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.
Have a good weekend.
Bookchin does not understand why deep ecology deems all life forms equal because that means that people “can no more deny the right of pathogenic viruses to be placed in an Endangered species” (Bookchin). It is obvious that people are not equal to a pathogenic virus, but that is what deep ecology promotes. Davis’s essay on the Malibu fires agrees with Bookchin’s view about deep ecology. The people of Malibu know they have power over nature and assume the right to control the fires and change the natural landscape of Malibu. Bookchin’s second claim is that people’s hierarchy over one another allows society to rule over nature, instead of the idea that society’s power over nature allows people to rule over one another in the form of social class. This is also affirmed by Davis’s essay when he talks about the people in Downtown do not get equal treatment with the Malibu elites. The power and influence that the wealthy have allows them to control nature, while the people in Downtown who don’t have power must suffer the brutal consequences of fires. Lastly, Didion uses the greenhouses to depict how the rich in Malibu have the means to control nature in every aspect. They have the resources to plant flowers (like orchids) that will not last very long because they are not in their natural habitat. This correlates to Bradford’s opinion that the underlying issues with people’s connection to nature stems from social and cultural problems. In this instance, the social problems is that people deem themselves superior to nature and attempt to control every facet of it like the wealthy people in Malibu do.
ReplyDeleteBookchin’s argument against deep ecology is a more realistic view of the human world and nature. It is impossible for humans to be equal to every living species because we, out of any life form have the most ability overall. Humans are the creatures that can sustain nature, build on nature, even at times feed it (for plants and agriculture purposes), and also tame it (wild fires). This is illustrated in both Didion’s reading and Davis’ reading. In Didion’s reading this is shown in the green house where Amando Vasquez took care of the orchids. Yes, it does take place in a green house, a place that nature is controlled, but Vasquez is helping these orchids live and grow, and as human beings this is the power we hold over nature. We are not meant to be equal with any other species. This claim of not being equal to all the species is also shown in Davis’ reading about the fires that take place in Malibu. Even though sometimes the firefighters cannot fully control these fires because it is them versus nature itself, they definitely can help tame it and control the fire to an extent. Without these firefighters (human beings) the wild fires have the capability to destroy a lot more of earth than deep ecologists claim we do on our own. Another claim Bookchin makes is that our world is controlled and based of a social hierarchy. Frankly, the more money you have the more power you hold or the more you will be listened to politically. In Davis’ essay, Malibu is given tax relief for homes damaged by the fires, yet the fires that continued to happen in Downtown and Westlake apartments were overlooked and not even inspected most of the time. Davis states that fire inspection auditors reported that “fire inspections were three times higher in upper-income areas Bel-Air and Encino, than in poor and fire-prone Westlake or South Central” (Davis). This is an example of the social hierarchy Bookchin points out because clearly the government doesn’t feel the need to make more efforts and fund the fire department with more resources and money to fix these buildings properly to prevent these fires. The people that live in Downtown are minorities with low-income, while the people in Malibu are millionaires and actors who can technically afford to build their own homes again if they wanted to but the government gives them a special treatment because they feel that their opinions matter more. Another claim that Bookchin makes against deep ecology is the emotional relationship humans do have with nature. He basically disregards this entire issue and continues on about how we have this social hierarchy that controls nature with no emotional connection for it. In Didion’s essay we see the connection she has to the orchids as a resident of Malibu. This is an example that not everyone that can afford to live there are the same stuck up and materialistic people that Malibu is known for.
ReplyDelete-Nicole Azer
Bookchin’s expression of social problems, which are inherently connected to those of economics and politics, as the root of the environmental problems we face today is displayed in Davis’ account of downtown LA areas having fewer safety precautions in place compared to that of wealthier communities such as Malibu. “Annual fire inspection rates…were almost three times higher in upper-income areas” (Davis 37). This is a direct result of downtown LA having a lower voter turnout and therefore politicians give their resources and attention elsewhere in order to service solely their constituents. This political corruption, which people like Council member Mike Hernandez are trying to stop, is what led to the various lethal tenement fires mentioned in Davis’ text.
