Review of Roderick Nash’s
Wilderness and the American Mind
4th Ed., 2001, Yale University
by Michael Lee
ID 068341
2/16/2005
for Loren and Mary-Ruth Wilkinson
“The Boat Course: Technology, Wilderness, and Creation”
INDS 525
Introduction
Wilderness was created by human civilizations, because only when civilization
began were uncivilized things categorized. Uncivilized people, animals, plants, and land
were then considered wild. Some peoples continued to see themselves as less distinct
from their surroundings, and thus did not have a concept of “wilderness,” but only
“habitat.”
The word “wilderness” comes from the Old English for “self-willed” and
“animal,” or by implication, the place where self-willed (as opposed to human controlled)
animals live (1). Civilization attempts to control its surroundings, in varying degrees,
removing wild things and converting wilderness into something more easily habitable.
Wilderness cannot be measured. Its presence, or degree of presence, can only be
determined by the person who is thinking about or experiencing wilderness. “The Yukon
trapper would consider a trip to northern Minnesota a turn to civilization while for the
vacationer from Chicago it is a wilderness adventure indeed” (1). More recent usage of
the term has picked up on this relative aspect of wilderness to apply it to large cities
which “bewilder” people (3).
Wilderness as Enemy
Ancient cultures nearly always had myths of paradise, where life was bountiful,
easy, and near perfect. Wilderness stood as a direct opposite of these paradise images:
challenging, dark, and mysterious. Myths about wilderness included terrifying goat-men,
1
trolls, monsters, and Pan, who threw people into “panic,” a state of confusion and terror
(9-11).
People interpreted the real world as containing elements of paradise (where they
were successful in converting wilderness) and dangerous wilderness. In a Christian
context, the paradise/wilderness conflict was often seen as parallel to their central
concern of the good/evil struggle. Many feared, by association and by experience, that
wilderness was not just dangerous in the sense that it could kill you, but also that it could
awaken the “wild” side of a person, which was immoral and savage. Wilderness was
associated with God’s absence and moral failure, which was reinforced by their Bibles’
description of the Hebrews wandering in the wilderness.
A Change of Mind
The North American wilderness, being far larger and more remote than any in
Europe, heightened the already pessimistic attitude about wilderness. North American
settlers also were engaged in a constant struggle to bring gardens, homes, and safety out
of the enemy wilderness. They passed on such attitudes to the next generation, who
didn’t have the same experience of direct struggle against wilderness.
Not all saw the North American wilderness in such negative terms. Early
European eco-tourists such as de Toqueville saw it as a novelty and sought to visit it for
enjoyment. But he quickly realized that the settlers were “too close to wilderness for
appreciation,” (24) and only “prize[d] the works of man” (23). But as civilization spread
in North America, people who were especially deprived of wilderness, as was de
Toqueville, shared his view that perhaps Wilderness was good, as the Romanticism
movement spread. The first to have these views (that we know of) came from
intellectual, urban settings and a background of some affluence. The combination of
what they saw as “overcivilization” along with the time and means to find and appreciate
wilderness enabled them to overcome, at least in part, the negative attitudes toward
wilderness that had developed over eons.
“It was not that wilderness was any less solitary, mysterious, and chaotic, but
rather in the new intellectual context, these qualities were coveted” (44). Some reversed
the common notion that God was absent in the wilderness with a theology that God was
2
more present in wilderness. Science was discovering more about the vastness and order
of the universe, and this helped some to perceive God’s Creation, wilderness included, as
ordered. Deists raised this thought further and “based their entire faith in the existence of
God on the application of reason to nature” (46).
As a new country, Americans felt insecure about their cultural accomplishments
compared to those of European nations. Frantically searching for an asset that was
uniquely American, without equivalent in Europe, Americans came to see wilderness as
their unparalleled cultural treasure (67). Some believed that superb art would follow
from such wilderness, as artists attempted to capture its essence. Indeed, many artists
attempted to do so, in paintings, literature, and poetry. Congress even had a mural of
wilderness installed in their building.
Some “primitivists” thought that unhappiness common in cities was due to the
removal of people from their natural setting in the wild. They sought wilderness as a
means to happiness. Literature, such as Robinson Crusoe (48), arose from such ideas.
Others valued wilderness for its aesthetic. Art reflected this by including wilderness as
its subject, but often mixed with pastoral images reflecting some civilization.
