So Sanders knows how to read a dictionary. Why is this important?
By using the roots of words to connect modern perceptions of words' meanings to their older counterparts, Sanders is able to make a profound statement on the environmental origin of day-to-day words. Words like 'economy' are genuinely not thought of in the sense that he demonstrates. But, to quote a modern-day youtube philosopher, "What does this meeeeeeean?" You could just as easily point out that yes, that was an older definition of the word. Now it means this. Things (including language) change. Which is certainly true. However, Sanders dos not try to negate modern definitions with the old. Instead, a bridge between two seemingly distinct terms is sought out. Sanders urges the reader to find the older meaning in today's context. The modern-day economy is, no doubt, extremely important in its ability to provide goods, services, and jobs for much of the U.S. population. However, the older sense of the word also has merit and should be appreciated for that. By pointing out how the roots of economy (house and arrange) can apply to our current need to care for the environment, Sanders makes a convincing etymological argument for sustainable practices.
This defining approach that Sanders uses is also present in his chapter on the 'Common Wealth' (two words, he specifies). Again, highlighting the origin of each word and what they mean as two parts in a whole rather than just a whole is a priority for the English professor.
For me, I like his approach. But then again, I have also chosen to study English. I find a certain aesthetics in the origins of words, more so when they can present a new twist of a word that was perhaps not seen before. However, I don't think that this bias is 1) only specific to me or 2) the only thing working for Sanders. His use of anecdote and analogy is also appealing. His personal account of Brown's Woods eventual destruction is moving through his skills as a storyteller. His redefinition of an 'ark' provides us with a mythological story as context that makes it easy to perceive other things as arks. Through an examination of language, Sanders successfully brings the precedence that environmental issues deserve to light. An exposure of what everyday words really mean (or have meant in the past) serves as a call to awareness about the extenet to which the environment really is connected with our wellbeing. Or should I say wealth....
hey man,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Sanders has done some good. That is bring environmental problems to light.
I think that his message is so extreme that no one will take him seriously. there needs to be an approach that more people can buy in to. Some sort of middle ground like we talked about in class
I suppose that Sanders deems radical change necessary due to the extreme situation at hand. I would agree with him that our current climate and energy issues are directly linked to the 'normed' way of life we've been told to strive for. That said, I think that extreme change, although unlikely to catch on as a fad in today's world, is one that would certainly have a monumental effect on these problems.
ReplyDeleteHow severe a problem do you feel climate change is? One that can be fixed with small changes? Before addressing the problems of the environment, I guess we need to establish their size, importance, and potential. We then need to (somewhat impossibly I'm afraid) understand the extent to which changes we make will affect the problem.
What do you think is better way to go at problems of the environment (in a very general way): large sweeping changes that may seem extreme in their departure from current lifestyles? Or a large number of smaller societal changes that, together, have a profound effect?
What is easier to implement? Are there any other options apart from implementation that would give us a sense of their effectiveness?
rafe--i really do think sanders appeals to those who already know they want to make a change and are at a loss of knowledge of how to do it..
ReplyDeletehe struggles to captivate those who quite franklu don't give a damn...it is shocking, but not conviniving becasue of his harsh language against those who arent on "his side" Thereby, his language defeats his cause as well as helps it.
As for our skewed meanings of the words over time. That happens in culture. Is there anyway to avoid it? I propose his etymological arugment is invalid as those meanings pertain to the culture they were created in. What the word means now is how it ought to be used now in application to situations in the present.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEtymologically, while words' meanings change over time, I'm having trouble thinking of words that have absolutely no relation to their roots or ancestral definitions (with the exception of slang). I don't feel that Sanders advocates an actual replacement of definitions (in with the old, out with the new). Instead, Sanders points out where certain words have altered from past definitions, while simultaneously demonstrating how they are still connected. The more I read about Sanders however, the more I agree that the people he is most effectively 'convincing' are people who are already convinced. At the same time, I think that his approach utilizes a more humanitarian-driven argument (aesthetics, nature for nature, etc.) rather than solely a scientific one. The more I think about it, the more this makes sense to me. While data and statistics have a certain appeal in their 'objectivity' or 'truth,' I feel like the effects are not long lasting. People work hard to change things they are passionate about. So Sanders tries to appeal to our passions instead of our head. I don't think that this is the only approach, but I think it is one that is often disregarded in its importance or effectiveness. Another example of someone working the humanitarian angle of environmental issues is Subhankar Banerjee, a photographer whose compelling work sparked a congressional controversy and is currently being exhibited her at IU.
ReplyDelete