literacy studies and the emerging field of ecoliteracy
DESCRIPTION
This paper distinguishes ecoliteracy as a specific type of literacy and applies the theories of James Paul Gee and Gloria Anzaldua to an analysis of ecoliteracy, exploring its historical background, pedagogy, and implications for further studies, especially in term of Gee’s ideas about discourses and Anzaldua’s concept of borderlands.TRANSCRIPT
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 1
University of Central Florida 12/07
Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy
Summary: This paper distinguishes ecoliteracy as a specific type of literacy and applies
the theories of James Paul Gee and Gloria Anzaldua to an analysis of ecoliteracy, exploring its
historical background, pedagogy, and implications for further studies, especially in term of Gee’s
ideas about discourses and Anzaldua’s concept of borderlands.
INTRODUCTION: GEE, ANZALDÚA, AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR ECOLITERACY
In 1989 James Paul Gee advanced his ideas about the convergence of various social,
psychological/cognitive, and linguistic approaches to language studies in an emerging field that
he dubbed “literacy studies.” He emphasizes the importance of social practices to literacy
studies, defining discourses as “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations . . .
which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures,
glances, body positions, and clothes” (525, 526). He also defines them as “socially accepted
association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify
oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network.’” Discourses are
“identity kits” and may contain many subdiscourses (537). Gee’s theories about discourses can
be applied to many areas of literacy studies, including the emerging field of ecoliteracy, which
encompasses various discourses that constitute social networks united by their concern for issues
related to the environment, ecology, and sustainability—even though they may be divided by
other issues, for example the means to achieve sustainability.
In her 1987 experimental autobiography Borderlands: The New Mestiza, Gloria
Anzaldúa proposed the metaphor of borderlands as a way of defining the psychological, spiritual,
and physical borderlands that are “. . . physically present wherever two or more cultures edge
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 2
University of Central Florida 12/07
each other, where under, lower, middle, and upper classes touch . . .” (19). She is the most recent
and best example of a small group of Western women writers1 who center their writing on
interaction with others and with the environment (Blend 403). Anzaldúa is primarily known as a
voice for the gay community, for women, for people of mixed races and of color, and for all
those who are disempowered by society and its discourses of power, but there is a strong thread
of ecofeminist thought that runs throughout Borderlands which centers on ideas about the land
and human relationships with it, especially through agriculture. She uses the land and agriculture
as metaphors, but the concrete examples she uses show her primary concern with environmental
and agricultural issues and their connections to issues of human rights—including literacy—
especially for the disenfranchised. As the primary meeting ground where humans and the natural
world interact out of the necessity for sustenance (both physical and spiritual, as is evident in the
writings of both Anzaldúa and farmer-writer-educator Wendell Berry), agriculture is a particular
focus of environmentalist and ecoliterary thought.
The Historical Emergence of Ecoliteracy
Writing and literacy have been a part of humans’ interaction with nature at least from the
time of Aristotle’s works on natural history. In The Book of Nature: Natural History in the
United States 1825–1875, Margaret Welch establishes that a “highly distinctive natural history
rhetoric” forms a major genre within American literature, and explicitly connects this genre to
literacy studies, stating that “The transmission of natural history texts depends on literacy,”
which further implies that this constitutes a specific type of literacy based within a distinctive
discourse (Welch 8, 9). During the second half of the 19th century, natural history writing, which
1 For example, European-American writers Mary Austin (Land of Little Rain, 1903) and Gretel Ehrlich (Islands, the Universe, Home, 1991), and Laguna Pueblo writer Leslie Marmon Silko (“Landscape, History, and the Pueblo Imagination” in The Ecocriticism Reader, 1996).
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 3
University of Central Florida 12/07
was primarily concerned with recording information and observations about the natural world,
began to morph into environmental writing as a few visionaries began to examine the ways that
humans were relating to and exploiting the natural world. A recognizable environmental
movement in America began around this time, its emergence marked by the literary works of
John Burroughs and John Muir, both of whom traced their literary roots back to Henry David
Thoreau (Finch, Elder 23). As the 19th century moved into the 20th, writing about the
environment exploded in myriad directions, including landmark works by scientists such as Aldo
Leopold and Rachel Carson and genre-crossing novelist-poet-essayists such as Wendell Berry,
Peter Matthiessen, Barry Lopez, and Edward Abbey. These writers explored the environment
from many different perspectives, and while they were united by their subject matter, their
approaches and viewpoints varied wildly, from Berry’s meditations on agriculture to Abbey’s
exhortations to ecoterrorism.
