Nature has awlays been viewed different in the society since the historical eras. The understanding and perception of nature is usually determined by the belief of individual groups including envrionmentalists, economists, and religions. In his own interpretation, Slavoj Zizek considers nature as whole that exists in its enterity of which it remais separate from mankind. He believes that man and nature can co-exist without having any impact on one another. To an extent, he disregards nature and considers it non-existent. Unlike this view, the romanticism era regarded nature to be part of man. Most scholars during the time believed that human being would not exist independently without embracing their natural surrounding. Thus, this paper reviews the difference between the Zizek’s ideology and that which the romanticistics held.
While Zizek’s underlying message is that ecology should be separated from nature, romanticists held that man and nature form a single entity that cannot be separated. Zizek believes that the predominant ecological ideology held by humans is more conservative, aiding people to hold the principle of conservation yet the reality is that nature itself cannot be disturbed. In the video, he claims that the understanding of nature is largely influenced by the ‘temptation of meaning’ which tries to understand a concept for the sake of not having an idea. As such, he states, “it’s really the implicit premise of Ecology that the existing world is the best possible world… in the sense that… it’s a balanced world with is disturbed through human hubris… so why do I find this problematic?” (2:29). Zizek finds it unneccary to glorify nature as people do yet its is not in existent in reality.
This notion is, however, disputed by the romanticists who believed that man and nature are inseparable. This is evident is Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote a poem of ‘nature’ in 1836 where he persuaded humans to always consider nature to be part of them. He stated, “Nature, in the common sense, rfers to essences unchanged by man space… The stars awaken a common reverence, because they are always present. They are inaccessbil, but all natural objects make a kindred impression when the mind is open to their influence” (Janaro and Altshuler 476). Just like other writers during the era, Emerson knew that without nature human life would be incomplete as the stars, the moon, the sun, and other ecological components could only be in existent as a result of a balance. He, therefore, held that human and nature cannot be sperated and as a result of their mutual co-existence man must respect nature.
Further, Zizek argues that the ecology ideology that humans have the ability to interfere with nature is totally false. To him, changes witnessed in the ecological systems are totally normal since they are products of anthropogenic activities. He believes that the existing trash and the dirty environment are totally justifiable as they account for human existence. He echoes this when he illustrates in the video that nature is indeed an imbalanced habitat which humans benefit from. He notes, “Nature is not a balanced totality which then we humans disturb… nature is a big series of unimaginable catastrophes we from from…” (Zizek 3:37-3:39). By asserting that nature is human’s means to reach his desired end, it is obvious that he is justified environmental depletion and degradation as part of justified processes for survival. Unfortunately, some of the ‘envrionmentalists’ in the romanticism era shared Zizek’s view in believing that nature was placed so that human beings could exploit it. They referred to the book of Genesis which states that, “…Be fruitful anf increase in number; fill this earth and subdue it. Rule of the fish of the sea…” (quoted in Janaro and Altshuler p. 477). This verse has been used defensly to assert that it was God’s command that humans could use nature as a means to achieving their needs, a concept that promotes environmental degradation.
On the contrary, other romanticists could not justify the misuse of nature as part of human’s exploration. Poets like Lucretius already gave the warning of possible effects of nature injustice. He predicted that if people used the environment wrongly, then the repacursions would be catastrophic. In his account, Lucretius had suggested that, “we respect nature not as a loving, kind mother who will always be there for us, but as an awesome power that is dangerous to triffle with” (Janaro and Altshuler 477). As had been predicted several degradation cases have been witnessed across the world. According to , in the 17th and 18th centuries, human began to witness effects of depletion including “a den of filth, poverty, and crime” (Janaro and Altshuler 478) which majorly impacted the lives of the poor population in the cities. Poets like Shakespeare evaded this reality, focusing instead on the sweetness of nature and urging people to explore the rewarding nature.
I totally disagree with Zizak’s assertion that nature is inexistent and that human use of nature is justifiable as long as it is aimed at achieving personal gains. Although mankind had been given the authority to subdue the earth and its content, it is important to ensure that these resources are conserved so that the future generation are able to utilize them. When Zizak appreciates the existence of waste, it is a fact that they are a product of human use of nature. However, proper managegement, just like his example of going to the toilet, is needed to ensure that nature is protected for prosperity.
Work Cited
Janaro, Richard P, and Thelma C. Altshuler. The Art of Being Human: The Humanities As a Technique for Living. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.
