寻找生物共同体和生态中心的自我——蕾切尔·卡尔森、深层生态学和有机体隐喻

周序桦

（台湾中研院）

寻找生物共同体和生态中心的自我

——蕾切尔·卡尔森、深层生态学和有机体隐喻

周序桦

（台湾中研院）

本文试图通过环境保护论中最激进的一派即深层生态学来解读蕾切尔·卡尔森的《寂静的春天》。事实上，不论是深层生态学对容忍经济技术持续发展的谴责，还是其对在主流环保运动中保守主义者庇护下生成的人类中心主义的抨击，都成为一种不可分割的有机体隐喻。将“深层生态学”这一概念追溯到卡尔森，并假设一种“共生”与“多样性”关系，同样也依赖于这一有机体隐喻。本文试图解决以下问题：这种共享的隐喻是否构成对现有规范的挑战，即深层生态学家所主张的让人类的利益从属于这个星球利益？深层生态学对于“多样性”的热情，其合理性有多少？最后，卡尔森的叙事是在何种程度上形成一个中间地带，使捍卫人类中心主义者和生物中心主义或生态中心主义者得以和平相处？

蕾切尔·卡尔森；《寂静的春天》；象征；深层生态学；生态中心主义

Notes on Author：Shiuhhuah Serena Chou researches in ecocriticism and American literature at Academia Sinica，Taiwan．Her interests in scholarship include ecocriticism，American agricultural writing，and Asian American environmental literature．Chou's recent publications include“Working with Nature：A Critique of David Masumoto and the Organic Discourse”（

Concentric

，2009），“Pruning the Past，Shaping the Future：David Masumoto and Organic Nothingness”（

MELUS:Multi-ethnic Literature of the U

．

S

．，2009），and“The Secret of Shangri-la：Agricultural Travels and the Rise of Organic Farming”（

CLS:Comparative Literature Studies

，2013）．The world we have lost was organic．—Carolyn Merchant，

The Death of Nature

（1980）

“Order”and“interconnectedness”as vital components of nature have become a powerful rhetorical device for critiquing industrial developmental approach to the natural world．Somehow，for environmentalists，this sense of order and intimacy generated by organic nature attests to reductionist reading of nature as dead materials needed to be exploited．The identification of order as inherent within an organic nature，however，unravels paradoxes underlying this supposedly reformative movement originated in the late nineteenth century．As a system of thought that carries specific imagery and meaning with regard to the idea of nature as a living organism containing in itself an intrinsic order，what are the present-day manifestations and transmigrations of organic cosmology？How has the organic metaphor been appropriated and naturalized into larger ethical justifications？To what extent has the organic trope helped forge a critique of the allegation for nature's instrumental value to humans？②

In attempt to locate the concept of the organic in environmental literature more precisely，this paper first reads organic metaphors as eminently situated within ancient or premodern organicist tradition．Organicism refers to“［t］he theory that organic structure is merely the result of an inherent property in matter to adapt itself to circumstances，”or“［t］he theory that everything in nature has an organic basis or is part of an organic whole”．Within environmental criticism，organicism is often evoked in association with，and yet used interchangeably for，pagan animism，vitalism，and holism to construct what is a counternarrative to the dominance of mechanism．In her investigation of the decline of organicism in relation to the rise of mechanistic cosmology in Western civilization，Carolyn Merchant cautions：

As a projection of the way people experienced daily life，organismic theory emphasized interdependence among the parts of the human body，subordination of individual to communal purposes in family，community，and state，and vital life permeating the cosmos to the lowliest stone．

The idea of nature as a living organism had philosophical antecendents in ancient systems of thought，variations of which formed the prevailing ideological framework of the sixteenth century．The organismic metaphor，however，was immensely flexible and adaptable to varying contexts，depending on which of its presuppositions was emphasized．Carolyn Merchant，Carolyn，，（San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980），1 2．

Here Merchant's definition of the organic conforms to the concept of earth as a living whole of coordinating parts．Her emphasis is placed on the wellintegrated organic unity and an ethics of interconnectedness（rather than on thedynamic parts or the integrative process of the organic）．Stephen C．Pepper，（Los Angeles：University of California Press，1948），280 283．Pronouncing organicism a theory that stems specifically f rom the conception of nature as“a living organism，”however，her attentiveness to the complexity of organicism is undermined by a non-reflexive view that she constructed but initially attempted to critique．

In“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”philosopher and founder of deep ecology Arne Naess writes that deep ecology is a movement that rejects the“man-in-environment image in favour of the relational，total-field image”of“organisms as knots in biospherical net or field of intrinsic relations”． Arne Naess， “The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），147．Acknowledging eco-radicalism as a multistranded movement prominent in modern eco-activism，I read Rachel Carson's

Silent Spring

in the context of one of the most radical sectors of environmentalism，deep ecology．I argue that the organic metaphor is integral to deep ecology's continued denunciation of industrialist exploitation of nature and its attack on anthropocentric principles generated under the aegis of environmental conservationism．Embodied within organic order and interdependence is environmentalists'commitment to egalitarianism，or what Louis Pojman suggests as the ideal that“everyone and everything is equally valuable as part of the whole”． Louis P．Pojman，ed．“Does Nature Have Intrinsic Value？Biocentric and Ecocentric Ethics and Deep Ecology，”（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），76．Interestingly，while Carson's“deeper ecological sensibility and sensitivity”makes her the“patron saint of the Green movement”for deep ecologists，

Silent Spring

，for environmental justice critics，is also a text calling attention to the impact of pollution on public health．Bill Devall，George Sessions，，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），94．See，for instance，T．V．Reed's“Toward an Environmental Justice Ecocriticism”150．A poll conducted by environmentalists in 2006 by the Environmental Agency of England and Wales made clear that Carson is regarded the world's most important eco-hero throughout history．In“100%Green，”Ian Christie writes，“Rachel Carson is seen by many environmentalists as patron saint of the Green movement，a reputation based on the explosive impact of her 1962 book，a passionate and revelatory account of the damage done by unrestrained use of pesticides，”“100%Green，”13（2006）：14 25．A rhetorical analysis of Carson'snarrative within the context of deep ecology reveals its ultimate claim for local autonomy sharing common ground with those fighting on the side of environmental justice and the disenf ranchised．Tracing the conceptual roots of deep ecology to Carson，deep ecologists postulate“symbiosis，”relying on organic metaphors as environmental justice advocates have．As literary critic Vera Norwood observes，critics from different camps all seem to credit Carson's work as that which inaugurated them，“［locating］her writing squarely in the organic tradition that sees nature as home”（742）．Vera L．Norwood Norwood，“The Nature of Knowing：Rachel Carson and the American Environment，”12．4，（1987）：742．Celebrated as the ground-breaking work that launched a new epoch for both deep ecology and environmental justice criticism，

Silent Spring

occupies a central position that marked a paradigmic break in representation and epistemological understandings of“nature．”How，then，could

Silent Spring

be read differently？To what extent has Carson's narrative engendered an organic cosmology that serves as a middle ground that bridges those who defend an anthropocentric ethics，and those who fight for a biocentric/ecocentric ethics？Consenting to Norwood's view that the organic occupies a central position in

Silent Spring

，I argue the reading of the organic as a sphere of and purity or a liminal landscape possible for diversity and hybridity results from the ambivalence of the organic as a narrative strategy．The primary goal of this paper is two-fold：first，to complicate the organic metaphor as it relates to deep ecological notion of diversity and symbiosis as explicated in

Silent Spring

，and，second，to explore the problematics when foregrounding the organic as a site that resists environmental deterioration and the globalizing forces of mechanistic cultural paradigm．

