Page 20 [20]
18 — JUDIT FARKAS
When EH emerged, researchers were faced with serious conceptual problems; in addition
to the conceptual systems of different disciplines, often such basic terms as ecology,
nature, or the environment were heatedly debated within each discipline as well. There
is nothing surprising about this. On the contrary, it indicates the natural operation of
a discipline, for the different theoretical schools and the development of a discipline
go together with the constant rethinking of the basic concepts. In response to
terminological problems, some neologisms have also been born, such as Donna
Haraway’s theoretical term naturecultures, or Bruno Latour’s nature-cultures (Latour
1993; Haraway 2003). These attempt to eliminate the separation of nature and culture,
beyond the conceptual level.
Thus, instead of separating different branches of scholarship, EH strives to be
cross-disciplinary, i.e., unite diverse specialties and perspectives, defy boundaries,
i.e., transgress national, cultural and historical boundaries and be policy-focused,
i.e., include politics within its focus (Nye et al. 2013: 8). This approach provides
fuller and more practical knowledge to cope with complex social and environmental
issues (Hubbell — Ryan 2022: 5). Regarding the environment-related scientific
results, EH claims that its understanding takes place within cultural and social
contexts, so it not only has relevance here but also a leading role. The practitioners
of EH wish to broaden the scope of the kinds of questions EH poses about the
world and our place in it (Hubbell — Ryan 2022: 5).’? Historian David Nye and
his colleagues also define the essence of EH as the new type of inquiry, a new
approach to values and meaning “informed by nuanced historical understanding
of the cultures that frame environmental problems” (Nye et al. 2013: 28).
EH shares the recognition that our environmental problems today have primarily
been caused by humanity. It seeks answers via a study of human behavior, cultural
values, historical patterns, social contexts, political ideas, religious and spiritual
dimensions, moral questions and emotions (Hubbell — Ryan 2022: 5; Nye et al.
2013: 4; Sörlin 2012: 788). Of particular import is the thesis that a complex
relationship exists between people, places, animals, plants, fungi, water, soil, land
and air (see Tsing 2015), the study of which depends on the cross-disciplinary
collaboration of diverse fields and the elaboration and cultivation of a new approach
and method. Several researchers are convinced that this cannot be achieved unless
the human being is removed from the center'* and the emphasis is shifted back
onto the natural world and the intricate relationship between humans and their
environment in the humanities as well. It is after all impossible to severe human
beings from nature because, for one thing, each human being, the human
microbiome,” is the habitat of innumerable microscopic beings and thus humans
are also “interspecies beings”.
the effects of colonization (including post-colonialism) and studies the economic, social, cultural
legacy of colonization. For a description of ecofeminism, see the chapter Environmental Philosophy.
“Put simply, EH opens our eyes, minds, and hearts to the interconnections between all life in a
radically changing world.” (Hubbell - Ryan 2022: 5)
Others use the phrase dehumanizing the humanities to express this thought (Hubbell - Ryan 2022: 10).
Microbiome: an ecological system of microorganisms living together with the human being. “It
is acommunity of microbes with distinctive physical-chemical characteristics belonging to a well¬
definable habitat. This definition refers to both the microbes (microbiota) and their living space,
the venue of their activity, and its components” (Hancz 2021: 42-43).