In order to better explain how nature is used as a source of moral, social, or aesthetic norms the various authors identify three different ways in which the nature of nature is conceived: specific nature, local nature, and universal nature. Which type of nature a writer or community has focused upon depends upon the how they conceived of morality and norms in general.
With regards to “specific nature,” moral norms are based upon how closely a thing adheres to the specific nature of its type. Rabbits are supposed to act a certain way, plants are supposed to grow a certain way, and of course human beings are supposed to behave in a certain way. Social norms are based upon the standards of human nature; when human behavior matches the requirements of human nature, then the norms are being followed.
The idea of “local nature” is a bit broader and incorporates aspects of localized context into the equation. Thus, human behavior must be judged not simply by comparing it to human nature, but also the “nature” of the locale in which the specific humans live.
This allows for the development of norms supposedly derived from local traditions, ethnicity, and nationhood. A person should behave in a certain manner not simply because they are a human but because they are, for example, also a German or French. It is the “nature” of a German to act a certain way and “wrong” for them to act French.
The concept of a “universal nature” is the broadest of the three and encompasses ideas about universal laws that rule over the whole of existence. There exist unchanging principles that regulate the behavior of the entire universe — German or English, human or non-human, living and non-living. We have no choice but to adhere to these universal laws, and attempts to undermine them will not only fail, but in fact represent a type of moral failing as well.
All of the conceptions of nature are used today, sometimes all at once, but they didn’t all develop at the same time. Specific nature is the oldest and can be traced as far back as Aristotle. Universal nature is more a product of modern science and investigations into the nature of the universe. They argue for different things, but they aren’t typically regarded as being incompatible or contradictory.
As I noted above, the authors regard the best kind of authority as one that works invisibly and is self-evident. This cannot be the case with the moral, social, or aesthetic authority of nature because people have spent so much time and spilled so much ink trying to prove and explain that authority. If the authority of nature isn’t self-evident then what is it — and does it even exist?
Editor Lorraine Daston, if I understand her correctly, argues that the authority of nature lies more in the realm of analogy than actuality. The order of nature is analogous to the order of human communities; because of this, it is possible for humans to draw inferences, inspiration, and analogies from nature that allow them to think about the order in their communities in different ways. Nature, then, does not so much sit above the social sphere and dictate terms but instead sits beside it and offers suggestions.
The Bottom Line
Because of how widespread the use of “nature” is as an authority in all manner of human endeavors, it would behoove people to spend some time trying to understand how and why this happens. Not every use of nature is legitimate; but at the same time, not every use of nature is illegitimate either. The selection of papers in this book make it clear that one can use nature in a useful manner when trying to formulate human social standards. Unfortunately, being such a difficult and complex book I doubt that many readers will benefit from it. I foresee this being used far more in college classes than anyplace else.
« Back...