Nash brings out a theme here, in highlighting that appreciation of wilderness was
often mixed, even where it existed. Many appreciated wilderness for something that it
happened to provide them, such as scenery, pioneering character, connection to God, and
a respite from city life. Furthermore, most people enjoyed wilderness for a short time,
then returned to spend most of their time in cities. Sometimes wilderness’s solitude or
harshness temporarily hampered their optimism. Thoreau, one of the first champions of
wilderness, advocated a life alternating between wilderness and civilization, taking the
advantages of each (59). He disliked the compromise of civilization and wilderness at
the same time, which resulted in a pastoral or rural lifestyle. This, he believed, had the
advantages of neither.
One exception to the half-civilized, half-wilderness approach was John Muir, who
believed that pure wilderness was the best way of living. Muir saw God’s writing in all
of creation, and “in wilderness the letters were capitalized” (125). Muir disagreed with
Emerson, who believed “wilderness was a sublime mistress, but an intolerable wife”
(126).
3
Preservation
As wilderness increasingly disappeared under the efforts of pioneers, a movement
began to attempt to preserve wilderness legally. This had no precedent in America, nor
elsewhere in the world. But the combination of a massive amount of wilderness and an
ever increasing movement west allowed people to see clearly that wilderness could be
completely destroyed. Previously in human history, expansion into wilderness happened
much more slowly, and there was no countering appreciation of wilderness to suggest
that it might be worth preserving. These ideas came together for the first time in the
United States, preserving scenic areas like Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Adirondacks
to allow everyone an opportunity to experience them, and restrict corporations and
wealthy individuals from buying and controlling these unique areas. In some senses,
preservation was a democratic by-product, preserving the opportunity for all people to
have the freedom to experience wilderness.
But wilderness preservation also had supporters in corporate interests and wealthy
individual. Railroads hoped that people would use their exclusive lines to travel to
wilderness, since most who wanted to see it lived far from it, in eastern cities. Wealthy
individuals first explored Yellowstone and desired to see it preserved for themselves as
well as others.
Wilderness was not preserved because it was wilderness, but rather because it was
scenic (Yosemite), unusual (Yellowstone), and regulated water supplies (Adirondacks).
Thus the reserves didn’t intentionally preserve wilderness, but that was nonetheless the
result.
Schism within Preservation/Conservation
Initial preservation attempts united people with many different motives. Some
wanted good scenery for people to enjoy; others joined Muir by claiming that
experiencing true wilderness in solitude was the best religion and true source of
happiness. Still others disagreed with Muir and, headed by Gifford Pinchot who was
trained in European Forestry, believed in conserving national wilderness and forests so
that Americans would not consume all their resources. He declared “the whole
4
conservation policy is that of use, to take every part of the land and its resources and put
it to that use in which it will serve the most people” (171). Industry came to support this
view of the renamed “conservation,” emphasizing use instead of “preservation.” Still
others “associated wilderness with America’s frontier and pioneer past that was believed
responsible for many unique and desirable national characteristics” (145). Thus
preservation would allow future generations to acquire the virtues their ancestors found in
wilderness.
In the 1910’s, wilderness advocates were split by arguments about damming
Hetch Hetchy, a valley within Yosemite. San Francisco was an expanding city without
adequate local water supply, and they proposed damming the Hetch Hetchy to provide a
steady water source and electric power. Muir was incensed and believed the solution was
to publicize Hetch Hetchy and awaken the public to the grandeur of this valley. “Dam
Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no
holier temple has ever been constructed by the heart of man” (168). Gifford Pinchot,
earlier a friend of Muir’s, believed needs such as San Francisco’s were the reason for
conserving wilderness, so resources existed to meet those needs.
Some preservationists, mostly from the East, argued that Hetch Hetchy should be
saved because of its beauty. The dam proponents, mostly from the West, turned this
argument around, claiming that Hetch Hetchy would be even more beautiful as the city
“would cover the dam with moss, vines, and trees and would build picnic spots and
trails” (171).
There were some, such as William Kent, who were well known to support
preservation, and had made significant contributions to preservation, evening naming his
donated land in honour of Muir (172). As always, the issue at hand was not as simple as
“yes” or “no” to preservation. There were many conflicting and competing influences.
