Environmental History Research Paper

To understand such diverse developments the term environment as well as environmental history has to be defined very broadly. In practice, however, mostly it signifies the natural environment, being aware that in modern societies a pristine nature hardly exists any more. But this terminological ambiguity is acceptable since environmental history above all is interested in the interactions between humans and nature and the transitions between these two. In doing this kind of research, the contribution of other disciplines such as geography, geology, biology, and many others is important, and it is sometimes argued that environmental history as a matter of principle should adopt an interdisciplinary approach. In practice, however, interdisciplinary approaches have proved to be demanding so that most of the contributions to environmental history still come within from single disciplines, not just from historians, but also from geographers, biologists, social scientists, and others ( Worster 1988).

2. The Emergence Of Environmental History

The relationship between the natural environment and humans has been a topic in Western and other civilizations from ancient times (Glacken 1967). Considering the great importance of nature for preindustrial societies, it was understandably seen as a powerful agent, bringing about abundance, beauty, and health as well as need, disasters, and suffering. In this context, deterministic arguments developed, which were especially prominent in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries explaining, for example, differences in societies, behavior, or racial characteristics as caused by the natural environment. Also prominent were traditions which placed humans into a wider cosmos of nature and propagated a harmony between these two. It is, however, difficult to tell whether these were idealistic concepts of a mainly religious or philosophical nature or to which degree they actually shaped the daily practice.

These long established approaches have not disappeared, but towards the end of the nineteenth century in industrial societies the role of nature became less important, especially in the academic debate. It was not until very recently that a new understanding developed, this time stressing the importance of human action in shaping the environment. An understanding of these influences had developed in the nineteenth century, but it was mainly after the 1950s that this approach became prominent and helped to establish the new field of environmental history as we know it today. At that time, it had become all too obvious how far reaching and often disastrous the effects of human intervention in the environment could be.

In the 1950s and 1960s environmental history was taken up as a subject particularly in the United States. It spread to Europe in the 1970s and 1980s and has expanded world-wide since the 1990s. Among the more interesting recent publications are studies on the environmental history of Asia (Elvin and Ts’ui-jung 1998, Grove et al. 1998), Africa (Beinhart and Coates 1995), and Latin America (Martınez and Jacome 1999). Now (at least) two journals in English exist which are specifically devoted to this topic: Environmental History, with an emphasis on the US, and Environment and History, whose outlook is more global, paying special attention to the non-Western world. In addition, more and more conferences are taking place; the number of publications is increasing rapidly, and environmental history is entering the curriculum at school and university level. This applies above all to the US where environmental history is most firmly established and where the American Society for Environmental History was founded in 1974 (Miller and Rothman 1997). Furthermore, the European Society for Environmental History is well established, while others are being formed. The field, therefore, is marked by rapid expansion, and the best way to get information about it is to consult the H-environment web page (www2.h-net.msu.edu/~environ/).

Given the debates of impending ecological crises, early environmental history developed a strong interest in its causes, which were often seen as a peculiar feature of the Western world. Among the explanations put forward were ‘Christian roots of our current ecological crisis’; the rise of modern ‘mechanistic’ science; the repudiation of traditional customs and of a softer, female understanding of nature; and, of course, modern industrialization. Coming with these explanations was the notion that historically a balance between humans and nature had existed which was then destroyed by one or several of these factors (Merchant 1989, Cronon 1995).

For the existence respectively destruction of this balance different periods are named. A radical position blames the first appearance of humans; others emphasize the transition to agricultural societies, while mostly the development of the modern world, especially industrialization is held responsible, since it did not just destroy the existing balance and small- scale structures, but also initiated developments which brought about today’s environmental problems: a rapid increase in population; the move to and the rise of big cities; the intensification of agriculture; the use of fossil fuels; a massive consumption of resources; the production of new, artificial materials; and new forms, and disastrously high levels of pollution. Numerous studies were undertaken showing in great detail how human interference had altered the landscape; how the discharge and waste of industry, household, and cities had destroyed many forms of life; had endangered human health and had slowly but seemingly unavoidably contributed to the increasing ecological crisis (Turner and Clark 1990, Miller and Rothman 1997).

