Sampling from a variety of Western thinkers, philosophers and biologists, Arnold pieces together a history of nature. Nature's effects on human history are first viewed from the vantage of race herein at the "determinant" of climate. Arnold continues on to show how nature has power over human lives, citing French rural history, Mediterranean history, and Easter Island. As an example of environmental crisis, he gives an account of the bubonic plague. Then he charts the interplay between this event and the subsequent slavery of Africans and the holocaust of the Aztecs and native Americans, stressing the multidimensionality of agents thereof.
I like that Arnold discredits a lot of ancient thought, but not without noting its significance in understanding the context of the times in which it was written.Arnold notes disease as the first agent of globalization, which is fascinating to think about.He also makes interesting reflections on the way in which perspectives on indigenity informed western ideas of nature. Arnold positions nature as a source of authority, identity and defiance, despite common assumptions that nature is blissfull, peaceful and that which is untouched by man. He also positions nature as an "agent of influence" claiming that there is a circular relationship between affected and 'affecter': man influences nature, nature influences man. Despite his open-mindedness, Arnold leaves a few holes: i/e The idea of nature as a closed system seems possible to disprove, considering outerspace: why do we not include that in "nature"? it seems most natural and awe-inspiring of all.
Arnold’s perspective on how nature is at the base of social power structures across the globe is incredibly multidimensional, giving a solid foundation to his theory. The Alfred Crosby quote in the Introduction, later addressed in Chapter V, served great purpose, enabling a clear mental vision of man as a “biological entity’” while reading. There are some powerful concepts presented here, particularly those in the Malthusian vein. The idea of a holocaust “without human author” illustrates that nature as a whole can be violent and destructive, and that those qualities cannot simply just be pegged to humans. It is incredible that the role of the environment as presented by Arnold can discredit human responsibility for human triumphs and achievements, as well as abominable offenses against others.
A brief point in the early chapters of Arnold’s book mentions the modern theory of eco-feminism, which I found interesting in the context of certain other sections of the text. Eco-feminism as a concept equates natural processes and untouched environment (for example, the shifting of seasons, cyclical growth of wildlife, and interrelations of animals and their habitats) with a “female” stereotype (including notions of cyclical growth, birth, emotion, etc.); conversely, it seeks to identify a “male” stereotype with exploitation and degradation of nature, usually resulting in industrialization. This can also relate to the theorized notion of “civilization”; that is, the real or imagined dichotomy between civilized societies and savagery. In this view, perhaps the “feminine” would be considered savage, as women supposedly would have a greater connection to nature than men; men would purportedly be named the conquerors of such “savagery,” which can more simply be read as closeness to the natural world.
Put into the context of the book, this minor mention of eco-feminism (on pg.14) places ideas of industrialization and “natural imperialism” into a new light. Arnold does not seem to either support or discount this ecological standpoint, but the fact that he points it out is quite interesting indeed. Antiquated ideas of European expansion based around the destruction of indigenous landscapes and cultures, when put into the spotlight of eco-feminism, can be seen in a new and even more complex historical light. The addition of eco-feminism as a way to think about humankind and nature adds the question of gender into the history of imperialism and expansion, thus intensifying and complicating the dialogue. Is it appropriate to identify these two opposing ideas about nature—destruction versus creation, dominance versus connection and understanding—with gendered nouns? Is it even possible to so pigeonhole both genders? Is eco-feminism a valid addition to Arnold’s discussion of nature and humankind?
My basic understanding of the book so far is that Arnold points out that we tend to ignore nature's role in some events in our history. We tend to think that "the proper study of history is people," not nature. It is not obvious at first that climate, disease, vegetation, etc have and still continue to influence our history, present, and future. We have to look at things differently in order to really understand history.
