|
|
|
|
Course Description
Traces the evolution of ecology from its roots in 19th century natural history through general ecology, restoration ecology, human ecology and mathematical ecology. Also explores the sociocultural contexts within which ecology emerged and now exists, including the so-called second scientific revolution and the two culture split.
Required texts
Tim Allen and T. W. Hoekstra, Toward a Unified Ecology (Columbia)
A. Dwight Baldwin, J. DeLuce, and C. Pletsch, eds., Beyond Preservation: Restoring and Inventing Landscapes (Minnesota)
F. H. Bormann & S. R. Kellert, Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle (Yale)
Peter J. Bowler, The Environmental Sciences (Norton)
D. L. Feldman, Water Resources Management: In Search of an Environmental Ethic (Johns Hopkins)
John Firor, The Changing Atmosphere: A Global Challenge (Yale)
Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac (Oxford)
Carolyn Merchant, Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England (North Carolina)
Ilya Prigogine (with Isabelle Stengers), The End of Certainty: Time s Flow and the Laws of Nature (Free Press)
Frank B. Golley, A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology (Yale)
Optional Texts (available in the bookstore; buy at least one of these)
Lynton Caldwell and Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Policy for Land (Rowman and Littlefield)
Clarence Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian Shore (California)
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago)
Aldo Leopold, The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold (Wisconsin)
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Harvard)
Robert P. McIntosh, The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory (Cambridge)
Max Oelschlaeger, The Idea of Wilderness (Yale)
Caring for Creation (Yale)
After Earth Day: Continuing the Conservation Effort (No. Texas)
E. O. Wilson, Biophilia (Harvard)
The Diversity of Life (Harvard)
Course Requirements
Attendance. Required. You should be prepared to participate in class discussion. Required reading. A 500-600 word, typed (double spacing, 1" margins all around, 12 or 13 point font) pr,cis more interpretive essay than summary is required for every assigned text or assigned pages in a text. Please fit your work onto two pages maximum, including your name (i.e., no cover page). Straight summaries or digests of the reading assignments are not acceptable. As the reading progresses, earlier reading and class discussion should bear on your present interpretation. No late papers accepted. Midterm examination. Fifty objective questions on the assigned reading and class lectures plus one essay question. A raw score of more than 45 on the objective portion of the midterm will excuse you from taking the objective portion of the final examination.
Term paper. Your term paper should be at least five and no more than ten pages. Rather than giving an open ended assignment as in previous semesters (where the task was to develop and apply a philosophy of ecology to the issue of management), you are to use the Soft Systems Methodology for Managing Natural Systems (see Allen and Hoekstra, pp. 308ff.) as the guide for developing a specific (but hypothetical) management plan. For example, you might choose from such issues as air quality in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex, overdraft of Ogallala groundwater, endangered species in Big Bend National Park, Texas population growth, or pesticide contamination of municipal water in Denton. Section heads should be used throughout the body of the paper. It is a plus to incorporate ideas from at least one required text and one optional text in the paper. A one page overview of your paper is due by week eight and a full draft is due by week eleven. Please do not use folders of any kind. The maximum possible grade without submission of a draft is 90. Final version due at the end of class, week fifteen. Late papers will result in an incomplete for the semester (no exceptions).
Final examination. Fifty objective questions on the assigned reading and class lectures plus one comprehensive essay question. Semester Grade. Pr,cis scores count for 25%; midterm exam 25%; final exam 25%; and term paper 25%. Grades will be distributed on the basis of a flat scale where 90% = A, 80% = B, and so on. Pr,cis scores most often make the difference in determining your final grade.
Weekly Class Schedule
1. September 3. Introduction to the philosophy of ecology. What is the philosophy of ecology? (What is philosophy, for that matter?) Isn't ecology a science, not a philosophy? Read Firor (all) for next week. Write your pr,cis on Firor. Also read the following pages re. fitting the puzzle pieces together : Firor, last 2 pp., Golly pp. 204-05, esp. last 3 sentences, Feldman, entire section beginning p. 21; Leopold, The Outlook section in The Land Ethic ; Bowler, p. 27, 548-49; Merchant, diagrams on pp.24-25, 266; A&H, pp. 48-49 (just one sentence at the transition), 308-16; Baldwin et al., pp. 30-31 re. new paradigm ; B&K, p. xiv, first complete paragraph.
2. September 10. Firor pr,cis due. In your pr,cis avoid summarizing Firor's scientific analysis of the changing atmosphere, although you will need a technical comprehension of his analysis for the midterm. We're interested in his philosophy (especially as this incorporates an ecological perspective), his critique of mainstream managerial philosophy, and his notion of an alternative. Is it possible, in light of Firor's proposal, to give an ecological definition of human beingness? Is it possible to manage without having a philosophy? (Please consider this question carefully; people often behave without considering the implicit assumptions behind their actions.) Read Bormann & Kellert, Preface, Chs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7-11, 13 for next week.
