Nature of Illusion: Understanding Positive Illusion in the Rhetoric of Man versus Nature

From the story of creation in Genesis to industrial revolution, from Mao Zedong’s “ren ding sheng tian” (man must conquer nature) to the recently growing popularity of sustainable development, we have been trying to find a place for nature in our world. Many stories involve the idea of man conquering nature, of man fighting a battle against nature, in one way or another. Why is the idea of war, conquest and battle always morbidly fascinating throughout the history of mankind?

The Indoor Man contemplating to step out into nature
"Four Seasons: Summer" by Melissa

More than the straightforward notion of victory or defeat, a battle is fascinating because both parties believe, or, are under the illusion that they can win.  Dominic D.P. Johnson, in Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions says, “International conflict is often characterized by two opponents both of them believe they will gain from it. Usually, of course, one of them is wrong (4).” Johnson then attributes this belief to “positive illusion” (7) – human tendency to overestimate one’s capability and underestimate others’ – which he argues to be an adaptive evolutionary behaviour. 

Similarly, such “positive illusion” pervades man’s conscience; as he declares war against nature while harbouring the belief that man can somehow conquer nature. While the cognitive study of positive illusion and war is beyond the scope of this essay, the usage of illusion in various rhetoric of man-versus-nature battle is no less intriguing. Of course, since the opponent standing on the other side of the line is nature – of which behaviour we have no control over – writers tend to focus on criticizing man’s “positive illusion”, and propose what man should do to mitigate the prospect of such overconfidence being false.

Economist E.F Schumacher wrote, “Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side” (13). Schumacher warns us that man’s illusion that he is able to “conquer” nature will ultimately lead to man’s own demise, thus suggesting that we “learn to live peacefully, not only with our fellow men, but also with nature” (20). Published in 1973, Schumacher’s book, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, powered the zealous promotion of sustainable development based on the idea of making peace.

Schumacher solution of peace is based on his assertion that man can never win a battle against nature because the only outcome for such a battle is man’s own destruction. He writes:

 

Now that man has acquired the physical means of self-obliteration, the question of peace obviously looms larger than ever before in human history.

(20)

Examining this depiction closely, there is a less obvious implication in the depiction of the battle. Schumacher uses the word “self-obliteration” to refer to the action of conquering nature, which implies a deliberate act of destroying oneself. However, the phrase “physical means” makes the claim less straightforward than what it might seem to be. “Physical means of self-obliteration” refer to the reality that man is building up power, such that he has the capability to destroy himself. While this power or means can be interpreted as technological achievements man has acquired, why does Schumacher specifically refers to “physical means”? Does this statement imply the existence of a non-physical aspect? How does this non-physical aspect affect the prospect of self-obliteration in Schumacher’s rhetoric?

Despite the emphasis on the “physical means of self-obliteration” that man has acquired to necessitate an immediate call for peace, Schumacher has not left out the non-physical aspect. In fact, he addresses this non-physical aspect – in his depiction of man’s illusion – throughout the chapter. In this paper I will show that the concept of illusion is used to falsify a frame of reference so as to push forward the writer’s proposed alternative frame of reference, and consequently the proposed solution.

In “The Problem of Production”, Schumacher aims to address “one of the most fateful errors of our age”, which he claims to be “the belief that ‘the problem of production’ has been solved” (12). His explanation is divided into what people believe (the illusion) and what is really happening (the reality). His arguments rest upon the assumption that the common belief at his time has an erroneous frame of reference of seeing nature as income to be exploited instead of capital to be utilized and maintained at the same time. This erroneous frame of reference is the non-physical reality, an equally important factor implicit in the claim. The illusion is therefore constructed as a means to point out and explain the errors in the frame of reference, which he addresses in this chapter. Although “every economist and businessman is familiar with the distinction” (13) between income and capital, Schumacher argues that when nature is concerned, they tend to overlook such distinction, hence the idea of illusion might not be obvious. Hence, to amplify the role of illusion and mistaken frame of reference, he uses the metaphor of a battle in which man mistakenly regard the path to self-destruction as the path to victory.

The image of a battle serves as a simplified representation of this problematic relationship between man and nature because the antithesis of victory and defeat, winning and losing, is easily understood within the context of a battle. Therefore, readers are prompted to ask, how could man win the battle but find himself on the losing side? The irreconcilability of winning and losing in a war necessitates the invention of a middle ground to explain this counter-intuitive phenomenon. This middle ground is the concept of illusion, a realm that is constructed to contain the image resulting from an “erroneous view” (12) of available evidence:

The illusion of unlimited powers, nourished by astonishing scientific and technological achievements, has produced the concurrent illusion of having solved the problem of production. The latter illusion is based on the failure to distinguish between income and capital where this distinction matters most.

