Radical Environmentalism and the Ecological Self: Rethinking the Concept of Self-Identity for Social Work Practice Fred H. Besthorn
ABSTRACT. This analysis explores current, Western conceptualizations of self-identity, contrasts these with ideas of self from earlier epochs and suggests that an emerging cultural transition is leading to a new sense of self–an ecological self. The new self does not ignore identification with nonhuman beings and nature, as conventional conceptualizations have so often done. Rather, it suggests that nature constitutes both the beginning and the ongoing essence of full human development and potential. This analysis explores the contribution of radical environmentalism to the evolution of the ecological self and suggests potential implications and practice applications for social work practitioners. Wilderness practice is discussed as an important practice strategy for social workers to consider in helping clients realize their ecological self-identity. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Social work, theory, practice, self-identity, spirituality, wilderness, radical environmentalism Fred H. Besthorn, MSW, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Washburn University. Address correspondence to: Fred H. Besthorn, PhD, Department of Social Work, Washburn University, 1700 S. W. College Avenue, Topeka, KS 66621 (E-mail:
[email protected]). Journal of Progressive Human Services, Vol. 13(1) 2002 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
53
54
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
As we enter the twenty-first century many social workers, scientists, social critics and large numbers in the rank and file have suggested that we are living in a time of great transition. There is a growing belief that our current culture has outgrown the institutions and doctrines that have served it in the past (Capra, 1996; Hoff & McNutt, 1994; Saleebey, 1990). One of the principal features of this time of transformation has been a willingness to analyze the beliefs, values and assumptions which underpin our modern view of reality (Callicott, 1994; D’Antonio, Sasaki, Yonebayashi, 1994). In recent years social workers and other helping professionals have also vigorously debated the impact of many of the dimensions of popular, consumer oriented culture on our personal and professional activities (Besthorn, 1997, 1998; Weick, 1991). Critiques of conventional belief systems and institutional practices call for a transformation in social work’s normative practice strategies and its theories of human development. These conventional systems and practices were generated in an industrialized, modern era and reflect a worldview in which self emerged from various social collectives to become a self-contained, individualized and free-standing social unit (Sampson, 1989). The major challenge ahead for the profession is collaboration with others in reinvigorating a sense of collective and connected self which is better suited for the historic changes and choices which confront humankind. We may be quickly approaching a point of significant decision: whether to follow a radically new worldview yielding to a just, humane and ecological way of existence or to continue on a path which yields to the degradation our species, if not its outright extinction (Bookchin, 1986). TRANSITIONS: CHALLENGING THE BIAS OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM A major focus of the ongoing appraisal of current cultural dynamics has been challenging its undaunted focus on the human being as the beginning and the end of all natural ecosystems, or what is known as anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism assumes the universe to be essentially human-centered. Fox (1990, p. 9), for instance, describes anthropocentrism as “human self-importance” and suggests it has been the single deepest and most constant premise of all Western philosophical, social and political traditions since the time of the classical Greeks. The anthropocentric bias of modern Western culture understands the natural environment as devoid of subjective, experiential reality (Griffin, 1988). Nature is
Fred H. Besthorn
55
perceived as purely objective in character; merely a collection of largely unlimited natural resources which humans are entitled to use and exploit. This unchallenged Western focus on a human-centered universe and a self-absorbed, enlightened subject at the apex of this universe alienates us from our place in nature. It spiritually, psychologically and socially separates us from other human and nonhuman beings (McLaughlin, 1993), and leads to a hierarchal ordering of the natural and human realm (Besthorn & Tegtmeier, 1999; Fox, 1990). Anthropocentrism is at the root of racial and gender oppression (Fox, 1990; Warren, 1994) and underpins a trans-national corporate economy (Daly & Cobb, 1989) which has been responsible for exploiting both humans and the environment while increasing poverty and ecological devastation in ever larger areas of the third world and the industrial west (Boff, 1995). The strong anthropocentric bias of Western culture is also apparent in the way we conceive of human development and self-identity. Human beings are seen as ruggedly individualized masters of their own destinies, capable of independently choosing their own goals and learning to do whatever is necessary to achieve them (Macy, 1990). This self-centered bias of modern culture rejects any inherent connection between the human self and the natural realm. This alienation and separation of self from nature is described clearly by Berman (1984): . . . there is no ecstatic merger with nature, but