“Machine in the Garden” & “Ideas of Nature”
“Ideas of Nature” and “Machine in the Garden”
“Ideas in Nature” by Raymond Williams and “Machine in the Garden” by Leo Marx both explore the evolution of man’s relationship to nature. Evaluating the personification of nature throughout history and literature, Marx describes man’s desire to escape society into an idealized conception of nature. Meanwhile, Williams explores humanity’s struggle to define nature and the societal evolution that has led humans to conclude that man is separate from the natural world.
While both authors explore the divide between society and the natural world, Marx focuses on this divide’s impact on man while Williams illuminates its impact on nature. Exploring the works of Romantic poets such as William Wordsworth and authors such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Marx reveals the theme of the divergence between nature and man throughout literary history and elaborates on the tension created in man by the divide between nature and the industrialized products of society. Further examining the impact of this tension on man, Marx explores some possible reasons why we are so attracted to the “perverse conception of reality” inherent in the American ideal of untouched nature. One reason Marx proposes is that the overarching negative attitude toward urban life and industrialism is inspired by what Sigmund Freud described as our natural desire to be free of constraints, such as those put in place by society.
Whereas Marx uses historical and literary works to evaluate man’s longing to be unified with nature, Williams evaluates historical and philosophical definitions of man’s relationship to nature to reveal how the divide allows us to be ignorant of the scope of our influence on the natural world. Tracing through history, Williams describes how nature progressed from being defined as a God to being defined in terms of its scientifically understood processes. Having examined the historical definitions of Nature, Williams then continues to examine the paradox in man’s relationship to nature. While men are discontented by evidence of disrupted nature, they often fail to recognize the scope of their exploitation of the natural world. In the end, nature is the true sufferer, as human ignorance catalyzes its destruction.
Furthermore, using the ideas from philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Williams illustrates that we cannot define Nature without defining humanity and that this interconnectivity is what causes tension when society so directly separates the two. Drawing on history for support, Williams illuminates the irony in the fact that those who exploit nature the most are also the ones most likely to try to escape the thralls of society. Arguing for reconciliation between the contrasting worlds of man and nature described by Marx, Williams argues that “economics” and “ecology” must cease to be considered two entirely separate and unrelated fields. Only when this reconciliation occurs will nature be free of exploitation for the purposes of human economic and material benefit. Also implied in this proposition is the possibility that if nature ceases to be exploited by man, perhaps the divide between nature and society can begin to close and the tension man feels may be relieved.
In reading these excerpts, I found myself remembering our discussion about “The Grizzly Man” and whether, in entering the habitat of the bears and attempting to coexist with them, Timothy Treadwell was over-stepping a boundary line separating man and nature. Furthermore, I found it interesting that Treadwell seems to exemplify exactly the type of desire to escape that Marx describes in “Machine in the Garden.” I find it intriguing to realize that man’s relationship to nature, his desire to escape the industrialized in favor of the simplicity of the natural world, is something that transcends time and the evolution of society.
Both Marx and Williams reveal crucial paradoxes in the relationship between man and nature. While Marx reveals the irony in man’s desire to escape the world he has created, Benthall reveals his failure to recognize the scope of his influence.
1.) What does Marx mean by the term “the little event”? How does this term fit into his overarching argument about the relationship between man and nature?
2.) What evidence do you see in the modern world of what Marx describes as the separation between ecology and economics? How does this relate to society’s movement toward the goal of sustainability and the relatively new concept of protecting the environment?
3.) Having read about the various definitions of nature that have evolved over the course of human history, have you developed your own definition? If so, what is it? If not, what is holding you back?