Danielle Yadisernia
ENVS 4100 Lit Review Assignment
William Cronon:
The Trouble with Wilderness; or Getting Back to the Wrong Nature
“The movement to preserve large tracts of land designated as wilderness is an elitist
enterprise . . . unnecessary and ecologically counterproductive,” says William Cronon in a 1995
New York Times Magazine article. His assertion is not one of an anti-environmental perspective.
Rather, it is a proposal, based on the philosophy of intrinsic value, to reassess society’s view of
the environment. A well-known environmental historian, Cronon causes an infusion of debate
from his colleagues, both in support of and opposing his perspective on wilderness.
Cronon summarizes the history of our society’s vision of wilderness, and explains how it
undermines true preservation. He asserts that the public views the wilderness we need to
preserve as a pristine landscape, untouched by human hands. This perspective of the natural
world takes away from the worth of nature itself, and gives society a loophole in which to
continue environmental degradation.
Although not a global perspective, this view of an uninhabited wilderness in need of
preservation does have worldwide effects. When trying to address international environmental
issues this perspective carries little weight. Trying to convince a developing nation, for instance,
that they need to preserve their wilderness because we value it is virtually impossible for them to
understand. For them, wilderness is where they live, what they utilize, and in some cases want to
be rid of. Many undeveloped nations still hold the perspective of wilderness that we once had,
that wilderness is troublesome, something to be feared. Others view the destruction of the
environment as a way to development and prosperity, wanting to follow in our footsteps. How
then, can we convince them to barricade it off, to leave it untouched?
By divorcing ourselves from the past and setting up “wilderness preserves” of untouched
land we fail to accept responsibility for our past and present activities that degrade the
environment which we are trying to protect. Cronon writes, “The dream of an un-worked natural
landscape is very much the fantasy of people who have never themselves had to work the land to
make a living” (1995). It is as though we are saying “it’s okay to cut down all of the trees from
this area as long as we save a few of them from that area.” As long as we hold on to bits and
pieces of the natural world, so we can escape from the urban life and “get back to nature,” it is
acceptable to expand the urban world; wilderness is for recreation only. This perception counters
the efforts of preservationists and conservationists.
It is easy to regard these tracts of land as preservation because they are set aside, but is it
actually; if that is all we are preserving? We may be conserving our use of the natural world, but
we are not preserving it. By doing our “duty” to preserve a portion of the natural world we are
allowing ourselves to destroy everything else. The small ecological islands created through
wilderness preservation are unsustainable in the long run. Without support from outside
ecosystems they will continue to deteriorate, and humans will encroach upon them until there is
nothing left.
Cronon is not the only preservationist with this provocative outlook. In response to
Reinventing Nature Gene McQuillan, an ecology professor at City University of New York
confidently says “I found myself in hearty agreement with many of his arguments.” (McQuillan
2000) She agrees with Cronon that the history and culture of America has improperly shaped our
perspective of the environment. “Many of our personal and cultural assumptions about
wilderness derive from nineteenth-century texts and contexts which seem increasingly irrelevant
to current issues such as land use, aesthetics, or recreation.” (McQuillan 2000) By redefining
these contexts, she says, we can better assess the environment and how to preserve it.
In Reinventing Nature? Michael Soule confirms the threat to the environment from
complacent non-antienvironmentalists. “Living nature is under two kinds of siege; one is overt,
the other is covert.” (Soule 1995) The covert ideological assault, he says, is society’s justification
of the deconstructionalists physical assault for its usefulness. Soule supports the need to clarify
our ideologies of nature in order to end this complacent justification.
However, alternative perspectives of the concept of wilderness preservation come from
other colleagues. Philip Cafaro argues against Cronon, stating, “An ethics of respect for
nonhuman nature and an informed, scientific understanding of what is necessary to preserve it do
strongly support increased wilderness preservation” (Cafaro 2001). He contends that wilderness
advocacy is not a problem because the same people usually vie for both wilderness preservation
and environmental protection, rather than becoming complacent, as Cronon suggests. Cafaro also
tears down Cronon’s ideology of respecting “all things other than me” equally. He uses the
example of a woman and a tree. Of course one is going to esteem the woman higher than the
tree, for the treatment of a thing is derived from its nature, regardless of its “equality” in regard.