(13)

This explanation shows that the technology man has acquired, when viewed through a mistaken frame of reference, appears as “astonishing…achievements”, therefore it renders an optimistic outlook or “positive illusion” (Johnson 7) that man has “unlimited powers” to conquer nature. However, the same technological power, as Schumacher argues, is actually a build-up of “means of self-obliteration”.  Schumacher attributes the formation of this illusion to the use of wrong frame of reference - “the failure to distinguish between income and capital where this distinction matters most” – in fitting nature within our production system.

By highlighting the illusion of victory, Schumacher separates the world of reality – with looming prospect of self-obliteration – from the world of illusion, in which man is confident of his ability to conquer nature. Such a separation makes the battle against nature seem pointless in reality, despite the power and conquest man might perceive in his illusion. Such rhetoric of a battle that can never be won makes Schumacher’s proposition for peace very compelling. This rhetoric also justifies the sense of urgency in his claim that “the question of peace obviously looms larger than ever before in human history.”

However, highlighting the illusory nature of man’s conquest over nature does not always lead to giving up the fight altogether. Michael Pollan, who writes “The Idea of A Garden” to redefine our relationship with nature seems to share a similar idea of the illusion man has about conquering nature, yet he does not propose a radical change to stop the battle. He calls such illusion “industrial age’s novel conceit” (445) which stems from the fact that most people in this era do not work with nature directly anymore. Pollan claims that this illusion gives rise to an unrealistic “romance of nature” (445) and thus “wilderness ethic” (435). In rationalizing his “garden ethic” – an ethic whereby human follows the principles of a good gardener in treating the natural environment – to replace “wilderness ethic”, Pollan rejects romanticized portrayal of nature. He wrote, “Nature may once again turn dangerous and capricious and unconquerable (446).” With such portrayal of nature, the idea of peace with nature seems difficult to conceive. Even if there is an intention for peace, with nature being “dangerous and capricious and unconquerable”, his idea of peace must involve curbing or subjugating nature, an existing mindset that Pollan had recognized as illusory.

In light of the man-versus-nature rhetoric, Pollan presents the illusion of victory over nature in the following claim:

Many points of contention that humankind thought it had won – DDT’s victory over insects, say, or medicine’s conquest of infectious disease – turned out to be Pyrrhic or illusory triumphs.

(446)

Pollan, too, agrees that there is an illusion involved in man’s relationship with nature. However, the way this illusion is portrayed differs from that of Schumacher. Pollan regards these “Pyrrhic or illusory triumphs” as instantaneous illusions, whereby “humankind thought it had won” but it turned out that nature would eventually make a comeback. Notice that Pollan uses the word “contention”, which has a neutral connotation, to describe what goes on between man and nature, instead of “battle” used by Schumacher, even though they refer to the same thing. A “contention” entails the idea of a race or competition, an ongoing process with no end in sight. On the other hand, Schumacher’s “battle” illusion is more dramatized as it comes with the fatal consequence of “self-obliteration”, a tragic loss at the end of the battle. The illusion in Pollan’s rhetoric is therefore seen as a “momentary lapse of judgement” (446) that is much less fatal than the one Schumacher depicts.

The difference in the way illusion is framed in the two texts leads to the difference in solutions proposed. Schumacher proposes the angle of “peace and permanence” as a new looking glass through which we should look at our relationship with nature. The permanent nature of this solution answers the need for a serious and permanent change in frame of reference, because Schumacher regards the illusion of conquering nature as an almost permanent state of fatal delusion. On the other hand, Pollan suggests that we keep the existing frame of reference – the idea of fighting and conquering nature – but within the context of a “legitimate quarrel” (446). Pollan argues that it is reasonable, or “legitimate”, for us to detest nature’s “weed and storms and plagues, her rot and death”, and even fight them without “pushing [our] side of the argument too hard” (446). Therefore, instead of a static notion of peace, Pollan proposes a dynamic relationship whereby we live with nature, quarreling with its unpleasant traits to find out that in the end, there is no absolute winner or loser.

Both Schumacher and Pollan raise the readers’ awareness of their “positive illusion” in the context of man conquering nature. The awareness of such illusion makes room for readers to take up alternatives offered by these writers, which they deem more compatible with reality. However, the reason that “positive illusions” persist through our evolution as Johnson argues; is because of the useful functions that they serve, as they “enable individuals or groups to be more effective in striving for and achieving mental or physical goals, as if they are self-fulfilling prophecies”. Therefore, whether it is a radical change or a slight shift in our paradigm of man-nature relationship that results from our awareness of the positive illusion, we should also remember to not completely eradicate this useful trait. Instead, as Pollan suggests in his proposal, we can make use of this optimism to sustain a “legitimate quarrel” that ensures a long-term coexistence between man and nature.

Works Cited

Johnson, Dominic D.P. Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Pollan, Michael. "The Idea of A Garden." Constructing Nature: Readings from the American Experience . Ed. J.P Sterba. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishers, 1996. 433-452.

Schumacher, E. F. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1975, 12-20.