The results of these developments were felt globally and even began to affect the biosphere, putting at risk not just humans but all forms of existence. Against this background, conventional, that is, anthropocentric approaches were criticized and it was demanded they be replaced by biocentric notions which did more justice to animals and nature. Most radical amongst them is the Gaia-hypothesis. It sees the earth and the biosphere as a living organism which needs to be protected, but can also defend itself against human interference. Global warming is interpreted in this way. This thesis, however, was and still is a minority view. Much more widely shared is the argument that ecology has become so important that it has established a new scientific (and political) paradigm.

3. Recent Developments And Debates

Among the many developments in the recent debate within environmental history the following merit special attention. The concept of ideal, constant ecological balances is today seen an oversimplification. Rather, it is a feature of such balances that they are not stable and that none of them is more ‘natural’ than the other. Second, it has been shown that nature in Europe, North-America, China, and many other parts of the world has been altered by humans for several centuries, if not millennia, while the controversy of whether preindustrial societies existed in harmony or in conflict with their environment is often shaped by presentism. In this context, it is debated whether the concepts of nature and environment are also socially constructed. And finally, there are numerous indications that modern science, modern institutions, and modern form of productions are not solely harmful for the environment, but can also contribute to a better, more complex understanding of it.

3.1 The Concept Of A Stable Past

For a time, environmentalists subscribed to the concept that natural processes culminated in stable balances and that these balances represented and ideal state. For some this ideal had existed sometime in the past while others saw it as an objective to be realized in the future. Today, it is commonly accepted that the concept of ideal balances and of an ideal nature is misleading (Cronon 1995). Ecological balances are inherently instable, and there are no clear-cut ecological criteria except for human preferences to favor one or other. We may prefer the current climate to the ice-age, but ecologically speaking the ice-age may have been more stable. As a result we cannot avoid anthropocentric perspectives, since no ideal-state independent of our knowledge and preferences exists, and also since we cannot look at nature through the eyes of an animal, a plant, or the biosphere. Consequently, there have to be debates and value judgments about such preferences. Scientific knowledge or historical findings on their own cannot provide answers, but they offer valuable information.

In these debates, it has to be taken into consideration that humans have altered their environment for centuries. Even early societies such as hunters and gatherers effected great changes, for example, by using fire to clear trees or to hunt animals. Also, preindustrial societies could exploit their resources to such a degree that these ran out, thereby causing grave crises. A much debated example is the case of wood forests. For many societies, wood was the most important resource and was needed not only as fuel but also to build houses and ships, to produce tools, and numerous objects for everyday use. In many parts of Europe in the late eighteenth century, there were dramatic warnings that a shortage of wood was imminent. We now know that many of these warnings were grossly exaggerated, but behind the rhetoric, elements of a real crisis existed (Radkau 2000).

The probably best known example for far-reaching human interference in nature can be found in China, where it has taken place for almost 3,000 years (Elvin and Ts’ui-jung 1998). Other examples are the disappearance of forests in the Mediterranean (McNeill 1992) or in Scotland, where today a great deal of opposition exists to reforestation schemes in the barren Scottish Highlands—preferring the present state of nature. Similarly, the first nature reserve in Germany, the Luneburg heath is the result of massive interference through deforestation and grazing by large numbers of sheep. Today, it requires constant management to keep it as it is.

3.2 Ecological Imperialism And Traditional Structures

The global dimension of ecological developments has been emphasized by the concept of ecological imperialism, most prominently put forward by Crosby (1986). He argues that Western imperialism succeeded not so much because of superior technology or arms, but because of the deadly viruses and bacteria the white conquerors brought with them. He describes an ecological clash of cultures which left the indigenous population largely helpless and brought about the death of millions of them. In the meantime, numerous other studies on the environmental consequences of the European expansion have appeared on, for example, the consequences of British forest policy in India, the adaptation of European agrarian techniques, the environmental effects of the plantationsystem, or of monocultures, etc. (Griffiths and Robben 1997, Grove et al. 1998).

Before these studies were published, the traditional methods of agriculture or pasture in Africa or Asia were often described as being harmful for the environment. The indigenous population, it was argued, had too little, if any knowledge and tended to overexploit the resources, for example, through over- grazing by keeping too many cattle or by destroying the remaining wild animals. As a consequence, nature reserves were established and local people often forced to settle elsewhere; new, Western technologies in agriculture were introduced, and the traditional methods widely discredited. It is interesting to note that similar arguments had been put forward in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe and North America. Here, too, traditional methods and customs were first attacked as being inefficient and harmful to nature, and later almost completely abolished (Hughes 2000, Radkau 2000).

