Amelia Newcomb
History 256/ Schwartz
Merchant, The Death of Nature Abstract
MAIN POINT/ARGUEMENT
Merchant traces the evolution from the system of organic thought, in which humans seek to exist within the web of nature in a living universe, to the mechanistic view of nature, in which nature was viewed as an inanimate machine to be exploited and dominated by humans. The organic school of thought, which gained popularity during the Renaissance, was divided between Neo-Platonists who advocated a hierarchically structured nature and the Naturalists and Vitalists who advocated an egalitarian structure. Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who is known as the “father of modern science,” transformed the ideas of organic thought into mechanistic thought by justifying the exploitation of nature with the ideas of hierarchy and patriarchy. He compares nature to a woman who is to submit and be dissected through scientific experimentation and empowers scientists and technicians to reveal nature’s secrets so that they might be utilized for the benefit of society. The mechanistic ideas, Merchant argues, were so successful because they provided a new framework of order in a society that was increasingly characterized as disorderly. French mechanists of the 1620’s, including Martin Mersenne (1588-1648), Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), and René Descartes (1596-1650), constructed a mechanical philosophy that presented a solution to the uncertainty and social instability of the times. They rejected the social upheaval and disorder associated with organics and replaced them with a mechanical system that could be manipulated and ordered for control. Hobbes applied the concept of mechanical order to society as a solution to the disorder of the English civil war. Merchant concludes that the transformation from organicism to mechanism between 1500-1700 occurred because mechanism served as the “answer to the problem of social and cosmic order,” and “functioned as a justification for power and dominion over nature”(p. 215) which was a necessary piece of capitalism.
EVIDENCE:
1.2. Giordano Bruno, a naturalist, challenged Neoplatonic
hierarchical structure by unifying the Neo-Platonist soul and spirit into
“absolute unity”(p. 114) and advocating egalitarianism.
1.3. Bacon advocated the exploitation of nature for the
good of the entire human race. He described experimentation and interrogation
of nature using mechanical devices much as witches were interrogated during the
witch trials of this time.
1.4. Bacon justified the exploitation of nature with
utilitarianism. Scientists were to reveal nature’s secrets to benefit
society. Merchant provides an extensive list of craftsman, technicians,
military engineers, humanists and academics that supported this view of
progress.
1.5. Bacon glorified the scientist to look like a priest
with “the power of absolving all human misery through science.”(p. 181)
1.6. Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) questioning of religious
truth and the skeptical movement, which led to uncertainty and
unpredictability, contrasted with the order and control that was associated
with the mechanist movement.
1.7. While Descartes, Mersenne, and Gassendi were divided
on some issues, the all believed that the main problem of the 1620’s was the
search for certainty. They attempted to construct a mechanical philosophy to
present a “solution to the problems of certainty, social stability, and
individual responsibility.”(p. 194) The ideas of mechanism came to be known as
the science of matter in motion and were used to describe the entire universe.
1.8. Hobbes further expanded the mechanistic system of
thought to include societies in which competition and self-interest need to be
regulated by law and order. His idea of a communal theory based on competition
and the need to regulate society like an orderly machine formed the basis of
the market society.
EVALUATION:
While Merchant presents compelling evidence for the reasons behind the switch from the organic system of thinking to the mechanistic view, one wonders how large of an impact these ideas had on the populations as a whole. As Hughes argues in his book, An Environmental History of the World, often the material needs of the population were far more important than the ideas of educated philosophers. According to Merchant, the change from organicism to mechanism is what caused the environmental destruction after the Scientific Revolution. According to Hughes’ argument, the ideas of the organicists were too far from the materialistic necessities of the people and this is the reason for the emergence of mechanism, which justified humans’ exploitation of the world.
While Merchant leaves out an important piece of society by only focusing on the intellectual elite, she effectively traces the “death of nature” that occurred during the Scientific Revolution. The historical change is well supported by her evidence of the changing opinions of the intellectuals. Her argument, however, is somewhat biased. She presents a pessimistic view of science and mechanism that does not take into account the positive impacts of this movement.
Merchant’s connection of the past to the present by asserting that the ideas of the organicists are very similar to current ecological views is quite interesting. She points out that ecological preservation views today are rooted in organic thinking. While Merchant does bring out this continuity, she attempts to impose today’s values on the past. Her criticism of Bacon for his views on nature and women is done with today’s values. While Bacon’s ideas may seem radical today, his views on women were quite typical for his times. He was a natural philosopher writing for an audience of men. Bacon, is therefore a reasonable representation of the ideas of the times, however he seems to be unfairly singled out and critiqued by Merchant. The focus on Bacon seems to imply that he was the only figure advocating such extreme exploitation. Perhaps a more diffuse range of sources would better contextualize Bacon.
Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World
Main Argument:
Thomas traces the evolution of modern sensibility. He begins with the anthropocentrism of Tudor England and the belief that human domination and exploitation of nature were central to the Divine plan and supported by contemporary theology. The strict division between animals and nature served to justify human domination over nature. Only humans combined both matter and intellect and animals were unable to have emotions. Therefore, humans were justified in hunting, domesticating and eating animals.