The worlds of literature and ecology/environmental studies were explicitly united when
William Rueckert coined the term “ecocriticism” in his 1978 essay “Literature and Ecology: An
Experiment in Ecocriticism.” Ecocriticism refers to the practice of literary criticism focused on
reading texts for their environmental content, whether that content is implicit or explicit. Other
related fields have also emerged, including ecopoetics—concerned with the aesthetics of nature
writing—and ecocomposition—concerned with pedagogies for teaching about writing in
connection with the natural world. In 1992 the concept of environmental literacy, or ecoliteracy,
was coined by educator/writer David Orr2 in his book Ecological Literacy. Orr currently serves
on the board of the Center for Ecoliteracy (CEL) in Berkeley, California, which was founded in
2 Among his other credentials, David Orr is also currently a professor and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin college and has written numerous books and articles including The Last Refuge: Patriotism, Politics, and the Environment in the Age of Terror (2004).
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 4
University of Central Florida 12/07
1995 by an eclectic group of visionary writers and educators including physicist Fritjof Capra.3
Their stated mission is toward “education for sustainable living,” and a major component of that
mission is the elucidation and promotion of ecoliteracy, a complex concept that emerges from a
wide-ranging collection of essays published in 2005 by the CEL titled Ecological Literacy:
Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World. The essays in this anthology argue persuasively
that ecological literacy is not only a specific type of literacy, but that educating for this type of
literacy requires a complete overhaul of our current educational model. They define an
“ecologically literate” person in terms of comprehension, concepts, and problem-solving
abilities, and so situate ecoliteracy as based in a specific discourse (which subsumes many
subdiscourses), and as culturally based, as well as residing in a specific set of shared values.
ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL LITERACY: PERSPECTIVES FROM GEE AND ANZALDÚA
Given that ecoliteracy is an emerging type of literacy studies and is well-represented by
the collection of essays in Ecological Literacy, how can some of these representative essays be
analyzed in terms of Gee’s ideas about discourses? Do they represent ecoliteracy as an example
of primary or secondary discourse acquisition? In the light of these essays, how well does Gee’s
theory succeed in explaining the acquisition of ecological literacy? How might the metaphors in
Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands promote the goals of ecoliteracy—being able to conceive of
environmental problems and solutions? What would an analysis of ecodiscourses look like in
terms of this metaphor, as psychological, spiritual, and physical borderlands—do the members of
the ecodiscourse communities fit the description of borderland residents, do they speak for
residents of the borderlands?
3 Fritjof Capra’s credentials include a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna (1966), teaching at the University of California at Berkeley, and five international bestselling books, including The Tao of Physics (1975).
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 5
University of Central Florida 12/07
Gee’s Discourses, Anzaldúa’s Agricultural Heritage, and Ecoliteracy
Gee argues that acquiring a discourse is a matter not of overt instruction, but of
enculturation into the social practices of the discourse by interaction with people who have
already mastered it, partly because discourses are more than bodies of knowledge. He
differentiates between primary discourses, which are acquired in the home and constitute
people’s original sense of identity, and secondary discourses, which are acquired in extra-
domestic social institutions, and constitute people’s identities as members of these groups.
Secondary discourses are further broken down into dominant and nondominant discourses, the
former being concerned with acquisition of social goods and the latter with solidarity within a
social network (527, 528). Gee’s definition of discourses leads to his definition of literacy:
“mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse.” He does not consider mastery of one’s
primary discourse as a literacy. Since there are many secondary discourses, there are many
applications of the term “literacy” (542).
Gee distinguishes between “acquisition,” which is subconscious—we “acquire” our
primary discourse—and “learning,” a conscious process that may or may not involve formal
teaching. These modes of knowledge-making may be mixed for any given task; we both
“acquire” and “learn” our secondary discourses. Acquisition results in better performance, but
learning results in better ability to explain, analyze, and criticize. In terms of literacy and
classroom practice, this means that helping students to acquire fluency in a discourse—become
literate in that discourse—requires attention to both the explicit teaching of methods and the
social practices that accompany the discourse; this emphasizes the fact that even the most basic
reading and writing instruction involves some ideology and values, and they are inculcated
subconsciously as primary discourse acquisition (539). “Powerful literacy” almost always
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 6
University of Central Florida 12/07
involves both learning and acquisition, and they must be understood as means to different goals
in order to achieve those goals. Much of what passes for learning in formal educational settings
is more accurately described as simply practicing literacies that are acquired elsewhere; “good”
pedagogy is that which provides meta-cognitive skills, for example skills in analysis and
criticism (543).
