Discourses of Ecology and the Sketches of Creative Ecology in the Context of Sustainable Development

• Autorzy: Kačerauskas T.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Dyskursy ekologiczne a zarys ekologii kreatywnej w kontekście zrównoważonego rozwoju

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper deals with the different discourses of ecology, including creative ecology, in the context of sustainable development. The author presents a classification of the ecological discourses as follows: meta-ecology, area ecology, educational ecology, linguistic ecology, ecology of novelty, technological ecology, epistemological ecology, approach ecology, political ecology, and ecology of visuality. Additionally, every branch of ecology has been divided into 3 sub-branches. According to the author, ecology has become a problem only after human activity has started to threaten for the very human environment including natural and ipso facto for human being, i.e. for social sustainable development. The extension of ecology discourse could be treated as the result for both of the mania of nature protection and of invasion of cultural area into natural one. The ecological discourses are also often incommensurable, since they stem from very different scientific rims despite analogous terms (ecology) and approaches (environmental). Even in the cases when they do not deal with the nature and natural environment, the laws of nature and the relationships between the organisms within it, serve as a model for an ecological discourse. Some features are characteristic for different discourses of ecology: 1) reference to certain environment; 2) suggested protection of a natural or cultural area; 3) systematic approach; 4) the attitude that the parts of a system are fighting for their survival like the organisms in the nature; 5) dynamic approach towards both the system and its parts under the evolution; 6) conviction that the human activity should be regulated and limited. Creative ecology could be treated both: as a branch in ecology of novelty and as a kind of meta-discourse, since every discourse requires creative thinking.

PL

Artykuł omawia różne dyskursy ekologiczne, włącznie z ekologią kreatywną, w kontekście zrównoważonego rozwoju. Przedstawiono klasyfikację dyskursów ekologicznych uwzględniając: meta-ekologię, ekologię przestrzeni, edukację ekologiczną, ekologię lingwistyczną, nową ekologię, ekologię techniczną, ekologię epistemologiczną, ekologię polityczną i ekologię wizualną. Ponadto w ramach każdej z wymienionych dyscyplin ekologii wydzielono 3 subdyscypliny. Zdaniem autora, ekologia stała się problemem, gdy ludzka aktywność zaczęła zagrażać środowisku i ipso facto samemu człowiekowi, w tym społecznemu filarowi rozwoju zrównoważonego. Rozszerzenie dyskursu ekologicznego bywa traktowane jako odchylenie ochrony środowiska i inwazja sfery kultury w sferę natury. Dyskursy ekologiczne są zwykle niewspółmierne, ponieważ wywodzą się z różnych nauk, pomimo analogicznych terminów (ekologia) i podejść (do środowiska). Jednakże, nawet w przypadku gdy nie dyskutują one przyrody i środowiska naturalnego, praw natury i relacji pomiędzy organizmami – i tak służą za model dyskursu ekologicznego. Można wskazać tu na cechy charakterystyczne dla różnych dyskursów: 1) odniesienie do środowiska; 2) sugerowana ochrona naturalnej lub kulturowej przestrzeni; 3) podejście systematyczne; 4) przekonanie, że części systemu walczą o swe przetrwanie w sposób analogiczny do organizmów w przyrodzie; 5) dynamiczne podejście wobec zarówno systemu, jak i jego podlegających ewolucji części; 6) przekonanie, że ludzka działalność powinna podlegać regulacji i być ograniczona. Kreatywną ekologię można traktować zarówno jako dziedzinę nowej ekologii, jak i rodzaj meta-dyskursu wymagającego kreatywnego myślenia.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

creative ecology; ecological thinking; classification of ecologies; creative and cultural industries; discourses of environment

PL

ekologia kreatywna; myślenie ekologiczne; podział ekologii; przemysł kreatywny i kulturowy; dyskusja środowiskowa

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: Vol. 11, nr 1
• Strony: 31--39
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 59 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kačerauskas T.

• Department of Philosophy and Communication, Vilnius Gedimino Technical University Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

