When we hear the term "Wildness", we tend to think of the word wild and associate it with others like savage or feral. However, the actual definition from the Cambridge English Dictionary states, "wildness noun [U] (NATURAL) (of plants or animals) the quality of living or growing independently of people, in natural conditions and with natural characteristics". This definition gives it a literal meaning. Something that is wild or the wildness of something is untamed and immersed in nature. The word wild has been around for some time and many renown writers and philosophers have tacked this word and the root meaning of it. Writers like Henry David Thoreau dive into this thought. In his essay titled "Walking", Thoreau explains the truth of the word wild. He writes, " wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute Freedom and Wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely civil,—to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society". In this quote, Thoreau talks about how wildness is the freedom of life whereas in contrast society is not.
Caleb, I liked your description of wildness as a "free spirited lifestyle". I think experiencing wildness close and personal can make your emotional and mental state much stronger. Wildness certainly helps us stay less "perfectionist" and more "realist" wiht our approaches to life. I wonder, however, you say it is important to have a healthy balance. I urge you to think about what your balance between wildness and development may be, because I am sure we all have different needs and hold different views. Your relationship with yourself will be much stronger if you know your balance.
ReplyDeleteI think that the term wild has been given a negative connotation over the years. When people think wild they don't automatically think freedom, but rather crazy or untamed. That is why answering the question "Is wildness good?" might be hard. After reading Thoreau, and having my own opinions on wilderness and wildness, I have also come to the conclusion that wildness is a good thing. I also think that it is something that is becoming increasingly undervalued.
ReplyDeleteHi both,
DeleteOne of the aspects of Thoreau's "Walking" that really stands out to me is the close connection that he makes between the wild and the westward movement of Europeans (i.e. colonization). He identifies the West with the future and most good things (freedom, beauty, vitality, heroism...). Given the damage, genocide even, of colonization, I'm suspicious of this connection. Thoreau writes, for instance:
"Life consists with wildness. The most alive is the wildest. Not yet subdued to man, its presence refreshes him. One who pressed forward incessantly and never rested from his labors, who grew fast and made infinite demands on life, would always find himself in a new country or wilderness, and surrounded by the raw material of life. He would be climbing over the prostrate stems of primitive forest trees."
The "prostrate stems of primitive forest trees"? Good heavens! Are the trees prostrating to the Infinitely Advancing Vigorous Man? The good wild, on Thoreau's view, seems to be the not *yet* subdued. Thoreau again:
"It is said to be the task of the American 'to work the virgin soil,' and that 'agriculture here already assumes proportions unknown everywhere else.' I think that the farmer displaces the Indian even because he redeems the meadow, and so makes himself stronger and in some respects more natural."
The ideal man seems to be one that doesn't just value the wild swamp (or enter into an extended reciprocal relationship with it), but the one who would "redeem it by the magic of his spade." It is through sweat and toil in making the once wild land productive to his ends that man apparently becomes his best self.
To me, this view seems catastrophic/self-undermining. Thoreau seems to be saying that European-American man, armed with his spade, should set out to improve himself by working the wild land to the West. What then? Thoreau says that to thrive, to be truly alive, man continually needs reinvigoration from the wild. So, I suppose he must continually move West, and further West, applying his spade to further and further lands formerly known as wild! What happens when he comes back upon himself as a result of living on a globe? Why not learn to really love and live with one place?
What do you think? Does viewing wildness as good necessarily commit us to Thoreau's enthusiastic view of European empire? Do you have a different reading of this text than the one I'm gesturing at?
Hi Caleb!
ReplyDeleteI found the explained history of the term saunter in the readings really interesting and would like to see what you think about it. In Thoreau's Walking, Thoreau explains how the word for saunter derived from a French term that meant "idle people who roved about the country...under pretense of going à la Sainte Terre (the Holy Land)". I found that interesting as Thoreau uses the term not as an insult (as portrayed in the original French) but as an action that is venerable. I think this ties into the idea that wildness, which is typically seen as bad or dangerous, can be seen as something that is good.
Hi Caleb, I really liked how you defined what wildness is in your blog. I also really liked how you addressed both sides kind of and tried to understand why some may consider it not a good thing. This helps readers get a better view of the whole picture.
ReplyDeleteHi both, just a quick comment about dictionary definitions and philosophy. Sometimes, important philosophical work involves "conceptual analysis" or even "conceptual engineering." That is, it involves inquiry into what we ought to mean by a piece of key terminology, or what the most useful way of characterizing an concept that is important to some discourse is. Appealing to a dictionary definition usually doesn't settle the issue, because (roughly) dictionaries tell us how words are (or have been) used, not how they ought to be used. Consider a word like "race" or "natural." What we mean by these words has serious consequences for how we communicate our positions and how we understand the aims (and successes/failures) of our activism. Philosophers have worked hard to e.g. disambiguate "race" into several distinct concepts, e.g. social race and biological race. This helps avoid confusion, talking past one another, and helps us to get to the root of issues that matter to us. Same goes for "wild." Is a landscape "wild" only if it is free of traces of human existence? Is the "wild" in that sense more precious than land that humans inhabit and actively manage? The answer to this question has profound implications for the aims of environmental activism.
DeleteHi Caleb, I love your view that wild is free. In society we have so my expectations placed on us and we are thrown into a cycle that it is hard to escape from. This "free spirited lifestyle" you speak of that many strive for is spot on. Humans are supposed to be one with nature, we are supposed to be wild. I feel that capitalism has some responsibility for this change of views on the word wild, what do you think?
ReplyDelete