Cloud, Landscape, and Ecological Reciprocity: An
Ecocritical and Ecofeminist Reading of Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta
Aishwarya Singh,
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
Maharaja Agrasren Himalayan Garhwal University,
Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India.
Abstract: This study
reconsiders Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta through an ecocritical and critically situated
ecofeminist perspective, moving beyond its conventional treatment as a poem of
separation and romantic longing. It addresses a gap in scholarship by examining
how landscape functions as an active relational presence rather than a
decorative backdrop. Through close textual analysis of mountains, rivers,
forests, clouds, animals, urban spaces, and gendered bodies, the paper traces
the poem’s interconnected ecology of human and more-than-human life. Its central
argument is that the Yaksha’s journey transforms geographical movement into an
ecological and affective network in which memory, desire, embodiment, and
environment continually shape one another. The study employs qualitative
textual analysis while avoiding the anachronistic classification of Kālidāsa as
a modern ecofeminist thinker. It concludes that Meghadūta offers a nuanced
imaginative model of ecological reciprocity, opening further possibilities for
ecocritical readings of classical Sanskrit literature and its contemporary
environmental significance.
Keywords: Ecocriticism; Ecological Reciprocity;
Ecofeminism; Kālidāsa; Meghadūta
Introduction
Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta is conventionally read
as a poem of separation, longing, and hoped-for reunion. Yet its emotional
force is inseparable from the material world through which the Yaksha’s message
travels. Exiled from Alakā, he encounters a monsoon cloud at Rāmagiri and
entrusts it with his words. The ensuing journey is far more than a route
between separated lovers. Mountains, rivers, forests, vegetation, animals,
settlements, and cities transform geographical movement into an affective and
imaginative experience (Kālidāsa 1.1–2).
This sustained engagement with place
complicates the notion of nature as a poetic backdrop. Rivers direct movement,
mountains become sites of encounter, vegetation registers seasonal vitality,
and inhabited spaces remain embedded within their surrounding environments. The
cloud itself occupies a particularly suggestive position: it is simultaneously
a meteorological presence, a moving body, and the medium through which
emotional distance becomes traversable (Kālidāsa 1.2–5).
Such a reading resonates with ecocriticism,
which Cheryll Glotfelty defines as “the study of the relationship between
literature and the physical environment” (xviii). Applied carefully to
Meghadūta, this perspective moves beyond an appreciation of natural description
to examine how environmental relations shape the poem’s emotional architecture.
Ecofeminism further complicates this inquiry.
Karen J. Warren connects gender, nature, ethics, and structures of domination,
while Vandana Shiva foregrounds women’s material relationships with the natural
world. These theories are employed here heuristically, rather than to portray
Kālidāsa as a modern environmentalist or ecofeminist thinker. Instead, they
enable closer attention to embodiment, desire, domesticity, and the recurring
association of women with sensuous ecological abundance.
This study argues that Meghadūta constructs environment
as a relational field in which geography, memory, desire, and embodied
experience continually intersect. It proposes ecological reciprocity as a
critical concept for understanding this relationship: landscape shapes emotional
experience, even as memory and desire invest landscape with human significance.
Such an approach extends ecological inquiry into classical Sanskrit literature
while preserving the historical distance between Kālidāsa’s world and
contemporary ecological thought.
Literature Review: Critical Context and Scholarly Gap
Critical approaches to Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta
have long been shaped by its poetics of separation, geographical imagination,
and place within the sandeśakāvya tradition. Steven P. Hopkins’s comparative
study is particularly valuable in this context because it situates messenger
poetry within the broader relationship among lovers, communication, movement,
and emotionally charged landscapes. His discussion demonstrates that geography
in sandeśakāvya is not incidental to the message; the journey itself becomes
part of the poem’s emotional structure (Hopkins 29–55).
The cloud has also attracted sustained
critical attention. Yigal Bronner’s study of Meghadūta foregrounds the literary
possibilities of the cloud as both a poetic and material presence. Its
mobility, association with rain, and capacity to connect distant places make it
more than a conventional messenger. The cloud becomes central to the poem’s
imaginative architecture and to its distinctive treatment of distance and
movement (Bronner 25–46).