Nature cannot be ignored within historical perspective. Historians such as Toynbee argue that the more civilized societies are able to dominate nature, while others succumb to an overpowering climate. Arnold reminds the reader that man and the environment have a history of “constant repetition” which limits human lifestyles. According to Malthus, nature plays an important role in human reproduction as well as its destruction. Disease brings into question human survival within the surrounding environment. The transfer of plague shows our connection to other beings. Diseases do not remain the same through out the course of history, as nature and man evolve together.
The Botany of Desire is about the relationship between people and plants and how the two benefit from each other. The author states that we take for granted the domesticated plants that provide us with food, shelter, beauty and “entertainment”. Some plants like the apple tree have evolved to produce a sweat, juicy fruit which is attractive to animals like humans. A human eats the sweet fruit and often spreads the seeds inside the fruit to a location away from the mother tree. This is an example of an interdependent relationship between a plant and a human. The author says the apple tree ”co-evolved” with a set of animal species like humans. The tree provides nutrition for the animal and the animal provides seed dispersal for the tree. We domesticated plants and plants “domesticated” us.
Arnold examines human history's encounter with the environment to show how theories of nature have both drawn from and influenced relationships between man and nature, and relationships between man and man. At least since Hippocrates, humans have considered nature a contributing, and sometimes determining factor of societal development. Arnold points us to the many Enlightenment thinkers that wrote about nature as an obstacle that European civilization successfully overcame, with the implication or often explicit argument that that proved the inferiority of other races and justified European expansionism. Arnold also looks at how nature as disease creates conditions that permeate all parts of society and irreversibly effect relationships across geographical divides. His research highlights nature as an actor in human history that students of social science cannot afford to ignore.
I think Arnold is trying to convey the idea that although most humans think history is shaped and molded by individuals and events, historians tend to discredit the role nature plays in large historic moments or moments. That history has been affected in many instances by nature, wether by disease, or famine, or natural occurrences, and people tend to discredit the power that nature holds over all beings including humans. Also he credits violence to nature not specify to humans. I think he holds a valid and interesting point
This is very interesting because towards the beginning of Arnold's text he mentions how positive nature has recently been reflected in writings but how opposite it is treated in today's world. That paradox really interesting. I found this text to mainly be about all the different parts of ecological history and how the view of the relationship between nature and man has changed over time. Only recently have us humans begun to take responsibility for our actions and place in the world. This is a new idea. The question 'do these studies of the environment help to unify us or do they give us reasons to believe we are very different from region to region?' It is something to think about because the studies can and have essentially done both. "Environmental history has the capacity to be world history" (Arnold 7). It was also expressed in this book that in order to understand nature we need to make it of some relevance to our world history and maybe then it will have the ability to take on a new and more important meaning. It was only 200 years ago that the concerns of the world have switched from the hazardous nature to the hazardous humans. The most interesting point made here was the affects of climate on man's actions and behavior. Greek thought posed the idea that nature is actually what made people different from one another. Then later on there was Toynbee who believed that humans were being influenced less and less by their environment. I believe these ideas will constantly keep changing.
David Arnold’s The Problem of Nature explores the history of nature and our environment. It is interesting to think about how humans have always thought about history only as it applies to humans; our history is a selfish one; we don’t include anything that’s not human. However, through reading this book, its so obvious how much our environment has affected this human history whether we write it down in text books or not. We think that “the mark of civilization is precisely its ability to rise above narrow environmental constraints” and therefore don’t acknowledge the fact that environment informs many ideas and greatly effects the growth of civilization.
David Arnold’s The Problem of Nature explores the history of nature and our environment. It is interesting to think about how humans have always thought about history only as it applies to humans; our history is a selfish one; we don’t include anything that’s not human. However, through reading this book, its so obvious how much our environment has affected this human history whether we write it down in text books or not. We think that “the mark of civilization is precisely its ability to rise above narrow environmental constraints” and therefore don’t acknowledge the fact that environment informs many ideas and greatly effects the growth of civilization.
