The relationship between human and nature should be united, because historically from pre-history age human had a relation with nature to support their life. Human condition is also influenced by the nature such as climate and the weather. But nowadays, the mutualism between both human and nature seems dismissed. Those things can be recognized by disaster and destruction that occurred and happened to human being.
This human being attitude has been a consideration for the critics. Some critics argued that It is caused by human focus on mankind and thought, not to nature. According to Mullik (1962:39) it began in renaissance age when this movement was spread with its interests focus on the proper study of mankind. The attention focussed on humanity or human-centric makes nature to be ignored. So that human thinks themselves as the centre or the subject. This spirit continually stimulate human to have a power on everything unexpectedly toward the nature.
Human-centric means that everything focuses on human because human can think and do everything with the capacity of their mind. This attitude similar with what Descartes statement in Hart (1978:295) “Cogito Ergo sum”, I think, that’s way I am exist. Human has found the power so that the surrounding is viewed as an object. This spirit must be admitted has made some advancement on human civilization in various field. Copernicus discovered the solar system; Columbus found America, and others. However, this human centric often forgets the existence of nature which is in fact as the place for human lives. As the time running, human power on exploration toward nature is getting higher from time to time. However, human forgot that nature is not an object and sometime nature will act by it self.
In literary criticism, some critics has realised this problem. Most of the literary criticism focused on social and cultural, but the nature is forgotten. Critics recently have been successfully defines that all human condition is socially, culturally, and linguistically constructed. This is the misleading of critics who ignore the existence of nature. This is the reason why some critic bore the new criticism that is called ecocriticism. In Wikipedia Glotfelty's working definition "ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment” and one of the implicit goals of the approach is to recoup professional dignity for what Glotfelty calls the "undervalued genre of nature writing". Lawrence Buell defines “‘ecocriticism’ . . . as [a] study of the relationship between literature and the environment conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis” .
In beginning theory, Barry (2002) stated that ecocriticism has four areas which are wilderness (deserts, oceans, and in an habited continents), the scenic sublime (forest, lakes, mountain, cliffs, water fall), the country side (hill, fields, woods), and domestic picturesque (parks, garden, laives). Analyses with ecocriticsm actually celebrate the nature, the life forces, and the wilderness of the world. The element of ecology is easy to be found in literary works. It can be seen wordsworth poetry which is the key element used by him to configured the poetry, but, mostly the critics just see that element as the setting only without questioning the substance of it. For ecocritic the nature is really exist and the entry which actually can affects us if we mistreat it. Nature is not something given or always already but the nature moves all the time.
