Industrialization – American Environments to 1893

March 23, 2014

Humanity’s Domination of Nature in “Nature Incorporated”

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

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

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 16, 2014

Nature as a separate entity in “War Upon the Land”

Lisa Brady provides a unique perspective on the Civil War with her environmental history War Upon the Land, as she effectively portrays the importance of the landscape during the Civil War as well as how both the Union and Confederacy approached the environment. However, while her argument is still convincing, I disagree with how she defines nature as a completely separate entity from human society. In her eyes (as Manish noted) nature no longer exists once altered by humans, and that once human’s affect nature it becomes an “agroecosystem.” Brady’s definition of nature doesn’t change her argument all too much, as the argument about the control of nature of the North and the coexistence of nature of the South are unaffected, yet as it pertains to this class, I can’t help but be thrown off by how she disregards humans as a part of nature.

As Manish wrote below, the different perceptions of wilderness were a key element to Brady’s work, and I agree with Manish’s assessment that the Union’s control over the landscape was a result of the industrialism in the North. I disagree that these attempted manipulations of the landscape were a bad thing, however, but instead believe that the North’s manipulation of nature was indicative of the changing landscape of the world and how human’s were playing a greater role within nature than they were previously. The South may have been in harmony with nature (if you consider them different entities), yet their society was reliant on the widespread production of products grown from the earth (tobacco, cotton, etc.) that were reliant on the archaic institution of slavery. Slavery is a part of human society, but as humans progressed and began realizing it was wrong in the 19^th century (evidenced by countries across Latin America abandoned the institution throughout the century, most of which abandoned it before the US), the rise of industrialism occurred at the same time. With the South’s coexisting with nature, as humans in rural society’s had done forever, they were also rooted in institutions like slavery. As humans began to make their mark on the environment with the growth of cities and technology, immoral institutions slowly have disbanded. I apologize as this paragraph has reached “rant status” so I’ll sum up my thoughts briefly: Brady seems to portray the South’s relationship with nature as a positive thing and the North’s approach to nature (and the toll it takes on the environment) as a negative, where I believe that humanity and nature go hand in hand, and as humans become more involved in nature, humanity has become more moral due to the greater communication and control of the landscape.

The Civil War was a battle between the developing North and the unchanging South, and the result of the war left the much of the Southern landscape in ruin. I believe that humanity is part of nature, and that the result of the war was just a further expansion of the urbanizing society. Brady’s work effectively pointed out how the landscape played a role in the War with the different sides, yet her portrayal and definition of nature still bothers me.