教師資料查詢 | 類別: 研究報告 | 教師: 蔡振興 Tsai Chen-hsing (瀏覽個人網頁)

作品名稱(其他語言)Global Warming Narratives and Environmental Apocalypticism
描述計畫編號NSC101-2410-H032-079-MY2 ;
研究期間201208~201307 ;
摘要When Rachel Carson published Silent Spring (1962), it became the source of environmentalism and the environmental justice movement. Starting from the 1960s, apocalyticism following the interrogation of ecological research became the issue of environmental imagination and wittingly or unwittingly helped ecocriticism call the tune letting ecological discourse draw an equal sign with crisis discourse. In her book Sense of Place, Sense of Planet, ecocritic Ursula K. Heise of the Stanford University points out that in eco-literature and movies there are numerous works that touch upon the topic of global warming including Australian author George Turner’s Drowning Towers published in 1986; works in the 1990s include Bruce Sterling’s Heavy Weather (1994), David Brin’s Earth (1990), Norman Sprinrad’s Green House Summer (1999). Works related to global warming after 2000 include Nancy Kress’s Nothing Human (2003), Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (2004) and Kim Stanley Robinson’s famous global warming trilogy—Forty Signs of Rain (2004), Fifty Degrees Below (2005) and Sixty Days and Counting (2007). When drawing her conclusion about the above mentioned works, Heise has some analysis of Brin’s Earth; however, the other works she only lightly touches upon in passing; this research project attempts to supplement a part of Heise’s conclusion by explicating two major literary works related to global warming that Heise omitted: Arthur Herzog’s Heat (1977) and Ian McEwan’s Solar (2010). First-Year Project Arthur Herzog’s Heat and the Crisis of the Ecological Crisis Arthur Herzog, an American novelist and science fiction writer, in his Heat, which is considered a prelude to Kim Stanley Robin’s Capitol Trilogy on climate change, explores such environmental issues as CO2 concentration, the greenhouse effect and global warming in terms of physics, chemistry and technology. In the novel, Lawrence Pick, director of CRISES (Crisis Research Investigation and Systems Evaluation Service) attempts to mitigate global warming by building heat shields and other mechanisms to stop abrupt climate change. Most novelists on climate change focus on alarmism fraught with a plethora of precautionary moral principles; my take in this paper is a post-ecologist one in part because post-ecological criticism suggests going beyond traditional ecocriticism which proffers an ecological reading predicated on “normative belief” in ecological solutions, “anthropological fallacy” and “ecological correctness” so that post-ecological criticism can serve as a second-order observation that finds itself in a better position to critically and theoretically articulate the post-natural condition. Second-Year Project Global Warming and Environmental Apocalypticism in Ian McEwan’s Solar In contrast to Arthur Herzog’s scientific approach to global warming, the British novelist Ian McEwan’s Solar also tackles the issue of climate change through a different narrative strategy. In this novel, the