rather total separation from it. Subject and object are always seen in opposition to each other. I am not my experiences, and thus not really a part of the world around me . . . everything is an object, alien, not me; and I am ultimately an object too, an alienated ‘thing’ in a world of other, equally meaningless things. This world is not of my own making: the cosmos cares nothing for me, and I don’t really feel a sense of belonging to it. What I feel, in fact is a sickness in the soul. (p. 3) In effect, nature has been removed from our understanding of ourselves and our collective relationships with others. We have become emotionally, spiritually and politically denatured. Social workers Maria Hoff and John McNutt (1994) suggest that by alienating ourselves from our connections with the natural environment, we destroy our physical selves as well as the source of our imaginative capacities for experiencing the good, the true, and the beautiful. Without the metaphorical re-
56
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
sources from nature to express these realities, our capacity to communicate consciousness of self and other would be severely impoverished. Fortunately the ever increasing assaults on the natural environment are beginning to change our perceptions and are forcing us to consider alternative perspectives on the human self. As the connection between the dominant Western worldview, catastrophic environmental degradation, and multiple forms of political and economic exploitation becomes clearer (Brown, Flavin & French, 1998; Bullard, 1993), we are challenged to reexamine ideas of what makes us truly human, and the deeper, emotional/spiritual connection that’s shared between ourselves and natural world. THE CONTEMPORARY MEANING OF SELF There are several ways to think about how the contemporary sense of self is usually conceived within this anthropocentrically biased framework. When we discuss self, we are most often referring to an image of our interaction in a particular social setting. When asked who we are we may respond, “I am a teacher, a mother, a social worker, a Canadian,” or we evaluate ourselves based on a criterion established by our reference group and what it may determine as important. For example, if I say, “I am a teacher,” I am implying that I have a certain kind of education, a certain kind of degree and professional sanction, and that I usually work in fairly specific setting. Everyone more or less knows what a teacher is and if I call myself one, then presumably, I also know who I am and what is expected of me. Generally, a teacher has a primary identity and ascribes to an acceptable view of the world related to how knowledge is given and received. The contemporary self is also identified with our personal or individual frame of reference. Self is that which represents unique individual qualities often associated with one’s physical attributes or abilities. In other words, self is representational of what our body is or what it does (Devall, 1995; Kanner & Gomes, 1995). For instance when we say, “I am beautiful,” “I am intelligent,” “I am a football player,” we are suggesting that our self is the epitome of our bodily abilities or make-up. Another way to think about self is to contrast what is really my-self with what is not-self. That is, anything that is not me is the other, something which must be defended against and toward which one is often hostile. William James, in his early introduction to the psychology of
Fred H. Besthorn
57
self, refers to this idea of self as the empirical self. This sense of self is characterized by a restricted degree of identification with all that is other. The hallmark of this sense of self is an ever widening feeling of fear, alienation and a inclination to oppress (Cushman, 1990). Indeed, the defensive self or what social critic Christopher Lasch (1984) calls the minimal self and social psychologist Edward Sampson (1989) calls the contained self, has given rise to multiple forms of environmental and human oppression (Glendinning, 1994; Shepard, 1995). Our minimal self has contracted to a defensive core concerned with making a good impression on significant others or simply with survival (Devall, 1995). It contorts in spasmodic retreats into private pleasures, spurred on by the mass marketing of insatiable desire (Larsen, 1992; Schor, 1998) or it lashes out in public displays of impulsive violence (Macy, 1990). It is angry, withdrawn, rootless and alienated from the human community and from its place in the natural world (Kanner & Gomes, 1995; Metzner, 1993). A NATURAL VIEW OF SELF The modern, Western sense of self is arguably a recent development. It contrasts with what was, for all but the last few hundred years, a far more communal, holistic and balanced view of human self-identity (Berman, 1984; Ponting, 1991). Although the debate over the individual character and communal associations of primal peoples has been hotly contested, it seems clear, based on much recent scholarship, that most early individuals and their social groups were infused with a outwardly focused, nature-oriented commitment that expressed itself in all of life’s activities (Oelschlaeger, 1991). For them, there was an intuitive awareness of the unique connection between human and all natural or organic processes. This connection included everything that exists from soil to sun and beyond, the magna mater (Oelschlaeger, 1991). These natural ways of viewing the self’s relationship to the rest of the world ordered the lives of most hunter/gatherer and many pre-enlightenment peoples and were often imbued with deep spiritual significance. Their spirituality was revealed in the visible world around them, with an intimacy for the land, animals and rhythmic cycles of the seasons. This nature-based view determined their cultural values, as well as guiding both individual and collective action. Merchant (1992), for example, observes that the analogy of earth as a nurturing, sustaining mother, permeated many early societies through the Renaissance period. This
