A Comparative Ecocritical Reading of Silverstein’s The Giving Tree and Dehrizi’s The Treeless World

Ecocriticism is the bridge between the environmental sciences and literature. Silverstein’s The Giving Tree and Dehrizi’s The Treeless World are both picture books that possess implied environmental themes and share a ‘tree’ motif. The canonical position of The Giving Tree in classical children’s literature functions as a touchstone in comparing similar works, among other nations. This analytic-descriptive research compares and contrasts the representations of environmental elements in the aforementioned works in the light of deep ecology and ecofeminism. Arne Næss, the Norwegian philosopher, coined the term ‘Deep Ecology’ in opposition to Shallow Ecology. Deep ecology connects the understanding of the relation between identity and nature to identifying oneself to a larger eco-cycle known as the ‘Ecological Self.’ Through equating the place of women with nature in a patriarchal system, ecofeminism criticizes the Ecological Self Theory for neglecting the role of gender in the formation of environmental crises. The present article studies the representations of environmental elements and the reciprocal relation between man and nature in the aforementioned works. This research shows that in The Treeless World, the dominant ecological representation is in line with deep ecology and in opposition to ecofeminism; also, it reveals that in The Giving Tree, the dominant ecological representation is in line with ecofeminism.
 
Extended Abstract
1.Introduction
Forgiveness is the common explicit theme linking The Giving Tree (Silverstein, 2011) and The Treeless World (Dehrizi, 1393 [2014]); they also share an implicit ecological theme. This study seeks to uncover the hidden ideological presumptions on environmental representations in the aforementioned works. In this regard, it seeks to answer three questions: what do the ecological motifs in The Treeless World (Dehrizi, 1393 [2014]) and The Giving Tree (Silverstein, 2011) have in common? What are the differences in each motif’s representation in these works? And to what extent do the presented values in the aforementioned works are in line with ecofeminism and deep ecology? This study is the first comparative ecocritical reading of children’s literature in Iran.
 
2.Theoretical Framework
In addition to man-nature relation, ecocriticism is concerned with the symbolic meaning attributed to nature and thought patterns created by them, the formation of nature, and the attribution of human cultures to animals, the language employed in representing nature, and attitudes towards environment (Opperman, 2012: 25). In ecocriticism, the hierarchical order of creation in inconsequential.
In accordance with Arne Næss’s relativist view, the biosphere is a network compiled of living organisms with no individual identity. As a matter of fact, their identity is actualized through their relation with other organisms (Buell, 2005: 137). Deep ecology, through the ‘ecological self,’ pushes the boundaries of the ‘self’ toward the whole biosphere, making each living organism a part of the ‘extended self’ (Parsapoor, 1392 [2013]: 153). Ecofeminism and deep ecology both regard anthropocentrism as the main reason for environmental crises. Their difference lies in the fact that deep ecology considers atomic individualism as the root of anthropocentrism; ecofeminism, on the other hand, tends to focus on patriarchal patterns (Parsapoor, 1392 [2013]: 177). By atomic individualism I mean a detailed approach to natural elements, rather than a universal and global approach to nature. Ecofeminism is concerned with the cultural structure of nature, which is comprised of language, religion, knowledge, and other presuppositions of power (Leger, 1997:227).
 
3.Methodology
By employing deep ecology and ecofeminism, this descriptive-analytical research compares and contrasts the environmental elements in the selected works. It must be added that the ecocritical analysis of this research is not limited to the text itself as it also takes into account the pictorial ecological representations.
 