Do the essays in Ecological Literacy suggest that ecoliteracy represents a primary or
secondary discourse acquisition, and what might this suggest for pedagogy? Fritjof Capra
characterizes ecoliteracy as “education for sustainable living,” and as a pedagogy that teaches
through an experiential multidisciplinary approach. One of the main foci of the curriculum
described in this book is food, focused through creating a school garden. The garden is seen as
integrating most school activities across the curriculum, from learning about the biology of
complex systems to forming a more intangible emotional bond with nature and the school’s
culture. The garden facilitates learning in a very practical way about where food comes from,
how complex natural systems behave, and how to work with others in the community toward a
common goal (Stone xiv).
The CEL’s stated goal is to apply concepts of systems thinking to fostering sustainable
changes in education. Their focus is on broad-based educational reform, not on creating
packaged programs. They work with schools that function as communities, that are open to
systematic reform, that are committed to teaching ecological knowledge through place-based
projects (in urban, suburban, and rural settings), and that are willing to integrate their curricula,
for example through school gardens. The CEL identifies many social and educational problems
as problems of disconnection: rural from urban, food from its origins, health from the
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 7
University of Central Florida 12/07
environment, and in the largest sense, problems from the patterns that perpetuate them (Stone 3,
5). Given these criteria, the question of primary versus secondary discourse acquisition begins to
come into focus, as well as what that might mean for practical solutions and pedagogies. As
primary discourses are acquired in the home, not learned, ecoliteracy as the CEL views it is not
primary, but secondary, the result of a combination of acquisition and learning in the social
institution of school. This is a response to the fact that in the past, the primary discourse that
many people acquired included an awareness of how natural systems support individuals,
families, communities, and society, but that this is no longer the case because of many
interrelated factors, including the decline of family farming and small-scale agriculture, the
increase in urbanization, and the migration of the majority of the population away from rural
areas to suburbs and urban areas. Consider, for example, Anzaldúa’s recollections of her
childhood, the way that farming was integrated into her home life and the greater life of the
community, and how she witnessed its disappearance within her lifetime. She describes how the
Mexicans lost their traditional, sustainable farming culture when American agribusiness arrived
in terms of her borderlands metaphor:
In the 1930s, after Anglo agribusiness corporations cheated the small Chicano
landowners of their land, the corporations hired gangs of mexicanos to pull out the brush,
chaparral and cactus and to irrigate the desert. The land they toiled over had once
belonged to many of them, or had been used communally by them. Later the Anglos
brought in huge machines and root plows and had the Mexicans scrape the land clean of
natural vegetation. In my childhood I saw the end of dryland farming. I witnessed the
land cleared . . . (31, 34)
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 8
University of Central Florida 12/07
In this not-so-distant past that Anzaldúa describes, children acquired a primary discourse
at home, in their communities, that could be characterized as ecoliteracy,4 following Capra’s
definition—education for sustainable living. The Mexicans understood the land and what it could
support, they respected it, and the children of the community acquired this discourse as part of
their culturally-based education. Because it was inherent in their way of living, there was no
need for the concept of ecoliteracy, since it was part of their lives. This was true not only of the
Mexicans of Anzaldúa’s childhood, but of many others all across the nation and the world. This
agriculture was the foundation of all other culture, since growing food is a primary necessity for
living. The modern world has turned this situation upside down; almost no one, certainly not the
dispossessed Mexicans of the borderlands, is in a position any longer to acquire this primary
discourse at home; almost no one lives on the land anymore. This divorce from the land is one of
the main factors in the current environmental crises, as people are so divorced from the source of
all sustenance, the earth itself, the soil we walk on. It’s been replaced by fast food; lunch comes
from McDonald’s, not from the earth; McDonald’s makes all that goes into creating a Happy
Meal invisible to the consumer.
