UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Theorizing in a Space of Ambivalent Openness: Ecocriticism and Ecophobia

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1093/isle/isp010

Auteurs

Simon C. Estók

Année déclarée

2009

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:08:22.447641+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:08:22.447641+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

What has popularized and expanded the hermeneutic range of ecocriticism has in some ways also made ecocriticism seem immune to the challenges presented by so much of poststructuralism. Propelled and positioned within a context of environments increasingly degraded and dangerous, direct effects of our and our ancestors' behaviors, ecocriticism—seeking and espousing an immediacy and directness; an aesthetics of contact; and a firm disavowal of obscurantism, dizzying spinnings off, and general ineffectiveness—has found a wide and largely enthusiastic audience.1 The space of ecocriticism has indeed become one of considerable—though increasingly ambivalent—openness.2 Theorizing within this space—one that Peter Quigley has termed a “dangerous space”—has become a bit of a risky business, one that potentially threatens the peace of ecocritical communities. When Terry Gifford perceptively noted that “ecocriticism has been remarkably free of theoretical infighting” and that it is “perhaps the absence of a methodology”3 that is accountable for this phenomenon (15), he was probably correct, though there have been more voices of discontent than one would think, voices often ignored or given less airtime by an increasingly orthodox ecocritical machinery.4 The more we talk about representations of nature, the more it becomes clear that there is a need not only for permeable borders but also for more definitive structure, methodological definition, and viable terminology. The more we talk about representations of nature, the more it becomes clear that there is a need to talk about how contempt for the natural world is a definable and recognizable discourse (what we may call “ecophobia,” a term one blogger has perhaps prematurely called a “paradigm”).5 Though there has been a conflict developing among ecocritics, theorizing ecophobia should not deepen that conflict but may very well in fact lead to confluent theorizing and thus toward the kinds of methodological and structural definition some ecocritics seek.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W1998783103

DOI

10.1093/isle/isp010

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1093/isle/isp010
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W1998783103

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w108571103 · CITES
• openalex:w123069517 · CITES
• openalex:w1778704646 · CITES
• openalex:w1971550571 · CITES
• openalex:w1977041598 · CITES
• openalex:w1987650842 · CITES
• openalex:w1989544229 · CITES
• openalex:w2010053688 · CITES
• openalex:w2016183410 · CITES
• openalex:w2068270495 · CITES
• openalex:w2079941024 · CITES
• openalex:w2087134546 · CITES
• openalex:w2088126629 · CITES
• openalex:w2325708617 · CITES
• openalex:w2328648227 · CITES
• openalex:w2761600748 · CITES
• openalex:w2796662662 · CITES
• openalex:w2965717980 · CITES
• openalex:w298564682 · CITES
• openalex:w4210994879 · CITES

5 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.