(Originally written for ENG 201, Environmental Literature, for Dr. Jim Watkins, on May 1, 2020.)
In his essay “The Trouble with Wilderness,” William Cronon explores the popular notions that define wilderness in American culture. He seeks to dismantle popular ideas that appear to showcase a care for the environment but actually cause harm. The key idea he comes down to is that American culture must come to appreciate the “backyard sublime,” nature that is closer to our places of home. When one reads Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, they may at first glance be inclined to believe that Leopold perpetuates the very notions Cronon is against. This is most apparent when he seems to argue that there is an ideal relationship to nature that people can have, and that nature is inherently separate from humanity. However, it turns out that the two authors agree on appreciating the impact that people’s attitude towards nature has on their relationship with it. These ideas impact how much or how little people try to engage with nature in a way that is beneficial for all forms of life, sublime or mundane, and also has a direct impact on the kind of wilderness that people care for, ultimately leading both writers to argue that we must care for the environment we live within.
To begin his essay, Cronon explores what nature means in American culture. He first admits that there is some weight to the concept of the sublime in the wilderness, saying that one in the wild feels they are “in the presence of something… Other than [themselves]” (Cronon 70). In Western culture, the idea of the sublime in the wilderness often relates to finding “God on the mountaintop, in the chasm…[and] in the sunset” (73). Cronon adds that the sites of the first National Parks—Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion—correlate with this concept. In this way, nature has a specific kind of image that connects with the concept of the sublime: mountain ranges and landscapes without a speck of city life in them. Expanding upon this, it is clear that the rural is seen as an exact contrast from the urban.
However, Cronon argues that this is an illusion, one that has dangerous implications. Firstly, he explains that nature and civilization are not separate entities but that the former was created by the latter (69). If anything, the contrasts between the two helps to reveal the process by which the wilderness serves as the “mirror… [reflecting] our own unexamined longings and desires” (69-70). He notes that, until the 1940’s, there was not a National Park that was a swamp, and at the time of his essay, there still had not been a National Park grassland, because those landscapes did not meet the societal criteria to be seen as sublime (73). And he adds that America’s cultural understanding of nature is also an illusion. While it seemed to tourists that they were appreciating the “pristine, original state,” of their National Parks, in reality, Native Americans had been removed from what had once been their homes (79). And in this capacity as seemingly “virgin” land, nature is a means to “escape the cares and troubles of the world” (80). In essence, the contrast between urban and rural is so profound on the cultural consciousness, says Cronon, that “the place where we are is the place where nature is not” (81). Such an attitude, he argues, coupled with the understanding that nature is only defined as that in National Parks or in places without human interference, people will not care about the nature in the places they actually inhabit, the nature of their states, counties, and towns (85). It is in these places, in fact, that human impact on nature is most profound, and therefore either the most human damage or human healing of nature will occur.
To offer a broad solution to this problem, Cronon suggests a reexamination of how nature is conceptualized, arguing that becoming more familiar with the nature closer to us, geographically, may provide us the means to more effectively care for it. He argues that we need “an environmental ethic that will tell us as much about using nature as about not using it,” hopefully bringing about a “middle ground… of [a] balanced, sustainable relationship” (85). Cronon adds that elements of this relationship include humans understanding that nature has its own interests to keep, that humans are a part of a larger ecological web of relationships, and that we foster a care for the nature “where we actually live,” redefining our “home” in the wilderness (87). This means taking care of the nature in our neighborhoods and in our backyards. He argues that this will allow us to more greatly relate to nature, and such a bond will provide humans with the self-awareness needed to appreciate their impact on the nonhuman world.
In first reading “Good Oak” and “Thinking Like a Mountain” in Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, one may be inclined to believe that he is committing the same fallacies that Cronon has issues with, most notably supposing there is an ideal nature and that humans are separate from nature. It appears that Leopold finds a separation between the urban and rural, as he does in describing one person living on a farm and burning their own wood, compared to another person buying at a grocer and using a furnace to stay warm (Leopold 6). Leopold also seems to suggest that there is a kind of language in nature that humanity is unable to understand, “something known only to [the wolf] and to the mountain” (138). In quoting Henry David Thoreau, it appears that Leopold attaches the idea that “in wilderness is the salvation of the world,” therefore connecting some greater meaning to the howl of the wolf that is not inherent in its purely natural uses (141). By first declaring a separation between a certain kind of environment, rural versus urban, Leopold is suggesting that there is only a certain kind of place where nature is most relevant, namely, the one where a person does not have the grocery store nor a furnace. This is similar to Cronon’s problem of people only caring about a certain kind of nature, the kind that looks pristine and untouched by humans. Then, Leopold seems to stack on the dichotomy that nature is separate from humanity in nature having its own language that is beyond human comprehension, a language that, if people understood it, would provide salvation for them. In other words, nature has a sublime meaning. By arguing that there is a special language between wolf and mountain that provides salvation, Leopold is describing nature beyond its face value, looking for something of intangible meaning to attach to the howl of the wolf which in turn is a symbol of the wilderness. Furthermore, by having the wolf symbolize nature as a whole, Leopold is creating a certain kind of nature that people ought to care about, namely the one that has wolves in it, especially since the wolf’s howl seems to be an entryway to salvation. This point is directly at odds with Cronon’s beliefs, as it is an example of a particular kind of wilderness being favored due to a deeper, more sublime meaning attached to it. Again, it is this kind of concept, according to Cronon, that leads people to not care about nature that doesn’t provide some deep, intangible meaning to them, and because of this, that kind of concept will harm the environment overall.
