On The Trouble With Wilderness

Cronin's meditation and reflection upon the part the conception of "Wilderness" plays in perpetuating our ever isolating trajectory from nature was initially off putting, which only makes his argument that much more accurate. To an American, especially, "Wilderness" is emblematic of the idealism that this country used as a corner stone for its foundation, "As we gaze into the mirror it holds up for us, we too easily imagine that what we behold is nature when in fact we see the reflection of our own longings and desires" (359). We want and need this idea of untamed wilds, even if we never visit them. This necessity is detrimental to the environmentalist movement because it creates a clear distinction between where we are and the romanticized land that we imagine to exist, somewhere. This creates an illusion that we can leave the industrialized induced fogs of the cities and drive to these unblemished promise lands for purification, only to return again to our never-ending consumption culture--make, buy, throw away, repeat. If we, as a group of individuals concerned for the future of the non-human terrestrial bodies, are to shed this misconception impeding the development of a healthy cultural perspective of the lands "un-urbanized," we must acknowledge that there is no point at which civilization ends and wilderness begins.

Given the prevailing anthropocentric sentiments, it is not until we see damage to the environment as damage to ourselves that progress will be made. As King so aptly points out, our understanding of nature and our contemporary cultural "matrices" are inextricably linked--just as the fates of humanity and the environment are intertwined . This is cause for much rejoice because it suggests that this cause is not without hope. Our culture is ever changing; therefore, our perspective of the environment, too, will undeniably change--and must.

We need to come to a point where we see wilderness as ourselves, so that we can save both.