Since the primary discourse of ecoliteracy cannot be acquired at home by most people
nowadays, if it is to be acquired/learned at all, it must be as a secondary discourse, through the
social institution of schools; and in order to effectively foster this acquisition and learning, the
schools must be reformed along the lines outlined by the CEL. They must function as surrogate
communities to replace the once-were agricultural communities; they must educate through
projects based in specific places; and they must integrate their curricula. This leads back to Gee’s
ideas of how best to approach a pedagogy for teaching what should have been acquired as part of
4 Although not in Gee’s terms, since he does not consider the acquisition of primary discourse as a literacy.
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 9
University of Central Florida 12/07
one’s primary discourse, an understanding of, and respect for, the complex systems that sustain
life; this cannot be simply learned from a text or lectures, any more than writing can be taught
effectively as a simple mechanical set of skills.
What about dominant versus nondominant discourse? Does ecoliteracy represent a
discourse that is mostly concerned with the acquisition of social goods, or with solidarity as part
of a social network? It seems to represent both. If ecoliteracy is education for sustainable living,
it represents a shift in the whole way that we conceive of education; it doesn’t represent another
course or two in “environmental education” tacked on to an already overburdened curriculum, it
represents a complete reorganization of the curriculum, literally from the ground up. It represents
combining the discourses of social goods and social networking into one discourse, one that
educates students to see that social goods (for example, wholesome, healthy foods) and social
networking (for example, working together as a community in the garden) are integrated “saying
(writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations . . . which integrate words, acts, values,
beliefs, attitudes . . .” as Gee defines discourses. We say we want healthy foods and
communities, we write about them to exercise our critical thinking and agency, we value the
natural world that sustains us, and we believe that by working together in communities we can
make ourselves and our community healthier and happier; this begins to constitute the discourse
that we can call ecoliteracy. Ecoliteracy represents the end of dominant versus nondominant
discourses.
To summarize: ecoliteracy is a secondary discourse, and can be acquired best using a
pedagogy that is place-based and integrates the curriculum, for example by creating a school
garden and using it as an across-the-curriculum touchstone; ecoliteracy combines dominant and
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 10
University of Central Florida 12/07
nondominant discourses into one that unifies the pursuit of social goods with social networks.
Ecoliteracy must be based in place, community, and culture, and, in a feedback loop, increases
the health of all those aspects of human life.
GEE AND THE PEDAGOGY OF ECOLITERACY
Michael Ableman, who has spent most of his life as a farmer and educator, expresses our
current educational problems in terms of the farm:
Schools and farms have become a lot alike. They have both become factories with
assembly-line controls and engineered inputs, cranking out either grades and test scores
or ‘food’ . . . The industrialization of our food system and the industrialization of our
education system treat us all as if we are just consumers, passively waiting to be fed
disconnected information or prepackaged food. (Stone 178)
Just so, in terms of practical pedagogy, Gee points out that it is not possible to teach the
nuances of a discourse in a classroom, apart from “. . . socially situated practices . . .
incorporated into homes and daily lives.” This leads to the idea that social change cannot be
effected only through classroom practices, but must begin with changes in the structure of
society, although Gee also says, somewhat paradoxically, that language teachers are the logical
people to bring about this change in the social structure (531). The resolution to this apparent
paradox is to connect classroom practices with the greater community. He says that the way to
effect social change in the classroom is to address deficiencies in acquiring mainstream
discourses as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. He talks about how having to translate
mainstream discourse into the terms of your own primary discourse can lead to meta-knowledge
that improves your ability to work with both your primary discourse and the mainstream. This
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 11
University of Central Florida 12/07
includes instruction in composition, critical thinking, and other meta-level skills. He poses the
problem of how to ensure that meta-knowledge and discourse development occur in tandem,
which is problematic because of several related issues:
The impossibility of acquiring discourses except via social practices.
The difficulty in achieving mastery of a discourse at the high school or college level.
The value conflicts between various discourses.
He proposes a solution, which he admits is only partial, in two parts: the first is to
understand that fluency in a discourse after the traditional “apprentice period” has passed is
generally not attainable, although it can be most closely approached by classrooms modeling
social practices and connecting these practices with others outside the classroom. Second is that
partial fluency coupled with meta-knowledge and various additional coping strategies can allow
one to function in a discourse even if one is not born to it. This approach is inherently political
(533).
