Saturday, June 7, 2008

Explore the practice of the “Wilderness Experience”. Explain why some Wilderness Experiences are more successful than others.




by stephen s4078770

Greenway (1995:184) writes that the Wilderness Experience is not a new phenomenon- people since antiquity have journeyed from civilization to nature for “peace and quiet, perspective, resolution of difficult choices, empowerment, vision, realignment with deities”. The scope of this paper is to examine why people today embark on the wilderness experience- what are their motivations and what do they hope to get out of their encounter with nature. This paper will also delve into the notion of the ‘transformational’ possibility of the wilderness experience. Davis (2003) argues that prior to the industrial era the wilderness was a place for the carrying out of ‘rites of passage’ that transformed a person allowing them to make the transition from one phase in their lives to the next phase. Such rites of passage are almost entirely absent in today’s industrial societies; according to Davis this explains many of the problems that people face as they are unable to make phase-transitions. In addition to the wilderness experience’s transformational potential it has been used as a therapeutic place both for physical and spiritual renewal- contact with natural environments can be hugely beneficial to humans’ general well being (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). This paper will examine what sorts of wilderness experience programs are successful and why so; it will also examine what practices are less likely to succeed. The framework that this essay will adopt is that which is forwarded by Greenway (1995). Greenway argues that many people’s wilderness experiences are not long lasting because they do not change the way that they view humans’ place within nature but continue to see humans as separate and by implication somehow above nature.

An understanding of the importance of the wilderness experience in people’s lives should be grounded in acknowledging the many and diverse reasons why people seek such an experience. There is neither one archetypal ‘motivation’ nor a ‘typical’ participant. Without an understanding of people’s motivations and expectations though, it would be difficult to know if the participants achieved what they sought to achieve; additionally it would be hard to formulate strategies for successful wilderness experiences in the future. Organizers of wilderness experiences should try to get to know the motivations of the groups they are leading, however understanding people’s motivations and then measuring success is difficult because of the subjective nature of the inquiry. Driver et al (1996:5 cited in Ashley 2007:57) acknowledge the difficulty in defining just what constitutes a nature-based spiritual experience but they say such an experience may include:

Introspection and reflection on deep personal values; the elements of human devotion, reverence, respect, wonder, awe, mystery or lack of total understanding, inspiration, interaction with and relationship to something other and greater than oneself, sense of humility; and sense of timelessness…connectedness and community.

While this view suggests a spiritual journey other experiences are grounded more in the ‘everyday’. Some of the reasons people participate in wilderness experiences include: it’s a journey of self-discovery; the wild is a place for health/rejuvenation; recovery after an illness; giving up addictions; death of a loved one; birth; menopause; a search for a deeper meaning to life; a commitment to environmental protection and connectedness with nature; divorce/the ending of a relationship; romance; a sense of adventure; seeking female bonding/seeking male bonding, leisure and tourism. Many organized wilderness experiences involve troubled youth and this is where the notion of the experience as therapy comes to the fore. Davis, Berman and Berman (1994) write how the wilderness experience is used by youth educators in programs that seek to build up the vulnerable kids’ self esteem and to become connected members of society able to contribute to their community. The wilderness is a place that is sought specifically because of its distance from the negative and ultimately self destructive influences of society. Any ‘design’ of a wilderness experience would need to be cognizant of the important fact that the experience being sought and the motivations behind it will probably be different for each individual member of the group.



Davis (2003) and Foster and Little (1989) argue that the wilderness experience has great potential to be a site for the enacting of rites of passage that would allow people to move through life’s phases. Seeking a wilderness experience argues Davis is a manifestation of people’s deep need to connect with the cycles of life- this is something that modern society has either forgotten or tried to reject. Davis says that the movement away from the familiar into the unknown, from the solidarity of the group to individual reliance with the aim of reflection and self-development was often employed in diverse cultures all over the world. The journey constituted a rite of passage; a liminal or threshold experience was vital to complete one phase of life and to commence the next:

Cultures throughout time and in an enormous variety of places have designed rites of passage to mark life transitions. The rites of passage serve several functions; relieving tension on the social group, framing the transition as an opportunity and a blessing, assisting the persons in coping with the inevitable distress and deepening the meaning and significance of the change. (2003:3)

When such rites of passage do exist today they have lost their deeper connections and a disconnection exists between the event itself and the life of the individual. Thus ‘we are left with incomplete transitions’ (Davis 2003:3). Davis argues that teenagers’ difficulties with drugs and alcohol often stem from misguided attempts at a rite of passage. This is also argued by Foster and Little (1989:15) who say:

in traditional cultures changes in life stations were celebrated by rites or ceremonies of passage. Everyone participated in these ceremonies. If they did not, they did not gain entrance to the next stage of their lives. Without rites of passage individuals could not have understood their life transitions nor could they have been capable of assuming…social responsibilities.

In this paper I argue that the wilderness experience can be harnessed not only by troubled teenagers but by anyone who seeks it- as a useful if not imperative part of phase-transition in life. However it is important to understand that there are criticisms of the whole notion of a wilderness experience.

