Cronon: Environmental History is the study of the consequences of the past interactions between humans and nature.
Merchant: Environmental History is the study of how different groups of people have and continue to affect and be affected by nature.
As for me, I actually believe environmental history to be the same as what I think Cronon believes. I think the definition that I wrote for him is about as straightforward and accurate as it could be. I think environmental history is definitely complicated but that this definition seems to sum the main idea up nicely in one sentence.
Environmental History is the study of History that recognizes, and strives to more fully understand the profound interaction between humans and the environment. Through studying this interaction and the ways in which both sides affect each other, Environmental Historians aim to uncover a more complete explanation for the changes throughout history, and a more objective truth to base our actions on in the future.
I too based my definition mostly off of Cronen’s writings. One thing that your/his definition made me think about Emily, is that so far from what I’ve read Environmental Historians seem to work in reverse to your definition. Instead of studying the consequences of us interacting with the environment, they seem to work to uncover the reasons for various consequences by studying the relationship with the environment.
Cronon’s definition of Environmental History focuses on the idea of
nature existing in cyclical time and human existence progressing on a
straight line, towards an end point. EH is the history of these two
lines’ interactions, their effects on each other, and human’s
observations and study of nature. He presents this relationship that
is EH as an unbalanced one, in which “humanity’s arrow is the fall,
while nature’s cycle is salvation.” He sees nature as a positive
force, while humanity in his eyes is more negative.
Merchant doesn’t directly define EH, but adds to some already standing
definition of EH by including the relationship of race, gender, and
class and the environment, and the effects they have on each other.
She says that EH has “widened its scope” to include these elements.
I think EH is the relationship between humans and the environment.
Both elements are equally present on the planet, and in different
ways, both hold have strong effects on the other, and in some ways
hold power over each other. To study this relationship is to
understand each sides’ role in the world, where they overlap, and what
happens when they do.
Environmental History concerns the effects humans and the environment have on one another, and allows for further hypotheses about to be made, based on codependent linear History with cyclical nature.
I find it ridiculous that I’m relating concepts of my calculus class to help my definition. In math, when you evaluate a function at a given coordinate, you get another coordinate. But the point itself can’t be made with only one coordinate. One is dependent on the other. Linear History may not help us come up with a prediction of what may happen in the future, but looking at it with a “cyclical-nature-lens,” we’re able to find patterns and thus come up with rational predictions about the future (depending on what scale we’re looking at of course). Nature’s cycle is a good example of a reference for us in a way.
I thought I would be the first to mention the whole cyclical-linear concept. Darn.
Merchant's definition of environmental history is the history of the environment and how it relates to humans and their own sub-groups.
Cronon's definition of environmental history is... Well I'm not quiet sure. To be honest I don't think I understand this class at all. I guess I'm not use to learning to about something that doesn't have a solid definition. To find a definition of environmental history i'm trying to find the common ground between both the Merchant and Cronon's readings and all I've come up with is the study of how the environment and the human species relate and communicate with each other. I dunno, am I on the right tract?
Cronon’s definition of Environmental History is the study of the environment’s past, which should be used not only to understand its history, but to learn from and help us change our future. He talks briefly how a majority of environmental historians aspire to be able to help people understand how the future is going to play out. He also discusses determinism and how “…human activities have environmental consequences, and that chance in natural systems (whether induced by humans or by nature itself) almost inevitably affects human beings. He states that other creatures have effects on natural history too.
Merchant’s view on Environmental History is very different from Cronon’s. She believes that Environmental History is the animals- primarily people- and happenings that occurred to make the land into what it is present day. From reading her essay, it is fairly clear that she believes that humans had one of, if not the, greatest impacts on the evolution of Environmental History. Her essay topics all revolve around who changed the environment and how.
My definition is sort of leaning more toward Merchant’s idea. I think Environmental History is no different from the history of a person (aside from the length of time its been around, of course). Environmental History is the human perspective on everything of, or relating to the environment. Everything that happens to it, whether it be people, circumstances, or events, affects it in some way. And, in my opinion, the environment includes land, sea, plants, animals, and air.
My response is to Emily’s definitions. I thought they were very true and concise. I read them after I wrote my definitions, and I definitely agree with them- especially Merchant’s. I didn’t think to add her thoughts about how nature affects people also, not just the reverse.
I believe Cronon's definition was that environmental history is the history of how humans relate to their environment and the effects that they have had. Negative in the past however hopeful that this could be changed. Merchants definition is that environmental history is the history of how people have effected their environment but more specifically how race and gender played into how humans have effected their environment. My definition is similar to Cronon's: the history of how humans have effected their environment both negatively and some of the positive environmental movements.
I think the concept of EH is an interesting one Naomi. It being the concept of how where nature and humans. I disagree with cronon that they are opposite forces that work against each other. I think that because they are of the same origin they can work together and that to define one as negative and one as positive cannot be done, objectively anyway. As humans one of our main goals is to keep other humans alive and that this is a positive process.
