Tolkien's Environmental Ethic

[Hephaestus]

This is the beginning of an essay I wrote on Tolkien's Environmental Ethics. It is very long (15 pages of double spaced 12pt), so it will be continued in a few posting. I'll be excited to hear what people think of it (or if they are even interested enough to read the whole thing).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph A. Stramondo
English 392 Tolkien
March 11, 2004

Beyond Environmental Stewardship: J.R.R. Tolkien’s Value of the Natural World

In their essay comparing various themes in J.R.R. Tolkien’s fictional masterpiece The Lord of the Rings with traditional Eastern religions, Jennifer L. McMahon and B. Steve Csaki write, “In Tolkien’s work, nature figures not only as the principle setting for the plot, but also as a vital force. Thus, far from being an unassuming backdrop for the action, nature is presented as a nurturing ground for the primary characters, an imposing obstacle to their endeavors, and an integral aspect of their values.” I would take this claim one step farther and argue that Tolkien is using his literary creation to make a very intentional and well articulated statement about how we should interact with our natural environment as moral agents. Of course, this is not the only ethical message within LOTR or even the primary point Tolkien is trying to convey about how we should live our lives. However, it is a very interesting theme that deserves our serious attention and may be more complex than those who have attempted to interpret it realize. An examination of every aspect of Tolkien’s environmental ethic would be much too ambitious a task to undertake in a paper of this size, so the aim of this essay will be to look at Tolkien’s concept of the moral value of objects within the natural world. I will begin with a brief summary of the methods of value giving that Tolkien is clearly against, then I will evaluate the claim that Tolkien’s view of the moral value of the environment is merely one of Christian humanism, and I will conclude with an argument about why Tolkien’s view of the moral value of nature is more complex than straightforward Christian humanism.
Tolkien’s environmental ethic is most hostile to a view of moral value that only regards non-human objects that exist in the natural world as of purely utilitarian or instrumental value. Such an ethic sees every object, even every living object, as valuable only in as far as it can be useful. This is how most of us would assign moral value to a car or a computer. It is not morally valuable in itself but is valuable because of how it is used by someone. The reason I have a duty not to smash my roommate’s laptop is has nothing to do with a duty I have to the laptop but a duty I have to my roommate who uses it to write papers. In other words, it is only morally valuable in as far as it contributes to his flourishing.
It is obvious that Tolkien has no sympathy for this moral paradigm because of the types of characters that hold this view and how this view is explicitly scorned by some of his protagonists. This way of valuing the natural world is practiced by the villain Saruman. Saruman’s ecological and ethical foil, the Ent named Treebeard, describes him accordingly: “He has a mind of metals and wheels; and he does not care for growing things, except as far as they serve him for the moment.” It is apparent from this passage and others like it, that the villainous traitor Saruman values the environment only as much as it can be useful to him. He treats “growing things” as I treat my computer. As long as it has use to me, I protect it by keeping it under lock and key and making sure that only those who are responsible and will not harm it are allowed to use it. However, if it was no longer able to serve the purposes that it does, it would not enjoy such status as an object of value. If I no longer could use it to check my email and write English papers, I would probably discard it because of all the space it occupies in my dorm room.
For Saruman, the way one goes about “using” the growing things is by destroying them. So, his treatment of Treebeard’s trees reflects his attitude about their moral value. He does not think twice about destroying the ecosystem of Fangorn Forest because it is only through this destruction that the forest is useful to him. He needs the trees to drive his industry of war. In his attempt to gain power, Saruman treats the living trees of Fangorn with merely instrumental value, as we can see from Treebeard description: “most are hewn up and carried off to feed the fires of Orthanc. There is always smoke rising from Isengard these days.” For Saruman, the trees can be destroyed because they have no moral value and are only valuable at all because of the needs they can satisfy.
Of course, Saruman does not limit this method of assigning value to objects found in the natural environment. He even treats other moral agents as “mere means.” Treebeard himself complains that:
“I used to talk to him [Saruman]… He was polite in those days, always asking my leave (at least when he met me); and always eager to listen. I told him many things that he would never have found out by himself; but he never repaid me in like kind. I cannot remember that he ever told me anything… Some time ago I began to wonder how Orcs dared to pass through my woods so freely… Only lately did I guess that Saruman was to blame, and that long ago he had been spying out all the ways, and discovering my secrets. He and his foul folk are making havoc now.”
This passage makes it clear that Treebeard is not just angered by how Saruman has spread destruction throughout his forest. He is also deeply bothered at how Saruman has used him. It is clear that Saruman’s view of moral value is utilitarian even in regard to persons as well as things. Treebeard, ccertainly a person in the Kantian sense of the term, has been treated as a mere means and Saruman has not shown him the respect due to a moral agent who is a full member of the moral community and should be treated as an end in himself.