ReplyDeleteRather than completely dismiss deep ecology as an illegitimate study, Bradford explores the idea that it does have some relevance and connection to that of social ecology. Didion also makes reference to both views in her personal account of the Malibu fires and Amado Vazquez’s passion for orchids, applying to what Bradford refers to as “kinship with the land and land ethic, an aspect of deep ecology which he agrees with.
Bookchin labels our creation of social hierarchies as the cause of our modern environmental issues. He believes that the only solution lies in the breaking down of these hierarchies. This idea is further depicted in Davis’ text through the devastation brought to the tenement communities and the housekeepers who were left behind just so the Malibu housewives could save their precious jewelry during the fires. One we learn to respect these people many of our environmental issues can be solved, such as that of famine in Africa that Bradford claims is a result of “social conflicts and capital looting” (Bradford 432). This breaking down of social hierarchies will also bring us to realize that we have a false sense of control over nature that stems from our control of certain sectors of society. Reality is that we cannot control the fires nor protect the orchids through the greenhouse presented in Didion’s text.
-Amanda Gray
Bookchins criticizes society for “manipulating nature” and Didion clearly supports this statement. Didion agrees with Bookchins and thinks that society is trying to control nature, which is portrayed with her example of the greenhouses and the orchids. Greenhouses’ purpose is to provide an environment for plants and flowers that would usually not survive in that certain location or place without the proper care. Didion demonstrates how Malibu is trying to the control the growth of the orchids through the greenhouses. Even though Didion does mention the affection Amado Vasquez has toward the orchids, it doesn’t mean he is still not controlling the breeding and the growth of the orchids growing in the greenhouses. Bookchins also ridicules “deep ecology” and states that nature is “not a cosmic arrangement of beings frozen in moment of eternity to be abjectly revered, adored, and worshiped like gods and goddesses,” a statement that Didion also addresses in her essay. What Bookchins seems to be criticizing in his writing, Didion seems to make more personal in her essay. Didion mentions how Amado breeds the orchids when there is a “full moon and high tide because phalaenopsis plants are more fertile than.” Didion believes in the spiritual connection between nature and humans, while Bookchins just finds “deep ecology” quite ridiculous. Bookchins tends to criticize the hierarchies and the “development of classes” and how its affecting the relationship between people and nature. Davis seems to agree with Bookchins and talks about the fires in Malibu and in Downtown. He talks about how more people die in fires in unrepresented communities like Downtown because they have less help and live in poorly constructed buildings.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Rodriguez
Both Bradford and Davis seek to highlight how animals sometimes receive greater concern than humans under the umbrella of environmental consciousness. Bradford mentions how humans are indeed deeply connected to nature, but also how humans should not worry about species extinction so heavily since it has been a natural occurrence throughout the history of the world. On the other hand, Davis mentions homeowners complaining that they could not do the best thing for their house's safety by cutting down flammable brush, because endangered species and the intrinsic value of nature was placed above social protection (a major contention that both Bookchin and Bradford make in their own articles).
ReplyDeleteBookchin and Didion both suggest that human interaction with and dominion over the environment and other species are not entirely destructive actions; they argue humans can actually serve the planet through their utilization of nature. Bookchin says evolution has led to the unique human ability to develop culture (not to mention Bradford insisting on a similar ability for humans to develop ethics), and that humans can advance biological processes and evolution in return. Didion, in highlighting Amado Vazquez's orchid development, shows how control and usage of the Earth's resources can lead to profits that help people socially while simultaneously increasing biological diversity and beauty.
Bookchin and Davis find ways to heavily criticize groups of people that seem out of touch with pressing human need when discussing the environment; Davis simply admonishes a more affluent, conservative audience while Bookchin attacks the deep ecologists obsessed with "eco-la-la." Bookchin says that a social focus (as opposed to a spiritual focus) best addresses people of underrepresented gender, race, and regional demographics, while Davis aims to protect poor residents of Los Angeles bullied by special interests and a lax political system. Davis' criticism specifically targets suburb dwellers he depicts as spoiled and overly-expectant of public emergency assistance.
