One cannot deny that John Muir was definitely one ‘in-touch’ with Nature. He lived much of his life in uninhabited wooded areas, leaving lighter ecological footprints than many other men of his time. However, I still feel, despite strong persuasive arguments in class today, that John Muir is somewhat naive in his approach to the natural world. Yes, nature is an awe-inspiring part of our world. It has splendiferous views, smells, creatures, and sensations. However, as seen in Jack London’s fictional account “To Build a Fire,” Nature does have a harsher side.
I know that many probably read the above and considered me jaded. Those same people may bring up the fact that Muir was not naive. They may interject that he was knowledgeable in the flora and fauna that surrounded him. That not only could he make the flowers of his narratives sing and dance in jubilee, but that he could also taxonomically classify them in the Linnaeus fashion of binomial nomenclature. This is all true. However, I feel that his ability to do such can be attributed to his leisure in nature.
He was, by no means, struggling to survive in such a desolate tundra as London’s Yukon. I believe, contrary to others, that Muir would have been no better at surviving in the some seventy-five below zero freeze that London’s “the man” faced in “To Build a Fire.” Struggling to survive would not have allowed him the time to view nature in the way that he does in My First Summer in the Sierra. While I admire Muir for his dedication to the preservation and admiration of the natural world, I do not feel that we should judge London and his characters as ‘stupid’ because of such events as “the man’s” death.
Also, just to maybe rile some people up...I believe that John Muir is one of the authors on Oscar Wilde’s list of “Authors NOT to Read.” I'm not sure what that may mean or not mean...
In his "The Trouble with Wilderness," Cronon comments on how wilderness as a concept has to be rethought. Even though the majority of people see what we assume to be wilderness as "the last remaining place where civilization... has not fully infected the earth," it really isn't. In reality, as argued by Cronon, humanity has already 'infected' all of earth. There is no place on the planet that we have not affected. The wilderness, despite its removed appearance, without buildings or signs of human habitation is still affected by humans. The wilderness is not "an island in the polluted sea of urban modernity" but rather another aspect of it (69). We cannot separate ourselves from the wilderness any more than we can separate ourselves from our homes.
However, regardless of Cronon's belief, that we should separate ourselves from this view of wilderness as a separate entity that is remove from humanity's touch, it is simply not something that I believe people can do. People venture into what they define as the wilderness in order to escape the confines of society. Even though it is still part of this planet, viewing it as separate provides us with an artificial way to escape. When venturing into the wilderness, regardless of how little removed we actually are, people can truly experience a sense of separation from the societies in which they reside.
Even though none of us can deny that the wilderness is part of the world in which we live and that we affect it on the daily basis, an idealized wilderness is the one that the vast majority of people choose to acknowledge. Regardless of this, however, it is still possible to find a "middle ground" between the use and abuse of nature (85). I don't think we need to change our definition of wilderness to do this.
Jordan, I love that you want to stir things up! You're right that Muir does have that quality of hopeless naivete (of the "Oh golly gee! What a beautiful flower!" variety). And I'm not surprised that Wilde, the king of epigrammatic wit and urban social satire, would find Muir's brand of nature communion appalling, though Wilde is most famous for his play, The Importance of Being Earnest, which features a very distinctive social contrast between city folk and country folk! Granted, Cecily Cardew and the like are "country" in the sense of English pastoral estates, not sublime wildernesses.
Royce: I share your suspicion that the idea of "wilderness" as something removed from us will persist, and that there is some kind of value in maintaining that sense of respect for something other than us. Cronon rightly points to the dangers of overdoing that separation, but very few people would go as far as to support getting rid of our national parks (if Cronon's view that wilderness is an illusion is pushed to the logical extreme, why bother maintaining the distinction of reserves, parks, etc.?).
On a side note, all this talk of islands and the man-made versus natural makes me think of the so-called "Pacific Trash Vortex" or the North Pacific Gyre, a supposed patch of suspended plastics and garbage from Japan and North America now twice the size of Texas northeast of Hawaii. Some people think it's a liberal myth, others imagine an enormous continent of floating garbage.... You can search for "trash vortex" on www.ecorazzi.com to view some videos.
In Jack London's "To Build a Fire" Nature is portrayed as being cruel and pitiless. “A demonic other” as Cronon described it. Although Nature is undoubtedly harsher in “To Build a Fire” than in Muir’s My First Summer in the Sierra, I would not exactly call it a “demonic other.”
Nature did not exactly scheme to hurt “the man.” When “the man” died Nature was not laughing maniacally at his demise. The fate of the man was brought on by his own foolish disregard of the powers of Nature. It is true that we cannot control Nature. However, there are many ways that we can protect ourselves from it. “The man” should have paid more attention to the warning signs that were clearly foreshadowing danger. Had he done so, he might have survived.