Like Cafaro, William Chaloupka criticizes the Cronon’s work. But rather than attacking
the environmental actions Cronon proposes, Chaloupka goes after the supposed link between
wilderness preservation and environmental complacency. “His assumption (or accusation, to be
precise) is absurd . . . He presents not a single instance in which a literary theorist ever argues in
favor of the assault on the environment . . . the connection exists because he says it does, no
more, no less.” (Chaloupka 2000). Chaloupka further frowns upon Cronon’s reasoning
intellectual movement, pointing out the dissention it causes by “accusing potential allies.” (2426)
Cronon forms the basis of his argument through analysis of American culture and history,
its changing perspectives of nature, and the resulting practices of society. In Changes in the
Land, he recounts the western movement; from the urbanized east coast through the frontier;
pushing the native inhabitants westward, thus creating for the settlers an uninhabited wilderness.
This, he argues, is the basis of our society’s misperception, therefore causing what he refers to as
a preservation disparity.
Cronon utilizes philosophical logic to further his point. Through the ethical principle of
intrinsic value he expresses that all of nature should be viewed as possessing inherent worth, and
should be preserved equally despite its origin or location. His philosophical reasoning is that we
(as humans) must respect and appreciate those things “other than me.” This leads to the
conclusion that wild and tame things deserve equal respect and treatment; “we must respect the
tree in the garden as much as the tree in the forest” We must develop a deeper respect for nature,
rather than preserved landscapes alone.
Cronon asserts that the result of wilderness advocacy is complacency toward real
environmental issues. By setting up wilderness preserves we only “symbolically” withhold our
power to dominate the natural world. Of course, Cronon also takes for granted the ethical
principal that we should withhold that power. Because our perspectives are skewed, by setting up
wilderness preservation tracts we are not actually saving anything. We are merely setting up
“tree museums” and referring to them as wilderness. In order to get beyond this myth of
wilderness as leaving nature untouched by our passage we need to articulate a harmonious
relationship between humans and the rest of nature. Humans can fit in with nature, and need not
be segregated from it. This is what our environmental philosophy ought to be.
Our lack of recognizing that humans can affectively be a part of the natural world brings
to light another perspective: “this wilderness dualism denotes any use as ab-use.” Our values
suggest that by utilizing wilderness in any way we are abusing it. The only way to protect it is to
fence it off and leave it alone. Cronon suggests that there are many ways to sustainably conserve
the natural world while still deriving responsible use from it. But in order to do so we must first
learn that “the living world does exist apart from humanity’s perceptions and beliefs.”
Cronon’s work led to an uproar in the environmental field. By denouncing wilderness
preservation he gave anti-preservationists, such as the Wise-use movement, an upper hand. The
advantage of quoting a known “environmentalist” in ways that support their anti- environment
practices enables them to gain support from ignorant laypeople (the public; those who did not
know of and understand the perspective of Cronon’s work). Initially, Cronon comes across as an
anti-environmentalist.
Furthermore, Cronon’s extreme perspective causes dissention where we most need unity,
creating polarization between those working toward the same goal. Some of Cronon’s colleagues
are now working against these negative effects . . . (Cafaro 2001) by more clearly defining the
purpose of wilderness preservation while asserting the need for other types of conservation
simultaneously.
However, controversy is always good publicity. This uproar brought into focus the need
to protect the still remaining precious environment. By raising the question not should we
preserve; but what to preserve and how best to do so, Cronon’s writing increased interest in the
environmental field.
Cronon alludes to the need for a great readjustment of our perspectives, thus altering the
way we form environmental policy. He calls for preservation on a different level; not merely
setting up preserved areas, but rather working toward ameliorating all environmental problems.
