Dancing to the End of Humanity: Environmental Catastrophe in Earthquakes in London

Öz

Human beings frequently exhibit destructive behaviours toward the physical environments in most of their institutions, including art. Within this context, some performance arts display the abject situation as a result of the bizarre encounters with the feared and disgusted other. This encounter consecutively determines the relational payoff of human beings. Such display also preserves the so-called distinction between human and Nature as nonhuman is presented as a piece of art separated from the self. Moreover, the exhibition of the Other as a cultural product unwittingly underlines that human beings reveal Nature as the Other prompted for the Cultural gaze. This categorisation feeds on any nonchalance of human beings towards a potential environmental catastrophe created by the very categorisation between Nature and Culture. Within this framework, this study will focus on the nonchalance of humanity towards an unavoidable environmental catastrophe they created, which creates an anthropocentric dilemma. To exemplify this dilemma, this study will make use of examples from Mike Barlett’s play entitled Earthquakes in London (2010). 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ecophobia,NatureCulture,contemporary British theatre,Mike Barlett,Earthquakes in London

İnsanlığın Sonuna Dans: Earthquakes in London Oyununda Çevre Felaketi

Öz

İnsanlar çoğu zaman sanat dâhil çoğu kurumlarında çevreye karşı yok edici bir tutum sergilerler. Bu bağlamda, bazı performans sanatları korkulan ve nefret edilen ötekiyle tuhaf karşılaşmalar neticesinde ortaya çıkan ürkütücü durumları ortaya koyar. Bu karşılaşma da insanların bu bağlantıda hesaplaşmasını belirler. Aynı zamanda, bu tip sergilemelerle insan olmayan, insan özünden ayrı olarak bir sanat eseri statüsünde değerlendirildiğinden insan ve doğa arasındaki oluşturulmuş fark devam ettirilir. Ayrıca, Ötekinin kültürel bir ürün gibi sergilenmesi farkında olmadan, insanın Doğayı Kültür tarafından bakılacak Öteki olarak sınıflandırdığını da gösterir. Bu sınıflandırma insanların, yine Doğa ve Kültür arasında oluşturulmuş bu kategori neticesinde olması beklenen muhtemel çevresel felaketlere karşı duyduğu umursamazlıkla beslenir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma insanların kendilerinin yarattığı – ki bu da insan merkezli bakış açısının ikilemidir – önlenemez çevresel felaketlere karşı umursamazlığı üzerine odaklanacaktır. Bu ikilemi örneklendirmek içinse Mike Barlett’in Londra’da Depremler (Earthquakes in London – 2010) başlıklı oyunundan örnekler kullanacaktır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ekofobi,DoğaKültür,çağdaş İngiliz tiyatrosu,Mike Barlett,Earthquakes in London

Kaynakça

1. Alpers, Paul (1996), What is Pastoral?, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2. Agamben, Giorgio (1998), Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. Atwood, Margaret (2011), “Time Capsule Found on the Dead Planet”, M. Martin (ed.), in I’m with the Bears: Short Stories from a Damaged Planet (pp. 191-93), London: Verso.
4. Barad, Karen (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham: Duke University Press.
5. Barlett, Mike (2010), Earthquakes in London, London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.
6. Bragard, Véronique (2013), “Introduction: Languages of Waste: Matter and Form in our Garb-age”, ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 20 (3), pp. 459–63.
7. Descartes (1960), Discourse on Method, London: The Whitefriars Press.
8. Deyo, Brian (2019), “Ecophobia, the Anthropocene, and the Denial of Death”, ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 26 (2), pp. 442-55.

9. Deyo, Brian (2014), “Rewriting History/Animality in J. M. Coetzee’s Dusklands and Richard Flanagan’s Wanting”, Ariel: A Review of International English Literature, 44 (4), pp. 89-116.
10. Estok, Simon C. (2018), The Ecophobia Hypothesis, New York: Routledge.
11. Hughes, Bill (2009), “Wounded/Monstrous/Abject: A Critique of the Disabled Body in the Sociological Imaginary”, Disability & Society, 24 (4), pp. 399–410.
12. Mitchell, Elise (2015), “There’s No Place Like ‘Home’: Susanna Moodie, Shelter Writing, and Dwelling on the Earth”, S. Oppermann (ed.), in New International Voices in Ecocriticism (pp. 101-16). Lanham: Lexington Books.
13. Morton, Timothy (2010), “Thinking Ecology: The Mesh, The Strange Stranger, and the Beautiful Soul”, Collapse, 6, pp. 265-93.
14. Ralph, Irish (2019), “Ecophobia and the Porcelain Porcine Species”, ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 26 (2), pp. 401-12.
15. Schiller, Frederich (1985), “On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry”, H. B. Nisbet (ed.), in German Aesthetic and Literary Criticism: Winckelmann, Lessing, Hamann, Herder, Schiller, Goethe (pp.177-232), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Strife, Susan J. (2012), “Children’s Environmental Concerns: Expressing Ecophobia”, The Journal of Environmental Education, 43 (1), pp. 37-54.
17. Taylor, Matthew A. (2012), “The Nature of Fear: Edgar Allan Poe and Posthuman Ecology”, American Literature, 84 (2), pp. 353-79.
18. van Tine, Robin (1999), “Gaeaphobia: Ecophobia, Ecomania and ‘Otherness’ in the Late 20th Century”, www.ecopsychology.org/journal/gatherings2/robin.htm (03.09.2019)