Ecocriticism offers a further way of
extending this discussion. Cheryll Glotfelty’s foundational formulation directs
attention to the relationship between literary texts and the physical
environment (xviii). From this perspective, Meghadūta invites questions not
merely about the beauty of its natural descriptions but also about the
relationships among weather, water, vegetation, animals, terrain, and human
habitation.
Ecofeminist scholarship opens another
critical possibility by bringing gender and ecological relations into the same
field of inquiry. Karen J. Warren examines the conceptual connections between
the treatment of women and the treatment of nature, while Vandana Shiva places
women’s material and ecological relationships within broader questions of
environmental knowledge and social power. These perspectives are useful not
because they provide a ready-made interpretation of Kālidāsa, but because they
encourage closer attention to embodiment, fertility, care, domestic space, and
ecological abundance.
The scholarship therefore establishes important
foundations, but a specific analytical space remains open. Existing discussions
tend to examine Meghadūta through aesthetics, messenger poetry, landscape, or
the cloud’s literary function, while these dimensions are less often considered
together as components of a relational ecology. The present study responds to
this gap through close textual analysis of the poem’s mountains, rivers,
forests, urban spaces, and gendered bodies. It argues that Meghadūta constructs
environment as an active field in which geographical movement, emotional
memory, human embodiment, and more-than-human life continually intersect.
Research Gap
Existing scholarship on Meghadūta has
extensively explored separation, messenger poetry, geographical imagination,
and the cloud’s poetic significance. Yet less attention has been given to how
these dimensions converge as an ecological structure. Landscape is valued for
its beauty or symbolic resonance, while its role in shaping movement,
encounter, and emotional experience remains underexamined from an ecocritical
perspective.
A second gap concerns the intersection of
ecological representation and gendered embodiment. Women, gardens, flowers,
water, fragrance, fertility, and domestic spaces repeatedly occupy shared
sensory space, but their relationship has seldom been examined through a
framework that considers environmental relations alongside embodied experience.
A further methodological problem concerns the
use of ecofeminism for a classical Sanskrit text. Such a reading can become
anachronistic if contemporary categories are imposed upon Kālidāsa. The task,
therefore, is not to identify him as an ecofeminist thinker, but to ask what a
historically attentive ecofeminist reading can disclose about gender, nature,
embodiment, and care.
This study addresses these gaps through close textual
analysis informed by ecocriticism and ecofeminist thought. It advances
ecological reciprocity as its central concept, arguing that Meghadūta renders
human feeling and environmental experience mutually formative.
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative,
interpretive methodology grounded in sustained close reading of Kālidāsa’s
Meghadūta. Rather than treating the poem’s natural imagery as an inventory of
picturesque description, the analysis examines how particular environmental
encounters generate meaning within its emotional and narrative movement.
Selected passages from both Pūrvamegha and Uttaramegha are read closely, with
particular attention to Rāmagiri, Āmrakūṭa, the Narmadā, forests and flowering
landscapes, Ujjayinī, and Alakā (Kālidāsa 1.1–2, 1.17–19, 1.27–39, 2.41).
The analysis proceeds through three
interconnected levels. First, it examines the material environment—clouds,
water, mountains, vegetation, weather, and animal life—as active elements
within the poem’s imaginative structure. Second, it considers how these
environments intersect with human movement, memory, desire, and embodied
experience. Third, it investigates the gendered dimensions of these
representations, asking how women, domestic spaces, gardens, fertility, and
sensory abundance are situated within the poem’s wider environmental
imagination.
Primary textual evidence remains central to
every interpretive claim. The poem is cited by canto and verse number rather
than by page number, allowing the analysis to remain consistent across
editions. M. R. Kale’s edition serves as the principal textual reference. The
theoretical framework combines ecocritical inquiry, particularly Glotfelty’s
emphasis on literature’s relationship with the physical environment, with the
ecofeminist perspectives of Warren and Shiva. These theories function as
interpretive tools rather than predetermined conclusions.
Methodologically, the study also maintains historical
caution. It does not retrospectively identify Kālidāsa as a modern
environmentalist or ecofeminist thinker. Instead, close textual analysis is
used to test where contemporary ecocritical and ecofeminist questions
illuminate the poem—and where the text resists such categories. This approach
enables the study to develop its central concept of ecological reciprocity from
the poem’s own patterns of movement, relation, embodiment, and place.