[hephaestis]

To be sure, Tolkien is not happy with the ifea of applying purely instrumental value to the environment. He stresses that this is the view of moral value held by one of the most despicable characters in the novel, certainly not someone we should be taking our moral lessons from. However, Saruman’s method of viewing the moral value of the natural world is not the only one dealt with in the book. Another view that Tolkien has much more sympathy toward is Christian humanism. It is the view that most critics would lump Tolkien in with, both because of the explicit evidence in his writing and his own personal religious commitments. Whether this is a fair assessment of the emnvironmental ethic that Tolkien is arguing for remains to be seen, but we must first begin by giving this option the benefit of the doubt.
The topic addressed by the essay referred to at the beginning of this paper is environmental ethics in general and Tolkien’s preferred paradigm of nature’s moral value in particular. Contrasting Tolkien’s opinion about the moral value of nature with that of Buddhism, McMahon and Csaki argue that Tolkien adopted the attitude of stewardship toward nature which is commonly held by the school of thought called Christian humanism.
With its ethical roots planted firmly in the revelation of the Bible and the tradition of Christianity, Christian humanism takes the stance that human beings are the most morally valuable part of God’s creation but still have a responsibility to live their lives in a way that is respectful of the rest of His creation. This way of viewing the moral value of nature is called environmental stewardship. Thomas Derr articulates the best explanation of what Christian humanistic environmental stewardship is in his book Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism. He explains, “we are the trustees for that which does not belong to us.” Much like the Stewart of Gondor who rules over the kingdom until the heir of Isildor returns, we hold dominion over the earth in a relationship of caring authority. Scriptural justification of this way of valuing the environment is to be found in one of the oldest texts that exist in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Book of Genesis. In this piece of religious revelation, God says to Adam and Eve, the first humans created,
“‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”
It is clear from this passage that the moral value arising from a traditional Christian humanism holds human beings to be much more morally valuable than the rest of God’s creation. After all, he sets us in dominion over the rest of creation by giving us the command to “subdue” nature and the physical and mental capacities to be able to do so.
However, even if he has said we should use nature so we can “be fruitful and multiply,” it does not follow that the only value nature should have for us is instrumental. The doctrine of environmental stewardship encourages us to value the different entities and elements around us both for the uses they have to us and because “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” What this means to our behavior is that we have leave to use what we need to survive but are not free to abuse it as if the only value it has is that of utility. In fact, this idea of Earth being on long term lease to us as its current inhabitants is bolstered by the passage, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” The garden was not Adam and Eve’s to do with as they wished, only as valuable as it was useful. More accurately, it was God’s good creation that they were able to use and love also. Derr emphasizes the difference in valuation between stewardship and utilitarianism when he explains, “humans are definitely above nature and in charge, but our primacy is one of responsibility. We cannot do whatever pleases us… Our commitment and our duty is to love the world both for our own sakes, and for the love of its Maker.” Unlike a utilitarian like Saruman, the Christian humanist values the world both as a resource and as inherently valuable because it was created by a God that would create nothing less than something that is good.

[hephaestus]

