“The capacity for trauma is universal”

Ecophenomenology – say what now?

One of Calvin Ullrich’s fields is that of phenomenology. This philosophical movement originated in the twentieth century and criticized the idea that the world is ‘out there’ while we humans are ‘in here’. On the contrary, phenomenology says: we are deeply entrenched in this world. Heidegger, one of the famous voices in the movement, called it ‘dasein’ or ‘being there’: our lived experience of the world, our physicality, are fundamental to existence. When applied to our environment, these ideas resulted in ecophenomenology. While the word itself seems complicated, the concept is surprisingly clear. It contradicts the popular – mostly unconscious – notion that the world is an object outside of ourselves for us to measure, demarcate and use. Instead, it tries to imagine what our relationship to nature would look like if we see ourselves as part of the world, instead of apart from it. “It addresses the problematic philosophical paradigm,” Ullrich says, “that we are always trying to save the world, instead of being part of the world. How is it that we can see the earth as something we need to take care of, and yet we still wreak devastating damage on our natural environment?” He looks to two philosophers for answers.

Overwhelmed by nature

French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion thought deeply about the relationship between theology and phenomenology, and his work has been used frequently when talking about our relationship with the natural world. According to interpreters of Marion, that world can present itself to us in an overwhelming fashion – for instance, when we see a beautiful sunset, a painting, or a bird perched on a branch just so. We are overwhelmed, or ‘saturated’ as he puts it, by a material world that cannot be contained by our senses. “And because it is so infinitely uncontainable, it forces us into a position of responsibility for it.” While Ullrich agrees these interpretations do reorient us to a new way of seeing our relationship with nature, he also believes there is a weakness to this approach. “With Marion, the material world is already imbued with significance. He speaks in the language of revelation: we are overwhelmed by knowledge and understanding of divine life. His ideas require seeing the world in a particular way, requires a commitment to the possibility that you’re looking at a created thing. And that isn’t – for lack of a better word – fair to people who don’t have faith. If I’m not a Christian, the cards are stacked against me to think of nature this way.” So what would be fair?

Broken and disrupted

Another French philosopher, Emmanuel Falque, offers an alternative to Marion’s thoughts that resonates with Ullrich far more. Like Marion, Falque straddles the borders of theology and philosophy; but instead of starting from the language of revelation, he begins with the language of our finite, material ‘being there’. “Theology shows us the broken, traumatic, vulnerable nature of our own lives. We have the ability to be wounded deeply. And we can see this mirrored in the natural environment: there is a sense in which nature is also traumatised. We are like it in its deepest sense. We are broken and disrupted in the same way that nature is broken and disrupted. The capacity for trauma is universal. Through this shared trauma, we can be in solidarity with nature.” It’s not only a more bottom-up approach, Ullrich says, it also offers hope: “Within trauma, we also somehow continue on. It doesn’t mean those wounds ever heal, that trauma never resurfaces. But in the same way, nature goes on.” A counter movement of solidarity?

Not nature’s overlords

“We are all broken together with nature,” Ullrich says. “That is a form of solidarity.” But what should that solidarity look like? “That will be the difficult question to answer. I know,” he laughs, “I know that is a horribly academic answer. But someone once famously said ideas have legs; hopefully this idea will at least give us a starting point to reconsider our relationship to nature. Right now, predominantly, we believe nature is out there and we are in here. If we don’t address that fundamental problem, that we ourselves are involved in nature, and in some ways we are just as fundamentally ruptured, disjointed, traumatized…” He stops, considering. “We are not nature’s overlords. Existence is always coexistence.”