March 2014 – Page 2 – American Environments to 1893

March 24, 2014

Nature Incorporated vs. Rivers of Empire

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Our readings this week focus on the role that water, particularly in the form of rivers, has played in the history of American attempts to exploit nature for economic benefit. The authors of both the main book and the supplementary reading look at the interplay between water, the historical process of mastering nature to the point of harnessing its resources, and the American capitalist system. Interestingly, both books choose to open their introductions by examining a different work by Henry David Thoreau (a famous lover of nature who campaigned emphatically against industrialization and the accompanying loss of natural spaces). However, both books ultimately differ on the ideas of how Americans have controlled nature.

In Nature Incorporated, Theodore Steinberg looks at how New England mill owners in the nineteenth century would vie for control of the area’s rivers, whose currents they used to power the ever-growing number of factories. He places those struggles in the context of a larger overall process of man slowly but surely gaining control of nature. In Rivers of Empire, Donald Worster makes a longer (and I would argue more complex) argument about the role of water in the settling of the arid western regions of the United States. He challenges the pattern in American historiography that claims the American west was a bastion of freedom and individuality highlighted by its people’s struggles to tame the wilderness. Instead, he uses the history of western irrigation projects to argue that the old west was more characterized by authoritative systems designed to keep power in the hands of a small elite. While the books make different arguments, they do not ultimately oppose one another because they are each case studies of radically different areas of the country. In fact, both works succeed in their arguments by making logical arguments based on strong analysis of credible primary sources.

In Nature Incorporated, Steinberg uses the power struggles between mill owners for dominance over New England’s rivers (and the energy they could generate) to reveal links between American economic history and the gradual process of gaining control over nature, the latter of which he sees as the driving force behind all of human history.[1] Thus, Steinberg’s argument centers on the process by which people were able to advance enough to obtain power from New England’s rivers, and the subsequent battles over which mill owners could exert the greatest amount of control over those rivers. The coverage of those battles represents a significant piece of Steinberg’s argument. For example, in one section early on, Steinberg discusses an instance in the 1820s in which the Merrimack Manufacturing Company had its power over a section of the Merrimack River challenged when a nearby landowner built a dam in opposition to the one already operated by the company. After some grappling, all of the property and rights to use of the river were transferred to a larger company by 1830.[2] In his telling of these events, in which he cites both business records and legal documents, Steinberg goes to lengths to emphasize the level of control man has managed to impose on the river, to the point that it is now just a commodity to be fought over by business owners rather than an entity with substantial agency or power.

In Rivers of Empire, Donald Worster takes a firmly Marxist view of history in examining the process of irrigating the arid, desert-like regions of the American west in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. From the beginning of the book, he lets you know that he is arguing against a common thread of thought in American academics and culture that paints the American west as a uniquely individualistic place where a farmer could move to and succeed in if they worked hard and were willing to tame the wilderness of the area without any help. Instead, Worster argues that the west was what he calls a hydraulic society, one with a rigid social order determined by “large-scale manipulation of water” in which a small power elite with “ownership of capital and expertise” were at the top.[3] Worster’s argument hinges on the idea that the task of irrigating the arid western region of the U.S. was such a hugely expensive, and technologically demanding undertaking that powerful Americans had to set up a system of social order (in which the poor were exploited) and “indigenous bureaucracy and corporatism” in order to complete the task.[4] Worster frequently notes in the introduction that his argument is in opposition to most prior scholastic work, which is best embodied by Frederick Jackson Turner’s famous frontier thesis. However, he cites later work in which Turner himself admits that the more desert-like, far flung western regions would not be conquered by “old individual pioneer methods” and would require high levels of “cooperative activity” to solve the water issue.[5] By citing work by an author who is a notable part of the scholarship he is writing against, Worster strengthens his argument greatly.

