Category Archives: Week 10: The Blue Humanities: Oceanic Thinking & History

Reclaiming the Ocean’s Identity

Posted on by
2

In the introduction to The Ocean Reader: History, Culture, Politics, Eric Paul Roorda says, “Ocean is capitalized in this book…to claim a formal name for that vast place within the realm of World History, as if it were a country or a continent” (3). The author makes an interesting, stylistic decision that is seemingly a grammatical observation, but it operates on a deeper, more symbolic level as a political and ecological statement. By giving “Ocean” the status of a proper noun, the author transforms it from a background into it being an active subject—one with history, agency, and an identity. This whole passage invites readers to reconsider how language reflects the hierarchy and neglect. Lands, nations, and people receive capitalization, while the sea–source of life and essentially the means of global interconnection–remains lowercased, as it’s being linguistically diminished.

The capitalization of “Ocean” challenges terracentrism, as it is described in the first pages, it is basically a perspective that centers human civilization on land and keeps water as an absence or the outside margin. Roorda’s choice of wording in the quote I mentioned earlier resists the bias by asserting that the Ocean deserves recognition that is the same as continents and countries. The rhetorical effect is both grammatical and moral because readers must see the sea not as a blank expanse but as a named entity that demands attention. By saying, “to claim a formal name for that vast place” implies a reclamation, as if the Ocean has been stripped of its proper dignity by centuries of human exploitation and invisibility.

By capitalizing “Ocean,” we’re also quite literally, linguistically elevating the word so that it also resonates with environmental urgency because this is a place! The text repositions the sea as a proper subject of history–one that is currently endangered and constantly overlooked. The act of naming becomes an act of care, restoring narrative agency to the planet’s largest ecosystem. Roorda’s editorial, grammatical choice of giving the sea the name “Ocean,” as so much more than a stylistic choice, as it performs what their argument is, and it’s turning it into advocacy. In this subtle yet profound gesture, language becomes a tool to compel readers to see that the Ocean, like humanity itself, has a name that is worth honoring.

Ocean and History

Posted on by
Reply

In “Introduction: People and Oceans” by Reaktion Books, a line that stood out to me was “ The time has come to put the Ocean in the centre of some of our histories, not to replace terrestrial history but to add the history of the Ocean itself to the other important histories we tell (pg.7).” This opens the narrative that we can make space for broadening our perception of the environmental humanities, one that is inclusive to the Ocean. There is this idea that some of us believe, that if we are to introduce a new idea it is made in lieu of another. This quote tells us that we can deepen our pre-existing understanding and knowledge of our history by adding the unfamiliar, which is incorporating blue humanities.The Ocean is perceived as unchanging, a timeless body of water that remains the same, even to those who are well acquainted with it such as sailors. Stories of the sea usually involve humans and the way that we interact with it. Whether that be through sea exploration, recreational activity or reaping the sea of its resources. Hardly ever are there talks of the Ocean being an archive, the land in contrast is something we’ve documented to be dynamic and ever-changing. Our history books are land-centric, which goes to show our limited knowledge of the vast Ocean. This terrestrial bias is included in our language, and interestingly enough how far our care extends to other species of animals. These animals are usually mammals that humans feel for, such as whales, dolphins, seals, etc. It’s difficult to empathize with what we don’t see in ourselves. Even when documenting Ocean history, it is usually through the lens of globalization and how we directly interact with the sea rather than the changes of the Ocean by itself. If we change the way that we look at the Ocean, as a space that’s worth acknowledging with changes unseen by the human eye, perhaps we’ll find new and deeper ways to care for it.  

Ocean Identity: Belonging only Within Itself

Posted on by
1

In our Introduction of The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics, Roorada gives us an overall view on the message this book is intended to grant us, a cultural retrospective in regards to how we as a society view the Ocean and in what ways as a community we begin our rethinking of the Ocean in itself rather in comparison to ourselves. Within the introduction, a topic we are exposed to is “Ocean” being “capitalized”… “as if it were a country or a continent.” Roorada explains to the audience that the purpose of this is “to challenge the conventional wisdom that the seas can be taken for granted. They cannot.” This ideology challenges how many different human societies, particularly the US, see the ocean as a resource, “a thing” to be exploited for personal use and profit. And yet – Roordan challenges us to see that even believing the Ocean can be taken for granted is the problem in the first place. Writing the name as “Ocean” is not a way of a human individual giving the Ocean an identity, as we have no individual rights to name the natural world. It is a way of showing recognition to what has always been present. 

