by Central to the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries was mechanical philosophy: the comparison of the universe to a large-scale mechanism. While throughout the Middle Ages and early Renaissance it had been improper to suppose that the artifice of nature and that of humans belonged on the same plane, 17th century philosophers rejected this idea. Writer Francis Bacon outlined the belief that “the artificial does not differ from the natural in form or essence,” and philosopher René Descartes declared “that there is no difference between the machines built by artisans and the diverse bodies that nature alone composes.” These ideas, which were widely endorsed by 17th century mechanical philosophers, became a fundamental understanding within the tradition construction of the Scientific Revolution. Mechanical philosophers of the 17th century understood nature as a machine, using understandings derived from machines to interpret nature’s physical structure.
Mechanical clocks, which were present in Europe by the late thirteenth century, became the predominant mechanical structure to which early modern natural philosophers compared the natural world. In 1605 the astromoner Johannes Kepler announced that he no longer understood the “motor cause” of plenary motion as a “soul.” Instead he declared that his new aim was show how “the machine of the universe is not similar to a divine animated being, but similar to a clock.” The clock metaphor however, was not only used to explain the natural world around us, but it was also applied towards understanding of the human body. In the 1630’s French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes comparted the movements of mechanical clocks to those of all natural bodies, including the human body, stating “we see that clocks…and other machines of this kind, although they have been built by men, do not for this reason lack the power to move by themselves in diverse ways.” Descartes ultimately argued that human respiration, digestion, locomotion, and sensation could be understood as a machine — similar to the motion of a clock, an artificial fountain, or a mill.
The 17th century mechanical philosophy which depicted nature (and the human body) as a machine, can be starkly recognized in contemporary American medical practices and the American perception of the human body. In Lynn Payer’s sociological paper “Medicine and Culture ” Payer unpacks the United States’ aggressive approach to medicine which coincides with the American view of the body as a machine. Payer outlines the ways in which American medicine is geared towards “fixing” or “replacing” parts of the human body (much like the parts of a car) rather than alternative, more holistic approaches of European medicine. The popularity of the intrusive coronary artery bypass surgery in the U.S is one example of the way in which Americans will often jump to use aggressive treatements before attempting less intrusive alternatives. In the United States, the coronary artery bypass surgery was widely adpoted before any studies had proven to be effective in preventing death or disability. There are currently six times the number of coronary artery bypass surgeries per capita in America compared to England. Payer explains this statistic by stating : “The Popularity of coronary bypass surgery concords with the American culture biases of aggressive treatement and with the American view of the body as a machine.”
One explanation for the stronger influence of a mechanical perspective in the United States compared to its European counterparts could be the fact that the United States was founded in (and with the principles) of a post scientific revolution world. The very concept of construing nature as a machine violated the distinction of the traditional Aristotelian philosophy which outlined the contrast between what was natural and what was contrived or artificial. This distinction, which had been developed and protected through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, may have been more engrained into European culture, and is thus reflected in the often less intrusive contemporary medical practices within Europe today.
Sources:
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Payer, Lynn. Medicine & Culture: Varieties and Treatments in the United States, England, West Germany, and France. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
https://www.goodnet.org/articles/7-videos-that-prove-human-body-machine-list