By: Jon Hosch and Evan Howell
Definition
The concept of wildness is deeply rooted in notions of pure nature with “sacred connotations to some [individuals]” (Proctor). It has many very broad uses in environmental scholarship and tends to be a major driving force in activism as well as societal change (Zahniser 1964). The concept of wildness in this context shares close ties with wilderness which can create confusion for some. In order to ensure complete transparency, this post will refer to wilderness as the setting for which acts of wildness transpire (Wikipedia). Nevertheless, due to its connection to many slightly ambiguous terms such as nature, wildness can be seen as “one of the most culturally laden notions in the English language” (Proctor). Within this post we will define wildness as: the underlying physical processes between an organism and its surroundings which manifest a self-sufficient ecosystem free of human influence.
Context
Wildness as a literary concept dates as far back as the 16th century in early American history (See Figure 1). But the term gained popularity during the 19th century in conjunction with the similar—and more common—concepts of “wild” and “wilderness” and then reached its peak in American literature in 1822. Before this time, the idea of wilderness held extremely negative connotations with danger and the unknown or was dismissed entirely (Condition and Trends Working Group 2011). Yet 1822 marks a period near the proliferation of American Romanticism, a literary thought movement that captured the nations imagination with emphasis on emotion and individualism in light of a rapidly industrializing urban landscape. Urban residents experienced higher levels of stress as a result of their developing surroundings in relation to air and water pollution along with social situations such as unemployment and poverty. Residents felt nostalgic for a more clean, pristine atmosphere free of the toxins and worries of urban living. Consequently, the notion of wilderness triumphed, even to levels beyond physical appreciation (Condition and Trends Working Group 2011).
Idealized wilderness became “a source of inspiration” for many Romantic intellectuals, including Henry David Thoreau, John Muir (See Figure 2), and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Within their writings, the underlying sense of the sacredness of nature serves as the inspiration for their passion of the wilderness and the wild. Thoreau’s book Walden is based on his experience at a small cabin next to Walden Pond in Concord, Massachusetts, where he explores the “spiritual dimension” of the countryside. John Muir also contributed his own spiritual connection, remarking that “…wilderness mirrors divinity, nourishes humanity, and vivifies the spirit’’ (Condition and Trends Working Group 2011). Emerson also asserted that this spirit exists perpetually within the sanctuary of wilderness. The concept of wilderness, and the wildness within, became a religion of remarkable proportion for the American urban dweller. Following the permeation of these romantic ideals, the public perception of the inhabited places shifted from a dangerous unknown into a cathedral of worship (Condition and Trends Working Group 2011). But what about wildness invokes such spiritual veracity among these romantic environmentalists? Isis Brook, in his publication “Wildness in the English Garden Tradition: A Reassessment of the Picturesque,” suggests six themes which entice us to the concept of wildness: variety, intricacy, engagement, time, chance, and transition. Each theme works on the last to create a full, psychologically pleasing, mental image on par with that of full-blown nostalgia (Brook 2008).
The devoted spirituality of wildness within environmental literature and thought permeated through the 19th century into the 20th with the romantic writing style of Aldo Leopold. His book A Sand County Almanac published in 1949 reflected much of the same sacred devotion to wildness in relation to land ethics, but Leopold extended those ideas to incorporate what is known as Malthusian thought: “The parasite is… prevented from killing his host by a conditioned food chain … A disease is a ‘green’ parasite learning how not to kill … Man is, in this sense, a disease on the land.” Leopold considered letting a portion of the human population die off so that wilderness may survive from humanity’s parasitic grasp (Condition and Trends Working Group 2011; Powell 2015, 225). Malthusian scholarship became more integrated into the notion of wildness, even later into the 20th century with scholarly writings by biologist Paul Ehrlich: “Every cause is a lost cause unless we defuse the population bomb” (McPhee 1996, 84). In addition to Malthusianism, wildness also correlates closely with Deep Ecology, which advocates for the value of organisms outside the realm of human use (Wikipedia). However, wildness conflicts heavily with Postnaturalism (Wikipedia), the cultural transformation of organisms to serve human needs, and Ecomodernism (Wikipedia), which advocates for human interaction via technology in order to protect and preserve nature.
Critique
Wildness as a model of environmental scholarship undeniably has been faced with scrutiny amongst scholars as well as political leaders. Former Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Floyd Dominy reflects this criticism quite nicely: “Let’s use our environment. Nature changes the environment every day of our lives–why shouldn’t we change it? We’re part of nature” (McPhee 1996, 173). The separation between man and what he considers wild seems fragile if not imaginary in the first place. William Cronon in his essay “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” refutes the concept of wilderness. It is important to note that Cronon specifically distinguishes between the concepts of wilderness and wildness with the former being exclusive of human interaction and the latter being inclusive. Yet based on more contemporary research surrounding the topic of wildness, we have defined it to exclude human influence. Nevertheless, Cronon’s critique of wilderness stays pertinent to our adapted definition, as wilderness serves as the setting in which wildness operates.