Theoretical Framework: Ecocriticism, Ecofeminism, and
Ecological Reciprocity
Ecocriticism and the More-than-Human World
The theoretical foundation of this study
begins with ecocriticism, particularly its insistence that the physical
environment is integral to literary meaning. Cheryll Glotfelty defines
ecocriticism as “the study of the relationship between literature and the
physical environment” (xviii). This formulation is especially productive for
reading Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta, where mountains, rivers, forests, vegetation,
weather, animals, and inhabited spaces are woven into the poem’s movement
rather than positioned outside its human drama.
From this perspective, the natural world
should not be approached simply as a catalogue of beautiful images. The more
significant question is how environmental elements function within the poem.
The mountain offers a point of encounter; the river shapes the cloud’s passage;
vegetation registers seasonal vitality; and the monsoon provides the temporal
and material conditions for the Yaksha’s imagined communication. Kālidāsa
consequently makes geography part of the poem’s narrative and emotional
structure (Kālidāsa 1.17–19).
The cloud occupies a particularly important
position within this ecology. It is at once a natural phenomenon and the medium
through which the Yaksha attempts to overcome separation. Its capacity to
travel, gather water, cast shade, and move across varied terrains gives the
messenger a material presence that exceeds its conventional symbolic function.
When the Yaksha directs the cloud toward particular mountains, rivers, and
settlements, he is not merely constructing a route; he is creating a chain of
ecological encounters through which his message acquires form (Kālidāsa 1.1–2,
1.17–19).
The poem thus complicates the distinction between human
experience and the more-than-human world. The Yaksha’s emotional state is
articulated through landscape, while landscape becomes emotionally charged
through his memory and desire. This reciprocal movement provides the basis for
the study’s central concept of ecological reciprocity.
Ecofeminism, Gender, and Embodied Environment
Ecocriticism alone, however, does not fully
account for the poem’s representation of gendered bodies and intimate spaces.
The study therefore incorporates ecofeminist thought as a complementary rather
than prescriptive framework.
Karen J. Warren’s Ecofeminist Philosophy
brings questions of gender, nature, ethics, and structures of domination into a
connected field of inquiry. Her work is useful here because it cautions against
treating the relationship between women and nature as merely natural or
inevitable. Instead, it encourages attention to the conceptual structures
through which both women and the natural world may be positioned within systems
of value and power (Warren 21).
Vandana Shiva’s Staying Alive adds an
important South Asian perspective by connecting women’s lives with ecological
processes, subsistence, environmental knowledge, and development. Her work is
particularly relevant to a study seeking to examine ecological relations
without separating environmental questions from lived human experience (Shiva
42).
These perspectives are not applied to
Meghadūta as if Kālidāsa were articulating contemporary ecofeminist theory.
Such a claim would flatten the historical distance between classical Sanskrit
literature and modern critical thought. Instead, ecofeminism functions here as
a critical lens through which the poem’s representations of embodiment,
fertility, care, domesticity, and ecological abundance can be examined.
This distinction becomes important in the
treatment of women in Meghadūta. Female figures are repeatedly situated within
gardens, flowering landscapes, water-rich spaces, fragrance, ornament, and
domestic environments. Their bodies and surroundings participate in the same
sensory field through which desire and separation are expressed (Kālidāsa
1.27–39, 2.41). The critical question, therefore, is not whether women are
simply equated with nature, but how gendered experience is constructed within
particular environments.
Such a reading also avoids an essentialist
interpretation in which femininity is automatically associated with fertility,
passivity, or natural abundance. Instead, it examines the material and spatial
conditions through which female presence becomes meaningful in the poem.
Ecofeminism consequently sharpens the study’s attention to embodiment without
displacing the historical and aesthetic particularities of Kālidāsa’s text.
Toward Ecological Reciprocity
The intersection of these approaches produces
the paper’s principal interpretive proposition: Meghadūta imagines human and
environmental experience as mutually formative. Glotfelty provides the
ecocritical basis for examining literature in relation to the physical world;
Warren enables a more critical engagement with the intersections of gender and
nature; Shiva broadens that inquiry through attention to women’s material
relationships with ecological life; and Kālidāsa’s poem supplies the textual field
in which these questions are tested.
