Ecology is not a text
I found myself recently driving south again on the magnificent Taconic Parkway, headed for Millbrook and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies. I had been lucky enough to be invited to participate in the Cary Conference, somewhat annual events that often are pivotal to the science of ecology. The theme for 2007 was urban design and ecological science, with the stated goal of infusing ecological knowledge into design, thus creating more sustainable and resilient cities. It was a fascinating several days, and I thought I’d offer a few ideas to my reader that I kept thinking about.
First, there was shockingly little agreement on the meaning of the terms we were all ostensibly discussing. “Ecology” was seen by the ecologists as a science, with a body of knowledge created through the scientific method, while the designers saw “ecology” as a useful word to describe any system of interrelating parts. “Resilient” became a true buzzword, reflecting whatever the speaker thought was preferable, rather than the strict technical definition now favored by ecologists, which asks: resilience of what ecosystem property, to what perturbation? This lack of agreement over terminology was made more problematic because of who was invited to the conference. For the most part, the designers were preeminent academic theorists rather than practitioners. Similarly, we scientists were all academics, rather than those who actively consult and help with ecological engineering. The two groups were thus very far apart conceptually, and not really inclined to think practically and bridge that gap.
But there was also a deeper disagreement over what the interface between the two groups could or should be. The scientists present wanted to transfer their ecological knowledge efficiently to the designers, driven by a deep sense of urgency that Gene Likens spoke eloquently about. We believe there are facts about how different designs affect technological sustainability. We want these facts considered during all design projects, much as all design projects conform to building safety codes. Ecological concerns are thus not necessarily central to a design’s aesthetic, any more than the meter of a sonnet determines the meaning of the poem. On the other side, the designers are each interested professionally in finding their own unique aesthetic. Many of them are now postmodernists, in the (non-technical) sense of not believing in any objective, empirical facts. Ecology thus becomes just a useful discourse to riff off of, like feminism or suburbia. I kept saying to the designers quite passionately “Ecology is not a metaphor!” I was unknowingly echoing Sokal’s Fashionable Nonsense, where he argued science is not a text, at least not JUST a text, but that there was some other objective content there as well. Given the deep ecological crisis the world faces, that objective content is what society so desperately needs to infuse into its urban design.
First, there was shockingly little agreement on the meaning of the terms we were all ostensibly discussing. “Ecology” was seen by the ecologists as a science, with a body of knowledge created through the scientific method, while the designers saw “ecology” as a useful word to describe any system of interrelating parts. “Resilient” became a true buzzword, reflecting whatever the speaker thought was preferable, rather than the strict technical definition now favored by ecologists, which asks: resilience of what ecosystem property, to what perturbation? This lack of agreement over terminology was made more problematic because of who was invited to the conference. For the most part, the designers were preeminent academic theorists rather than practitioners. Similarly, we scientists were all academics, rather than those who actively consult and help with ecological engineering. The two groups were thus very far apart conceptually, and not really inclined to think practically and bridge that gap.
But there was also a deeper disagreement over what the interface between the two groups could or should be. The scientists present wanted to transfer their ecological knowledge efficiently to the designers, driven by a deep sense of urgency that Gene Likens spoke eloquently about. We believe there are facts about how different designs affect technological sustainability. We want these facts considered during all design projects, much as all design projects conform to building safety codes. Ecological concerns are thus not necessarily central to a design’s aesthetic, any more than the meter of a sonnet determines the meaning of the poem. On the other side, the designers are each interested professionally in finding their own unique aesthetic. Many of them are now postmodernists, in the (non-technical) sense of not believing in any objective, empirical facts. Ecology thus becomes just a useful discourse to riff off of, like feminism or suburbia. I kept saying to the designers quite passionately “Ecology is not a metaphor!” I was unknowingly echoing Sokal’s Fashionable Nonsense, where he argued science is not a text, at least not JUST a text, but that there was some other objective content there as well. Given the deep ecological crisis the world faces, that objective content is what society so desperately needs to infuse into its urban design.
