Thank you, Robert, for your careful and articulate words.
Your annotated book list is extremely helpful, since I know you read about everything out there, so to get your winnowed down selections is enlightening to me, as I'm sure it will be to all viewers, especially younger ecopsychologists wanting to develop their background in the subject. But let me dive into your opening summary about ecopsychology and the meaning of that term. While I agree with you entirely that the term ecopsychology is now applied to a vast array of disparate and only loosely connected ideas and emphases, I must say that I think the enterprise of trying to reclaim that term in some way closer to what you would like it to mean, is a lost cause. That crossroads was passed long ago. Massive and hidden currents carry cultural language one way or another, and whether we like it or not, the momentum of those currents has carried "ecopsychology" into the broadness that you would prefer to call "human/nature relationship studies" or something like it. I would suggest as an alternative, for us at least in this discussion, which is to try to find and adopt a new term that would represent what you wish "ecopsychology" had come to mean. I will say in my own life and discussions with others, I tend to refer to what I know of your theories as "Greenway ecopsychology". That immediately creates a subset, and it allows us to fruitfully compare that subset with other subsets. Now the term "Greenway ecopsychology" may not be your ultimate choice, but I wonder what you might come up with? Along these lines, we might for a moment look at what other ecopsychologists (human-nature relationists) are doing to define their subsets. From your own booklist, we have for example Andy Fisher and "radical" ecopsychology. We have the Wilber people with "integral ecology". Freya Mathews has "panpsychism". Warwick Fox, "transpersonal ecology". As you know better than me, there are dozens and dozens of others. We might think of David Abram and his phenomenology, Joanna Macy and despair and empowerment, Richard Louv and the nature principle, Jon Young and "deep nature connection", Bill Plotkin with soul craft, Starhawk and others with a goddess or pagan slant, Thich Nhat Hahn and lots of others with various environmental Buddhism spinoffs, and of course all the people with rites of passages of one kind or another. So yes, the field is vast and disparate, but what you have developed has its own unique parameters and its own unique contribution to the whole, but like all subsets, it will also have areas of overlap with what others are saying and doing. Furthermore, since you were one of the originals, before "ecopsychology" had even been coined, I think many of your ideas and practices that were cutting edge and revolutionary at the time, have now been incorporated into their "ecopsychologies", though they may not even know the role you played in bringing them into the cultural matrix. For me, when I think about this subset I'm temporarily calling "Greenway ecopsychology", a number of core ideas come to mind. Certainly, the "psychological wilderness boundary" as opposed to the physical map-drawn wilderness boundary, is significant. You have had volumes to say about how difficult it can be, but how important it is, to be able at least temporarily to step free of our cultural conditioning (which imprints us with a dualistic and alienated relationship with nature) and to experience some degree of true connection, intimacy, and belonging with nature. As part of that, you have analyzed the "disease" or "dysfunction" of current Western materialistic/scientific culture as well as anyone I know. You have made the dynamics and ramifications of "dualism" a particular focus of your theories. Besides wilderness work, you have also worked with and taught meditation as a path of healing, along with many other simple practices like gardening, eating, singing, etc. So maybe as the next direction to go here, I can ask you to consider this idea of beginning to set out more clearly the domain of "Greenway ecopsychology". Your first step may be to propose an alternative tag. One place where I am unclear (even me, your devoted student) is exactly how "ecology" is intertwined with your "psychology". In other words, I don't really remember the science of ecology being a big part of our studies or practice. I mean I always knew it was present, as an underlying influence, but it didn't seem to play as active a role as psychology, sociology, anthropology, consciousness studies, etc. If I had to pick one place where I think your ecopsychology excels, it is in your analysis and critique of the mechanics by which our current culture creates its ego formations and all the problems therein. (As a side note, let me say that this blogging so far is all dealing with theory. I will say now, however, for future directions in this blog, that for me it was your applied practice of group wilderness trips in which you really worked your magic. Truly, that's where it all happened, and I saw great revelations rippling through myself and others. We'll want to talk at some point about what you "did" out there, what the group "did" to each other, and what nature "did" to us all.)
3 Comments
Jim Pittman
9/3/2014 03:19:10 am
Thanks for a valuable discussion, Walker and Robert. It is great to see you two dance together around these ideas. Please allow me to add a few comments that I hope have some value.
Reply
Walker Abel
9/3/2014 04:23:00 am
Jim, Thank you for these wonderful and relevant comments. I really appreciate your insights and the questions you raise, which I know will influence further directions Robert and I go in our conversation.
Reply
Robert Greenway
9/3/2014 05:06:51 am
Jim! your erudite comments commence the kind of discussion Walker and I are hoping for. I'll slip in a quick response while Walker is out "practicing EP" in the desert!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorDiscussion between Walker Abel and Robert Greenway. Archives
January 2015
Categories |