Conservation Aesthetic and Microbiological Aesthetic

8/6/2019 Conservation Aesthetic and Microbiological Aesthetic

1/9

The Conservation Aesthetic and the Microscopic AestheticAuthor(s): Maura C. FlannerySource: BioScience, Vol. 49, No. 10 (Oct., 1999), pp. 801-808Published by: American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313571

Accessed: 17/05/2010 12:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Institute of Biological Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

toBioScience.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313571?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1313571?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/9

EducationT h e conservation aesthetic a n d t h e

microscopic aestheticn 1907, when the noted wildlifemanagement professor and envi-ronmentalist Aldo Leopold(1887-1948) was in college, he com-plained in a letter to his father thathe had to "sit four hours a week

squinting through a microscope at alittle drop of mud all full of wigglybugs and things, and then draw pic-tures of them and label them withungodly Latin names" (Meine 1988).This was a rather typical studentresponse to microscopic work, espe-cially for someone like Leopold, whowas interested in forestry, not mi-crobiology. It remains true today thatecology and cell biology frequentlyseem to operate in different biologi-cal worlds. Many ecologists do littlelaboratory work and see microscopyas something seldom needed in theirusual field-based research. Con-versely, many cell biologists and mi-crobiologists who are comfortablewith the microscopic world rarelyventure outside the laboratory intothe macroscopic biological world inthe course of their work.This dichotomy exists in manybiology departments. Biology ma-jors often come to feel that they mustmake a choice between these differ-ent approaches to the living worldbecause the approaches seem incom-patible and incapable of being inte-grated. In the case of nonmajors, thiscarving up of biology makes it diffi-cult for them to appreciate the unityunderlying the diversity of the sub-ject. In this article, I attempt to con-struct a bridge between these differ-ing approaches to biology by usingaesthetics to demonstrate that theappreciation of the natural world issimilar for ecologists and for cellbiologists and microbiologists. Myargument is that Leopold's "conser-vation aesthetic" can provide guid-

ance for teaching students to appre-ciate and understand the microscopicworld.The conservation aestheticAesthetics is the branch of philoso-phy that deals with the beautiful,both in the natural world and in art.Dewey (1934) argues that any expe-rience, including scientific inquiry,can be aesthetic to the degree that itis an experience-that is, that it in-volves a heightened vitality and ac-tive relationship between the self andthe world. Goodman (1968) stressesthe cognitive nature of the aestheticexperience; he sees emotion as well ascognition as being involved in under-standing and appreciating the world.He argues that "perception, concep-tion, and feeling intermingle and in-teract" (Goodman 1968). Knowledge,including the factual and the experi-ential, deepens the aesthetic experi-ence and cannot be separated fromit; the aesthetic attitude is restlessand entails searching and testing.Despite such analyses, aestheticshas not been given much attention indiscussions of biological inquiry. Oneexception is in Leopold's own work-that classic of environmental litera-ture, A Sand County Almanac andSketches Here and There by Leopold(1949). Callicott (1987) argues that,taking the book as a whole, an ap-propriate aesthetic response to na-ture seems as important to Leopoldas an appropriate ethical attitude.Leopold sees aesthetic attraction tonature as a powerful force that needsto be harnessed in efforts to preservethe environment and as a counter-part to his argument for an ethicalbasis to caring for nature. He con-tends that an approach to nature isright if it preserves not only the in-tegrity and stability of a biotic com-munity but its beauty as well.Sand County has been described

as the intellectual touchstone of theenvironmental movement that blos-somed in the United States in the1960s and 1970s (Nash 1987). Thebook is divided into three parts. Inthe first part, the almanac proper,Leopold chronicles his observationsthrough the seasons on the aban-doned farmland he owned in SaukCounty, Wisconsin. Although thisdiscussion is similar to the work ofmany other nature writers, even inthis context Leopold weaves a gooddeal of ecology into his observa-tions-more than is found in manyworks of this genre, particularly thosepublished at the time he was writing.The ecological emphasis becomeseven more pronounced in the book'ssecond section, in which Leopoldranges more widely, discussing hisexperiences in nature from Canadato Mexico. In the first essay in thissection-on sandhill cranes-Leopold explicitly raises the issue ofaesthetics and implies that there aredifferent levels of aesthetic response.This approach is in contrast to theusual treatment of aesthetics in rela-tion to the natural world. Most writ-ers who point to the beauty of natureor of organisms do not delve intowhat that beauty really involves; thatis, they fail to explore the fact thatthe beauty of nature entails morethan just surface beauty.Leopold, on the other hand, notesthat "our ability to perceive qualityin nature begins, as in art, with thepretty. It expands through succes-sive stages of the beautiful to valuesas yet uncaptured in language"(Leopold 1949, p. 96). In the appre-ciation of sandhill cranes and theirdance, for example, these successivestages come with increased admira-tion for the birds' ecology and evolu-tionary history; knowledge and aes-thetic appreciation are, therefore,linked (Callicott 1987). This con-nection is clear in Leopold's com-by Maura C. Flannery

