Rewilding
22nd May 2016
22nd May 2016
Rewilding
What is a wild landscape? In fact is there any where left in the British Isles that could realistically still be described as a wild landscape? Does it even matter if there are wild places left?
My home, the Lake District is evidently a very beautiful place, where rugged and rough terrain abounds. There are steep, exposed buttresses of cathedral proportions hanging over verdant plains, filled with all sorts of wildlife. There is the obvious and ubiquitous lakes and tarns, scattered across the district. These bowls of clear water are either held like precious jewels within the glaciated basins high up the Fells, or laid out like ribbons across the valleys.
These are very beautiful places but are they wild landscapes?
In fact, what is meant by describing an area as a wild landscape?
Those who study and interrogate the environment from scientific and philosophical perspectives equally find this a tough question to answer. Do we mean a wild landscape is a 'natural landscape'? A landscape that is untouched by the hand of man? Where there are no paths and roads that crisscross the terrain, framing man's image of the world within a network of lines? A landscape that is free willed and does not reflect needs, motivations - perfunctory functions of humans, but exists (as it does) not because of, but despite us?
This is a landscape that is not only untouched by man, but also sits outside the very understanding of man. A city could only be made by man, as it reflects how our minds work. A wild, or natural landscape is free from and may even be hidden to our designs and motivations.
Therefore, can the moniker of 'wild landscape' be attributed to areas like the Lake District? They do contain wide, open spaces, streams, rivers? Places full of all types of flora and fauna going through their day to day struggle to survive and replicate? They are full of life that seems independent to man?
However, despite the wild vaneer of these places, I believe it would be very difficult to describe places, like the Lake District, as wild, natural landscapes. Their appearance, with walls, tracks and roads, the use of water courses to fill reservoirs, provide fresh water for farms, villages, cities, the slopes covered with livestock, the use of crags, rivers and summits to provide adventure and distraction all dictate not only how the land looks, but how nature interacts with the landscape. The space, the life within have all been third person anthromorphologised by the impact of man. The land, it's make up, reflect our values and what we believe is worthy.
To conceptulisatise this phenomenon (through the language of man) these landscapes are a mix of natural and cultural elements. An idea that is captured within the European Landscape Convention's definition of landscape: 'An area as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction or natural and/or human factors.'
Therefore I live in a 'cultural landscape', where the so called 'wildness' is the consequence of mans influence and activity, and the 'wildness' in this form is a human understanding of wildness.
This could mean our wild landscapes are in fact not wild at all. These landscapes could be the product, just like the Elizabethans with their introduction of gardens, as a means to tame and control nature. An Eden where the apple represents order and the snake the wild, unruly nature of the landscape(?)
So does this matter? Do we or our fellow planet inhabitants lose anything from this situation?
Aldo Leopold, a professor of forestry and land management, argued that we should extend our view of what we see as valuable (from the respect of human society) to include animals and the natural world, or what he referred to as ‘the biotic community’. Leopold suggested,
‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’.
He goes on to argue that:
“All conservation of wildness is self-defeating, for to cherish we must see and fondle, and when enough have seen and fondled, there is no wilderness left to cherish."
This last point could easily be made about many of our so called wild landscapes.
Taking up the baton, George Monbiot (another environmental spokesperson) suggests we should try to 'rewild' our landscapes as by doing so we also 'rewild' ourselves. He proposes that we make large areas wild so we too can experience "something close to the full grandeur of nature. places where we can rewild ourselves, as much as rewild nature".
Monbiot however warns that this process doesn’t just mean "restoring trees and peat bogs to the sparsely-populated uplands, as rewilding also asks fundamental questions of us, our relationship with nature, "and how we look after it."
Like Leopold, Monbiot believes we should question how we value the world around us and warns not to view landscapes, the life that inhabits, purely from a human perspective. We have to step outside of our 'anthro mindset' and recognise we are just bit players who merge into the layers of nature, where we should be shaped by the landscape, not shape the landscape to our image. The landscape is not a commodity for financial gain, but something to be understood beyond our human needs.
It is we have very precious landscapes, even though they are no longer wild (in the purest way of thinking). However, there is value to be had, from attempting to gain a greater understanding our landscapes, by changing how we view landscapes. This would require us to change our activity in these places, whilst understanding the landscape not from our own values, but recognise the value of of all the elements that make up,the area. This perspective would allow us to perceive the true character of a landscape and allow wildness to prevail.
This, in turn, might make for own better integration and harmony with life on this planet. We would be rewilded.
