The Trouble With Wilderness: William Cronon

The main argument in Cronon's article is that wilderness is "quite profoundly a human creation-- indeed, the creation of very particular human cultures" rather than a "pristine sanctuary." This idea conflicts directly with what many Americans view as wilderness.

As Cronon lays out his argument, he addresses the frontier myth. He basically states that the immigrants who came from Europe to America for the first time experienced a climate shock. Coming from the densely populated land of Europe to the vast open spaces of the Americas, the Easterners “shed the trappings of civilization and thereby gained an energy, an independence and creativity.” This sensation that overcame the Easterners embodied itself within the wild landscape of America, thereby imposing this idea to represent what is viewed as nature or wilderness. As civilization began to take hold in the Americas, the preservation of this feeling was highly sought after. Due to its association with the idea of the American mentality, landscapes were preserved and labeled as “wilderness.”

Cronon explains that this is a fundamental flaw in which many base their view of wilderness upon. Cronon argues that not only were the places that we consider “wilderness” (National Parks) once inhabited by Native Americans, but also that this view of wilderness is completely fabricated by humans. What we chose to preserve and how we chose to preserve it directly reflects the values of our society. All of the National Parks that are uninhabited by humans are in fact not a preservation of what was there originally, but a showcase of what our culture has deemed to represent freedom.

Therefore, we base the idea of our roots within an incorrect representation of wilderness. People see nature as an entity separate from us. To many, nature is what we drive to see or stay a weekend at the Grand Canyon in order to observe. Instead of recognizing our impact within nature and incorporating ourselves into the equation, we separate ourselves from it. This thereby causes a lack of self-awareness in terms of environmental issues.

Cronon asserts the fact that we must rethink the way we view wilderness and realize that we are a major part of it. It is only when we accept our place in nature that we can make great strides towards sustainability. We must be aware of what resources we use and assess whether or not we can keep using them.

While some could look at Cronon's thesis with considerable alarm, accusing him of lending intellectual support to the corporate project of taking over the nation's wilderness and selling out to developmental interests, it does not seem that this is his objective. Cronon does not condemn the idea of a national park. In fact, he even states that it is a good way for many people to grasp the wonder of life and provide “proof that ours is not the only presence in the universe.” Cronon does condemn the notion that these National Parks represent the society’s view of nature. We cannot truly care for something that we are completely separated from.

After reading this article, a couple questions came to mind: Have we already gone too far? The world population has grown massively in the recent century and globally we are already consuming more than we can produce per year. Is it possible to fully incorporate ourselves within nature? There seems to be a gray line between the biosphere and the technosphere and we have been walking on it for quite some time. While it is evident that we are moving away from the biosphere and more into the technosphere, is there a way we could balance the two without hurting progress? Do we even want to balance? Should we just accept our impending progression towards the technosphere and try to compensate?