[Mr.Menard] Fourth Assignment (03.29.2012) ! :)

The idea of Social Darwinism by Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century America greatly influenced naturalists. Social Darwinism argued that human evolution is a natural selection of the better, which means it was determined by the nature. Social Darwinists and naturalists took this theory to prove that human beings do not have free will, but are shaped by their environment. Naturalists believed that this predestined world is based on a series of events that each one causes the next.

At the time when Jack London lived his life, the idealistic figure of men was to be the center of explorations. People wanted to find out more about the nature and to explore it, being dominant over the world. This type of arrogant manlike figure is very well shown in one of London’s short stories, “To Build a Fire.” London rather stays against this kind of characteristics in the story. Throughout the story, London repeatedly shows how the main character does not have free will and how nature has already mapped out his fate although the man tries to use some of his own ability to solve problems.

There are two very distinct characters in “To Build a Fire”: one human being and one dog. The man is a typical representation of an ideal man at that time, being overly proud of himself. He was “quick and alert in the things of life but only in the things and not in the significances,” meaning he only believes what he can see and feel with his “scientific” abilities. He does not listen to the old man saying that it’s going to be cold soon, but rather measures the current temperature with the degrees in Fahrenheit. More pertinently, the man does not realize that building a fire under a spruce tree may be dangerous. In all his actions, the man only exercises intellectualism; he never uses instinct, which would inform him that certain actions are dangerous. This shows how he does not believe anything else rather than the things he has determined with his scientific knowledge. This eventually leads him to death, as a serial consequence of the determined nature.

On the other hand, the dog represents pure instinct. Unlike the man, who needs the results of intellectual civilization, it uses its own natural devices, such as fur and the sense of smell. To a certain extent, the dog might have much deeper instinctive understanding of the environment, especially of the cold. It realizes that such desperate conditions could be significantly dangerous to itself. It leaves for another man who can provide him fire and something to eat. It shows how the dog is much more developed in instinctive thinking compared to the man. The dog (probably) survives by following the natural instinct where the man dies without looking for his instinct in himself.

London contrasts two distinct types of characters: one that uses natural instinct with somewhat of selfishness, and the other with arrogance and pride. He seems be on the side of believing in the Social Darwinist nature, as many naturalists did, following the power of predestined nature. Apart from this, the ending rather shows the ideal figure of a Greek tragic hero who has fatal flow that leads him to eventual destruction. In this case, the fatal flow of hubris led the man into the destruction of death. London might have wanted to show that mankind has (Social Darwinistically) developed in a better way through all these experiences of failure. 

Chonghyun Ahn: I really liked your juxtaposition of natural instincts with human intellect. It was great to see the construct and the outcome of two distinct qualities. However, the conclusion describes of two types of human; I don’t understand how natural instinct can preside with human. But GREAT WORK OVERALL!

Han Jong Hyun: I was very surprised to find out that your ideas were extremely similar to mine. Anyway, my point is that I agree with you, on how London tried to depict two discrete kinds of humans: one that relies on its instincts and the other with intellectuality. However, you did not elaborate how building a fire under a spruce tree only represents intellectuality, not instincts. Also, the theme you have discussed in the introduction and conclusion “hubris” in the protagonist is not present in any of your body paragraph. In overall, nice reflection.