The wilderness in the wild

Posted on by
Reply

In Williams Cronon ” defining “the wilderness” and ” the environment” The question of how the wilderness is defined by human civilization and the environment being used as a place for the wealthy to have more properties and ownership. Labeling can be one definition for defines the wilderness even though we humans are considered mammals yet we isolated ourselves from the animals in wild and not interconnected as we think. Like if we name monuments after people

In one part of the passage is that “If the core problem of the wilderness is that it distances us too much from the very things it teaches us to value, then the question we must ask is what it can tell us about home, the place where we actually live” (Cronon, 23). What we call home is just one way of knowing our definition and it usually in a city building, a house on the suburbs or even just a farmhouse hundreds and thousands of miles away from Human civilization. The meaning of this is that there is no such thing as a single definition of what to call a home no matter how much time passes and changes certain things will always stay the same. Another point is that in “Indeed, my principal objection to wilderness is that it may teach us to be dismissive or even contemptuous of such humble places and experiences” (Cronon, 22). Being apart of an environment means that to have humbleness regardless where we end up and having respect for nature. What cronon has taught us is that there is somethings that nature has a place in our hearts no matter if we to destroy or artificially change the naturalness landscape it will always come back somehow.

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: Terracentrism

Posted on by
Reply

According to Eric Paul Roorda’s introduction to The Ocean Reader, he emphasises the human tendency of focusing mainly on land rather than the ocean, and having skewed views of the ocean that align with our comfortable and familiar perspectives. 

First, Roorda references the term “terracentrism,” which defines the land-centered viewpoint that many humans have even surrounding the ocean. Many humans view the ocean as unchanging and without history simply because it is not the land, which we are more familiar with. This reveals a flaw in human perspectives because due to something being less unknown or discovered, we assume that there is no depth to it when in fact the ocean is ever-changing and has deep history, just more than we know. Humans long for knowledge and control, and when we reach the limitations of our current knowledge and seeming control, we tend to simply ignore or brush off the unknown, in this case the true history and importance of the ocean. We fill in the blanks of the unknown with what we know, which may be the cause of our terracentrism. 

Another aspect of this introduction that I found interesting was the capitalization of “Ocean,” which Roorda explains makes the Ocean less taken for granted. I found this detail interesting because the capitalization of words makes it into a pronoun, rather than just a noun, thus separating it from regular language. The concept of Ocean versus ocean makes the ocean feel more important and significant to learn about. For example, the word “land” is not capitalized and is a generic word for something that is not ocean, but a pronoun like “America” provides more significance to the word, making people perhaps care about it more. It reminds people more strongly of certain histories, cultures, and ideas affiliated with that pronoun rather than simply the word “land.” This definitely proves Roorda’s goal of discouraging people from taking the Ocean for granted, as it can appeal to more people’s attention.

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. 

Week 10: The Ocean Reader

Posted on by
2

One of the most crucial remarks in the introduction of The Ocean Reader: History, Culture, and Politics is: “The Ocean has appeared to us constant because the Ocean cannot be plowed, paved or otherwise shaped in the visible ways land is formed…the land has undergone tremendous changes through the centuries… In an apparent contrast, the fish populations of the Ocean and and the marine mammals that occupy it have appeared to us to be constant, inexhaustible, and impervious to onslaught of harvesters. This appears not to be the case. As this anthology suggests, the Ocean is changeable. Moreover, it has a history” (Roorda 1).

This quote challenges the common belief that the ocean is a fixed and infinite resource. The introduction positions the Ocean not as a dead stage for human activity but as a dynamic, historically contingent process that both shapes and is shaped by human action. The author highlights the fallacy of “terracentrism,” or the human habit of thinking about the world through land- bound experiences. The author suggests that this tendency has disregarded the Ocean’s significance and concealed urgent crises that are emerging in the oceans. The introduction of “aquacentric” as a perspective discusses a shift in our cultural and scholarly imaginations away from a terrestrial focus toward an oceanic orientation, and makes the point that human destinies are inextricably linked to the sea.

The passage describes the enormity of the Ocean—covering 71 percent of the earth’s surface and bigger than any continent–and its intricacy in outlining the interconnectedness of its waters, creating global implications from disturbances in Ocean systems. The text is an anthology, rather than a singular discipline or country, and varies in sources from global and diverse perspectives of maritime history, existing scientific knowledge and so on to show how we are all connected to Ocean loss. The introduction suggests the thematic structure of the text which culminates in a stern warning about the current environmental crises of overfishing, pollution and neglect to say: “The most important part is the last. It has to do with the compounding environmental disasters that are currently happening in the Ocean, and that are most often ignored. Everyone should understand this: it is important for everyone, because we are all, in one way or another, dependent on the Ocean. In short, the Ocean is in trouble” (Roorda 4).

In conclusion, the first chapter of this book contends that information about Ocean and its rich yet neglected past is important for understanding our relationship with both the past and the uncertain future. Rather, the introduction insists that in order to respond to the environmental crises of today and tomorrow, it requires humans to not just shift perspectives from a land-based worldview to an ocean-centered one, which means to see the Ocean as one of the foremost participants in world history, recognizing that it, along with its heterogeneous condition, determines all of our fates—our own future.

A Shift in Perspetive: Why did the word “Wilderness” change?

Posted on by
3

The Trouble With Wilderness, as a whole, prompts us, as readers, to reconsider our perspective on what we understand to be “wild” or “the wilderness.” What really intrigued me was how the language we have used to describe a place without civilization has changed so dramatically.

“As late as the eighteenth century, the most common usage of the word “wilderness” in the English language referred to landscapes that generally carried adjectives
far different from the ones they attractoday. To be a wilderness then was to be “deserted,” “savage,” “desolate,” “barren”-in short, a “waste,” the word’s nearest synonym. Its connotations were anything but positive, and the emotion one was most
likely to feel in its presence was “bewilderment” or terror.'” (Cronon 8)

Land without human touch was once seen as no more than land waiting to be demarcated and domesticated. This was the case even when that “barren” or “savage” land was populated by its native peoples. If in the eighteenth century, we were so uninterested in going to these supposedly terrifying and pointless places, why are we continually more interested in going to them and away from our modern world? If in the past they felt more comfortable in towns or villages, and if they believed the land was just waiting to be built upon, then what happened? Perhaps we aren’t a very communal species anymore. The bustling towns and communities we made could have made us claustrophobic. Maybe we had to change the wording around “wildereness” to have a justifiable escape. Now, instead of feeling “terror” in the woods, we feel it at our office desks, drinking $7 coffees and reading spine-chilling news headlines. Nature and wilderness are now seen as tranquil and solitary, and FREE. Although my dad always used to say “nothing’s free”, he may have a point. I personally have been given the means and privilege to travel to places I really do consider “wild,” but sometimes just getting to the “wild” is expensive.

Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, “true wilderness” is defined as an area “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Although we have changed our vocabulary around the “great”, “vast”, and “beautiful”, wilderness. We still know one thing to be certain, and it is that we cannot remain. The very thing about nature is that it is without us. We have built that construct, and we cannot escape it. We have, in many ways, evolved. We can no longer survive in what is true wilderness. Many men have attempted it for sure, my favorite is Christopher McCandless, whose story I read in Into the Wild, he truly did it right, seeking out the original “deserted, savage, (and) desolate” wilderness.