This weeks’ articles covered the role of the humanities in addressing environmental issues. It is of common assumption that environmental science - climatologists, natural resource managers, soils technicians, etc - are the social caste with the tools to save us from self-wrought ecological decay. And this is true! But as is always the case with critical studies, the situation is more complex than it appears to be at first glance. Both articles bring up the point that although the “left-brained” disciplines (as we have been calling them in class) are extraordinarily well equipped to measure impacts and qualities of environmental problems, they are often deplorably inept at turning these measurements into effective strategies for change. In many cases, bureaucracy, funding, and a purely scientific outlook ironically combine to turn a solution into yet another problem. Take for example, the Humboldt Bay Wildlife Refuge. At first glance, the refuge is a beautiful example of modern science and management techniques being exercised on compromised land for the betterment of wild species and humans alike. But from a humanitarian perspective, this location represents a suite of curious contradictions that hint at an underlying structural problem.
Why is this wildlife refuge in the particular spot that it is? How come the management is spending the vast majority of its’ budget and time on maintaining the land as an ecosystem that would not naturally occur in that place? Who is in charge of determining how this land gets used? These are the kinds of questions that the humanities bring to the table. They might sound a little belligerent, as if there were trying to stir up trouble and look for problems, and thats’ because they are. The humanities’ contribution to environmental problems is to put the Human back into the equation, because humans are some of the strongest interactors in the environment. If you’re curious about the wildlife refuge, the management is maintaining the refuge as a freshwater wetland despite its’ location smack-dab in the middle of the salty mud-flats of the Humboldt bay because of a nearly century old congressional policy that requires government-run refuges to prioritize populations of waterfowl for hunting. Their secondary efforts to maintain ecosystems amicable to threatened or rare bird species are primarily motivated by another government policy declaring that public space must be put aside for these birds because ranchers don’t like these birds nesting on their properties and want to be able to extirpate them. In summary, the wildlife refuge IS a great example of conservation management implementation, but the sources of its’ authority and funding are poorly organized, out-of-date policies that were put in place to appease economic interests and the recreation of the wealthy. I leave it up to you to decide whether your tax dollars could be put to better use.
Enough with the summarizing. The wildlife refuge is a local, personally relevant example of how environmental efforts have a void which could be filled by humanities-oriented thought & action. But the critical lack of self-insight and systems-level analysis found in the funding and agenda of the refuge reflect a common trend on all scales of the environmental movement. Measuring air quality, water quality, soil composition, disease rates, etc is EASY. That’s why we’re so good at it, and why as a society these techniques are most prevalent. But the humanities are all about asking the hard questions - the ones that can’t be measured in a lab. The fact that the questions humanities are poised to ask are scrutinous of power structures, politically subjective, and often metaphysical in nature is very likely the reason why their implementation is sluggish. But pernicious problems that extend beyond the scope of the individual - climate change, food insecurity, overconsumption, resource conflict, environmental justice (to name but a few) are, by nature, a product of the LACK of humanities’ influence in the world of policy and management. Intangibility, technocratic post-political mindsets, negative framing, and compartmentalization are the four problems listed in ‘What are the Environmental Humanities’ article. They sound to me like consequences of denial. Denial that social justice is inherently linked to environmental quality. Denial that economic solutions can’t always be environmental solutions. Denial that compassion and tolerance are as important to social reproduction as efficiency and efficacy.
As a species, a community, and a collection of individuals, humans are on the brink of something big. Our world has never felt smaller as technological advancements and shifting cultural paradigms rapidly accelerate the rate of global connectivity. As we hurtle towards this future, I’d like to remind everyone of Stan Lee’s famous words, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. To me, these words aren’t just the epitaph of a comic book character - they’re powerful social commentary. Humanity is becoming increasingly powerful, so much to the point we’re considering naming this era after ourselves. Its about time Humanity focused on accruing a proportional amount of responsibility to match its’ power. And that responsibility can be found through the articulation of Environmental Humanities.
