industry – American Environments to 1893

March 23, 2014

Further Complication of Human “Naturalness”

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 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

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 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.