Marx and Williams Readings Response
In his work “Ideas of Nature” Raymond Williams attempts to explain what people have thought about nature throughout history. He claims that how nature is interpreted by people has evolved and changed as human history has progressed. For instance, in early history, Nature was a competitor or God for control of the natural world. As history progresses, it becomes clear that Nature is interpreted as second to God, “His minister and deputy.” Nature was greatly personified (the “laws of nature”), and a paradox (fierce, yet innocent; calm, yet ferocious). But as history progressed, people began to see nature differently. It was thought at one point (the Scientific Revolution) that one must know all about nature that they could, and then later, that nature was unknowable. There were, of course, differing opinions on what nature was and how to use it. For instance, Hobbes looked at man being in nature only while primitive, while Locke saw nature as “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and cooperation,” one would assume including humans in it.
The history of man became removed from the history of nature, as two separate entities. Later, during the Industrial Revolution, nature became a resource to be exploited for profit by man. It was no longer that man was a part of the history of nature, but that nature was a part of the history of man. Later, though, Charles Darwin brought humans back into the history of nature with his Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. Man became a competitor in this “social jungle,” all thoughts that humans had been above such primal laws were denounced.
Williams continues with the idea that nothing can be done about the view of nature by humans as long as we fail to see the reasons for the alienation of nature. However, these ideas cannot be seen by moving backwards and examining human history, because the separation began essentially at the beginning of human history; with the cultivation of land for farming. Williams claims that the only way to accomplish this is to look at everything as a product, not merely as a by-product of a favorable process.
Although I feel that Williams brings up many valid points throughout his work, and some of his insights are extremely intriguing, I feel that he in essence misses his own point. He claims that by looking back, one cannot change their view of nature, yet this is exactly what he does. He then goes on to explain how to do it, but by that point, it seems futile to even attempt. For indeed, nature is an abstract notion. And why shouldn’t it stay that way? Couldn’t nature exist as an abstract idea, like freedom or equality, that we work towards without knowing exactly what it is? These ideas are studied, as nature has been studied (although perhaps not quite as extensively) and we have a number of laws in place to protect them, but nobody can tell you exactly what they are. This has proved to be a decent system for achieving these ideas, why should it not work with nature as well? It is true, people must see nature as something of value that is worth protecting, but there is no reason it can’t remain an abstract idea, connected as a part of human history. Freedom and equality were exploited as well during human history, but work has been done to rectify that. The same could be achieved of nature.
In Marx’s work “The Machine in the Garden,” he focuses on how nature is represented in American literature. He begins with a summary of writers feelings for nature, how many wish to achieve a return to the rural, or an escape from the urban. Marx goes on to cite a number of academics whose thoughts on the matter view this wishing to return to nature as a block to clear thinking and social progress. This view is not shared by many writers, however, for Marx continues to analyze a number of examples where writers wish to return to nature, or where they are already immersed in nature and it is invaded by the machine, or the grip of the modern, urban world.
This work by Marx does not go on to offer an explanation as to why this is so, outside of some brief postulates mentioned early in the writing. The ending of the excerpt does suggest that this topic is covered more extensively in a later part. Instead, it merely explains that writers were extremely drawn to nature, and seemed to reject industrialization. For this reason, it seems less valid that the work by Williams, as it is only an analysis that appears to offer no new original thought.
Some questions to consider:
1. To what extent does technology impact culture, and to what extent does that impact the view of nature?
2. Can technology influence nature without first influencing culture?
3. Why are authors, or literary people in general, more likely to be drawn to nature than the common person?