While I enjoyed the beginning of The Problem of Nature, I became slightly off-put when the focus of the book was shifted to the writings of Hoppocrates and Darwin. Particular attention was given to the notion ‘survival of the fittest’ and climate determenism. While I was interested in encouraging myself to think about nature and environment in relation to health and medicine, I was not so pleased to think about such things in relation to racial disparencies, that is to say, racial categorization and even racial stereotyping and descrimination. Though I personally hold the belief that race is a social rather than biological construct, I tried to remove my own previously held beliefs, along with the (justifyably) scornful tone of Arnold, and think in the perspective of Darwin or Montesquieu. And while I succeeded in rationalizing the way in which such scientists and philosophers could concieve of a link between one’s envrionment and one’s health, I could simply not bring myself to understand how they made the drastic claim that climate has the ability (or desire) to dictate the very frabric or personal temperament of an entire geographical community. Continuing, I was pleased to discover later on in the reading that Arnold came to simlar conclusions; it is in the discussion of the Black Death that it becomes apparent to any reader that despite what type of climate or environment someone may be from, that we are all human, experience similar bodily functions, and though some perhaps have stronger immunity than others, that ultimetly we are more alike than we are different.
In order to deviate from all of the good previous comments and summaries everyone has provided, I'd to focus on the ideas represented in the Easter Island example. At the base of the argument is an adherence to the concept of the "closed room" or the state of being finite. This seemingly basic frame of thought is what was actually lacking - and to a large degree is still lacking - when we think of the environment. No reflection is paid towards a resource when we don't consider it as equal or except the fact that it is bound to the same laws of life as man. That there is a beginning and an end and a balance which must be maintained, this is due to a lack of infinity in the entire world - encompassing every organism, even the Earth itself. If we take Easter Island as a microcosm of Earth we're given a unique perspective on the effect humankind has on a finite and secluded environment which has developed an order of living before the arrival of humankind itself. When the society of Easter Island upset the balance in their fragile ecosystem the sustainability of the land collapsed and as a result, the native population suffered. Easter Island is really just an historically accurate account of the result of man's overabundance and lack of recognition of all that is finite, not necessarily that man is an evil creature and should be put in opposition of nature.
In the sub-section "Civilization and Climate", Arnold refers to the way environmental attitudes change in relation to the ideological needs of the time. In the 19th century, this manifested as regarding nature from the mindset of the imperialist or the darwinist (or social/environmental darwinist for that matter). This seeked to justify environmental exploitation that was before not considered moral. For example, it allowed certain countries to seek out land throughout the world for their own. The dawning of the imperial age (and revolutions in industry) seem to have made the earth seem more like a tool for human exploitation than ever before. Arnold even hints that Karl Marx, who rallied against capitalism, seemed to think of this exploitation as necessary. MATERIALIST dialectics suggests that the environment is primarily a commodity. While today, the attitude seems very much the same, I still see some shifts in attitude. However, instead of shifting away from environmental exploitation and consumerism altogether, the recent trend has been a certain "green" capitalism, which arguably is not much better. The earth is still regarded as mostly a resource for our taking.
As a religious studies major, I am particularly interested in Christianities influence in the Western perception, shaping, and domination over nature. The idea that plants, animals, ocean, and sky were created for man by God has greatly influenced the western perception of ownership, land, and the idea of nature as a whole. In addition, a great deal of early religious doctrine (in many cultures) reflects the innate human fear of the unknown and the unpredictable, and attempts to explain natural phenomenon such as floods and earthquakes as forms of punishment or vengeance. Humans have also found ways to “subdue” the violent and unpredictable landscape through practices such as sacrifice and prayer to God(s). Because of this, I found Arnolds discussion of the western relationship (colonization, introduction of new plants/diseases) with nature interesting, especially the concept that nature is a pervasive force that cannot ever truly be conquered. However, though perceptions of nature may alter from society to society, I believe the fear of nature and the consequent desire to control it is a common human condition. Arnold emphasizes the way in which European history has been altered to make man appear as the conqueror, when in fact humanity and culture has often succumb to, or at least been radically shaped by, the natural world.