In the 1980s and 1990s these assumptions about traditional methods were increasingly challenged. At that time, many of the new, large-scale projects had failed; monocultures and the vast agricultural agglomerates had caused enormous ecological problems; and despite newly introduced plants and fruits crop failure as well as famines had continued to occur. In this context, environmental historians, too, (re)dis- covered the advantages of traditional methods and argued that these had been particularly well adapted to the differing local conditions; that they had not been based upon ignorance, but on knowledge accumulated over generations, and that they had been better suited to their environment than many of the modern techniques, which furthermore often went together with processes of centralization, thereby further alienating farmers from their roots. The new, centralized projects were heavily criticized and it was argued that they should be replaced by traditional, local practices. These were seen as having been part of a balance with the environment, destroyed by the white colonialists. Given the widespread disappointment with Western approaches, this point of view gained prominence, as it emphasized the negative, destructive consequences of modern science, bureaucratic centralization, the capitalist profit-motive, and market-oriented production. Similar arguments had been developed by environmental historians working on earlier periods of European and North American history. But in the former colonies these arguments had an important political edge and in addition corresponded to developments in the debate on imperialism, which also emphasized its destructive effects (Grove et al. 1998, Crosby 1986).

These debates have yielded important results. They have shown that traditional methods—far from damaging the environment—often were particularly well suited to the local and regional situation; or that small units often provide more scope to protect nature and the environment. At the same time, there was a tendency to portray too simplistic a picture. The mingling of species is not necessarily negative. Rather, it is inevitable, and in most cases nature and culture benefit from new biological combinations (Diamond 1997; Griffiths and Robben 1997). In addition, traditional methods, too, interfered with nature and were not always as environmentally-friendly as is often assumed. The same can be said about traditional institutions, for which the commons are a much debated example.

3.3 The Debate On The Commons

Until recently, this debate was dominated by the notion of the ‘tragedy of the commons,’ according to which the communal ownership of resources almost unavoidably leads to their exhaustion. For each individual it makes sense to use as much of the communal resources as possible. Even if they use less, there still is a tendency to exhaust the resources since everybody else would continue to maximize their own advantage. Therefore, so the argument goes, no inbuilt mechanism to preserve the commons exists, especially not in time of crisis. A similar argument was put forward in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when agrarian reformers and (mainly big) landowners tried to abolish the still existing commons. In the recent environmental debate this notion has gained renewed prominence. The depletion of fish stocks in the oceans or the pollution of water, soil, and air are seen as proof that communal, that is, free goods tend to be exploited. As a result, property rights are advocated, arguing that private owners of goods have an inherent interest to guarantee their existence over a longer period of time.

Recent research by environmental and other historians has led to a reappraisal of the commons. Their findings show that different mechanisms of control and regulation to curtail individual excesses did in fact exist. Many commons survived for decades, others for centuries, indicating that efficient mechanisms to keep a stable balance must have existed. In addition, the establishment of private property rights could and did lead to rapid exhaustion if the new owners were interested primarily in a quick and high return and/or adopted methods such as monocultures not suited to the local conditions (Radkau 2000).

Not all commons existed for long periods of time. There were also cases of resources being exploited and the land becoming exhausted. Such cases seem to have increased in Europe towards the end of the eighteenth and especially during the nineteenth centuries, mainly due to the rapid increase in population. There are many indications that the traditional methods did not offer enough scope to deal with this increase. This is not surprising, since historically speaking such a rapid increase is an exceptional phenomenon and exhaustions of resources did not usually occur. Preindustrial societies had a much less sophisticated and efficient technology, a lower level of science, or a less developed infrastructure, which limited the growth of the population, the economy and the exploitation of resources. As a result, interference with the environment was less widespread and far less damaging than after industrialization (Merchant 1989, Hughes 2000).