Kent “knew that the powerful Pacific Gas and Electric Company wanted the valley as a
step toward consolidating its control over California hydroelectric resources” (173). Kent
predicted the dam would be a significant step toward increasing public ownership of
utilities. Kent’s voice in favor of the dam, as a well known preservationist, greatly
damaged the preservationists’ efforts, which eventually failed.
5
Even though the preservationists lost this battle, the fact that there was a battle
was significant, as earlier no debate would have been necessary. Also, even the
proponents of the dam claimed to enjoy wilderness as much as anyone, and regretted that
Hetch Hetchy couldn’t be spared. They simply ranked civilization’s needs higher than
this particular patch of wilderness. The shift in attitude was apparent when both sides
stated love of wilderness, when a few decades earlier, wilderness was valued by both
sides.
Rethinking: Why Wilderness
The middle of the 20th Century brought new ideas to Wilderness thought, partly in
response to the failure of preserving Hetch Hetchy. Previous arguments for a particular
place had always been developed as the issue arose, but now conservationists searched
for more universal reasons. New voices, such as Aldo Leopold, spoke of a land ethic,
and with the ideas of ecology, spoke to the interconnectedness of land, plants, and wild
creatures (both predator and prey). Wilderness was needed for science and understanding
of the functioning of “healthy land,” land that humans depend on for survival. This was a
new idea. Leopold advocated “self-imposed limits in the struggle for [human] existence”
(196) to reverse destructive human technology. Otherwise, as Faulkner predicted, “the
people who have destroyed [the wilderness] will accomplish its revenge” (250).
The wilderness movement then advocated, with mixed results, more permanent
and intentional preservation. The Grand Canyon was saved from damming, and became
a well known wilderness destination for tourists. The National Wilderness Preservation
System was passed in 1964 after much heated debate to preserve wilderness on a scale
never previously considered. Much of what remained of wilderness in the lower 48
states, including the few unimpeded rivers, was preserved permanently, as “the
wilderness he now have is all … men will ever have” (223). 2% of the lower 48 states
was considered wilderness by the early 1980’s (248).
As Alaska became a state, many feared that its vast wilderness would be
susceptible to the same greed and destruction they saw in the rest of the United States.
Many resolved to treat Alaska differently, perhaps in part to redeem the errors of the past.
Similar to the Hetch Hetchy controversy, Congress and the distant public were the
6
primary proponents of an enforced preservation of wilderness. Alaskans felt that nearly
all Alaskans were in Alaska because they wanted to live in a place where wilderness and
some form of civilization could co-exist. Jimmy Carter’s signature in 1980 preserved
28% of Alaska, the most significant wilderness preservation ever.
Destruction from Within
Furthest from John Muir’s thoughts when publicizing Hetch Hetchy was the
thought that if people appreciated wilderness, they might destroy it. His main plan was to
convince people to care, thus preventing business and utilities from destroying
wilderness. However, the latter part of the 20th Century saw this very phenomenon.
Eager campers, hikers, whitewater-rafters and the like—those who supposedly loved
wilderness—were having a very negative impact on wilderness.
Solitude was valued in wilderness, but “innumerable people cannot enjoy solitude
together” (317). Camping debris and human waste made wilderness feel like anything
but wilderness. Those who cared only for themselves previously and nothing for
wilderness had changed their minds, and now liked experiencing wilderness, but still
failed to care for it. Technology increased, providing more people easier access to
wilderness with better camping equipment, transportation, and information availability.
Generally, as visitors increased to a park, managers increased technology, such as more
roads, trails, campsites, and hotels, to allow access by more visitors.
Eventually, park managers limited visits, and in some places, waiting lists forced
people to wait months or years to experience something like riding through the Grand
Canyon on a raft. One alternative was eliminating conveniences, resulting in fewer
people wanting to visit. Those who were not young and affluent, with time and ability to
hike, tended to be excluded. Complaints resulted that such a reality is far from the
democratic notions that wilderness was to be preserved for everyone to enjoy, not just
isolated privileged individuals.
