Customer Reviews

The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

'There are many things in western culture that are admirable. But a culture that alienates itself from the very ground of its own being - from the wilderness outside (that is to say wild nature, the wild, self-contained, self-informing ecosystems) and from that other wilderness, the wilderness within - is doomed to a very destructive behavior'.

This quotation from poet Gary Snyder sets the agenda for Max Oelschlaeger's important study of the idea of wilderness. His aim is to demonstrate the importance of the Darwinian idea of nature 'as the source of human existence, rather than a mere re-source to fuel the economy' (p.1) He approves strongly of a reaffirmation of the wilderness in the American consciousness, and along with Snyder he 'announces the opening of the frontier again and attempts to push it eastwards, to reverse America's historical process, to urge the wilderness to grow back into civilization, to release the stored energy from layers below us.' (L. Folson, quoted on p. 275).

This is more than a history of ecological ideas and more than a primer on 'wilderness philosophy'. It is a significant contribution to the question of civilisation and its purpose - in many respects a philosophical, ethical and religious challenge to the twenty-first century.

This is the most comprehensive and insightful book I've read on the history of our relationship with nature. Beginning from 20,000 BCE to today, Oelschleager takes the reader on a journey through to the perceptions of wilderness from what can be gleaned about how Paleolithic man might have seen nature on through the myths, poetry and philosophies of ancient, modern and postmodern times, including the perspectives of philosophers from Heraclitus to Descartes and Thoreau, Muir and Leopold. He has masterfully accomplished his goal to write a universal history of "the idea of wilderness, and its ever-changing yet constant relationship between humankind and nature,"
This has been a seminal book in my life and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is seeking an objective and clear understanding of how in the midst of such affluence our culture has evolved to the current state of confusion, conflict and concern about our health and the health of the envirnoment and why we don't seem to be able to address these concerns effectively as of yet. When my son got this book as a gift, I began reading it and couldn't put it down. Soon I bought him another copy. It has provided me with answers to questions and concerns I've had from the time I was a child through college and into adulthood as to why so much of what I was being taught didn't jibe with my own experiences in nature and in life. The book is extensively researched and documented, yet even the end notes are engaging to read.

There is a lot to like in this book. As I'll discuss later in this review, some sections provide valuable summaries and critiques of various thinkers and streams of thought. Oelschlaeger is at his best when he examines individuals at depth, but the overall structure of the book is less satisfactory.

The first two chapters summarizes vastly: paleolithic man, early agricultural man, ancient and Judeo-Christian views of nature, and medieval views. Obviously the texts available to Oelschlager improve with time; as a result, so does the degree to which one can take his summaries seriously. His reconstruction of Paleolithic and archaic views of nature are just erudite speculation - - after all, how can he, or anyone else, really know how paleolithic man *thought* about nature?

Oelschlager never makes clear why this review is important: should our views of wilderness be conditioned by how early man thought about nature? Do we need to recapture "primitive" understandings simply because they are more natural? Later on he briefly praises John Muir and ecofeminists - - amusing bedfellows, that - - for recapturing part of the Paleolithic, but it's not clear why that should be a Good Thing. Elsewhere he drops similar thoughts. Clearly Oelschlager sometimes seems to think something along the lines of needing to recover the Paleolithic, but he never says this, I don't think he really means it, and in any case he never confronts the issue directly.

The next two chapters review modernism and its critics. Both kinds of summaries are fine. Oelschlager's strategy is to summarize a large number of thinkers, each of whom get 2-5 pages. More synthesis, and a more thematic development would have been better here. This book isn't really a philosophical text that is trying to understand the unity of (say) Spinoza's thought, but rather a critical overview of how people have viewed nature and wilderness. Themes, not individual thinkers, would have better made the points that he wants.

The best chapters come in the middle of the book - - reviews of Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, and Aldo Leopold. Here Oelschlager finally has both enough text to work with, and enough space to develop each writer's overall thought. For me, these chapters also highlighted Oelschlager's failure to develop greater unity throughout the book. These three authors explore themes that we saw in the Paleolithic and ancient worlds, or in modernism and its critics, but Oelschlager doesn't draw out many of the connections. That said, these are wonderful chapters on their own, taken simply for their own purposes.

The chapter on Muir was the most impressive, making a case that Muir should be taken seriously as a developer of wilderness philosophy and not merely as a popularizer of others' ideas.

The final pair of chapters explores wilderness poetry of Robinson Jeffers and Gary Snyder, and then summarizes contemporary philosophies of wilderness. The poetry chapter doesn't reach the quality of the Thoreau, Muir and Leopold chapters, perhaps because of the ways in which poetry differs from prose style. Or maybe it's just me.

Oelschlaeger clearly seeks to contribute to contemporary philosophies of wilderness, as he does in chapter ten, which makes his review in chapter nine more important. Once again, however, he tends to move too fast - discussing authors and philosophical movements in 4-8 pages each. His own position consists more of allusions, and a la carte selections from the thoughts of others, not really a coherent alternative.

Potential readers should be aware that this is very much an academic book, and most of it is not easy reading. He does define the jargon that he uses (say, resourcism) but there is rather a lot of it. Chapters on modernism or contemporary wilderness philosophy are denser than the chapters on Muir or the Paleolithic. Oelschlager does summarize key elements of each body of thought in a convenient table, so he's *trying* to make it easier on us.

Max Oelschlaeger examines the politics of wilderness and history of interaction between humans and nature. He takes us through the history of wilderness philosophy as well. Oelschlaeger walks a fine line between historian and philosopher. I enjoyed reading the book for the simple fact it inspired me to examine my own take on wilderness. However, the book is not for the faint of heart and even the truest academics will need to keep a dictionary handy while trudging through Oelschlaeger's work. Extremely well researched and a must in the library of anyone truely interested in wilderness and its impact on the human race.

Oelschlaeger traces the thread of oneness with Nature from the Paleolithic to the present. This is not a book that provides a consistent final vision or synthesis. Beyond the complexity, there is unity. The book MUST be read from the beginning. Don't try dipping into it.

Arthur Digbee expects the author to be developing his own viewpoint and then fails to find it. This is also more than a survey. The strenth of the book is the WHOLE THING. What is seen is a similarity of the views of Nature of the "losers of history." That is, there has been a continual counterpoint to the Dominant Paradigm throughout recorded history.

The dominant culture has always removed us from an living experience of oneness and replaced it with an immaterial Heaven. The reviews by Griffiths and Edwards are the best.

There is a weakness in the treatment of the Middle Ages. I disagree that the Europeans of that age were orthodox Catholics. There was much "witchcraft" going on. Gnosticism and Alchemy were very much in vogue. For a better treatment, you might try Carolyn Merchant's The Death of Nature.