Worster’s treatment of the passage of the 1902 National Reclamation Act is a great example of his overall argument. The act allowed the government to sell 160-acre parcels of arid land to individuals and use the proceeds to set up irrigation projects on the land, with annual payments for the land creating a refilling fund for more irrigation projects.[6] As Worster points out, scholarship has generally characterized the passage of this act as a progressive move, one in which the government was empowering its citizens to take on the individualistic endeavor of moving out west and setting up a farm.[7] However, Worster’s examination of the congressional debates leading to the passage of the bill reveal a different story. Congressmen voting against the bill tended to argue that by effectively subsidizing western agriculture in this way, the government would be hurting the already struggling eastern farmers. They believed that western expansion should occur at the pace it would naturally based on population growth. On the other side, the congressmen voting for the Reclamation Act focused on all the money that could be made by irrigating and populating the west as quickly as possible, what with the possibility of future railroad projects and new markets to be opened.[8] This line of argument leads Worster to conclude that the Reclamation Act was part of a large-scale implementation of an “established social order” that did not include poor eastern farmers.[9] The section on the National Reclamation Act is a useful microcosm for Worster’s overall argument.

Nature Incorporated and Rivers of Empire each provide excellent narratives of the history of water politics in New England and the American west respectively. Both use thorough analysis of relevant primary sources to successfully make their arguments, though they have somewhat different takes on the way humans controlled nature in the cases each looks at. Steinberg argues in Nature Incorporated that water politics history in New England was a story of the gradual development of mankind’s control over the region’s rivers. Worster, on the other hand, argues that the scarcity of water in the arid west led to irrigation projects that allowed America’s elites to develop the west in a way that economically benefitted them and exploited the poor. In that way, water as a natural element actually exerts control over those many exploited people. However, one can accept both authors’ arguments because each is quite specific to their particular geographic region.

Bibliography

Steinberg, Theodore. Nature Incorporated. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. 1991.

Worster, Donald. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. New York: Oxford University Press. 1985.

[1] Theodore Steinberg, Nature Incorporated (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1991), 12

[2] Ibid, 64-65

[3] Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 7

[4] Ibid, 10

[5] Ibid, 12

[6] Ibid, 160-161

[7] Ibid, 162

[8] Ibid, 164-165

[9] Ibid, 166

March 23, 2014

Winners and Losers in Nature’s Cycle

“Transformation,” “Control,” “Struggle,” “Law,” “Depleted” and “Fouled.” For this week’s reading Ted Steinberg uses these words in his chapter titles which he splits into three parts with headings such as “Origins,” “Maturation,” and “Decline,” no doubt a cyclical connotation behind the use of those words. Steinberg argues that nature has been disregarded in historical discussions about industrial transformation. In many recent class discussions it has been suggested that until recently nature held the backseat to analyses of several major historical events. Even though nature proved more and more essential to the economy, historians and have tended to think of them as being less related than they actually were (and are).

Steinberg states, “Human history is defined by the transformation and control of nature” (12). With increased obsessions about capitalism came an increase in human need to control the environment. Steinberg suggests that prior to the nineteenth century it was more difficult for humans to commodify and privatize water than land. It was not easily subjected to ownership. With time came progress and better methods and thus water came to be controlled in much the same way as land. According to Steinberg with the nineteenth century came this notion that, “Industrial capitalism is as much a battle over nature as it is over work, as likely to result in strife involving water or land as wages or hours” (16). Nature and human control over it was just as important as the common components of an industrial society embedded in a capitalist economy.

Steinberg sets up a framework of “winners” and “losers.” Prior to the nineteenth century water was not controlled. With the emergence of industry came the need to control water and use its power. As Chelsea said last week, “Nineteenth-century Americans assumed that they could take control of nature and succeed in achieving their goals.” By most standards nineteenth-century Americans did succeed, but with a closer examination a different argument could be made, one suggesting they did not succeed. Industrialization consumed Americans’ lives. Industrialists felt a need to control not only the business world but the natural world as well.

Humanity was not “winning” prior to the 1800s, it won during the 1800s/until the mid-1900s, but what about today, the twentieth century? I would argue that in this current cycle of human vs. nature, humanity is the loser and nature is the winner. Today’s society is bares the consequences of actions committed in the nineteenth century, actions that viewed water and land as necessary to success and malleable to meet any need. While nineteenth-century industrialists thought it crucial and keen to build factories and towns near water, is it possible that such actions hurt society more than it helped?