On an international scale, wealthy citizens from highly developed countries
import wilderness experiences from other countries. This was common for Europeans
visiting the United States before the 1890’s close of the frontier. Afterwards, Americans
and Europeans turned to Africa as their wilderness source. Africans relied on, and still
7
rely upon, earnings from eco-tourists, though they generally do not share such a
fascination of wilderness. With tourism money came attitudes like “Our National Parks
being good money to Tanzania—Preserve them” (344). But managing wilderness for
eco-tourists interferes with the quality of the wilderness, as decisions that limit income or
access are not favored. Also, the majority of ecotourism incomes go to foreign
entrepreneurs, leaving relatively little for locals. Thus wilderness is perhaps not as
valuable to locals, which may favor development (373-374).
The Future of Wilderness
Nash offers several suggestions for the future. Wilderness could be eradicated
completely, and the world would turn into a wasteland. Or, wilderness could also be
eliminated as the world is turned into a garden, a “planet-wide extension of Europe”
(381). Nash proposes that instead, wilderness should be dominant on the globe, and
several pockets of “island civilization” for humans should exist in a super-densely
populated, high technology place. Nash resists the comparison with cities, “‘cities’
cannot begin to describe the new living arrangements” (381-82). He shares Thoreau’s,
Emerson’s and others’ notion that the only way for humans to truly live is alternating
between civilization and wilderness. People “could choose (perhaps on an annual basis)
between ways of life centered around computers or campfires” (383).
Nash rejects the garden scenario, because, if world-wide, it would eliminate true
wilderness. But Nash fails to offer any heterogeneous vision of the world other than his
own. Wilderness could indeed exist in part of the world and any other closed system
could exist outside of that, or any system compatible with wilderness. His solution fits
this pattern, but his explanation and justification of “high-technology island civilization”
fails in several regards.
First, Nash doesn’t address the issue of technology as an opponent (at least
generally) of wilderness. As people increase their use of technology, they increase their
control of their surroundings, a polar opposite of wilderness. How does one foster a
sense of appreciation of wilderness in people who want to be in control, other than with a
totalitarian government? It takes a very thoughtful and capable person from high
technology cultures, though some exist, to both desire living in wilderness and be able to.
8
But many people do not share their insight and continue to ignore or degrade wilderness,
whether in contact with it or not.
Secondly, Nash hopes to solve some central problems to human existence with a
vague mention of technology. Where will food be grown? Where does waste from the
civilization go? There is one sentence about “closed-circle” high technology that
efficiently cycles everything within the island civilizations boundaries. Such
technological optimism is always expected of the future, as indeed it was at the dawn of
nuclear power, but fails to adequately grapple with the ecological realities of present.
And if we must wait for technologies to perfectly provide food and eliminate wastes,
what is to happen to us and wilderness in the meantime?
Thirdly, Nash doesn’t indicate why his island clusters need be densely populated,
or why people can’t live in closer contact with nature or semi-wilderness when occupying
their “civilization-time.” Presumably, Nash wishes to preserve the maximum amount of
wilderness as possible, but fails to attempt to reintegrate people into wilderness, as a
permanent home, without destroying it. Could people live in the wild? Here, Nash
confuses wilderness as “not human influenced” rather than, as he explains early in the
book “not human (civilization) controlled.” The issue of control is an important one, and
relates closely to the above issue of technology, as technology increases both human
control and the human expectation of control their surroundings. Nash doesn’t leave
room for wilderness that includes human influence, but without human domination.
Might there be room for humans to modify the environment in small ways, such
as the presence of a cabin or outhouse, which do not constitute complete control? Is this
significantly different from a bear’s den, eagle’s nest, or mangrove’s root mass? The
difference, of course, could result from the size and impact of the human’s structure, as
well as how many humans lived in an area. But perhaps there is room for such humaninfluenced wilderness.
This seems to be an oxymoron, but that is only because Nash devotes such a small
amount of time distinguishing between human impact and civilization control. Indeed,
Puritans at the outset of settling North America feared what they might become in the
wilderness; that it might absorb them. What could this look like that could be beneficial
9
for both humans and wilderness? At least it is worth suggesting as another option to
Nash’s limited set.
The idea that wilderness is part of Creation, and that all the earth is Creation, is
missing from Nash’s proposal, though admittedly he restricts the scope of this book to
exclude this. Creation doctrine cannot avoid the fact that humans are part of creation.
Nor indeed, can a true evolutionist avoid the fact that humans are part of the evolved
world. And while both doctrines (if indeed one decides to separate them) can certainly
recognize that human impacts on the earth and wilderness are negative in many ways,
both need to recognize the possibility of reintegration of humanity back into the earth.
10