“The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.”
― John Muir
Rewilding
What is a wild landscape? In fact is there any where left in the British Isles that could realistically still be described as a wild landscape? Does it even matter if there are wild places left?
My home, the Lake District is evidently a very beautiful place, where rugged and rough terrain abounds. There are steep, exposed buttresses of cathedral proportions hanging over verdant plains, filled with all sorts of wildlife. There is the obvious and ubiquitous lakes and tarns, scattered across the district. These bowls of clear water are either held like precious jewels within the glaciated basins high up the Fells, or laid out like ribbons across the valleys.
These are very beautiful places but are they wild landscapes?
In fact, what is meant by describing an area as a wild landscape?
Those who study and interrogate the environment from scientific and philosophical perspectives equally find this a tough question to answer. Do we mean a wild landscape is a 'natural landscape'? A landscape that is untouched by the hand of man? Where there are no paths and roads that crisscross the terrain, framing man's image of the world within a network of lines? A landscape that is free willed and does not reflect needs, motivations - perfunctory functions of humans, but exists (as it does) not because of, but despite us?
This is a landscape that is not only untouched by man, but also sits outside the very understanding of man. A city could only be made by man, as it reflects how our minds work. A wild, or natural landscape is free from and may even be hidden to our designs and motivations.
Therefore, can the moniker of 'wild landscape' be attributed to areas like the Lake District? They do contain wide, open spaces, streams, rivers? Places full of all types of flora and fauna going through their day to day struggle to survive and replicate? They are full of life that seems independent to man?
However, despite the wild vaneer of these places, I believe it would be very difficult to describe places, like the Lake District, as wild, natural landscapes. Their appearance, with walls, tracks and roads, the use of water courses to fill reservoirs, provide fresh water for farms, villages, cities, the slopes covered with livestock, the use of crags, rivers and summits to provide adventure and distraction all dictate not only how the land looks, but how nature interacts with the landscape. The space, the life within have all been third person anthromorphologised by the impact of man. The land, it's make up, reflect our values and what we believe is worthy.
To conceptulisatise this phenomenon (through the language of man) these landscapes are a mix of natural and cultural elements. An idea that is captured within the European Landscape Convention's definition of landscape: 'An area as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction or natural and/or human factors.'
Therefore I live in a 'cultural landscape', where the so called 'wildness' is the consequence of mans influence and activity, and the 'wildness' in this form is a human understanding of wildness.
This could mean our wild landscapes are in fact not wild at all. These landscapes could be the product, just like the Elizabethans with their introduction of gardens, as a means to tame and control nature. An Eden where the apple represents order and the snake the wild, unruly nature of the landscape(?)
So does this matter? Do we or our fellow planet inhabitants lose anything from this situation?
Aldo Leopold, a professor of forestry and land management, argued that we should extend our view of what we see as valuable (from the respect of human society) to include animals and the natural world, or what he referred to as ‘the biotic community’. Leopold suggested,
‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’.
He goes on to argue that:
“All conservation of wildness is self-defeating, for to cherish we must see and fondle, and when enough have seen and fondled, there is no wilderness left to cherish."
This last point could easily be made about many of our so called wild landscapes.
Taking up the baton, George Monbiot (another environmental spokesperson) suggests we should try to 'rewild' our landscapes as by doing so we also 'rewild' ourselves. He proposes that we make large areas wild so we too can experience "something close to the full grandeur of nature. places where we can rewild ourselves, as much as rewild nature".
Monbiot however warns that this process doesn’t just mean "restoring trees and peat bogs to the sparsely-populated uplands, as rewilding also asks fundamental questions of us, our relationship with nature, "and how we look after it."
Like Leopold, Monbiot believes we should question how we value the world around us and warns not to view landscapes, the life that inhabits, purely from a human perspective. We have to step outside of our 'anthro mindset' and recognise we are just bit players who merge into the layers of nature, where we should be shaped by the landscape, not shape the landscape to our image. The landscape is not a commodity for financial gain, but something to be understood beyond our human needs.
It is we have very precious landscapes, even though they are no longer wild (in the purest way of thinking). However, there is value to be had, from attempting to gain a greater understanding our landscapes, by changing how we view landscapes. This would require us to change our activity in these places, whilst understanding the landscape not from our own values, but recognise the value of of all the elements that make up,the area. This perspective would allow us to perceive the true character of a landscape and allow wildness to prevail.
This, in turn, might make for own better integration and harmony with life on this planet. We would be rewilded.
“The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.”
― John Muir