Ecological reciprocity, as used in this
study, therefore does not imply that the poem presents a modern environmental
ethic. It describes a textual pattern in which place shapes emotion while
emotion, memory, and desire continually transform place into meaningful human
experience. The cloud’s passage, the river’s movement, the mountain’s presence,
the flowering landscape, and the remembered beloved are not isolated images.
Together, they form an interconnected imaginative system.
The framework thus remains deliberately
critical rather than celebratory. It recognizes the ecological richness of
Meghadūta without turning Kālidāsa into a contemporary environmental thinker,
and it engages ecofeminism without assuming that classical representations of
women are emancipatory. This historically attentive combination of ecocriticism
and ecofeminist inquiry provides the conceptual basis for the close textual
readings that follow.
Textual Analysis
and Discussion
1. Rāmagiri: Exile as Ecological Displacement
The opening of Meghadūta locates separation
within a specific landscape. Punished by Kubera, the Yaksha resides at
Rāmagiri, a place associated with shaded trees and waters linked to Sītā
(Kālidāsa 1.1). His exile is therefore both emotional and spatial. He has been
separated from his beloved, but he has also been removed from the familiar
surroundings in which his earlier life was rooted. Place consequently becomes
part of the experience of loss.
This spatial dimension becomes especially
significant with the arrival of the rainy season and the appearance of the
cloud. The Yaksha does not encounter an abstract messenger but a meteorological
presence whose movement, moisture, and seasonal arrival make communication
conceivable. His appeal to the cloud thus emerges from the material conditions
of the landscape itself (Kālidāsa 1.2–5). The cloud can travel across the
distance that confines the Yaksha.
The distinction matters. The Yaksha perceives the
environment through the intensity of his longing, even as that longing gives
the surrounding landscape emotional significance. Rāmagiri is therefore more
than a geographical point of departure. It is the first space in the poem where
emotional experience and environmental presence become deeply entangled.
2. Āmrakūṭa and the Narmadā: A Geography of Material
Relations
As the cloud proceeds northward, Kālidāsa
develops this interdependence through encounters among mountain, forest, water,
and rain. At Āmrakūṭa, the cloud is placed in close visual relation to the
mountain’s wooded slopes. Atmospheric and terrestrial spaces are not sharply
separated; instead, cloud, mountain, and vegetation converge within a shared
image (Kālidāsa 1.17–18).
The scene gains further significance through
the relationship between rain, heat, and forest fire. Water assumes a material
as well as an aesthetic function. The cloud does not merely embellish the
landscape; its rain participates imaginatively in the relief and renewal of an
overheated environment. Natural imagery in Meghadūta, therefore, derives much
of its force from interaction rather than isolation.
The Narmadā passage extends this pattern. The
river is perceived through the terrain and vegetation surrounding it, while its
flowing and branching forms become part of the cloud’s passage (Kālidāsa
1.19–22). It is at once water, landscape, movement, and visual experience. The
river does not simply indicate the direction of travel; it helps constitute the
journey itself.
This feature of Meghadūta also illuminates
the broader sandeśakāvya tradition. Hopkins observes that landscape and
emotional communication are closely connected in messenger poetry, where the
route undertaken by the messenger contributes to the affective structure of the
message (Hopkins 29–55). In Kālidāsa’s poem, this relationship becomes
particularly pronounced. The Yaksha’s message acquires imaginative substance
through the environments across which it is projected.
The journey from Rāmagiri to Alakā is consequently not
geographical distance in the abstract. It is distance experienced through
mountains, rivers, forests, settlements, weather, and cultivated spaces.
3. Vegetation, Animals, and the More-than-Human World
The environmental density of Meghadūta
becomes increasingly visible in its recurring attention to trees, creepers,
flowers, birds, animals, water, and seasonal change. These elements do not
function merely as isolated ornaments. Their accumulation creates a world in
which human existence is continually situated among other forms of vitality.
The cloud travels through an environment
already animated by material processes. Shade, rain, fragrance, flowering,
heat, and water shape the conditions of both human and nonhuman life. The
Yaksha’s emotional journey therefore unfolds within a larger field of existence
rather than outside it.