3. September 17. Begin thinking about your term paper. Consider writing a one page proposal for your term paper this week: sooner is much better than later. Bormann & Kellert pr,cis due. Why are dysfunctional relations between culture and nature endemic according to B&K? What do they propose as an alternative way of going about the business of resolving environmental issues? Does the research university hinder or facilitate (or both) the proposals that they make? (Dickson et al. in After Earth Day add depth to this point.) Pay particular attention to the role that the contributing authors envision for ethics (and other forms of qualitative, evaluative judgement) in environmental problem solving. We will discuss (as time allows) egocentric, homocentric, and ecocentric ethics as these are relevant to issues of environmental management. Are the environmental sciences intrinsically multidisciplinary? What challenges does multidisciplinarity pose for environmental management? for environmental educators? The Goldfarb essay deserves close reading. Read Prigogine (selections to be announced in class) and Bowler, pp. 541-553 for next week. Also read Merchant handout.
4. September 24. Prigogine pr,cis due. Try thinking of Prigogine's text as revealing to us that the idea of nature has a history. Show how Prigogine clarifies and deepens Firor's critique of the dominant managerial philosophy. Did the first scientific revolution lead us onto what Firor calls the high impact path ? How does Prigogine's account of humankind bear on Firor's contention that we require an alternative definition of humankind if we are to find our way onto the low impact path? Similarly, does Prigogine support or refute the notion that science offers absolute perspectives and timeless knowledge? Does Prigogine's argument bear on B&K's notion that multidisciplinary, even interdisciplinary (holistic), problem solving is required for ecosocial pathologies. Does Prigogine s position lend support to ecocentric ethics? Can you reconcile Merchant s arguments in the handout (re. environmental management) with Prigogine, Firor, and B&K? Prigogine's arguments help set the stage for Bowler's more detailed historical analysis of the environmental sciences.
5. October 1. Bowler pr,cis due (Chs. 1-5). Read the Preface, Ch. 1, and pp. 84-98 very closely. Bowler attempts to put science generally, and the environmental sciences specifically, into a social context. Is this misguided? Is it useful to an environmental scientist? or more of an optional luxury that most have little time for? Is Bowler's analysis simpatico with Firor, B&K, and Prigogine's analyses of science? Explain how so. If what people think conditions science, then do the intentions of environmental scientists themselves also matter? Or should environmental scientists passively serve society's dictates? (Does Evernden's distinction between ecology in conservation and ecology in conversation bear on the issue?)
6. October 8. Midterm examination. Bring a blue book.
7. October 15. Bowler pr,cis due, remainder of book. (Skip Ch. 6.) Bear down hard on pp. 503 to the end. What lessons does Bowler offer for those who are trying to form a managerial philosophy? Make sure you offer some account of Bowler's notion that the environmental sciences have a history, indeed, a continuing history. Are you part of that continuing history? Can it be credibly argued that the environmental sciences are context free? Are social values reflected in the environmental sciences? If so, what values? Bring our previous readings to bear on these questions. What, for example, are Firor's values? Prigogine's? E. O. Wilson's? Should a scientist have values? Also consider the discussion of nature's economy in Bowler. Does the idea of nature's economy offer a metaphorical alternative to the socially dominant notion of economics? The reading selections from Merchant will be announced in class.
8. October 22. Term paper draft due. Merchant pr,cis due. Merchant's diagrams on pp. 24-25 and p. 266 are elliptical but insightful. What lessons do they teach apropos of a managerial philosophy? Beyond the fact that ecological (or environmental) science itself has a history, how does ecology (that is, our knowledge of ecological patterns of inquiry) revolutionize history, that is, our idea of history? and the writing of history? Merchant argues (p. 29) that Only by according ecology a place in the narrative of history can nature and culture be seen as truly interactive. Is such a perspective important? Why? What does the notion of environmental history connote? How is environmental history different from economic history? We will also discuss ecological feminism (a.k.a., ecofeminism), one of the main forms of contemporary environmental ethics, and Merchant s notion of partnership ethics (especially as this relates to environmental management). Read Golley (pages to be assigned in class). 9. October 29. Golley pr,cis due. We want to set Golley in the larger context of our readings and discussion. How does Golley s notion that the distinction between human and biological ecology is increasingly useless bear on Firor s contention that an alternative definition of our humanity is required? On B&K s argument that human well being and ecological integrity must be reconciled? On Prigogine s thesis concerning the positioning of the human species in a larger evolutionary framework? On Bowler s arguments concerning the value laden context in which the ecological and environmental sciences are set? On Merchant s notion of a new ecological paradigm (or global ecological revolution ) and partnership ethics?
10. November 5. Leopold pr,cis due. Although comments on the Almanac are welcome, I am more concerned about the managerial lessons that Leopold teaches. Bear down especially on the Foreword and the section (Part IV in my text) entitled The Upshot. What is remarkable, if anything, about the idea of a land ethic ? How does the land ethic provide guidance to environmental managers (as well as to consumers, politicians, manufacturers, and others)? Does the land ethic go at least part way toward providing a solution for Firor's challenge to find an alternative definition of human beingness? What is that definition? We will also explore some of the contemporary challenges to Leopodlian ethics, such as Botkin s chaos theory and Merchant s critique of ecocentric ethics. Glasser handout will be distributed at the end of class. Read for as relevant to A&H, especially the material on CATWOE.
