Just what is the Nature of our Relationship to....Nature?

I recently came across this article (PDF attached below) "Nature and Self—An Ambivalent Attachment?" from Martin Jordan on the Ecopsycology journal web site (great site that offers some articles for free without a subscription: http://www.liebertpub.com/products/product.aspx?pid=300).

In light of what's going on with the horrific oil rig accident in the Gulf Coast (as I write this the first dead animals are just washing up onshore), it seems an appropriate moment to re-assess our individual and cultural views of our relationship with nature.

Jordan talks about our attachment to Nature (in the Kleinian sense) and reminds us that in the course of our evolutionary development, we developed our relationship to the "other" through interaction with "living plants, wild birds, rain, wind, mud and the taste and texture of earth, and bark, the sounds of animals and insects. These surroundings were swallowed, internalized, incorporated as the self" (Searle, in Jordan, p. 28).

Now, according to Jordan, we are in a paranoid schizoid place with the environment in that we are not in relation to it. He maintains, like many, our split with nature is at the heart of our environmental crisis and that our emotional dependency has not positively or securely attached because we have consistently refused to acknowledge our increasing ambivalence to Nature. Jordan suggests the best option is "perhaps not to get rid of it [the ambivalence], but instead to live with it, and not [to act] out our defences in omnipotent or narcissistic ways" (p. 28). I won't give the article all away, but I found a lot to think about as I wonder just how and when the "experts" are going to manage to staunch the flow of oil that is spewing at a catastrophic pace and quantity from an artery deep in the body of Earth will be halted, and how many years it will take to begin to heal the fragile wetlands and abundant wildlife that make the Gulf their home.
Here's the PDF: Nature&Self-AmbivelentAttachment-Jordan.pdf

Replies

Ed Koffenberger May 11, 2010 at 4:40pm

Bonnie, the mutual sacredness of humanity and earth I see as a co-creating, co-sustaining relationship. I guess I believe that we are so much a part of Nature (Note the capital N) that we are actually just one cog in her great wheel of being. (I like wheel-of-being better than chain-of-being that always puts us on top, just below the angels. :) ) I'm not ready to believe that Nature somehow is relying on us for her own survival. Indeed, we are more threat than support. Can there be the possibility that once a truly unified human/earth/universe congruence is reached that we all transcend together? Damn - I'm sounding so New Age I better pinch myself.

As to the anger-guilt-despair unholy trinity - that's for another time and place (on the net?)
Bonnie Bright May 11, 2010 at 1:55pm

Ed: So glad you had a chance to read the article. And I agree with you that nature is "just doing its thing"--whether its in the form of tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, or otherwise. The one thing that has given me pause lately, however, is that phrase you mentioned, "interdependence with nature". While its true that I can't point to a modern culture that has mastered this--or even aspires to it--I do believe that as individuals we can make a difference. I also thought, until very recently, that I was not necessary to nature--that she simply tolerated me for the most part and was even punitive for our collective (stupidity) at times--and I admit I carry a lot of guilt about that collective way of treating the earth.

However, I recently heard Jerome Bernstein, Jungian therapist and author of Living in the Borderlands, speak. He relayed an account of a patient who articulated the view that the "earth doesn't need us" and that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if the human race was wiped out because the earth will continue long after we are gone. However, Bernstein challenged him on that, saying our collective guilt has affected our individual sense of sacredness, that the earth will also benefit from a reciprocal relationship with awake human beings that can support healing by our path in life. By releasing our identification with the pain, abuse, and guilt, we restore our entitlement to a healthy, reciprocal relationship and the sacredness of both us and her.

It gave me a lot to think about as this view is certainly a shift from how I have been feeling for many years. I have actually started to wonder about a relationship that is NOT based on guilt, anger, and despair. Well. Maybe the anger part is still valid in some cases if you know what I mean.....

Ed Koffenberger said:
Was just able to finish the article and except for the Kleinian terminology, I can agree with the ambivalent experience we have with nature and its genesis from our first experience of the "Other." I offer one reflection on the phrase “interdependence with nature” that was used in the article. I don’t think nature needs us at all. It will do fine all by itself if left alone. Nature does not need us for anything but to protect it from ourselves. The Kleinian choices of “good” or “bad” relations are so anthropomorphic that even an attempt to bracket out that view of nature continues to sneak back into the discussion. How can the 2004 Asian tsunami be a natural “disaster?” It’s just nature doing nature. I think it is a sad comment that the only groups the author can find as an example of “sustainable interdependence with nature” are the aboriginal cultures. Does anyone think we can change our world view to have a “profoundly metaphysical landscape capable of expressing their (our) deepest spiritual yearnings?” We can’t even convince people today that there is such a thing as a spiritual yearning!! Definitions of what “good mental health and stable adjustment” are so generalized to be meaningless for me. So…there ya’ go.
Ed Koffenberger May 11, 2010 at 1:10pm

Was just able to finish the article and except for the Kleinian terminology, I can agree with the ambivalent experience we have with nature and its genesis from our first experience of the "Other." I offer one reflection on the phrase “interdependence with nature” that was used in the article. I don’t think nature needs us at all. It will do fine all by itself if left alone. Nature does not need us for anything but to protect it from ourselves. The Kleinian choices of “good” or “bad” relations are so anthropomorphic that even an attempt to bracket out that view of nature continues to sneak back into the discussion. How can the 2004 Asian tsunami be a natural “disaster?” It’s just nature doing nature. I think it is a sad comment that the only groups the author can find as an example of “sustainable interdependence with nature” are the aboriginal cultures. Does anyone think we can change our world view to have a “profoundly metaphysical landscape capable of expressing their (our) deepest spiritual yearnings?” We can’t even convince people today that there is such a thing as a spiritual yearning!! Definitions of what “good mental health and stable adjustment” are so generalized to be meaningless for me. So…there ya’ go.