This becomes particularly significant when
women appear within these landscapes. Gardens, flowers, water, fragrance, and
seasonal abundance frequently accompany representations of feminine beauty.
Such imagery belongs to the aesthetic conventions of classical Sanskrit poetry,
and it would be reductive to treat every natural comparison as an ecological
statement. Yet the repeated convergence of female embodiment and material surroundings
invites a more searching inquiry into the politics and poetics of
representation.
Vandana Shiva’s Staying Alive provides a
useful modern critical interlocutor because it emphasizes the material
relationships connecting women, ecological resources, subsistence, and
environmental knowledge. Meghadūta, however, does not articulate Shiva’s
political argument, and Kālidāsa should not be retrospectively identified with
modern ecofeminism. The value of the comparison lies instead in directing
attention to the environments through which female experience is imagined
(Shiva 42).
The women of the poem are frequently aestheticized. Their
beauty is mediated through flowers, fragrance, gardens, water, ornament, and
seasonal vitality. An ecofeminist reading should neither celebrate these
associations uncritically nor dismiss them as merely conventional. Their
tension is itself significant. Female embodiment acquires meaning within a
materially sensuous environment, while that environment becomes more intensely affective
through its association with feminine presence.
4. Ujjayinī: Urban Space and Ecological Continuity
Ujjayinī further complicates any simple
opposition between “nature” and “civilization.” As the cloud approaches the
city, it enters a space shaped by cultivated landscapes, waterways, gardens,
ritual activity, architecture, and human habitation (Kālidāsa 1.27–39). Yet the
movement into the urban sphere does not interrupt the poem’s ecological
continuity.
The city remains dependent upon the same material
processes that animate the landscapes encountered earlier. Water, vegetation,
rain, shade, and seasonal atmosphere continue to shape human experience.
Ujjayinī is therefore not presented as an ecological opposite to the forest or
mountain; it represents another mode of inhabiting and organizing the
environment.
This continuity is central to the poem’s
geographical design. The cloud moves across wild and cultivated spaces without
establishing them as mutually exclusive domains. Its itinerary connects forests,
rivers, settlements, and urban life within a single extended movement.
Bronner’s discussion of the cloud is especially relevant here, since its
mobility enables Kālidāsa to hold geographically and culturally distinct spaces
within a continuous poetic field (Bronner 25–46).
Ecology in Meghadūta, then, includes
inhabited space. Roads, gardens, temples, houses, riversides, and domestic
settings participate in the same material world as mountains and forests. The
poem’s geography is consequently neither exclusively natural nor exclusively
cultural; it is relational.
5. Alakā: Gender, Embodiment, and Ecological Abundance
The movement toward Alakā alters the
emotional register of the poem. The journey remains oriented toward reunion,
yet the destination is imagined through gardens, flowers, water, moonlight,
fragrance, and abundance. Alakā is not simply a distant architectural city; its
sensuous environment forms part of the Yaksha’s conception of home, intimacy,
and belonging.
The representation of the beloved becomes
especially revealing in the later portion of Uttaramegha. Her body is recalled
through a network of natural and material correspondences in which eyes, face,
hair, limbs, tears, ornaments, flowers, moonlight, animals, and water enter a shared
field of perception (Kālidāsa 2.34–45). The absent beloved is thus remembered
through the things that surround, evoke, and visually echo her.
This imagery can be approached from two
directions. On one level, the recurring association of women with flowers,
beauty, fertility, softness, and abundance may reduce female identity to
established aesthetic ideals. Warren’s ecofeminist critique is useful precisely
because it cautions against assuming that conceptual associations between women
and nature are inherently liberating (Warren 21).
At the same time, Meghadūta does not simply
assert an equivalence between woman and nature. The relationship is more
complex. The Yaksha reconstructs his absent beloved through an environment of
sensory correspondences; landscape supplies the imagery through which memory
becomes possible. Conversely, memory transforms those natural images into
carriers of intensely personal emotion.
This becomes particularly poignant when the
Yaksha asks the cloud to communicate his condition to his beloved and imagines
the signs of her response (Kālidāsa 2.41–45). His attempt to bridge separation
depends upon a sequence of material images. Environment becomes, in this sense,
a medium of recollection.
