녹갈색 경관의 생태학 : 도시환경에서의 야생지 개념 및 자연문학 장르 재고 (Ecology of Greenish Brown Landscape: The Concept of Wilderness in Urban Environment and Nature Writing Genre Reconsidered)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 미국학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 미국학 / 32권 / 2호 / 81 ~ 120페이지
· 저자명 : 신두호

초록

Deep ecological perspectives have predominantly characterized the development
of ecocriticism from its incipiency in the early 1990s, and, consequently,
ecocriticism has been incapacitated in its analysis of the urban environments.
Instead it has given a preference for pristine wilderness as a thematic
subject and nature writing of wilderness as a defining genre. Being confronted
with ever worsening environmental degradations on our own home grounds
and facing the ensuing challenges within and without to the narrowness of
such subject matters and genres, ecocriticism has grafted perspectives of
social ecology whose central tenets can be described as a set of beliefs
that integrates the study of human and natural ecosystems through
understanding the interrelationships of culture and nature. This distaff
branch of ecocriticism that is grounded on social ecology pays attention to
human environments, especially the urban environments.
This shift toward social ecocriticism, which has become a prominent
tendency in the post-2000 ecocriticism school, has brought about two
consequences: a change of concept of nature and wilderness, on the one
hand, and a change of the status of nature writing, on the other. Nature
is now understood as human landscape and environment rather than pristine
wilderness whereas wilderness as neglected, unattended, violence-rampant
urban ghettos and the people residing there. With wilderness fetishism
waning as a result of the graft of sociological perspectives, ecocriticism's feverish interest in nature writing has been decreased and fiction genre
instead has gained much attention by social ecocritical study.
Ecocriticism’s sociological perspectives on the urban nature and environments
as such, however, entail some problems that should not be left unnoticed.
First, by foregrounding pending problems of urban environmental destructions
and relevant social inequalities, ecocriticism pays little attention to physical
nature and wilderness (in a traditional sense) which can be found in urban
environment and our home backyard as well as in pristine wilderness
areas. Appreciation of beauty and value of such nature existence is still
important for city dwellers in fostering ecological and environmental
consciousness. Second, the presupposition of social ecocriticism that nature
writing deals with pristine wilderness only, and that thus it is not a
proper genre for the subjects of the urban environment matters results in
the negligence of paying attention to urban nature writing. Contemporary
urban nature writers such as Charles Siebert, Lisa Couturier, Michael
Rockland demonstrate that nature, or wilderness can also be found in our
urban environments, and that modified and harmed nature of urban environment
as well can or should be a proper subject to nature writing genre.

영어초록

Deep ecological perspectives have predominantly characterized the development
of ecocriticism from its incipiency in the early 1990s, and, consequently,
ecocriticism has been incapacitated in its analysis of the urban environments.
Instead it has given a preference for pristine wilderness as a thematic
subject and nature writing of wilderness as a defining genre. Being confronted
with ever worsening environmental degradations on our own home grounds
and facing the ensuing challenges within and without to the narrowness of
such subject matters and genres, ecocriticism has grafted perspectives of
social ecology whose central tenets can be described as a set of beliefs
that integrates the study of human and natural ecosystems through
understanding the interrelationships of culture and nature. This distaff
branch of ecocriticism that is grounded on social ecology pays attention to
human environments, especially the urban environments.
This shift toward social ecocriticism, which has become a prominent
tendency in the post-2000 ecocriticism school, has brought about two
consequences: a change of concept of nature and wilderness, on the one
hand, and a change of the status of nature writing, on the other. Nature
is now understood as human landscape and environment rather than pristine
wilderness whereas wilderness as neglected, unattended, violence-rampant
urban ghettos and the people residing there. With wilderness fetishism
waning as a result of the graft of sociological perspectives, ecocriticism's feverish interest in nature writing has been decreased and fiction genre
instead has gained much attention by social ecocritical study.
Ecocriticism’s sociological perspectives on the urban nature and environments
as such, however, entail some problems that should not be left unnoticed.
First, by foregrounding pending problems of urban environmental destructions
and relevant social inequalities, ecocriticism pays little attention to physical
nature and wilderness (in a traditional sense) which can be found in urban
environment and our home backyard as well as in pristine wilderness
areas. Appreciation of beauty and value of such nature existence is still
important for city dwellers in fostering ecological and environmental
consciousness. Second, the presupposition of social ecocriticism that nature
writing deals with pristine wilderness only, and that thus it is not a
proper genre for the subjects of the urban environment matters results in
the negligence of paying attention to urban nature writing. Contemporary
urban nature writers such as Charles Siebert, Lisa Couturier, Michael
Rockland demonstrate that nature, or wilderness can also be found in our
urban environments, and that modified and harmed nature of urban environment
as well can or should be a proper subject to nature writing genre.

참고자료

· 없음