Integrating multiple perspectives on the human-nature relationship: A reply to Fletcher 2017

Abstract

The concept of “connectedness with nature” is increasingly used in environmental and sustainability discourse. However, this construct has also been critiqued and proponents charged with harboring an ambivalence that paradoxically reinforces a sense of separation from “nature”. We respond to one critique by demonstrating that whilst problematizing aspects of “connectedness with nature” has merit, selective use of examples misconstrues efforts in this field, undermines common ground and conflates theoretical conceptualizations with practical implementation. In addressing problems of perception and praxis, we emphasize the primacy of direct experience in shaping ways of knowing and recommend integral ecology (based on Wilber’s integral theory) as an inclusive framework for attending to multiple perspectives on the human-nature relationship.

Keywords:

• Human-nature relationship
• integral ecology
• nature connectedness

View correction statement:

Correction

Notes

Notes

1 Contrary to Fletcher’s (2017, p. 4) claim that “the CWN perspective tends to confuse a culturally specific worldview for the human condition in general”, we state in our review’s methods section (see Zylstra et al., 2014, p. 121). that:

There is a general bias in literature toward Western conceptualizations of CWN, noting however that “Western” is an imprecise term which can be variously defined according to context. In this paper, we use “Western” to refer to the culture and philosophical tradition that has its historical roots in early European cultures (e.g., Greco-Roman, Germanic), Judaic and Christian values and Enlightenment thinking and that has shaped Anglo-European and North American society. This review, therefore, primarily focuses on CWN as relevant to persons socialized to middle-class Western values on the basis that it is widely accepted that the Western culture is largely responsible for fueling and exacerbating humanity’s separation from nature. However, since Western culture (and its discourse) has been exported through colonization and globalization, Western (and Westernized) worldviews are no longer geographically confined to Europe and its former colonies. In this regard, implications of this review are cross-culturally relevant, particularly since contemporary CWN draws much inspiration from non-Western (e.g., Eastern, Indigenous) traditions (Zylstra et al., 2014, p. 121).

This does not imply that Westernized or non-Westernized worldviews are unitary, homogonous or monolithic nor that all non-Western approaches may necessarily guide CWN application.

2 The CWN construct is more than cognitive and conceptual: it also widely considered to include affective (e.g. emotional bonds with nature sensu Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, 1999; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013), experiential (e.g. frequency, familiarity and comfort in nature, sensu Menon & Karthik, 2009), behavioral dimensions (intention and commitment to act responsibly toward the natural environment sensu Frantz & Mayer, 2014; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Restall & Conrad, 2011). Collective identity has also been highlighted for inclusion on the basis of ‘nature’ being a shared community to which humans belong, sensu Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Restall and Conrad, (2015). See Zylstra et al., (2014) for a review of the CWN construct.

3 As Dickinson (2013, p. 318–319) highlights, we also wish to emphasize that:

Environmental education (EE) initiatives vary greatly, with radically diverse approaches and assumptions about human-nature relationships. A plethora of EE and nature-related programs abound - from mainstream… science-based EE curricula to less traditional human-nature reconciliation initiatives.