The poem consequently represents embodiment
through relational perception. The beloved is neither detached from her
surroundings nor simply reduced to them. Her remembered presence reorganizes
the significance of flowers, water, moonlight, ornament, and bodily gesture.
What emerges is an ecological reciprocity marked by
tension rather than uncomplicated harmony. Desire coexists with distance;
aestheticization intersects with embodiment; and memory remains dependent upon
material imagery. The ecological force of Meghadūta lies precisely in this
complexity. Human feeling does not exist above the physical world but takes
shape through sustained imaginative engagement with it.
Research Findings
The analysis yields four closely connected
findings. First, Meghadūta constructs exile as both ecological and emotional
displacement. Rāmagiri becomes the material space through which the Yaksha
experiences separation, while the monsoon cloud transforms distance into a
possibility of movement and communication (Kālidāsa 1.1–5).
Second, the poem represents landscape through
dynamic relations rather than static description. At Āmrakūṭa and along the
Narmadā, cloud, rain, mountain, forest, water, and vegetation interact as
elements of a continually changing environment (Kālidāsa 1.17–22). Geography,
therefore, becomes constitutive of the journey’s emotional meaning rather than
merely its setting.
Third, Meghadūta complicates the conventional
binary between nature and culture. Ujjayinī demonstrates that gardens,
waterways, architecture, ritual activity, and seasonal conditions remain
embedded within the poem’s wider ecological continuum (Kālidāsa 1.27–39). Urban
space consequently emerges not as an ecological opposite to the natural world,
but as another mode of inhabiting and organizing it.
Finally, gendered embodiment is repeatedly
articulated through flowers, fragrance, water, gardens, ornament, and other
sensory environments, particularly in the portrayal of the beloved (Kālidāsa
2.34–45). This pattern reveals both the aesthetic conventions and the representational
tensions inherent in the poem’s treatment of femininity and the natural world.
Taken together, these findings substantiate the study’s
concept of ecological reciprocity: environment shapes emotional experience,
while memory and desire continually invest place with affective meaning.
Meghadūta thus offers not a modern environmental doctrine, but a historically
situated and aesthetically complex imagination of human–environmental
interdependence.
Conclusion
Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta presents landscape not
as passive scenery but as an active medium through which longing acquires form
and movement. Rivers, mountains, forests, vegetation, settlements, and seasonal
change become integral to the Yaksha’s emotional experience.
An ecocritical reading reveals this
interdependence, while an ecofeminist perspective exposes its gendered
dimensions. The recurring association of women with gardens, flowers, water,
fragrance, beauty, and domestic spaces creates a sensuous aesthetic, yet also
invites scrutiny of how femininity is imagined through natural abundance. The
woman–nature relationship thus remains neither wholly celebratory nor simply
reductive.
The study does not claim that Meghadūta
anticipates modern environmentalism or ecofeminism. Its significance lies instead
in a relational imagination in which place and feeling continually shape one
another. Memory gives landscape affective meaning, even as material
surroundings condition emotional experience.
Ultimately, Meghadūta demonstrates that
classical Sanskrit poetry can sustain a nuanced ecological reading without
being detached from its own historical, cultural, and aesthetic world. Its
enduring strength lies in precisely this tension: human feeling is imagined
through, rather than apart from, the material world.
Works Cited
Bronner, Yigal. “Reading a Cloud.” The Routledge Companion to Courier Poetry:
From South Asia and Beyond, edited by YigalBronner and David Shulman,
Taylor & Francis, 2025, pp. 25–46.
Glotfelty, Cheryll. “Introduction: Literary
Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis.” The
Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology, edited by Cheryll Glotfelty
and Harold Fromm, University of Georgia Press, 1996, pp. xv–xxxvii.
Hopkins, Steven P. “Lovers, Messengers, and
Beloved Landscapes: ‘Sandeśakāvya’ in Comparative Perspective.” International Journal of Hindu Studies,
vol. 8, nos. 1–3, 2004, pp. 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11407-004-0002-2.
Kālidāsa. The
Meghaduta of Kalidasa. Edited and translated by M. R. Kale, Motilal Banarsidass,
2011.
Shiva, Vandana. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. Zed Books, 1988.
Warren, Karen J. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It
Matters. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.