Toward Reconciling the Cultures of Wilderness and Restoration

Barry Lopez (Crossing Open Ground) A parallel series of academic debates has arisen in the conservation and restoration fields over the contention that predominant ideas of nature are merely social constructions that bias our experience of the rest of nature. In the area of conservation biology, for example, J. Baird Callicott (1994), William Cronon (1995), and others have argued that since our understanding of nature is a subjective, mental construction, the idea of "wilderness" is meaningless in every sense of the term. The proponents of this view usually point out that pre-Columbian peoples often deliberately manipulated their environments, and therefore there is really no such thing as a pristine place. They argue that the definition of wilderness as a wild, unmanipulated place "untrammeled by humans" obscures the natural history of the North American continent. Wilderness in their view is illusory, a myth reflecting our Euro-American beliefs of alienation from the rest of nature. In restoration circles, there is a growing belief that a true reintegration of humans with the rest of nature will require that people be involved in restoration activities. Recently, some restorationists (for example, Jordan, 1994; Windhager, 1994, 1997) have carried this idea to its logical extreme, arguing that humans will only have an authentic relationship with nature through the active manipulation of their environment, represented by activities such as restoration. The bottom line of this argument is that the idea of wilderness is incompatible with the belief that value in nature arises from social beliefs and actions, such as through deliberate manipulation in the activity of restoration. Unfortunately, for all of its good intentions, this anti-wilderness perspective is incomplete and inadequate. There are many reasons why wilderness (defined as a place where humans do not actively and deliberately manipulate the environment) is still needed for both psychological and ecological reasons, regardless of the need the skeptics feel to define it out of existence. However, I do think that these critics are well-intentioned, as they want to insure a reintegration of culture with nature. Their argument is that the idealization of wilderness, traditionally defined as nature without people, underlies the inability of environmentalism to bring about the reintegration of nature and culture. Indeed, many conservationists, myself included, agree that humans must become reintegrated into the rest of nature if we are to insure the health of global and local environments. And I also agree with the argument that "wilderness" as a pristine, nonhuman place is an invention of the Euro-American mindset. But at the same time I believe that the anti-wilderness view will not contribute to the reintegration of nature and culture, but, in fact, will hinder it for several reasons. I agree with the philosophers who believe that the power of language to change belief is strong, although experience demonstrates that the power of money to direct peoples’ actions is far stronger in the short term (a human lifetime or two). From a practical standpoint, the most serious problem is that the anti-wilderness view proposed by academics in conservation and restoration has taken root in the resource-extraction industry and in consumer-oriented businesses (Gunn, 1991).