As for my own understanding about the material even after reading the articles i am still confused how it is that Merchant ties race and gender into the subject. Does any one feel that they have grasped this?
"It is best to assume that most human activities have environmental consequences, and that change in natural systems (whether induced by humans or by nature itself) almost inevitably affects human beings." (p.9)
Cronon spends his time trying to describe environmental history in a meaningful way. He draws many examples from his own experience, and he tries to describe the different aspects of environmental history, important details. Despite all of this focus, and effort, all it does is emphasize his core point. Specifically, that humans influence and are influenced by the environment. This relationship makes it necessary for historians to include the environment in their analysis, just as people consider their environment in their decisions. Cronon is arguing for the importance of considering this relationship, but he only adds details, he does not change the message.
Merchant takes a more localized definition of environmental history. She doesn't look at the more generalized interactions the environment has with people, but instead at specific situations. Where Cronon discusses the value of a generalized environmental history, and how incorporating the environment in how we view history would be beneficial, Merchant suggests using environmental history to explain specific situations. She defines environmental history as the application of the same ideas that Cronon was talking about to specific situations and problems. "In interpreting environmental history, therefore, one needs to ask probing questions such as: . . . " (p 10) Merchant defines environmental history as the application of the connection between humans and the natural world.
My definition is more like Cronon's definition that Merchant's. I do no think that environmental history is defined in application, but in theory. I agree with Cronon's view that humans and nature cannot help but influence each other. I do not see a justifiable reason that humans should be separate from nature other than in an attempt to limit the complexity of our world view. We do history in an attempt to find out more about humans, so it makes sense to limit the domain of the research. I define environmental history as the widest domain that can be studied while still maintaining the focus on humans.
Environmental history attempts to include environmental factors along with human factors in the analysis of human events.
In response to the cyclic versus linear point that Steve made, I feel that the descriptions need to be better justified. Nature is cyclic while history is linear creates a nice image, and neatly separates humans from nature. But it has logical gaps in its derivation. That natural history is cyclic in nature is fairly obvious, the world is constantly adjusting its balance, but it is not a perfect cycle. There is always a change every time the cycle repeats itself, there is no repetition of specific events or individuals. At the same time, human history is described as linear because of the lack of perfect repetition, despite many recurring themes at many different layers of society. How are these two descriptions different? The reason that humans are linear is present in the natural world, and the reason the natural world is cyclic is prevalent in human history. The two are the same thing, which fits with my previous statement that humans are a piece of nature, and as such are a miniature version of nature as a whole. Instead of trying to reconcile the "cyclic" natural history and the "linear" human history, we should draw enough parallels between the two to conclusively declare that the two are the same type of pattern.
History is almost a cycle, and almost a line. Just as the natural world is almost cyclical, and almost linear.
Cronon: Environmental History is the study of past actions and consequences between humans and nature that can be used to make predictions about the future relationship between humans and nature.
Merchant: Environmental History is the study of past actions and consequences between humans and nature as viewed by different groups of people in different ways.
Me: Environmental History is the study of past actions and consequences between humans and nature. We look objectively at the different subjective views of groups of people to draw conclusions to what was really happening, and then use that information to make predictions about the future relationship between humans and nature.
Response to Emily:
"I actually believe environmental history to be the same as what I think Cronon believes. I think the definition that I wrote for him is about as straightforward and accurate as it could be"
I agree with you on this one. I think that Cronon was giving more of a definition of EH, while merchant was explaining how to apply the subject. (There's that Method vs. Content again.)
Cronon's definition- Environmental history reveals a moral lesson that we learn through the study. Like history, the environment isn't static. So the lessons we learn from our studies can help us predict what may or may not happen.
Worster's definition- Environmental history is history from the eyes of ecology. The plants, animals, chemistry of the soil, etc.
Personally I like Worster's definition better. While it is vague, it hits what I imagine environmental history to be. Like we said in class, EH is very young and so it I don't think there is such a definite definition yet.
"stefanks" you said that"Merchant: Environmental History is the study of past actions and consequences between humans and nature as viewed by different groups of people in different ways."
I dont' think merchant's definition says that EH comes from how different groups of people viewed it. He talked about how the environment forced those groups to change, move, or something. So if that's true, then EH is from the view of the change, the before and after.
Cronon: I agree with morgan in believing that his definition of environmental history comes across helping predict and change our environmental future by means of the study of our environmental past
Merchant: How the environment affects us and we affect the environment based off of our gender, social standing, geography, and then some more.
Although i disliked his article, I side more with Cronon in beliving that environmental history is the effect that we have had on the environment, and that it has had on us, because for me, what comes to mind when I think of environmental history are trees, valleys, all that good stuff, and then how the progression of time and the movement and settlement of humankind has greatly scarred and improved the environment.
Steve, I really love that word codependent. I really like the whole calculus relation, because it totally makes sense. Maybe if we apply that, we can start to understand that dependence we and nature find in each other, and someday perhaps we could even reach a point of actual coexistence, since so far we (we being humans and nature) seem to have had some difficulty with that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
