To start, I am relatively unversed in the English world (I’m a science person if you will) and had to go in and do slight research on Elizabeth Bishop and William Blake to gain a much better understanding about Dr. Wai Chee Dimok’s lecture. By the end of the lecture I found this to be funny because one of her main points was that it is time for the sciences and humanities to merge. One of the questions asked by an audience member was all about why such a large amount of people cannot see that climate change is real and happening right now. And the worst part- they don’t see that it can be helped by humans just changing their actions. Dr. Wai Chee Dimok urged that people often struggle with doing their own research, which is why they do not understand. She pushed the idea of science and humanities merging so science can lay down objective evidence, statistics, and studies while the humanities can take that information and lay it out into a version that many more people would understand.
This talk reminded me a lot of Dr. Hensley’s lecture that looked at the climate crisis through Lewis Carroll’s, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” He connected global environmental issues to 200-year-old literature explaining that authors have been using a specific language that help people communicate through different realities. This could similarly be connected to Dr. Wai Chee Dimok’s lecture regarding the comparison with Bishop and Blake and how those pieces could represent two different realties once again- one that recognizes the climate crisis and one that does not. One that believes human actions have a significant affect on global warming and one that believes humans do not have to change. She stated that there definitely is tension between the two perspectives.
Bishop’s, “The Sandpiper” came up multiple times throughout the lecture and was significant to the main point of the talk. The wording takes this old literature and gives it a parallel with modern scientific issues surrounding environmental issues. Uncertainty was shown in “The Sandpiper” and Bishop was able to voice that she was not quite sure what was to come. Dr. Wai Chee Dimok brought up ocean acidification in comparison to Bishop’s writing and a multitude of animals that are having a decrease in food options.
The talk started to get slightly confusing for me when Dr. Dimok went into the abuse of animals and nature- especially regarding the consumption of meat in America. I’m sure all of this could have an affect on the climate crisis but I definitely was confused in the connection back to Blake and Bishop’s literature.
Overall, I thought this lecture was once again interesting but does not encompass everything to help the global environmental crisis. Just as Dr. Hensley’s lecture was a start to the solution, I think Dr. Wai Chee Dimok has added another piece to the puzzle but there much more work to be done. The merging of the sciences and humanities can help evoke a productive response from more people throughout the world. This bridge, once again, can be a significant piece to the puzzle but is not the only thing that needs to happen.