A body of research that questions the sincerity or truthfulness of the wilderness experience argues that in post-industrial societies the journey into the wilderness has more to do with leisure and tourism than any spiritual awakening or transformation. Following the work of Baudrillard (1998) and his concept of the simulacrum, the wilderness experience is argued to be nothing more than what many writers today call ‘wilderness based tourism experiences’ (De la Barre 2005:92). Such adventures are designed for tourists’ purported growing desire to ‘engage with nature’ even if it may be on the most superficial level. The type of experience sought, the spiritual profundity and the longevity or transformational success of it will, according to Greenway (1995) depend on the participants’ fundamental view of their own relationship with (and in) nature. Greenway argues that ironically as wilderness areas diminish the desire to have a ‘wilderness experience’ is increasing. He argues that Western society is blighted by a deep culturally constructed mindset which views Humans as separate and distinct from Nature. It is a dualism which accords to nature an inferior position; this Greenway argues inhibits our ability to experience a deep, meaningful journey. The interconnectedness of all life is not acknowledged, instead the wilderness is used a kind of theme park where ‘you pay an entrance fee and expect [sic] a certain amount of adventure or weight loss or improvement in a relationship…some campfire songs like in the movies’ and not much more.

If the aim of the wilderness experience is to bring about a spiritual awakening or to come to terms with loss, grief or to pass through a life-phase-transition then the sorts of activities that a program includes have to be as diverse as the participants. Heintzman (2007) discovered that if participants are forced to partake in activities then the journey may be experienced as contrived or not sincere. In his study of a wilderness experience of ten men on a canoe trip in the Canadian Rockies Heintzman noticed that many of the organized spiritual activities such as talking around the campfire, sharing ideas and life experiences were perceived as beneficial while others based on spirituality that were initiated by the organizers were not. One participant quoted by Heintzman said:

It was kind of a hodge-podge, a little Christianity, a little Buddhism…a little native American…a little Canadian it just felt like a bag of tricks and quite superficial…the real spiritual power of the trip was completely there if no one had opened their mouths’ (cited in Heintzman 2007: ).

This highlights the notion that the program organizers have to be careful to guide the participants but at the same time to be aware that taking the group in directions that they may not be comfortable with may end up as counter-productive.

In this respect the role of the group organizers/leaders is very important. Sharpe (2005) highlights the role and the need of sensitivity on the part of organizers/group leaders in order to bring about a successful wilderness experience. Sharpe works within the framework established by Turner (1969 cited in Sharpe 2005:256) and the idea of the development of comunitas. Comunitas according to Sharpe should be the aim or at least one of the aims of the experience. The notion of comunitas refers to the bringing together of diverse people and promoting ideals of co-operation, mutual respect, trust, compassion and acceptance of diversity. Sharpe looks at the wilderness experience from the point of view of the organizer, arguing that they are in a unique position to actively shape the social dynamics of the group. Sharpe says that the organizer plays a crucial role in how the participants will view the experience:

The interaction with the natural environment, elements of danger and level of uncertainty are actively constructed during the trip through situational and interactive processes. Interactions between trip leaders and trip participants can make the surroundings seem more or less natural, more or less dangerous…more or less certain (Sharpe 2005:258).

Citing the work of Jonas (1999) Sharpe says that trip leaders could make river experiences seem:

adventurous and dangerous (but not too dangerous) by telling stories…and using humour to defuse anxiety…guides influence and shape the meanings participants ascribe to their interaction with their fellow trip mates’ (Sharpe 2005:258)


Sharpe notes how the integration of different people from different backgrounds can have the result of helping to mold a sense of shared experience, ‘community’ which is rather different to the idea of the individual going on the solo quest that Davis (2005) speaks about. Sharpe talks about how the organizer (the person and the organization) can pursue a social agenda for example addressing problems of social inequality and discrimination and encouraging ‘participants to implement such a way of life in their home environments’ (Sharpe 2005:264). Trip leaders are more than just route finders and safety monitors they are ‘the key players in shaping the appropriate social and experiential dynamic for the trip’ (Sharpe 2005:265). This involves the leaders setting the tone for the experience by giving expressive cues- they themselves open up and discuss their inner feelings with the group, leading by example.

Greenway (1995) underlines the importance of ritual to a deeper and long lasting experience. Greenway has organized wilderness trips for many years and argues that the ritualisation of ordinary actions is vital in assisting participants to achieve deep and transformational outcomes. In order to:

encourage participants to leave behind the props of culture…as much as possible everything prior to and during the trip would be ritualized-driving to the trailhead, dividing the food, weighing the packs, distributing community equipment then later everyday activities such as…walking or cooking (Greenway 1995:124).

Greenway says that as every group is different in terms of dynamics it is better to make communal, consensus decisions not only because it reduces stress but also because it allows people to relate to the wilderness in ways ‘closed to groups of strangers, casual friends or individuals’ (Greenway 1995:125). Fear of a fast flowing river that is to be crossed or a narrow mountain pass that is to be negotiated, the fear that can emerge side by side with awe after contemplating the grandeur and mystery of the natural environment can be mitigated through building rapports of trust between members of the group.