§ Toxic Circle：Silent Spring the Human Subject in Modern Environmentalism

Rachel Carson's publication of

Silent Spring

was not exactly the first environmental outcry，but，for deep ecologists Bill Devall and George Sessions，it marked“the beginning of the Age of Ecology”．Carson was memorialized as the“Mother of the Age of Ecology”by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1991．“The Age of Ecology，”a phrase derived from the celebration of the first Earth Day in 1970，refers to the post-World War II era，a time when ecology and ecological scientists such as Barry Commoner，Eugene Odum，Paul Ehrlich，Rachel Carson，and others，have shaped environmentalism．For environmental historian such as Worster，however，the publication of Leopold's essay“The Land Ethic”in 1949 manifests a transition from a“utilitarian to an ecological approach to conservation，”and marks the beginning of the Age of Ecology（284）．Here the reading of Carson is framed in the context of“the Age of Ecology，”but I am not saying a biographical approach that dwell on the founding figure is not privileged here．Worster's，and Devall and Session'salso show that“the Age of Ecology”has multiple origins，Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），94．Before environmental-ism emerged as a recognized social movement in the 1960s and 1970s，much literature had been written and many political campaigns launched on behalf of the protection of“nature．”Historian Ramachandra Guha notes that green movements before Carson focused on three different areas：back-to-the-land，scientific conservation，and wilderness preservation． Ramachandra Guha，（New York：Longman），2000．Hays，Samuel．，，，（New York：Cambridge University Press，1987），6．One may take issue with Guha's classification，but from Henry David Thoreau，John Muir，Gifford Pinchot，to Aldo Leopold，to name a few，beautiful landscapes and endangered species have been an intrinsic part of environmental rhetoric．Whether in terms of the conservation of nature as resources for efficient economic productions，or the preservation of nature as untouched landscape for aesthetic and recreational values，immediate responses to the intensification of industrialization and modernization processes predominate early protectionist enterprises．The insistence on the image of a managed and sustained organic nature as a redemptive measure for unlimited growth and excessive waste is well entrenched in the green discourse of the late 19th and early 20th century．Far more than a simple anti-modernist environmental articulation，

Silent Spring

occupies a significant position as does

Uncle Tom's Cabin

，as another book that“exploded against traditional American assumptions”．Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The University of Wisconsin Press，1989），92．

Silent Spring

has been regarded as the text that ignited modern environmentalism．Within the discourse of“modern environmentalism，”Carson's narrative may be read in a reductive fashion as one that centers its discussion on theapplications and impacts of pesticides．In his analyses of scholarly receptions of Carson，Craig Waddell contends that“modern environmental movement—with its emphasis on pollution and the general degradation of the quality of life on the planet—may fairly be said to have begun with one book by Rachel Carson called

Silent Spring

”． Craig Waddell，“The Reception of：an Introduction，”，ed．Craig Waddell（Carbondale and Edwardsville：Southern Illinois University Press，2000），1．Similarly，T．V．Reed，in“Toward an Environmental Justice Ecocriticism，”attributes the immense impact of

Silent Spring

to the“chain”that Carson built between“human damage to nature”and“human damage to humans”． T．V．Reed，“Toward an Environmental Justice Ecocriticism，”，eds．Joni Adamson，Mei Mei Evans，and Rachel Stein（Tucson：University of Arizona Press，2002），150．In a similar but more provocative manner，Jim Tarter pronounces that“cancer underlies implicitly the book's whole argument about the dangers of the new chemicals we are releasing into the environment”． Jim Tarter， “Some Live More Downstream than Others：Cancer，Gender，and Environmental Justice，”，eds．Joni Adamson，Mei Mei Evans，and Rachel Stein（Tucson：University of Arizona Press，2002），215．For him，

Silent Spring

encapsulates a“connection between environmental exploitation and human exploitation or social justice”．As Carson ponders，“［w］hy should we tolerate a diet of weak poisons，a home in insipid surroundings，a circle of acquaintances who are not quite our enemies，the noise of motors with just enough relief to prevent insanity？Who would want to live in a world which is just not quite fatal？”Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），12．What entitles

Silent Spring

，the book that sets“the effective beginning”of“toxic discourse，”Lawrence Buell argues，is Carson's enactment of the fear of contamination as“a universal environmental discourse that connects affluent individuals，communities，and societies”．Lawrence Buell，：，，．．（Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press，2001），35．Be it a“chain”or a“connection，”the toxic food chain that Carson established between human and nature redefined mankind's relation with the environment．As the epigraph to this chapter reveals，

Silent Spring

powerfully（re）unites the fate of humans with the vulnerability of earth through the imagery of the indiscriminate use of DDT（Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane）and other synthetic chemicals．

Literary critics'observations evince a loose and indefinite association among Carson，modern environmentalism，as well as issues of toxicity，public health，and the natural world．Yet such a correlation brings attention to assumptions made of“modern green movements．”Without delving into finer points，one might speculate that“modern environmentalism”matters to activists primarily because of its devotion to a higher hygienic standard．Apparently，the toxic circle alleged by“modern environmentalism”is humanbased and human-oriented，if not anthropocentric．

Historian Samuel P．Hays'and Henry Roderick Nash's periodizations of green movements in the United States exemplify the kind of socio-historical approach that，while dedicated to environmentalism's historicity，raise more questions regarding the metaphysical and normative assertions made of“nature”and“modern environmentalism．”In

Beauty

，

Health

，

and Permanence:Environmental Politics in the United States

，

1955 1985

，Hays comments negatively on the conceptualization of post-World War II green ideologies within conservationism traditions．He argues that post-war green movements were“far more widespread and popular，involving public values that stressed the quality of human experience and hence of the human environment”． Samuel P．Hays，，，，（Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，2004），13．For him，“［t］he conservation movement was an effort on the part of leaders in science，technology，and government to bring about a more efficient development of physical resources”— “an aspect of the history of production that stressed efficiency，”and distinct from the consumption cultures of post-war American green movements which prioritized amenities．Concurring with Hays，Nash in

The Rights of Nature

（1989）notes that“［o］ne of the most useful insights into recent American history concerns that qualitative difference between‘environmentalism，’as it emerged in the 1960s，and what used to be called‘conservation．’When Gifford Pinchot coined the term in 1907，conservation stood squarely in the American mainstream”．Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The University of Wisconsin Press，1989），8 9．Critics like Hays and Nash were quick to recognize the turn of greenpolitics in the nineteen-sixties brought forth by the publication of

Silent Spring

．The zeitgeist of this nation，overwhelmed by the fear of nuclear holocaust，was busy in search of what Hays regards as a better life in terms of“home，community，and beauty”． Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The University of Wisconsin Press，1989），22．The immense impact of

Silent Spring

，as critics rightly argue，pertains to Carson's successful exploitation of Cold War rhetorics and post-war economic boom．In“Cold War，，”Cheryll Glotfelty argues that“Silent Spring instigates a new kind of war by redirecting the language and concepts of the Cold War to apply to‘man's war against nature’”，Cheryll Glotfelty， “Cold War，：the Trope of War in Modern Environmentalism，”，ed．Craig Waddell（Carbondale：Southern Illinois University Press，2000），159．See also Craig Waddell，“The Reception of：an Introduction，”，ed．Craig Waddell（Carbondale：Southern Illinois University Press，2000），9．But，despite the fact that environmental movements in the early twentiethcentury were dominated by late industrialist and capitalist resourcism that identifies nature as resources of an efficient productive energy，they were not alone in the claiming of an ethic that serves human ends．In fact，in Hays'analysis，the conviction that humans are the measure of all values also stood at the center of the“modern environmentalism”most often associated with Carson's apocalyptic vision of public health．If，as Nash asserts，green rhetoric，in a broad and generalized sense suggests both the right of human to a healthy ecosystem and the right of nature itself to possess rights，Hays'“modern environmentalism，”then，suggests nature protection from the standpoint of human interest．Under this logic，the environmentalism fostered by

Silent Spring

is transformed into another protectionist enterprise that foregrounds human obligations to the natural world as residing within the human agent．Disagreeing with Hays on the very terms of what characterizes and constitutes“environmentalism，”Nash turns to the religious fervor for nature's“intrinsic value，”or，what he calls the“gospel of ecology，”which subscribes to the ethics of“‘biocentricism，’ ‘ecological egalitarianism，’or‘deep ecology’”． Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The University of Wisconsin Press，1989），9．

