Tess of the D'Urbervilles: An Eco-Critical Reading

Eco-Critical Readings: Brief NoteThe advent of eco-criticism coupled with concern for ecological wellbeing engendered varied approaches to twin notions of and which are usually linked, respectively, with and anthropocentrism. Phillips (1999, p. 577) asserts interrelatedness of nature and culture in general: Nature is thoroughly implicated in culture, and culture is thoroughly implicated in Anthropocentrism chiefly promotes interests of man as matter of primary significance asserting thathumans are worthy of moral consideration for their own sake and that we should preserve environment solely for sake of humans who inhabit it, and on other hand, approaches described variously as 'biocentric,' 'eco-centric,' even 'cosmocentric' which ascribe moral considerability to some or all of non-human nature. (Hughes, 2000, pp. 16-17)Hughes (2000, pp. 16-17) notes: A widespread view among environmental ethicists is that it is anthropocentrism dominant in contemporary societies that is responsible for their ecological crises, and that shift to non-anthropocentric ethic is necessary for this solution. Non-anthropocentrism is usually defined as view that moral considerability extends beyond human beings.The concept of Deep Ecology, however, seems to combine concerns of both anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism. The Deep Ecology 'platform' formulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions basically asserts that the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human Life of Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of usefulness of non-human world for human purposes (p. 28).In other words, Deep Ecology is developed as holistic metaphysic (p. 29) projecting the ecosphere as whole (p. 28) with an emphasis on biocentrism with term forms of referring not only to life in strict sense, but also to non-living things such as rivers, landscapes and ecosystems (p. 28). Thus, Deep Ecology in way blurs distinction between anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism as well as self and environment.Reading Tess of D'UrbervillesAnthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism function in conjunction with each other in Thomas Hardy's epoch-making novel Tess of D'Urbervilles. Interesting incidents that abound in plotline of novel help substantiate this observation. The first major happening of novel occurs in terms of death of Prince, Durbeyfields' family horse. The role of horse, sole means of livelihood for family of Jack Durbeyfield, Tess' father, poor haggler from Marlott, involves interpenetrated anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric perspectives. The fact that horse is enslaved for needs of family helps construct an anthropocentric orientation. But treatment of horse at hands of Jack Durbeyfield after it is killed in gruesome accident helps develop nonanthropocentric dimension. Jack bothered to ferry dead horse a dozen miles all way back to Marlott, and when proposal is made to sell off dead horse for money, Jack Durbeyfield makes no secret of his gratitude and moral considerability in favor of horse:'No,' said he stoically, won't sell his body. When we D'Urbervilles was knights in land, we didn't sell our chargers for cat's meat. Let them keep their shillings! He has served me well in his lifetime, and I won't part from him now (Hardy, 2006, pp. 34-35).He worked harder next day in digging grave for prince in garden than he had worked for months to grow crop for his family. (Hardy, 2006, pp. 34-35)This is only one of innumerable instances of Hardy attaching moral considerability to non-human entities, testifying to an anthropocentric zeal. In Hardy's treatment of fowls at D'Urberville poultry in Trantridge, where Tess moves in to work as poultry maid, anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism operate interpenetrated. …