Wilderness: Forever a Frontier

The natural trope of “the wilderness” presents one of the most powerful recurrent literary themes in nature writing. Authors use this particular trope as a way to describe an area or moment with the effects of humans and society as minimized or negated. In this use, wilderness is nature in its purest form. Comparing wilderness with society is a common use of the trope in literature, as this method allows an author to clearly juxtapose society and ‘natural-ness’. Edward Abby’s Desert Solitaire and considers the concept of wilderness through the eyes of a human visitor. In his piece, Uncommon Ground, William Cronon argues that ‘wilderness’ as a concept is not natural in that it only exists in respect to humans. The two writers frame wilderness — either intentionally or not — through humans, who, by nature are social animals have tainted ‘wilderness’ spaces with our very existence.

Just as society is based around human consciousness, our minds have grown to be almost completely ‘wired’ around society. In Desert Solitaire, Abbey immerses his self in a wilderness environment in the Utah desert. This place is relatively not suited for society, and has been kept free from it. Abbey lives in a trailer, and has access to many pieces of society, his real tie to society is mental. When Abbey finds himself alone in the wilderness, his thoughts are centered on society and its relationship with wilderness. Abbey makes a series of arguments about American’s relationship with National Parks as wilderness, and at one point says “that wilderness is a necessary part of civilization” (Abbey, 46). Abbey loves wilderness, yet frames it as part of society. On one hand, wilderness the greater context out of and under which human society has grown, yet Abbey views it as a part of society. In this view, Abbey’s life in the national park maybe a life in wilderness, yet only as part of society, which in the 20th century, has seemingly become the greater body. Another interesting aspect of framing wilderness as a place in contrast to humans is that this mode of thought means humans can not truly experience nature due to the social mentality and level of consciousness humans poses.

Throughout his memoir, Abbey seems to alienate himself from society, physically in location and mentally in philosophizing about its negative relationship with his home in the wilderness. He makes a series of arguments about how humans devalue and in turn, mistreat their environment. At one point, he uses a form of ‘poetic cataloging’, sarcastically listing the types of vehicles with which tourists enter the park. Abbey begrudgingly finalizes his point, saying “This here park is for people.” (Abbey, 57). Abbey addresses the view humans have as nature and wilderness as simply something that exists as part of their society with detest. The contempt for humanity that Abbey portrays throughout the novel seems — at face value — to disconnect himself from society and to the wilderness; however, Abbey spends a significant portion of his work making arguments about how humans should treat their national parks, these expanses of natural, ‘wild’ land. On one hand, his body may be able to enter the wilderness; however, his mind remains tied to human society. One could think of a character such as ‘Tarzan’ as example of the complete opposite phenomenon, which can enter society, but remains psychologically tied to the wilderness. Moreover, Abbey’s arguments are focused on humans’ relationship with the land around them. Even framing this land on its relationship with humans makes it intrinsically ‘part of society’, at least in reference to humans. In the same way that wilderness may be viewed through the eyes of say, a wolf, as the greater environment around a wolf, for humans wilderness is the greater environment around society.

The relationship that Abbey — who is unavoidably affected by his humanity — has with nature, can be tied to the major argument made in William Cronon’s Uncommon Ground. In his piece, Cronon calls for a reframing of the way in which nature is considered. He begins his piece with a long description of a sample experience in the wilderness, aiming to exhibit the pure, non-human reality of wild places (Cronon, 70). Here, Cronon employs thick description such as “torrents” or “roar” to portray the natural power of a waterfall and “a chasm so deep” to describe a desert canyon. A human standing nearby seems tiny in comparison. In this passage, Cronon paints a picture of wild places as massively vast in respect humans. The juxtaposition of humans and wilderness reveals the greatness of nature in respect to the human. Wild places are bigger, more powerful and less tame than the individual human. This comparison of wilderness to the individual human exposes the true essence of wilderness, a place of uncertainty, where no one individual is in control. Cronon follows these lines with a confrontation between a human an animal who looks at the human with “cautious indifference”. Wilderness itself, here represented by one of its creatures, does not value human consciousness in the way society and humans do. In this manner, wilderness is a place where the human species is unimportant, where the human ego shrinks. Beginning his work with this description, Cronon offers his readers a conception of what wilderness in its natural format.

As Cronon’s piece continues, it delves not into what the place of wilderness looks or feels like, but what it is and has become as a concept. The defining aspect of wilderness is its relationship with society. Cronon finds evidence of this in the historical existence of wilderness. He argues that 250 years ago Americans and Europeans were not “wandering around the remote corners of the planet looking for what today we would call “the wilderness experience” (Cronon, 70). The use of “wandering” implies that man’s time in wilderness is temporary. Cronon uses a verb of movement to show that man does not stay in wilderness, but passes through in search of a sort of fantasy and returns to from where he has ‘wandered’. This Factually, Conon points out that the lure to the wild setting has arisen from and grown with society. The relevant time period is one in which man has diverged from nature, and come to live in a more complex society. In this time, the concept of wilderness evolved. At one point, wilderness was simply a literal place that was just beyond the constraints of ‘safer’ human life. Society literally represents man’s attempt to avoid wilderness by creating a setting to oppose it. However, as Cronon writes, wilderness has become more relevant as a concept than a place. Men now seek wilderness because of what it offers them as social beings. In this way, wilderness in Cronon’s example is an artificial concept.

Cronon argues that the dichotomy between the place and the concept of wilderness also creates a dichotomy between natural beings in ‘the human realm’ and the ‘wilderness’. He argues against the commonplace vision that the nature that exists within and around human society is less ‘wild’ and thus less valuable than counterparts in places viewed as wilderness (Cronon, 88). Man devalues the nature around him, while idolizes nature in the wilderness. Cronon calls for this mode of thought to change because on the most basic level, trees everywhere hold the same value. Humans only consider a being wild if it has not been touched by human beings, which means that the concept of ‘wild’ itself is a social construct.

In Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire, the autobiographical narrator serves as an example of man in wilderness, tied to society despite his removal from it. Abbey loves the wilderness, and even shows disdain for society, but cannot remove his ties from it. William Cronon uses his piece to argue that wilderness is a concept, created by humans and thus unnatural. Humans have created wilderness as a place in opposition to society and been drawn to it for its freeing and great nature. In this way, Abbey seems to fit the role that Cronon gives humans in nature. Abbey enters the location of wilderness, and all but removes all his physical ties to society; however, as a human is inherently social and thus in opposition to wilderness. The concept of ‘wilderness’ is inherently dependent on definition, as words are. When we use the word wilderness, we describe a place only relative to our experience of it. Wilderness can be defined as a place that has minimal or no human contact. In this respect, humans cannot exist as part of wilderness. On one hand, the place of wilderness is purely natural, while the concept is completely artificial. This dichotomy between what wilderness is a place, and how it is thought about and acted towards is an important factor to consider as we attempt to make the human-nature relationship more sustainable and mutually-beneficial. Changing action requires a change of mode of thought, and understanding the value of nature as something of which humans are a part is the beginning of a new relationship.