Silent Spring

，instead，best illustrates the idea of“modern environmentalism”and the ideal of American liberalism，articulating and defending nature's“natural rights”．Critics and philosophers，of course，have been quick to enter into this debate that centers on what Naess calls“the equal right［of nature］to live and blossom，”and，consequently，the legal and ethical definition of“nature”as a valuable right-holder and moral agent． Arne Naess，，，，trans．David Rothenberd（New York：Cambridge University Press，1989），28．The capacity to defend nature's inherent value，and，at the same time，to displace the presence and traces of humans in“nature，”for many，suggests a rightful，authentic justification to what is a non-anthropocentric and non-instrumental environmentalist stance．Surely whatever role the“protection”or“exploitation”of the nonhuman world serves，human presence in the nonhuman world and their assessment of it situates them as moral valuers and moral subjects．Humans encapsulate an anthropocentric or an anthropogenic perspective that can neither be dismissed nor denied． Holmes Rolston III，“Naturalizing Values：Organicism and Species，”，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），76 86．Transnational economies'systematic exploitation of natural resources of the Third World，the extensive transmigration of toxic wastes through water，and the exportation and importation of hazardous industries f rom the North to the South under collaborative pollution emission trading networks all proclaim the“death of nature．”In，Karliner examines the melding of economic and environmental globalization through what he calls the“corporate environmentalists．”For him，corporate environmentalists“have fabricated an elaborate series of green veils through which they obfuscate their responsibility for some of the most destructive activity ever unleashed upon the world，”Joshua Karliner，（San Francisco：Sierra Club Books，1997），xi．In“Emissions Trading Systems and Environmental Justice，”similarly，Barry D．Solomon and Russell Lee investigate the globalization of pollution，but through the pollution emission trading systems between First and Third Worlds．Unlike Karliner's radical critique，they argue for the reconsideration of toxic hot spots from a local or an environmental justice perspective，Barry D．Solomon and Russell Lee“Emissions Trading Systems and Environmental Justice，”42（8）：32 45．The recognition of the globalization of ecological toxicants，however，is accompanied by the globalization of environmentalism，a product of Western cultural paradigm．See，for example，Ronie Garcia-Johnson，．．（Cambridge，Massachusetts：The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press，1st edition，2000）．At a time when the pristine，untouched ocean portrayed by Carson's sea trilogy had become history，and in a world where humans cannot disengage themselves from“nature”and avoidmaking value judgments，what，then，does it mean to claim an authentic nature？ Before the publication of，Carson's literary reputation rested on her trilogy that celebrates the life and beauty of the sea：（1941），（1951），and（1955）．How does one make a moral claim based on nature's inherent order？Is green rhetoric's paradigm break from human-centered green movements signified by

Silent Spring

a mere fantasy？

To side with environmental justice critics，attacking the misanthropic and anti-technological positions of those who uphold Carson and modern environmentalism's ecocentricity would be too simple．Underwriting either the intrinsic value of a pristine nature or celebrating nature as social construct，a human idea entangled with words and ideologies，only further recuperates a“natural versus cultural”binary that Carson ultimately rejects．Safeguarding nature's objective value in his discussion on the axiology of the“anthropic valuer”in“Naturalizing Values：Organicism and Species，”Holmes Rolston III contends that“［w］hat is value-able，able to value things，is people；nature is able to be valued only if there are such able people there to do such valuing．Nature is not valuable—able to generate values—on its own，nor do plants and animals have any such value-ability”． Holmes Rolston III， “Naturalizing Values：Organicisms and Species”，，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），80．

The value of human to“protect”a domesticated，contaminated nature should not be dismissed by the claim that nature and nature-protection actions involve human subjects or human valuers fundamentally．Neither should romanitics and environmentalists'denigration of the“use”of nature as“abuse”inhibit philosophical or normative investigations of the external values of the nonhuman world of both late industrial and modern green ideologies．As Richard White maintained in“Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living？”“［m］odern environmentalists often take one of the two equally problematic positions toward work．Most equate productive work in nature with destruction．They ignore the ways that work itself is a means of knowing nature while celebrating the virtues of play and recreation in nature”．Richard White，“‘Are you an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living？’：Work and Nature，”，ed．William Cronon（York：W．W．Norton&Company，1995），171．

Carson's circle where organisms interact with each other to form a biotic community by way of food transference evokes the all-too-familiar concept of the food chain first postulated by Karl Semper in 1881． Robert P．McIntosh，（New York：Cambridge University Press，1986），72 90．Claimed by both environmental justice critics and deep ecologists，the overridden（toxic）circle in

Silent Spring

，however，is a metaphor of ethical complexity and ambivalence．Reading Carson within the two traditions together uncovers her endeavor to restore a symbiotic relation with nature through her characterization of nature as a landscape of hybridity and liminality．In contrast to ecologists'notion of the food chain，which focuses on the cycling and transformation of energy as“nutrients”in a superorganism from which humans are often exempted，Carson's circle is a contaminated community where humans occupy a trophic knot．The re-grouping of the humans into this ecological scene implicates both environmental justice's concerns for marginalized societies and deep ecology's commitment to the leveling of human place to that of“nature，”recalling both human-centered and a relational，“ecological”subject positions．Carson，as Devall and Sessions argue，is one of the major ecologists who have extended the“narrow definition of ecology as‘the study of natural interrelationships，’”to incorporate“a biocentric perspective on the equality of all nonhumans and humans”．Other naturalists listed are F．Fraser Darling，Charles Elton，Aldo Leopold，Paul Sears，William Vogt，Eugene Odum，and Frank Egler．Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），85．Here Devall and Session's brief remark on Carson engenders a biocentric stance that invites critiques of antihumanist anarchism and a romanticization of non-Western cultural heritage．Yet their celebration of symbiosis coincides with environmental justice critics who also speak for the ethos of interdependence on the very ground of nature's image as an interconnected web or a living organic whole．The identification of environmental justice critics'and deep ecologists' readings of the toxic circle as epistemological duos reveals the dynamics of the organic metaphor．Yet，while the flexibility of organic metaphor leads to the debate over the ethical validities of anthropocentric environmental stance，its suppleness embarks on a middle ground capable of bridging anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric ethics．The diffuseness of the organic，whose holistic implication deep ecology enacts and notoriously romanticizes anticipates an“eco-fascist”position when erasing an“organic”relation that environmental justice criticism affirms．As Merchant notes，a wholehearted embrace of“organic community，” “mutual interdependence，”and“evolution toward higher forms”often leads to a“fascist tyranny based on a centralized organismic model”． Carolyn Merchant，，（San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980），76．The organicist's emphasis on the autonomy of the parts，to the contrary，foregrounds environmental justice's celebration of the local，traditional，and marginalized，but its local centricity，likewise，receives the charge of a lack of deep ecology's more comprehensive and“globally informed”perspective．In

Primitives in the Wilderness

（1997），Peter C．van Wyck writes：

In modern terms the most totaI ecoIogicaI metaphor is the organicist metaphor．．．Organicist sIogans such as“the whoIe is more than the sum of the parts，”have been common currency in the environmentaI movement for years．The use of such sIogans is taken to be a kind of incantation to procIaim a new and ecoIogicaIunderstanding of things．“The worId isn't Iike a machine，it's Iike an organism．”But what kind of organism？Accounts vary． Peter C．Van Wyck，（New York：SUNY Press，1997），76．

When the human subject is returned to the operations of a toxic circle of life，Carson's critique of the widespread use of DDT，or what she called，the“［e］lixirs of death”complicates the notions of nature and culture，bridging deep ecology's and environmental justice's green endeavors．Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），15．

§ （Dis）placing the Humans，Detoxicating the Circle：Reconfiguration of the Organic Metaphor in Silent Spring

In the opening chapter of

Silent Spring

，“A Fable for Tomorrow，”Carson portrays a classic American suburban town in an idyllic landscape：

There was once a town in the heart of America where aII Iife seemed to Iive in harmony with its surroundings．The town Iay in the midst of a checkerboard of prosperous farms，with fieIds of grain and hiIIsides of orchards where，in spring，white cIouds of bIoom drifted above the green fieIds．Inautumn，oak and maple and birch set up a blaze of color that flamed and flickered across a backdrop of pines．Then foxes barked in the hills and deer silently crossed the fields，half hidden in the mists of the fall mornings．Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），1．

In this passage，Carson captures one of the most alluring dreams and metaphors in the American imagery：a pastoral setting of nature and civilization in perfect harmony．This defining moment，however，is characterized by a dwar fed artist-protagonist and an idealized country life that obliterated what Leo Marx suggests as the tension between the sprawl of urban power，symbolized by the“machine，”on the one hand，and the rural peace and simplicity of the“garden，”on the other． Leo Marx，（New York：Oxford University Press，1964），18．With the subjectivities of individuals lumped and subsumed into one larger social，ecological order，and nature，purified，romanticized，and f rozen by time，the physical as well as cultural realities，both，have（re）presentation in much simplified and diminished manners．This moment of calmness，ironically，foreshadows an order of a complex，interconnected web of life，soon to be interrupted．Listed as one of the“fifteen most frequently recommended books”by the Association of the Study of Literature and the Environment（ASLE），Marx'sis a book that has won its reputation by complicating the idea of pastoralism as a mode for articulating and working through the tensions between nature and culture on the one hand，and between anthropocentric and ecocentric consciousness on the other hand，Leo Marx，（New York：Oxford University Press，1964），395 396．See， “Recommended Reading”in，ed．Cheryll Glotfelty，Harold Fromm（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，1996），393 400．Building on Marx's argument，literary critic Scheese considers the tension between nature and culture，and the protagonist's“in nature but also dwarfed by nature”position to be two of the most important tropes that dominated American nature writing，Scheese Don，（New York：Twayne Publishers，1996），3．Agreeing with Marx and Scheese，ecocritic Terry Gifford asserts，in，that many have undervalued the complexity of pastoral literature（London&New York：Routledge，1999）．

