What has changed in the discipline of ecocriticism since Simon C. Estok’s explosive article “Theorizing in a Space of Ambivalent Openness: Ecocriticism and Ecophobia” first appeared in print in ISLE? What has shifted in institutionalized practices of ecophobia, a catch-all term for aversion to and avoidance of the nonhuman other. In the past ten years, Estok’s use of the term has gained currency. Most recently, Routledge published a full-length study of ecophobia by Estok, entitled The Ecophobia Hypothesis. It and other studies, particularly those situated in the new or burgeoning areas of postcolonial ecocriticism, Marxist ecocriticism, ecofeminism, and queer ecology, have addressed ecophobia by theorizing about the ideological links between it and intraspecies kinds of odium and dread. In contrast with this embrace of the concept, discussion of ecophobia does not appear in several recent and distinguished anthologies of ecocriticism. What, for example, is behind the omission of the topic in Hubert Zapf's Handbook of Ecocriticism and Cultural Ecology, Serpil Oppermann and Serenella Iovino’s Environmental Humanities: Voices from the Anthropocene, and, perhaps most surprisingly, Joni Adamson’s Keywords for Environmental Studies. Given the importance of the term, these scholars at best look careless in their scholarship (and one hopes it is carelessness rather than ideological issues that are behind the omission, but one suspects the latter, since it is impossible to be ignorant of the profound and paradigm-rocking importance of the term “ecophobia”). Is the omission due in part to scholars’ “shrill reaction” (Brayton 205) to the article in which theorizing about ecophobia made a debut with a bang? Did they want to stay out of the fray of the debate between theory and practice and so eschew one of the key terms of that debate, for the term itself is a call for more “critical theory” in a discipline that took shape by distancing itself from “continental philosophy and its twentieth-century academic legacy” (205). Is the omission because “ecophobia” is too confrontational, brazen, accusatory, and shaming a term? With the exception perhaps of its Latinate syllables, there is little about the “ungainly neologism” (205) that is remotely discreet, euphemistic, conciliatory, charitable, or decorous. Unabashedly and unceremoniously, with little trace of refinement, piety, or good will, the term “ecophobia” calls out what society largely conceals, underplays, and underestimates. Using more sedate language to persuade society to embrace ecocentrism and reduce anthropocentrism might be more effective than an all-out verbal assault on society’s ecophobic and anthropocentric values, practices, and institutions. Yet, precisely because the term is brutally honest and confrontational, shaming, judgmental, and accusing, using it judiciously stands to productively contribute to the effort among environmentalists to nudge and haul society out of the rut of habitual abuses of the nonhuman ecogenic other. Critically engaging with the term might not bring about the end of what it names. However, such engagement would, and already is, bringing more attention to scores of ecophobic practices. Perfectly legal today, they may be criminalized in the future because of that attention, consigned to the dung heap in the form of thick legal tomes, shunned in practice, and shelved for the record. For literary studies scholars, teaching and studying texts by examining either their ecophobic content or their rebuke of it is an obvious strategy for making “ecophobia” and its like (for example, “speciesism” and “ecocide”) household words in schools, offices, airports, gas stations, corner stores, food courts, and shopping malls. I illustrate that work here towards the end of this article, in a brief reading of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a text that screams out ecophobia in the context of pig killing. Ecophobia in the twenty-first century is vaster and more insidious and more pervasive than it was in Golding’s time, and it is as monstrous an institution as the enslavement, trafficking, and commodification of human flesh.
Read full abstract