Bibliografia

• 1. ADKINS B., FOTH M., SUMMERVILLE J., HIGGS P., 2007, Ecologies of innovation – Symbolic aspects of cross-organizational link-ages in the design sector in an Australian innercity area, in: American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 50, no 7, p. 922-934.
• 2. BALTRĖNAS P., BALTRĖNAITĖ E., KAČERAUSKAS T., 2015, Social environment of creativity, in: Filosofija. Sociologija, vol. 26, no 1, p. 46-54.
• 3. BAZIUKE D., JUSCENKO N., SIAULYS A., 2014, Switching to numerical scale in marine environmental decision support systems: Fuzzy logic approach, in: Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 101, no SI, p. 35-41.
• 4. BOTHA C. F., 2003, Heidegger, technology and ecology, in: South African Journal of Philosophy, vol. 22, no 2, p. 157-172.
• 5. BOURDIEU P., 1998, On Television, The New Press, New York.
• 6. BOURDIEU P., 1993, The Field of Cultural Production, Polity, Cambridge.
• 7. BRUNI L. E., 2015, Sustainability, cognitive technologies and the digital semiosphere, in: International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 18, no 1, p. 103-117.
• 8. CETINDAMAR D., GUNSEL A., 2012, Meas-uring the creativity of a city: a proposal and an application, in: European Planning Studies, vol. 20, no 8, p. 1301-1318.
• 9. COHEN-ROSENTHAL E., 2004, Making sense out of industrial ecology: a framework for analysis and action, in: Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction, vol. 12, no 8-10, p. 1111-1123.
• 10. COKADAR H., YILMAZ G. C., 2010, Teach-ing ecosystems and matter cycles with creative drama activities, in: Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 19, no 1, p. 80-89.
• 11. COLYVAN M., LINQUIST S., GREY W. et al., 2009, Philosophical issues in ecology: Recent trends and future directions, in: Ecology and Society, vol. 14, no 2, p. 1-12.
• 12. CARUSO C., COLORNI A., PARUCINI M., 1993, The regional Urban Solid Waste management System: A Modeling Approach, in: Euro-pean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 70, p. 16-30.
• 13. CHRISTENSEN C. B., 2014, Human ecology as philosophy, in: Human Ecology Review, vol. 20, no 2, p. 31-49.
• 14. COTTLE S., 2004, Producing nature(s): on the changing production ecology of natural history TV, in: Media Culture & Society, vol. 26, no 1, p. 81-101.
• 15. CRANWELL C., 2010, Embracing Thanatos-in-Eros: Evolutionary ecology and pantheism, in: Sophia, vol. 49, no 2, p. 271-283.
• 16. DUL J., CEYLAN C., 2014, The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 31, no 6, p. 1254-1267.
• 17. FEIST G. J., 1998, A meta-analysis of personal-ity in scientific and artistic creativity, in: Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 2, no 4, p. 290-309.
• 18. FITZHUGH B., 2001, Risk and invention in hu-man technological evolution, in: Journal of An-thropological Archaeology, vol. 20, no 2, p. 125-167.
• 19. FLORIDA R., 2002, The Rise of Creative Class. And how it’s transforming work, leisure, com-munitiy and everyday life, Basic, New York.
• 20. FLORIDA R., 2005, Cities and Creative Class, Routledge, New York.
• 21. FLORIDA R., TINAGLI I., 2004, Europe in the creative age, Europe, Demos.
• 22. FOWLER C. A., HODGES B. H., 2011, Dynamics and languaging: Toward an ecology of language, in: Ecological Psychology, vol. 23, no 3, p. 147-156.
• 23. GABORA L., ROSCH E., AERTS D., 2008, Toward an ecological theory of concepts, in: Ecological Psychology, vol. 20, no 1, p. 84-116.
• 24. GIBSON J. J., 1979,The ecological approach to visual perception, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
• 25. GINO F., WILTERMUTH S.S., 2014, Evil ge-nius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity, in: Psychological Science, vol. 25, no 4, p. 973-981.
• 26. GONG X., 2013, The Modeling of China City Creativity Index and an Empirical Research, in: 20th International Annual Conference on Man-agement Science and Engineering (ICMSE), p. 2289-2295.
• 27. HEILIG G. K., 1997, Sustainable development – ten arguments against a biologistic ‘slow-down’ philosophy of social and economic development, in International Journal of Sustain-able Development & World Ecology, vol. 4 (1), p. 1-16.
• 28. HIRONAKA A., SCHOFER E., 2000, The nation-state and the natural environment over the twentieth century, in: American Sociological Review, vol. 65, p. 96-116.
• 29. HOWKINS J., 2009, Creative ecologies: where thinking is a proper job, New Brunswick and London, Transaction Publishers.
• 30. HOWKINS J., 2013, The Creative Economy: How People Make Monet from Ideas, Penguin, London.
• 31. HULL Z., 2008, The philosophical and social conditioning of sustainable development, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 3, no 1, p. 27-31.
• 32. IVAKHIV A., 2007, Green film criticism and its futures, in: Foreign Literature Studies, vol. 29, no 1, p. 46-65.