For both environmental justice advocates and deep ecologists，the rhetorical force of

Silent Spring

lies in Carson's power to provoke an outburst of anger and unravel the allegory hidden behind what is absent and negated in this archetypal scene of American nature writing．The message that Carson delivers in the following chapters is solemn and unequivocal．She writes，“［i］n this now universal contamination of the environment，chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of theworld—the very nature of its life”．Rachel Carson，．1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），6．Yet，the impact of the indiscriminate use of chemicals and synthetic pesticides on the natural environment and human health in the long run，as Carson declares，are“unseen，”“invisible，”and yet insidious，totalizing，and undetected by post-Cold War Americans，who were haunted by the aftermath of the threat of nuclear genocide．Carson's apocalyptic vision becomes all the more striking when she clarifies how this pastoral harmony may actually turn into historic novelty if the folly to control the nonhuman world through

pest

-icides persists．She explicates this suicidal，technocratic arrogance：“［n］o witchcraft，no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world．The people had done it themselves”．Resonating with her anxiety over the extinguishments，and，hence，the absence of“pests”in this biotic community，her critique of post-Enlightenment ideology，as critics concur，empowers humans with the rights to exploit and control nature，by sustaining images of humans standing apart from“nature．”The view that Judeo-Christian theology and Enlightenment ideology have nurtured a dichotomy between humans and nature，and endowed humans the legitimate right to use and exploit nature is shared by most environmental historians．See Lynn White Jr．'s pioneering discussion，“The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”Lynn White，Jr．，“The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis，”155（1967）：1203 1207．For an ecofeminist perspective，see，for example，Carolyn Merchant，，（San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980）．According to Carson， “［t］he‘control of nature’is a phrase conceived in arrogance，born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy，when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man．．．It is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons，and that in turning them against the insect it has also turned them against the earth”．Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），297．Tightening the fate of humans with earth through a close-knit，and yet toxified，living whole，

Silent Spring

redefines human-nature relation for a new environmental discourse．Building on Carson's insights，environmental justice advocates，likewise，demystify the pastoral scene，and insist on

Silent Spring

's critiques of this feminized and racial-and class-coded image of classic American suburban community．The appeal of this tamed and unspoiled retreat depends first andforemost on the enclosure of the land，and，henceforth，the displacement of the dispossessed for rich elites—a process that began in eighteen-century commercial and industrial England． See Williams'discussion of the re-construction of pastoral landscape in eighteenth-century England，and the rise of capitalism in（London：Chatoo and Windus，1973），105 106，and Peter Coates's reading of landscape and its relations to the（re）distribution of power and natural resources within Western civilization in（Berkeley：University of California Press，2004），111 114．As a landscape of exclusion，this suburbia involves the sustaining of nature for recreation use as opposed to a place defined by everyday living，work，and reproductive functions．Finding the universal applications of DDT carcinogenic and“universal”and“total”，Carson contends against the privatization of lands as insulated，upper/middle class residential quarters that propelled the establishment of industrial sites，urban slums，and landfill communities．This suggestive but evocative vision foreshadows the publication of biologist and cancer survivor，Sandra Steingraber's

Living Downstream:An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the

Environment（1997）． In“Living Downstream of Silen Spring，”Sanfra Steingraber writes that“the command and control style of human decision making，when applied to natural systems here on earth，was doomed to failure”，“Living Downstream of Silent Spring，”，eds．Lisa H．Sideris&Kathleen Dean Moore（New York：SUNY Press，2008），220．Living Downstream drew attention to the correlation between“the disparate distribution of wealth and power，”and“the unequal distribution of environmental degradation and/or toxicity”．Joni Adamson，Evans Mei Mei，and Stein Rachel，“Introduction：Environmental Justice Politics，Poetics，and Pedagogy，”，，eds．Joni Adamson，MeiMei Evans，and Rachel Stein（Tuscon：University of Arizona Press，2002），5．From an environmental justice perspective，this popular imagery of a highly maintained idyllic landscape depicted at the onset of

Silent Spring

confronts the process of pastoralization．The domestication of nature accentuates isolated neighborhoods as cover-ups that bear a green disguise for a series of conmmodification and racialization of nature that created downstream toxicity．

Silent Spring

，however，is an extremely elusive text．Interweaving the destiny of humankind with that of nature into a close-knit and yet polluted circle，Carson's reconfiguration of pastoral convention comments directly and negatively on federal government's unconditional support for the use of synthetic chemicals in agricultural productions and pest management around thenineteenfifties and sixties．Continuous endeavor to underscore the normative potential of“mutual interdependence”as human-centered and local-oriented，on the part of literary critics and environmental justice advocates，however，suggests understanding this key moment otherwise．Underlying the organic metaphor of interconnectedness is also the creative energy for wholeness that deep ecologists celebrate and a tension generated through the constant struggle of the parts，interacting with each other，and conforming to the larger unitary whole．

With the subjectivities of individuals subordinated to an ecological collectivity and the agency of human subjects diminished，Carson's evocation of the pastoral imagery，along with that of other Euro-American literary pastoralists and naturalists，epitomizes for deep ecologists，an“organic wholeness”Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），67．fundamental to its counterattack on the“narrow scientism and industrialism of the modern world”．According to Devall and Sessions，“［t］he European romantic movement，beginning with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's challenge to an overly civilized and refined Europe，and continuing with Goethe and the Romantic poets（Blake，Wordsworth，Coleridge，Shelley，etc．），”and“［t］his movement continued in American with Walt Whitman，the Transcendentalist Emerson，and Thoreau and Muir”（82）．For a complete list of the writers mentioned，see Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），82 85．Defining popular green movement and modern environmentalism as a“shallow ecology movement”that can be reduced to a“［f］ight against pollution and resource depletion”for the promotion of the“health and affluence of people in the developed countries，”Naess characterized“deep，long-range ecological movement”：

Rejection of the man-in-environment image in favor of the reIationaI，totaI-fieId image．Organisms as knots in the biosphericaI net or fieId of intrinsic reIations．An intrinsic reIation between two things

A

and

B

is such that the reIation beIongs to the definitions or basic constitutions of

A

and

B

，so that without the reIation，

A

and

B

are no Ionger the same thing．The totaI-fieId modeI dissoIves not onIy the man-in-environment concept—except when taIking at a superficiaI or preIiminary IeveI of communication．Arne Naess，“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），147．Like Carson's pastoral scene，Naess's remark enacts the metaphor of a complex biotic community．This idealized and yet abstracted pastoral imagery，for deep ecologists，implicates a disengagement from the hegemony of modern social and political structures and manifests a visionary wholeness that bestows a biocentric equality．

As deep ecologists claims，“the study of our place in the Earth household includes the study of ourselves as part of the organic whole”and that“the search for deep ecological consciousness is the search for a more objective consciousness and a state of being through an active deep questioning and meditative process and way of life”． Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），66．In their assertion for interconnectedness，the organic metaphor contrasts starkly with the dominant cosmology，and has been translated to connote egalitarianism．Devall and Sessions explain the contrasts between the dominant worldview and deep ecology：

53Ibid．，69．

Deep ecology's organicist ethics of symbiosis and diversity proclaims a process that，in its critique of both technocratic-industrial societies'logic of reductionism as well as the dominance of“humans over nonhuman Nature，masculine over the feminine，wealthy and powerful over the poor，．．．［and］the Western over non-Western cultures，”subverts social/biological hierarchiesand boundaries． Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），66．For deep ecologists，the doctrine of organic wholeness is both a means and an end，corresponding to the root metaphor of organicism：“［t］he categories of organicism consist，on the one hand，in noting the steps involved in the organic process，and，on the other hand，in noting the principal features in the organic structure ultimately achieved or realized”． Stephen C．Pepper，（Los Angeles：University of California Press，1948），281．Deep ecology's teleological directon，similarly，resides in“the integration appearing in the process that the organicist works from，and not the duration of the process”．