18 comments:
Sampling from a variety of Western thinkers, philosophers and biologists, Arnold pieces together a history of nature. Nature's effects on human history are first viewed from the vantage of race herein at the "determinant" of climate. Arnold continues on to show how nature has power over human lives, citing French rural history, Mediterranean history, and Easter Island. As an example of environmental crisis, he gives an account of the bubonic plague. Then he charts the interplay between this event and the subsequent slavery of Africans and the holocaust of the Aztecs and native Americans, stressing the multidimensionality of agents thereof.
I like that Arnold discredits a lot of ancient thought, but not without noting its significance in understanding the context of the times in which it was written.Arnold notes disease as the first agent of globalization, which is fascinating to think about.He also makes interesting reflections on the way in which perspectives on indigenity informed western ideas of nature. Arnold positions nature as a source of authority, identity and defiance, despite common assumptions that nature is blissfull, peaceful and that which is untouched by man. He also positions nature as an "agent of influence" claiming that there is a circular relationship between affected and 'affecter': man influences nature, nature influences man. Despite his open-mindedness, Arnold leaves a few holes: i/e The idea of nature as a closed system seems possible to disprove, considering outerspace: why do we not include that in "nature"? it seems most natural and awe-inspiring of all.
Arnold’s perspective on how nature is at the base of social power structures across the globe is incredibly multidimensional, giving a solid foundation to his theory. The Alfred Crosby quote in the Introduction, later addressed in Chapter V, served great purpose, enabling a clear mental vision of man as a “biological entity’” while reading. There are some powerful concepts presented here, particularly those in the Malthusian vein. The idea of a holocaust “without human author” illustrates that nature as a whole can be violent and destructive, and that those qualities cannot simply just be pegged to humans. It is incredible that the role of the environment as presented by Arnold can discredit human responsibility for human triumphs and achievements, as well as abominable offenses against others.
A brief point in the early chapters of Arnold’s book mentions the modern theory of eco-feminism, which I found interesting in the context of certain other sections of the text. Eco-feminism as a concept equates natural processes and untouched environment (for example, the shifting of seasons, cyclical growth of wildlife, and interrelations of animals and their habitats) with a “female” stereotype (including notions of cyclical growth, birth, emotion, etc.); conversely, it seeks to identify a “male” stereotype with exploitation and degradation of nature, usually resulting in industrialization. This can also relate to the theorized notion of “civilization”; that is, the real or imagined dichotomy between civilized societies and savagery. In this view, perhaps the “feminine” would be considered savage, as women supposedly would have a greater connection to nature than men; men would purportedly be named the conquerors of such “savagery,” which can more simply be read as closeness to the natural world.
Put into the context of the book, this minor mention of eco-feminism (on pg.14) places ideas of industrialization and “natural imperialism” into a new light. Arnold does not seem to either support or discount this ecological standpoint, but the fact that he points it out is quite interesting indeed. Antiquated ideas of European expansion based around the destruction of indigenous landscapes and cultures, when put into the spotlight of eco-feminism, can be seen in a new and even more complex historical light. The addition of eco-feminism as a way to think about humankind and nature adds the question of gender into the history of imperialism and expansion, thus intensifying and complicating the dialogue. Is it appropriate to identify these two opposing ideas about nature—destruction versus creation, dominance versus connection and understanding—with gendered nouns? Is it even possible to so pigeonhole both genders? Is eco-feminism a valid addition to Arnold’s discussion of nature and humankind?
My basic understanding of the book so far is that Arnold points out that we tend to ignore nature's role in some events in our history. We tend to think that "the proper study of history is people," not nature. It is not obvious at first that climate, disease, vegetation, etc have and still continue to influence our history, present, and future. We have to look at things differently in order to really understand history.
-Jacqueline Gallerson
Nature cannot be ignored within historical perspective. Historians such as Toynbee argue that the more civilized societies are able to dominate nature, while others succumb to an overpowering climate. Arnold reminds the reader that man and the environment have a history of “constant repetition” which limits human lifestyles. According to Malthus, nature plays an important role in human reproduction as well as its destruction. Disease brings into question human survival within the surrounding environment. The transfer of plague shows our connection to other beings. Diseases do not remain the same through out the course of history, as nature and man evolve together.
