For the last several weeks I have been trying to develop an ecological orientation through the narrative imagination. By ecological orientation, I mean “a new consciousness of the country” or “a new relation to it,” as the narrator of O Pioneers! describes in the exquisite passage below, which deserves a close reading:
Alexandra drew her shawl closer about her and stood leaning against the frame of the mill, looking at the stars which glittered so keenly through the frosty autumn air. She always loved to watch them, and to think of their vastness and distance, and of their ordered march. It fortified her to reflect upon the great operations of nature, and when she thought of the law that lay behind them, she felt a sense of personal security. That night she had a new consciousness of the country, felt almost a new relation to it. Even her talk with the boys had not taken away the feeling that had overwhelmed her when she drove back to the Divide that afternoon. She had never known before how much the country meant to her. The chirping of the insects down in the long grass had been like the sweetest music. She had felt as if her heart were hiding down there, somewhere, with the quail and the plover and all the little wild things that crooned or buzzed in the sun. Under the long shaggy ridges, she felt the future stirring.
The word “felt” appears four times and “feeling” one time because the author emphasizes that a connection with the land must involve our emotional life. Lest we confuse this orientation with sentimentalism, the narrator links feeling with reflection, thought, and consciousness––a neo-Stoic conception of emotions as cognitive construals of the world. Alexandra interprets the prairie in such a way that her future is bound up with it, much in the way that our future, as Christians, is bound up with the groanings of creation, as the apostle Paul says:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the fruitfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience (Romans 8:18-25).
When the passage from O Pioneers! is read in concert with this passage from the Book of Romans, we discover something very important: the nexus between creation, creature, and Creator. Too often Christians focus on the nexus between creature and Creator, neglecting creation. Unpacking Paul’s logic, we can see our redemptive narrative in nature’s mirror. Just as creation was “subjected to futility,” our flesh was in bondage to the “law of sin” (7:21-25). Just as creation will be liberated, our bodies will be resurrected. At the center of this redemptive narrative is the Creator, who summons us to wait patiently for the eschatological climax, similar to the Nebraskan farmer who waits patiently for her crops to yield a harvest. The challenge, I propose, is to feel that our hearts are hiding down in creation, where the future is stirring.
How do we do experience this nexus between creation, creature, and Creator? Lisa Graham McMinn and Megan Anna Neff forthcoming book, Walking Gently on the Earth: Making Faithful Choices About Food, Energy, Shelter, and More, offers practical resources. I offer something else: the narrative imagination. This expression is borrowed from philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who defines it as “the ability to think what it might be like to be in the shoes of a person different from oneself, to be an intelligent reader of that person’s story, and to understand the emotions and wishes and desires that someone so placed might have.” Nussbaum limits the narrative imagination to persons. I will follow another philosopher, Martin Buber, who extends sympathetic identification to nature. Where Buber contrasts the “I-It” relation, which exercises a will to power, and the “I-Thou” relation, which exercises a will to love, Cather contrasts two different ecological ethics: the ethic of conquest and the ethic of care. When Alexandra, in the above passage, has “a new consciousness of the country” and feels “a new relation to it,” she no longer shares the view of her father and neighboring pioneers who only see the land as an “It” to be exploited. Instead, she views it as a “Thou” to be cultivated and cherished.
The very act of reading O Pioneers! invites me to undergo this shift. I enter the narrative where the land becomes its own character––alive, mysterious, beautiful, idiosyncratic. So, where does an ecological orientation begin? In the imagination or heart, as Willa Cather famously says in her novel: “The history of every country begins in the heart of a man or a woman.”
Cross posted at Mere Orthodoxy

July 22nd, 2010 | 10:20 am | #1
Your first sentence made my day.
July 22nd, 2010 | 11:30 am | #2
Bravo on the connection to our emotional life, or, as I would put it, human affectivity. Since at least Augustine, this is the precise place of intersection between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit.
Your emphasis on orientation underscores how conversion involves the “all” of our very selves; the way in which wonder, delight, and awe are evoked not simply as a result of our thinking, but in the midst of it, and as fuel for it.
Your narrative also implicitly gets at both the wonder and danger of creation as an object of desire and emotion. As Augustine notes, part of the problem of human sinfulness is excessive attachment through emotion and desire that prompts us to assign more value to a created and thus transitory object than we should. Of course, the opposite is equally true: we must beware the gnostic temptation to devalue creation entirely. In short, we need sanctified emotions and desires that help us to “love the world” in a way that is healthy and whole.
How that ongoing conversion away from the world so that we can actually be for the world occurs depends upon the various struggles each of us has with our own desires and emotions. A tricky business indeed!
Thanks for these wonderful thoughts Christopher.
July 22nd, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #3
It may be humbly suggested that the proper way to develop one’s ecological orientation is to plant one’s foot in soil. Such an act lends concreteness to one’s relation to creation in a way that may escape the narrative imagination.
Those who depend upon the narrative imagination for their connection to ecological orientation, having never even shaken hands with the land character in the story, tend to try to develop public policy for those who have their feet planted in the soil.
July 22nd, 2010 | 12:38 pm | #4
David,
I think that humble suggestion is correct. Christopher’s post resonated with me in part because I just returned from St. Bonaventure University in western New York. It’s where Thomas Merton first received the call to the monastic life on a mountain now affectionately referred to as “Merton’s heart.” The sheer grandeur of the place calls forth praise like some long lost melody now found.
I was also reminded the way in which Southern U.S. literature is generally tied to the land with its vast descriptions of geography.
July 22nd, 2010 | 4:29 pm | #5
Mr. Regier: I’m not advocating that we depend exclusively upon the narrative imagination in order to gain an ecological orientation, but it plays a vital role. Practical resources are offered in Walking Gently on the Earth.
July 22nd, 2010 | 5:31 pm | #6
Ah, the elusive Mr. Benson.
Yes, but that’s how you purported to be going about it in your first sentence.
It is fairly easy to develop a “new relation” to land that belongs to other people. Kudos to the “Walking Gently” folks for doing their own farming, but I find that the closest connection that most “wise use” advocates have to “the land” is the nose of their complex pinot noir.
Reading the apostle’s account carefully tells us that creation is looking forward to the redemption of the sons of God, which involves our reconciliation to God and His ways. This, Jesus makes clear, involves loving God and loving one another, unless I’m missing the verse in my Bible where Jesus says, “And the third is this. . . “
July 22nd, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #7
I really do not understand why it’s an either/or situation. Great literature can move us to do something or be part of something we would not have done or been part of otherwise. Just like great music. It can and does orient, but that is merely the beginning of something that must include a “more.”
I certainly think that to develop strategies for the proper care of creation (the “more”) requires the concrete relatedness David suggested, but that is different, I dare say, than an orientation. Literature can “orient” or dispose, i.e., help us to recognize the need for dispositions toward creation that are, indeed, commensurate with our own created condition and the need to fulfill the fundamental vocation to participate in the divine plan of restoring order to a fallen world.
Upon following through with this new orientation we can then plant our feet firmly in the soil of whatever patch of God’s green earth we wish to preserve and develop strategies that correspond to that local situation.
So, what’s the disagreement about here?
July 22nd, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #8
David Paul Regier,
Do people need to have a uterus inside themselves to have an informed orientation regarding abortion?
Also, what do you mean about policy being made by people who don’t have their feet in the soil? By that I mean, which unfortunate policies do you have in mind?
July 23rd, 2010 | 2:09 pm | #9
Having reread the post and slept on it, I think I was assuming some worldview stuff that isn’t present in the post. My apologies.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact