Anna Vance ENVIR 200 B Frederica Helmiere April 27, 2012 The Conflict of Good Nature Being Good

and Bad Societys view of nature has drastically changed from the pre-18th century notion of nature harboring evil to it being sublime and pure (Helmiere). Although this shift helps explain the current perspective that nature is good and should be protected, society has struggled and continues to struggle to define the goodness of nature. Some parts of nature, often found in national parks, are more valued and thus considered better than other parts of nature. Swamps and streams, for example, are both natural and useful features of an ecosystem, but between the two, most would agree that the stream is more appealing. The swamp may be more important to humans and to the ecological system, but for aesthetic and recreational reasons most people would place the stream above the swamp and even go as far as to protect the stream by placing it within the boundaries of a national park. Though society has deemed nature to be good overall, such conflicts of natures good and bad parts have been present since the shift in attitudes towards the environment. Current schools of thought as well as the writings of prominent environmentalists like Henry David Thoreau, Jack Turner, and John Muir 1) show the existence of a human categorization of nature into good and bad; and 2) show how such a categorization is unconscious and perhaps even innate. These two points have important implications for environmental action. First, environmentalists rarelyif everhave the option of saving all the land, and thus must decide which pieces to save. This requires evaluating which land is the best, an issue that creates discord when opinions differ. Second, conflict between conscious arguments and unconscious beliefs is ineffective in any situation. Therefore acknowledging, studying, and attempting to resolve the conflict of how we see natureclassifying it into good and badis

important in environmental issues, whether we are deciding how to take environmental action, studying the environment, or simply discussing it. In 1862, Henry David Thoreau, whom some call the Father of Environmentalism, published an essay called Walking. Its main intent was to lead people away from the old school of thought that nature was evil and to extol untouched nature and the values it teaches us. The essay, however, is an example of how the conflict of good and bad nature was unconsciously present in the development and initial stages of the new perception of nature as good. The first evidence of Thoreau and societys confusion about the good and bad parts of nature appears in his description of walking. He states that when we walk, we naturally go to the fields and woods; what would become of us, if we walked only in a garden? implying that some parts of nature cannot offer as much as other parts, and because of that, are lesser (229). Thoreaus reasoning for thisthat nature touched by humans is less than nature untouched by humansis interesting and has been discussed by others. Here, however, I focus on the existence of the discrepancy between values associated with different types of nature. Along with his bias against man-made nature like gardens, Thoreaus essay also implies that nature untouched by humans can be good and bad. He repeatedly returns to a few specific natural features, describing them positively and implying that they are good. He states that on walks he often goes to somewood or meadow or deserted pasture or hill (234); in reference to how he would like the earth to be, he declares, I would havethe greater part be meadow and forest (249); in quoting Sir Francis Head, he choses a quote that mentions sky, mountains, forests, and plains (237); and in quoting Columbus, he mentions hills, fresh woods and pastures new (236). When he mentions other natural features like bogs and swamps, he presents them with negative images. For example, he criticizes a man and a surveyor who do

not see good, valuable nature where angels goto and fro and who instead only see a boggy, stygian fen, surrounded by devils (230). Though he attempts to present the idea that bogs can be among the better parts of nature, the description of a bog as a place for angels seems hyperbolic, and the rhetoric of the bog being stygian and surrounded by devils creates a negative connotation that more easily resonates with the reader than does the image of angels in bogs. Thoreaus preference of a swamp over a garden is also hyperbole, and again he uses negative rhetoric, repeatedly describing the swamp as dismal (241, 242). Writing in this fashion demonstrates societys seemingly innate classification of nature. How innate this is is unclear, but Thoreau clearly helps to promote the categorization in both conscious and unconscious ways. Thoreau focuses on specific natural features and unofficially classifies them as good and bad, but the classification also applies to nature as a whole. Environmental author Jack Turners piece, The Abstract Wild: A Rant, demonstrates this outlook. His angry rant stems from society having learned to accept substitutes, imitations, semblances, and fakesa diminished wild and from us not realizing that we no longer know or love the [true] wild (25). His description emphasizes the clear distinction between real and imitation nature, which in his opinion are good and bad nature. The categorization of nature into good and bad implies the perspective and control society believes it has on nature, as these categories are explicitly human structures. The categories themselves are ambiguous however, having no clear set definition. Depending on the situation, some areas of nature might fall into both categoriesthis seems anthropocentrically related. For example, forests sheltering aggressive bears would generally be a bad place dangerous to humans. A biological standpoint would nullify this classification, as bears defending their territory are simply acting as bears. On the other hand, forests with unaggressive