March 23, 2014

Humanity’s Domination of Nature in “Nature Incorporated”

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated for me helped further enforce the idea that humanity and nature coexist in his discussion of the industrial growth in New England and its interactions with water. Steinberg discusses the relationship between nature and society, both economically and legally, and in doing so shows how humans coexisted with nature by controlling it, but despite this control, the nature could counteract it as humans became dependent on it (ie: water/typhoid fever).

Throughout this class we have looked at how nature and humanity have interacted and coexisted, and Steinberg brings in a new perspective. William Cronon discussed in Nature’s Metropolis the economic relationship between nature and human urbanization with the railroad system, seeing railroads as natural. Steinberg creates an economic relationship between nature and human urbanization as well, but with a more obvious component of nature (water). He effectively argues how water instigated economic competition and made water a privatized commodity controlled by man.

At first glance I thought Manish’s connection between War Upon the Land and Nature Incorporated was a stretch, as in the former there was a clear distinction between nature and humanity while in the latter I read the two as one and the same. However I bought the connection once Manish argued that nature was a setting in Steinberg’s work, not a character, a point I find intelligent that helps explain how humans could try and control nature yet be a part of it. The idea of nature as a setting rather than a separate actor allows humans to exist within it, even if the human element has negative effects on the prior existing environment.

A lot of this discussion has been centered on human’s “conquering” of nature in Nature Incorporated, and I believe that this “conquering” is just indicative of humanity’s greater role within the environment, not human’s overtaking the environment. As Emily noted in her post this idea of domination is reinforced with Steinberg’s word choice, yet I interpreted Steinberg’s points as industrialization being another stage of nature’s evolution. Throughout human history people have used elements of nature to survive, whether it be collecting lumber or hunting for sustenance. For me, Steinberg’s discussing of humanity and water convinces me further that urbanization and industrialization is nature and that human’s new usage, dependence, and privatization of water is just a new role water is playing relative to societal evolution, and that the domination is a sign of humanity’s greater role within the environment.

As Ian wrote in his discussion of the chapter “Fouled Water,” industrialization had a clear negative impact on the environment through pollution. The effect on water obviously was a negative one, and Steinberg is critical of this industrialization. I believe that despite the negative effects human had on the New England environment, that doesn’t mean that the humans moving in and industrializing the area means they are not a part of the environment, but instead a dominant part.

March 23, 2014

Further Complication of Human “Naturalness”

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated offers a detailed analysis of the industrialization of New England’s waterways during the nineteenth century. It covers the rise of textile mills along rivers and the resulting shifts in both human society and the natural ecology of rivers. One prominent shift that Steinberg covered throughout the book was the human view of water ownership. The human conception of water use was constantly evolving during the nineteenth century. At the start of the book, water was viewed as a public resource. Many individuals fished in the rivers during the spring months. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, water could be owned and controlled by an individual mill-owner or a large industrial company as long as it was used for the common good. This allowed industry to gain a controlling interest over many of New England’s rivers.

I do think that Manish makes a nice observation about the differing roles of nature in the book by Steinberg as compared to Lisa M. Brady’s War Upon the Land. Much of our last class focused on the discussion of nature as a prominent third actor in the Civil War. In her book, Brady clearly argued that nature was at times as much an enemy of the Union as was the Confederate Army. The nature presented in Steinberg’s work, however, is comparatively much more passive. Throughout the work nature, and water in particular, is a resource fought over by humans. Water does not act on humans, but is instead controlled according to human interests. The actors in Steinberg’s book are humans—the courts, textile industries, and local New England citizens—not nature.