October 1999 801


3/9

ment that the crane's "tribe stemsout of the remote Eocene. The othermembers of the fauna in which heoriginated are long since entombedwithin the hills. When we hear hiscall we hear no mere bird. We hearthe trumpet in the orchestra of evo-lution" (Leopold 1949, p. 96).Leopold also recounts the historyof the marshland-how it developedfrom a lake formed as an Ice Ageglacier receded. The lake was even-tually drained by a river, and theresidual lagoons and then marshesattracted cranes; settlers later drainedthe land and tried to grow crops onit. Their attempts were ultimatelyunsuccessful; the peat beds were notsuited to agriculture. They dried outand fed smoldering fires that couldbe quenched only by reflooding theland, which made it more suitable,once again, for cranes. Such com-plex evolutionary and ecological sto-ries underlie and deepen apprecia-tion of the visual beauty of the cranes'dance.It is the third section of SandCounty, entitled "The Upshot," thathas had the greatest impact on envi-ronmentalists. In this section,Leopold outlines the different kindsof relationships people have with theland and how these relationships af-fect nature. He calls for broadeningethical principles to include an envi-ronmental ethic, which he sums upin the often-quoted lines: "A thing isright when it tends to preserve theintegrity, stability, and beauty of thebiotic community. It is wrong whenit tends otherwise" (Leopold 1949,p. 225). The first essay in "The Up-shot" is entitled "Conservation Es-thetic," and the last is called "TheLand Ethic." The inclusion of bothaesthetics and ethics in this sectionindicates that Leopold accepted thephilosophical position that relatesthese concepts: There is a connectionbetween the beautiful and the good,and attraction to the beautiful isassociated with a proper moralstance. He explores this relationshipin "Conservation Esthetic," in whichhe observes that people go to naturefor many reasons because there aremany ways to enjoy the land. Conse-quently, there are many approachesto the conservation aesthetic.Leopold argues that there are fivecategories to this aesthetic, each of

which constitutes a different ap-proach to nature and has varyingeffects on the natural world. Thesefive categories are the quest for tro-phies, isolation, change of scene,perception, and husbandry.By comparing Leopold's conser-vation aesthetic to an appreciationof the microscopic world, it becomesclear that the five categories of aes-thetic appreciation of the naturalworld that he describes can also char-acterize appreciation of the micro-scopic world. At first there may seemto be little resemblance between theexperience of forests, prairies, anddeserts and that of cells and microor-ganisms. But I will make the casethat there are basic similarities be-tween the aesthetic experience ofthese different levels of biologicalorganization and will show that afocus on these similarities can helpstudents appreciate both the naturaland microscopic worlds more fully.In particular, such a focus can makethe microscopic world more vividlypresent to students, leading to adeeper appreciation of this worldand, ultimately, a desire to under-stand it more fully.I should note that I have used theterms natural world and microscopicworld as if they were mutually exclu-sive, when the natural world obvi-ously includes much of the micro-scopic world. Nevertheless, when mostpeople refer to the natural world, theyusually mean the macroscopic natu-ral world, as Clark (1976) notes inLandscape into Art. It is this sense ofthe natural world to which Leopoldis referring as well-the world thatthe senses can appreciate directly,without the need for instruments.Trophy. The first category of Leo-pold's conservation aesthetic is theidea of trophy, the pleasure "in theseeking as well as in the getting...of abird's egg, a mess of trout, a basketof mushrooms, the photograph of abear, the pressed specimen of a wildflower, or a note tucked into thecairn on a mountain peak" (Leopold1949). Leopold sees each of theseitems as a "certificate" that attests toits owner having "been somewhereand done something" (Leopold 1949).I see such experiences as similar tothe experiences of many neophyteswith the microscope. Often in an in-

troductory biology course, one ofthe first laboratory exercises is theuse of this instrument. The activityusually includes observing severalspecimens and perhaps drawingthem. The sighting of the cells in anonion root tip or of a paramecium ina drop of pond water is a trophy inthe sense that Leopold uses the word.The drawings of these specimens arelike the pressed flower or the photo-graph; they indicate that the studenthas been somewhere-to the micro-scopic world-and has done some-thing-correctly adjusted the micro-scope and learned to look throughthe eyepiece well enough to view theactivities in that world. This accom-plishment is impressive, particularlyfor someone who has not used amicroscope before, so it is not sur-prising that a student often feels asense of elation when she finallymakes the adjustments correctly andsees something clearly enough todraw it. For some students, this ac-complishment is on a par with a hikein the woods with a camera or acouple of hours fishing. These expe-riences provide students with a senseof ownership-the individual can gohome with something, some indica-tion of the journey, some trophy.For many people, trophy seekingis as far as their appreciation of theland-or of the microscopic world-goes. They may be infrequent hunt-ers or bird watchers-or infrequentusers of the microscope. Similarly,after his initial exercise with the mi-croscope, a student might use thisinstrument only three or four moretimes in a semester or year of generalbiology. With these low levels ofinteraction with the land and withthe microscope, it is not surprisingthat appreciation does not growmuch deeper than the thrill of acqui-sition, that it remains on the level ofwhat ErichFromm (1976) calls "hav-ing" rather than "being."Isolation. The next category of Leo-pold's conservation aesthetic requirestime and a sense of communion withnature. Leopold argues that this cat-egory, the feeling of isolation in na-ture, is more "subtle and complex"than trophy seeking (Leopold 1949).This sense of isolation means isola-tion not from nature, but from otherhuman beings. The feeling of being

