Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip to 0 minutes and 12 secondsThe wilderness is an invention of the Western mind, perhaps more specifically of urbanising settler societies. While “nature” has a long history in the West, the wilderness as a pristine, untouched and highly valued and often romanticised piece of nature had to wait until the 19th century to be invented. Prior to this time, a wilderness was a despised and feared landscape, the place where Moses was cast out to wander aimlessly. But by the late 19th century, in many places at least, non-human nature was increasingly being thought of as subdued, perhaps even threatened by humanity. Concepts like nature, the wild and the primitive now came to be seen in a positive light by some.

Skip to 0 minutes and 58 secondsThe emergence of national parks like this one and other designated wilderness areas was one of the consequences of this change in valuation. From the very beginning, however, the establishment of national parks has often had a negative impact on local people. The wilderness, understood in a dualistic way, does not and perhaps cannot include people. Indigenous communities around the world were frequently expelled from these places so that they might be established as pristine examples of an untouched nature. In addition to impacting profoundly on these peoples, in some cases this approach has also been bad for biodiversity, a term and an approach to conservation only invented in the 1980s.

Skip to 1 minute and 43 secondsIn places where indigenous people's practises like hunting or burning had become intricate parts of ecosystems, their removal sometimes led to a range of negative results. But this is also not just a historical situation. All over the world, indigenous, tribal and peasant peoples continue to be evicted from new national parks or similar protected areas. Many of these people may not actually have a deleterious impact on the environment and some are probably having a positive impact, depending in large part on how we understand how those environments should be.

Skip to 2 minutes and 18 secondsThe expulsion of these people, however, is part of the production of a pristine wilderness as mandated either by dualistic conservation legislation, which often stipulates that people can't leave in a protected natural area, or the desires and priorities of wealthy tourists who want to have what they see as an authentic nature experience. But the impacts of this wilderness mentality might be even broaden than this. Historian William Cronon has argued that when we hold wilderness areas and national parks up as the truest, most perfect form of nature, we miss an opportunity to value and appreciate the wild nature that exists all around us, in urban parks, cracks in the sidewalk, perhaps even in our own guts.

Skip to 3 minutes and 2 secondsWe devalue this nature— which might have really important conservation, aesthetic, recreational or even intrinsic value— because it isn't natural enough. In short, wilderness is a problematic way of framing and valuing our world.

Implication 3: nature as wilderness

In this video, Thom van Dooren discusses the 19th-century idea of nature as a wilderness — a protected, romanticised area separate from and excluded from human activities.

Thom explores how notions of wilderness are bound up in the emergence of national parks, and the problems that occur when protected “natural areas” are created — such as the eviction of indigenous peoples.​

Discussion:

Do you agree with Thom that wilderness is a problematic way of framing and valuing our world?

References

  1. William Cronon, “The Trouble with Wilderness: or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,” in Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, ed. William Cronon (New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995)
  2. Sahotra Sarkar, “Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation—keeping divergent goals distinct,” Bioscience 49, no. 5 (1999): 404–12.
  3. Paige West, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington, “Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas,” Annual Review of Anthropology 35, October (2006): 251–77.

Share this video:

This video is from the free online course:

Environmental Humanities: Remaking Nature

UNSW Sydney

Get a taste of this course

Find out what this course is like by previewing some of the course steps before you join:

  • What is nature?
    What is nature?
    video

    In this video, Thom van Dooren explains why the conceptual framework of nature was never a good way of understanding the world around us.

  • Implication 2: nature and power
    Implication 2: nature and power
    video

    In this video, Deborah Bird Rose describes how notions of the nature-culture division are intricately entangled with power in the form of colonisation

  • Liveliness of things
    Liveliness of things
    video

    In this video, Stephen Muecke and Thom van Dooren discuss the liveliness and agency of the non-human world.

  • How to play the Game of Global Futures
    How to play the Game of Global Futures
    video

    In this video, Eben Kirksey and Karin Bolender introduce The Game of Global Futures.

  • Mode 1: justice
    Mode 1: justice
    video

    In this video, Paul Munro and Susie Pratt discuss environmental justice as a mode of restorying.

Contact FutureLearn for Support