What also draws on this organic metaphor is the carefully established narrative structure through which Carson developed her claims against the nondiscriminative use of DDT under the reductionist and anthropocentric metaphysics of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution．In her attempt to rectify the conceptualization of DDT from“pesticide，” “‘miracle’chemical，”and“panacea for insect control” C．F．Wilkinson，“The Science and Politics of Pesticides，”，eds．Gino J．Marco，Robert M．Hollingworth and William Durham（Washington，D．C．：American Chemical Society，1987），25．in the nineteen-forties American society，to what she suggests as“biocide”，Carson turns to the integrative process of organicism．Tracing the course of the food chain，her chapter“Elixirs of Death”is followed accordingly by her chapters，titled“Surface Waters and Underground Seas，” “Realms of the Soil，” “Earth's Green Mantle，”“Needless Havoc，” “And No Birds Sing，” “Rivers of Death，”“Indiscriminately from the Sky，” “The Human Price，”and“Nature Fights Back．”The insidious impact of synthetic chemicals unfolds as each chapter proceeds to document the transferring of DDT in various trophic levels of the food chain in a causal order．As Carson explains，“［o］ne of the most sinister features of DDT and related chemicals is the way they are passed on from one organism to another through all the links of the food chain”．Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），22．For a discussion of the changing image of pesticides in America before and after Carson，see C．F．Wilkinson's“The Science and Politics of Pesticides，”，eds．Gino J．Marco，Robert M．Hollingworth and William Durham（Washington，D．C．：American Chemical Society，1987），25 46．

In this unfolding food chain，however，Carson espouses the image of a consistent，administrative“natural law，”where organisms as herbivores，carnivores，consumers，or decomposers all connect through the passing on of（toxic）food/energy，despite the fact that this assimilating，regulating process of the food chain is a contaminated and poisonous one．Reinstating the pastoral rhetoric，the narrative structure not only glides over the conflicts and violence inherent in the interactions between“nature”and“culture，”but also the very terms and conditions of socially-imposed inequalities and biologically-inherent hierarchies，for the sake of a highly polished unity．As Donald Worster maintains，food chain as an ecological law pertains to both the“corporateness of survival”as well as the“nutritional interdependence”among species． Donald Worster，（New York：New York University Press，1977），296．Carson makes clear that she in no respect demands a complete prohibition of DDT and that her critique of the insecticides does not so much target their function as to the indiscriminate and ignorant applications of these biologically potent chemicals．Yet

Silent Spring

's instantiation of the narrative course of“the stream of synthetic insecticides”through the organic metaphor solicits a totalizing and essentializing approach to the environment． Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），16．In the second chapter，“The Obligation to Endure，”she writes，“［i］t is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used．I do not contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potential for harm，”Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），12．Like Carson，who purports unity through common bonds humans and living organisms share，Naess，recognizes the mutuality of the aspects of symbiosis，egalitarianism，decentralization，and classlessness as principles that，in praxis，“［necessitate］some killing，exploitation，and suppression”． Arne Naess，“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”．ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），147．In

The Rights of Nature

，Nash once notes that“［f］or many in Carson's large following her most compelling idea was the danger chemical insecticides posed to human health”．Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The University of Wisconsin Press，1989），82．Like Nash，most critics recognize the contaminated food chain as one of the most compelling images of

Silent Spring

．Contextualizing her arguments within the organic tradition，Carson and deep ecologists'messages on the coexistence of nature and culture and on the corroboration among diverse social and cultural groups are well grounded．Yet when ethical implications manifested by the organic f ramework of Carson and deep ecologists are henceforward taken to mean biocentric equality，the organic metaphor faces a serious challenge．In spite of the ethical disparities of，and the epistemological disagreements between，these two adversarial schools，Carson's organic circle，as I have suggested，is a metaphor claimed by those who seek a“middle ground”and defend the environmental rights of the disempowered and those who go to the other extreme and sanction biocentric equality．The fact that both environmental justice critics and deep ecologists justify their metaphysical positions through the organic metaphor reveals a powerful and persistent paradox embedded within organic conceptual frameworks．Faith in the power of the organic to transcend and unite the destinies of nature and human for the ideal of a more sustainable and stable environment is constantly destabilized by a subtext，whose vision of the organic，as an animistic or vitalistic force，impinges upon any previous presumptions for order and partnership．

The ambivalence of the organic metaphor is foretold and yet left unresolved in major theoretical texts of environmental history．These works，published between the late nineteenseventies，eighties and nineties，include Worster's Nature's Economy（1977），Merchant's The Death of Nature（1983），Nash's The Rights of Nature（1989），and Oelschlaeger's The Idea of Wilderness（1991）．Much like Carson's Silent Spring，organics，as a harmonizing force and an ideal that counterbalances mechanistic paradigm's reductionism，is a major motif these critics defend．Grounding its main thesis on the organic cosmology，Merchant is not the first，but certainly the most prominent member who reads nature in this fashion．Identifying the feminine，and，particularly，the“nurturing mother”as being central to organiccosmology's principle of cooperative interdependence，her ecofeminist approach to Western environmental history begins with the following remark on the organic：

［I］t is not surprising that for sixteenth-century Europeans the root metaphor binding together the seIf，society，and the cosmos was that of an organism．As a projection of the way peopIe experienced daiIy Iife，organismic theory emphasized interdependence among the parts of the human body，subordination of individuaI to communaI purpose in famiIy，community，and state，and vitaIIife permeating the cosmos to the IowIiest stone． Carolyn Merchant，，（San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980），1 2．

She quickly proceeds to argue from and for the spirits of a benevolent mother earth and proposes that nature is gendered．

The Death of Nature

analyzes three ramifications of the“organic theme”in Western literature，art，and science since the Renaissance．Merchant writes，

The primary view of nature was the idea that a designed hierarchicaIorder existed in the cosmos and society corresponding to the organic integration of the parts of the body—a projection of the human being onto the cosmos．The term nature comprehended both the innate nature character and disposition of peopIe and animaIs and the inherent creative power operating within materiaI objects and phenomena．A second image was based on nature as an active unity of opposites in a diaIecticaI tension．A third was the Arcadian image of nature as benevoIent，peacefuI，and rustic，deriving from Arcadia，the pastoraIinterior of the Greek PeIoponnesus．Each of these interpretations had different sociaIimpIications：the first image couId be used as a justification for maintaining the existing sociaI order，the second for changing society toward a new ideaI，the third for escaping from the emerging probIems of urban Iife．Here an organic worldview continues to maintain as sense of correlation through the imagery of nature as a“living organism”of cooperative parts．

Two important implications of the organic cosmology，however，are overlooked in Merchant's and environmental critics'readings of nature as organisms that possesses，in themselves，inherent values．As illustratedpreviously，internal conflicts and power struggles between the parts and the whole in the pastoral scene are flattened and erased by environmental critics for the supposed symbiotic environmental order of a unifying structure．While the organic ideal of social integration bespeaks a totalitarian police state，the leveling of social and biological hierarchies through the modeling of organicism implies antihumanist anarchism． For a discussion on organicism in the context of totalitarianism，see Worster Donald's（New York：Cambridge University Press，1977），329 330，and a discussion of anarchist implications of organicism，see Martin W．Lewis's（Durham，North Carolina：Duke University Press，1993），27 31．Once the notion of nature as autonomous and possessing life serves to establish the bond between humans and nonhumans and contest against social constraints，another ingredient quickly abandoned is the animistic or vitalist aspect of organic cosmology．In

The Death of Nature

，Merchant celebrates nature as a living organism．Yet her organicist environmental history ends with this notion of a spontaneous nature，whose“wild and uncontrollable”female qualities render“violence，storms，droughts，and general chaos”and the further sanctioning of Western，patriarchal society's domination of nature and subjugation of women． Carolyn Merchant，，（San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980），2．Renouncing both the creative and procreative powers of organic cosmos and society（suggested by herself as the first variant of the organic theme）and the dialectical tensions unified by an active force of nature（identified as the second ramification of organicism），her version of environmental history is dominated by the overriding imagery of Arcadia．Defined mainly as a pristine landscape of moral innocence and environmental stability，the notion of organic earth as Arcadia suggests nothing but a static，regulated earth，identical to the mathematically simulated and engineered，inert nature of the mechanistic paradigm．Cf．Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The U of Wisconsin P，1989），90 92，and Donald Worster，，（New York：New York University Press，1977），317 318．In Merchant and deep ecological discourse，“nature”is organic

and

animate only to the extent that it is taken to mean a pacified“nature”（i．e．organisms or entities that exhibit signs of life or the will of living）—as opposed to an animistic“Nature”（i．e．acosmos inhabited with souls and spirits，or shows signs of agency as a whole）．“Organic”is translated to suggest the vital，dynamic forces of a complex universe，but the agency ascribed to nature/Nature，and to the human subject remains ideal．Nature and humans，in this syllogism，are transformed into passive matters subject to the control of a greater law．Soil，water，air，minerals，radiations，and other“inorganic”objects of nature examined in

Silent Spring

，similarly，are often excluded in the scene of contemporary environmental affairs and debates．Focusing more closely on critical responses to Carson's organic f ramework，one finds in ecocritics'eagerness to attribute to