bearsforests safe for humanswould be generalized as good. As Thoreau and Turner argue, it seems that nature classified as good must have some human value. Both authors highlight the spiritual values nature has to offer, and Thoreau points out its health benefits as well. Today, a quality that might deem nature good would be the availability and extraction of resources; this brings up the question of exploitation and how and to what extent humans should use nature. Interestingly, neither Thoreau nor Turner mentions the usage of resources. In most cases and up to this point in reading the authors, valuing nature seems predominantly determined by anthropocentric reasons. Is this morally right? There seems to be no clear answer to this, but one that Turner offers is that in our effort to go beyond anthropocentric defenses of nature, to emphasize its intrinsic valuewe forget the reciprocity between the wild in nature and the wild in us (11). In other words, Turner argues that it is right to value nature based on human benefit. We need to use the wild to remind us that we are part of it, and to prompt us to value and care for the earth. However Turners definition of the wild is very precise; he says that we often experience fake, bad naturenational parks, wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, and refuges which misleads us into thinking we have experienced real nature (27). Only real, good nature can provide us the experiences and teach us the values Turner wants us to learn. He brings to the table a new pointthe illusion of intimacy with nature in which we go into the woods, but [do] not [hear] the trees speak (36). However if we believe we have heard the trees speak and Turner claims it an illusion, who is to tell us what nature we experience is real (good) and what nature is fake (bad)? Here we can add to and adjust the loose, anthropocentrically centered definitions of good and bad nature that Thoreau and Turner have already set. We might begin by stating that the association and alteration of nature by humans makes nature bad. This includes Thoreaus

gardens; and Turners national parks, wilderness areas, and other areas cordoned off as wilderness. However, this extremist view does not match with known environmental histories. To some extent, most land has been altered and managed by humans, whether by Native Americans, settlers, or other undocumented peoples. Realizing this fact weakens Thoreau and Turners argument for good nature being untouched by humans, and deems good nature defined as such, impossible. One to refute the claim that only untouched nature is good nature is conservationist and Father of the National Parks System John Muir. In his essay, The Wild Parks and Forest Reservations of the West he writes that people should appreciate nature everywherein national parks, conservation areas, and other places managed by humans. He argues that like Thoreau, [people should] see forests in orchards and patches of huckleberry brush, and oceans in ponds and drops of dew (722). Although this seems like a generous statement equalizing nature, it is in fact contradictory to his argument. Rephrased, the statement implies that some parts of nature are better than otherspeople must see orchards as forests and ponds as oceans in order to value them and cannot simply appreciate an orchard as an orchard or a pond as a pond. Unaware of his conflicting ideas, Muir continues with his original argument. He writes that there is no bad nature, proclaiming that none of Natures landscapes are ugly so long as they are wild (723). This he later on contradicts when he describes bitter, thorny, unbitable shrubs and notes how the vestiges of [natures] prairie and woodland wealthremain to bless humanity in boggy, rocky, unploughable places (724). In order for a blessing to exist, something less good must exist, a concept Muir inadvertently applies to nature. The overall theme of his essay, which promotes the equal valuing of nature in all forms, is driven by passionate yet considerably weak arguments. Muirs essay demonstrates our apparently innate

classification of nature and unconscious application of it. What is dangerous is that the idea may be so ingrained in us that welike Muir and many othersdo not even realize its contradictory effects in our discussions about the wild. We also see the presence of good and bad nature in contemporary and less scholarly discussions, like travel guides. The example of Le Mont St. Michel, a rocky tidal island in France, demonstrates the paradox of some nature being both good and bad at once. Kocisky, author of a brief guide to Le Mont St. Michels bay hike, calls the hike dangerous, yet beautiful, and praises it as particularly enjoyable[as] a breath of fresh sea air always comes as a relief. Her first tip strongly encourages tourists to hike with a guide, as quicksand and strong water currents are very real dangers. In this case, a good place of nature turns bad because of its danger to people who desire recreation, which adds to the influence of anthropocentric values defining good and bad nature. From analyzing Thoreau, Turner, Muir, and current discourses on the environment, good nature appears loosely defined as according to the following: 1) by thoughts that appear unconscious and innate; 2) by anthropocentric benefits including spiritual, physical, resourcewise, and recreational ones; and 3) by purity and separation from human influence, though the impossibility of this forces us to realize that it cannot be a concrete part of what defines good nature. Instead we modify this part of the definition into a questioning of the extent to which nature can be managed or affected by humans and still be considered good. In conclusion, what is true and good nature is abstract, debatable, and perhaps even unanswerable, especially when the conscious and unconscious conflict. However in using and remembering this definition, we should keep open minds, as discussions about the environment evolve as schools of thought progress and change. Denial of the conflict of good nature being

both good and bad only serves as detriments to our efforts to help the environment, and we must also take into account the implication of our value system in order for our environmental work to be clear, productive, and effective.

Work Cited Helmiere, Frederica. Class Lecture. Environmental Communication and Information. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 28 Mar 2012. Kocisky, Katherine. "Mont St. Michel's Guided Bay Hike." West European Travel. Suite101, 14 Aug. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://katherine-kocisky.suite101.com/mont-st-michels guided-bay-hike-a138960>. Muir, John. Nature Writings. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1997. 179; 721-724. Thoreau, Henry David. Walking. Collected Essays and Poems. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2001. 225-255. Turner, Jack. The Abstract Wild. Tucson: University of Arizona, 1996. Print.