Here’s a little paper I wrote for my Environmental History class. The sources are probably out on the internet, and if you ever get the chance, Donald Worster’s Dust Bowl is actually a really interesting book.
Without further ado:
Closed and Open Systems: Two Arenas of Human History
The Dust Bowl was one of America’s greatest environmental catastrophes, and as such, many environmentalists use the Dust Bowl as an example of what occurs when there is rampant disregard for natural processes. However, not everyone agrees with the environmentalists’ view of the circumstances surrounding the Dust Bowl. In particular, three historical interpretations can be seen as indicative of various approaches to environmental disasters, each with its strengths and weaknesses. James C. Malin’s belief in an open system is the idea around which he forms his interpretation of the Dust Bowl, whereas Donald Worster’s roots in ecological thinking and critique of unfettered development, both of which assume a closed system, that informed his thesis of an anthropogenic Dust Bowl. The third interpretation from the Great Plains Committee will be used as a parallel to Worster’s own interpretation, though it, too, is unique. However, the dichotomy between viewing the world as closed or open is the ultimate difference between interpretations of Worster and Malin. It is also the reason that Worster’s argument is the stronger. By taking into account the drastic changes that took place along the prairie with the rise of industrial agriculture, Worster is able to form a more complete explanation of the Dust Bowl than Malin.
Malin outlines his philosophic approach to the Dust Bowl in his book, The Grassland of North America. In the chapter entitled, “An Open System,” Malin states that “The world is no more closed in 1946 than in 1446…” (Malin 335). Here, Malin gives his view of nature. Simply stated, Malin discusses nature as an infinite resource that has no limits and which can always be developed. Because nature is constantly changing, and thus, has no state of equilibrium that can be violated, humanity cannot conceivably overexploit the planet. Instead, should humanity encounter what we might call a “natural disaster” such as the Dust Bowl, Malin believes the disaster occurred simply because of a lack of human ability to adapt, rather than the human ability to be the cause of its own ills. This view can certainly be seen in the context of the time in which it was written, the mid-twentieth century, during which technology was seen as the answer to many of humanity’s troubles.
Thus, for Malin, the problem of the Dust Bowl was not that the farmers unintentionally created a dangerous situation through unwise agricultural practices, as Worster and the Great Plains Committee believe, but rather, that the farmers were simply the unlucky inhabitants of a land that naturally acted in such a destructive manner. Agents such as animals, drought, and fire were “continually disturbing some part of the grasslands, delaying or destroying a theoretically normal succession series and forestalling any achievement of a uniform theoretical climax” (Malin 138). The statement outlines, again, Malin’s belief that harm cannot be done, because there is no stable ecological system to damage, and that the Dust Bowl was not anthropogenic.
Worster’s interpretation differs tremendously. First, his philosophic outlook is based on his view of science as a necessary tool to explore the realities of history. In his book, Dust Bowl, Worster says that, “…science is our indispensable ally in understanding the past in a fuller and more authoritative light” (Worster 247). This world view is coupled with a near-Marxist (though Worster is careful to distance himself from the “Marxist” label) critique of capitalism. In fact, it is the unrelenting onslaught of the laissez-faire 1920s to which Worster credits the Dust Bowl. “There was nothing in the Plains society to check the progress of commercial farming, nothing to prevent it from taking the risks it was willing to take for profit. That is how and why the Dust Bowl came about” (Worster 7). Both of Worster’s foundations, that of ecology and also a critique of unrestrained capitalism, imply a closed system view of nature, as opposed to Malin’s belief in an open system.
On account of his closed system view, Worster suggests that it was the growth of the wheat crop that helped to create the Dust Bowl. “For the “dirty thirties,” as they were called, were primarily the work of man, not nature…natural factors did not make the storms – they merely made them possible” (Worster 13). Unlike Malin, Worster does not believe that nature was entirely the cause of the Dust Bowl. He continues: “The storms were mainly the result of stripping the landscape of its natural vegetation…” (Worster 13). Instead of suggesting that the problem of the Dust Bowl was human inability to cope with natural forces as Malin does, Worster is insisting that it was human damage to the natural environment that altered the Great Plains so drastically and ultimately caused the Dust Bowl.
The third and final interpretation comes from the Great Plains Committee, a federal organization whose mission was to investigate the causes of the Dust Bowl and further, to suggest a solution. Their view of the Dust Bowl paralleled Worster’s. The empirical reasons for this are obvious: the data that the Committee analyzed was from their own time period. Of course, this leaves the Committee’s interpretation open to the criticism of Malin, who states that the Committee didn’t analyze the history of the Pre-Columbian Great Plains. However, the Committee was not entirely concerned with historical interpretations of the plains. Rather, the Committee was concerned with comforting a nation facing a large crisis, and to offer a solution to that problem. If the Committee had simply created a Malin-like interpretation, one that placed the cause of the problem outside of human control, the solution to the problem would similarly be outside the scope of human ability. This interpretation would certainly have been looked upon negatively by the people of the Great Plains as callous and ultimately useless. Such a situation may not have been a primary or even direct cause of the Committee’s choice of interpretation, but because the Committee was more or less a political body, the effect of public opinion on the creation of the Committee’s document cannot be disregarded.
Worster’s interpretation, however, combines the best elements of the Committee’s view with more recent and less biased scholarship. Worster is able to recognize the direct and heavy impact of human civilization on the land, whereas Malin trivializes the impact by suggesting humans simply expedited already occurring natural processes. This is a good example of Malin’s short sightedness: though he is the only author to use geologic data from millennia ago to make his case, Malin seems painfully unaware of the length of time he is studying. While it is undeniable that the Great Plains have changed dramatically over thousands of years, Malin does not acknowledge the extremely slow rate at which those changes took place. Why? Perhaps it is because as a traditional historian, Malin is unable to see nature as anything but the “stage” upon which human drama unfolds. The idea of history as a study of human and environment interacting seems to be incomprehensible to Malin.
Worster, however, is able to see that human impact on the Plains took place and form his own interpretation of the Dust Bowl. Instead of ignoring or trivializing the effects humans have on the Great Plains, Worster uses the relationship as a way to understand what actually occurred in the 1930s. It is this approach, one that seeks to integrate a complicated mixture of science, history, and anthropology that ultimately gives the most holistic picture of the Dust Bowl. Worster gives a firmer interpretation of the Dust Bowl because he understands the reciprocal nature of the human interaction with the land.
These interpretations are thus based on contrasting world views. Malin’s closed system, Worster’s open system, and the Committee’s concern for providing an immediate solution to the beleaguered farmers all influence the manner in which the authors see the events of and leading up to the Dust Bowl. Though each interpretation has its strengths, it is Worster’s that ultimately stands out. Because of his view of the world as a closed system and the ethical and historical implications that follow from it, Worster best and most creatively analyzes the Dust Bowl.
| Malin | Open System; nature has no state of equilibrium to violate. | Humans do not alter nature considerably; human inability to adapt is source of limits. | Nature is the stage upon which human drama unfolds. | Dust Bowl was not caused by human activity. |
| Worster | Closed System; nature is a balanced state which can be altered and disturbed. | Humans affect nature, sometimes drastically; capitalism encourages destruction of nature. | Nature and humans interact with each other, and these interactions are an important part of history. | Dust Bowl was caused by human activity. |
*This table outlines some of the main differences between Malin and Worster.
Works Cited
Malin, James C.. The Grassland of North America: Prolegomena to Its History, with Addenda & Postscript. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1967.
United States. Great Plains Committee.The Future of the Great Plains. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1936.
Worster, Donald. Dust Bowl. 25th Anniversary Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979, 2004.