How does this translate into an ecoliteracy curriculum? Just as Gee points out that the
subtleties of a discourse cannot be taught as separate from everyday social practices, so the
teaching of ecoliteracy cannot be taught without situating the pedagogy in a specific place,
integrating the various aspects of learning across the curriculum, and connecting the curriculum
with practices outside the classroom, for example how people obtain the food they eat at home,
how they prepare it, and how they eat (i.e., together as a family, or behind the wheel of a car).
The broad social changes that must occur in order to even begin solving our current
environmental crises require changes in the structure of society, beginning at the roots, which are
our educational philosophies and classroom practices. Ecoliteracy conceives of these changes in
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 12
University of Central Florida 12/07
classroom practice as Gee does, as logically being the job of educators; their pedagogy needs to
reach across the curriculum and beyond the classroom, to integrate all areas of study with
projects like school gardens, and to connect these school-based activities with the community of
which the school is only a part. It seems true that learning ecoliteracy as a secondary discourse
places one at a certain disadvantage; perhaps a person who learns about nature, the environment,
and gardening in a school setting will never acquire the intimate understanding of a person who
is born in a community that practices traditional agriculture. But on the other hand, as Gee points
out, it is possible for teachers to help students turn this disadvantage into an advantage. For one,
having to translate the typical modern primary discourse, divorced from nature, into a discourse
of environmental awareness, and awareness of where food comes from, how to raise it, prepare
it, and enjoy it in the company of other community members, can lead to improved meta-
knowledge of both discourses. For example, as Ableman describes the situation of many, perhaps
most, young people today:
For many young folks, especially those living in the urban world, gardens may be their
only connection to the natural world. Those gardens are not just places to plant a few
vegetables or flowers; they are not just a break from the endless, mindless stretch of
pavement; they become gathering places, sanctuaries, cultural and social centers . . .
(Stone 181)
These same young people who would have no concept of nature, and maybe no healthy
place to socialize, can gain both a new understanding of environmental discourse and an
expanded understanding of their home discourse—an ability to critique their home discourse—
an ability to perhaps separate the wheat of their home discourse from the chaff. This is at least
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 13
University of Central Florida 12/07
one place where teaching critical thinking, reading, and listening, and composition come into
play. Capra points out that “Not everything we need to teach can be learned from ecosystems.
Ecosystems do not manifest the level of human consciousness and culture that emerged with
language among primates . . .” (Stone 22). The meta-level skills that Gee refers to as being the
primary tools that the composition teacher should nurture in their students complement and
expand on the practical lessons learned from the garden. This combination of teaching meta-level
skills and integrating them across the curriculum using a pedagogy based in a specific place
addresses the problems of acquiring ecoliteracy as a secondary discourse. The social practices of
teaching ecoliteracy can include not only school gardens, but also environmental restoration
projects, explorations of the local environment, farm-school partnerships, and urban
environmental justice projects, to name a few possibilities. While ecoliteracy is probably more
easily cultivated in secondary-school-age children, integrating the curriculum and connecting it
with social practices in the greater community seems the best bet for cultivating this discourse in
postsecondary and adult education as well. And a pedagogy that helps students critique their
primary discourses seems the best possibility for addressing the inevitable value conflicts. For
example, urban youth who value fast food will not likely value fresh produce without an
introduction to the discourse in which the production of that produce is embedded; they are more
likely to eat a carrot if they plant the seed, harvest it, and cook it as part of a community; this is
the community that can be fostered through sustainable education programs like the ones that the
CEL is cultivating. As Gee points out, this approach of engaging students in learning a new
discourse that will enable them to critique their home discourse is inherently value-laden and
political.
ECOLITERACY AND ANZALDÚA’S PSYCHOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, AND PHYSICAL BORDERLANDS
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 14
University of Central Florida 12/07
Anzaldúa uses the metaphor of a body, perhaps a woman’s body, in referring to Anglo
culture’s treatment of this land: “White America has only attended to the body of the earth in
order to exploit it, never to succor it or to be nurtured by it” (90). Where the Mexicans practiced
sustainable dryland farming, American agribusiness practices an agriculture that cannot be
sustained because of the way it abuses the land, the water, and the laborers. She speaks in terms
of the big, the corporate, and the exploitative triumphing over the small, the community, and the
sustainable—but only in the short term. When she says that “. . . we count the days the weeks the
years the centuries the eons until the white laws and commerce and customs will rot in the
deserts they’ve created, lie bleached,” (86) she means it literally; the agricultural practices
imposed on the southwest by American agribusiness are not sustainable, and will eventually turn
the area into true deserts, incapable of supporting agriculture or any life at all. And what America
has wrought on this continent is being replicated over the entire planet. The emerging world
powers of China and India appear to be poised to follow our American example, our agriculture,
our consumer culture, and our educational system, with all their flaws.