Ultimately, he proposes an end to the emplacement of wilderness tracts because it lends itself to
the “good deed” phenomenon, allowing us to relax on large-scale conservation. Cafaro, on the
other hand, attests the need to continue preserving wilderness tracts without ignoring other
environmental issues. He pushes for policy directed toward the preservation of species and
biological communities through expanding protected regions with management and nonmanagement of wilderness, and limits to human consumption and numbers. “Wild areas” he says
“preserve greater numbers of native species and full complements rather than individual
populations” than any other form of conservation. (Cafaro 2001)
Statistical research would be beneficial in clarifying the arguments raised by Cronon and
his colleagues. Through surveying the general public it could be determined whether Cronon’s
assertion, that one’s perspective of wilderness is concurrent with actions relative to
environmental protection, actually holds. It could be determined who does and does not agree
with the views discussed. As of now, Cronon’s assertions are merely educated opinion.
Cronon argues that clarification will help conservation. Yet the way he delivers his
message may not. His want to conserve all of nature is impossible. By boycotting “wilderness”
tracts for preservation he undercuts one major way, possibly one of only ways we have of
protecting what still remains.
I agree with Cronon’s position that our misperceptions of “wilderness” should be
clarified, and all of nature should be respected and equally conserved. However, identifying
everything we should and should not do completes nothing by way of action. While a deep
understanding of why humans act and think the way they do, and what could be done to make all
the world better off is interesting and honorable, it is not practical. Cronon’s ideas will not work
in this place in time. My support for implementation coincides with Cafaro’s perspective. It is
more important to be practical rather than philosophical.
*E-mail correspondence between myself and Dr. Cronon; in response to the question:
“How would you define “wilderness” or “nature”?
Dear Danielle-Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I couldn't possibly give you a simple
definition to either the word "wilderness" or the word "nature," since
both are incredibly rich and complicated terms; indeed, the British
literary critic Raymond Williams once remarked that nature is probably
the most complicated word in the English language, and I think I agree
with him. For the purposes of your class, though, I would say that we
speakers of English in the U.S. use the word wilderness to denote places
that we regard as being among the most natural, least human in the
world--though I would of course add that our decision of what to so
label is a profoundly human decision with a deep human history behind
it. Historically, we've been much quicker to label mountains as
"wilderness" than we have swamps, for instance, with very serious
implications for which type of ecosystem has received greater protection
in our political system.
As for nature, I'd encourage you to read the brief history of the word
that Raymond Williams offers in his wonderful little book KEYWORDS, and
also scan the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (which gives
all the meanings that the word has ever had in the history of the modern
English language). For now, I'll just say that the word expresses a
deep paradox in the way we think about the world around us. On the one
hand, we use it to denote everything in the universe, including
ourselves; on the other hand, we use it to denote everything in the
universe that is not us. In that seeming contradiction lies as neat a
summary of the peculiarity of our human condition vis-a-vis the rest of
the world as any brief example I know.
I've pasted below a wonderful (but very dense and challenging) little
essay by Raymond Williams entitled "Ideas of Nature." It's very nearly
the best thing I've ever read on this subject. I promise that it will
enrich the way you think about the question you asked me below.
Best of luck with your class.
Bill Cronon
References
Cronon, William.
“Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature” (Sources: Notable Selections in
Environmental Studies p143-151)
“The Trouble With Wilderness; Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” (New York 1995)
Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England
(New York 1983)
Nature’s Metropolis (New York 1991)
Cafaro, Philip.“For a Grounded Conception of Wilderness and More Wilderness on the Ground.”
Ethics and the Environment: 6 (1) 2001
Chaloupka, William. “Jagged Terrain: Cronon, Soule, and the Struggle over Nature and
Deconstruction in Environmental Theory”. Strategies: 13 (1) 2000
McQuillan, Gene. The Forest Track: Working with William Cronon’s The Trouble with
Wildernes. College Literature: 27 (2) 2000
Soule, Michael E. Reinventing Nature? Responces to Postmodern Deconstruction Santa Cruz
1995