Thank you for the opportunity. Yes, the first two of the questions were absolutely the two I struggled with.
——
For question 6, I mixed up his his *conclusion* which was negative towards the sentimentality of wilderness with his *insight* that wilderness had replaced religion in its power of evoking the sublime.
That is to say, I read it as the “loss of religious and spiritual sentiment” altogether rather than holding on to the connection between “wilderness sentimentality = domestication” when contrasted with “religious and spiritual sentimentality”
That is, the phrase “religious and spiritual sentiment associated with wilderness” sounded like “religious and spiritual sentiment”.
So in my mind, yes, religious and spiritual sentiment WAS lost in the 19th century. The cognitive shift from “with wilderness” did not take.
This is one of the questions I sat and read for about 5 minutes before answering. I’m not surprised I got this one wrong.
—
Question 21:
Deckha believed a shift to empathy would help improve changing the law.
But Shephard, pg. 49 :
” The individulizing of our anguish over animals is reminiscent of the “person/planet”
mesopia, with its lack of middle ground of species and communities. After all, how can a population or an ecosystem feel pain? Species are abstracts which you cannot touch or love. There is no place in “rights” for normal death, disease, or deprivation, only happy faces. ”
So I read that as our rights-based system when placed onto animals does not take into account species and communities – which I suppose he felt are more necessary when dealing with animals than with people, who need a rights-based system.
I felt as if Shephard would have viewed Deckha as one who oversentimentalizes animals by affording them rights, even though she was looking beyond rights.
Thus that is why I answered BOTH as false.
I did not see where Shephard would have understood Deckha at all.
(This was the other one I struggled with.)
——-
Question 19:
Kao was critical of ecomaternalism as being overly essentialist.
1) ecomaterianlism can be excessively negative
“Perhaps MacGregor is right that the continued reliance upon ecomaternalist rhetoric in some contexts might actually do more harm than good” (Kao, pg 626)
2) this really stood out to me as being negative towards “ecofeminist theory” for essentialization.
“Along with other critics, ecofeminists themselves have interrogated ecofeminist theory for universalizing Western dualistic thought and
thus being insensitive to context; for essentializing the category of “woman” so as to flatten out all difference and lide sex with gender; and for inappropriately drawing upon indigenous cultures and the Two-Thirds World for inspirational symbols or example” (Kao, 632)
3) This shows ecofeminist theologian Ivonne Gebara as an ALTERNATIVE TO ecofeminist theory by bringing in action instead of theoretical debates about essentialism.
” However, lest ecofeminists endlessly debate the propriety of employing universal theoretical constructs, essentialist discourses, or examples
for activism drawn from distant shores, Brazilian ecofeminist theologian Ivonne Gebara helpfully warns us that the destruction of lives (both human and non-human) continues and accordingly calls for
immediate action (Gebara 2003, 94)” (Kao, 632)
I was very surprised to get this one wrong as I felt she was very negative towards the false presuppositions laid out in the last sentence of the question, presuppositions she did not believe in.
——-
Question 22: The drop is score is accurate. I was wrong for missing “Deep Ecology” there.
—–
Question 28: The essentialism pervading care-theory even today is a legitimate concern.
“Despite the dislodging thereafter of essentialist visions about women in much of feminist legal scholarship informed by care theory, care-inspired
feminist jurisprudence continues to carry essentialist associations.5” (
OH OH I MISSED THIS STATEMENT:
“A more legitimate critique of care theory is that the desire to engage with animals, learn about their desires, and respond to them normalizes a
level of interaction that may actually breed harm.”
The question even says MORE LEGITIMATE CRITIQUE and it’s right there in the text “more legitimate critique”.
Ok. Absolute oversight on my part.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]