narrative time spans from 2000 to 2009 where the central figure Michael Beard was a 53-year-old Nobel Laureate and physicist who was almost at his wit’s end: “One thing was certain: two decades had passed since he had last sat down in silence and solitude for hours on end . . . to do some thinking, to have an original hypothesis . . . . He lacked the will, the material, he lacked the spark. He had no new ideas” (15). As is often the case, the main characters in global warming narratives, such as Frank in the Robinson’s Capital Trilogy on climate change, Pick in Heat, to name only a few, have devoted themselves to the cause. Conversely, Michael Beard takes it with a grain of salt: he “was not wholly skeptical about climate change . . . And he was unimpressed by some of the wild commentary that suggested the world was in peril, that humankind was drifting toward calamity . . . .” (16). By shying away from the strict binarism based on ecological sovereignty, Ian McEwan questions the foundation of an eco-imagined community, the moral dimensions of responsibility, and the rapid adoption of policies so as to derive a new genuine eco-ethical approach to global warming.;卡遜女士(Rachel Carson)於一九六二年出版的《寂靜的春天》(Silent Spring), 後 來成為「環境論述」(Environmentalism)和「環境正義」(Environmental Justice)運 動的濫觴。從一九六O 年代起,以「末世論」(apocalypticism)為主題的環境想像隨著 生態研究的掘起,似乎有意或無意地幫生態批評定調,讓「生態論述」與「危機論述」 劃上等號。在《地方感和星球意識:全球性的環境想像》(Sense of Place, Sense of Planet) 一書中,史丹佛大學英文系海瑟(Ursula K. Heise)精闢地指出,在生態文學和電影中, 有諸多作品均碰觸到「全球暖化」的主題,包括一九八七年出版的澳洲作家特納(George Turner)的《淹塔》(Drowning Towers)、一九九O 年代的作品包括史特林(Bruce Steering) 的《壞天氣》(Heavy Weather, 1994)、布林(David Brin)的《地球》(Earth, 1990) 和史賓拉德(Norman Sprinrad)的《溫室夏天》(Green House Summer, 1999)。二OOO 年以後有關全球暖化的作品包括克蕾絲(Nancy Kress)的《人類完了》(Nothing Human, 2003)、克萊頓(Michael Crichton)的《恐懼之邦》(State of Fear)以及知名的羅賓遜 (Kim Stanley Robinson)的《全球暖化三部曲》,包括《下雨跡象四十種》(Forty Signs of Rain)、《零下五十度》(Fifty Degrees Below)、《計時六十天》(Sixty Days and Counting)。 在結論中,雖然海瑟對上述作品有若干精采的文本分析,尤其是布林的《地球》,但有 關其他的作品則輕輕帶過,本研究則試圖補充海瑟的結論部份,指出海瑟疏漏二本有關 全球暖化的重要文學作品:荷索(Arthur Herzog)的《熱》(Heat)和伊恩‧麥克伊旺 (Ian McEwan)的《太陽光》(Solar)。 第一年計畫 全球暖化、《熱》與後生態危機論述 美國小說家荷索(Arthur Herzog)的《熱》(Heat)一書與羅賓遜(Kim Stanley Robinson)有 異曲同工之妙:兩者均表達對溫室效應和全球暖化對人類的影響;而且二本小說的男主 角也試圖處理人類所面臨的暖化災難。在本計劃中,作者將採用布魯東(Ingolfur Bluhdorn) 所提出來的「後生態」(post-ecologist) 的批評視角,重新反省生態論述的理 論和實踐,並且把它與全球暖化論述做結合,走出對全球暖化二極化反應:不是「太冷」 就是「太熱」。太冷的原因的是因為學者對全球暖化議題不以為意,即「沒有全球暖化 這回事」;太熱的是:有一些學者試圖透過道德,發出警訊,因為這些批評家塑造了「狼 來了」的杞人憂天情結。質是,本文建議未來生態論述的趨勢應重視「邏輯」分析,避 免太多的道德說教。 根據布魯東的說法,後生態批評應具批判性和論述性。也就是說,全球暖化的議題 是多重決定的,單一的因果律和「生態正確論」(ecological correctness)難以解決問題。 在其《後生態政治》(Post-ecologist Politics),布魯東論及貝克(Ulrich Beck)和魯曼(Niklas Luhmann)的生態觀。透過這些社會理論家的洞見,本研究旨在開展一種具有潛力的「後 生態」論述可能性。 第二年計畫 伊恩‧麥克伊旺《太陽光》與末世論暖化想像 與科幻小說家荷索(Arthur Herzog)的科學觀點不同,英國當代小說家伊恩‧麥克伊 旺(Ian McEwan) 於二 O 一O 年出版《太陽光》(Solar),將全球暖化的議題作為小 說背景,暴露一般大眾對「暖化議題」的模稜兩可性(ecological ambiguity)態度。在 小說中,男主角為中年的物理學家,同時也是諾貝爾獎得主。他自己其實亦有諸多症 候:禿頭、中年婚姻危機、江郎才盡又盜用研究生的智慧去發展替代能源。諷刺的是, 比爾德(Michael Beard)是本書的主角,還試圖為人類拯救地球,免於災難,儘管他 的動機大有問題,只為個人利益著想而已:「文明需要安全的新能源,他可以派上用場; 他將得救。要有光」(145)。本研究指出,伊恩‧麥克伊旺《太陽光》並非一般的全球 暖化的擁護者;相反的,他用反諷的敘述模式保持批判性的距離。因此,本研究試圖 重審長久以來習以為常的生態想像共同體、道德責任、環境政策和末世論脈絡下的全 球暖化倫理觀。
Google+ 推薦功能,讓全世界都能看到您的推薦!