• 33. JOHRI A., TEO H. J., LO J. et al., 2014, Mil-lennial engineers: Digital media and infor-mation ecology of engineering students, in: Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 33, p. 286-301.
• 34. KAČERAUSKAS T., TAMOŠAUSKAS P., 2015, Sport as factor of creativity, in: Filosofija. Sociologija, vol. 26, no 1, p. 64–71.
• 35. KORNILOVA T. V., KORNILOV S. A., 2012, Is it possible to create a model of creativ-ity without psychology of creativity?, in: Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, vol. 33, no 6, p. 76-83.
• 36. KULBYTĖ A., 2014, Romantizmo transfor-macijos postmodernizmo estetikoje: tapatumo požymiai ir ribos [The transformations of romanticism in postmodern aesthetics: The signs and limits of identity], in: Logos, vol. 78, p. 170-179 (in Lithuanian).
• 37. LANGE B., KALANDIDES A., STOEBER B. et al., 2008, Berlin's creative industries: Governing creativity?, in: Industry and Innovation, vol. 15, no 5, p. 531-548.
• 38. LEE D. S., LEE K. C., SEO Y.W. et al., 2015, An analysis of shared leadership, diversity, and team creativity in an e-learning environment, in: Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 42, no SI, p. 47-56.
• 39. MITCHELL W. J. T., 1994, Picture Theory, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• 40. NEWELL J. P., COUSINS J.J., 2014, The boundaries of urban metabolism: Towards a political-industrial ecology, in: Progress in Hu-man Geography, vol. 12, p. 1-27.
• 41. PADEN R., HARMON L. K., MILLING C. R., 2013, Philosophical histories of the aesthetics of nature, in: Environmental Ethics, vol. 35, no 1, p. 57-77.
• 42. PENNINGTON M.C., HOEKJE B.J., 2014, Framing English language teaching, in: System, vol. 46, p. 163-175.
• 43. PETERSEN T., KLAUER B., MANSTETTEN R., 2009, The environment as a challenge for governmental responsibility – The case of the European Water Framework Directive, in: Eco-logical Economics, vol. 68, no 7, p. 2058–2065.
• 44. PLATO, Lysis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/ 1579/1579-h/1579-h.htm (19.05.2015).
• 45. PLATO, The Laws, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
• 46. RUNCO M. A., 2004, Creativity, in: Annual Re-view of Psychology, vol. 55, p. 657-687.
• 47. RUNCO M. A., ILLIES J. J., EISENMAN R., 2005, Creativity, originality, and appropriate-ness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships?, in: Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 39, no 2, p. 137-148.
• 48. RUSBY J. C., JONES L. B., CROWLEY R. et al., 2013, The child care ecology inventory: A domain-specific measure of home-based child care quality to promote social competence for school readiness, in: Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 28, no 4, p. 947-959.
• 49. SKORUPA P., 2014, Shocking contents in so-cial and commercial advertising , in: Creativity Studies, vol. 7, no 2, p. 69-81.
• 50. STEEN M., 2015, Upon opening the black box and finding it full: Exploring the ethics in design practices, in: Science Technology & Human Values, vol. 40, no 3, p. 389-420.
• 51. SUNLEY P., PINCH S., REIMER S. et al., 2008, Innovation in a creative production sys-tem: the case of design, in: Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 8, no 5, p. 675-698.
• 52. TAELMAN S. E., DE MEESTER S.;,SCHAU-BROECK T., et al., 2014, Accounting for the occupation of the marine environment as a nat-ural resource in life cycle assessment: An ex-ergy based approach, in: Resources Conserva-tion and Recycling, vol. 91, p. 1-10.
• 53. TORRANCE E. P., 1966, The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Personnel Press, Lexington, MA.
• 54. TSCHAKERT P., 2012, From impacts to em-bodied experiences: tracing political ecology in climate change research, in: Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, vol. 112, no 2, p. 144-158.
• 55. VALIVONYTĖ I. M., 2013, Plagijavimas reklamoje: kūrybinio mąstymo trūkumas ar perpildytos rinkos pasekmė? [Plagiarism in ad-vertising: Lack of the creative thinking or result of saturated market?], in: Santalka: filosofija, komunikacija, vol. 21, no 2, p. 128-139 (in Lith-uanian).
• 56. WANG Y.; FANG Y.; ZHANG J. et al., 2013, Dezert-Smarandache theory for multiple targets tracking in natural environment, in: Iet Com-puter Vision, vol. 7, no 6, p. 456-466.
• 57. ZHAO SH., QIN Q., ZHANG F. et al., 2011, Research on using a mono-window algorithm for land surface temperature retrieval from Chinese satellite for environment and natural disas-ter monitoring (HJ-1B), in: Data, Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, vol. 31, no 6, p. 1552-1556.
• 58. ZIMMERMAN M. E., 1993, Rethinking the Heidegger – Deep ecology relationship, in: Environmental Ethics, vol. 15, no 3, p. 195-224.
• 59. YANG H., CHATTOPADHYAY A., ZHANG K., 2012, Unconscious creativity: When can un-conscious thought outperform conscious thought?, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 22, no 4, p. 573-581.

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.