Is the Wilderness Restorative or Idealized?

Candice Gaukel Andrews by Candice Gaukel Andrews | August 11th, 2009 | 11 Comments
topic: Eco Travel, Green Living

The tonic of wildness. ©Candice Gaukel Andrews.

The tonic of wildness. ©Candice Gaukel Andrews.

“We need the tonic of wildness, to wade sometimes in marshes where the bittern and the meadow-hen lurk, and hear the booming of the snipe; to smell the whispering sedge where only some wilder and more solitary fowl builds her nest, and the mink crawls with its belly close to the ground.” — Henry David Thoreau

Ever since Henry David Thoreau wrote about the “tonic of wildness” in his 1854 book Walden; or, Life in the Woods, Americans have had a love/hate relationship with the outdoors. While we tend to idealize our “untouched” wildernesses, when given the choice, it seems we like to spend most of our time indoors.

We want what we don’t have.

Our European ancestors saw the woods as a thing to “tame.” ©John T. Andrews.

Our European ancestors saw the woods as a thing to “tame.” ©John T. Andrews.

I wonder if this dichotomy in the American psyche is due to our proclivity to want exactly that thing that we don’t have; our penchant to place more value on what is rare rather than what is common. When our immigrant European ancestors started to arrive here in droves in the 1840s, they saw the great American wildernesses as something to “tame.” When they crossed the ocean, they brought their gothic fairy tales with them, viewing the new land’s thick woods as the “dark unknown.” After all, in the fields they had cleared with their own hands, everything was out in the open; the land had been controlled and their will asserted over it. But in the nearby forests, they were not in control, enclosed and surrounded by scary things unseen.

As we developed and domesticated more and more land and pristine areas became more and more rare, they seemed to increase in value and we began to regard them with nostalgic eyes. By the 1960s, the baby boomer, hippie generation initiated a back-to-the-earth movement that still lingers in our hearts today. The first Earth Day happened in 1970.

We spend 95 percent of our time indoors.

But if being in natural places is so restorative, why, on average, do we Americans now spend more than 95 percent of our time indoors, separated from nature?

Perhaps we like the idea of being in the wilderness more than we actually like being there. While in any city today you’ll easily find people walking around in Patagonia and Columbia fleece vests and L.L. Bean hiking boots, I wonder how long it’s been since those same people actually slept under the stars — if ever.

While writing a book titled Explore Wisconsin Forests, I stayed for two nights in the rustic Camp 20 Cabins in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Owner Denise Smith told me the story of a couple that had checked in, took one look at their rental cabin, and immediately checked out. The reason, said the male half of the twosome, was that “my wife thinks you’re too far out in the woods. There are too many trees here.” However, says Denise, the cabin was located only two and a half miles from town, the lawn surrounding the cabin was mowed, and there was a neighbor just one backyard away.

Restorative tonic, or idealized myth? ©Candice Gaukel Andrews.

Restorative tonic, or idealized myth? ©Candice Gaukel Andrews.

And while I consider myself an avid nature enthusiast, I have to admit that after a few days spent outside, I long for the comfort of my whirlpool bathtub and plush mattress. Although I like the thought of camping in the Wisconsin woods, I sometimes eschew the opportunity because the task of taking ticks off myself yet again is something I really don’t want to deal with this weekend.

Is a shot of the wild, then, really a restorative tonic, or a myth we tell ourselves precisely because having such an experience is so rare today? Please share your thoughts below.

Happy trails,

Candy

Comments

  1. Interesting historical observation about our European ancestors wanting to tame the land and the forests. Even today the experience of going outside becomes an issue of control. We want what is familiar and safe and are often hesitant to try anything new. Every outdoor adventure isn’t going to come off perfectly, the way it was planned. That’s why it’s called an adventure. We have to take the good with the bad, and if that means a bit of sweat or some mosquito bites or the occasional tick, then it’s a small price to pay for a truly wild adventure.

    Art Hardy | August 12th, 2009 | Comment Permalink
  2. I think most people are out of touch with being in the wilderness now-a-days . They like to think they have the right stuff to take part in nature, such as hiking or backpacking ,hunting or fishing , or making a camp to keep them comfortable thru the night .But most of use are all to use to turning the thermostat , the light switch and the convenience of running hot and cold water . But if wearing the clothes , reading about or watching nature programs put you in a , wilderness mind set , I say ,go ahead and enjoy it ! If just visting a nature area for a day rejuvenats you , thats great ! You are showing your interest in the wild areas and thats what we need to keep them . John Howard

    John H Gaukel | August 13th, 2009 | Comment Permalink
  3. Back in the days when our work weeks (indoors) were 60-80 plus hours long, backpacking in the Bridger Wilderness saved our souls and our sanity. People could not understand why we “worked so hard” on a vacation, but living in the beauty and realness of that awesome place (and others since) allowed our minds to rest, our family to be top priority, and us to escape from the modern world. NEVER when returning to the “comforts of home” were we happy to leave our tent, the blisters, the fresh caught trout, the peace and occasional turmoil of the wilderness
    Carlyn & Ed Kline

    Carlyn and Ed Kline | August 13th, 2009 | Comment Permalink
  4. I still go into the woods to try and find “scary things unseen.”

    Travis John | August 19th, 2009 | Comment Permalink
  5. I think the mark of being civilized is paying good money to experience things your ancestors would have wanted to avoid.

    NineQuietLessons | August 22nd, 2009 | Comment Permalink
  6. [...] truly encounter nature — let alone discern the power and peace of wilderness — we must eliminate all those secondary layers of communication. We can’t hear the wind in the [...]

  7. [...] full-course meals. In either scenario, glamping provides a way for those who have found that the idea of being in the wilderness is more appealing than actually being in the wilderness to be [...]

  8. [...] bears, caribou and migrating birds,” touts the book’s dust jacket, “they struggle with the meaning of solitude in an increasingly wired [...]

  9. [...] Carnivore of the North), the sense of wonder at their adaptation to this harsh ecosystem, and the restorative power of several days’ immersion in the Arctic [...]

  10. [...] was that person thinking?” And then, all of a sudden, what just a moment ago looked to me like a pristine wilderness transforms into a one-item garbage dump. All I can focus on is that one rusty can or bent [...]

  11. [...] would enter at his or her “own peril.” McAvoy’s contention was that you can’t have a real wilderness experience without complete self-sufficiency, and you can’t have complete self-sufficiency if there is [...]

Post a Comment

If you want to show your picture with your comment, go get a gravatar!