 |
| Julia Hill captured media attention after living in a tree for nearly two years |
I think that the counter-argument would be that it may, in fact, be incorrect to think of the forests and mountains and other areas relatively untouched by man made landscape (wilderness if you will) as romantic places that are apart from the troubles of human existence and modernity, however these areas are still worth preserving because they are good for the world. Environmentalists could argue that deforestation leads to a whole host of negative consequences.
Going backward a bit further, I don't think Cronon's argument really extends to any sort of conflict with Julia Hill. Certainly Cronon's point is not to say that the destruction of "wild" areas is fine no matter the consequences. I may be missing something, but I don't think that his point is that wilderness is not worth having. I think his point is more to say that America's love affair with the wilderness is conceived in a great deal of fallacy and misconception. However, I don't think he would extend that so far as to say that it is not worth preserving in some degree at least.
Am I missing Cronon's point? Does anyone think that Cronon would disapprove of social movements aimed at preserving wilderness? If so please comment, after all it will earn you 50 points.
I do agree that Justin did a good job explaining Cronon's article, going to further to identify our modern definition of wilderness. I would like to attempt to answer your question about Cronon's opinion on social movements aimed at preserving wildness. I believe he would target them saying that they are only trying to protect what is going extinct, for example unique species of plants where there are few left. He would argue that although this aspect in wildlife has a more unique/intricate "ecological relationship" it should be no more valued from what we see daily. We should recognize wilderness all around us, and only then can we really appreciate nature. I believe he would argue that these environmental groups still possess a major flaw- that they are excluding themselves from nature. These groups often indicate that humans must protect this distinct entity, often closing it off from human interaction, which continues to perpetuate this cultural construction of the wildernes which Cronon disapproves of.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start off by saying that I found this topic to be very intriguing and this article definitely changed the way that I previously viewed the concept of wilderness. I do agree with you that Cronon would not have taken any issue with Julia's actions. No where in his article does he undermine the value of nature in the absence of human civilization. I think Cronon would have supported Julia and the point of his article was to encourage us to use Julia's very same passion and dedication and apply it to the environments that we live in. Cronon does not take away any legitimacy from the importance of wilderness outside of human civilization, but he merely expands the definition of wilderness to encompass the entire earth. Even though I do believe that Cronon would have supported Julia, at the same time I think he would have viewed her actions as a distraction from bigger environmental problems. Julia was trying to save one tree and not looking at the big picture and I think Cronon wants us all to be looking at the big picture as opposed to one tree.
ReplyDeleteJake,
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, Cronon's article was most definitely my favorite piece we have read thus far. There are many aspects to this article that captured my attention and have made me view the wilderness and our association with it a bit differently. From my personal experience, I grew up on an island between Lake Eerie and the Detroit River. Apart from the surrounding cities and townships, Grosse Ile is a place full of wildlife, filled with deer, squirrels, and rabbits (the things we consider "wildlife"). Additionally, this community's own Nature and Land Conservancy work toward protecting land in order to sustain the nature of Grosse Ile. The reason why I bring this up is to answer, or semi-answer, your question of what Cronon's point of view would be on preserving wilderness. I'm not sure if I have a legitimate answer, however, in relation to my hometown, I believe there are many aspects to a conservancy that Cronon's underlying beliefs address.
Cronon begins his article with the idea that Americans view wilderness as the last place humans have not fully infected. Evidently, this could be the core reason as to why the residents of Grosse Ile (and other environmentalists) strive to protect land and the nature it entails. However, after glancing over Grosse Ile's Nature and Land Conservancy website (http://www.ginlc.org/index.html), I began to draw more and more concrete connections to Cronon's article. In bold print, the website's homepage reads, "come see and learn what the plants and animals are doing in autumn to prepare for the winter." After reading Cronon's piece, I almost laughed as soon as I read the words "come see." It is almost as if the conservancy is protecting the land to be the host of a show that individuals should attend. If you view the website you will see that one of the links is named, Land Tour. The idea of a tour through preserved nature further supports my idea of nature becoming a show. But really, this is exactly what Cronon's political argument implied. According to him, people do not realize that we are constantly surrounded by nature. Instead, we all have this illusion that we can escape to an untouched, aesthetic area to feel as if we are alone in the world. It is almost as if we treat nature as a separate world from the one in which we live. Therefore, I believe Cronon may view conservancies as a support to his political argument on wilderness. However, if a conservancy made wilderness as humane as it is natural, then I believe Cronon would be its #1 supporter.
The disagreement between Cronon and Julia Butterfly Hill does not come from differing final answers – both value nature and don’t belive it should be destroyed – but from their differing perspectives on why that is true. This is supported by Cronon’s quote: “By now I hope it is clear that my criticism in this essay is not directed at wild nature per se, or even at efforts to set aside large tracts of wild land, but rather at the specific habits of thinking that flow from this complex cultural construction called wilderness” (12). It is not nature Cronon does not support – it is the typical, current human view of nature.
ReplyDeleteAs cliché as it is, Cronon supports a stance on nature that views humans as more or less “one” with nature. He advocates embracing nature as it is found all around us. We need to forget about the idea that nature is untouched by human hands – everything around us is and has been affected by our presence. He states, “I celebrate even more is that they remind us of the wildness in our own backyards, of the nature that is all around us if only we have eyes to see it” (17). By recognizing that we are, in fact, a part of nature, we begin to have a greater understanding of how our own actions affect nature. Only in a world where we think we are completely separate from nature, can we believe that our actions do not affect it.
He disagrees with Julia Butterfly Hill because she supports the radical belief that nature is sacred and pure. She holds nature up on an unrealistic pedestal, leading humans to hold the damaging belief that we are completely separate from it. Interestingly enough, by putting nature on this metaphorical pedestal, by following the logic previously stated, she is encouraging reckless behavior.
I actually just read a book called The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti that discussed a similar issue. Valenti make the claim that programs and events that aim at the virginity of the youth (mostly young girls), sexualize young girls by focusing on their sexuality. In other words, these programs define someone’s character based off of their sexuality, ascribing a sexualized identity to girls. I’m trying really hard to not make that a circular argument; Valenti does a much better job at explaining than I do. Just like radical environmentalists, extremely conservative abstinence groups, hold views that unintentionally lead to the very behavior they disagree with. Only in holding a nuanced view of sexuality and nature can we begin to have a healthy relationship with both.