December 15, 2015 - 00:13
Humans are constantly learning.
Sometimes, it’s all too easy to shuffle the world into binary boxes: environment here, identity there, relationships here, individuality there, subjective ideas here, objective facts there. We separate the questions of the universe into our outside – the logical, fact-based, environmental – and our inside – the emotional, unconscious, and subjective. But this blind categorization fails as science begins to intersect with philosophy and the questions themselves start to collide. In a world where everything is connected and slippage is unavoidable, ecological intelligence and awareness is increasingly important.
Each new advance in cosmological science is a new realization of how very small humanity actually is, and yet our discoveries don’t stop with the macro-universe. All around us, inside of us, trillions of bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other organisms (too small for us to observe) create their own world. Both the micro- and macro- biomes are complicated and permeable things, influenced by and influencing one another. In other words, we aren't as separated from our surroundings as we might think. We are both in and of our environment. Latour considers the possible consequences of this realization in his essay, “Agency in the Time of the Anthropocene”, where he notes that recent discoveries have changed how we think about the earth. The environment, he states, affects us as much as we affect it, and thus nothing is passive and everything is active. Because of this, Latour states that “there is no distant place” – and perhaps, by saying that this class is about “identity and the environment”, I am reinforcing the notion that they are separate entities, when in fact they are intimately interconnected.
We conclude, then, that there is no divide between the social and the natural environment. This in turn expands the dialogue to ask whether the language of "saving the environment" doesn't imply that we exist outside the environment, that we can save it. Is this language not misleading? Alaimo states that "The problem with thinking of nature as elsewhere, of thinking of culture as outside of nature, is that it cultivates a way of thinking that makes ecological issues seem like the peculiar concern of people who like spotted owls and beautiful canyons." Perhaps humans are neither the problem nor the solution, but simply a part of the geostory.
The fact remains, however, that humanity has done irreparable damage to the earth and to each other. This is where the concept of “slippage” comes into play; in a world of constant change and interaction, slippage is an unconscious change in actions due to beliefs or values, or an involuntary reversion to the default setting of things from which one has previously chosen to step away. The harm being done now isn’t for lack of information or because governments consciously choose to trash the environment or reinforce racial divides. Instead, it’s because in the face of challenge, people often make judgments and react emotionally in ways that “slip”—ways that don’t necessarily align with the values they profess to uphold.
Because humans are flawed, slippage is inevitable. The problem lies in our tendency to make involuntary assumptions and to vilify opposing ideas. For example, during the recent debate about race and safety on BMC’s campus, the failure to acknowledge the individual experiences of students was both damaging and worrying. The debate on Yik Yak degenerated into accusatory and hurtful language, and the following protest caused even more discussion-- though the concerns and arguments presented were valid, the way in which they were stated served to further polarize the discussion and spark controversy. Some on campus were shocked, others jubilant.
This is by no means specific to Bryn Mawr… in the same way, reactive assumptions and hurtful language are often utilized in environmental debates. Activists often center their arguments on degeneration of the government, or of specific companies, or of capitalism in general, criticizing them for their selfishness and materialism. But at the same time, are we really willing to give up our cellphones, our cheap clothes, and our comfortable lifestyles? Social justice is a beautiful and worthy goal— but how much are modern-day revolutionaries ready to sacrifice? I personally find myself emotionally reacting and then logically reasoning, asking myself questions, unconsciously slipping and consciously identifying that slippage, over and over again. Mostly, I am constantly aware of the fact that I am much less aware than I would like to be.
In the end, I think perhaps the solution for slippage is simply that – awareness. The idea of “ecological intelligence”, or the understanding of both the global environmental and small ecological influences of our choices, comes into play here. Bowers introduces this idea in his “Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence”, explaining that this new “intelligence” is at its heart a recognition of our interconnectedness with each other and with the world. Earlier in the course, my friend and I noted (half in jest, half seriously) that perhaps the world would be better if humans didn’t exist. Latour leads us to recognize is that attempting to cease human influence impossible-- but more importantly, it’s the natural order for things to influence and be influenced by their environments, humans and non-humans alike. The solution lies not in “fixing” the world, but in becoming mindful of our actions.
This new awareness is not strictly limited to the natural environment, just as slippage isn’t limited to the social. In fact, the disappearance of the boundary between “outside” (environment) and “inside” (identity) helps us to apply ecological intelligence to all areas of slippage. By definition, slippage is involuntary and unrecognized—and thus, ecological intelligence is the recognition and questioning of this slippage. As bodies within a much greater system, our job isn’t to erase the mark of humanity upon the earth or destroy any evidence that we changed the world; instead, it’s to recognize and take responsibility for the imprints that we leave in the places that we have been. In a world of constant change and interaction, where the slippage is both unintentional and inevitable, ecological intelligence helps us stay aware.
It helps us to become conscious of our own unconsciousness.