802 BioScience Vol. 49 No. 10


4/9

inclosecontact with themicroscopicworld also usually comes only tothose who spend extended periodsof time in that world. In a phenom-enological analysis of microscopeuse,Heelan(1977) describes he sen-sation, which comes with continuedoperation of the microscope, thatthe microscope becomes an exten-sion of theviewer's own body.Whenthe microscopebecomes part of theviewer, the microscopic world be-comes more present to the viewer,who is "down" in that world andthus isolated from the macroscopicworld.Manypeopledo not fully appreci-ate the feeling of isolation in natureon their first encounterwith a natu-ralenvironment-or theirhundredth,for that matter. This appreciationnot only takes time but requireslis-teningto oneself andbeing willingtoappreciate what is going on, bothinside onself and in the natural envi-ronment. With such attention, theaestheticappreciationof the macro-scopic-or the microscopic-worldchanges,andit becomesnot a matterof having that world, of collectingtrophiesfromit, but of beingin thatworld and feeling kinship with it.Some instrumentationallows com-munalviewingof amicroscopic peci-men on a video screen or with adevice designed for multiple view-ing, and collaborative work in thestudent laboratoryis always impor-tant for student learning.But look-ing througha conventionallight mi-croscope-the kind most commonlyfound in teaching laboratories-in-volves, by the very nature of theactivity, separation from otherpeople. Continuing o talkwhile ook-ingat a specimencanmake the act ofviewingless satisfactorybecausefullattention is not on the specimen.Anawareness of oneness, whether withnature or with the microscopic world,requires isolation.

Although Leopold focuses on theidea of isolation as attractive in it-self, the feeling of connection withthe natural world that grows out ofthe isolation is also rewarding. Theisolation of microscope viewing canlead to greater understanding of thespecimen; a communion with one-self can lead to discoveries arisingfrom the depths of connection to aspecimen in isolation. The biologist

BarbaraMcClintock'sexperienceisan example of this kind of under-standing.Her descriptionsof explo-rations at the microscopic level aremostrevealingaboutherconnectionwith her work. She tells of beingdown in the cells, being part of thechromosomes: "I was part of thesystem.... I actually felt as if I wereright down there and these were myfriends" (as quoted in Keller 1983,p. 117). It was from this unity thatshe came to understand what wasgoing on in the cell.Change of scene. The third of Leo-pold'scategoriesof theconservationaesthetic is "fresh-airand changeofscene" (Leopold 1949). For manypeople, going into the country orforming an attachment to nature issomethingdone on the weekends oron vacation; it provides a changefromtheordinary ifeof indoorwork,often in an urban setting. Althoughtimespentlookinginto amicroscopedoes not provide fresh air, it doesinvolve a change of scene-one per-hapsmoreradical thanthat of goinginto the country because it entailsnot just a change in location but achangeof scale.Themicroscopepro-vides entryinto a world that is moretotally different from the everydayworld than any trip to the countrycouldprovide.This is aworldwhere,amongotherthings, organismshavefanciful shapes not seen in largerorganisms and where the effect ofgravity on organisms is negligible.Of lookingintoamicroscope,Dillard(1974) notes: "I have been almostknocked off my kitchen chair onseveraloccasionswhen, as I was fol-lowing with strained eyes the tinycareerof amonostylarotifer,an enor-mous red roundwormwhipped intothe scene, blocking everything,andwrithing in huge, flapping convul-sions that seemed to sweep my faceand fill the kitchen" (p. 123).

If one of the advantages of achange of scene is that it providesdetachment from the stresses of ev-eryday life, then time spent in themicroscopic world could be evenmore rejuvenating because of thegreat dissimilarity between thatworld and everyday existence. Antonvan Leeuwenhoek's descriptions ofhis "trips" to the microbial world ofpond water or saliva make this point

strongly (Ruestow 1996). This newworld was an exciting one forLeeuwenhoek,one that was hardforhimto draw himselfawayfrom. Norwas Leeuwenhoek alone in takingrefuge in the minute world. Micro-scope viewing was the rage in theseventeenth and eighteenth centu-ries, when it was compared to ex-ploringnew worlds. Inthepreface oMicrographia,RobertHooke (1665)writes that he can introducereadersto terra incognita;in the same vein,Stafford(1991) notes that the exten-sion of vision bythe microscopeper-mitted a new form of travel.Just as many writers throughoutthe ages have found inspiration innature and in a change of scene, soseventeenth-centuryandeighteenth-centurywriters found inspirationinthe microscopic world (Nicolson1956). It was a place to travelto, towonder at, and to be renewed in.Thisinterest nthemicroscopicworldmay seem extreme today, perhapsbecause we have so manysourcesofimagesat the macroscopiclevel thatthe microscopic world is just onechoice among many farglitzieronesin movie theaters and on computerscreens. Also, the microscope is nolonger viewed as an instrument ofrecreation;it is, instead, seen as aninstrument f scienceused in the seri-ous businessof scientificnquiry.Nev-ertheless,the microscoperemainsavehiclefor travelinto unseenworlds.Perception.Leopold's ourthcategoryof the conservation aesthetic is "na-ture study," or "the perception ofthe natural processes by which theland and the living things upon ithave achieved their characteristicforms (evolution)andbywhichtheymaintain their existence (ecology)"(Leopold1949). This categorydealswith the relationship between aes-thetic experience and knowledge. Itinvolves coming to appreciate thenatural world by learning about it.This knowledge can be gained frombooks and deepened by direct obser-vation and involvement; it includesnot only information that can be putinto words but also the non-verbalizable "feel" for a topic thatPolanyi (1962) calls "tacit knowl-edge" and Pantin (1954) calls "aes-thetic recognition." Leopold notesthat promoting appreciation of na-