Silent Spring

an ecological consciousness．In

Deep Ecology

，Devall and Sessions declare openly that“［t］he major contribution of the science of ecology to deep ecology has been the rediscovery within the modern scientific context that everything is connected to everything else．Thus，as a science，ecology provided a view of Nature that was lacking in the discrete，reductionist approach to Nature of the other science”． Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），85．Alluding to the“major‘laws’of ecology”postulated by American biologist Barry Commoner in

The Closing Circle:Nature

，

Men

，

and Technology

（1971），Devall and Sessions summarize their deep ecological position vis-à-vis the laws of ecology：

1．Everything is connected to everything else．

2．Everything must go somewhere．

3．Nature knows best．

4．There is no such thing as a free lunch，or everything has to go somewhere． Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），87．

For Devall and Sessions，ecological consciousness pertains to“a process of learning to appreciate silence and solitude and rediscovering how to listen”；“［i］t is learning how to be more receptive，trusting，holistic in perception，andis grounded in a vision of nonexploitive science and technology”． Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），8．

Consolidating the principle of biocentric egalitarianism and the philosophy of cultural diversity through the notion of interconnectedness is a powerful and familiar rhetorical strategy adopted by deep ecologists．Devall and Sessions' postulation，however，poses a question from the moment it claims rightful ownership to the organic imperative of interconnectedness．Aside from the fact that the claiming of“interconnectedness”by both anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists challenges the legitimacy of deep ecology's egalitarianism，Commoner's designation of these four principles as“laws of ecology，”gestures toward normative implications of subsuming，particularly，the more generalized organic principles of“interconnectedness”into the discourse of ecology．Given that the ethics of interdependence is entrenched within greater organic worldview，what is intriguing is the ways in which ecology is also enacted as what Merchant observes as a modern incarnation of the organic．How have ecological theories and metaphors of interconnectedness fostered deep ecology or de facto modern environmentalism？In what ways have the introjection and appropriation of ecology into modern environmental imaginary，instantiated the problematic reading of organic nature as an orderly，controlled cosmos？

The science of ecology is closely associated with the organic principle of interconnectedness．With the Greek term for household， “oikos，”as its etymology，ecology（

Ökologie

），as a formal science，was established in 1886 by German zoologist and interpreter of Charles Darwin，Ernest Haeckel（1834 1919）．As a branch of biology，ecology devotes itself to the study of the interactions between organisms，and between organisms and their surrounding habitats．In an inaugural lecture at the University of Jena（1869），Haeckel defines ecology as the following：“［b］y ecology we mean the body of knowledge concerning the economy of nature—the investigation of the total relations of the animal both to its inorganic and to its organic environment”．David R．Keller，Golley B．，“Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis，”（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000），9．Haeckel locates ecology within the tradition of natural history and modern biology．As a scientific discipline that undertakes nature as a dynamic，spontaneous wholethat developed within itself an overarching order，ecology is redressed as an antithesis to the study of organisms as dislocated mechanisms in impersonal laboratories and the study of nature as segmented parts，delimited by systems of laws，as in the science of physics and biochemistry．The history of“biology”dates back to the prehistoric times，when people experienced“nature”as a way of survival and understanding life．The modern science of biology，however，started during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the systematic methods of naming and characterizing．Cf．David R．Keller，Golley B．， “Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis，”（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000），3 4．Field observation of the“nature household，”for him，elucidates a sense of habitat and environment that accentuates，not only the value of the first-hand and the directly experienced，but also a cosmic order that builds on both collaborative and rivalry relations．However suggestive Haeckel's delineation of the discipline of ecology is，“ecology”prevails in green discourse as a residue of Haeckel's organic cosmology．With a unanimous voice，cultural historians and green critics celebrate holism in their encapsulation of the science of ecology，embracing Haeckel's ecological approach to“nature”as a single，but complex organism of economic units，dwelling within their indigenous natural habitats．Cf．Donald Worster，（New York：New York University Press，1977），92，Henry Roderick Nash，（Madison，Wisconsin：The U of Wisconsin P，1989），6 57，David R．Keller，Golley B．，“Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis，”（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000），7 9，and Raymond Williams，；（New York：Oxford University Press，1983），10 111．Scholars channel their insights on environmental history，green ethics，and current environmental problems into the specific organic framework，within which Haeckel substantiates his theory of ecology．As philosopher David R．Keller and ecologist Frank B．Golley assert in their introduction to

The Philosophy of Ecology:From Science to Synthesis

，ecological science infers an“ecological worldview”that enabled the constellation of the theme of“interaction and connectedness”in green movements．David R．Keller，Golley B．，“Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis，”（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000），2．Ecological worldview can be developed in the following ways：“［a］ll living and nonliving things are integral parts of the biospherical web（ontological interconnectedness），”“［t］he essence or identity of a living thing is an expression of connections and context（internalrelations），”and“［t］o understand the makeup of the biosphere，connections and relations between parts must be considered，not just the parts themselves（holism）”． David R．Keller，Golley B．，“Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis，”（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000），2．The emphasis on the interrelations between humans and their physical surroundings，and the state of including，encompassing，and being surrounded by“nature，”has its best elucidation in the naming of contemporary nature-protection movements as“environmentalism．”As Williams writes，the word“environment，”dates from the firstthird of the nineteenthcentury，“in the sense of surroundings，as in

environs

”． Raymond Williams，，（New York：Oxford University Press，1983），111．For Hackel as for green discourse，ecology evinces a more holistic，non-instrumental，personal—and，hence，organic—approach to the nonhuman world．Deep ecologists，however，are among the few who are quick to call attention to the anomalies between what Keller and Golley differentiate as“scientific ecology，”and“literary/political ecology”． David R．Keller，Golley B．，“Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis，”（Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000），4 7．Insisting that the ecological notion of interconnectedness is“ecophilosophical”rather than“ecological，”Naess pronounces ecology a“

limited

science［that］makes

use

of scientific methods”in modern environmental imagination． Arne Naess，“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），149．For Naess，the messages of ecology are“twisted and misused，”when taken，primarily，to justify the claims for the health and well-being of“nature”on behalf of humans．In reparation，deep ecologists demand“self-realization”or“identification，”expanding Haeckel's notion of“interrelations．”The realization of“self-in-Self”is，thus，conceived as the realization of the self in an organic whole． Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），67．As a process that“

inevitably

widens and deepens the self through the process of identification”Arne Naess，“Ecosophy T：Deep Versus Shallow Ecology，”Environmental Ethics:Readings in，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），153．，self-realization suggests“aspontaneous，non-rational but not irrational process through which

the interest or interests of another being are reacted to as our own interest or interests

”． Arne Naess，“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），152．The italics are in the original text．Distinguishing themselves from the scientific，ecological approach to the nonhuman world，deep ecology exalts“ecosophy，”the study of ecology as ecological wisdom Arne Naess，，，，trans．David Rothenberd（New York：Cambridge University Press，1989），37．，and demands an“ecological identity，”defined by“the different ways people construe themselves in relationship to the earth as manifested in personality，values，actions，and sense of self”． Mitchell Thomashow，（Cambridge，Massachusetts：Massachusetts Institute Technology Press，1995），3．Although a less generalized，rigid，and extremist manner，deep ecologists' trenchant critique of technological optimism conjoins with critics' demystification of scientism through the naturalist tradition．In

Finding Order in Nature:The Naturalist Tradition from Linnasues to E

．

O

．

Wilson

（2000） Paul Lawrence Farber，．．（Baltimore：Johns Hopkins University Press，2000）．，Paul Lawrence Farber traces the development of natural history，and argues that natural history departs from early studies of biology with its endeavor to“group animals，plants，and minerals according to shared underlying features and to use rational，systematic methods to bring order to the otherwise overwhelming variation found in nature”．Here，Farber's epistemological conceptualization of natural history follows the all-too-familiar principle of interconnectedness—underpinnings through which Haeckel buttresses his theory of ecology and the one tradition that persists in bestowing upon green discourse its“wisdom．”His remark，however，sheds light on the problematic position of“ecology”as both a subversive/prescriptive method of protection and an innovative method of representation，whose doctrines of interconnectedness capture modern environmental discourse．

As suggested earlier，the foregrounding of self-realization and identification as definitive features of deep ecology reflects a ruthless dedication to the naturalist tradition characterized by“unmediated relations”：“unmediated relations”not only as a state of relations between organisms and organisms，andorganisms and with their habitat，but also as a method of accessing and representing nature．Personal identities realized through“empathy，”“sympathy” Arne Naess，“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”Environmental，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），2．，and“intuition”（rather than logic and reason）has been construed as transcendental moves that extend the self to include other organisms．They consolidate deep ecologists'search for a unitary order．In deep ecology，this experiential immersion is encoded within the teachings of“the self，reflecting，becoming，or connecting with the Self”of Transcendentalism and Eastern spiritual traditions，such as Taoism，Buddhism，and Mohandas Gandhi's philosophy． For a deep ecologist's discussion of“self-less”action and its theoretical origin，see Arne Naess，“Ecosophy T：Deep Versus Shallow Ecology，”，Ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），153 154，and Bill Devall，George Sessions，（Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985），11 12．

