Wow. I want to start
with the disclaimer that I think.... I think, I really actually like
Michael Pollan, because the things I've read and heard from him
before have delighted, inspired and excited me.
But man. This intro to
The Botany of Desire deeply offends me!
It all strikes me the
wrong way. He says this book “aims to put us back in the great
reciprocal web that is life on Earth.” And yet in practically the
ENTIRE intro he uses language to explain himself that is: dominating,
competitive, overly-masculine (in my view) and based in metaphors of
conflict. After reading this I'm not sure I like him anymore. I'm
not sure I feel he's on the same side I am.
And I used to.
It's funny because I
watched a video on TED only a couple of weeks ago that was basically
10 minutes of him summing up his main idea from this book in words (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pollan_gives_a_plant_s_eye_view.html).
I watched the video and loved it. But reading his writing tonight,
all I can think is how arrogant he seems.
Toward the beginning of
the intro, he says he had “always regarded” the plants in his
garden as “objects of his desire.” Really? He says he realized
that May day when the idea for this book came to him, hey, plants
have feelings too. They have a point of view and a reality. Whoa,
Michael Pollan. What a big revelation! Wow! Good for you for
recognizing something outside of yourself. Perhaps the guy was
steeped in industrial civilized culture's norms as we all are unless
we're not. I think what really irks me is that he purports to be
outside of that point of view, and yet continually uses its metaphors
and its language to explain himself.
Some examples.
(And this is my own
personal reaction and opinion here.)
He is talking about
dogs and wolves, describing how human beings tend to respect and
revere wolves more, for their wildness, as opposed to dogs, which are
domesticated. He writes, “Evolution may reward interdependence,
but our thinking selves continue to prize self-reliance.” He is
attempting to make the point that dogs are interdependent and wolves
are self-reliant. How short-sighted and arrogant. Wolves are not
apart from interdependence. Just because they are not interdependent
WITH HUMAN BEINGS does not mean they do not depend and interact with
other elements. Clearly they do. They are alive. The reason it's
so annoying he makes points like this is because his OWN point is
about how EVERYTHING is natural. He's trying to get us to see “after
we read his book,” that things are not 'other' to us, that we are
through-and-through natural, and that so is everything, in a series
of relationships. So why, Michael Pollan, should wolves be any
different. They are in a web of relationships just like the rest of
it.
The most annoying thing
is that I agree with his overall aim, yet the language he is using
and the way he appears to be going about making his point completely
disagrees with me.
More examples.
He's incredibly
human-centric, quite oddly so since this book is about respecting
nature. Let me explain in what way I mean.
He appears to be
arrogant on the part of humans. “The species that have spent the
last ten thousand or so years figuring out how best to feed, heal,
clothe, intoxicate and otherwise delight us have made themselves some
of nature's greatest success stories.”
He is defining success
as taking over the most habitat. Is this success? In an overall
biosphere and diversity sense, is this success, or destruction? He
seems to narrowly define success as having the most habitat,
spreading the most genes (again back to the extremely masculine point
of view), and for example, “fighting” against trees, as wheat and
corn are said to do, to get humans to plant them.
(And just to be clear,
I value masculinity very much, but I value it in balance. Our
culture is already out of balance in this way.)
Who says the trees and
the corn couldn't get along? I am not denying that competition
exists, but I am denying that it's the only or predominant factor at
play.
Michael Pollan seems to
have had some sort of aversion or ignorance prior to his 'revelation'
of the notion of being “acted upon” by other forces. “Being
remade,” “being the objects” of other species' “designs and
desires”--these are all things that seem novel to him, and I can't
help but draw the analogy that Michael Pollan is a straight male who
is trying to reconcile himself and other straight males to the notion
that something could “act upon” him rather than him “acting
upon” it, as he has always been taught is his place to do. Oh,
Micheal Pollan, how amazing you are for letting people know that this
actually takes place.
I'll lay off here. He
does have a good message, even if I am completely annoyed with how he
is presenting it.
It's not normal for
people in industrial civilization(s) to recognize that other parts of
the natural world have perspectives, sentience, motives and desires.
He is bringing that to light and that is a good thing.
It's just so
frustratingly preliminary in a way that I didn't expect his writing
to be.
I expected more from
him.
More revolution, more
paradigm-shifting; not this half-ass*d mainstream bullsh*t with a
little bit of 'new' perspective thrown in.
The idea I very much
appreciate from this introductory section is that, “These four
plants have something important to teach us about these four
desires—that is, about what makes us tick.” I'll look forward to
reading more from him in this book about this, and hopefully, learn
to like him again in the course of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment