He Blinded Me with Science: the Effects of 19Th Century Science on Melville's Moby-Dick
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
mention of science seemed only to be used He Blinded Me descriptively to promote a fuller picture of nature. However, a closer look reveals science and reason are deeply integrated into MelvilleÕs narrative and with Science: The he employs his familiarity with science in important turning points of the novel. th To begin, I must address what was happening in Effects of 19 science from the middle of the 18th century up to the publication of Moby-Dick in 1852. Science between these two centuries was inßuenced by radical changes Century Science on in the beliefs about the consistency of species found in nature; this change in belief resulted from the empirical classiÞcation of plants by Linnaeus around MelvilleÕs Moby- 1750 (Amundson 37, 40). These observations led to the theory of species Þxism, meaning that new Dick species do not spontaneously generate but are the same they were thousands of years ago; species Þxism was a necessary requirement for taxonomy to begin. by Jason Foxworthy The Þeld of taxonomy is a good example of what arose from 18th and 19th century science as a result During the time that Melville wrote Moby-Dick, of studying species from both a structuralist and there was a profound shift in the way that scientists functionalist perspective. observed nature; especially with respect to what A year before Moby-Dick was published there counted as observation. Some of the terminology was an important shift toward the structuralists in discussed in this essay is from a very specialized the structuralist/functionalist debate. This debate area of philosophy: the history and philosophy centered on an explanation of traits and parts in of science. I will provide deÞnitions in the text to individual species and between different species eliminate confusion. This debate occurred between (Amundson 57). Structuralists rejected the common structuralists and functionalists. The former held the belief that function or purpose was inherent and position that considers observation free from purpose; a necessary requisite for observation to be fact. in the case of corresponding bones between species, a Functionalists conformed to the common belief structuralist would maintain that all vertebrates come about function being the only non-abstract way to from one archetypal vertebrate. The latter, conformed observe and classify nature. The debate took place to the mainstream view that for observation to be in 1830, approximately twenty years prior to the scientiÞc it must contain function, otherwise it would publication of Moby-Dick, between Baron Georges be abstract or metaphysical. This shift resulted from a Cuvier, a functionalist, and Etienne Geoffroy, a reevaluation of what counts as empirical observation structuralist (Waggoner). Cuvier had two advantages: for science and provided the conditions necessary functionalism was the dominant view, and he was for the Þeld of taxonomy to arise. Effects of this one of the most inßuential scientists of his time. On debate are strongly evident in Moby-Dick. In Chapter the structuralist side of the debate, Etienne Geoffroy 32, ÒCetology,Ó Ishmael brießy mentions some of argued avidly against CuvierÕs position by coming the inßuential scientists and their theories about up with counter evidence to CuvierÕs evidence; his whales, primarily dating about one hundred years evidence supported that there were unities within before Moby-Dick was published. After examining structure that were not related to the function, for the scientiÞc beliefs of this period, it is evident example a bone thought necessary for the ßight that Melville was indeed inßuenced by scientiÞc of birds was found to be in a Þsh near the gills empiricism. However, he expands his empirical (Amundson 56). The debate was important because insights of nature to include the nature of man. it was very inßuential to the Þeld of taxonomy over In the chapter Cetology, which is the branch the next few decades. Despite the popularity of of zoology that studies whales, Melville mocks functionalism, structuralism became the mainstream the scientiÞc approach of observing nature. Yet, view in 1850, a few years before the publication of throughout the book, Ishmael employs scientiÞc Moby-Dick (Amundson 57-58). methods of analyzing his observations of religion, The science of the day relates to the literature in culture, and nature. On the surface, MelvilleÕs that nature is examined and empiricism is broadened 37 beyond its focus on purpose. The role of scientiÞc Yet, his position is not strictly functionalist. He inßuence in Moby-Dick has not been given its due. shifts between favoring functionlist and structuralist Melville was at least familiar with Baron Cuvier and assertions. Ishmael goes on to make structuralist some of his works, since his name was mentioned assertions about human nature. Ishmael also in the article ÒWhalesÓ published in the Penny blatantly mocks religious authority by questioning Cyclopedia, which Melville heavily drew upon for the Christian/Pagan binary. Ishmael subverts scientiÞc reference of the whale (Melville 115). Thus authoritative Þgures with whom he can not reconcile some of the greatest and most inßuential scientists of his own beliefs. He makes an appeal to reason when his time have indirectly shaped the creation of Moby- authority tries to refute his common sense view of Dick. nature. His friendship with Queequeg allows him In ÒCetologyÓ Melville attributes structuralism to intimacy enough to measure Queequeg beyond the scientists of his day and functionalism to common Captain BildadÕs demand that Queequeg demonstrate sailors. Leon Howard, author of Herman Melville: A himself as a Christian. Captain BildadÕs demand Biography writes: judges Queequeg functionally because he determines A careful study of the sources of the Þnished QueequegÕs worth by the way in which he worships, work bears out this conclusion, rather than recognizing in Queequeg as good enough showing that he interpolated one distinctive as a human being. Captain BildadÕs religious views chapter, ÒThe Advocate,Ó in his early subordinate all heathens on the fundamental assertion sourceless narrative and did not begin to of Christian superiority. Ishmael retorts: draw regularly upon Beale and his other I mean sir, the same ancient Catholic Church sources of [scientiÞc and technical] to which you and I, and Captain Peleg there, information until he reached chapter thirty- and Queequeg here, and all of us, and every two, entitled ÒCetology.Ó (162) motherÕs son and soul of us belong; the great This scientiÞcally saturated chapter is used as a and everlasting First congregation of this transition between MelvilleÕs Þrst and second types whole worshipping world; we all belong of narratives. Whereas the Þrst narrative focuses to that; only some of us cherish some queer on Ishmael and Queequeg, the second narrative crochets noways touching the grand belief; in after ÒCetologyÓ diminishes their role as it takes an all that we join hands. (84) explicitly functionalist turn. Melville uses Ishmael to When Ishmael refuses to permit QueequegÕs examine two opposing world views in ÒCetology;Ó worth to be determined merely on a functional Ishmael begins by deÞning the whale structurally level, it is the same refusal he made with regard to (LinnaeusÕs view) and goes on to compare this now favoring scientistÕs reasoning over common sailors. trendy scientiÞc view with the more traditional Ishmael consistently empathizes with the humanist functional view. To validate his preference for the perspective and, like structuralists, invests his time in functionalist meaning of what a whale is, Ishmael an analysis of human character rather than whether or states: Òdown to the year 1850, sharks and shad, not people conform to established forms of theology alewives and herringÉwere still found dividing or ethnocentrism. MelvilleÕs ability to utilize elements the possession of the same seas with the [whale]Ó of both the structural and functional arguments shows (117). Ishmael favors the functionalist method for that he is a product of his time, since both views determining the status of a whale: were inßuential. His versatility is implanted into his The grounds upon which Linnaeus would creation of Ishmael, who continually uses scientiÞc fain have banished the whales from the judgment before arguing his case. He does not allow waters, he states as follows: ÔOn account of his own values to be compromised with respect to their warm Binocular heart, their lungs, their oppressive institutions. With respect to these societal movable eye-lids, their hollow ears, [a penis constructs he does not see the need to create a which enters the female, whose breasts lactate hierarchy from the function or location of individuals, and justly and deservedly because of the laws so thus far, Ishmael has not behaved out of character. of nature]Õ. (Melville 117) If Melville wrote Moby-Dick to accurately Ishmael derides the structuralist assertion that whales describe the career of whaling to the masses, then it are not Þsh based on correspondences with other would make sense for him to use Ishmael to glorify animals not found in the water. Rather than agreeing the career of the whaler; this is made possible by with the scientists about whales, Ishmael agrees with rejecting the status of a whale being anything more his messmates who accept the place where a whale than a Þsh since it is the task of a whaler to slay these resides as being sufÞcient enough to end the Þsh/ creatures. Also the great magnitude of the whale mammal debate; the mainstream functionalist view makes its death a noble victory. Another reason appeals to our common sense because it would be that follows this logic is the desire Melville had absurd to question that a whale is not a Þsh, after all, to maintain the image that Ishmael was a realistic it lives in the ocean. sailor. How typical is it for Þshermen to go about