October 1999 803


5/9

ture entails building perceptions, notroads. In other words, it requires nottraveling to remote, unspoiled areasbut rather active involvement withthe natural world, wherever it maybe found.Implicit in this category of theconservation aesthetic is an inter-

play between knowledge, observa-tion, and aesthetic experience; sand-hill cranes, for instance, become morebeautiful when their evolutionaryhistory and ecology are explored.Knowledge influences observationand can increase the curiosity to learnmore; spending time with nature canextend both knowledge and aestheticawareness. This reciprocal influenceis true of the microscopic world aswell, but the problem is that mostpeople do not spend enough timethere to experience the interplay be-tween knowledge and experience. Tothose who do devote enough time,subtle differences in amoeboid be-havior or in cell structure becomemuch more obvious. Microscopicstudies lead to appreciation of theresponsiveness of microorganisms tosubtle changes in the chemistry, lightlevels, and temperature of their envi-ronment; they also lead to an under-standing of the effect of the proper-ties of water on the behavior ofmacromolecules and microorgan-isms. As with macroscopic nature,there is a relationship between spend-ing time in that world and the devel-opment of perception. Like isola-tion, perception can lead to a feelingof connection at the microscopic levelas well as at the level of macroscopicnature. The more a person knowsabout the microscopic world, themore at home she is likely to feel init, and the closer her relationship toit will be.Husbandry. Husbandry is the fifthof Leopold's categories in the con-servation aesthetic: "The sense ofhusbandry...is realized only whensome art of management is appliedto land by some person of percep-tion" (Leopold 1949, p. 175). As anindividual comes to understand theland, he is more likely to want toconserve it, more likely to under-stand what conservation means andhow it might be accomplished. It isin this way that Leopold's aestheticsand ethics meet, that the conserva-

tion aesthetic becomes a land ethic.Spending time with nature and com-ing to understand it makes it morelikely that one will revere nature, seeits value, and want to keep this valuefrom deteriorating. But what doeshusbandry have to do with the mi-croscopic world? This world hardlyseems in danger of destruction. Thereare untold numbers of cells to lookat, and because every drop of waterin the environment teems with life,there does not seem to be a need for arelationship between a deepening un-derstanding and appreciation of thisworld and the desire to preserve it.But husbandry can, in fact, play arole in a relationship with the micro-scopic world. Husbandry connotesvalue: people husband, preserve, andcare for that which they value. Andthe microscopic world is indeed avaluable one. It is at the base of allecosystems and essential for the func-tioning of larger life forms. It is alsovaluable because it extends the fieldof perception, offering a whole newworld to connect with, to be alonein, and to come to understand. Andit is valuable as all life is valuable:small size does not diminish thisvalue, although it may make it lessobvious. But for most people, thesevalues of the microscopic world arenot apparent because they may visitit only a few times during their schoolyears, briefly and without much in-terest beyond trophy collecting. It isseen by most students as a necessarybut not very exciting or meaningfulpart of education-comparable tothe multiplication tables or spellingrules, but less useful than either.A progression. At the end of hisessay, Leopold indicates that he seesthe five categories of the conserva-tion aesthetic as a progression froma less to a more rich and enlightenedview of nature. He notes that "thetrophy-hunter is the cave man re-born. Trophy-hunting is the preroga-tive of youth" (Leopold 1949, p. 176).Leopold goes on to discuss the prob-lems of the "trophy-recreationist,"im-plying that these two approaches tothe conservation aesthetic are theleast mature and rich. The implica-tion of progression is seen in hiscomment that "the disquieting thingin the modern picture is that of thetrophy-hunter who never grows up,

in whom the capacity for isolation,perceptions, and husbandry is unde-veloped" (Leopold 1949).Leopold's five categories can beseen as an inclusive progression;moving from one to another doesnot necessarily involve totally aban-doning the pleasures of the otherlevels. A person may continue tobird watch, or take note of particu-lar cellular structures-in otherwords, trophy hunt-while also seek-ing isolation, recreation, and deep-ening perceptions. It is not that thelower levels are transcended butrather that they are enriched by thegreater depth of relationship thatcan and should evolve. Leopold him-self continued to hunt until near theend of his life and participated inother outdoor recreational activitieswith his family and friends, but healso valued the hours before dawnfor quiet observation of nature. Inseveral of the Sand County essays, hewrites of taking his coffee cup andnotebook and sitting outside hisshack to listen to the birds and seewhat animals make an appearance inthe early morning. In fact, on themorning of the day he died of a heartattack, he had made notes on justsuch observations.As Ihave outlined the microscopicaesthetic, it also involves a progres-sion from a more superficial to adeeper relationship, in this case withthe microscopic world. With themicroscopic aesthetic, as with theconservation aesthetic, the progres-sion results from greater knowledgeand understanding. And here, too,the progression is inclusive. Trophyhunting-finding a particular organ-ism or a particular cellular struc-ture-still has its appeal even after aperson has come to also appreciatethe joys of spending time in the mi-croscopic world and learning moreabout it.Other viewsThe metaphor I have developed toconnect an appreciation of the natu-ral and microscopic worlds reflects acomment made by one of Leopold'sown students, H. Albert Hochbaum,who also saw a connection betweenthe experience of nature and of themicroscopic. Hochbaum managedthe Delta Waterfowl Research Sta-



