Three paths to the summit: understanding mountaineering through game-playing, deep ecology and art

ABSTRACT

The climb of Gasherbrum IV’s (7,925 m) ‘Shining Wall’ in 1985 by Voytek Kurtyka and Robert Schauer is considered one of the greatest mountaineering achievements in the twentieth century, even though the two climbers did not reach the summit. The article explores three ways of understanding mountaineering without the objective of reaching the summit. I start with a game-playing approach and then a view on mountaineering that takes its inspiration from deep ecology and argue that while both have the potential for explaining important aspects of mountaineering, neither will fully account for the value of climbing mountains without summiting. Finally, I argue that we can supplement either of these two views with a radically different way of understanding mountaineering, which involves creating and appreciating a work of art.

KEYWORDS:

• Nature sport
• mountaineering
• deep ecology
• gameplay
• art
• summiting

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. In a later essay, Tejada-Flores (1990) modifies his view; climbing cannot be understood as a game alone, but also as an activity that takes place in a social context and involves other people.

2. Rules thus play the function of maintaining a degree of uncertainty of the outcome, necessary for a climbing game to serve as a test (Kretchmar 1975).

3. Tejada-Flores’ essay was originally published in 1967, while Suits’ book came in 1978.

4. The first ascent of Mount Everest without supplementary oxygen was made by Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler in 1978. The use of bottled oxygen reduces the physiological effect of high altitude with about 1000 meters.

5. I take this to be the same as the rule as applied by Guinness World Records: ‘for a mountain climb to qualify for a Guinness World Records title, we must insist on a base-camp-to-true-summit ascent, as per the updated 8000ers.com guidelines’, implicitly understood as requiring that you move your own body this distance. (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/9/reclassifying-the-8000ers-758542)

6. Notice also that Tejada-Flores explicitly states that his intention is not to rank climbing games, in the sense that one game is better than another (1978, 20).

7. There is, in principle, no conflict between anthropocentric views and those that seek to preserve nature. One could for instance argue that we have an obligation to take care of nature because it is necessary for our well-being.

8. The mountain is also known as Gauri Sankar, and was first climbed in 1979 (Boardman 1983).

9. Of course, some people living in urban areas may be even more concerned about environmental issues than those living rural areas. My point is just that is seems both logical, and most likely empirically, possible that not everyone shares Naess’ insight.

10. While I have focused on the empirical unlikeliness of identification with nature for everyone, there are other objections to deep ecology as well, for example from ecofeminism and those seeking to end poverty. Much of the critique against deep ecology is found in Witoszek and Brennan (1999), and in Katz, Light and Rothenberg (2000).

11. See Breivik (2019) for discussion of how Naess’ ideas provide basis for a revised understanding of Friluftsliv.

12. See Adajian (2018) for discussion of various concepts of art, how these could lean either towards emphasizing the intention or the aesthetic effect, as well as if a definition of art is possible at all.

13. Best could of course object that mountaineering is not sport in the relevant sense, since it is not competitive.

14. https://warwickshireclimbs.weebly.com/compton-verney.html

15. Thanks to Kevin Krein for comments that substantially improved this paper.