One comment by Steinberg that caught my attention and reminded me of past in-class conversations about the “naturalness” of human civilizations was the claim that “none of nature’s predators has the sharp capacity for reasoned thought that make human beings so potentially harmful to other species” (167-68). Steinberg offered this argument in his chapter titled “Depleted Waters,” which discussed the diminishing number of fish in the New England waterways as a result of nineteenth-century industrialization and overfishing. The first thing I thought of when I read this statement was Ian’s claim that “since birds build nests, it is natural for humans to construct buildings.” I think that Ian makes a strong argument, but the importance of reasoned thought must be considered. A bird building a nest seems like the most basic form of housing. In my opinion, the human equivalent of a bird’s nest is the teepee or log cabin. Both of those structures are very basic and really only provide minimal protection from the elements. More modern structures such as skyscrapers and apartment complexes, however, require much more “reasoned thought” on the part of humans. There are no natural equivalents in the animal world of the skyscraper or apartment complex. While this does not necessarily mean that human constructions are unnatural, I do think that the human ability for “reasoned thought” does further complicate the discussion about the naturalness of human constructions.

March 23, 2014

Nature Incorporated Discussant Questions

1) Steinberg argues that there is a problem in the historical research on industrialization. He argues that the struggle to control nature is as important to the industrialization process as the struggle over workplace conditions, hours and wages. Do you buy this critique and what evidence does he provide for it?

2) Similar to Cronon, do you think that Steinberg would claim that these industrial changes in New England were inevitable?

3) What kinds of conflicts and problems did the industrialists run into as they tried to gain control over the water? Who were the “winners and losers” as Steinberg calls them?

March 23, 2014

The Bond between Nature and Industry

Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated provided an interesting and convincing argument about the significance of water in the development of nineteenth century New England. One way in which I think Steinberg was so effective in presenting his claims was through his linking the growth of industry with transforming views about nature. In his first chapter, Steinberg outlines the ways water was used for commerce and for navigation throughout the eighteenth century. He then contrasts this utilization of water with that of the burgeoning textile industry that emerged in New England and created a demand for waterpower (59). As more textile companies flocked to the Charles and Merrimack Rivers, this demand for waterpower – and thus for control of the water – spiked. As Steinberg clearly indicates, the competition fostered by industrial capitalism soon “necessitated” the privatization of water (46). The agreements over who was entitled to water quickly fostered the idea that water was no longer a force of nature, but rather it “turned water into an instrument” (49). In this way Steinberg asserts that without the forces of industrial capitalism in New England, it is unlikely that water would have become viewed as merely a means to earn profits. Competition throughout industry accelerated ideas about controlling natural resources – in this case water – and consequently distorted nineteenth century views of nature.

In response to Manish’s post, I largely agree with his commentary that man can never divorce himself from nature. However, I would argue that industrialization – at least in the eyes of Steinberg – did “conquer” nature. While humans remain reliant upon nature and can fall victim to its elements, I think that the force of industrialization in New England “conquered” water in such a way that the resource could not return to its original state. An example of this occurs when Steinberg discusses attempts to restock fish populations in the Merrimack. Although efforts to privatize fish and restock waters in New England were largely failures, the attempts demonstrated how nature was so tightly woven into “human agendas” and how people strove to “redesign nature” to fit their economic needs (203-204). These endeavors, compounded with the pollution of rivers discussed by Ian, illustrated how humans had, in effect, conquered nature.

Lastly, I thought that it worked in Steinberg’s favor to narrow the focus of his narrative to New England. While we have largely criticized this approach in class, especially for the last two books we have read, Steinberg does well to articulate the importance of selecting New England. He asserts that the Merrimack Valley held systems for controlling water that were unprecedented in the nineteenth century, and he states that the valley was at the “heartland of waterpowered industry” (95, 243). Unlike previous authors, Steinberg was also able to reiterate that his study centered only on the industry of New England. With that being said, the case of industrial and urban development in nineteenth century New England was so dynamic that we could likely find elements of this type of water and environmental politics throughout the United States. An example that came to my mind was the Chicago described by Cronon in Nature’s Metropolis. Much like Chicago forged the frontier and created a new kind of ecological development in the Midwest, Steinberg argues that the industrial capitalism of New England established a new “ecological relations” with water (11). I found that Steinberg, akin to Cronon, effectively demonstrated how industry transformed not only the environment, but also human perceptions of nature in nineteenth century America.