6/9

tion in Manitoba, Canada, whichLeopold had helped to establish.Hochbaum was also one of the peopleLeopold relied on for advice whilewriting Sand County. In a 4 Febru-ary 1944 letter to Leopold about oneof the essays for the book, Hochbaumnoted: "What you write about is astate of mind, probably common toall men. For some, like yourself, it isfound in the wilderness; but it isn'tthe wilderness. What you may feel inthe heart of the Sawtooth Moun-tains may be found by another onlower Manhattan before sunrise, byanother at the prow of a ship, or ona microscope slide, or in the melodyof a song. As such this is indestruc-tible as long as there is life on earth,although certain mediums, such asthe wilderness, may be destroyed"(Meine 1988, p. 454). Thus, Hoch-baum also saw that the essence of theexperience in the mountains thatLeopold describes is something com-mon to all experiences with the liv-ing world, whatever the level of or-ganization.There may be no better exemplarof the microscopic aesthetic thatHochbaum alluded to than BarbaraMcClintock. McClintock won theNobel Prize for Physiology or Medi-cine in 1983 for her work in corncytogenetics, in which she showedthat chromosomes are not unchange-able units of DNA; instead, genescan move from one position to an-other. Her work involved crossingvarious strains of corn, examiningthe ears that grew from these crosses,and studying the cells in the cornkernels to figure out how the chro-mosome configurations seen underthe microscope correlated with thecolor patterns in the kernels.McClintock's research therefore re-quired a constant movement betweenthe macroscopic and microscopicworlds to work out the relationshipbetween them-that is, to discoverhow the microscopic level influencesthe macroscopic level. Through yearsof such observation and intimacy,McClintock developed a profoundrespect for the corn plant and itscells and for their biological secrets.She said that she knew every plant inthe field intimately and that she foundgreat pleasure in knowing them. Acolleague remarked of McClintockthat she would have been able to

write the autobiography of each plantshe worked with (Keller 1983).McClintock's connection with herplant cells could indeed be called asense of husbandry that values theorganism as it is.But McClintock is hardly the onlyresearcher to articulate the micro-scopic aesthetic. Joshua Lederbergspoke of the feeling of being down ina bacterial cell and of becoming partof a chromosome, and he saw thisexperience as leading to his discov-eries in bacterial genetics (Judson1980). Goodfield (1981) and Levi-Montalcini (1988) both write aboutthe satisfaction that comes from theexperience of examining specimensunder a microscope. They commenton the rewards of patient and quietobservation, in terms both of thediscoveries made in this way and oftheir feelings of connection with thecells being viewed.The rewards of themicroscopic aestheticMany people's lives, including thoseof students, would be richer if theyfollowed McClintock and other re-searchers into the microscopic world.Although it is unlikely that micro-scope viewing will again become thefad it was in earlier centuries, themicroscopic "land" is a beautifulone that is worthy of prolonged in-vestigation. I am not arguing for amere trophy relationship with thisworld. With deeper, more solitaryencounters, students could learnthings about the microscopic worldin the same way that bird watcherslearn about the habits of crows orhikers learn of the relationship be-tween plant cover and altitude.Although the microscopic worldcan provide experiences that are, inmany ways, similar to experienceswith the natural world, many biol-ogy teachers neglect to lure studentsinto the world of the small. Yes,equipment is required to perceivethis world, but the same is true ofcamping. Yes, some acquaintancewith this world is required to be-come comfortable in it, but the sameis true of bird watching. And al-though it may be that using a micro-scope is not as healthful and rejuve-nating as a day in the woods, itmay-for some people, at least-be

as invigorating.The microscopic world may pro-vide more of a refuge as it becomesmore and more difficult to experi-ence nature in the way in which HenryDavid Thoreau and John Muir did.The combination of less and lesswilderness, and more and morepeople wanting to partake of it, leadsto the paradox that Leopold touchedon in "Conservation Esthetic": themore people who want to connect tonature, the less natural the land be-comes. As truly natural places be-come more inaccessible, alternativeways of relating to the living worldmust be considered to allow studentsthe enlarging experience of develop-ing a relationship with nature with-out destroying it in the process. Look-ing through a microscope is obviouslynot the same as viewing the GrandCanyon, but the very fact that it canbe done in solitude, unlike visitingthe Grand Canyon, is a point in fa-vor of cell watching. Writing ofdeeply moving experiences in thenatural world, Bateson (1994) notes:"More and more, I believe, we willlearn to look for epiphanies by look-ing through microscopes" becauseof the move toward greater urban-ization and destruction of naturalenvironments.Exploring the metaphorOne of the problems with any meta-phor is the danger of similarity beingmistaken for identity. The experi-ence of the microscopic world isclearly not the same as the experi-ence of the natural world. Neverthe-less, these worlds have something incommon: both are aesthetically richand therefore worth exploring. Atthe moment, the natural world is thefocus of a great deal more attentionfrom the public than the microscopicworld, and this imbalance is likelyalways to be the case. But biologyteachers can encourage more partici-pation in the rewards of the micro-scopic aesthetic by discussing thisaesthetic, allowing more time forexplorations with the microscope,and inviting students to reflect onwhat they are seeing and how theirexperiences of the microscopic worldhave changed as they have becomemore proficient in the use of themicroscope. Not only would the mi-