At the same time, Nature isn’t all happiness and rainbows as described by Muir. There is both a harsh and a beautiful side to Nature. Our perceptions of Nature is affected by how we have encountered it and how we have reacted to that encounter. If “the man” from London’s story survived would we have viewed Nature in that story as cruel?
In Cronon’s first essay, he asserts his position on what wilderness and calls for a revamped definition of nature. As he explores the timeline of what nature is and was, he touches on the topics of it being a desolate wasteland to a demonic other and of it being a sublime to a place of escape. Contemporary definitions of nature usually center around the exclusion of humans and anything man made.
However, Cronon proposes that nature can be a mixture of the human as well as the non-human, and I wholeheartedly agree. Nature can include the human, because even in world filled with cement and metal, the underlying forms are from human nature. The tall buildings and city landscapes of today show the capability of humans and our resourcefulness for what has been given to us on Earth. And everything from planet Earth, I believe, is natural in a sense. Therefore, I feel that nature should encompass even the human elements of the world.
At the end of his argument, Cronon declares that we must accept our surroundings as “home” and nature in our own way. He points out that nature is all around us, even in our backyards, so expressing concern over ending it would be a foolish thought by the race of mankind.
I wonder: is your position EXACTLY the same as Cronon's? If so, what do you think Cronon is trying to tell us beyond "nature is everywhere, even in our backyards"? That is, do you think he wants us as humans to DO anything with his ideas other than just accept them? Otherwise, in what ways do you think Cronon may be wrong?
I ask these questions because I myself have no answer to them whatsoever.
In response to Johnny and Tim re: Cronon, I do think Cronon is doing more in his essay than just trying to perform some impressive academic somersaults. If we take his ideas seriously, we should be just as upset about someone throwing a cigarette on the sidewalk on Shattuck as we would be if someone tossed an empty Coke can into the bushes along the Pacific Rim Trail.
Katrina: Indeed, nature as "avenging angel" is a product of our own minds, and even nature as that which is coldly indifferent.
One cannot deny that John Muir was definitely one ‘in-touch’ with Nature. He lived much of his life in uninhabited wooded areas, leaving lighter ecological footprints than many other men of his time. However, I still feel, despite strong persuasive arguments in class today, that John Muir is somewhat naive in his approach to the natural world. Yes, nature is an awe-inspiring part of our world. It has splendiferous views, smells, creatures, and sensations. However, as seen in Jack London’s fictional account “To Build a Fire,” Nature does have a harsher side.
ReplyDeleteMany may argue that Muir acknowledges this aspect of Nature, that is fitting Cronon’s definition of nature as demonic other, and that his optimism chooses to overlook it. However, I pose this question: Is it optimism or credulity in wishing to believe that the Nature is as benevolent as Muir describes it? Does Muir possess a sort of naiveté in his approach to the natural world?
I know that many probably read the above and considered me jaded. Those same people may bring up the fact that Muir was not naive. They may interject that he was knowledgeable in the flora and fauna that surrounded him. That not only could he make the flowers of his narratives sing and dance in jubilee, but that he could also taxonomically classify them in the Linnaeus fashion of binomial nomenclature. This is all true. However, I feel that his ability to do such can be attributed to his leisure in nature.
He was, by no means, struggling to survive in such a desolate tundra as London’s Yukon. I believe, contrary to others, that Muir would have been no better at surviving in the some seventy-five below zero freeze that London’s “the man” faced in “To Build a Fire.” Struggling to survive would not have allowed him the time to view nature in the way that he does in My First Summer in the Sierra. While I admire Muir for his dedication to the preservation and admiration of the natural world, I do not feel that we should judge London and his characters as ‘stupid’ because of such events as “the man’s” death.
Also, just to maybe rile some people up...I believe that John Muir is one of the authors on Oscar Wilde’s list of “Authors NOT to Read.” I'm not sure what that may mean or not mean...
In his "The Trouble with Wilderness," Cronon comments on how wilderness as a concept has to be rethought. Even though the majority of people see what we assume to be wilderness as "the last remaining place where civilization... has not fully infected the earth," it really isn't. In reality, as argued by Cronon, humanity has already 'infected' all of earth. There is no place on the planet that we have not affected. The wilderness, despite its removed appearance, without buildings or signs of human habitation is still affected by humans. The wilderness is not "an island in the polluted sea of urban modernity" but rather another aspect of it (69). We cannot separate ourselves from the wilderness any more than we can separate ourselves from our homes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, regardless of Cronon's belief, that we should separate ourselves from this view of wilderness as a separate entity that is remove from humanity's touch, it is simply not something that I believe people can do. People venture into what they define as the wilderness in order to escape the confines of society. Even though it is still part of this planet, viewing it as separate provides us with an artificial way to escape. When venturing into the wilderness, regardless of how little removed we actually are, people can truly experience a sense of separation from the societies in which they reside.
