Readings on Nature
In “Ideas of Nature,” Raymond Williams attempts to analyze the relationship between man, nature, and their history. He implies that man’s view of nature has changed over time and is dependent on human progress. First he explores the idea of a “singular, abstracted and personified nature” and how it conflicted with a competitor: the monotheistic God. He claims that the history behind this idea was immense and led to the arrival of a compromise in the western world: that “God is the first absolute, but Nature is his minister and deputy.” Williams continues to describe nature’s evolution as an “absolute monarch,” which dominated the majority European thought.
Next, Williams looks at the evolution of man and its effects on how nature is perceived. At some point, distinct generalizations of man in nature arose. Hobbes identified man to be in poor standing with nature while Locke thought the relationship to be full of “peace, goodwill, and mutual assistance.” More importantly, as man evolved, the relationship with nature also evolved. Nature became a resource as opposed to a monarch and the history of man became separate from the history of nature. Williams concludes with his belief that this separation will remain as long as man continues to alienate nature through resource exploitation.
In contrast to Williams, Marx’s “The Machine in the Garden” describes the effects of nature on man, particularly through literature. The main idea here is the tendency for people to want to return to nature. He explains that many writers want to feel close to nature by escaping the urban way of life. He further mentions that many believe this wanting of nature to be an obstacle in our advancement both socially and technologically. But just as this idea starts to settle in, Marx brings out a handful of other examples showing that many writers are in fact integrated into nature and feel that such lifestyles are being invaded by the modern world. This leads us to believe that regardless of how man tries to separate themselves from nature, we will always be drawn towards it.
Both readings clearly try to convey the relationship between man and nature, but while Williams is focused on the effects of man on nature, Marx is interested in the effects of nature on man. Williams looks at the history of the relationship in order to determine how it started and evolved over time. He uses fancy terms in his analysis to describe a relatively simple concept: the more humans progressed, the less they respected nature. In all honesty, such a conclusion is relatively trivial and Williams himself made little to no contribution to the topic. Instead, he brushed up on the theories of other philosophers and filled a chapter of text to tell us something that could have been accomplished in one page. Additionally, his identification of the problem and its corresponding proposed solution is no more enlightening; he fails to mention some of the most important questions of man and nature.
Marx’s writing immediately reminded me of “The Grizzly Man” and Timothy Treadwell’s attempt to become “closer to nature” through the wildlife in nature. Treadwell’s intentions seemed very similar to that of the writers described by Marx and are a good support to Marx’s arguments. However, the analysis also lacks any real insights as to why people are drawn to nature, why people take actions to be closer to nature, and etc. Overall, both readings seemed light on logical reasoning and full of rather unexciting details and jargon.
3 Questions to think about:
1. Why do humans WANT to progress?
2. Are humans suppose to be “part of nature” like other animals? If so, why were we “given” the intelligence to advance so much further than the “rest of nature?”
3. Is it too late for humans to be completely integrated in nature?