October 1999 805


7/9

croscopic aesthetic enrich students'lives, but it might take some pressureoff the natural world. So coming tohusband-to value-the microscopicworld may lead to a husbanding ofthe natural world as well.A comparison between the con-servation aesthetic and the micro-scopic aesthetic may help to makethe microscopic world more ap-proachable. Most students have atleast some appreciation for the natu-ralworld, and many have experiencedsome approaches to the conservationaesthetic-fishing, swimming, orsightseeing. This familiarity mightmake it easier for them to under-stand that it is possible to develop asimilar aesthetic for the microscopicworld and that there is more to look-ing in a microscope than finding tro-phies and identifying organisms andstructures. The microscopic world isforeign to most students because it isa world with which they have hadalmost no direct contact and withwhich any contact must be mediatedby instrumentation. It is no wonderthat many students do not feel com-fortable in this world and do not seeit as a desirable place in which tospend time. The comparison with thenatural world may help to make themicroscopic world seem a little lessforeign.Through the metaphor of the mi-croscopic aesthetic as similar to theconservation aesthetic, it becomesmore obvious that the personal ful-fillment associated with contact withnature can likewise be achievedthrough other kinds of meaningfulcontact with living things. Also, therecan arise an enlarged view of theconcept of husbandry. Husbandry isa word usually linked to farming,but it can be associated with valuinglife at all levels. In addition, themicroscopic aesthetic can also deepenstudents' appreciation for the con-servation aesthetic. Black (1955) ar-gues that a metaphor changes one'sperception of both subjects in themetaphor, not just that of the pri-mary term, which in this case wouldbe the microscopic aesthetic. There-fore, this metaphor not only changesperceptions of the microscopic aes-thetic by making it more personallysignificant, but also changes percep-tions of the conservation aesthetic.When it is considered in relation to

the microscopic world, the conser-vation aesthetic can seem more in-tense and more focused and involv-ing the small things in nature, as wellas the large.It is not surprising that studentshave difficulty making a connectionbetween the microscopic and themacroscopic levels because cells andecology are usually covered at oppo-site ends of an introductory biologycourse. Leading students to the valu-ing of both macroscopic and micro-scopic nature may result not only ina greater respect for the environmentbut also in a better sense of the inter-relationship of life at the macro-scopic and microscopic levels. Suchan interrelationship was what Tho-mas (1974) had in mind in describ-ing a similarity between the or-ganelles in a cell and life on Earth asa whole. He writes of cell organellessuch as mitochondria and chloro-plasts as living entities, active beingsto which he is closely connected.Having described the connectionbetween cells and organelles, he com-pares it to the connections among allliving things on Earth. These con-nections are myriad and include re-lationships between the macroscopicand microscopic worlds: Microor-ganisms in the soil are essential toplant growth, plankton are at thebase of aquatic food chains, micro-scopic life closes most biogeochemi-cal cycles and is essential for bio-remediation of polluted water-tosay nothing of the effect of cellularchemistry on physiology or the ef-fects of disease-causing microorgan-isms on plants and animals, and,indirectly, on ecological interactions.Thus, the natural world that is di-rectly obvious to our senses is highlydependent on the microscopic world.The aesthetic of biologyAnother benefit of focusing on boththe conservation and microscopicaesthetics is that greater attentionwill be paid to the aesthetic aspectsof both biological inquiry and thestudy of biology. One reason whySand County has been such an influ-ential piece of environmental litera-ture is that Leopold clearly articu-lated many reasons for valuing theland (Buell 1995). He recognized theimportance of economic, cultural,

and ethical issues, but he also gaveattention to the aesthetic as an influ-ence on people's relationship withthe land. Yet the aesthetic dimensionis sometimes overlooked in discus-sions of why nature should be con-served, and a similar neglect of theaesthetics of biology also occurs inbiology education. The excitementof discovery, the pleasure of research,and the satisfaction of developing arelationship with some part of theliving world are rarely discussed inclasses.This omission is unfortunate forboth science majors and nonmajors.Because nonmajors are not given aglimpse of what is so wonderful aboutbiological inquiry, they may gothrough life considering biology, andscience in general, as an intimidatingarea of human knowledge. They mayeven view scientists who enjoy dwell-ing in such an intellectual land asbeing extraordinary people withwhom it would be impossible to iden-tify. More attention to the aestheticmay also be advantageous in the edu-cation of science majors; for example,it might help to retain students whoarelost to science because they see it assuch a cerebral and unfeeling disci-pline. Focus on the aesthetic in biologymay give all students a greater appre-ciation for what scientific inquiry isreally about, that is, its subjective aswell as its objective aspects.

