Reflecting on “The Trouble With the Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature”

            Cronon goes to great lengths in questioning Thoreau’s famous notion that “In wildness is the preservation of the World” (69). Cronon’s argument is summed up well when he states, “as we gaze into the mirror [nature] holds up for us, we too easily imagine that what we behold is Nature when in fact we see the reflection of our own unexamined longings and desires” (70). The concept of the wilderness, for Cronon, is ultimately defined and instituted by human beings. It seems Cronon points to the tendencies many individuals have to simultaneously exoticize and classify the natural world. It is indeed laughable to think that the collection of gentle streams and calming trees, otherwise known as protected natural spaces today, were the vast, desolate, and creepy territories of earlier periods.

Yet it seems Cronon is unduly harsh in arguing “[nature is] entirely a creation of the culture it holds dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny” (79). Undoubtedly, the few open spaces we have carved out in the US would certainly suggest the natural environment is a creation of the state. But this assumes that the natural world may only be appreciated within the confines of designated grounds or the places people identify as exotic. It seems Cronon takes a huge leap in suggesting that this desire to classify nature is a means to deny our history of modernization simply because the word deny implies an active and conscious refusal to believe or recognize. In a certain sense, a denial might encompass a complete neglect and lack of concern for the wilderness after a weekend jaunt to the woods. It seems absurd to assume that enjoying the benefits of an undeveloped area is tantamount to an escape from all of humanity that we might never remember or return. I would imagine, and at least hope, that forests and protected lands remain preserved because the population seeks to maintain part of their past rather than for purposes of escape or denial.

            Cronon’s argument changes slightly near his conclusion and he seems to recant his original statements regarding the denial of nature by society. His argument ultimately culminates with the idea that when society regards nature with a certain distance, perhaps embodied in the notion of the Other, there is a loss of appreciation or perhaps an undue exoticism taking place in our perception of nature (84). He argues nature can be experienced in the subtly of weeds growing out of miles of concrete or a few trees amongst a cluster of buildings. Although he takes a different angle on the same argument, his indictment of society on the whole is misplaced. The early developments in business and industry forced the government and fledging forest service to respond by both demarcating and commoditizing natural spaces that demanded preservation. It seems practically impossible to avoid the commoditized aspects of nature in society, but especially considering the motto of the National Forest Service: “Land of Many Uses.” The kneejerk reaction of government to protect natural spaces, in light of societal developments that continue to blight the environment, seems justified and necessary for their time and the current day. In so doing, it is plausible to suggest that nature has been marginalized or othered, but it seems illogical to place blame upon those who might want to experience wooded acres and vast hills rather than a few weeds emerging from a seldom-used concrete path.