58
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
earth/mother metaphor prescribed acceptable and unacceptable action for “one does not readily slay a mother, dig into her entrails for gold, or mutilate her body. As long as the earth was conceptualized as alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of human ethical behavior to carry out destructive acts against it” (p. 43). Unfortunately, the modern mind typically believes that ancient peoples desperately wished to escape their primitive lifestyle for a more civilized, technological and self-actualized existence. From this vantage point, prehistory is little more than quaint anecdotes of debased barbarians living lives that were nasty, brutish, and short (Oelschlaeger, 1991). This view represents a subtle collective prejudice which fails to conceive of a positive alternative framework to explain ancient realities. It also marginalizes the compelling struggles of Aboriginal communities and Indigenous groups to keep alive their holistic view of all things and to protect their sacred lands from the ravages of industrial development carried out by rapacious, transnational, corporate conglomerates (Kinsley, 1995). Contrary to this notion of early peoples as ignorant, suffering brutes, more recent scholarship describes our early ancestors as living well within their organic, communal framework. Paleolithic anthropologist Herbert Schneidau (1976) observes that “perhaps someday it will be maintained that the most important development of consciousness in the twentieth century had to do not with moon walks or atomic bombs, but rather with the new availability of an adequate sense of prehistory” (p. 130). The inescapable conclusion is that for ninety-nine percent of humankind’s two million years on earth our ancestors lived as naturalists, having an understanding of their individual and collective connection with nature’s ways. Their beliefs concerning existence, nature, land, myth and ritual reveal a rich and imaginative life which is perhaps the most successful and enduring that humankind has ever achieved. Nevertheless, modern ideas of the supremacy of a self-contained ego and competitive, consumer-oriented civilization have triumphed. Most of us still think of ourselves as fairly rational, independent and therefore somewhat superior, because we have achieved a empirical scientific understanding of the world, subdued nature through technology, and abandoned our mythological beliefs and practices (Oelschlaeger, 1991). But, as Drew (1995) soberly reminds us, our narrow, self-aggrandized worldview may not, in the end, survive: Ecologically our civilization is as mindless as a cancer, and we know that it will destroy itself by destroying its host. Ironically,
Fred H. Besthorn
59
any remnants of humanity to survive the apotheosis of civilization will be returned, genetically mutilated, to that state which we have thought contemptible. If man [sic] does not survive, interplanetary archaeologists of the future will classify our planet as one in which a very long and stable period of small-scale hunting and gathering was followed by an apparently instantaneous efflorescence of technology and society leading rapidly to extinction. Stratigraphically, the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear as essentially simultaneous. (p. 118) THE NEW EMERGENCE OF AN OLD SELF Many thoughtful people from a variety of cultures and professional disciplines are suggesting the need to reconfigure the modern alienated, hostile and exploitative self into a new definition of self (Saleebey; 1990; Wilber, 1995). Perhaps, it would be more accurate to say we are seeing the re-emergence of a very old identity since, as I’ve suggested, many dimensions of this new self have very ancient origins. The advent of this new sense of identity has been referred to in various ways such as the rise of integrated self, holistic self, spirit self and ecological self (Devall, 1995; Miller, 1991). While all of these designations may be helpful in describing the multiple character of the identity changes taking place in self concepts, the ecological self appropriately captures the essential make-up of this transformation. The ecological self is an apt descriptor because it stands in sharp contrast to conventional notions of self which have been so ecologically (in the broadest system’s sense of that term; both human and naturally) disastrous. At the heart of the ecological self is a primary focus on reweaving humanity’s inherent interconnectedness with all of the universe through a revitalization of each person’s direct, lived, and sensual experience with the complex whole of nature (Diamond & Orenstein, 1990). Many intellectual movements, cultural legacies and belief systems have significantly contributed to the revitalization of this ecological self (Besthorn, 1998; Canda & Furman, 1999). These range from holistic and dynamic systems sciences (Sheldrake, 1994), Eastern philosophical and religious traditions (Badiner, 1990), creation-centered Christian theology (Fox, 1991), transpersonal psychological theory (Roszak, Gomes & Kanner, 1995; Wilber, 1995) and earth honoring spiritual traditions of Native American and Indigenous peoples (Buhner, 1996; Nabigon & Mawhiney, 1996).
