Global monocultures and local diversity: Gilbert White, and natural observation as a form of community-building

我的研究探索了吉尔伯特·怀特的自然历史写作，社区使他的观察付诸实施，以及它对现代生态学的潜在共鸣。本研究基于对怀特的《塞尔本的自然历史和古物》、他的日记和书信的文学分析。它还探索了更广泛的18世纪自然历史，将怀特在这一新兴学科中的地位联系起来。在撰写自然史时，怀特使用了各种观察来源--从著名的博物学家和学术文本到当地人和个人经历--形成了一个以观察自然为中心的不同社区。我的作品考察了怀特是如何建立这个当地的文本社区并与之互动的，以及它是如何影响他的思想和写作的。从这里，我将质疑自然主义观察和自然写作本身如何作为社区创建过程发挥作用，以及现代生态学家是否可以利用怀特的例子来重新让当地社区与自然接触。通过将怀特与现代生态问题联系起来，这项研究将进一步细微地改变我们对怀特开创性文本的理解，并揭示怀特的实践与当代生态学之间的新共鸣，重新评估他在他的时代和我们自己的时代中的地位。吉尔伯特·怀特通常被认为是先驱--里克·鲍尔斯声称，他是第一个在全球范围内思考并在当地行动的人。他打破了18世纪的主流自然主义，即注重收集和分类标本。相反，泰德·达兹韦尔认为，通过观察栖息地中的有机体，怀特“有效地摆脱了这种[分类学]方面的担忧”。然而，《自然历史》与其说展示了一种取代旧自然主义的新自然主义，不如说是一种来自各种来源的知识的复杂交织。怀特从生活中观察，并将它们与林奈类别的考虑结合在一起，陷入了分类拉丁语的灌木丛中。我的研究探索了怀特在这个知识共同体中的地位，考察了他是如何形成这个自然学家网络的，他是如何鉴定和比较他的来源的，以及这些不同的来源是如何呈现在他的成品文本中的。通过生态批评的镜头研究怀特可以揭示他工作的新深度，同时也向外扩展其相关性-里安·威廉姆斯对怀特日记的生态批评方法，暴露了怀特日常自然观察中潜在的生态激进主义。在《生物区域想象》中，汤姆·林奇等人。警告说，“我们越来越多地生活在全球单一文化中，吃同样的食物，看同样的电影[……]想着同样的想法”。当地社区正在消失，人们与当地风景的联系正在更快地消失。Amitav Ghosh、Donald Worster和Elizabeth DeLoughrey等生态批评家将此归因于18世纪和19世纪思想的持续主导。因此，分析怀特在他的社区建设中对这些想法的谈判是与现代生态学相关的--生态学家是否表现出对学术来源的偏好，而不是当地知识；现代生态学家如何像怀特那样，在自然周围培育一个社区？我的研究考察了自然历史的遗产，它激发了社区，并质疑自然观察能否在重新参与现代社区的生态方面发挥有意义的作用。这项研究还将导致吉尔伯特·白宫和花园的一个公共参与项目。我对社区建设的关注为一个多学科项目提供了空间，邀请怀特和现代创意人士之间进行新的对话，以应对紧迫的气候变化问题，同时培养怀特和现在之间的跨时间社区。结合严密的手稿研究和精心设计的公共参与项目，我的研究将阐明怀特的关系和网络，同时也揭示他的文本从18世纪到现在的生态共鸣。

My research explores Gilbert White's natural history writing, the community-making his observations enacted, and its potential resonances for modern ecology. This research is based in literary analysis of White's The Natural History and Antiquities of Selbourne, his journals and letters. It also explores wider eighteenth-century natural history, contextualising White's place within this emerging discipline.In writing Natural History, White used various sources of observation-from renowned naturalists and academic texts to local people and personal experience- fashioning a disparate community centred around observing nature. My work examines how White built and interacted with this local, textual community, and how it influenced his thinking and writing. From here, I will question how naturalist observation and nature writing itself might function as a community-making process, and whether modern ecologists can utilise White's example to re-engage local communities with nature. By looking at White in relation to modern ecological concerns, this research will further nuance our understanding of White's seminal text and uncover new resonances between White's practice and contemporary ecology, reassessing his place within his time and our own. Gilbert White is commonly viewed as a pioneer-Rick Bowers claims 'he was the first to think globally and act locally'-breaking away from mainstream eighteenth-century naturalism that was concerned with collecting and categorising specimens. Rather, by observing organisms in their habitats, White was, Ted Dadswell argues, 'effectively turning away from [taxonomic] concerns of this kind'. However, Natural History displays not so much a new naturalism supplanting the old, but a complex intertwining of knowledge from various sources. White takes observations from life and couples them with considerations of Linnaean categories, plunging into 'thickets of taxonomic Latin'. My research explores White's position in this 'community of knowledge', examining how he formed this network of naturalists, how he qualified and compared his sources against each other, and how these disparate sources were rendered in his finished text.Researching White through an ecocritical lens can reveal new depths to his work, while also expanding its relevance outwards-Rhian Williams' ecocritical approach to White's journal-keeping, exposed a latent ecological radicalism in White's daily routine of natural observation. In The Bioregional Imagination, Tom Lynch et al. warn that 'we increasingly inhabit a global monoculture, consuming the same food, watching the same movies [...] thinking the same thoughts'. Local communities are fading, and people's connection to local landscapes are fading faster. Ecocritics like Amitav Ghosh, Donald Worster and Elizabeth DeLoughrey, attribute this to the continued dominance of eighteenth and nineteenth century ideas. Therefore, analysing White's negotiation of such ideas in his community-making is pertinent for modern ecology-do ecologists show preference for academic sources above local knowledge; how might modern ecologists cultivate a community around nature like White did? My research examines the Natural History's legacy, the community it galvanised, and question whether natural observation can play a meaningful role in re-engaging modern communities in ecology. This research will also lead to a public engagement project with Gilbert White's House and Gardens. My focus on community-building offers scope for a multidisciplinary project, inviting new conversations between White and modern creatives to confront pressing questions of climate change, while cultivating cross-temporal communities between White and the present. Combining close manuscript study and a well-tailored public engagement project, my research will elucidate White's relationships and networks, while also uncovering his text's ecological resonances stretching beyond the eighteenth century to the present.