Understood as“an intensely felt emotional connection with the natural world，”however， “unmediated relations”also underwrites the direct experience and knowledge of naturalists'field work．While many critics renounce their lineage to the methodologies and the logics of scientific disciplines，their authorization of impersonal documentations，unmediated experiences，and first-person，non-fiction narration，such as nature writing，nonetheless，participates in the claiming of the immediacy of experience and the transparency of representation．More specifically，environmental writers and critics'commitment to facts and the sense of the real as“organic，”and to the authenticity and particularity transmitted through personal narratives，embarks on a belief in“organic”representations．Kathleen R．Wallace and Karla Armbruster's“Introduction：Why Go Beyond Nature Writing，and Where to？”（2001） Kathleen R．Wallace and Karla Armbruster，“Introduction：Why go Beyond Nature Writing，and Where to？”，eds．Karla Armbruster and Kathleen R．Wallace（Charlottesville：University of Virginia Press，2001）．，and Dana Philips'The Truth of Ecology（2003）both reveal acritical concern for subscribing the“organic”as a way of approaching and representing the nonhuman world．According to ecocritic，John Elder，the definition of nature writing is“a form of the personal，reflective essay grounded in attentiveness to the natural world and appreciation of science，but also open to the spiritual meaning and intrinsic value of nature”． Kathleen R．Wallace and Karla Armbruster， “Introduction：Why go Beyond Nature Writing，and Where to？”，eds．Karla Armbruster and Kathleen R．Wallace（Charlottesville：University of Virginia Press，2001），2．Referring to Elder's definition of nature writing，Wallace and Armbruster recognize theoretical and imaginative limitations of a critical school that gives prominence to the mimesis of personal accounts and documentations of the environment．In much detail，Philips traces this preoccupation with“the nature of representation，”as opposed to the“representations of nature”（x），and regrets that many ecocritics have the inclination to believe，romantically，that“the organic character of literature is a key to the organic character of nature”． Dana Philips，，，（Oxford：Oxford University Press，2003），141．Regarding“first-wave”ecocritics，he writes：

Ecocritics who have made this claim are trying to revive the idea that great literature is organic，without saying plainly that this is what they are trying to do and without recognizing that，except for diehard aesthetes，the organic concept of literature was directed more toward a method of reading than toward a view of the ontological status of literary texts． Cf．Lawrence Buell，（Malden，Massachussets：Blackwell，2005），21 23．

For Buell，first-wave ecocriticism celebrates“environment”as natural environment，and devotes itself to reconnecting humans with the natural world，whereas second-wave ecocriticism tends to“question organicist models of conceiving both environment and environmentalism”．Lawrence Buell，（Malden，Massachussets：Blackwell，2005），22．The continuous enthusiasm for the spontaneous and instinctive relations between

Silent Spring

and Carson's perceptual experience，and between Carson and a nature of complexity and unity，reveals an enthusiasm for the organic principle ofinterrelations．The celebration of an organic nature through the organic character of literature predominates critical responses to

Silent Spring

．Michael A．Bryson，for instance，contends in

Visions of the Land

：

Science

，

Literature

，

and the American Environment from the Era of Exploration to the Age of Ecology

（2002）that Carson“emphasizes the complex，interconnected cycles of nature，stresses the importance of identifying with and understanding the point of view of other organisms，and questions our faith in the technological domination of nature”． Michael A．Bryson，，，（Charlottesville：University Press of Virginia，2002），144．His analysis，however，joined ecocritics William Rueckert and many others，who，in their defense of the organic ontology of literature，hastily associate nature writers'mystical union with the nonhuman world with a highly stylized，and value-laden notion of“ecology．”Rueckert writes，“［p］roperly understood，poems can be studied as models for energy flow，community building，and ecosystems．The first Law of Ecology—that everything is connected to everything else—applies to poems as well as to nature．The concept of the interactive field was operative in nature，ecology，and poetry long before it ever appeared in criticism”．William Rueckert，“Literature and Ecology：An Experiment in Ecocriticism，”，eds．Cheryll Glotfelty&Harold Fromm（Athens，Georgia：The University of Georgia Press，1996），110．Here，a rhetoric conflates the differences between nature（i．e．the represented）and nature writing（i．e．representation），and shows a deep suspicion towards critical and theoretical texts．In an eager attempt to（re）claim human linkage to“nature，”ecocritics have not only singled out“identification”and“interrelations，”and ascribed these conceptual tools to the science of ecology，but also reconfigured“ecology”as a scientific discipline that engages in the celebration of the“organic”trope，thematically，methodologically，and structurally，without further questioning their conceptions of“ecology．”Devall and Sessions'

Deep Ecology

，a text that amalgamates their critiques with segments of excerpts and quotations from literature and theoretical narratives of both Western and minority traditions，epitomizes and reflects deep ecologists'and ecocritics'endeavor for an organic world/text of symbiosis．To problematize ecocriticism's identification of the“organic”as central to the investigation and representation of“nature，”however，does not necessarily suggest an anthropocentric environmental position．Nor does it translate directly into a total renunciation of“ecological”approaches to nature．What is important is the ethical assumptions underlying ecocritics'characterization of ecology as a new paradigm of thought that forged an epistemological break with early environmental movements through what is a more holistic method of studying，documenting，and representing the environment．Farber's observation of the naturalist tradition is a reminder that the celebrated ecological methods of fieldwork，participant observation，and personal documentation have their predicate，as much upon the experience of what is personal，experiential，and actual，as upon a rational，systematic epistemology that attempts to discover the order of nature．The success and popularity of

Silent Spring

pertain to Carson's expertise in the ecological sciences，as well as her literary talents and the ethical appeal of her texts：［t］he reason that RacheICarson's

Silent Spring

．．．became one of those few works of environmentaIwriting to have an immediate and significant impact on pubIic poIitics，whiIe severaI other weII-researched contemporary books on the same topic did not，was that this was an author aIso capabIe of writing

A Sense of Wonder

．And reciprocaIIy：had ceIebration of nature's beauty been Carson's soIe concern，her voice wouId have been Iost to history． Lawrence Buell，（Malden，Massachussets：Blackwell，2005），vii．

Within environmental discourse，however，her authority and credibility as an impartial observer，if not a detached“outsider”of the biosphere，are often subservient to by a critical appreciation for her persona as a naturalist/ecologist，and her“human-in-nature，”or“women-in-nature”image． In“Earthcare，”Merchant writes，Carson is one these women who made“the question of the life of the Earth a public issue，”Carolyn Merchant，，（San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980），9．

The construction of the naturalist as an engaged and yet detached insiderobserver draws attention to two issues．First，a series of scientific data and facts provided in

Silent Spring

register and provoke a sense of reality and truth that spellbinds the public：the Latin scientific name for DDTRachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），20．，chemical structurerepresentations of organic compoundsRachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），19 29．，statistics on residues of DDT in eggs of birds，research testing of chemicals for sterilization，as well as reports on innovative，and prescriptive methods of insect control．Interestingly，embracing objectivity and empiricism，and，hence，effacing the subjectivity of the speaker and observer，Carson's scientific knowledge gives credence to the factuality of DDT pollution，and validates her ethical position．The preoccupation with the nature writer's role as an impartial observer，or outsider，in the process of capturing the“reality，”ironically，evinces a nonanthropocentric ethic，which attempts symbiosis while，at the same time，creates a non-trespassible gap between humans and nature．Biospherical egalitarianism，as Naess himself notes，could never be the reality． Arne Naess， “The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement，”，ed．Louis P．Pojman（Belmont；California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001），147 148．Yet the unceasing demand for“identification”and an“organic”method of approaching，representing，and protecting“nature，”as well as the continuous hostility towards the rational，systematic epistemology of the science，nonetheless，prescribes an“organic-as-good vs．science-as-bad”binary that Carson ultimately rejects．Carson writes， “［i］t is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used．I do not contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm”．Rachel Carson，，1962（Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994），12．In the effacement of the voice of the subject，the positioning of humans as a participant-observer encapsulates“nature”as an organic structure where humans remain outsiders．Unlike Carson's organic circle，the organic nature celebrated by deep ecologists is a purified and selective one in which the human subject，reduced to its biological functions，responds passively，as a whole，toward a natural order where the mechanics of both“organic”and synthetic chemicals，and non-living and inorganic elements of environment，are undermined．Calling attention to the“vital”role of the synthetic chemicals in the food chain，as well as the roleof humans as victims of toxic pollutions they created，

