五，生态批评在对生态文化现象进行观照时，承继了绿色革命的意识形态，强调不能背离文学精神和文学话语，而要尽可能在文学文本形式和艺术手法层面展开话语叙事，通过―文学性‖写作的形式美手法去体现出生态文化精神。
六，生态批评的内容要求从生命本质和地球的双重视野中，考察人类的过去与未来存在状态。这一视角将已经流于形式主义的文学研究与危机重重的地球生存问题联系起来。文学从此可以抛弃形式主义的文字游戏，从语言消解的各种文学批评话语中振作起来，重新审视―人类的‖生活意义和―世界的‖生态意义。 总体上看，生态批评将文学与自然环境的关系作为自己研究的领域，它一方面必须是―文学性‖研究，另一方面又必须触及到―生态性‖问题。这种―文学性‖与―生态性‖的整合不同于其他的文学批评或文学理论。生态批评对人类未来充满希望，并不断呼唤着诗意乐观的生存态度，拒斥―对未来的绝望‖，从而显示出生态批评的乐观主义精神特质。
当然任何一种新的理论出现，都有不完备乃至理论盲点，生态批评也不例外。这种新的批评模式在文学界引起广泛关注的同时，也得到社会的广泛批评。达纳·菲利普斯在《生态论的真相》一书中对生态批评提出若干异议，认为生态批评是旧瓶装新酒，理论上没有什么创新，而是用时髦的术语哗众取宠而已；生态批评仍没有形成自恰的理论体系，其理论根据的匮乏使之只不过成为激情的叙述话语；生态文学批评充满野心，想当然地把相当复
6
杂的进化论及生态理论纳入文学批评之中而难以消化。但不管怎么说，生态批评仍在西方文论的―文本喧哗‖―话语游戏‖中走出来，开始俯身生养死葬的大地，直面并关心人类存在的真实困境，这是不可否定的事实。
Ecocriticism is the study of literature and environment from an interdisciplinary point of view where all sciences come together to analyze the environment and brainstorm possible solutions for the correction of the contemporary environmental situation. Ecocriticism was officially heralded by the publication of two seminal works, both published in the mid-1990s: The Ecocriticism Reader, edited by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, and The Environmental Imagination, by Lawrence Buell. In the United States, Ecocriticism is often associated with the Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE), which hosts biennial meetings for scholars who deal with environmental matters in literature. ASLE has an official journal—Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment (ISLE)—in which much of the most current American scholarship in the rapidly evolving field of ecocriticism can be found.
7
Ecocriticism is an intentionally broad approach that is known by a number of other designations, including \studies\Defining Ecocriticism
In comparison with other 'political' forms of criticism, there has been relatively little dispute about the moral and philosophical aims of ecocriticism, although its scope has broadened rapidly from nature writing, Romantic poetry, and canonical literature to take in film, TV, theatre, animal stories, architectures, scientific narratives and an extraordinary range of literary texts. At the same time, ecocriticism has borrowed methodologies and theoretically-informed approaches liberally from other fields of literary, social and scientific study.
Glotfelty's working definition in The Ecocriticism Reader is that \and the physical environment\goals of the approach is to recoup professional dignity for what Glotfelty calls the \Lawrence Buell defines ―?ecocriticism‘ . . . as [a] study of the relationship between literature and the environment conducted
8
in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis‖ (430, n.20).
Simon Estok noted in 2001 that ―ecocriticism has distinguished itself, debates notwithstanding, firstly by the ethical stand it takes, its commitment to the natural world as an important thing rather than simply as an object of thematic study, and, secondly, by its commitment to making connections‖ (―A Report Card on Ecocriticism‖ 220).
More recently, in an article that extends ecocriticism to Shakespearean studies, Estok argues that ecocriticism is more than ―simply the study of Nature or natural things in literature; rather, it is any theory that is committed to effecting change by analyzing the function–thematic, artistic, social, historical, ideological, theoretical, or otherwise–of the natural environment, or aspects of it, represented in documents (literary or other) that contribute to material practices in material worlds‖ (―Shakespeare and Ecocriticism‖ 16-17). This echoes the functional approach of the cultural ecology branch of ecocriticism, which analyzes the analogies between ecosystems and imaginative texts and posits that such texts potentially have an ecological (regenerative, revitalizing) function in the cultural system (Zapf, \
9
As Michael P. Cohen has observed, ―if you want to be an ecocritic, be prepared to explain what you do and be criticized, if not satirized.‖ Certainly, Cohen adds his voice to such critique, noting that one of the problems of ecocriticism has been what he calls its ―praise-song school‖ of criticism. All ecocritics share an environmentalist motivation of some sort, but whereas the majority are 'nature endorsing' (as Kate Soper puts it in \In part this entails a shared sense of the ways in which 'nature' has been used to legitimise gender, sexual and racial norms (so homosexuality has been seen as 'unnatural', for example), but it also involves scepticism about the uses to which 'ecological' language is put in ecocriticism; it can also involve a critique of the ways cultural norms of nature and the environment contribute to environmental degradation. Greg Garrard has dubbed 'pastoral ecology' the notion that nature undisturbed is balanced and harmonious (\while Dana Phillips has criticised the literary quality and scientific accuracy of nature writing in \Similarly, there has been a call to recognize the place of the Environmental Justice movement in redefining ecocritical discourse (see Buell, \
10
In response to the question of what ecocriticism is or should be, Camilo Gomides has offered an operational definition that is both broad and discriminating: \analyzes and promotes works of art which raise moral questions about human interactions with nature, while also motivating audiences to live within a limit that will be binding over generations\about Amazonian deforestation. Implementing the Gomides definition, Joseph Henry Vogel makes the case that
ecocriticism constitutes an \engages audiences to debate issues of resource allocation that have no technical solution.
11