The Botany of Desire is about the relationship between people and plants and how the two benefit from each other. The author states that we take for granted the domesticated plants that provide us with food, shelter, beauty and “entertainment”. Some plants like the apple tree have evolved to produce a sweat, juicy fruit which is attractive to animals like humans. A human eats the sweet fruit and often spreads the seeds inside the fruit to a location away from the mother tree. This is an example of an interdependent relationship between a plant and a human. The author says the apple tree ”co-evolved” with a set of animal species like humans. The tree provides nutrition for the animal and the animal provides seed dispersal for the tree. We domesticated plants and plants “domesticated” us.
Arnold examines human history's encounter with the environment to show how theories of nature have both drawn from and influenced relationships between man and nature, and relationships between man and man. At least since Hippocrates, humans have considered nature a contributing, and sometimes determining factor of societal development. Arnold points us to the many Enlightenment thinkers that wrote about nature as an obstacle that European civilization successfully overcame, with the implication or often explicit argument that that proved the inferiority of other races and justified European expansionism. Arnold also looks at how nature as disease creates conditions that permeate all parts of society and irreversibly effect relationships across geographical divides. His research highlights nature as an actor in human history that students of social science cannot afford to ignore.
I think Arnold is trying to convey the idea that although most humans think history is shaped and molded by individuals and events, historians tend to discredit the role nature plays in large historic moments or moments. That history has been affected in many instances by nature, wether by disease, or famine, or natural occurrences, and people tend to discredit the power that nature holds over all beings including humans. Also he credits violence to nature not specify to humans. I think he holds a valid and interesting point
This is very interesting because towards the beginning of Arnold's text he mentions how positive nature has recently been reflected in writings but how opposite it is treated in today's world. That paradox really interesting. I found this text to mainly be about all the different parts of ecological history and how the view of the relationship between nature and man has changed over time. Only recently have us humans begun to take responsibility for our actions and place in the world. This is a new idea. The question 'do these studies of the environment help to unify us or do they give us reasons to believe we are very different from region to region?' It is something to think about because the studies can and have essentially done both. "Environmental history has the capacity to be world history" (Arnold 7). It was also expressed in this book that in order to understand nature we need to make it of some relevance to our world history and maybe then it will have the ability to take on a new and more important meaning. It was only 200 years ago that the concerns of the world have switched from the hazardous nature to the hazardous humans.
The most interesting point made here was the affects of climate on man's actions and behavior. Greek thought posed the idea that nature is actually what made people different from one another. Then later on there was Toynbee who believed that humans were being influenced less and less by their environment. I believe these ideas will constantly keep changing.
David Arnold’s The Problem of Nature explores the history of nature and our environment. It is interesting to think about how humans have always thought about history only as it applies to humans; our history is a selfish one; we don’t include anything that’s not human. However, through reading this book, its so obvious how much our environment has affected this human history whether we write it down in text books or not. We think that “the mark of civilization is precisely its ability to rise above narrow environmental constraints” and therefore don’t acknowledge the fact that environment informs many ideas and greatly effects the growth of civilization.
David Arnold’s The Problem of Nature explores the history of nature and our environment. It is interesting to think about how humans have always thought about history only as it applies to humans; our history is a selfish one; we don’t include anything that’s not human. However, through reading this book, its so obvious how much our environment has affected this human history whether we write it down in text books or not. We think that “the mark of civilization is precisely its ability to rise above narrow environmental constraints” and therefore don’t acknowledge the fact that environment informs many ideas and greatly effects the growth of civilization.