McMahon and Csaki believe that this is the view that Tolkien holds in regard to the moral value of the natural environment. They are explicit in this belief when they write, “Tolkien’s portrayal of the ecological harm caused by such improper stewardship is likely expressive of the Judeo-Christian belief that individuals have a special obligation to act as stewards of their natural surroundings.” Being that they are writing a chapter in a book aimed at a popular audience rather than a piece of serious philosophical, religious, or literary scholarship, the authors’ argument that grounds this generalization is not very detailed or sophisticated.
However, there is some fairly compelling evidence offered. One reason McMahon and Csaki argue that Tolkien believes humans “have a certain authority over nature” is because of “the text’s implicit critique of improper stewardship of nature as well as in its suggestion that certain beings either have, or are destined to have, dominion over all or part of the earth.” As far as improper stewardship, they are referring to “the environmental destruction wrought by Saruman and Sauron as well as the industrialization that threatens the shire.” There is no need for us to give further attention to a description of these examples, but it is clear how they can be seen as instances of improper stewardship. In these cases that Tolkien frowns upon, the land is treated as valuable only as an instrument and abused accordingly.
It is hard to say what they mean when they refer to individuals having dominion over the earth and they fail to offer any examples. Certainly, there are several characters and peoples who could be depicted as the models of stewardship. The garden of Bilbo Baggins or the highly pruned “wilderness” of Lothlorien immediately jump to mind as a perfect fit for the stewardship paradigm of the moral value of nature. Undoubtedly, Bilbo and the elves – and Samwise the gardener – have a “preference for domesticated nature.” However, it would be melodramatic at best to call the gardens of Bagshot Row an example of “dominion over all or part of the earth.”
Aside from the elves, there are few major players in the LOTR saga that could be described as having dominion. Perhaps Tom Bombadil or the Ents themselves are good candidates for this role? Maybe they are who McMahon and Csaki have in mind and are referring to in their argument for dominion being evidence for Tolkien’s Christian humanistic environmental stewardship model of moral value. There can be no doubt that both Tom and Treebeard exert a magical power over nature. Treebeard the ent is a tree herder and can speak to that aspect of nature and exert a good deal of control over it. It is clear that his presence is what protects Merry and Pippen from the trees that have become hostile to outsiders. In addition, he and his entish companions “herd” portions of Fangorn that become useful in the battle at Isengard. Tom is probably an even better example of this “dominion” that McMahon and Csaki insist exists within Tolkien’s work. When he hears of the plight of Merry and Pippen regarding Old Man Willow, Bombadil shows just how much dominance he has over the natural world and exclaims, “Old Man Willow? Naught worse than that, eh? That can soon be mended. I know the tune for him. Old grey Willow-man! I’ll freeze his marrow cold if he don’t behave himself. I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Old Man Willow!” Furthermore, when Frodo asks Goldberry who Tom Bombadil is, she answers that “He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.” Perhaps Tom Bombadil is the model for stewardship because he has such dominion.
These examples of dominion are not necessarily the most compelling evidence that Tolkien prefers the approach of Christian Humanism when deliberating the moral value of the environment. However, McMahon and Csaki do present a strong case that Tolkien is a champion of the environmental stewardship approach when they argue that he has a “preference for domesticated nature.” This preference is exhibited, they argue, by the negative terms he describes wilderness environments in. They propose that the description of areas like Mirkwood, Fangorn, and the Old Forest are more than just an attempt to “convey the threat that wild environments pose to his protagonists.” Rather, these descriptions are evidence that “a subtle privileging of human types still colors the LOTR” because it represents an open hostility to any environment that is not subject to human stewardship. In their attempt to contrast Tolkien’s ethic with Eastern traditions, they maintain that this portrayal is an “elevation of domesticated nature and denigration of wild nature” because it “effectively aligns wilderness areas with forces of evil and the Shire and other domesticated areas with the forces of good, a maneuver that is certainly common in Western literature.” This seems to be a fairly accurate generalization, or at least as accurate as a generalization about a one thousand page novel can be. However, it does not seem to be enough to establish Tolkien as a Christian humanist dedicated to environmental stewardship as the paradigm of how to view the moral value of nature.

[hephaestus]

