The Process of the Environment


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

One of the popular themes we have looked at in this class is the growth of the modern city.  From Chicago to New England, we have discussed how the elimination of space, the development of new technologies and the process of commodification all helped to develop a space that can no longer be considered natural.  Steinberg adds another complication to our understanding of cities by introducing what he calls “organic cities.”

This is not the first time we have encountered a qualification of nature.  William Cronon based much of his argument in Nature Metropolis on the qualification of ‘first’ and ‘second’ nature.  In particular, Cronon looks at the process of how first nature is turned into a commodity through the process of commodification.  This process reminds me in many ways of Steinberg’s argument.  The example of cows is particularly relevant to Cronon.  Steinberg describes how cows once roamed the streets of Atlanta.  However, in 1881 the city passed a law that made it illegal for cows to roam around the streets.  Cow no longer became an inherent part of the city, rather they were tuned into a commodity that was used to support the city.   Steinberg also looks at how horses were crucial to the development of the in-organic city.  He looks at how horses were paired with more efficient ‘horse cars.’  In this example the commodity actually contributed to the annihilation of space. The parallels between these stories and the examples in Cronon show how commodification plays a part in the development of all cities and in the annihilation of space.

I believe this qualification is useful for Steinberg’s argument because it forces us to think of cities as a process rather than just an entity.  By thinking of the modern environment in this way I believe we can help answer the question that Sean and Manish raise in their blog posts; does the modern environment contain an aspect of human interaction or are these two things separate?  I believe when you look at the process of human development you see that nature and human development are inevitably linked.  They both effect each other and thus can not be viewed as separate.

Steinberg also debunks a prevalent myth about the so-called ‘death’ of the organic city. He shows that not all these development were negative because they were inherently un-natural.  He points out that the deconstruction of the organic brought about the construction of health clinics, better schools and more sanitary public spaces.  I think Steinberg raises an important issue to consider when looking at commodification and the development of cities as a whole.  People tend to view commodities as inherently worse than their natural states.  I think it is important to see both sides of the process.  Yes, the thing is being taken from its natural environment but it is also being used to improve and support life in another environment; a city.  In every example we have looked at this semester, commodification has been a necessary part of human development.  It should be treated as such and never pinned as something inherently evil.

Chicago’s Place on the Frontier, and Looking at First and Second Nature


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

Parts II and III of William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis expand upon Cronon’s telling of the story of Chicago from an environmental history perspective.  In part II, Cronon tells the stories of the production, commodification, and transportation of grain, lumber, and meat and how they evolved along with the evolution of Chicago.  In part III, Cronon looks at Chicago geographically, discussing the importance of the city’s location and how the expansion of industrialization westward affected the growing frontier.  I found the organization of these two parts, and his book as a whole, effective.  Cronon tries to tell the story of a city with his book, and the fact he was able to do so while not telling a chronological story is impressive, and in the end made the work more effective as a work of environmental history.

I found Cronon’s further discussion of the railroad impact in the west interesting and a valuable expansion of his discussion in part I.  He discusses the railroad’s impact on Chicago and the surrounding areas in depth in part I, but in part II he writes that the railroads helped instigate the destruction of the bison, something we have already read about in this class.  The railroads made going out and hunting the bison easier, and having a metropolis to bring the bison back and make money only motivated people further to hunt the bison and accelerate their destruction, and at the same time negatively impact Native American life.  He also compares the pre and post railroad worlds in the west, showing how the railroad helped merchants in many ways and wasn’t overwhelming the frontier country but instead bringing them closer together.

Throughout his work, Cronon looks at nature as two types, first and second nature, with first nature being what would exist without any outside intrusion and second nature being the world build upon first nature.  I didn’t love this definition after reading part I, and still don’t after reading parts II and III.  In part II, Cronon does a good job of showing how nature and humans interacted through Chicago with the commodification of elements of nature, but in doing so he weakened the notions of first and second nature.  For Cronon, first nature would be trees in a forest, and humans collecting the trees for lumber and using it commercially would be a result of second nature.  While this is a clear example of humans “dominating” nature and theoretically fits into his classification of nature, as Ian mentioned below, humans worked in harmony with nature in the transportation of the lumber.  By separating nature into two separate spheres, it ignores the concept of humans working in harmony with nature, even if in the example Ian presented humans shaped the environment.  I also agree with Wade in my complaint about this definition, as using first and second nature works in some cases, but it leaves no room for something in between (or Cronon fails to do so) like when something natural becomes a commodity.