Vol. 9 No. 2 (2026): March 2026
Articles

An ethological-hydrographic reading of the ecological literacies of selected Philippine ecopoems in English

PDF
  • Jan Raen Carlo M. Ledesma,
  • Aldrin E. Manalastas,
  • Katya E. Manalastas
Jan Raen Carlo M. Ledesma
Department of Literature, Faculty of Arts and Letters, University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila, Philippines
Bio
Aldrin E. Manalastas
Department of Literature, Faculty of Arts and Letters, University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila, Philippines
Bio
Katya E. Manalastas
De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde, SMS-Theo-Philo & De La Salle University, Department of Philosophy, Taft, Manila, Philippines
Bio

Published 27-03-2026

Keywords

  • ecocriticism,
  • ecological literacy,
  • ecopoetry,
  • ethology,
  • hydrography

Copyright (c) 2026 Jan Raen Carlo Ledesma, Aldrin E. Manalastas, Katya E. Manalastas (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ledesma, J. R. C. M., Manalastas, A. E. ., & Manalastas, K. E. (2026). An ethological-hydrographic reading of the ecological literacies of selected Philippine ecopoems in English. International Journal of Humanity Studies (IJHS), 9(2), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v9i2.321

Abstract

This paper examines five Philippine ecopoems written in English published in the anthology “Sustaining the Archipelago: An Anthology of Philippine Ecopoetry” (2017). It provides special emphasis on the ecopoems dealing with animal representations, behavioral processes, and water shedding light on their agencies and symbolic representations from the purview of material ecocriticism. The ethological approach to the ecopoems displays the loquacious nature of the consciousness of the animals. This is a means of highlighting the dynamism of their orientations and dispositions that can also be instrumental in framing the ecologies of connections and disconnections transpiring within the human and non-human realms. The hydrographic reading of the poems captures how the ecocritical tendencies of the poets provide a representation and poetic appraisal of the ecological, symbolic, and cultural significance of water in the Philippine ecopoetic locale. These readings offer an intensified and specific view of the intricacies of the non-human entities that also comprise the layers and factions of life in the biosphere. The analysis also considered the ecological literacies of the poets as they give their readers an understanding of the particularities of our biology. This paper leans on the ideas of material ecocriticism expounded by Serpil Oppermann and Serenella Iovino.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Asenath, T.J. & Santhanalakshmi, A. (2021). A study of Eco-criticism for the relationship between natural and human Environments. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 1285-1289.
  2. Chaudhuri, U., & Hughes, H. (Eds.). (2014). Animal acts: performing species today. University of Michigan Press.
  3. Chen, I., Zhang, W., & Rao, R. (2024). Poets rooted in nature: an ecopoetry anthology. Swarthmore College.
  4. Chua, R. G. (2014). The rebellion of Mariang Sinukuan, or why we need to discuss place mutualism. Tomas (Journal of the UST Center for Creative Writing and Literary Studies), 2(1), 151-165. https://tomas.ust.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/16-The-Rebellion-of-Mariang-Sinukuan-Or-Why-We-Need-to-Discuss-Place-Mutualism.pdf
  5. Chua, R. G. (2015). Dismantling disaster, death, and survival in Philippine ecopoetry. Kritika Kultura, 25, 28-45. https://archium.ateneo.edu/kk/vol1/iss25/4/
  6. Chua, R. G. (Ed.). (2017). Sustaining the archipelago: an anthology of Philippine ecopoetry. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House.
  7. Cities Development Initiative for Asia. (2020). Why CDIA works with secondary cities. https://cdia.asia/2020/07/30/why-cdia-works-with-secondary-cities/
  8. Clark, T. (2019). The value of ecocriticism. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Espace pour la vie Montréal. (2024). The ecological importance of ants. Insects and Other Arthropods. https://espacepourlavie.ca/en/ecological-importance-ants
  10. Frantz, P., Rego, F., & Barbas, S. (2025). Ecocentrism vs. anthropocentrism: to the core of the dilemma to overcome it. The Linacre Quarterly, 92(4), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639251339844
  11. Garrard, G., & Gordanpour, Y. (2025, July 16). Ecocriticism and critical animal studies. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.901
  12. Glotfelty, C., & Fromm, H. (Eds.). (1996). The ecocriticism reader: landmarks in literary ecology. University of Georgia.
  13. Gosselin, S., & Bartoli, D. D. (2022). La condition terrestre: Habiter la Terre en communs. Seuil.
  14. Gribben, J. & Fagan, J. M. (2016). Anthropocentric attitudes in modern society. Rutgers University.
  15. International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2023). Dugongs: Threats, conservations, and interesting facts. https://www.ifaw.org/animals/dugongs#:~:text=Dugongs%20play%20a%20crucial%20role,habitats%20for%20food%20and%20shelter
  16. Iovino, S., & Oppermann, S. (2014). Material ecocriticism. Indiana University Press.
  17. Kashlan, M. M. (2016). The relation between ecocriticism, critical animal studies and theater. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, 44, 593-619.
  18. Kaya, V. H., & Elster, D. (2019). A critical consideration of environmental literacy: concepts, contexts, and competencies. Sustainability, 11(6), 15-81. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061581
  19. Khalil, R. M. R. (2024). Examining the agential performativity of water through material ecocriticism in J. M. Synge’s Riders to the Sea (1911), David Farr’s Water (2007), Sabrina Hahfouz’s A History of Water in the Middle East (2019), Eva O’Connor and Hildegard Ryan’s Afloat (2021). Archivum, 74, 349-374. https://doi.org/10.17811/arc.74.1.2024.349-374
  20. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy. (C. Porter, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
  21. Morton, T. (2016). Dark ecology: for a logic of future coexistence. Columbia University Press.
  22. Murray, E. M., & Poto, M. P. (2024). Ecological literacy: theory and practice. In Panieri, G., Poto, M. P., & Murray, E. M. (Eds.), Emotional and Ecological literacy for a more sustainable society (pp. 23-49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56772-8_2
  23. National Geographic Education. (2025). Biosphere. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/biosphere/
  24. Parashar, N. (2020). Ecocriticism: A study in brief. International Journal of Applied Research, 6(7), 516-518. https://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/?year=2020&vol=6&issue=7&part=G&ArticleId=7015
  25. Paswan, I. K. (2019). Ecocriticism: An analysis of environmental concerns in various works of literature. International Journal of Research in English, 1(3), 28-31. https://doi.org/10.33545/26648717.2019.v1.i3a.64
  26. Slovic, S. H. (2014). Introduction: Animality and ecocriticism. Forum for World Literature Studies: Special Cluster on Animality and Ecocriticism, 6(1), 1-5. https://fwlsjournal.org/journal/vol-6-no-1-2014/#book5_1
  27. Srihari, S. B., & Rao, D. Y. (2021). Theorising material ecocriticism: From abstract to concrete. Smart Moves Journal IJELLH, 9(6), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.24113/ijellh.v9i6.11095
  28. Woods, C. T., Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2024). On ecological literacy through implicated participation. New Ideas in Psychology, 73, Article 101079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101079
  29. Wooltorton, S., Collard, L., Horwitz, P., Poelina, A., & Palmer, D. (2020). Sharing a place-based indigenous methodology and learnings. Environmental Education Research, 26(7), 917-934. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1773407