelling. It seems to explain that the gulf between man and nature is unable to be breached, and that any man who has been exposed to the natural in its most pristine and wild state will lose his humanity. I found this reading of the story comforting: humans have gotten management of nature wrong so far, and that is unfortunate, but explainable given Artemis’ curse on Actaeon; it is almost as if a modern scholar of environmental science wrote this himself, lamenting the complexity of the field. But such an analysis of the story brought up another important aspect of it: though this is a parable, it was written by man. So is it really anything more than an excuse for our mistakes?
ReplyDeleteThis question is unanswerable, but I found that it was interesting to reflect upon. The Harrison reading brought up many other such questions of beliefs that I had held for granted that in fact had a distinct historical and philosophical origin, and thus I found that it broadened my perspective regarding the complexity of environmental and forestry issues.
-Annie Johnson
Harrison gives and example of how Rome and Greece deforested their lands to build their empires. However the deforestation that helped build their empires also inevitably lead to their destruction. By deforesting their lands the Romans altered the natural cycles that sustained the land. The deforestation lead to erosion striping away the productivity of the land and crumbling the empire. Hannah questioned if our society was on the same path to destruction, and I believe that we are.
ReplyDeleteRome’s destiny will correspond with our society’s destiny unless we do something to reverse our current direction. Our society lives in a world filled with natural resources yet we use and over exploit these resources. Eventually none will be left. We turn against our own planet leading inevitably to our own demise. To honor the time old saying, “You shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you.” In Matt’s entry he references a quote from Harrison, “The ecological legacy of our antiquity.” I believe that this quote refers to the history of the overexploitation of our ecological resources. The Greeks and Roman’s blindly used up their forests until nothing was left, and inevitably lead themselves to down fall. In a quote from Harrison he discusses how it is unimaginable the Greeks and Romans could not see this coming, “It is hard to imagine that a civilization as brilliant as that of the Greeks, or an empire engineered and administered so efficiently as that of the Romans, could remain so blind in their practices as to bring about the ruin of the ground on which their survivals were based.” Hopefully we will recognize that we are on a path to destruction and change course before we share the same fate as the Romans.