March 23, 2014

Water: The Source Behind New England’s Industrialization

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated is a compelling piece that offers a detailed analysis of the development of water as a source of power within 19^th century New England. From the outset of the piece, Steinberg frames 19^th century New England’s Industrial sector’s view on nature as “new sources of energy and raw materials” (11). Through this ideology, companies within New England, like the Merrimack Company and Hamilton Company, persisted to exhibit their control upon the nature of the region, most notably the extensive rivers and streams. In this manner, rivers like the Merrimack River were economically transformed into that of a commodity rather than a piece of nature (16).

One of the most compelling arguments from Steinberg’s book is the chapter titled “Fouled Water,” which details the effects of the growth of industry on the rivers within New England. Steinberg describes the effects of industrialization on New England’s water systems as creating “a new ecology of its own with far reaching effects on the water quality of the region’s rivers, and ultimately human existence itself” (206). The rivers in New England became a quick and easy way to dispose of the pollution from various industrial plants, such as paper mills, as well as the overall waste products of the growing population (209, 211). Though some amount of pollution is inevitable, it eventually reached the point in 1870s where the Merrimack River was so polluted from factories along it that it was unfit for domestic purposes, thereby human consumption (224). In fact, due to the enormous amount of waste this river was carrying within its waters, by the 1880s it also became the source of an outbreak of Typhoid Fever within the cities of Lowell and Lawrence (233). These examples, along with many others are the backbone of Steinberg’s argument regarding the negative effects of industrialization on the New England Rivers. Through them, it is easy to see how drastic of an effect industrialization brought upon these waters, as they were transformed into sources of disease and contamination.

Similar to the rivers and streams of New England, I have seen the effects of human pollutants on a water system with the Erie Canal. Though a man-made water system, the Erie Canal has been devastated by human hands through the dumping of waste into its water. I cannot speak for how it was at its start, but after years of trash being thrown into the water, it has a persistent murky brown if not greenish look, a red-flag regarding its level of cleanliness. As I often run along the canal when at home, I view the water as symbol of 19^th century perceptions on nature and its resources. They were not something to be preserved for their purity, but rather exploited as a commodity for industrial growth. Some might argue that the Erie Canal being man-made removes it from nature, but the water that fills it and the fish that inhabit it are both indicate of this waterways place within the environment.

After reading Emily’s post and comments on Steinberg’s neglect to differentiate “using” and “controlling” water, I would have to say I completely agree with her concerns. Though I did not initially realize his neglect until reading Emily’s post, looking back at the book, this appears as a significant shortcoming in the otherwise diligently constructed book. I see a major difference in the two verbs, as we today all use water for various purposes, such as drinking, cleaning, etc., but I doubt any of us claim to control the water in which we use like Steinberg argues 19^th century New England Industrialists did. If he had differentiated this within his work, I believe his argument would have come off as stronger, for he would indicate a clear cut difference in the way Industrialists controlled the flow and power of water vs. your average Lowell citizen using the Merrimack River to wash their clothes. Without a differentiation and clear definition in terms, he almost groups these people together in the way they “used” water, but it is clear from his argument that he perceives their usage as drastically different.

March 23, 2014

The “air thick with progress” and “water…at the heart of it all”

In Nature Incorporated: Industrialization and the Waters of New England , Theodore Steinberg uses a variety of strong verbs to describe how humans intervened in New England’s waterways. “Compelled by these plans to control the natural world, they developed the water, improved it for sale, and managed it with an eye toward its economic potential” (95). This sentence exhibits many of Steinberg’s verbs: controlled, developed, improved, and managed; others he employed throughout the book include dominated, manipulated, and tapped.

Besides displaying Steinberg’s varied diction, I bring up this issue of verbs because it troubled me. Throughout the book, I kept wondering why Steinberg did not ever write the word ‘used’ to refer to how New Englanders dealt with water. The closest any characters in this history come to just plain old using water are Native Americans, early white settlers who “used rivers at first to mark the periphery and limits of their land” (24), and settlers who established agricultural systems in the region. The compulsion to control marks the rest of the history of New England’s water in Steinberg’s view. I agree with his argument to an extent and see the validity of how industrialization shaped the rivers and streams (and how people thought about water as a resource), but I do wish he would have explicitly stated the difference between ‘using’ and ‘controlling’ water and showed ways in which that was possible.