Considering today’s environmental problems and the enormous population pressure the debate on the merits of commons respectively private property has lost some of its importance. There are historical examples both of exhaustion and of prudent care, so that an ideal-type juxtaposition of these two concepts is not helpful. The same can be said for the relationship between modern and traditional forms of the economy or of dealing with nature. Here, too, a juxtapositon is problematic not the least since historically the boundaries between the different spheres and approaches have been anything but clear cut. Practitioners of traditional methods were often influenced by new findings while the development of modern science was shaped by traditional assumptions and knowledge. This is also true for the colonies, even though here the confrontation between the two worlds was particularly intense. Very often, however, the existing structures, for example, in agriculture remained intact. And it has even been argued that the science of ecology originated in the colonial context where the indigenous plants and animals posed a challenge to colonial officials inducing them to have a closer look at the exotic environment in their postings (Grove 1995).

These and other examples show that since the 1980s more complex approaches and arguments have come to the forefront in environmental history. Here, as in other branches of historical studies, the identification of culprits and victims or the juxtaposition of traditional and modern has proved not to be very productive, not the least since the representatives of traditional methods largely were portrayed as victims, not as agents and historical subjects. The insistence on the complexity of historical processes, is, of course, not specific to environmental history, but here it has an added dimension. Given the enormous diversity of environments which in turn are shaped from place to place by very different natural factors, it is very difficult to come to general conclusions or to transfer findings from one place to another.

3.4 Deforestation And ‘Waldsterben’

The advance of more complex arguments has also contributed to widely accepted assumptions being questioned, for example, the deforestation paradigm. It is a widely-held assumption that increased forest removal in mountainous areas enhances the frequency and severity of floods in the adjacent lowlands. Recurrent flooding in Switzerland in the nineteenth century established this paradigm in the scientific community as well as in public perception. In Germany, the flooding of the Rhine and the Oder in recent years are seen as further proof of this assumption. And in the Ganges delta the inhabitants blamed the clearing of forests in the Himalaya area for the recurrent floods in recent years. However, new research carried out in the floodplains of Bangladesh and in Switzerland has cast doubts upon these widely-held views. In Bangladesh, the deforestation paradigm disagrees with empirical facts, and Switzerland similar results exist, which show that the floods there corresponded to significantly higher rainfall.

In the case of the Waldsterben, too, recent findings have fundamentally challenged previous knowledge. In the 1980s the fear of dying forests was one of the major topics in the environmental debate, above all in Germany. It was agreed generally that as a result of air pollution, caused by industry, households, and traffic, most—some even argued all—of the forests would disappear. Now recent research has come to the conclusion that there probably never was such a thing as widespread Waldsterben. On the contrary, over the last decades trees in most parts of Europe have—apart from some very small areas—grown faster than before. It seems, that the thesis of the dying forest was based on a misleading research method (Bruggemeier 1998). These and other findings show, that in environmental history, too, the concepts and terms used are socially constructed. Nature may be a powerful agent, guided by its own laws and often being beyond human influence, but it cannot speak for itself, so that to talk about nature or the environment, constructions are inevitable. At the same time, nature itself exists, of course, independent of such constructions so that environmental history can make a unique contribution to the current methodological debate on construction and reality.

3.5 Recent Developments In Industrial Societies

These examples should not give a wrong impression. There can be no doubt that we still face very serious environmental problems. But it seems that our knowledge of the historical processes and causes leading to them is vaguer than has long been realized, that these processes were often more complex, and that some of our assumptions have to be questioned, including the developments within industrial societies. Here, the period after the Second World War seems to be of special importance. On the one hand we have— beginning with the USA—the rise of the consumer societies, which use a greatly increased amount of resources, above all energy, and produce markedly more emissions and waste (Pfister 1995). There are many indicators that the current environmental problems originated in this period and that their negative effects for the environment are still accumulating. On the other hand, it was also in this period that the environmental movement and environmental policies established themselves. It is still too early to judge their achievements but it can at least be debated whether these have been greater than is commonly perceived (Bruggemeier 1998, Simmons 1993).

When dealing with industrial societies a problem facing all environmental history becomes even more evident: how to judge human interference in the environment. In industrial societies, this interference is, of course, especially widespread and has destroyed much of the pre-existing nature. But will it do to see it only as having been destructive, or would it be more appropriate to emphasize the aspect of change? Are the terms man-made or artificial nature merely descriptive or do they stand for new concepts and new criteria? And what could these criteria be?