11. November 12. Term paper draft due. Allen and Hoekstra pr,cis due, pp. xiii-125. This book is the most demanding of the semester relentlessly philosophical, leavened by a deep knowledge of and examples from ecological sciences. A&H argue that the theory and practice of ecological-environmental sciences absolutely requires philosophical inquiry. Bear in mind that A&H are not philosophers but your kind of folk (so complain to them, not me). Virtually all of the previous readings bear meaningfully on and interact with this text. Read this text and write your pr,cis with the objective of formulating and clarifying your own philosophy of ecology and managerial philosophy. You will do better with this task insofar as you can integrate A&H with the previous readings. For example, the first sentence in A&H states that Complexity in ecology is not so much a matter of what occurs in nature as it is a consequence of how we choose to describe ecological situations. Leopold writes that There are men [and women] charged with the duty of examining the construction of the plants, animals, and soils which are the instruments of the great orchestra. These men [and women] are called professors. Each selects one instrument and spends his [or her] life taking it apart and describing its strings and sounding boards. This process of dismemberment is called research. The place for dismemberment is called a university. Bowler writes We now have more practical reasons for reintroducing a sense of the unity of Nature, but this may prove equally powerful as a means of persuading scientists to rethink their tendency to compartmentalize everything. B&K write that Perhaps what we require is an attitude more of studentship than of stewardship, a view of nature as teacher and us as apprentices to its mysteries and methodologies. This posture would not relinquish the need for greater scientific research and even environmental manipulation but instead would temper our actions with a spirit of caring and humility. And so on. But are these citations merely fragments from author's x, y & z that point in every which direction? or do they begin to force upon us at first intuitively and then, as we proceed in A&H, more analytically some sense of a gestalt? a whole? a philosophy? a new way of thinking about humankind's place in the world? or in an ecosystem? or in a landscape?
12. November 19. Allen and Hoekstra pr,cis due, pp. 238-332. Upping the ante! Write a pr,cis based on your interpretation of the implications of this material for a managerial philosophy. Note that different interpretations are possible, depending on which aspect of A&H you emphasize. For example, you might claim that A&H legitimate Turner's interventionism (see Baldwin, et al.), since they claim that management itself explicitly holds the [ecological] system away from equilibrium. On the other hand, you might claim that they support Leopold & Firor's attempts to reconceptualize management, since they claim to give ecological management a new style. The bottom line for this new style...is for the manager to maximize the natural contributions of energy to the functioning of the managed system, while minimizing artificial energy subsidies.
13. November 26. Feldman pr,cis due, Chs. 1-2, 7-8. Consider reviewing Goldfarb in B&K also. Is Feldman just another chip off the old block of water resource management? or does he take issue with the mainstream? (Does the mainstream in water resource management take what Firor calls the high impact path ?) Integrate Feldman's managerial outlook, insofar as possible, with others that we have examined. For example, in some ways he is like Leopold and Firor, in that he looks to our own self-conceptualization (are we rulers and masters of nature?) as central to managerial decision making. He contends that By denying others fair use and access to natural resources, we deny to them the opportunity to fulfill their needs. We may also upset the balance of nature and possibly produce irreversible disruption of food chains, the atmosphere, and the sustainability of all forms of life. Thus, the first rudiment of an environmental ethic is a relationship with nature that nurtures our teleological development. Thus, subjectivity is at the front and center of his approach to management, as with A&H. Yet he differs from them by pushing the envelop of choice to include our own self-definition (which is precisely the point that Firor insisted on at the beginning of the semester). Yet Feldman can also be reconciled with A&H; for example, scale issues are central to his argument.
14. December 3. Guest lecturer. Baldwin et al pr,cis due, through p. 135, pp. 260-65, and as much additional material as you can read. Summarize the Jordan-Turner restorationist paradigm. Do Jordan and Turner usefully extend Leopold's thinking? or do they go too far? Would Leopold agree or disagree or both with Jordan? With Turner? Why does Jordan claim there is no clear distinction between restoration and management? Also note differences between Jordan's and Turner's versions of restoration ecology (especially Turner's inventionism). Can restorationists abide by the land ethic? Does restoration ecology represent an alternative managerial philosophy to the so-called high impact path? What are the philosophical merits of restoration, especially according to Jordan? Why does Jordan place such emphasis on ritual? Can any environmental scientist abide by such thinking? Discuss the critic's reactions to the Jordan-Turner thesis. Why do Jordan and Turner create such controversy? Are there other views of restoration that haven't been discussed?
15. December 10. Term paper due. Our aim this week is to try to put it all together apropos of developing a philosophy of ecology.
16. December 17. Final examination. Bring a blue book.