The Ocean was here long before any humans set foot on this earth. Its waters gave life to all forms of organisms, covered the earth in its richness to provide for its creatures. The Ocean does not act on behalf of us. We are its servants, privileged to use it as a pathway into other worlds unknown to us. The Ocean gave us the ability to be interconnected with other human communities, the only course to cultures and expansion. The ocean gave humans food and material, a way to sustain ourselves long before societies stood. Yet how can we say the Ocean bends at our will? How can we look out on this majority, a geographical location that covers more of the Globe than any other “thing” on this planet and expect to obtain power over it? 

             Roordan reorganizes our thinking in regards to human ownership, what we conceive to be within our own domain of influence and what is actually out of our control. Ocean is the world and environment. We live within Ocean. The Ocean is a part of ourselves, we would not be human without it. Our connection with it is that of children, reliant on its resources, unable to survive without its nourishment. We, as a community must take it upon ourselves to reshape our viewpoint on Ocean, understand we have no control over the natural world and are subject to its dominion it places upon us.

Rethinking of the Ocean

Posted on by
1

The most important passage in the introduction of The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics is as follows. In the beginning, Roorda writes, “This book aims to avoid that natural bias predominating among our terrestrial species and replace it with a steady focus on the Ocean and on events that take place offshore” (pg.1). This sentence shows the main idea that the book tries to discuss. Roorda explains that human ways of thinking are strongly based on human centered ideas, which are described through the term ‘terracentrism’.

In this passage, Roorda does not call us simply “humans” but instead defines us as a “terrestrial species.” This phrase breaks the traditional boundary between humans and other living beings. By calling humans one kind of species among many, it offers a opportunity for us to change how we see ourselves. We are no longer a special or superior being but a part of the same ecological system as all other creatures. Through this, we can see human society and the natural world as parts of one connected space. It also makes clear that humans are not rulers standing above others. The word “terrestrial” warns us about the “natural bias” that leads us to understand the sea only from the point of view of land. For example, people have divided one connected ocean into seven parts for their own convenience. Unlike the land, where change is easy to see, the deep ocean hides many ecosystems that we tend to ignore simply because we cannot see them. Roorda shows that the root of these problems lies in terracentrism, which makes humans view the world through their own limited ideas and language.

Roorda argues that we must move beyond this terracentric perspective and keep a “steady focus” on the Ocean. This means that the ocean should not be seen as a temporary or distant object of observation, but from its own point of view. The change from the usual lowercase “ocean” to the capitalized “Ocean” shows an effort to “challenge the conventional wisdom that the seas can be taken for granted” (pg.3-4). Using the lowercase word “ocean” makes the sea sound like something humans can define or own. Such naming leads people to believe that the sea belongs to them. However, by changing just one letter, it reminds us that the Ocean is an independent being with its own history and ecosystems.

In conclusion, this book does more than remind us of the importance of the sea. It calls for a change in how we think. Roorda encourages readers to move away from the belief that everything exists for human use and to remember that humans are only one of many species on Earth. When we recognize this, we can begin to understand the world of the Ocean more clearly. To see the world as it truly is, we must change our point of view and learn to see ourselves as part of it. This change must begin within us.

Week 10: The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics – Introduction

Posted on by
Reply

After reading the introduction I felt that my eyes were opened to the ways in which the majority of humans, or “terrestrial species” as the introduction had mentioned, view the ocean. It was quite disheartening to read how humans see the ocean as, “[…] a changeless space, one without a history. Because the Ocean can’t be plowed, paved, or shaped in ways the eye is able to discern, it has seemed to be a constant, while the land has changed drastically over the centuries” (Pg. 1). While the ocean surely does offer humans several different benefits and things to reap from, it serves as an ambiguous space which doesn’t hold much other than the water. It makes me feel sad as if the ocean offered more, like land to live on underwater for example, then it would hold a deeper meaning within humanity. The introduction mentioned how we have spent a lot of time ignoring the ocean and its history, but I can’t help but wonder what other approach or perspective humans would have towards it once, “[…] the Ocean, which currently covers 71 percent of the world, a figure that is certain to rise along with sea level” (Pg. 1), will it only matter then?