Tom Bombadil and Treebeard can actually be seen as two very powerful counterexamples to the idea that Tolkien’s environmental valuation can be boiled down to that of Christian humanism. Indeed, it is these characters that have the most potential to hold dominion over nature who affect it the least. This could definitely be seen as Tolkien’s statement that we should interfere with the environment as little as possible because it has an intrinsic value that is separate from how it is useful to us. Certainly, environmental stewardship is closer to Tolkien’s view of moral value than a pure utilitarianism, but it is still not a precise explanation of how Tolkien saw things. By all means, Tom Bombadil was described as the “Master” of the Old Forest. However, when Goldberry is asked if this means that Tom owns “all this strange land” she exclaims,
“‘No indeed!’ she answered, and her smile faded. ‘That would indeed be a burden,’ she added in a low voice, as if to herself. ‘The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master. No one has ever caught old Tom walking in the forest, wading in the water, leaping on the hill-tops under light and shadow. He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master.’”
So Tom being “Master” does not mean that Tom has dominion. He does not own the land and does not even have it on lease from a higher power. He does not guard it or domesticate it or improve it. No, Tom is Master because he knows and loves the Old Forest. This point is made by Andrew Light in his essay “Tolkien’s Green Time: Environmental Themes in The LOTR” when he argues that Tom being Master does not mean “that he is master over the things themselves… but that he thoroughly understands them. Part of the reason is that, as he explains, he is ‘eldest… here before the rivers and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn’ (FR, p. 148).” Tom is not Master because he has subdued the environment but because he understands it so well that he can live in complete harmony with it.
In fact, Tom’s way of valuing the world he lives in is much closer to that of the Buddhist perspective as it is described by McMahon and Csaki than it is to Christian humanism. Bombadil doesn’t fit the Buddhist paradigm exactly, but he is very close to sharing their moral worldview according to the authors of this essay who are so insistent that Tolkien’s value system has so many fundamental differences with Buddhist thought. They claim that the difference between Tolkien and Buddhism is that “Buddhists do not see individuals as having some special authority over nature. Rather, they hold that individuals are members of nature. While Buddhists recognize that humans exert a more significant influence on the environment than other species, that do not privilege humans over other natural entities or nature generally.” This stance is unquestionably opposed to Christian humanism, but is it necessarily opposed to Tolkien’s notion of the moral value of the natural world in light of our observations about Tom Bombadil?
If Tom Bombadil is on the cusp of a Buddhist worldview, Treebeard is the perfect, cookie cutter version of a Buddhist. Treebeard describes his and his kin’s attitude toward nature with, “the Ents gave their love to things that they met in the world… for the Ents loved the great trees, the wild woods, and the slopes of the high hills; and they drank of the mountain stream, and ate only such fruit as the trees let fall in their path.” This is the relationship of complete harmony between a moral agent and the natural environment. The ents do not ever tamper with the world about them and respect it so much, valuing it always as an end in itself, that they aren’t even willing to till the land to grow food. Now, this is a vastly unrealistic requirement to have of human beings who must use the land to some degree in order to survive. However, it is a clear statement that Tolkien at least considers, if not adopts, a way of valuing the natural world that is completely independent of any value it has to us. This is certainly not “the elevation of domesticated nature and denigration of wild nature.” It is quite the opposite: a rational being who is making a cogent argument for the inherent goodness of nature as is rather than nature that has been reigned in or “improved” through cultivation.
It may be argued that Treebeard is nothing more than an anthropomorphized tree and that his opinion should be taken lightly because it is only presented in this way because it fit his character so well. After all, what would be the opinion of a talking tree if you asked it how we should view the moral value of the natural world? In other words, McMahon and Csaki may respond that the opinion expressed by Treebeard was not Tolkien’s endorsement of Buddhism but was written in that way because it was not possible for his opinion to be otherwise on this matter. If a walking and talking tree didn’t regard nature with inherent moral value, who would?
Whether he intended to or not, Tolkien provided me with an answer to this objection to my hypothesis that the ents represent an important aspect of his environmental ethic: the entwives. McMahon and Csaki are correct that improving nature is a central idea of the environmental stewardship point of view maintained by Christian humanism. This is abundantly clear from Derr’s argument for stewardship that states:
“Of course we cannot serve and honor the creation by destroying it. But neither are we meant to preserve it exactly as we found it, freezing it in its original perfection so to speak… Gardeners do not leave things as they found them… The steward’s task is responsible development.”
The entwives are the paradigmatic expression of this position on environmental moral value. If we ask whether it was possible for the ents to have a different belief and whether they maintain the intrinsic value of nature as a statement on Tolkien’s behalf, we are answered with a resounding yes because of the example of the entwives.
The entwives fit Derr’s valuing model almost as precisely as if Tolkien was trying to use them as a foil to the ents and help me prove my point. Ents did not have to necessarily value nature as an end in itself entirely because of their nature. They could have shared the moral values of the entwives who, “did not desire to speak with these things; but they wished them to hear and obey what was said to them. The Entwives ordered them to grow according to their wishes, and bear leaf and fruit to their liking… So the entwives made gardens to live in.” This echoes Derr’s orthodox articulation of the valuing practiced by stewardship. It is the entwives that hold dominion over nature and subdue it. This presents us with the question of if Tolkien favored the view of the entwives. Did he somehow include these characters as an argument for a stewardship that improves the land and makes it more beautiful? Are the entwives meant as a foil to the ents as Laertes, Horatio, and Fortinbras act as foils to Hamlet? It seems possible that Tolkien wanted the entwives to be a point of comparison that we could hold the ents up against. However, it seems rather unlikely that he was trying to emphasize the tragic flaw of the ents with the even more tragic story of the entwives. It is not that the ents were unable to live by the better moral system of the entwives and were therefore abandoned, but rather that the entwives were flawed and literally went astray because of their way of valuing their environment.
It is my belief that Tolkien favored a view of environmental ethics that valued the objects within the natural world as inherently valuable. Perhaps action according to this paradigm is unrealistic and contrary to human intuition and deep seeded desire for life. However, I do believe that Tolkien saw the inherent value of the environment as a moral ideal as he saw a divinely ordained benevolent monarchy as a political ideal. Neither utopian vision is realistic, but both are desirable.
McMahon and Csaki went into their reading of Tolkien with an agenda. They took up the task of comparing the religions of the Far East with Tolkien’s work. To do this – especially for a popular audience – they had to work in generalizations and pigeon hole Tolkien’s sophisticated ideas into categories that were much too narrow for him to fit into. They looked for differences between Buddhism and LOTR working under the assumption that “Tolkien’s treatment of nature is clearly affected by Judeo-Christian notions” and found them. Perhaps some of their observations about how Tolkien viewed the issue of the moral value of the environment were correct, but it seems that most of them ignored large portions of his work that are explicitly saying something about this topic. Tolkien’s way of valuing the natural world was much more subtle and more sophisticated than these critics give him credit for.