Cosmic Ecology – Jennifer Hamilton

In her paper, Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking The Storm in King Lear, Jennifer Hamilton argues that the storm in King Lear acts as a dramatic device that results in a literal ecology within the Shakespearean text. It is the generation of this ecology that accounts for the structural principles of the narrative. By employing an eco-critical methodology, Hamilton is able to treat characters in the play as being part of a complex ecology, establishing a cultural ecology of the drama. She wishes to draw the idea of the storm away from a metaphor that focuses around the inner turmoil of the character King Lear. Even though the character of Lear does attract the audiences’ main attention Hamilton argues that the storm is autonomous from this. To further exemplify the power of the storm, an analysis into the play Blast by Sarah Kane - drawing comparisons between the scene altering blast and the storm as an event that causes change. Furthermore, both events are explored by as an encouragement to use more than just visual senses as both the storm and the blast are blinding. Hamilton argues that in order to understand the social and ecological one must use other senses beyond the visual, incorporating touch, taste and even smell.

Using an ecological perspective allows for an analysis of the relationship between cultural and nature. As Felix Guattari states, “now more than ever, nature cannot be separated from culture”. In saying that, a hybridity of nature and cultural has not develop, but rather a system of networked relations between the two. Both co-exist in an ecology. It is this perspective that Hamilton’s paper attempts to generate. The storm exists with in the narrative ecology of King Lear and co-exists with the other characters.

An interesting comment made after the paper was delivered was the comparison between Hamilton’s eco-critical approach and actor-network theory. With this is mind it is possible to view the storm as a non-human actor, co-existing with other actants with in the network of the narrative. Viewing Hamilton’s argument this way means that the storm and its relation to the actors does not focus on the storm as part of nature, or even the actors as human. This is not the hierarchy that Hamilton wishes to prescribe to. Rather, the storm in relation to others can be viewed in relationships that are stronger or weaker than others. Knowing this it makes much more sense to see the interactions between Lear and the storm as the focal point of Hamilton’s discussion. However, Hamilton does mention other players in King Lear, such as Cordelia, her avowing to ‘nothing’ and the representations of this through the storm. Furthermore, the creating of such a network means that the way that each participating string relate needs to be re-established and reproduce in a new network. This relates to what Hamilton mentioned about how the storm is staged in different presentations – from a grey backdrop with a Lear practicing mimicry or a more literately filmic representation with an emphasis on the storm as a physical force of nature. Viewing the storm this way, means that it can be read as a single event, or rather participant in the play, that is able to modify the way the play is read through it’s relation to the other participants of King Lear.