Silent Spring

reconfigures a landscape of liminality where nature and culture intersect and interact，and a middle passage that bridges ecocentric and anthropocentric ethics．

Bibliography参考文献

Adamson，Joni，Mei Mei Evans，and Rachel Stein． “Introduction：Environmental Justice Politics，Poetics，and Pedagogy．”

Environmental Justice Reader:Politics

，

Poetics&Pedagogy

．Ed．Joni Adamson，Mei Mei Evans，and Rachel Stein．Tuscon：University of Arizona Press，2002．Bryson，Michael A．

Visions of the Land:Science

，

Literature

，

and the American Environment form the Era of Exploration to the Age of Ecology

．Charlottesville：University Press of Virginia，2002．Buell，Lawrence．

The Future of Environmental Criticism:Environmental Crisis and Literary Imagination

．Malden，Massachussetts：Blackwell，2005．—．

Writing for an Endangered World

：

Literature

，

Culture

，

and Environment in the U

．

S

．

and Beyond

．Cambridge，Massachussetts：Harvard University Press，2001．Carson，Rachel．

Silent Spring

．1962．Boston：Houghton Mifflin Company，1994．Christie，Ian．“100%Green．”

Your Environment

13（2006）：14 25．Devall，Bill and George Sessions．

Deep Ecology:Living as if Nature Mattered

．Salt Lake City：Gibbs M．Smith，Inc．，1985．Farber，Paul Lawrence．

Finding Order in Nature:The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E

．

O

．

Wilson

．Baltimore：Johns Hopkins University Press，2000．Glotfelty，Cheryll． “Cold War，

Silent Spring:

the Trope of War in Modern Environmentalism．”

And No Birds Sing:Rhetorical Analyses of Carson's Silent Spring

．Ed．Craig Waddell．Carbondale：Southern Illinois University Press，2000．Guha，Ramachandra．

Environmentalism:A Global History

．New York：Longman，2000．Hays，Samuel．

Beauty

，

Health

，

and Permanence:Environmental Politics in the United States

，

1955 1985

．New York：Cambridge University Press，1987．Karliner，Joshua．

The Corporate Planet:Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization

，San Francisco：Sierra Club Books，1997．Keller，David R．and Frank B．Golley． “Introduction：Ecology as a Science of Synthesis．”

The Philosophy of Ecology from Science to Synthesis

．Athens，Georgia：University of Georgia Press，2000．Marx，Leo．

The Machine in the Garden:Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America

．New York：Oxford University Press，1964．Merchant，Carolyn．

The Death of Nature:Women

，

Ecology and Scientific Revolution

．San Francisco，CA：Harper San Francisco，1980．—．

Earthcare:Women and the Environment

．New York：Routledge，1996．Naess，Arne．

Ecology

，

Community

，

and Lifestyle:Outline of Ecosophy

．Tran．David Rothenberd．New York：Cambridge University Press，1989．—．“Ecosophy T：Deep Versus Shallow Ecology．”

Environmental Ethics:Readings in Theory and Application

．Ed．Louis P．Pojman．Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001．—．“The Shallow and the Deep，Long-Range Ecological Movement．”

Environmental Ethics:Readings in Theory and Application

．Ed．Louis P．Pojman．Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001．Nash，Henry Roderick．

The Rights of Nature:A History of Environmental Ethics

．Madison，Wisconsin：The University of Wisconsin Press，1989．Norwood，Vera L． “The Nature of Knowing：Rachel Carson and the American Environment．”

Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society

12．4，1987．

Oxford English Dictionary．Ed．J．A．Simpson and Edmund S．Weiner．Oxford：Oxford University Press，1989．

Pepper，Stephen C．

World Hypotheses:A Study in Evidence

．LA：University of California Press，1948．Philips，Dana．

The Truth of Ecology:Nature

，

Culture

，

and Literature in America

．Oxford：Oxford University Press，2003．Pojman，Louis P．ed．“Does Nature Have Intrinsic Value？Biocentric and Ecocentric Ethics and Deep Ecology．”

Environmental Ethics:Readings in Theory and Application

．Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001．Reed，T．V． “Toward an Environmental Justice Ecocriticism．”

The Environmental Justice Reader

．Ed．Joni Adamson，Mei Mei Evans，and Rachel Stein．Tucson：University of Arizona Press，2002．Rolston III，Holmes．“Naturalizing Values：Organicisms and Species．”

Environmental Ethics:Readings in Theory and Application

．Ed．Louis P．Pojman．Belmont，California：Wadsworth/Thomas Learning，2001．Rueckert，William．“Literature and Ecology：An Experiment in Ecocriticism．”

The Ecocriticism Reader

．Ed．Cheryll Glotfelty&Harold Fromm．Athens，Georgia：The University of Georgia Press，1996．Scheese，Don．

Nature Writing:The Pastoral Impulse in America

．New York：Twayne Publishers，1996．Solomon，Barry D．and Russell Lee．“Emissions Trading Systems and Environmental Justice．”

Environment

42（8）：32 45．Steingraber，Sandra．“Living Downstream of Silent Spring．”

Rachel Carson:Legacy

and Challenge

．Ed．Lisa H．Sideris&Kathleen Dean Moore．New York：SUNY Press，2008．Tarter，Jim． “Some Live More Downstream than Others：Cancer，Gender，and Environmental Justice．”

The Environmental Justice Reader

．Ed．Joni Adamson，Mei Mei Evans，and Rachel Stein．Tucson：University of Arizona Press，2002．Thomashow，Mitchell．

Ecological Identity:Becoming a Reflective Environmentalist

．Cambridge，MA：Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press，1995．Waddell，Craig．“The Reception of

Silent Spring

：an Introduction．”

And No Birds Sing:Rhetorical Analyses of Carson's Silent Spring

．Ed．Craig Waddell．Carbondale and Edwardsville：Southern Illinois University Press，2000．Wallace，Kathleen R．and Karla Armbruster．“Introduction：Why go Beyond Nature Writing，and Where to？”

Beyond Nature Writing:Expanding the Boundaries of Ecocriticism

．Ed．Karla Armbruster and Kathleen R．Wallace．Charlottesville：University of Virginia Press，2001．Wilkinson，C．F．“The Science and Politics of Pesticides．”

Silent Spring Revisited

．Ed．Gino J．Marco，Robert M．Hollingworth and William Durham．Washington，D．C．：American Chemical Society，1987．Williams，Raymond．

Keywords:A Vocabulary of Culture and Society

，

Revised Edition

．New York：Oxford University Press，1983．—．

The Country and the City

．London：Chatoo and Windus，1973．White，Richard．“‘Are you an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living？’：Work and Nature．”

Uncommon Ground:Rethinking the Human Place in Nature

．Ed．William Cronon．New York：W．W．Norton&Company，1995．Worster，Donald．

Nature's Economy:A History of Ecological Ideas

．New York：Cambridge University Press，1977．Van Wyck，Peter C．

Primitives in the Wilderness:Deep Ecology and the Missing Human Subject

．New York：SUNY Press，1997．

In Search of a Biotic Community and an Ecocentric Self：Rachel Carson，Deep Ecology，and the Organic Metaphor

Shiuhhuah Serena Chou

（Academia Sinica，Taiwan）This paper reads Rachel Carson's

Silent Spring

in the context of one of the most radical sectors of environmentalism，deep ecology．The organic metaphor，in fact，has been integral not only to deep ecology's denunciation of tolerance for continued economic and technological development，but also to its attack on the anthropocentric principles generated under the aegis of the conservationism of mainstream environmental movements．Tracing the conceptual roots of deep ecology to Carson，deep ecologists postulate“symbiosis”and“diversity，”relying also on organic metaphors．This paper focus on solving the problems as follow：Does the shared metaphor pose a challenge to deep ecologists'normative claim，which subordinates human interests to those of theplanet？How much of deep ecology's enthusiasm for diversity is genuinely justified？Finally，to what extent does Carson's narrative engender an organic cosmology that could serve as the middle ground that bridges those who defend an anthropocentric ethics，and those who fight for biocentric or ecocentric ethics？Rachel Carson；

Silent Spring

；organic；deep ecology；biocentricism

周序桦，任职于台湾中研院欧美研究所，涉足生态批评，美国农业写作、美国亚裔环境文学等研究。近期出版论文有：《与自然相处：大卫·增本的批判和隐喻话语》（《同心》，2009）、《回首过去，建设未来：大卫·增本和虚无》（《美国多人种文学》，2009）、《香格里拉的秘密：农业旅行和有机农业的兴起》（《比较文学研究》，2013）。