Undoubtedly, a lot of research still has to be done in environmental history. We know how some of today’s major ecological problems developed, but the knowledge very often is incomplete and above all differs greatly from country to country. The same can be said about the environmental movements; changes in technology, law, and politics; the attitudes of political parties and institutions, of different groups in society; of the changing perception of environmental problems or of the many facetted attempts—and failures—to do something about them. If environmental history takes up these issues it will have to pay particular attention to international aspects on the level of causes as well as policy, taking account, for example, of the different international conferences and treaties of recent years McCormick 1989, Bailey 1995).

4. Sustainability And Prospects

For these topics and for environmental history in general the concept of sustainability could prove to be useful. It is true that this concept is very vague and that a great number of different, often conflicting definitions exist. However, many of them share three aspects which are interesting for environmental history: societies are sustainable, if they do not consume more renewable resources than grow every year; if they do not produce more emissions than the environment can absorb; and if of other resources they only consume as much as can be replaced by alternatives.

It is obvious that modern industrial societies do not fulfill any of these criteria. In fact, they are so far off the mark that one can doubt whether it makes sense to apply them. The same cannot be said of preindustrial societies. Almost by definition they depended practically completely on organic, that is, renewable resources; they produced very little emissions, and it could be argued—according to the three criteria mentioned above—that they were sustainable. At the same time, politically, economically, and socially, they were often in a precarious situation, given the recurrent crises such as famines or plagues. The enormous importance of environmental factors for these societies has been stressed in recent publications. These take up the long established debate on the influence of nature on human societies, but avoid its deterministic shortcomings and have again opened up a very important area of research (Diamond 1997).

Are ecological sustainability and social stability difficult to reconcile? This is an oversimplification, but the concept of sustainability could lead to new insights for environmental (and other) historians. At the same time environmental history could make important contributions to the current debate about the sustainability of industrial societies, which—in theory—is not limited to ecological concerns but also integrates political, economic, and social ones.

The development of environmental history over the last decades has not established a new paradigm nor has it closed the gap between science and the humanities. But, environmental history has raised important new questions; it has (re)introduced the topic of nature and the environment into historical studies, not only through specialist research, but especially by adding new perspectives to established areas and problems; and while it has not closed the gap to science, it has built many bridges. In short, environmental history has grown up. It will continue to flourish and make important contributions.

Bibliography:

1. Bailey R (ed.) 1995 The True State of the Planet. Free Press, New York
2. Beinhart W, Coates P 1995 Environment and History. The Taming of Nature in the USA and South Africa. Routledge, London
3. Bruggemeier F J 1998 Tschernobyl, 26 April 1986. Die okologische Herausforderung. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munchen, Germany
4. Cronon W 1995 (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, 1st ed. Norton, New York
5. Crosby A W 1986 Ecological Imperialism. The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
6. Diamond J 1997 Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies, 1st ed. Norton, New York
7. Elvin M, Ts’ui-jung L (eds.) 1998 Sediments of Time: Environment and Society in Chinese History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
8. Glacken C J 1967 Traces on the Rhodian Shore. Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkely, CA
9. Griffiths T, Robben L 1997 Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA
10. Grove R H 1995 Green Imperialism. Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600– 1860. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
11. Grove R, Damodaran V, Sangwan S (eds.) 1998 Nature and the Orient. The Environmental History of South and South-East Asia. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India
12. Hughes J D 2000 The Face of the Earth: Environment and World History. Sharpe, Armonk, NY
13. Martınez B G, Jacome A G 1999 Estudios sobre historia y ambiente en America. I: Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico, Paraguay, 1st edn. Instituto Panamericano de Geografiave Historia, Mexico
14. McCormick J 1989 The Global Environmental Movement: Reclaiming Paradise. Belhaven Press, London
15. McNeill J R 1992 The Mountains of the Mediterranean World: An Environmental History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
16. Merchant C 1989 Ecological Revolutions. Nature, Gender, and Science in New England. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NL
17. Miller C, Rothman H 1997 Out of the Woods. Essays in Environmental History. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PN
18. Pfister C (ed.) 1995 Das 1950er Syndrom. Der Weg in die Konsumgesellschaft. Paul Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien
19. Radkau J 2000 Natur und Macht. Eine Weltgeschichte der Umwelt. Beck, Munchen, Germany
20. Simmons I G 1993 Environmental History. A Concise Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
21. Turner B L II, Clark W C (eds.) 1990 The Earth as Transformed by Human Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
22. Worster D (ed.) 1988 The Ends of the Earth. Perspectives on Modern Environmental History. Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, UK