60
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
Indigenous wisdom concerning earth and land have been especially important in helping transform the west’s individual and collective consciousness (Callicott, 1994; Lame Deer & Erdoes, 1980; Piacentini, 1993; Underwood, 1991). The ecological self finds inspiration in Native beliefs that nature is alive and earth is the mother of all of us. Native shamans and orators have preserved an earth-honoring, ecological ethic from the past that many moderns are attempting to reclaim as a part of a very different future (Hungry Wolf, 1980; Merchant, 1992). Paula Gunn Allen (1984, p. 1), a member of the Keres Pueblo tribe, in compelling language captures a portion of this holistic perspectives. She writes, “When I was small, my mother often told me that animals, insects, and plants are to be treated with the kind of respect one customarily accords to high-status adults. ‘Life is a circle, and everything has a place in it,’ she would say.” The ecological self also finds clear expression in two radical environmental philosophies and activist movements: ecological feminism and deep ecology (Besthorn, 1997). Deep ecology and ecofeminism understand nature and humanity in holistic terms. Humans are one among many beings whose existence completely depends on interrelationships with all other beings. Ecofeminist scholar Susan Griffin (1989) suggests that modern civilization’s most powerful root metaphor is division rather than connection. We no longer feel ourselves to be connected to this earth. We regard our fellow creatures, both human and nonhuman, as enemies. And, very young, we learn to disown the connectedness of our own being. We come to believe that we do not know what we inherently know and dividedness becomes etched into our language, our behaviors and our attitudes. From an ecofeminist perspective individuals are not separate from or above nature. Humanity is one small part of the whole of nature, rather than the pinnacle of nature. Ecofeminism offers an alternative view of self/nature relationship which suggests that nature is not just inert matter but is rather quite soulful and that human consciousness is an integral part of nature. It is this great soulfulness of nature which connects, deeply and unalterability, nature with all of human identity (Griffin, 1990). Ecofeminist writers emphasize the essential wholeness of the human self. They encourage healing by overcoming the fragmented self and the numbing of our innate, organic sensibilities (Starhawk, 1990). Humans are seen as humble members of a greater organic cosmos, rather than superior to it. Self-removed observation or objective rationality and ultimate human control become illusions of humankind’s frag-
Fred H. Besthorn
61
mented selfhood and can only be healed by encouraging a sense of spiritual wonder through experiencing a sensual connection with all other human and nonhuman beings (Griffin, 1995; Starhawk, 1990). Deep ecology’s philosophical, spiritual and deep experiential reconceptualization of self goes well beyond the modern, Western sense of identifying self in relation to other humans or human attributes. Deep ecology extends the concept of self to encompass a deep interconnectedness with all individuals, by which they mean both people and the whole of nature. The self is not an entity or a thing to be discovered, it is an opening to encountering what some spiritual traditions call the Absolute or in Sanskrit, the atman (Devall, 1995). Most deep ecologists would agree that the individual person, to the extent it can be identified at all, is constituted out of its interrelationship with other individuals. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, and the parts are defined through their relations to one another and the whole (Mathews, 1994). Deep ecology’s seminal theorist, Arne Naess (1988, 1989), offers the concept self-realization as important to understanding a new sense of self. From Naess’s perspective, self-realization requires an extension of human identification beyond humanity to include the non-human world. From this viewpoint, maturing involves a process of widening one’s sense of self and identifying with others–family, friends, communities, our own species, and then all species of non-human life. If we think of our current sense of self in terms of a continuum, self-realization is identification in its widest sense, a oneness in diversity (diversity here meaning all beings in the universe) while a limited self-realization is a maximum of alienation and a narrow, constricted sense of what constitutes one’s self (Naess, 1989). As one develops an ever-widening identification with the whole, there is no need to sacrifice self in preference to nature, since the interests of those with whom we identify, nature included, may be seen as one’s own interests as well. The situation of our selfhood is not well expressed in phrases like person-in-environment or person-and-environment, because these still tend to place individual humans at the center. Humans exist in a relational total field. Rather than experiencing humanity as separate from environment or merely existing in it, humanity must begin to cultivate the insight that they are with the environment (Besthorn, 1997). Being with environment means realizing that humanity is part of a complex totality of interconnected relationships, and that these connections among both humans and non-humans are the very essence of existence.
62
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK This analysis of the re-emergence of an ancient ontology of self raises important issues for social workers. At the most basic level it challenges us to ask, “Why is this important,” and “What is the potential impact on the profession?” The current inquiry has suggested that this new sense of self is important because it presupposes much more than the old categories of ego-self, social-self and physical self. In fact, a new category of ecological-self is arising which changes the character of a range of social work activities. For example, the ecological self influences the profession’s understanding of the scope and breadth of professional education. It suggests that our educational enterprise must change from being grounded in a techno-specialist, anthropocentric orientation, toward an orientation which is far more generalist and ecologically relevant. On one level it suggests the need to adapt curriculum requirements and practicum settings to include a focus on issues of the natural environment in much the way that social worker Mary Rogge (1994) integrates issues of environmental hazard and environmental racism into her student’s educational experiences. Spirituality and Justice The emergence of the ecological self offers new ways for social workers to view and incorporate diverse forms of experiential/spiritual expressions into their professional activities (Besthorn, 1997; Canda & Furman, 1999). It opens the profession to a vast array of inspirational experiences from earth, sky and all creatures of this planet. It recognizes and honors the existence of a powerful intuitive, spiritual element that binds humans to the natural realm. The ecological self also has repercussions for professional views of empowerment, social justice and sociopolitical activity. Cultivating an ecological total view of self necessarily requires social work to engagement in a process of deeply questioning all of our accustomed assumptions and social norms that pivot around the privileging of humans over nonhumans and the stratification of privilege among the humans species. Macro social action must be guided by ecologically informed win/win solution seeking that includes benefit to both humans and nonhumans. In sustainable and social development planning, ecological indicators of success would replace anthropocentric and materialistic standards of increasing consumption and production with ecocentric standards of increasing quality of life,