In the late seventeenth century, the concept of anthropocentrism began to be eroded as it became increasingly popular to believe that God cared as much for beast as for man. These ideas were supported by geologists and other scientific thinkers who discovered that humans were only a small piece in an enormous universe and that the earth was much older that the Holy Scripture predicted. By the eighteenth century, the ideas of utility with respect to nature were commonly accepted and the circle of humanity was opened to include animals who could have feelings. The concept of utility emerged from the Christian tradition that people should care for God’s animals and was accompanied by social change to the industrial order.
By the Early Modern period, natural scientists had extended beyond the scope of utility. During the eighteenth century, there was an increased appreciation for the countryside, a reaction against cultivation, and a respect for wild animals and weeds as many found that man’s domination of nature was in conflict with their moral and aesthetic standards. It was accepted among many that “what was useful and productive was most likely to be ugly and distasteful.”(p. 286) While some, especially the middle and upper classes, extended beyond utility, most found that conservationist ideas were compatible with utility. Despite the changes that occurred towards secular thinking, the concept of utility that originated in religious though, illustrates the continuity of ideas that occurred during this time period.
Evidence:
1.2. Aristotle taught that human’s intellectual or rational
soul was not present in animals. Posture, speech, reason, and religion
distinguished men from animals.
1.3. Cartesianism denied that animals had souls and
justified human domination and right to kill and eat animals.
1.4. From the 1740’s onwards there was increased writings
on animal cruelty and the establishment of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals.
1.5. In the 16th Century, Marian martyr John Bradford
challenged anthropocentrism.
1.6. Anthropocentrism was ended by scientific innovations
in astronomy, botany and zoology and geology. Geologists discovered that man’s
arrival on earth was relatively recent and that the Fall of Man could not be
held responsible for nature’s physical characteristics.
1.7. Emphasis on animal sensations led to criticism of
animal cruelty as they were now within the realm of human morals.
1.8. Urbanization and the spread of cultivation throughout
England, led to an appreciation of the countryside, uncultivated land, weeds,
and wild animals even though the wild was less “productive” than the
countryside. This change was illustrated by the increasing popularity of
topographical art and “landskips.”
1.9. During the eighteenth century, high demand for natural
history books illustrated the increasing popularity of the movement that served
as the basis for conservationism.
1.10.
Emergence of the
vegetarian movement illustrated the ending of anthropocentrism while
maintaining the ideas of utility.
Evaluation:
Thomas’s argument regarding the “dethronement of man” from a position of domination to one of cooperation with the environment it well supported by a huge variety of evidence. Thomas uses so many quotes and passages from authors of the time that he lets the people of the time demonstrate the changes that were occurring through their own words. He even includes poetry as evidence, which while it may have bias, serves as good insight into the thoughts of the literate classes. While his evidence is limited to the literate classes, their ideas impacted the lower classes. The middle class imposed regulations against the “cruel” animal sports practiced by the working classes.
His assertion that this change was accompanied by an increase in the amount of “confusion” in England seems logical. As time went on, a larger literate population and more diffusion of ideas can easily lead to more “confusion.” On the contrary, it seems that during this time period many of the scientific advancements that occurred actually gave more clarity to some earlier ideas such as the origin of humanity and the scope of the universe.
In addition, Thomas does an excellent job of recognizing the changes in perception that occur with time. He states that, “today, when our ascendancy over nature seems nearly complete, there are plenty of commentators ready to look back with nostalgia at earlier periods when a more even balance obtained. But in the Tudor and Stuart age the characteristic attitude was one of exaltation in hard-won human dominance.”(p. 28-29) It is important that he acknowledges the changes in perception that have occurred with time and this adds justification for his argument.
Comparison:
While both Merchant and Thomas deal with Europe during the Scientific revolution and the shift to mechanism, they come to very different conclusions. Merchant argues that this shift allowed for humans to degrade and exploit nature. Thomas, who focused on England through the 18th century, argues that the ending anthropocentrism and shift to utilitarianism caused the “dethronement of man.” The difference in these two opinions can be accounted for as Merchant was looking at history from a feminist view. Her purpose was to persuade that mechanism allowed for the destruction and domination of both nature and women. Thomas’s purpose was to offer a sound historical account that traced the evolution of ideas and the perception of nature. The two may have come to different conclusions regarding the degree of anthropocentrism in nature because they both have very different purposes for their writing and it is very difficult to measure the impact of an idea. Ideas are constantly evolving and changing through time and it is impossible to get a clear perception of the views of the population as a whole. Thomas also extends his studies through the 1800’s. This is slightly longer than Merchant does and may account for the fact that Merchant viewed the change to mechanism negatively. Many of the positive changes that forced man to conserve and respect nature occurred during the late 18th, and 19th centuries.
Despite these differences, both deal with the concept of utilitarianism and the secularization of society that occurred during this time period. They also both agree that we are beginning to move towards conservation and respect for the environment today.