Does the concept of “connectedness with nature” paradoxically reinforce our sense of separation from the more-than-human world? If so, how can we move beyond such barriers to better integrate multiple perspectives on the human-nature relationship?
A recently published article by ONE researcher Matthew Zylstra and co-authors addresses a critique of the “nature connectedness” construct. In highlighting problems in perception and praxis, the article looks at how an integral ecology approach can combine multiple disciplinary perspectives on the human-nature relationship to facilitate deeper understanding.
The article concludes with the observation that “all human behavior, cultural worldviews, systems and representations of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ are grounded in – and are expressions of – direct human experience”. To this end, the authors argue, that “we cannot describe a world that is not within human experience/awareness while we have no way of being outside of it”. Therefore any durable social-ecological change needs to focus on individual and collective consciousness by working with direct experience at the personal (and group-referenced) level.
This is part of what characterises noetic ecology: a field that explores the full range of human experience as it pertains to different ways of knowing and relating with all of ‘nature’.
Citation: Zylstra, M., Esler, K., Knight, A., & Grange, L. Le. (2018). Integrating multiple perspectives on the human-nature relationship: A reply to Fletcher 2017. The Journal of Environmental Education, 0(0), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2018.1497582
Article 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.