Fred H. Besthorn
63
social justice and ecojustice which supports the rights and dignity of all humans and nonhumans (McLaughlin, 1993). Ethics There are also important implications of the ecological self to the way social workers understand ethics, the rightness or wrongfulness of individual, social and professional behavior (Besthorn, 1997). Conventional social work ethics, like most ethical systems, are grounded in intra-human relationships–person to person, professional to client, professional to professional. This way of conceptualizing ethical responsibilities and relationships is patently egocentric. That is, it ignores the possibility of a more expansive sense of beingness–the ecological self–that suggests humans are intimately tied to and have relational obligations to all other beings in the natural world. An ecocentric social work ethic, of the kind suggested by the ecological self, is a radically different orientation. Social work ethics must think in terms of interrelationships among social, professional and ecological responsibility. For instance, an ecocentric ethic understands that social and ecological problems can no longer be just problems requiring refined technical solutions. They are issues that have to do with complex relationships among all beings, both human and nonhuman. They pose a severe threat to human welfare, but they are also a form of oppression destroying the space, sustenance and diversity of all other nonhuman life forms. Conceptualizing Practice One of the most important implications of the ecological self is related to professional practice. A new ecology of self implies that social work practitioners reconsider their heavy reliance on modern, and often conceptually limited, metaphors of self-determination, rugged individualism and human supremacy (Goldstein, 1986; Robbins, Chatterjee & Canda, 1998; Saleebey, 1990; Tyson, 1995; Weick, 1991). These are embedded in human development models focusing on micro level issues of individual, family and small groups. Most conventional psychosocial developmental models don’t even address nature let alone acknowledge the deep interconnection existing between persons and the natural realm. It is as though humans exist in a cosmological vacuum. Social workers must develop and utilize practice models and methods that radically alter traditional conceptualizations of human identity by encouraging
64
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
greater experiences with nature. In this way we figuratively revisit a century old commitment to the idea of outdoor relief, in the most authentic sense of that term–spending time in the out-of-doors, in natural places and settings. Wilderness. One of the most promising strategies which has been explored for helping people reconnect with nature is sometimes referred to as wilderness practice. There are multiple ways to envision the concept of wilderness (Thompson & Barton, 1994). One may think of it in its strong sense as being synonymous with pristine areas of scenic beauty largely untouched by human influence, or in its weaker sense as simply referring to the naturalness or connectiveness of natural settings or experiences, whether this happens to be in a back country area or not. My experience suggests that wilderness practice can include both encounters with wild and pristine places as well as experiences with meadows, parks, plants, gardens, pets, domesticated and non-domesticated animals and vegetated streetscapes in either rural or urban contexts. There is a vast and convincing body of theoretical and empirical evidence linking the positive social and individual benefits associated with wilderness practice. The theory and research spans diverse fields including landscape architecture, geography, horticulture, religious studies, city planning, parks and forestry, leisure sciences, wildlife management, natural recreation, social ecology, resource conservation and management, ecology, ecopsychology, environmental psychology, environmental ethics and ecological sociology (Friedman & Thomas, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). There is also a cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural and trans-national emphasis inherent in much of the research on the close link between natural environments and human well-being (Cox, 1993; Pol, 1993; Wapner, 1995). A central goal of wilderness practice is to shift attending skills toward a more complete sensory awareness of the rhythmic/cyclical character of the natural world while transforming personal and collective action as a result of this appreciation (Gallagher, 1993). Given its holistic emphasis, wilderness practice functions in both personal and political ways (Merchant, 1992). That is, it intends to raise ecological consciousness and to encourage political action toward what Bookchin (1982) argues is an ecology of freedom–a world which reunites humans with nature and humans with humans. Wilderness practice alters perceptions of time and space by seeing both as cycles to be experienced rather than rationally assessed or measured by clocks or calculations of acreage. It breaks down familiar patterns of individual, cultural, and political con-
Fred H. Besthorn
65
