The Mainstreaming of Environmental Criticism: Theory and Nature

Abstract

Contemporary theory has been framed by structuralist, poststructuralist and postmodernist discussions about social, cultural and linguistic formation of meaning. Structuralists argue that meaning is an external feature. It depends on the linguistic framework, for it is defined in and through language. For poststructuralists, meaning can be subjectively defined; thus there is no meaning to be considered. Poststructuralism offers the idea of the plurality of meaning. Like all traditional notions, meaning is a metanarrative whose validity structuralist, poststructuralist and postmodernist critics find controversial. Contemporary theory has been a liberating experience. This might be exemplified with the enquiry into the legitimacy of the patriarchy which rendered women determination to question their inequalities. Theory has enabled discussions about the proletariat having a future to control production. However, theory has illustrated nature within the same exemplification. Nature is a socially, culturally and linguistically constructed notion defined as a man-made perception. The present environmental emergency loses its meaning as nature is a meaningless term. Environmental criticism dismiss the latest designation of nature as a metanarrative. It insists that nature is real, alive and in danger. This article aims to point out that mainstreaming of environmental criticism helps understand the relationship between theory and nature.

Keywords

• environmental criticism
• literary theory
• nature
• meaning
• signification