Week 10: Oceanic Thinking

Posted on by
Reply

Eric Paul Roorda reconceptualizes the watery world and our interaction with it in an ocean-centric perspective, in The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics, “Introduction.” One of the main tenets that we have become familiar with in our class in respect to the Ocean, when discussing blue humanities, is acknowledging the fact that the Ocean has a history, that is ancient and continuously changing. Our own human history has encompassed only a small fraction of the Oceans history, the same way that the land is only a fraction compared to the area the ocean covers. This is echoed by Roorda, but what drew me in, was how he pushed the ocean centric perspective by dismantling the human imposed borders, and reminding us of the Ocean as a connected body:

“There is one big Ocean, and while its regions have been conceptualized as separate bodies of water and named as different Oceans, the fact is, they are all connected, and seawater travels widely and endlessly across these artificial geographic markers (p.2-3)” 

By explaining the interconnectedness of the Ocean, in a top down fashion (from the earths rotation affecting the movement of air and water, to the patterns of winds and currents that we have named, etc.), Roorda brings focus to the intimate way that we are connected to the movements of the Ocean and the watery world. These movements which we have endeavored to understand throughout our human history; present in oral stories, science, politics, and written histories and literature, function outside of our control, and affect our daily life.

Most importantly, Roorda reminds us that despite the majesty of the Ocean, our interactions with it, our use of it as a tool for imperialism, hunting, and industrialized fishing, have injured and altered the systems we depend upon for survival. These systems we have had a hand in harming, are capable of humbling and harming us : seen in the frequent natural disasters, storms, rising water levels, and recession of fish populations, which millions depend on as a food source. This introduction is a call for us to reanalyze, and revitalize our relationship with the Ocean, as a present figure in our everyday lives, that connects us to every living being, from the shore and beyond, and sustains all life through it’s intricate movements.

The Sea as a Mirror

Posted on by
2

While reading “The Blue Humanities” a line that really stood out to me was “the sea became a mirror that landlubbers used to reflect on their own condition” This shows how people started using the ocean as a way to think about themselves. Instead of the ocean being seen as something distant and dangerous, the ocean became a reflection of human emotions and identities. John Gills is saying that the ocean tells us more about who we are then about the ocean itself.   

Before this idea shift people mostly saw the ocean as a scary, unknown place. A “dark dead zone” or “unfathomable abyss.” It was only a place you crossed to get somewhere else. Eventually, once fewer people worked at sea, artists and writers started to look at it differently. The text says they “turned their full attention to the sea itself”, giving it “a higher aesthetic power”. Gills calls this change the “sublimation of the sea” and it turned the ocean into a kind of emotional or spiritual place. 

When Gills calls the sea a “mirror” it connects to today’s world’s uncertainty. In our industrial and fast changing society people want something that feels steady and eternal. The text points out how the sea’s horizon represents “a steadfast future, an immutable eternity”. At the same time, the ocean’s constant movement mirrors how unpredictable and unstable life feels. This makes the ocean feel both comforting and unsettling. I think this may reflect how humans sometimes feel lost but still search for something bigger than themselves. 

Reading this text made me realize how imagination can replace direct experiences.  “Even those who never crossed the tide line,” Gill says, still used ocean language and metaphors to describe life on land. This could mean that the less people actually knew the ocean, the more it filled their stories and art. This means that the ocean isn’t just water, it’s a symbol of how humans project their own feelings onto nature. The “blue humanities” teaches us that we need to understand the ocean and maybe the entire planet itself through self reflection. In this text, the oceans become a mirror for modern life. It’s vast, changeable and full of whatever meaning we want/need it to be. 

The Archive of the Ocean

Posted on by
1

In “Blue Humanities,” John Gillis explains the early perceptions and relationships to the ocean and how the exploration of this environment in modern times leads to a fascination with its history and all that lies below it. By learning more about this previously unexplored environment and shifting perceptions about it, this allows humans to care about the ocean since it is part of our history and home on this Earth.

As a result of the ocean being thought of as “an unfathomable abyss, impenetrable and unknowable “(Gillis 5), there is no personal connection to this part of the Earth because it is simply a resource used for food and transportation. There is no need to truly care about the health and well-being of the ocean since it is seemingly unimportant because of its “impenetrable” nature that makes it difficult for scientists to explore and understand what lies below its depths. The ocean becomes a never-ending resource where sailors go around “extracting the wealth of the seas” (Gillis 5) and not caring about the impact that the sea and humans have on each other. It doesn’t matter if people are overfishing its inhabitants and polluting the waters because humans are seen as separate from the ocean, giving them no incentive to worry about what happens to it.