Anzaldúa’s borderlands are “. . . physically present wherever two or more cultures edge
each other, where under, lower, middle, and upper classes touch . . .” From the perspective of
ecoliteracy, every social class will be affected more and more by our current environmental
crises; the upper classes will no longer be able to insulate themselves from the now-global issues
of air, water, and soil degradation. Every culture, every person on earth will be involved in these
issues in the coming decades. Every class needs to be involved in the solutions to these
problems. We are all physically affected by the toxins that continue to be poured into the
environment—everyone breathes the same air. We are all psychologically affected by the
awareness—some more aware than others—that our current lifestyles are not sustainable. And
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 15
University of Central Florida 12/07
we are all spiritually affected by our divorce from the earth that gave us life in the first place, and
that is our only source of sustenance. The world of ecoliteracy does constitute a borderland,
where all classes meet whether they like it or not, and where we are all wrestling with physical,
psychological, and spiritual problems for which we must find solutions if we are to survive as
humankind. No one is immune from these concerns.
Anzaldúa uses the primal metaphors of nature in the form of agriculture and grain,
specifically corn, to describe the essential qualities of her new mestiza: “Indigenous like corn,
like corn, the mestiza is a product of crossbreeding, designed for preservation under a variety of
conditions. Like an ear of corn—a female seed-bearing organ—the mestiza is tenacious, tightly
wrapped in the husks of her culture. Like kernels she clings to the cob; with thick stalks and
strong brace roots, she holds tight to the earth—she will survive the crossroads” (103).
Anzaldúa’s concept of agriculture as the basis for culture, for traditional people surviving on the
land in a sustainable manner, as inherently related to literacy—ecologically literacy—a culture of
being able to read the land—is evident as she chooses to end her book with an anecdote-
abstraction-poem based on the land and metaphors of natural cycles, characterizing the earth as
female, and the Chicano/Chicana culture as being caretakers of the earth:
Yes, the Chicano and Chicana have always taken care of growing things and the land. . . .
Below our feet, under the earth lie the watermelon seeds . . . Growth, death, decay, birth.
The soil prepared again and again, impregnated, worked on. A constant changing of
forms, renacimientos de la tierra madre.5
This land was Mexican once
5 Renascences (rebirth or renaissance) of mother earth.
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 16
University of Central Florida 12/07
was Indian always
and is.
And will be again. (113)
In the borderlands of the environmental, the ecological, and the agricultural, who counts
as an Indian, or a Mexican, or a mestiza? I say, we are all the new mestizas, we all live in the
borderlands, and we had better learn the discourse of the corn, how to survive, how to become
indigenous once again, and how to hold tight to the earth, to survive at this crossroads where we
find ourselves on this small planet.
Genre Study Literacy Studies and the Emerging Field of Ecoliteracy 17
University of Central Florida 12/07
WORKS CITED
Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands: The New Mestiza, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999.
Blend, Benay. “Voices from the Western Borderlands: A Cross-Cultural Study of Chicana,
Native American, and Women Writers of the American West.” Literature of Nature: An
International Sourcebook. Ed. Patrick D. Murphy. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998.
403–408.
Center for Ecoliteracy. 2007. Center for Ecoliteracy. 5 December 2007.
<http://www.ecoliteracy.org/index.html>.
Finch, Robert, and John Elder, ed. The Norton Book of Nature Writing. New York: Norton,
1990.
Gee, James P. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction” Literacy: A Critical
Sourcebook. Ed. Cushman, Ellen, et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 525–537.
---. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: What Is Literacy?” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook.
Ed. Cushman, Ellen, et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 537–544.
Murphy, Patrick, ed. Literature of Nature: An International Sourcebook. Chicago: Fitzroy
Dearborn Publishers, 1998.
Rueckert, William. “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” The Ecocriticism
Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 1996. 105–123.
Russell, David R. Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870–1990: A Curricular History.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.
Stone, Michael K. and Zenobia Barlow, eds. Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a
Sustainable World. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005.
Welch, Margaret. The Book of Nature: Natural History in the United States 1825–1875.
Northeastern UP: Boston, 1998.