sciousness (Noe & Snow, 1990; Taylor, 1989) and confronts ideas of separateness by viewing diversity, collaborativeness and change as fundamentally important and necessary parts of dynamic system health. For instance, from the perspective of gender, wilderness evokes the often unacknowledged feminine/masculine dynamic of women and men by challenging gender-bound role identity through the observation that in nature there is often an obscuring of these humanly derived distinctions (Altman & Churchman, 1994). Deep experience with wilderness also contests the romanticized and stylized view of being in nature (Thompson & Barton, 1994). Rather, wilderness practice recognizes that feeling at home with nature is a recognition of its wholeness, of both life and death, darkness and light, sunshine and rain. In Harper’s (1995) words, wilderness practice: . . . breaks down the emphasis on the Disneyland sense of “beauty.” The look of the land often determines that response. Many tourists, for example, confronted by a scene that is “pretty as a picture,” react to natural beauty by rushing for their cameras. But sight is only one of our senses. I try to encourage letting the wilderness in through all the senses: touch, hearing, smell and taste. Above all, I try to make the experience whole and honest. It must include what happens and what you feel when night falls, when the weather turns hot or cold or rainy, when the bugs come out, or when the cute little rabbit you have been watching screams a death-call as it is whisked away in the talons of an eagle. (p. 187) While study of the physical dimensions of the environment is not new to social work, the study and application of the natural environment is very new to a profession whose environmental interests have been so narrowly defined (Cataldo, 1979; Germain, 1983; Germain & Gitterman, 1996; Resnick & Jaffee, 1982; Seabury, 1971). This is precisely why emergent theory and methods in wilderness practice are clear examples of how social workers could expand their conceptual base and practice models toward assisting clients in identifying a more ecologically developed sense of self-identity (Besthorn & Tegtmeier, 1999). From a practitioner’s perspective, reconnecting with nature undercuts the dualistic categories of client-expert and mind-body while challenging practice wisdom that restricts helping to a fifty-minute hour within the confines of an agency or office (Scherl, 1989; Thompson & Barton, 1994). Wilderness practice is a powerful encounter that seeks to restore and transform overall physical, emotional, spiritual, political and social
66
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
health and wholeness rather than seeking to cure specific, internalized psychological ills (Cohen, 1997). Its focus is not on analysis, interpretation or advice from social workers. Rather, it offers opportunities for profound human/nature encounters through which a wholly, reconnected self can emerge. Wilderness practice recognizes that humans and nature share a core state of being which transcends cultural and individual boundaries. In one sense humans do not need to have more nature, but must rather begin to fully recognize that they are nature. Humans don’t come into this world. Rather, we come out of it and must live within it and with each other. Applications. My practice experiences strongly suggest that one group that will especially benefit from wilderness experiences are children and adolescents, especially those who have few if any opportunities to closely interact in natural settings, whether or not they live in rural or urban centers. Wilderness practice with children does not necessarily require busing large groups to the High Sierras. It can be as simple as bringing the natural environment to children though the introduction of household pets, horticultural interests or a simple walk through a local park. The critical issue is not necessarily location, but rather facilitating empathetic capacities, fostering personal and collective responsibility and building inner confidence and relational skills. Caring for and playful interaction with small animals, tending flowers or gardens or deeply connecting with urban green spaces can foster developmental, intuitive and political sensitivities. Children, by virtue of their innocence, are curious and open learners. Their first experience with a grove of trees, a prairie preserve or a small farm setting can foster an enduring sense of connection with the earth, its nonhuman creatures and our human companions. One exercise I have used with children to help engage them in an appreciation for their inherent place in the natural world is what I call Nature Touch. I ask them to write a short paragraph or to draw a picture, depending on age and developmental appropriateness, illustrating the most attractive experience they can remember having in nature (Cohen, 1997). In this use of the word attractive I mean drawn to, like a magnetic pull or attraction. This attraction may have taken place while they were alone in nature or with others. It may have been with a pet, a plant, or with their natural surroundings, and it may have been in their own backyard, on a beach, in a park, walking down a street, or in a wilderness area. After they have completed their descriptions, I engage the children in a conversation around two questions.
Fred H. Besthorn
67
First, I ask them what sensations, (touch, smells, colors, temperatures, shapes, textures, motions) made their experience attractive, enjoyable, fun, or rewarding. It is important to focus on the sensory part of their encounter rather than their beliefs or judgements about what they had experienced since our cultural ethos tends to focus on our rational understanding of nature while disavowing the possibility or usefulness of sensual encounters. After what can be some very rousing and playful interaction, I ask the children to think about how they learned what it meant to have fun, attractive, sensory experiences with nature. Did they learn about this in a class, from a book, from friends or from their parents? Or, did they just, somehow, know it? Kids will nearly always say they just somehow knew it: “I just know it.” “I can just feel it inside.” “It just feels really good inside.” In the simple language of children, they will describe being both biologically and spiritually constructed to sense these innate attractions with the natural world. Indeed, early societies learned that following their sensory attraction in the natural world was the key to their survival. Everyone continues to inherit this ability. Nature calls to a sensory part of us that appreciates and values it. We naturally sense it. It is this intuited sense, this non-languaged sense that is very much alive in all of us. Nature invites and welcomes us to be one with it, to enjoy the moment, to experience the non-verbal connectedness shared with all that exists. These are unfamiliar and, very often, radical ideas to children and adolescents. I do not attempt or even expect to convince them of the validity of these perspectives, although I do provide opportunities for discussion and resources for further exploration. I have found that children and adolescents are far more receptive and centered with these ideas than are most adults. I believe this to be the case because it is not far outside the innate, if often unspoken and frequently invalidated, realities that most children and many adolescents instinctually know. In many cases they have not yet fully internalized modern, industrial society’s messages teaching us to conquer or separate from the time-tested love, intelligence and balance found in the natural world. When given the opportunity they are able to validate their tacit knowledge of the natural world and their place in it. I often conclude this exercise with a brief ritual or ceremony honoring or giving thanks for the natural world and then, as importantly, how this new appreciation can and should change our sense of ourselves, our political and social responsibilities, and the world around us.