Steinberg bookends his argument with the case of Henry David Thoreau who acts as a foil to industrializing New Englanders: both interact very differently with the same waterways. Thoreau’s account offers an enlightening cultural/artistic perspective, but does it help Steinberg’s argument? I think it mainly serves to create a dualism between ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ uses of nature: one is appreciative and the other is exploitative. Neither provide an opportunity for a third way in which humans can use and not abuse the resource of water.

In Manish’s post, I find a similar concern to my own. He writes, “the relationship between man and nature is best when man demonstrates a balance. He can utilize nature as a resource for his own benefit but he must take caution for abuse of the land can lead nature to grave repercussions such as illness.” There probably are examples of ways in which this balance occurred in nineteenth-century New England, but Steinberg chooses to focus on the transformative effects of industrialization. That is a legitimate focus because change is exciting and maybe history would be terribly boring without it.

March 22, 2014

Nature Incorporated: Has Industry Allowed Man to Control Nature?

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated is a fitting book to read after Lisa Brady’s War Upon the Land for both texts discuss how Americans attempted to control nature in order to achieve some greater goal. This idea of attempted control over nature was something that Chelsea noted in her post from last week. While these two texts share the assumption that Americans believed they could control nature they differ on other ideas such as nature as an actor. Unlike Brady, Steinberg portrays nature much more as a setting rather than a character. It is not something with a consciousness but rather a resource or platform upon which man acts.

For the most part in the early stages of the book Steinberg seems to believe that humans could exert control over the land. He believed that human history “is defined by the transformation and control of nature.” (12) The larger question that he wants to address is how industrial transformation affected human society as well as alter human’s relationship with the natural world. He attempts to answer this question by pursuing three goals. First, examine industrial capitalism through an environmental perspective. Second, examine the competition over nature. Finally, explore the legal history of water in New England.

In my opinion Steinberg has done a good job overall in trying to properly understand the ideas that he poses. The layout of the book sets up an interesting narrative that makes clear the development of industry in New England, the transformation of a natural feature into a resource to be privatized, the resulting competition and the legal precedence that allowed for water to become a foundation upon which industry would rise and dominate the surrounding region and eventually the nation.

While the overall work is one that should be commended, I did find some areas that confused me. On page 69 Steinberg describes how the Boston Associates succeeded in altering the perception of the relationship between man and nature. Originally, nature was something that restrained humanity and limited opportunities. However, with the rise of industry this relationship was reversed and humans were longer dependent on ecology. Humanity had become independent allowing for unlimited opportunity.

However, later in his book Steinberg speaks about how cities are not divorced from the natural world. Cities in my mind are the epitome of industrialism. The urban sprawl is the heartland of industry and innovation. Despite cities being “monuments to human ingenuity” (220) Steinberg believed that they remained as dependent on the natural world as any community in the wilderness.

The second to last section of the book entitled “Fouled Water” speaks about how the water turned against those who had “control” over it. In November 1905 typhoid fever killed more people in Lowell than in all of Boston due to the pathogens that were pumped into the town thanks to the river which had been the source of economic success for so long.

The differing presentations of nature (one which was subjugated to man vs. one that man was completely reliant upon) make it seem as if Steinberg himself is not quite convinced that industrialization had completely “conquered” nature. While man can exert some control over nature he cannot ever divorce himself away from it. The relationship between man and nature is best when man demonstrates a balance. He can utilize nature as a resource for his own benefit but he must take caution for abuse of the land can lead nature to grave repercussions such as illness. Man must also be aware of his over consumption for not only does it change the environment for the worse but over consumption will also threaten social stability as demonstrated in all of the legal cases discussed throughout the book.

March 22, 2014

The debate about “natural” extends to pets

An opinion piece in the NYTimes about whether letting cats outside is a disruption of natural habitats: The Evil of the Outdoor Cat