Aesthetics can also highlight theunderlying unity of biology becauseit can be a bridge linking cell biologyandmicrobiology with ecology. Teach-ers of introductory biology coursesare always trying to find ways to re-veal the unity within the disciplinebecause emphasizing coherence inthe subject will lead to coherence ofthought and create a basic founda-tion on which to build the specificsof the subject matter. The most obvi-ous unifying theme for biology isevolution, but aesthetics can also bea theme that unites the process ofbiological inquiry at all scales. Sci-ence educators often pay lip serviceto the importance of having studentsunderstand "process" while at thesame time continuing to emphasize"product" in their teaching. Focus-ing on the aesthetic provides an op-portunity to make at least one ele-ment of process more central tostudents' experiences of biology. This



8/9

focus would not be at the expense ofa concept-oriented unifying themesuch as evolution but rathera comple-ment to it.The aesthetic can be a way toemphasize both the "ognitive andaffective experiences of biology be-cause, as Ralston (1987) notes, theaesthetic experience must be partici-patory-that is, it engages the intel-lect and the emotions. Biologists tendto take the aesthetic for granted inteaching, assuming that the beautyof the subject will become obvious tostudents as they become familiar withthe material. Therefore, biologistsdo not articulate this aspect of bio-logical inquiry or the fruits of thatinquiry-what we know about theliving world-and the aesthetic as-pects of biology remain hidden fromstudents not familiar with the sub-ject. Moreover, students may be sooverwhelmed by all they have to learnthat the beauty of the subject is ob-scured. Because knowledge and aes-thetic sensibility are indeed linked,this beauty does become much moreobvious with deep knowledge of afield, and there is ultimately no sub-stitute for such knowledge in termsof appreciation of biology. But bi-ologists should at least let studentsknow that such an experience is con-ceivable-that it is possible, for ex-ample, to derive joy from micro-scopic work.

Something as simple as articulat-ing the microscopic aesthetic is afirst step in making students awareof the aesthetic dimension of sci-ence. Asking them to describe howthey feel when they have masteredthe use of the microscope or gainedan understanding of mitosis can helpthem to see the relationship betweenknowledge and aesthetic experience.Again, I am advocating not a radicalrestructuring of the curriculum tomake the aesthetic a major focus,but rather a subtle change of empha-sis, something as elementary as al-lowing students time to savor theexperience of looking through themicroscope and encouraging view-ing even after all the necessary tro-phies have been acquired.Also helpful in teaching would bethe use of more biologically and aes-thetically rich material-pond orcreek water instead of a purchasedsample containing a single species. A

discussion of the "Conservation Es-thetic" essaycould follow microscopicexamination of such complex watersamples, with students invited tomake links between the conserva-tion aesthetic and their experienceswith the microscope. This discussioncould lead to an exploration of howaffective responses influence deci-sion-making about environmentalissues. Ultimately, this analysis couldprovoke discussion of how aestheticqualities such as balance, rhythm,pattern, and form affect scientificjudgment, albeit sometimes detri-mentally. In the history of micros-copy, there are several examples ofbiologists being seduced by the formsthey saw under the microscope andpositing structures that turned outto be nonexistent (Ritterbush 1968).Advocating the introduction ofmaterial involving the affectivesphere brings up issues of assess-ment. An attitudinal pre-test admin-istered at the beginning of the semes-ter or of a microscopy unit, followedby a post-test given at the end, is oneway to measure affective change. Butmore traditional testing methods canalso be used to emphasize the aes-thetic, such as essay questions thatask for discussion of the importanceof rhythm, symmetry, order, or otheraesthetic qualities in biology. Intermsof the conservation aesthetic, stu-dents could be asked which ofLeopold's categories best describestheir approach to the natural worldand to justify their answer. A similarquestion could be framed concern-ing the microscopic aesthetic. Intro-ducing the aesthetic into assessmentnot only provides a way to determinehow effective teaching strategies havebeen but also sends a clear messageto students that the aesthetic is animportant dimension of biologicalinquiry.In writing of the place of wildlifeeducation in the instruction of thosenot planning a career in conserva-tion, Leopold (1943) himself notes aconnection between learning and theaesthetic. He writes that his object isto teach the student to see the land,to understand what he sees, and toenjoy what he understands. He addsthat the sciences and arts are taughtas if they were separate, but "theyare separate only in the classroom.Step out of the classroom and they are

immediately fused" (Leopold 1943, p.8). The aesthetic is one antidote todismemberment, not only of one partof biology from another, but, asLeopold argues, of the sciences andarts. The aesthetic experience is some-thing the arts and sciences have incommon; creativity in both areasinvolves judgments based on aes-thetic qualities such as unity, bal-ance, and form (Root-Bernstein1984). Because discussions of aes-thetics usually involve the arts, em-phasis on the aesthetic in science canmake a contribution to the kind ofintegration of disciplines for whichcalls are often heard today. Empha-sis on the aesthetic in biology teach-ing can therefore have implicationswell outside of science.AcknowledgmentsThe initial version of this paper waspresented at the 1997 National En-dowment for the Humanities SummerInstitute on the Environmental Imagi-nation held at Vassar College,Poughkeepsie, New York. Iwould liketo thank the Institute'sdirector,DanielPeck, and the participants for theirinsights and support; St. John's Uni-versity for research support; and thereviewers of this manuscript for theirperceptive and useful comments.References citedBateson MC. 1994. Peripheral Visions. NewYork: HarperCollins.Black M. 1955. Metaphor. Proceedings ofthe Aristotelian Society 55: 273-294.Buell L. 1995. The Environmental Imagina-tion: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and theFormation of American Culture. Cam-

bridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Callicott JB. 1987. The land aesthetic. Pages157-171 in Callicott JB, ed. Companionto A Sand County Almanac: Interpretiveand Critical Essays. Madison (WI): Uni-versity of Wisconsin Press.Clark K. 1976. Landscape Into Art. NewYork: Harper & Row.Dewey J. 1934. Art and Experience. NewYork: Putnam.Dillard A. 1974. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.New York: Harper's Magazine Press.Fromm E. 1976. To Have and To Be? NewYork: Harper & Row.Goodfield J. 1981. An Imagined World: AStory of Scientific Discovery. New York:Harper & Row.Goodman N. 1968. Languages of Art. NewYork: Bobbs-Merrill.Heelan P. 1977. Hermeneutics of experimen-tal science in the context of the life-world.Pages 7-50 in Ihde D, Zaner R, eds. Inter-

October 1999 807


9/9

AlItheyneedi s m a t h a t i d science

t o change t h e i r courset in h i * s t o r Y

D e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s d e p e n d d e v e l o p i n g m i n d s . A n dt h a t t a k e s g ( x x i t e a c h i n g . A s P e a c e C o r p s V o l u n t e e rt e a c h i n g m a t h s c i e n c e , y o u r e x p e r i e n c e n e e d e dp r e p a r e s t u d e n t s fo h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n an d f u t u r e j o b st h a t ca n h e l p d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y j o i n th e t e c h n o l o g i c a lr e v o l u t i o n .

Fo r f u r t h e r i n f o n - n a t i o n t h i s p r o j e c t a n y o nm a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t s v o l u n t e e r s n e e d e d fo

t o d a y ' s P e a c e C o r p s , c a l l t o l l - f r e e 8 0 0 - 4 2 4 - 8 5 8 0 . A n d p u ty o u r e x p e n e n c e x v o r k w h e r e ca n x v o r l d g o o d .

U-S-PeaceCorps.T h e t o u g h e s t j o b y o u ' l e v e r l o v e .P u b l i c S e r v i c e T h i s P u b l i c a f i o n n u k

disciplinary Phenomenology.The Hague(The Netherlands):MartinusNijhoff.Hooke R. 1665. Micrographia: Or SomePhysiologicalDescriptionsof MinuteBod-ies Made By Magnifying Glasses WithObservations and Inquires Thereupon.London:JamesAllestry.JudsonHF. 1980. The Searchfor Solutions.New York:Holt, RinehartandWinston.KellerEF. 1983. A Feelingfor the Organism.New York: Freeman.Leopold A. 1943. The role of wildlife in aliberaleducation.MichiganConservation12: 8.. 1949. A Sand County Almanac andSketches Here and There. New York:Oxford UniversityPress.Levi-MontalciniR. 1988. InPraiseof Imper-fection: My Life and Work. New York:Basic Books.Meine C. 1988. Aldo Leopold:His Life andWork. Madison (WI):Universityof Wis-consin Press.Nash R. 1987. Aldo Leopold's intellectualheritage. Pages63-88 in CallicottJB,ed.Companionto A Sand CountyAlmanac:Interpretive nd CriticalEssays.Madison(WI):Universityof Wisconsin Press.Nicolson M. 1956. ScienceandImagination.Ithaca(NY): CornellUniversityPress.Pantin CFA. 1954. The recognition of spe-cies. ScienceProgress42: 587-598.PolanyiM. 1962. PersonalKnowledge.Chi-cago: Universityof ChicagoPress.RalstonH. 1987. Dutiesto ecosystems.Pages246-274 in CallicottJB, ed. Companionto A Sand CountyAlmanac:Interpretiveand Critical Essays. Madison (WI):Uni-versityof WisconsinPressRitterbushP. 1968. TheArtof OrganicForm.Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.Root-BernsteinR. 1984. Creativeprocessasa unifying theme of human cultures.Daedalus 113: 197-219.Ruestow E. 1996. The Microscope in theDutch Republic. Cambridge(UK):Cam-bridge UniversityPress.Stafford B. 1991. Body Criticism:Imagingthe Unseen in Enlightenment Art andMedicine.Cambridge MA):MIT Press.ThomasL. 1974. The Livesof a Cell:Notes ofa Biology Watcher.New York:Viking.Maura C. Flannery(e-mail:[email protected])s a professorof biologyandassistantdirectorof the Center orTeach-ingandLearning t St.John'sUniversity,Jamaica, NY 11439. She studies ap-proaches to communicatingbiology tononscientists.? 1999 American nstituteof BiologicalSciences.

BioScience Vol. 49 No. 10

Conservation Aesthetic and Microbiological Aesthetic

Documents

Transcript of Conservation Aesthetic and Microbiological Aesthetic