Scholarlink

<p>Romantic notions of nature, formulated around the turn of the 18th century, have shaped much of Western environmental consciousness and are often linked to the emergence of holistic ecology in the 20th century. Due to its perceived proximity to Romanticism, holistic ecology has played a complex and influential role in both environmental discourse and practice. This paper examines the extent to which key strands of holistic ecology, particularly the organismic ecology of Frederic Clements and the systems ecology of Eugene and Howard T. Odum, as framed by John Law’s (<CitationRef CitationID="CR49">2004</CitationRef>) concept of “scientific romanticism,” can be considered genuinely Romantic. Drawing on the history of ecology and philosophy, it compares the holistic assumptions of these ecological fields with those of philosophical Romanticism. The analysis reveals that, while both traditions draw from an organicist reservoir and share a commitment to naturalism, they diverge in critical ways. Philosophical Romanticism revitalized nature as a self-generating, creative force (<i>natura naturans</i>), whereas holistic ecology, never embracing such spiritual or aesthetic dimensions, oriented toward a more mechanistic image of nature (<i>natura naturata</i>). It evolved from Clements’ Romantic motifs of unity and teleology to the Odums’ cybernetic systems framework, aligned with technocratic rationality and the Newtonian worldview.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ηοlistic Ecology: Dispelling the Myth of Being Romantic

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月1日

查看全文
  • Dimitrios Schizas,
  • Napoleon Piakis-Chatzievangelou,
  • George Stamou

摘要

Romantic notions of nature, formulated around the turn of the 18th century, have shaped much of Western environmental consciousness and are often linked to the emergence of holistic ecology in the 20th century. Due to its perceived proximity to Romanticism, holistic ecology has played a complex and influential role in both environmental discourse and practice. This paper examines the extent to which key strands of holistic ecology, particularly the organismic ecology of Frederic Clements and the systems ecology of Eugene and Howard T. Odum, as framed by John Law’s (2004) concept of “scientific romanticism,” can be considered genuinely Romantic. Drawing on the history of ecology and philosophy, it compares the holistic assumptions of these ecological fields with those of philosophical Romanticism. The analysis reveals that, while both traditions draw from an organicist reservoir and share a commitment to naturalism, they diverge in critical ways. Philosophical Romanticism revitalized nature as a self-generating, creative force (natura naturans), whereas holistic ecology, never embracing such spiritual or aesthetic dimensions, oriented toward a more mechanistic image of nature (natura naturata). It evolved from Clements’ Romantic motifs of unity and teleology to the Odums’ cybernetic systems framework, aligned with technocratic rationality and the Newtonian worldview.