In the paper, I try to consider the function of ecocriticism at the present time using insights taken, or derived, from the work of a loose group of scholars that is sometimes labeled as “neopragmatists”. In particular, I shall be concerned with the points made by Richard Rorty and Stanley Fish to the effect that putting too much hope in the power of one’s academic discipline can be detrimental to the political tasks one wants to realize with its help. As Rorty argues, to effectively address any pressing political problem usually demands directly impacting the powers that be, which, as is safe to assume, is very unlikely to be achieved solely through books and articles in literary criticism. What one needs in such cases, Rorty tirelessly reminds us, is “real politics”, i.e., participating in demonstrations, supporting financially the political organization or party one finds the most hopeful, or writing letters of protest to officials. In order to see how these points apply to ecocriticism, understood as a subdiscipline of literary studies devoted to inquiring into “the relationship between literature and the physical environment”, I will begin by asking how that field can be useful in furthering the ecological cause, and will then turn to an exam-ple of an ecoritic’s engagement in “real politics”.%本文试图借用所谓“新实用主义者”作品中的观点，以审视当今生态批评的作用。作者尤其关注学者理查德·罗蒂和斯坦利·费希的论点———对自己学术领域的影响太抱希望，或许不利于实现那些我们想靠学术影响完成的政治任务。罗蒂认为，要有效解决迫在眉睫的政治问题，通常我们需要直接施加影响，可想而知，这种影响力不可能只是写几篇文学批评论文或几本著作就能做到的。他一再提醒，在这些时候，我们需要付诸“真实政治行动”，即参加游行示威，对我们认为最有希望的政党或团体给予经济资助，或者给政府官员写信抗议。为考察这些观点如何适用于生态批评这个专门探究“文学与自然环境关系”的文学研究分支，本文首先讨论该研究领域如何有助于深化生态事业，随后论述一位生态批评学者参与“真实政治行动”的个案。
展开▼