4.Discussion and Analysis
4.1 The Man-Nature Relation
In The Giving Tree, man opposes nature, while in The Treeless World man is a part of nature. In The Giving Tree, nature is subject to man’s needs, while in The Treeless World, nature opposes man’s domination. In The Giving Tree, man takes permission from the tree for its subjugation. However, in The Treeless World, the tree, as an object of happiness and well-being, shows no flexibility
4.2 The Woman-Nature Relation
Throughout The Giving Tree, the tree (female) only quarrels with the boy (the main male character). This refers to and highlights gender conflicts. On the other hand, in The Treeless World, only one of the arguments of the tree (female) is with an old man (male).
4.3 The Bodily Existence of the Tree
In The Giving Tree, the bodily existence and anthropomorphism of the tree are magnified in the pictorial narrative of the text. On the other hand, The Treeless World, especially the pictorial narrative, seeks to deny the significance of the body of the tree. The Giving Tree underscores the gradual decline in natural resources through the quantitative decline in the number of trees. In contrast, in The Treeless World, the absence of the physicality of the fountain functions to downplay the decline in natural resources and sympathetic feelings. In other words, it represents forgiveness as a fountain.
4.4 Temptation of the Forbidden Fruit
In The Giving Tree, apple-picking results in exile from heaven. On the other hand, in The Treeless World, the apple does not function as a cultural entity or as a symbol for greed; on the contrary, it is an answer to a natural need, i.e. satisfying man’s hunger.
4.5 The Ecological Function of the Chorus
At the end of each episode in The Giving Tree, every repetition of “and the tree was happy” destroys a part of its body. At the end of each episode in The Treeless World, the repetition of “not beautiful” stands for the extended ecological self of the fountain.
4.6 Return to the Environmental Cycle
In The Giving Tree, the return of the traveler is delayed; it can refer to the irresponsibility of the traveler. On the other hand, in The Treeless World, the return of the traveler is timely and it refers to his sense of responsibility.
4.7 Environmental Ethical Values
In The Giving Tree, as the boy grows, so does his natural needs; it is manifested in his basic desire for food (apple) and his attempt make a boat. This development is accompanied by the gradual destruction of the tree (woman). In accordance with the deep ecology theory, The Treeless World does not condemn the colonization of nature (the fountain) as long as it is done to preserve the beauty and totality of the biosphere.
 
5.Conclusion
Since in an ecofeminist reading nature and woman are synonyms, The Treeless World, through the polarization of characters and evaluative functions of language, glorifies the woman who submits to patriarchal (fountain) demands and condemns anything (the tree) who rises against them. The language of the novel justifies the male character’s oppression. For example, it glorifies the fountain and recognizes the world's beauty through its forgiveness and grace. It must be mentioned that attributing “forgiveness” to the “fountain” suggests the misinterpretation of infinite natural resources. Silverstein believes that the give-and-take between the tree (mother) and the boy (patriarchal system) leads to nothing but destruction and decadence. Thus, all textual signals of The Treeless World are in line with deep ecology and the ‘extended self’ theory as they all deny atomic individualism. In The Giving Tree, the body of evidence in the novel reinforces an ecofeminist reading. This difference refers to the cultural differences between the East and the West. In the West, all kinds of dissatisfaction in women are interpreted as violations of women’s rights, while in Iranian culture, ‘women’s rights’ and ‘violation’ may have narrower meanings. In addition, the individualism of the West and the sense of community in the East eventually make their way into the plot. As a result, in Silverstein's story, the hero’s love is limited to a particular person, while in Dehrizi’s story, the fountain’s communal love covers all.
 
Selected Bibliography
Buell, L. 2005. The Future of Environmental Criticism: Environmental Crisis and Literary Imagination. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Dehrizi, M. 1393 [2014]. Donya Bedune Derakht. Tehran: Elmi va Farhangi.
      (The Treeless World)
Legler, Gretchen L. 1997. “Ecofeminist Literary Criticism”. Karen Warren (ed.). Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. Indiana University Press: 227-238.
Opperman, S. 2012. Ecocriticism: Past and Present of Environmental Studies. Ecocriticism: Environment and Literature. Ankara: Phoenix. pp. 9-59
Parsapoor, Z. 1392 [2013]. Darbareh-e Naqd-e Boom-gara. A. Noroozi and F. Fath-ali (trans.). Tehran: Pazhooheshgah-e Oloom-e Ensani va Motale’at-e Farhangi.
      (Ecocriticism)
Silverstein, S. 2011. The Giving Tree. London: Penguin Books Ltd.