From Eden to savagery and civilization : British colonialism and humanity in the development of natural history, ca. 1600-1840

Sarah Irving-Stonebraker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article is concerned with the relationship between British colonization and the intellectual underpinnings of natural history writing between the 17th and the early 19th centuries. During this period, I argue, a significant discursive shift reframed both natural history and the concept of humanity. In the early modern period, compiling natural histories was often conceived as an endeavour to understand God's creation. Many of the natural historians involved in the early Royal Society of London were driven by a theological conviction that the New World contained the natural knowledge once possessed by Adam, but lost in the Fall from Eden. By the early 19th century, however, this theological framework for natural history had been superseded by an avowedly progressive vision of the relationship between humanity and nature. No longer ontologically distinct from the rest of creation, the human became a subject of natural history writing in a new way. Encounters between colonizers and colonized thus became a touchstone for tensions between divine and natural historical knowledge. The resolution of these tensions lay in the emergence of a concept of savagery that imbibed both a rational account of historical progress towards civilization and a religious conviction that savage humanity needed rescue from its animal nature.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-79
Number of pages17
JournalHistory of the Human Sciences
Volume32
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • Christianity
  • Eden
  • Enlightenment
  • colonization
  • natural history

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'From Eden to savagery and civilization : British colonialism and humanity in the development of natural history, ca. 1600-1840'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this