When I first signed up for environmental studies 160, I had no solid expectations for what the course would be like. Sure, I assumed it would be slightly similar to an environmental science class I took in high school, but besides that my expectations were a blank slate. After being enrolled in the course for the majority of a semester, I can say that I have been opened to numerous thought provoking ideas as well as new ways of looking at climate change. I have learned several key lessons about environmental studies, three of them being: distinct ways of asking questions, how place is more than just geographical, and differences in environmental thought.
One of the first lessons I learned was revising how I thought about questions. Before taking this course I was aware that different questions were getting at different types of responses, but I had never specifically thought about the general differences in questions. I learned that there are four main types of questions: descriptive, explanatory, evaluative, and instrumental. Descriptive questions ask what. For example, a descriptive question would be, what is going to happen to the planet? I’ve found that these questions ask about more basic information and are generally easier to answer. In contrast, explanatory questions (questions that ask why), are generally the heart of a good question. An example of this type of question would be, what causes you have these beliefs? Even though this question has “what” in it, it is an explanatory question because it is getting at the cause of something. Additionally, evaluative questions ask so what. What are likely negative effects of climate change? This is an evaluative question because it asks about negative effects, prompting one to determine for whom is it a problem and if we should worry about these effects. Finally, the last type of question I learned about was instrumental questions. These questions ask how can we and are focused more on a solution to a problem. An example of an instrumental question would be, what can we do about climate change? Overall, by learning about these four types of questions I have been able to better identify what the questioner is getting at and better sculpt my response to fit that question, especially when dealing with questions related to climate change.
Another lesson that influenced me was about place. Place, I learned, is more than a location; it is the gathering of processes and perspectives across time and space. The processes that constitute place are nature, social relations, and meaning. Nature is the physical environment of the location. For example, when thinking of Tryon Creek State Park, the nature aspect of the place is the second-growth coniferous forest and the plants and animals within in. Social relations deal with how humans interact with the place and it also connects places to each other. Going back to the Tryon Creek example, the social relations of that place are its noneconomic uses as well as the suburban settlements that exist in and near it. Meaning, the final aspect of place, is the deeper significance of the place to the individual. Tryon Creek is seen as a haven to many Portlanders and to me, personally, it means a place where I can escape from school and go on a good run. Although to many place may just seem like a geographic location, upon examining it further, like we did in ENVS 160, it provides a deeper context for environmental issues.
The last lesson I learned, which has perhaps been the most influential, concerns the differences between classic and contemporary environmental thought. Classical environmental thought entails ideas prevalent in North American environmentalism from the 1960s-1970s and is the main form of environmental thought today. In terms of the Nature scale axis, it sees nature as pure and something that should be preserved and conserved. Additionally, classic environmental thought sees Garrett Hardin’s 1968 The Tragedy of the Commons and Donella Meadows’, along with others, 1974 The Limits to Growth as fundamental truths. On the other hand, contemporary thought entails scholarly critiques of classic environmental thought and is generally more diverse than classical thought. It views nature as hybrid and some isms that have sprouted off of contemporary thought are: ecomodernism, post naturalism, and ecofeminism. Personally, contemporary thought has been especially thought provoking for me because it goes against many environmental theories that I have grown to know and love. In all, these differences have challenged how I think about environmental issues and their proposed solutions.
Works Cited:
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859): 1243–48. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. 1974. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.