While I enjoyed the beginning of The Problem of Nature, I became slightly off-put when the focus of the book was shifted to the writings of Hoppocrates and Darwin. Particular attention was given to the notion ‘survival of the fittest’ and climate determenism. While I was interested in encouraging myself to think about nature and environment in relation to health and medicine, I was not so pleased to think about such things in relation to racial disparencies, that is to say, racial categorization and even racial stereotyping and descrimination. Though I personally hold the belief that race is a social rather than biological construct, I tried to remove my own previously held beliefs, along with the (justifyably) scornful tone of Arnold, and think in the perspective of Darwin or Montesquieu. And while I succeeded in rationalizing the way in which such scientists and philosophers could concieve of a link between one’s envrionment and one’s health, I could simply not bring myself to understand how they made the drastic claim that climate has the ability (or desire) to dictate the very frabric or personal temperament of an entire geographical community. Continuing, I was pleased to discover later on in the reading that Arnold came to simlar conclusions; it is in the discussion of the Black Death that it becomes apparent to any reader that despite what type of climate or environment someone may be from, that we are all human, experience similar bodily functions, and though some perhaps have stronger immunity than others, that ultimetly we are more alike than we are different.
In order to deviate from all of the good previous comments and summaries everyone has provided, I'd to focus on the ideas represented in the Easter Island example. At the base of the argument is an adherence to the concept of the "closed room" or the state of being finite. This seemingly basic frame of thought is what was actually lacking - and to a large degree is still lacking - when we think of the environment. No reflection is paid towards a resource when we don't consider it as equal or except the fact that it is bound to the same laws of life as man. That there is a beginning and an end and a balance which must be maintained, this is due to a lack of infinity in the entire world - encompassing every organism, even the Earth itself. If we take Easter Island as a microcosm of Earth we're given a unique perspective on the effect humankind has on a finite and secluded environment which has developed an order of living before the arrival of humankind itself. When the society of Easter Island upset the balance in their fragile ecosystem the sustainability of the land collapsed and as a result, the native population suffered. Easter Island is really just an historically accurate account of the result of man's overabundance and lack of recognition of all that is finite, not necessarily that man is an evil creature and should be put in opposition of nature.
In the sub-section "Civilization and Climate", Arnold refers to the way environmental attitudes change in relation to the ideological needs of the time. In the 19th century, this manifested as regarding nature from the mindset of the imperialist or the darwinist (or social/environmental darwinist for that matter). This seeked to justify environmental exploitation that was before not considered moral. For example, it allowed certain countries to seek out land throughout the world for their own. The dawning of the imperial age (and revolutions in industry) seem to have made the earth seem more like a tool for human exploitation than ever before. Arnold even hints that Karl Marx, who rallied against capitalism, seemed to think of this exploitation as necessary. MATERIALIST dialectics suggests that the environment is primarily a commodity. While today, the attitude seems very much the same, I still see some shifts in attitude. However, instead of shifting away from environmental exploitation and consumerism altogether, the recent trend has been a certain "green" capitalism, which arguably is not much better. The earth is still regarded as mostly a resource for our taking.
Eva
As a religious studies major, I am particularly interested in Christianities influence in the Western perception, shaping, and domination over nature. The idea that plants, animals, ocean, and sky were created for man by God has greatly influenced the western perception of ownership, land, and the idea of nature as a whole. In addition, a great deal of early religious doctrine (in many cultures) reflects the innate human fear of the unknown and the unpredictable, and attempts to explain natural phenomenon such as floods and earthquakes as forms of punishment or vengeance. Humans have also found ways to “subdue” the violent and unpredictable landscape through practices such as sacrifice and prayer to God(s). Because of this, I found Arnolds discussion of the western relationship (colonization, introduction of new plants/diseases) with nature interesting, especially the concept that nature is a pervasive force that cannot ever truly be conquered. However, though perceptions of nature may alter from society to society, I believe the fear of nature and the consequent desire to control it is a common human condition. Arnold emphasizes the way in which European history has been altered to make man appear as the conqueror, when in fact humanity and culture has often succumb to, or at least been radically shaped by, the natural world.
Post a Comment