Dideon's example of the greenhouse reveals the idea that humans believe they are above nature. They feel the need to control every little aspect of the environment to fit their ideas. For instance the orchids, which are not meant to thrive in malibu, are grown in greenhouses to increase their longevity. Bookchin agrees with this because the greenhouse is how humans view nature. The people from Malibu, usually wealthy people, are able to manipulate most things in the environment. Bookchin also doesn't quite understand deep ecology because he does not believe that people are equal to all other creatures on the planet. Pathogens that harm animals, based on deep ecology, are to be treated like humans, or at least be considered endangered. Davis agrees and states that people should be greater than "bacteria" and therefore have some right the shape the environment. Another claim from Bookchin is that social hierarchy presents a problem in our culture. The man made social hierarchy, based on class and wealth, somehow gives people the license to control nature and treat other people differently. For example, there are more regulations in malibu against fires than in the poorer regions of LA, where fires are more rampant. In Davis's story of the wealthy family of a house on fire in malibu, the family chooses to save their monetary possessions as opposed to saving the life of a house maid, who is human; a thought that is grotesque to many.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Lin
Bookchin critiques the way in which deep ecology makes a distinct separation between humanity and the natural world and fails “to see ecological and philosophical questions as rooted in social and historical ones” (Bookchin 2). Along with Bradford, he claims that humans are an irremovable part of nature and thus humanity’s problems and ecological problems will always be interrelated. Davis’s description of the powerful elite residing in Malibu and their estates, which are eventually used as fuel for the catastrophic fires, supports the connection between the socio-political and ecological problems. The residents of Malibu have the wealth, which in turn gives them an upper hand in influencing governmental policies legislation. Bookchin’s criticism on social hierarchy and class is also evident in Davis’s description of Malibu and the rundown tenements in downtown Los Angeles. Malibu became an exclusive region of land, and “remained as inaccessible to the general public” (Davis 109), depicting the class conflict within our society. Moreover, the slumlords of Los Angeles that not only crammed as many people as possible into the apartments, but also refused to implement fire safety measures in fear that it would cut from their profits, made the social hierarchy distinct between them and the tenants. Greed and a desire for wealth and power have become major influences in our social issues. Ecological problems are manifested from the underlying social problems that must be solved first, a point that Bradford emphasized. The orchids grown in the greenhouses in Malibu, as described by Didion, supports Bookchin’s notion that humans control nature. We transport plants away from their indigenous home, genetically manipulate, and nurture them to fit our desires. However, this aspect of being superior to nature is also what Bookchin argues to be a product of natural evolution. While deep ecology would render this type of control over nature as an example of “humanity…[as] some kind of cancer in the world of life”, Bookchin celebrates it as the “uniqueness…of this extraordinary species.”
ReplyDeleteBookchin points out the disregard of the social problems that underlie the ecological problems. Davis uses the stories of the downtown fires in order to evoke a sense of human connection and responsibility for the casualties. People fail to realize the story behind the deaths, the unregulated apartments, the overpopulated rooms, and the lack of attention from the fire companies. Because tenants of these downtown apartments were typically poorer immigrants rather than rich Malibuites, less attention was attributed to their safety, indirectly increasing the damage done to them.
ReplyDeleteBookchin thinks that a partial solution to these ecological problems requires participation of a social change, a need to break down the social hierarchies. Davis uses the story of Hernandez who looks to fight the corruption. He recognizes the lack of attention given to the poor tenants who do not vote. He tries to instill policies to help these people, simply because they are people too. Hernandez saw them as human beings with the right to live, not as profit or votes. This is the activism that Bookchin sees as an answer to the ecological problems: human involvement in tearing down the detrimental social hierarchies.
Bradford sees our human actions as a part of evolution, just as Bookchin did. “Organisms transform their environments by physically interacting them. An anthill is an artifact just as a highway is.” Humans our merely using resources around them and their unique thinking and technology to interact with surroundings. In Didion’s story of Amando, a greenhouse is used as a control over nature. There is no destruction, just an artificial growth of nature, and Didion appreciates this act. She thought the orchids were beautiful, even if they were grown by a man’s hands in a man-made greenhouse. This controlling and growing of nature is just our way of utilizing resources given to us through evolution. As Bradfor and Bookchin recognize, this is just a cycle, our place in evolution. We should take advantage of our human uniqueness and use it for the better. Bookchin uses examples like these to prove that they are social problems. Evolution has given us abilities, but the problem comes when we decide what to do with these abilities.
