The Value of Trees by Ricarda Danguillier (B.A.: Medienwissenschaft & Kultur, Individuum & Gesellschaft / Media Studies & Social Science)
As the title of our project suggests, our intention was to compile early modern ecocritical texts and discuss them with a view to recent ecopolitical developments and movements. Environmental issues may have dissappeared from the center of attention due to the global pandemic, but they are still there. From an ecocritical perspective, we looked at texts that were written a long time before the Fridays For Future movement, in the 16th and 17th centuries. What is surprising and frightening is how up-to-date they are. Environmental awareness is therefore not an invention of the 'hippie era' or of the 'Greta generation'. The environment has always changed – sometimes drastically, sometimes unnoticed. The changes we are experiencing today, however, are unprecedented and life-threatening.
On our mission to bring the attention back to the climate crisis and to get in touch with texts from the distant past, I was inspired by Margaret Cavendish's "A Dialogue between an Oak and a Man cutting him down", published in 1653 – one of the texts we dealt with in the seminar. One can place the discussion between a man and an oak tree and its value in the context of natural philosophy, which is all about examining humankind's relationship to nature, as well as giving nature its own voice. Margaret Cavendish did just that by writing an exchange between an oak tree and a tree feller. This specific conversation is clearly characterized by a power imbalance. This is first established by the fact that the man can directly exert force on the tree; he is the one with the axe. Moreover, the man lays claim to knowing better where and in what capacity the oak would fare better. A typical human domination over nature is expressed here. However, within this dialogue, the oak tree manages to convince the man that it is better off alive in the forest and that the man has no power over the tree that would entitle him to decide its fate. Margaret Cavendish gives voice to a living thing and makes "Man" in the poem understand. The oak tree convinces the man by employing that which man initially denied it: reason. The oak tree argues and is thus able to secure its life. In reality trees cannot talk; they cannot employ such means to awaken in others feelings of compassion to protect them against the violent action of other people and corporations.
In my contribution, I address this very issue. A tree activist and a salesman speak over a tree, in a certain way both in favor of the tree. The tree activist has mainly the existence of the tree in nature in mind, while the salesman praises the future of the tree as a piece of furniture. Thus a parallel is drawn between the positions in the poem and the two figures in the scene, with the difference that here neither is able to listen to the other. Finally, the only one who can really speak for the good of the tree speaks up: the tree itself. Here, similar to Cavendish, the language barrier between tree and human is cancelled out and the oak is allowed to speak. Finally, the tree speaks the same words like the oak in Cavendish's poem and therefore closes the circle.
Additional Sources for Information and Inspiration: