The Real Truth About Cranes
4 October 2007
“…it took a good heart to know the real truth about cranes.”
– Gordon L. Miller, “The Fowls of the Heave and the Fate of the Earth: Assessing the Early Modern Revolution in Natural History”
In my class, “Nature Writing and Environmentalism”, we had to read the article from which I quoted above. The main thesis was pretty simple, but also struck me as profound. By comparing two famous British naturalists, Edward Topsell (1572 -1625) and John Ray (1607 – 1705), Miller suggested that the Scientific Revolution, considered by many to be primarily a movement in the physical sciences (ie, astronomy and physics), also changed the way people viewed the natural sciences (ie, biology and zoology), and thus, altered the way they viewed nature itself.
Interesting enough, right? The argument preceded to take the two naturalists’ zoological works and show how they each treated cranes (those are birds, by the way, not the giant sticks that lift things). Topsell, who published his major works in 1607 and 1608, devoted 14,000 words to describing the birds. He not only described their physical and behavioral characteristics, but also gave the reader a glimpse of what we may call the noumenal aspects of cranes. Basically, in addition to providing what we would call “facts,” Topsell gave stories, lessons, and other various non-scientific (or, at least, what we think of as non-scientific) bits of information about cranes in his account.
Now, compare this to John Ray, who published his “Ornithology” in 1676 (about fifty years after Topsell wrote about cranes). Ray’s description of the creatures is a stark 1,000 words, and only contains information concerning the morphology of cranes, as well as some behavioral patterns. There are no allegories, no stories. It is extremely similar to any field guide a modern dweller could find on the shelves of a bookstore. Strict, scientific, unpoetic.
Why is this distinction important?
Miller suggests that this difference between the two shows a shift in perspectives. Whereas before, in the case of Topsell, humans saw nature as mysterious, symbolic, vital, in the modern era, we have now come to view the Earth and its creatures more in the light of Ray: as machines, products of matter, systematic.
Pretty fascinating stuff, I think. So, let’s take a step back. How does this apply to us right now?
If Miller is right, and the shift from viewing nature as sacred and mysterious to viewing nature as a tool or resource took place during the Scientific Revolution, if he is correct in that many of the ecological and environmental problems we’ve given ourselves are the result of our attitude towards nature, and if Miller is right about all this (and I’m inclined to think he is), then there is a serious problem both within our dominant culture, but maybe even within the scientific community itself.
Now, before I am labeled a hippie who hates all things that aren’t covered in prayer flags and condoms, let me just assure you that I have no qualms with science or scientific rigor, nor do I have a problem with the many blessings the study of nature has given us (I’m typing on a very complex piece of manufactured rock, after all).
What I do have a problem with (and here comes the actual hippie part) is the attitude our culture has towards science. You know how people always look back on the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and say, “Good Lord! How could those people have trusted so much in these priests? How could they have really let those silly men control so much of their lives?” I think that when we ask those sorts of questions, it’s more our disbelief that people of that age would let so much of their world view be shaped by one group of professionals, instead of taking into account the other systems of thought floating about them. It’s the practice of letting one ideology, one set system, define the way you choose to live your life that we abhor, not the ideology itself.
I think that most people would agree that monopolies are never a good thing. I think this is especially true in the case of ideology and philosophy. And to be frank, I think that empiricism has the monopoly right now.
The truth is, I don’t know, and I probably will never know, if this emphasis on the scientific is going to lead our race to salvation or destruction; it certainly has the potential for both. But the fact that this issue isn’t being debated in mainstream culture is not encouraging. I think it’s going to take a lot of time, patience, and thought to sort this mess out. The only thing I think we need to do is actually begin to discuss whether or not this mechanistic view of nature is going to be best for the Earth and its life in the long run.
Is there a place left for those of us who try to see the inner life of nature? Will science let those of us who find something (dare I say it?) spiritual in animals, plants, and each other, coexist as equals? I hope so. And I hope that eventually, our society, and developed societies all over the world, will be able to come back to where we came from, and see ourselves once again as sharing a deeply rooted connection with the inner life of nature.
Because while some may call me overly sentimental, I still think it takes more than a microscope and a GPS tracker to know the real truth about cranes.
Bryson Nitta
4 October 2007 at 1:05 pm
Fascinating stuff, though I’m afraid it appears that you are a hippie who hates all things that aren’t covered in prayer flags and condoms. I have a few minor things to quibble about. Your argument seems to go as follows: west adopts scientific, rational view of nature during scientific revolution; empiricism holds a philosophical monopoly in how we view nature; monopolies=bad; therefore we need to have different perspectives on nature.
I disagree on the extent to which our view of nature changed after the scientific revolution. Miller may be right in arguing that scientists looked at the natural world much differently after the scientific revolution, but that doesn’t mean things changed for the general populace. Your average Hans living in Europe did not even understand the scientific process until extensive public schooling came about in the 20th century.
More importantly, how much the west analyzes and thinks about nature scientifically does not change how the west looks at nature on a larger scale-on nature’s place within humanity. Both before and after the scientific revolution the west views nature as a resource: something to be conquered, developed, and used for human benefit. The problem was and is that people believe this resource to be infinite and do not understand the consequences of their actions. That is the reason for the destruction of the environment, it has little to do with how ’spiritual’ or how ‘mysterious’ we consider nature to be. In fact, nature was viewed as evil in the west for centuries. It was viewed as primal, full of natural desires (the ones Adam and Eve fell too), and downright evil. Literature often times depicts the city as the source of good and nature as evil (ie “Young Goodman Brown”).
The next steps you take are that monopolies are bad (citing the Catholic Church in medieval Europe), and that since science and rationality have the monopoly on how we think about nature, we must view nature in other ways as well. The first problem is that you assume that science has the monopoly on nature in our society. As you know this isn’t true. The majority of the population still views nature with some wonder and mystery, whether they love nature or have never seen it. You imply that are society has taken a coldly scientific and calculative view towards everything due to our secular, rationalistic methods of thinking, and I don’t think this is the case. For the sake of examining the rest of your argument, however, we will assume that you are right and that everyone views nature like an environmental scientist who enjoys the lab more than the forest.
The next problem is the statement “monopolies are bad.” Though we’d agree that most of the time they are bad, you can’t make a blanket generalization like this and then use it as a logical step. It’s not an absolute, so what you need to do is explain why in this instance a monopoly is bad, why thinking of nature in a solely scientific manner is bad for our society. This seems to be on the grounds of environmental management (“The truth is, I don’t know, and I probably will never know, if this emphasis on the scientific is going to lead our race to salvation or destruction; it certainly has the potential for both.”)
I challenge strongly the notion that the emphasis on the scientific with nature will in any way worsen our impact on the environment. It will do the contrary-the better people understand ecology and how natural systems work (which means thinking about it scientifically, it’s awesome if you enjoy the beauty of a waterfall but without science you won’t understand that dumping chemicals there is a bad idea), the more they will do to protect the environment. The better they understand the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the consequences of human civilization on these ecosystems the more they will do to effectively manage them and try to keep our civilization from destroying the planet and itself.
What we need then is more science-the general populace needs to think about nature more systematically and scientifically if we are to have any chance of saving our planet. History has proven this to be correct, too. If it weren’t for the scientific view of nature environmentalism would have never been created. You claim that perhaps our society has problems since we do not view nature with the same awe and mystery that we did before the scientific revolution, but what was the result of this awe and mystery? There was no such thing as protecting the environment in these days of awe and mystery. Environmentalism was created by science, so how can you oppose science on environmental grounds?
You imply but don’t fully state the argument that the problem with our society’s scientific view of nature is not environmental but spiritual. That this view has caused us to become out of touch and disconnected with nature, which may lead to us destroying it. I don’t buy this argument either. Did people in medieval times go backpacking for fun? Did they go on hikes to see wildlife? Did they kayak? If your reasoning were correct, society would have viewed nature as a source of spirituality until the scientific revolution came and ruined everything. But as we all know this isn’t the case. Though I’m sure we could find a few writers during this period who enjoyed the environment, the general populace before the scientific revolution viewed nature as dark and evil and certainly not as a source of spirituality. So the scientific view of nature we hold today never ruined anything, and the ideas of environmentalism and nature as a means of recreation were nonexistent until the general populace started thinking about nature more scientifically.
Moreover, you assume that science is taking the place of and excluding spirituality within nature: “Is there a place left for those of us who try to see the inner life of nature? Will science let those of us who find something (dare I say it?) spiritual in animals, plants, and each other, coexist as equals?” I don’t think you can say that there isn’t a place for people who try to see the inner life of nature. The outdoors is one of the most popular means of recreation and continues to grow even more popular.
Most importantly, nature is widely viewed as spiritual in our society. Countless books and movies feature characters going into the wild to “figure things out” or “find themselves,” and nature is viewed as a “safe” area of spirituality that won’t create divisions along denominational and religious lines. A book/movie/TV show nowadays is very likely to show a character who, out in nature and away from the stresses of the modern 9-5 world, feels at peace and has a spiritual revelation. This is more likely than showing this character feeling at peace at a particular church, which is bound to piss off everyone who doesn’t belong to it.
Lastly, you assume that science and seeing spirituality in nature are dichotomous: “Will science let those of us who find something (dare I say it?) spiritual in animals, plants, and each other, coexist as equals?” Science is in no way excluding of or discouraging to people who find good in nature. Scientists have no problem with people heading out camping for the weekend (as long as they don’t litter) or with people spending time in nature trying to find God. They don’t discourage it and they don’t do anything that prevents it from happening. If anything they’re probably encouraged that people are taking notice to the environment, which will ultimately lead to its protection.
5 October 2007 at 12:56 am
Hi
18 February 2008 at 2:31 pm
[...] brings me back to some earlier thoughts you can find here. At what point does science, a study whose soul purpose is uprooting the notion of mystery and [...]