Bookchin makes a strong point about the uniqueness of humankind. He states that the notion of deep ecology to look at us as a part of nature instead of as separate is ridiculous. Humans have been created by nature to be unique, by creating this social hierarchy and whatnot, we are simply fulfilling evolution’s path. We are meant to use nature to our advantage, that’s what it is here for. This coincides with Didion’s discussion of her love for greenhouses. She describes how this control of nature is beautiful; it is beautiful because it exemplifies what humans have evolved from.
ReplyDeleteBradford’s description of the need for both natural and aesthetic objects epitomizes Davis description of the rich inhabitants of Malibu. The scenic area in which they live fulfills the need for these natural structures. The house on the other hand, fulfills the need for aesthetics. As Bradford makes clear, aesthetic objects can be recreated.
Bradford’s idea that we are so close to nature that it is impossible to conceptualize untouched nature coincides with Didion’s description of all things in Malibu being plastic. The notion that everything is fake brings the idea that humans mold nature as something else than what it would be without us. When people see Malibu, they see this natural landscape but as Didion describes this is actually all fake and molded by humans.
Bookchin's approach of ecology comes from a more socially realistic point of view, and he rightfully accounts for man's gift/curse to consciously manipulate nature to make it a different place. Ecological problems are not only dictated by works of nature, but equally social relationships and constructs amongst people and their communities. This idea of society's importance in the natural world is also expressed in Davis' essay about Malibu, and that social class dictates so much of safety precaution status and as a result the gross impact of nature's ways on human society. In addition, Bookchin also relates the idea that although human's impact is one to account for, it is not always a bad influence. This claim is also supported by Didion's essay, and her example of the greenhouse. Humans are born with a special gift to consciously make decisions that have large implications and if they use the gift through appropriate utilization of nature, then humans can do good for nature. Bradford agrees with Davis about the importance of also accounting for the maintenance of humans with nature and their place in the environment rather than trying to control nature from occurring. Often, species extinction is given an unnecessarily large amount of attention, so much blame going to humans. However, in reality, it should be understood that extinction is yet just one of several natural processes that have always occurred. Davis accounts for the lack of safety measures met because of the understood "injustice" of tearing down some small habitats to maintain human safety. All in all, social ecology dictates that humans have an extra importance within the environment, and humans gifts should not be ignored in the large environmental scheme.
ReplyDeleteArko Ghosh
Didion supports Bookchin’s idea that humans are well-integrated in nature, and that they aren’t ruining it as deep ecologists argue. However, she seems to refute Bookchin’s belief that the world and society can be simply dismissed as hierarchal and run by elitist white men. Specifically, she seems to have a more nuanced view of power by providing examples such as the one of how Jerry Brown did not want to live in the governor’s mansion because it had marble and other features that made it elitist.
ReplyDeleteBookchin believes that deep ecologists think that humanity is bad and that humans are running nature. Ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. Didion takes a stance against this idea with the way she describes her love for green houses, and how humans can control and reconstruct new forms of life.
Bookchin’s beliefs are revolutionary as he unmasks the entire evolution of hierarchy rooted in “eco-anarchistic” and “radical economic insights”. However, Didion discusses the way nature and orchids gave Amado Vasquez access to a white, upper class enclave in Malibu.
Betty Tran
“The implications of a deep ecological vision as a broad, intuitive sensibility - … an affirmation of the primal, animist wisdom that places humanity within the web of life and not at the top of some hierarchy – the rediscovery of this constellation of insights is in my view a fundamental precondition for breaking out of the prison-house of urban-industrial civilization and creating a family of free cultures in harmony with one another and with the Earth.”