Cronon refutes wilderness as a mere cultural construct, turning his attention to its historical romantic roots. The fact that it had polar opposite connotations 250 years ago compared to its sacred and whimsical nature during and after the Romanticism movement supports his claim. For romantic writers, “Satan’s home had become God’s Own Temple” (Cronon 1996, 3). Cronon argues that two elements are responsible for such a dramatic change in opinion: the sublime and the frontier. The sublime acts as an older, more influential romantic expression of culture, and when it combined with the more youthful and patriotic notion of the frontier, wilderness manifested in all of its cultural and symbolic glory. However, this novel idea of wilderness functioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Elite urbanites’ tourism activities propagated an industry which transformed the American landscape to fit their idealistic image. Thus, the notion of wilderness is removed entirely from the non-human world—it is inherently man-conceived and man-made. The perception that the wilderness exists as virgin soil, untouched by man is made even more absurd by the fact there existed native people throughout the country for thousands of years. Romantic settlers who forced native peoples off their homes now saw the land as God’s original creation, devoid of human presence (See Figure 3). This illusion confirmed what they now worshiped as the wilderness, devoid of human influence or tampering (Cronon, 1996). The original Judeo-Christian values brought to the continent by European settlers hence secularized and transformed into a new “cathedral”: wilderness constructed not by man, but by God himself (Cronon 1996, 10).
Cronon then moves on to establish that an interesting dichotomy exists between those who live in rural versus urban settings. He remarks that urbanites’ longing for wilderness endured in part because they are unaware of the vital connection to one’s surroundings that exists when living in rural areas. Hence, there manifests an ignorance of appreciation regarding the goods and services used by those who live in rural landscapes. Urban dwellers, accustomed to grocery stores and restaurants and easily accessible timber, see no meaningful connection between their goods and the livestock and vegetation which derive them (See Figure 4). Cronon then concludes that “…only people whose relation to the land was already alienated could hold up wilderness as a model for human life in nature, for the romantic ideology of wilderness leaves precisely nowhere for human beings actually to make their living from the land” (Cronon 1996, 11). According to Cronon, Romanticism’s notions of wildness have no place within the harsh realities of wilderness due to the fact that rural living, in essence, is much more filthy and less “sublime” than it is made out to be (Cronon 1996).
The urban and rural “dualistic” view of wilderness effectively removes humans from their surroundings (Cronon 1996, 11). Cronon questions popular notions of what is considered to be wild by declaring that “if we allow ourselves to believe that nature, to be true, must also be wild, then our very presence in nature represents its fall” (Cronon 1996, 11). To live in an urban setting and pray for what is wild is denying one’s self their rightful life (Cronon 1996). However, there arises an inherent paradox in the relationship between humans and what is considered as wild. If wilderness is characterized by being completely devoid of man and, as Cronon states, “our mere presence destroys it” then why does there still seem to be a desire to reconnect with the wild? The conclusion that is drawn from this aforementioned paradox is that, within the Anthropocene, the only way that a wilderness could exist would be to solicit a return of Malthusianism practices of, essentially, “suicide” (Cronon 1996, 13).
Essentially the same groundwork that is explored by Cronon is supported by contemporary research of Bradley Cantrell, Laura Martin, and Erle Ellis in their paper Designing Autonomy: Opportunities for New Wildness in the Anthropocene. This paper ventures into greater depth than Cronon regarding the paradox of wildness within the Anthropocene. It not only provides more contemporary insights on the subject but by implying that there is no feasible solution to producing wildness. In addition to having the advantage of analysing wildness with access to additional research, Cantrell’s research was performed within the time period some refer to as the Anthropocene (Cantrell et al. 2017)
Conclusion
Environmental scholarship of wildness has won validation by romantic thinkers and classical environments since the rise of industrialism and continues to do so today. Similarities prevalent throughout scholarly writing of wildness lead us to define the concept as: the underlying physical processes between an organism and its surroundings which manifest a self-sufficient ecosystem free of human influence. For further clarification, wilderness was defined as the setting in which wildness occurs (Wikipedia). Before the rise of romanticism in American literature and thought, wildness held dark connotations to savagery and danger–it was viewed as the unforgiving hell which existed outside civilization’s borders. But as cities grew and industrialization hastened, so evolved this archaic definition of wildness. Social and environmental stress of urban life set the foundation for American Romanticism to flourish–and with it came the religious connotations of wildness. Thoreau, Muir, and Emerson served as the national apostles of this new gospel, preaching that wildness was sacred and had the ability to reinvigorate one’s individual spirituality (Condition and Trends Working Group 2011). The character of wildness likened to the best of their sensibilities, carrying integrated themes of variety, intricacy, engagement, time, chance, and transition (Brook, 2008). Crossing into the 20th century, Malthusian thought permeated into scholarship over wildness through the writing of Aldo Leopold and Paul Ehrlich (McPhee, 1996; Powell 2015, 225). In addition to Malthusianism, wildness ties closely with deep ecology, but contrasts heavily with Postnaturalism and Ecomodernism.
