from left column...
basic argument is that humans are intrinsically tied to
the environment. We are a product of nature and we cannot,
and should not, deny that relationship; it has proven
itself harmful to try to do so.
an interesting article, Lisa Wessan (Ecopsychology Newsletter,
n.d.) discovers that a recent depression stems from her
concern about the state of the environment. Her therapist
thinks it is “a deeper problem” about her
career, but what could be deeper than the state of the
environment? Lisa recognizes the fact that there is something
missing in her life, that her disconnection from nature
and inability to do anything about the environment’s
woes is having a negative effect on her life. She eventually
ends up switching therapists when she finds an "ecopsychologist"
who knows exactly what she is going through.
This connection to nature appears to be precisely what
is missing from the dramatic swing of the Deep Ecology
movement. As evidenced by Lisa’s story, it is not
a problem that just environmentalists are encountering;
“normal” people also feel the disconnect,
and it affects how they live their lives. We are a part
of the natural world, and, ecopsychologists would argue,
the natural world is an important part of us.
“Ecopsychology seeks to heal the more fundamental
alienation between the person and the natural environment”
(Roszak, p. 49). Ecopsychology believes that the rampant
mental disease that we observe in today’s society
is a direct result of our lack of knowledge about ecology
and contact with nature. “Ecopsychology is situated
at the intersection of a number of fields of enquiry,
including environmental philosophy, psychology, and ecology,
but is not limited by any disciplinary boundaries. At
its core, ecopsychology suggests that there is a synergistic
relation between planetary and personal well being; that
the needs of the one are relevant to the other”
We know what the Ancient Greek philosophers put forward,
and more importantly, how what they said had so much significance
for the development of human thought about nature since
then. “Socrates explains that everything about humans
has a purpose and that the gods have seen to it that everything
in the non-human world—including other animals—is
for the benefit of humans” (Fox, 1997, p. 11). Ecopsychology
tells us that we do not know just how true that statement
is. Nature is at our service, but not in the way that
we have thought of it since the times of those ancient
“The main thrust of Western civilization has been
to put nature at the service of humankind” (Fox,
p. 10). Putting nature at the center of service to humankind,
in the way that the Greek philosophers meant, has had
obvious and detrimental effects on nature. If everything
outside the human world is for the benefit of humans,
it is (and was) not a far stretch to determine that humans
are in fact above the rest of the natural world. If everything
is for the benefit of humans, then (the argument goes)
humans are the only thing that really matters. Clearly,
I am simplifying the process that the human mind has gone
through to get from the Ancient Greek philosophers in
approximately 2400 BP, to dominant thought today.
The assumption that everything in the world is for the
benefit of humans has caused us to abuse the natural world
in an attempt to separate ourselves from the natural world
completely. Ecopsychology argues that what that mind frame
has come to mean also has detrimental, and not yet widely
recognized, effects on humankind. Our connection to nature
keeps us healthy, and keeps us human, and we are neglecting
it. “Repression of the ecological unconscious is
the deepest root of collusive madness in industrial society”
(Roszak, 49). We are the cause of our insanities.
Although we have created such places as malls, freeways,
and airports, these are not the places we go when we need
“peace and quiet.” In an essay arguing the
psychological benefits of wilderness, Garrett Duncan explains
that “getting away to a quiet, non-urban, sanely
paced place is deeply restorative” and can help
re-establish our sanity. What he is describing is wilderness,
and what ecopsychologists tell us is that we need that
wilderness, that our place in nature is more deeply rooted
than we acknowledge. Deep Ecologists, however, would argue
that wilderness does not need us, and that we do not belong
there; in essence, that we have already removed ourselves
from wilderness by our sociality. But is our sociality
If we are to come to a conclusion about where we are headed,
the debate about our place in nature must be resolved.
The wilderness debate tells us that we should not be anthropocentric,
that we should leave the wilderness alone, keep humans
out. Ecopsychology, on the other hand, tells us that our
lack of nature is detrimental to our wellbeing. How important
is nature to humans? How important are humans to nature?
How do we rectify human’s need for nature, with
the biosphere’s “need” to keep humans
out of nature?
These questions may seem to be exploring different ideas,
but as I have shown, they are entangled in the complexities
of the biosphere we live in. What does ecopsychology tell
us that can be helpful to the Wilderness Debate? It has
been argued that wilderness is only wilderness if there
is no human influence, but is that really possible? In
designing an area as a human-defined “wilderness,”
we are inherently involved in the concept. Just as it
would, and should, be impossible to remove spiders from
wilderness, we cannot remove humans from wilderness. Humans
evolved with and from the natural world, and by taking
humans out of the concept of wilderness, we are taking
humans out of their rightful place in evolution.
Humans evolved with the rest of the natural world, and
it is a mistake to attempt to take humans completely out
of nature, just as we have seen that taking nature completely
out of humans has disastrous consequences. No one would
argue that wilderness is “true” without the
animals or plants in it, just as it becomes obvious that
animals are not themselves if taken out of their natural
environment (for example, zoos). Therefore, it is not
“natural” to do the same for humans. It is
ridiculous to discuss the concept of “wilderness”
without including the human influence. It has been called
anthropocentric to create wilderness simply for humans,
but isn’t taking humans out of evolution the highest
form of anthropocentrism? So long as it is a human making
the decision or having the discussion, it can always be
Ecopsychology does not give us any resolution to the Wilderness
Debate. It does, however, offer us guidance into potential
ways to proceed into our future, as an integral part of
the biosphere. Ecopsychology can tell us much about where
we come from and why nature is an intrinsic, and vital,
part of who we are. It can also give insight into what
we need in order to be fully functional humans. Does knowing
that humans need nature make a difference when we decide
to put aside untouched wilderness, or when we allow humans
into the wilderness? It does not, but if we are to embrace
the ideology that ecopsychology puts forward, perhaps
it can guide us in a direction that reaches for Deep Ecology’s
goals: to move forward with the entire biosphere in mind.
Bookchin, M. (2001). What is social ecology?
In Zimmerman, M. E., Callicott, J. B., Sessions, G., Warren,
K. J., Clark, J. (Eds.), Environmental philosophy (3rd
ed., pp. 436-454). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cook, B. (2002). Wilderness idea readings. Retrieved October
30, 2002, from First Class/Environment & Community/SWO/Philosophy.
Duncan, G. (n.d.) The psychological benefits of wilderness.
Retrieved December 11, 2002, from http://ecopsychology.athabascau.ca/Final/duncan.htm.
Fox, W. (Sept/Oct 1997). Human Empire. Resurgence, No.
184, pp. 10-12.
Guha, R. (1994). Radical American environmentalism and
wilderness preservation: A third world critique. In Gruen,
L., Jamieson, D. (Eds.), Reflecting on nature: Readings
in environmental philosophy. (pp. 241-252). NY: Oxford
Naess, A. (2001). The deep ecological movement: Some philosophical
aspects. In M. E. Zimmerman, et al., (Eds.), Environmental
philosophy (3rd ed., pp. 436-454). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Orr, D. (Summer, 1999). The not-so-great wilderness debate…continued.
Wild Earth, Volume 9, No. 2, pp. 74-80.
Roszak, T. (n.d.) Awakening the ecological unconscious.
In Context, No. 34, pp. 48-51.
Sessions, G. (2001). Introduction. In M. E. Zimmerman,
et al., (Eds.), Environmental philosophy (3rd ed., pp.
436-454). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wessan, L. (n.d.) What’s Really Bothering You, Lisa?
What is ecopsychology? Retrieved December 11, 2002, from