Even though none of us can deny that the wilderness is part of the world in which we live and that we affect it on the daily basis, an idealized wilderness is the one that the vast majority of people choose to acknowledge. Regardless of this, however, it is still possible to find a "middle ground" between the use and abuse of nature (85). I don't think we need to change our definition of wilderness to do this.
Jordan and Royce, two excellent posts... thanks.
ReplyDeleteJordan, I love that you want to stir things up! You're right that Muir does have that quality of hopeless naivete (of the "Oh golly gee! What a beautiful flower!" variety). And I'm not surprised that Wilde, the king of epigrammatic wit and urban social satire, would find Muir's brand of nature communion appalling, though Wilde is most famous for his play, The Importance of Being Earnest, which features a very distinctive social contrast between city folk and country folk! Granted, Cecily Cardew and the like are "country" in the sense of English pastoral estates, not sublime wildernesses.
Royce: I share your suspicion that the idea of "wilderness" as something removed from us will persist, and that there is some kind of value in maintaining that sense of respect for something other than us. Cronon rightly points to the dangers of overdoing that separation, but very few people would go as far as to support getting rid of our national parks (if Cronon's view that wilderness is an illusion is pushed to the logical extreme, why bother maintaining the distinction of reserves, parks, etc.?).
On a side note, all this talk of islands and the man-made versus natural makes me think of the so-called "Pacific Trash Vortex" or the North Pacific Gyre, a supposed patch of suspended plastics and garbage from Japan and North America now twice the size of Texas northeast of Hawaii. Some people think it's a liberal myth, others imagine an enormous continent of floating garbage.... You can search for "trash vortex" on www.ecorazzi.com to view some videos.
In Jack London's "To Build a Fire" Nature is portrayed as being cruel and pitiless. “A demonic other” as Cronon described it. Although Nature is undoubtedly harsher in “To Build a Fire” than in Muir’s My First Summer in the Sierra, I would not exactly call it a “demonic other.”
ReplyDeleteNature did not exactly scheme to hurt “the man.” When “the man” died Nature was not laughing maniacally at his demise. The fate of the man was brought on by his own foolish disregard of the powers of Nature. It is true that we cannot control Nature. However, there are many ways that we can protect ourselves from it. “The man” should have paid more attention to the warning signs that were clearly foreshadowing danger. Had he done so, he might have survived.
At the same time, Nature isn’t all happiness and rainbows as described by Muir. There is both a harsh and a beautiful side to Nature. Our perceptions of Nature is affected by how we have encountered it and how we have reacted to that encounter. If “the man” from London’s story survived would we have viewed Nature in that story as cruel?
The Trouble With Wilderness
ReplyDeleteIn Cronon’s first essay, he asserts his position on what wilderness and calls for a revamped definition of nature. As he explores the timeline of what nature is and was, he touches on the topics of it being a desolate wasteland to a demonic other and of it being a sublime to a place of escape. Contemporary definitions of nature usually center around the exclusion of humans and anything man made.
However, Cronon proposes that nature can be a mixture of the human as well as the non-human, and I wholeheartedly agree. Nature can include the human, because even in world filled with cement and metal, the underlying forms are from human nature. The tall buildings and city landscapes of today show the capability of humans and our resourcefulness for what has been given to us on Earth. And everything from planet Earth, I believe, is natural in a sense. Therefore, I feel that nature should encompass even the human elements of the world.
At the end of his argument, Cronon declares that we must accept our surroundings as “home” and nature in our own way. He points out that nature is all around us, even in our backyards, so expressing concern over ending it would be a foolish thought by the race of mankind.
Alright, I'm new at this, I think I put my response on a new page of its own...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Johnny,
ReplyDeleteI wonder: is your position EXACTLY the same as Cronon's? If so, what do you think Cronon is trying to tell us beyond "nature is everywhere, even in our backyards"? That is, do you think he wants us as humans to DO anything with his ideas other than just accept them? Otherwise, in what ways do you think Cronon may be wrong?
I ask these questions because I myself have no answer to them whatsoever.
~Tim Yu
In response to Johnny and Tim re: Cronon, I do think Cronon is doing more in his essay than just trying to perform some impressive academic somersaults. If we take his ideas seriously, we should be just as upset about someone throwing a cigarette on the sidewalk on Shattuck as we would be if someone tossed an empty Coke can into the bushes along the Pacific Rim Trail.
ReplyDeleteKatrina: Indeed, nature as "avenging angel" is a product of our own minds, and even nature as that which is coldly indifferent.
Thanks, Alenda. That was something I was looking for: applications of the text, or what the author wants (persuades) us to do.
ReplyDelete