William Cronon, a major critic of wilderness, published an essay concerning term’s overall importance in environmental scholarship during the later half of the 20th century. He claims that the notion of wilderness does not exist in physical form–instead, it is merely a false idea composed of the concept of the American frontier and the notion of what is sublime. Invigorated by the human construct of wilderness that they believed existed on the frontier, settlers transformed the landscape in its image. In due time, this self-fulfilling prophecy was completed and the natives scattered, leaving the illusion behind that the wildness present within the landscape was devoid of any human influence. The sermons of romantic thinkers had come from a false prophecy. Of course, this cultural construct could not have been possible if it had not been for the increasing intellectual polarity between cities and rural areas of the country. For urban romantics, who had already severely isolated themselves from the sources of their livelihoods, it was easy to declare that man and the wild were two separate entities. But this conclusion contrasted heavily with the reality of the situation: humans not only existed within wilderness, they construct and define it. The only solution for environmental activism in the realm of wilderness thought would be the suicide of our species (Cronon 1996). This critique carried forward after Cronon and expanded into the Anthropocene through the work of Bradley Cantrell, Laura Martin, and Erle Ellis in their paper “Designing Autonomy: Opportunities for New Wildness in the Anthropocene”. Indeed, the theory of wildness, in conjunction with that of wilderness, within the context of environmental scholarship has been cracked open, its integral flaws exposed (Cantrell et al. 2017).
Based on the research discussed above, we believe that the concept of wildness has no place within environmental scholarship when looking to solve future environmental crises. The paradox of the division between humanity and what is considered wild is too contradictory and illusory to be given serious consideration when fulfilling environmental goals. This point is supported further by the instrumental solutions posed by both Cronon and Cantrell et al. in regard to revising or fulfilling reality defined by the wildness theory. Cronon vouches for a new understanding of wilderness to acknowledge that humans do exist with the wild and that the wild exists with humanity. He claims that this change of thought will help environmentalists focus on more pertinent issues with the same priority and activism that they give to their conception of wilderness. But implementing this redefinition to popular thought will no doubt prove exceptionally difficult and will take a considerable amount of time. The time-sensitive nature of current environmental problems such as overconsumption and overpopulation cannot wait for minds and priorities to change (Cronon 1996). Using the most contemporary research, Cantrell et al. proposed their only solution to the paradox of wildness within the Anthropocene. They suggest that the use of artificial intelligence in the form of a machine known as the “Wildness Creator” is the only way for humans to successfully maintain areas of wilderness (Cantrell et al. 2017). Essentially, this machine resides over wilderness areas and acts as a filter for any and all human interaction with the specified area. “In time, the operations of the Wildness Creator would become unrecognizable and incomprehensible to human beings” (Cantrell et al. 2017, 163). This is imperative to the concept of wildness due to its necessity to remain completely untouched by humans. Long after the machine’s initial implementation, and after humans have forgotten its existence completely, “nonhuman species and environmental processes at the site would be able to go about life without experiencing human influence” (Cantrell et al. 2017, 163). While the Wildness Creator is a solution to this aforementioned paradox, it is not in fact sensible and requires just as much, if not more, time than Cronon’s solution that required the alteration of the ideals of every man, woman, and child to honor the wildness that exists everywhere. These elements indiscriminately support the notion that wildness holds little to no relevance in environmental scholarship and future activism. Wildness is too laden with false perception that it cannot be utilized to feasibly address the complex and time-sensitive environmental issues we experience today on a global scale. The sign on Environmentalism’s clubhouse should no longer read “No Humans Allowed,” but instead “Anthropocene Welcome.”
References
Brook, Isis. 2008. “Wildness in the English Garden Tradition: A Reassessment of the Picturesque from Environmental Philosophy.” Ethics & the Environment 13 (1): 105–19.
Cantrell, Bradley, Et al. 2017. “Designing Autonomy: Opportunities for New Wildness in the Anthropocene.” CellPress 23 (3): 156-66.
Condition and Trends Working Group. 2017. “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Volume 1: Current State and Trends: Cultural and Amenity Services.” The Encyclopedia of Earth.
Cronon, William. 1996. “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Environmental History 1 (1): 7–28.
McPhee, John. 1996. Encounters With the Archdruid. New York: Noonday Press.
Powell, Miles A. 2015. “‘Pestered with Inhabitants.’” Pacific Historical Review 84 (2): 195–226.
Zahniser, Howard. U.S. Congress. Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. 1964. “The Wilderness Act.” 88th Congress, 2nd session Congress 1131-1136.