ReplyDeleteThis relates perfectly to Davis’s depiction of unaware “Malibuites” that fail to learn from past disasters. According to Bradford, humanity should be in the web of life and not at the top of some hierarchy. This sort of sentiment can be clearly seen in the action of these ignorant Malibuites – instead of realizing that the dangerously flammable coast is an extremely unsuitable place to live, the Malibuites believe that they can conquer the landscape with “technological fixes,” the most preposterous of which was the effort to purchase the 17-million dollar amphibious airplanes from Canada for fighting these fires.
“This simplistic contrast of nature and human interest, shortsighted or otherwise, leaves Naess blind to the actual organization of power, as well as to the operational characteristics of what is fundamentally an exterminist civilization, a global megamachine.”
There are so many intelligent people in the world today that care deeply about the environment and humanity’s role in it. In spite of this, our capitalistic culture is not changing nearly as quickly as it should. This quote explains this confusing phenomenon very well. These “deep ecologists,” such as Naess, are naïve to the actual organization of power, which Davis explores rather deeply in his “Ecology of Fear.” Powerful people like to live in secluded places. Secluded places are often unsafe to live in, such as the case is in Malibu. Though these places are not safe to live, the rich and powerful have a disproportional amount of political influence over practice and policy. Ultimately, things like the Malibu wildfires happen. The Malibu Fires are merely a small example of a larger issue – the fact that our society and its social hierarchies are preventing social/ecological progress.
“Unless there is a resolute attempt to fully anchor ecological dislocation in social dislocations, to challenge the vested corporate and political interests known as capitalist society to analyze, explore and attack hierarchy as a reality, not only as a sensibility, ecology movement will become another ugly wart on the skin of society.”
Similar to the last quote, Bookchin’s contention with the ‘vested corporate and political interest’ explains the Malibu phenomenon perfectly. Ecological dislocations (Malibu fires) are firmly planted in social dislocations (disproportionate influence in one area vs. another). This relationship between ecological dislocations and social dislocations can be seen in many other human-made threats to the environment.
Shengying Song
Bookchin rejects "biocentrism", "anthropocentrism" and "centrism". He agrees with the uniqueness of the human beings for their rationality, aesthetic sensibility and ethical potentiality. To social ecology, nature is natural evolution. Humans have evolved to be with greater complexity, subjectivity and a capacity for conceptual thought, communication and self-consciousness. Human are also product of evolution that to deny human's uniqueness is to deny the fecundity of natural evolution itself. Both Didion and Davis's essay support this idea by presenting about the Malibu fires and orchid in a greenhouse. They both present how people have the power to control over the nature due to human's unique quality. Another claim Bookchin has is that people have the social hierarchies that allow people to control over one another in terms of social class and also the nature. In one of the example by Davis, the government has low budget to fix properly the fire-escapes of buildings therefore leading to a fire and causing deaths. Eventhough all these claims of Bookchin is supported by evidences of Didion's and Davids' essays, his statement about how that nature is "not a cosmic arrangement of being frozen in moment of eternity to be abjectly revered, adored, and worshiped like gods and goddess" is not well supported by Didion since she writes more personally about the nature and believes in the spiritual connection.
ReplyDeleteHye Sun Choi
Davis’ description of low-income housing in Los Angeles and how unfortunate the tenants’ lives were in contrast to the people of Malibu. Davis explains that low-income housing was more or less designed to kill people in the event of a fire. Residents of Malibu purposely built their houses in extremely fire-prone areas. After the disasters that inevitably burned the homes of both the very poor and very rich, Malibu was given tax exemptions, wide media coverage, and provided benefits to rebuild bigger houses in the same area. The low-income residents were hardly talked about, and more or less told “tough-luck” as the resources that were set aside for a disaster were spent on Malibu. Undeniably this discrepancy in wealth also allows wealthier individuals to feel closer to nature and live farther away from the city, increasing the chance that an environmental will affect them. Lower-income families are constrained to live in the city, but instead of having a connection to nature they are forced to live in sub-standard housing that multiplies the dangers of disasters. Both the very wealthy and the very poor are forced to be at the will of nature. Davis’ portrayal of the divide between rich and poor is brought together by Bookchin’s idea that humans are part of nature and will never be able to truly separate themselves from nature.
ReplyDeleteMichael Young