One of the most important lessons I have learned as an English major is that language is, at its most basic, a system of symbols. Thus, everything created in language (such as theory!) is a representation. Although this idea of language as an illusion can be hard to wrap one’s mind around (Lizzie Bennet from Pride & Prejudice isn’t a girl, she is a representation of a girl), language as all-encompassing metaphor is perhaps more straightforward when studying fiction and art. Art is easier to understand as representation than a scientific paper or a New York Times op-ed.
When engaging in environmental theory and asking questions like “how do we define place?” and “how is place different from space?” and “what, where, how, and why is nature?” what we are really doing is engaging in the manipulation of language. We are trying to agree with one another about what we mean when we say or write “place” or “space” or “nature.” The issue that we run into, however, that we are trying to define these terms with other terms. It wouldn’t make any sense to point at Portland, Oregon on a map and label it “place” or wield a tree branch and label it “nature.” These concepts, as big words often do, exist beyond object and beyond label. Perhaps labels and objects can be helpful in illustrating examples of big words, but they are bound to fall short of nuance, complexity, and completeness.
But is it really possible to define a word like “place” in its completeness? The Oxford English Dictionary does a decent job defining words according to their etymologies, lifespans, and multiplicities, but I don’t think anyone would argue that the OED is able to offer completeness. An exhaustive definition would be impossible to use and exhausting to create. And further, are these words really separate from the thing they represent? When Cronon argues that “nature” is a construction, is he talking about the word “nature” or is he using the word to intend or imply something else? Unfortunately, I believe that the answer to this question is yes. The essence of a thing like “nature” or “place” might exist outside of the letters on the page but at the very same time it cannot exist without them.
Our class discussion regarding “nature” and the weak and strong critiques of its usage seemed to delineate two ways of complicating the definition of “nature.” First, the weaker arguments against nature seemed to promote that “nature” is too narrow and should include a wider range of categories on the spectrum from garden to wild. This is familiar as a discussion of definition. Second, the stronger arguments reject the idea of nature altogether and argue that its relativity compromises its reality. The question remains, however, whether people in this camp reject the word “nature,” the objects it represents, or both.
As someone who meditates on language as artwork very frequently, I can imagine how abstract discussions about definitions and representation can lead to important theoretical frameworks and actually “get somewhere” in an academic paper. However, my peer Alex questions the efficacy of these sorts of heavy-handed and abstract debates in his post “Nature Has a Home in Place Too (Maybe?):
If the point of these definitional changes is to have an impact on the way that people treat ENVS and their environments we first need to get these definitions to everyone else. In other words, I don’t think that a roomful of environmentalists having this understanding really changes anything. A few people who recognize that the world is interconnected doesn’t accomplish much, a society of people who do can make a difference, I suppose. Additionally, explaining that we should pay attention to the plethora of connections and in any given area rather than just focusing on the ecological aspects feels more effective than saying, replace nature with place. This feels like making an exclusive club with a secret coded message that we want everyone to understand. A small contradiction.”
Here, Alex makes a claim for the injustice of having high-power academics with lots of resources arguing over how to define a word that most people are going to continue using without a second thought. There is a certain inaccessibility surrounding academic discussions about “place” vs “space.” I’m sure that many of the actors in the Malheur Occupation saga wouldn’t really care what the difference is unless it had the power to alter their agendas. Although language is metaphorical and representative at its core, it is employed to so many political and social agendas. I suppose how I justify having this discussion of language is that I now can identify the different ways people employ words like “nature” to achieve different goals. This is a huge part of what we are learning in ENVS 330. If we are to communicate effectively with a wide variety of actors outside the academic community, as Alex suggests that we should, perhaps it is better that we understand how words like “nature” can be interpreted differently by different people with different backgrounds (and indeed different languages). I agree that this discussion is not just about replacing “nature” with “place” in the lexicon. However, being careful and intentional about the lexicon will give geographers, politicians, activists, and ranchers alike a communicative advantage.