68
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
CONCLUSION This analysis has suggested that we are living in a time of significant cultural transition which is changing the way we think about important individual and social constructs. It has explored modern, Western conceptualizations of self-identity and contrasted those with ideas of human identity from earlier epochs. This work has also analyzed the contribution of radical environmental perspectives to the re-emergence of an old sense of a new self–an ecological self. It has been proposed that the ecological self does not ignore deeper identification with nonhuman beings and nature, as conventional conceptualizations have so often done. Rather, the ecological self recognizes that nature constitutes both the beginning and the ongoing essence of full human development and potential. Specifically, it has suggested that wilderness practice is an important practice strategy for social workers to consider in helping clients realize their ecological identities. As the global environmental crises grows and as the world continues to shift toward a different mode of collective understanding and social organization, the profession of social work must also adjust. The next millennium will bring new, perhaps unprecedented, demands and opportunities. Whether the profession is prepared to meet these demands depends in large measure on the flexibility and innovation of the theoretical and practice frameworks initiated and adopted by social work professionals. This paper represents one step toward helping the profession expand its framework in preparation for the complex challenges ahead. REFERENCES Allen, P. G. (1984). The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions. Boston: Beacon Press. Altman, I, & Churchman, A. (Eds.). (1994). Women and the environment: Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum. Badiner, A. H. (Ed.). (1990). Dharma gaia: A harvest of essays in Buddhism and ecology. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. Berman, M. (1984). The re-enchantment of the world. New York: Bantam Books. Besthorn, F. H. (1997). Reconceptualizing social work’s person-in-environment perspective: Exploration in radical environmental thought. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Fred H. Besthorn
69
Besthorn, F. H. (1998). Rural migration and the simple life. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Nonpoint Source Pollution Conference (pp. 50-63). Topeka, KS: Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Besthorn, F. H., & Tegtmeier, D. (1999). Opinions/perspectives/beliefs: Nature as professional resource–A new ecological approach to helping. Kansas Chapter NASW News, 24(2), 15. Boff, L. (1995). Social ecology: Poverty and misery. In D. Hallman (Ed.) Ecotheology: Voices from south and north (pp. 235-247). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Bookchin, M. (1982). Ecology of freedom. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Bookchin, M. (1986). The modern crisis. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. Brown, L., Flavin, C., & French, H. (1998). State of the world 1998: A worldwatch institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Bullard, R. D. (Ed.). (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston: South End Press. Callicott, J. B. (1994). Traditional American Indian and western European attitudes toward nature: An overview. In L. May & S. C. Sharratt (Eds.), Applied ethics: A multicultural approach (pp. 95-105). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (1999). Spiritual diversity in social work practice: The heart of helping. New York: Free Press. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books. Cataldo, C. (1979). Wilderness therapy: Modern day shamanism. In C. Germain (Ed.), Social work practice, people and environments: An ecological perspective (pp. 46-75). New York: Columbia University. Cohen, M. J. (1997). Reconnecting with nature: Finding wellness through restoring your bond with the earth. Corvalis, OR: Ecopress. Cox, R. P. (1993). The human/animal bond as correlate of family functioning. Clinical Nursing Research, 2(2), 224-231. Daly, H., & Cobb, J. (1989). For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future. New York: Beacon Press. D’Antonio, W. V., Sasaki, M., & Yonebayashi, Y. (1994). Ecology, society and the quality of social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Devall, B. (1995). The ecological self. In A. Drengson & Y. Inoue (Eds.), Deep ecology: An introductory anthology (pp. 101-23). Berkley, CA: North Atlantic Books. Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1984). The developing of natural resources and the integrity of nature. Environmental Ethics, 6(4), 293-322. Diamond, I., & Orenstein, G. (eds.). (1990). Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Drew, W. (1995). Killing wilderness. In G. Sessions (Ed.), Deep ecology for the 21st century: Readings on the philosophy and practice of the new environmentalism (pp. 113-120). Boston: Shambhala. Fox, W. (1990). Transpersonal ecology: Psychologizing ecophilosophy. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 22(1), 59-96. Fox, M. (1991). Creation spirituality: Liberating gifts for the peoples of the earth. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
70
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival after acute myocardial infarction in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trail. American Journal of Cardiology, 76, 1213-1217. Gallagher, W. (1993). The power of place: How our surroundings shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions. New York: Poseidon Press. Germain, C. B. (1983). Using social and physical environments. In A. Rosenblatt & D. Waldfogel (Eds.), Handbook of clinical social work (pp. 110-133). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Germain, C. B., & Gitterman, A. (1996). The life model of social work practice: Advances in theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Goldstein, H. (1986). Toward the integration of theory and practice: A humanistic approach. Social Work, 31(2), 352-357. Griffin, D. R. (1988). The reenchantment of science. New York: Suny Press. Griffin, S. (1989). Split culture. In J. Plant (Ed.), Healing the wounds, The promise of ecofeminism (pp. 7-17). Santa Cruz, CA: New Society Publishers. Griffin, S. (1990). Curves along the road. In I. Diamond & G. Orenstein (Eds.), Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism (pp. 87-99). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Griffin, S. (1995). The eros of everyday life: Essays on ecology, gender and society. New York: Anchor Books. Harper, S. (1995). The way of wilderness. In T. E. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth healing the mind (pp. 183-200). San Francisco: Sierra Books. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26. Hoff, M. D., & McNutt, J. G. (Eds.). (1994). The global environmental crisis: Implications for social welfare and social work. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Hungry Wolf, B. (1980). The ways of my grandmother. New York: William Morrow. Kanner, A., & Gomes, M. (1995). The all-consuming self. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes & A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth healing the mind (pp. 77-91). San Francisco: Sierra Books. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kinsley, D. (1995). Ecology and religion: Ecological spirituality an cross-cultural perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lame Deer, J., & Erdoes, R. (1980). Lame Deer-Sioux Medicine Man. London: Quartet Books Ltd. Lasch, C. (1984). The minimal self: Psychic survival in troubled times. New York: W. W. Norton. Macy, J. (1990). The greening of the self. In A. Badiner (Ed.), Dharma gaia: A harvest of essays in Buddhism and ecology (pp. 17-39). Berkeley: Parallax. Mathews, F. (1994). Relating to nature: Deep ecology or ecofeminism? Trumpeter, 11(4), 159-166. McLaughlin, A. (1993). Regarding nature: Industrialism and deep ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Fred H. Besthorn
71
Merchant, C. (1992). Radical ecology: The search for a livable world. New York: Routledge. Metzner, R. (1993). The split between spirit and nature in European conscious. The Trumpeter, 10(1), 2-9. Miller, R. (1991). Educating the true self: Spiritual roots of the holistic worldview. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31(4), 53-67. Nabigon, H., & Mawhiney, A. (1996). Aboriginal theory: A cree medicine wheel guide for First nations healing. In F. Turner (Ed.), Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (4th ed.) (Pp. 18-38). New York: Free Press. Naess, A. (1988). Identification as a source of deep ecological attitudes. In M. Tobias (Ed.), Deep ecology (pp. 256-270). San Marcos, CA: Avant Publishing. Naess, A (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline in an ecosophy. New York: Cambridge Press. Noe, F., & Snow, R. (1990). Hispanic cultural influence on environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 27-34. Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness from prehistory to the age of ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Piacentini, P. (ed.). (1993). Story earth: Native voices on the environment. San Francisco: Mercury House. Pol, E. (1993). Environmental psychology in Europe: From architectural psychology to green psychology. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Press. Ponting, C. (1991). A green history of the world: The environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Resnick, H., & Jaffee, B. (1982). The physical environment and social welfare. Social Casework, 63(6), 354-362. Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (1998). Contemporary human behavior: A critical perspective for social work. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rogge, M. E. (1994). Environmental injustice: Social welfare and toxic waste. In M. Hoff & J. McNutt (Eds.), The global environmental crisis: Implications for social welfare and social work (pp. 53-74). Aldershot, UK: Avebury. Roszak, T., Gomes, M., & Kanner, A. (Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth healing the mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Saleebey, D. (1990). Theory and the generation and subversion of knowledge. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 9(3), 205-219. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology: Globalization and psychology’s theory of the person. American Psychologist, 44(6), 914-921. Scherl, L. (1989). Self in wilderness: Understanding the psychological benefits of individual-wilderness interaction through self-control. Leisure Sciences, 11(2), 123-125. Schneidau, H. (1976). The sacred discontent: The Bible and western tradition. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Schor, J. (1998). The overspent American: Why we want what we don’t need. New York: Harper Perennial. Seabury, B. (1971). Arrangement of physical space in social work settings. Social Work, 16(4), 43-49.
72
JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE HUMAN SERVICES
Sheldrake, R. (1994). The rebirth of nature: The greening of science and god. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press. Shepard, P. (1995). Nature and madness. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes & A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth healing the mind (pp. 21-40). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Starhawk (1990). Power, authority and mystery: Ecofeminism and earth-based spirituality. In I. Diamond & G. Orenstein (Eds.), Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism (pp. 73-86). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Taylor, D. E. (1989). Blacks and the environment: Toward an explanation of the concern and action gap between blacks and whites. Environment and Behavior, 21(2), 175-205. Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), 149-157. Tyson, K. (1995). New foundations for scientific social and behavioral research: The heuristic paradigm. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Underwood, P. (1991). Who speaks for wolf: A Native American learning story. Seattle: A Tribe of Two Press. Wapner, S. (1995). Toward integration: Environmental psychology in relation to other subfields of psychology. Environment and Behavior, 27(1), 9-32. Warren, K. (1994). Toward an ecofeminist peace politics. In K. Warren (Ed.), Ecological feminism (pp. 179-199). New York: Routledge. Weick, A. (1991). The place of science in social work. The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 18(4), 13-34. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala.
