December 6, 2015 - 22:48
Humans are still coming to terms with the idea of climate change. It seems difficult for people to comprehend that a singular species can cause an entire ecological system to change. This falls under the idea of “ecological intelligence”, a term both Bruno Latour and Chet Bowers are familiar with in their articles “Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene” and “Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence”, respectively. More specifically, ecological intelligence deals with the interconnectedness of all beings on this planet. There is no such thing as an isolated species that does not affect or is not affected by the ecology. In both Latour and Bowers’ articles, ecological intelligence is discussed as something beyond the individual understanding; it requires a fundamental change in educational upbringing in order to change the way society views the environment.
Ecological intelligence, according to Latour and Bowers, is at its most basic level the concept that all relationships in this world are symbiotic. Humans tend to think that they are invincible because they are in control of the environment. Latour and Bowers argue otherwise. Latour claims that, while we once did have control over some aspects of our environment, “human societies have [now] resigned themselves to playing the role of the dumb object, while nature has unexpectedly taken on that of the active subject” (Latour, 12). Whereas before, we humans thought that we were the “subjects”, nature has come back around and shown us that we are, in fact, objects of nature as well. We can simultaneously act on nature to change its course and be acted upon. Our actions are not isolated and can have dire consequences on both other species and our own. All this hints at the idea of a vicious cycle, in which no side has the final say in what happens. Both Latour and Bowers recognize that this ignorance is what is causing the demise of our planet.
Although Latour and Bowers are abstract in their solutions for this ignorance, both authors converge on the idea of education as a means of fostering ecological intelligence. Firstly, Bowers suggests that humans are linguistically biased, which does not allow for ecological intelligence. The very nature of (Western) language gives “moral legitimacy to the industrial/individualistic/consumer-oriented culture”, which stands in direct opposition to environmentally conscious ways of approaching the world (Bowers, 43). Bowers argues that the “cultural commons”, or where cultural exchange occurs, should not be as consumerism-driven as it is today. He claims that there “needs to be a wider understanding on the part of educators of how language carries forward the misconception and values of earlier thinkers who were unaware of environmental limits” (Bowers, 44). In a sense, because language is so heavily biased towards non-environemtally conscious ways of thought, it is inhibiting modern humans from understanding what exactly is happening to the world around us. Because most important Western schools of thought are centered around individualism and consumerism, this acts as an obstacle to properly learning about climate change.
Education is the subject on which both Latour and Bowers converge. Bowers constantly refers to “educational reformers” throughout his article to emphasize the source of where ecological intelligence in Western cultures can begin to be fostered. Similarly, Latour similarly criticizes the way we teach science and the environment. Science is taught as “a succession of items one after the other”, merely a list of facts (Latour, 13). There is none of the “eventfulness” that Latour is talking about, and it doesn’t seem like there is any connection between the student’s personal lives and the information that they are learning. Moreover, from personal experience, the environment is generally not something discussed outside of the science classes, unless one is to actively seek after this topic. Latour references this and discusses the need to learn about the environment in an interdisciplinary way. Rather than only focus on facts and observations, the environment should be taught in relation to all subjects, as it encompasses all aspects of life. As Bowers correctly puts it, “there are no isolated events, facts, actions – everything […] is part of a larger system of information changes (Bowers, 47). The environment cannot and should not be constricted to the sciences; it should be taught and learned in conjunction with all subjects.
The only class in college so far in which the environment was allowed to be discussed in an interdisciplinary way is E-Sem. Because it is a sort of ‘writing class’, any topic is open for discussion and there are no restrictions as to what is discussed. In a sense, I think that this sort of a set-up is important in educating people about the environment, because E-Sem class is both an inviting environment that brings together people of all different levels of knowledge, but also an analytical one that allows for growth and exploration. Perhaps I will encounter more of these classes later on in my college career, but I am lucky to have had the opportunity to discuss the environment in such an enlightening way. I hope that more of the classes I take in the future allow for this type of open discussion.
All in all, ecological intelligence is at its most fundamental level an easy concept to understand. However, in order for the masses to understand this concept, a reformation in education is necessary, as suggested by both Latour and Bowers. A basic change in the way information is taught to people is needed in order for humans to be emotionally ready to comprehend what is occurring in our environment.