On the “Forest Affect” in the Theory of Affective Ecocriticism
Abstract
“Forest affect” refers to a pre-individual, embodied, and fluid intensity or flow of force that is triggered, transmitted, and transformed in a forest environment through the interaction of material elements, spatial structures, and biological symbols in the forest. Based on the emotional universality of affect and the theory of affect as spatial atmosphere, and in the perspective of arboreal ecocriticism that attributes subjectivity, materiality, and interactivity to trees, “forest affect” gains theoretical vitality in the process of constructing relationships between emotion, body, and environment through affective ecological criticism. This paper systematically discusses the generative basis, characteristics, ecological theoretical value, and practical significance of “forest affect”, pointing out that forests have materiality and subjectivity and form their own “affect-material” field. “Forest affect” possesses the characteristics of “embodied materiality”, “intensity liquidity”, and “transindividuality”. “Forest affect” updates the driving force for forest protection from unilateral rational calculation to a deeper, pre-reflective affective resonance, promoting the construction of an affective network of symbiotic entanglement between humans and forests.
References
- Kimmerer, R. W. (2016). “Interview with A Watershed.” Forest Under Story: Creative Inquiry in An Old-Growth Forest, edited by Nathaniel Brodie. et al., WA: University of Washington Press, 41-51. http: //www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcwn5h7.10
- Cheng, XZ. (2025). Ecocriticism Theory.Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 433.
- Li, JQ. et al. (2017). Forest Ecology. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 376.
- Anderson, B. (2018). “Af ective Materialism”. Dialogues in Human Geography. Volume 8, issue 2, 229–231. https: //doi.org/10.1177/2043820617748271.
- Seamon, D. (2000). “A Way of Seeing People and Place: Phenomenology in Environment-behavior Research”. Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-behavior Research, edited by Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto & H. Minami. New York, NY: Plenum, 157-159. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4701-3_13
- Sanders, S. R. (1993). “Earth’s Body”. Staying Put: Making A Home in A Restless World. Boston: Beacon Press, 45.
- Ben Anderson. (2009). “Af ective Atmospheres”. Emotion, Space and Society, Volume 2, issue 2, 77-81. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.08.005
- Bladow, K. , Ladino, J., et al. (2018). Af ective Ecocriticism: Emotion, Embodiment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 6.
- Williams C. (2016). “Unravelling the Subject with Spinoza: Towards A Morphological Analysis of the Scene of Subjectivity”. Contemporary Political Theory, Volume 16 , issue 3, 342–362. https: //doi.org/10.1057/s41296-016-0063-1
- Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Translated by Sheridan, A. and Law, J. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 163.
- Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Af ect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 37.
- Moore, K. D. (2016). “Afterword: Advice to A Future Reader”. Forest Under Story: Creative Inquiry in AnOld-Growth Forest, edited by Nathaniel Brodie. et al., WA: University of Washington Press, 227-234. http: //www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcwn5h7.58
- Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary Af ects. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 1-2.
- Harrison, R. P. (1992). Forests: The Shadow of Civilization. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 199.
- Stacy Alaimo. (2010). Bodily Natures: Science, Environment, and the Material Self. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 20.