38 philosophizing about the humanistic qualities of a Curiously, Ishmael lightheartedly criticizes sea creature that he intends to kill? Though MelvilleÕs science, but only after he at least considers it, description of whales comes from both personal whereas Ahab who is clearly aligned with evil and encounters and other accounts of whaling, IshmaelÕs selÞshness throughout the novel takes his deÞance to understanding comes only after a scientiÞc account a completely different level. In ÒThe QuadrantÓ there has been given. While there are a variety of awe- is a description in which Ahab provokes his crew inspired human thoughts ascribed to the whale into behaving in opposition to science, that is he gets sightings in the novel, the manner in which whales them to follower him after mesmerizing them, action are described utilizes both functional and structural devoid of a rational reason. When Ahab mutters to characteristics to more fully develop the image of himself brießy before giving his sermon he says, whale that Melville presents throughout Moby-Dick. ÒScience! Curse thee, thou vain toy; and cursed be all MelvilleÕs rejection of the structuralist assertion things that cast manÕs eyes aloft to that heaven, whose that whales are unlike the other sea creatures live vividness but scorches him, as these old eyes because of their functional role in their sea lacks the are even now scorched with thy lightÓ (378). It is no transcendentalist attitude he exhibits regularly in accident that Melville aligns evil with the opposition relation to human dignity, such as his elevation of of science. Especially since throughout the novel he QueequegÕs character or his appreciation of whalers uses very rational reasoning that science validates to as opposed to other sailors. According to Milton R. make his grounded points about his insights on unjust Stern who wrote an essay titled, ÒMelville, Society, mainstream views like western ethnocentrism and and LanguageÓ in A Companion to Melville studies: religious superiority. The transformation, which Melville was to Melville is truly a product of his time. His inherit from the religious liberalism of his writing style reßects the tumultuous structure/ father, was a social and political translation function debate which was an important argument of the benevolently rational science derived for scientists during his life. His writing reßects the from the Þxed and perfect laws of nature struggle that scientists had during this period. He and of natureÕs God. The good society now suffered much anguish like the structuralist Geoffroy, becomes in effect, a fully secular type of who received many criticisms for his controversial absolute divine rationality and toleration. position when he went against and attacked the (Stern 435) mainstream view of functionalism. Moby-DickÕs This rationalistic approach to nature allowed Melville structural elements were vehemently attacked by to escape the tyrannical oppression of Puritanical MelvilleÕs critics. He used this style of thinking to thought, opening the door for conceptions of subversively mock religion and ethnocentrism. universal unity. This universal unity can be observed Even more unfortunate for Melville was the fact by the way Ishmael views religion after coming to that his controversial examination of religion and know Queequeg. western superiority alienated people from his works The placement of scientiÞc information in the and resulted in the loss of numerous future texts novel indicates a signiÞcant role that transcends mere which most likely would have been realized had he description of nature. Like the shift discussed earlier experienced the success that Moby-Dick experiences in ÒCetology,Ó this shift occurs in another adequately to this day. He paid a heavy toll for critically named scientiÞc chapter, ÒThe Fossil Whale.Ó In this examining mainstream values. Yet, although the chapter a prominent British scientist, Richard Owen, quality of his remaining years diminished, he has renowned for his ability to piece together fossils given the world an amazing work of open-minded reconstructed a prehistoric whale skeleton (350). literature which not only provides its readers with ÒThe Fossil WhaleÓ leads to the question ÒDoes the incredibly keen insights about the nature of man but WhaleÕs Magnitude Diminish?ÑWill he perish?Ó of critical thinking as well. He has left the world a (351). Melville continues to employ science in order better place for having his novel. to gain understanding of nature. However, something dark and sinister replaces science. The chapters that follow range from ÒAhabÕs LegÓ wherein the greedy monomaniac seeks to replace a lost limb to ÒAhab and Starbuck in the CabinÓ where Ahab loses control and grabbed a musket Òand pointing it towards Starbuck exclaimed: ÒThere is one God that is Lord over the earth, and one Captain that is lord over the Pequod.Ñ On deck!Ó (362). Perhaps this could be taken for a coincidence if it were the sole instance of science appearing right before AhabÕs Þt of rage, but it is not.
39 WORKS CITED
Amundson, Ronald. The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Structure and Synthesis. New York: Cambridge UP, 2005.
Bickman, Martin., John Bryant, Milton R. Stern et al. A Companion to Melville Studies. Ed.
John Bryant. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986. 515-541, xvii-xxvii, and 433-479.
Howard, Leon. Herman Melville: A Biography. Los Angeles: California UP, 1967.
Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick: A Norton Critical Edition. Eds. Harrison Hayford and Hershel Parker. ed. 2. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
Wagonner, Ben. ÒEtienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772- 1844). University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology. Feb 23 1996. 5 Dec 2005.
40