With the advancement of technology and scientific methods, scientists are then able to uncover “the discovery of the temporal and spatial depth of the sea” and even “recognize that waters gave birth to all life on earth, including our own” (Gillis 5). Here, the author formulates a shift in perception since the ocean is now a “living thing” that has deep ties to humans and our origin instead of remaining a dark void. Humans can no longer separate themselves from the ocean because it is part of our history and can tell us about the evolution of the Earth and those who call it home. We can see parts of ourselves in the ever-evolving ocean knowing that our livelihoods are intertwined, and allows it to develop into “a place of spiritual and physical recreation”(Gillis 6) for people. Subsequently, this becomes important because it changes the way humans interact with the ocean and those who live below it. This connection entices humans to see the ocean as more than just an asset, but as a place that provides meaning for us because it allows us to better understand ourselves and our past since it “gave birth to all life on earth.” We have more reason to care about this vast element because it is an archive of history that is often forgotten. If we don’t see the ocean as a place that needs to be preserved and cared for, then humans lose a section of history that can tell us more about who we are as a species and how the environment evolves through time.

Perception vs Reality

Posted on by
1

Rozadowski’s Vast Experience: A History of the Oceans, “Introduction: People and Ocean, discusses human perception of the ocean and how this affects their relationship with it. In the introduction, Rozadowski reveals humans’ imaginative perception of ocean permanence, resisting the ecological understanding of the ocean being ongoing and changing: “The fundamental quandary of the sea’s apparent timelessness makes it difficult for us to accept the unfamiliar view of the ocean as a place of dynamic change.” (Rozadowski, 12). The illusion of the ocean’s timelessness prevents humanity from recognizing the ocean as a living, changing system, revealing how perception, shaped by cultural myth and aesthetic comfort, obstructs ecological understanding.  

The quote begins with “fundamental quandary,” demonstrating humans’ conflict between appearances and reality, as well as between feeling and knowledge. This phrase not only showcases confusion but signals something intrinsic to how humans view and think about the sea. Human epistemological tension is at the root of our flawed understanding of the ocean. The word “fundamental” that this way of thinking is not only cultural but existential because of how humans perceive time and change, and “quandary” implies how humans cannot reconcile the two truths – human feelings about the sea, and their scientific knowledge about it. Ultimately, addressing this conflict about human perception of the ocean. The quote continues to discuss “the sea’s apparent timlessness,” the illusion of ocean permanence. The adjective “apparent” signals that timelessness is an illusion developed by the perception of scale and repetition. To human eyes, the ocean seems the same every day, with crashing waves and rising and falling tides. This cycle creates an impression of equilibrium. Though ‘timelessness’ is evident because the sea is in constant motion, physically with current, chemically with acidification, biologically with life and death, and historically with sea levels. This idea of permanence is further reinforced by culture, such as literature. The ocean symbolizes eternity, mystery, and continuity, emphasizing how the “apparent timelessness” of the ocean is both visual and symbolic. 

The phrase “makes it difficult for us to accept” highlights a human physiological barrier, a form of cognitive dissonance with the ocean. The problem of our relationship with the ocean is not only due to our lack of knowledge, but also because it is emotional or even existential. Humans crave permanence in a constantly changing world, and at first glance, the ocean appears unchanging. Understanding the ocean as unstable and threatened by climate change removes that symbolic anchor. Humans’ difficulty in ‘accepting’ change is psychological resistance, not just intellectual blindness. To continue, “the unfamiliar view of the ocean as a place of dynamic change” offers to challenge human imagination about the ocean. The word “unfamiliar” implies that the true view of the ocean is ‘othered’ to our cultural imagination. The idea of the sea as developing, aging, or transforming is unknown, as these are qualities humans associate with land, not water. Finally, to describe the ocean as “a place of dynamic change” asks humans to reimagine the ocean as active, unstable, and alive. Reframe human vision to establish a new connection with the environment, founded on awareness of change rather than nostalgia for timelessness. 

Rozadowski’s discussion about the conflict between the mythic permanence and material change is not only about the ocean, but about human perception itself. Humans cling to the illusion of timelessness because it’s comforting, but this attachment blinds them to the transformation happening before their eyes. Razadowski argues to reimagine nature not as a static scenery, but as a living process.