However, upon further inspection of “Good Oak” and “Thinking Like a Mountain,” it turns out that Leopold does believe that humans and the non-human world have an intimate relationship that also includes accountability for actions done by humans towards nature. From pages 10 to 17, Leopold entails a detailed course of events that occurred during the lifetime of the oak, from when it was a sapling in the 1860’s to when it was cut in the 1930’s. This history includes forest fires, department establishments, and the extinction of species. He also refers to it as “my oak,” implying that he has a personal relation to that specific tree (17). In discussing the howl, Leopold clarifies that “only the ineducable tyro can fail to sense the presence or absence of wolves,” suggesting that people ought to realize when wolves are gone and to consider if they were a cause for their disappearance (138). He further explores this when he discusses how the removal of the wolves led to overpopulation of deer and the destruction that consequently had on the mountain’s landscape (139-140). By having the history of the oak, a metaphor for the environment, connected to human history, Leopold is showing that natural history and human history are connected. Further still, by suggesting that people should naturally notice when wolves are gone, is to suggest that people should naturally notice changes in nature, and therefore consider their impact on nature as a reason for some changes. This is most evident when he explores how wolf hunting leads to the ruin of vegetation on the mountain, meaning that Leopold firmly believes in holding humans accountable for their impact on nature. This goes back to the wolf’s howl and what it symbolizes. As wolf hunting results in the deer over eating, then the inability for humans to understand its special language is to ignore peoples’ impact on the environment. Therefore, the howl, and the apparent dichotomy between humans and nature that it represents, actually refers to humanity’s salvation in nature by having a relationship of respect towards nature’s interests, rather than connecting with nature on a purely anthropocentric, spiritual level. This, in turn, can lead people to care for nature by having a beneficial impact upon it. Therefore, all evidence which seems to indicate that Leopold is arguing beliefs or interpretations contrary to Cronon, actually turn out to be in favor of some of Cronon’s ideas. In fact, Leopold also explores in his book the issue between the human and non-human world, as Cronon did.
In “The Land Ethic,” Leopold’s key issue with the relationship between humans and nature is that it appears humanity finds it unnecessary to take care of nature and to instead only use it for gains. He first describes the relationship as one of economic interest, where people can enjoy privileges of having land that provides wealth, but not feel any obligations to caring for it (238). He then adds that all noneconomic elements of the environment are taken away, even though they served an important role in the ecosystem’s healthy functioning (251). And Leopold’s main explanation for the lack of human care are the various separations between a person and nature, including middlemen in the economy and physical gadgets, creating an idea that nature is “the space between cities where crops grow” (261). By arguing that humans have become so separated from nature so as to not care about their negative impact on the environment, Leopold is actually espousing key ideas that Cronon also discussed. Both authors agree that a mindset that focuses on people and nature being different is a mindset that causes more harm than good towards the environment. In this way, it is clear that both conflict with the general attitudes towards nature that many Americans had when Leopold and Cronon wrote their pieces. Going further, Leopold also provides a detailed solution to these attitudes within this chapter.
Leopold introduces the argument that humans must come to share a more communal and equal relationship with nature, in order to preserve the delicate, yet important, biotic pyramid that makes up all ecosystems. He first explains that ethics understand the “individual [as] a member of a community of interdependent parts” (239). He hopes to apply a land ethic under such understanding, to broaden the idea of “the [human] community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” (239). With this mindset, humans are no longer the “conqueror of the land community, [but rather a] citizen of it,” where they respect their fellow-members and community (240). This change in attitude, Leopold contends in “The Land Pyramid,” is necessary to sustain the biotic energy pyramids that have helped to maintain the world’s ecosystems for thousands of years, where plants provide the first base of nutrients, followed by all proceeding levels (252-53). Leopold warns that humanity’s use of tools and technology has caused changes to occur far faster than nature is able to recover from or adapt to (254). In turn, this could have effects that are far more “comprehensive than intended” and therefore potentially dangerous to all levels of the biotic pyramid (255). However, by introducing the idea of the land ethic, Leopold provides a solution for society’s effective use of tools that lacks a care for its impact on the environment. As this land ethic addresses this apparent disinterest in the land, it can also provide a solution to Cronon’s problem of how Americans often think of the wilderness. In this land ethic, the wilderness is not specifically mentioned as the mountains or the land of National Parks; rather, this ethic can be applied to people’s neighborhood parks, their local nature reserves, and backyards. Furthermore, it provides one the mindset needed to actually have the attitudes towards nature that Cronon is calling for people to have in his essay. Thus, Leopold has offered a guideline for one’s attitude towards all elements of the environment that can be more beneficial to the non-human world.
Understanding this, it is important to note that A Sand County Almanac was first published in 1949, forty-six years before Cronon’s 1995 essay. Leopold’s complaints towards the relationship of the human and non-human world appear to be echoed by Cronon. Just as Leopold argues that people seem ignorant of nature that does not provide them economic gains, Cronon argues that people don’t care for nature that doesn’t have a sublime meaning attached to it. Also, Leopold’s land ethic can be applied as a more specific solution to Cronon’s concerns of how American culture interprets the wild, namely in that one must come to understand the biotic pyramids that make up the webs in nature and to protect them for the well-being of all living things. This attitude allows one to respect not only the sublime nature but also the more mundane, as both have necessary biotic pyramids. Therefore, it is clear that Leopold was ahead of his time. Forty-six years before Cronon said it, Leopold understood the key issue of conceptualization hindering movements of environmentalism and sought a permanent, sustainable solution for it. Coupled with Cronon’s desire for people to care for the environment in their own places of inhabitance, in their backyards, one finds a potent combination: a new attitude towards nature which cares for the “backyard sublime” and aims to connect humans directly with the land they live on, through their own faculties.
Works Cited
Cronon, William, ed., “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.”
Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York: W. W. Norton
& Co., 1995, 69-90).
Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York, Ballantine Books, 1970.
Comments