An issue that is sometimes overlooked is possibly one of the most important. Gender and ‘expected’ gender roles can be a variable in the wilderness experience that may affect the type and intensity of the experience especially for women. In an interesting study of the experiences of women who participated in adventure activities such as rock climbing, Little (2002) noted that many women expressed fears that as women they were out of their depth. One female participant said in reference to her husband, ‘I have felt guilty about going and leaving him at home’ (cited in Little 2002: 165). Little argues that the socialization of homemaker roles for women has meant that adventure into the wild has ‘been perceived to be a male dominated area requiring masculine qualities of strength and risk taking’ (Little 2002:159).
An idea explored by Foster and Little (1989: 77) and by Davis (2003:5) relevant to the discussion of gender is the notion of the trip into the wild being an analogy of the mythical hero going on a quest to transform himself. McDermott (2004:286) cites Warren (1985:14):


The participant undergoes a real life experience in the wilderness that parallels the mythical quest of the hero. The student hears a call to adventure, leaves home, encounters dragons on the way and slays them, reflects on his conquest and returns home as a hero with a clearer understanding of himself.

McDermott (2004:286) argues that this model holds little appeal for many women. She suggests that men and women are conditioned to different relationships with nature which necessarily means the structure of programs would be different. Should wilderness experiences thus be sex segregated? McDermott’s argument says that they probably should and trip leaders should provide a supportive non-competitive all female environment for learning new physical skills. Quoting a female participant who decided to do an all female trip:

I wondered about the dynamics of a mixed gender canoe trip. What if I end up with a bunch of macho dudes trying to boost their manly egos? I wasn’t out to prove I could keep up with the boys and didn’t want to risk being patronized or resented if I didn’t (cited in McDermott 2004:287).

Heintzman (2007) however in his research on an all male canoe group in Canada noted that the men he interviewed did not feel that a male-only wilderness experience gave them a deeper or more meaningful experience or that it was necessary in order for the experience to be meaningful. In designing wilderness programs organizers need to be careful not to ascribe essentialist ‘anatomy =destiny’ roles to all women and to all men- some women are highly competitive and some men are not and an awareness of this reality on the part of wilderness adventure organizers is necessary.

Greenway (1995) makes an important point when he says that participants of wilderness experiences often have trouble fitting back into the lives they previously had. He says that ‘the initial euphoria upon returning to the comforts of civilization would give way with hours or a few days at most to disruptive dysfunctional behaviour’ (Greenway 1995:133). He argues that perhaps the reintegration into the society from which the participants came should progress at a slower pace, perhaps this could involve going to a sort of half-way house. In addition he recommends yoga and the support of the group as ways of maintaining what was learned in the wilderness- the contact with the same group keeps open the possibility of future trips with trusted people who have shared similar experiences. Debriefing, which can take place a day or a couple of days after the experience is vital for people who may lack the strength to maintain their new course and instead fall back into bad old habits.

This paper has argued that people go on wilderness experiences for many diverse reasons. There is no one motivating factor. In designing wilderness experiences, organizers need to be aware that there is no one blueprint for a successful experience that can be replicated every time and in every place. For some people the wilderness represents nothing more than a physical challenge, something to be conquered, similar to a mythical quest. For others the experience is one of a (re)connection to Earth and the cycles of life. Others still seek resolution to relationship issues in their daily lives or health issues- the wilderness is the place that they choose to bring about a positive change. Some seek a complete transformation of their lives and their relationship with Nature. More successful wilderness experiences foster group trust, respect and acceptance of diversity; Sharpe (2005) refers to this as the making of comunitas. While physical challenges can be a big part of the experience, I argue that a long lasting spiritual transformation can be achieved through activities such as meditation, story telling, sharing experiences with others and community-building. Heintzman (2007) warns against contriving activities or forcing them on a group that is not ready. Ultimately the success or not of a trip into the wilderness is hard to measure because it is a highly subjective experience. Organizers need to facilitate a range of activities and be aware of the dynamics of each group.



References

Ashley P, 2007, Toward an Understanding and Definition of Wilderness Spirituality, Australian Geographer. 38 (1): 53-69.

Baudrillard, J. (1998). The Consumer Society- Myths and Structures. London: Sage Publications

Davis, J. (2003). Wilderness Rites of Passage. Initiation, Growth and Healing. Available online at http://www.johnvdavis.com/wild/wrop.htm accessed 30 May 2008.

Davis, B., Berman J., Berman D. (1994). Wilderness Therapy: Foundations, Theory and Research. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

De La Barre, S. (2005). Not Ecotourism: Wilderness Tourism in Canada’s Yukon Territory. Journal of Ecotourism. 4 (2): 92-107.

Foster, S. and Little, M. (1989). The Roaring of the Sacred River. The Wilderness Quest for Vision and Self-Healing. New York: Prentice Hall Press.

Greenway, R. (1996). Healing by the Wilderness Experience. In D Rothenberg, Ed., Wild Ideas, Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota Press, 182-193.

Heintzman P, 2007, Men's Wilderness Experience and Spirituality: A Qualitative Study. In Burns R, Robinson K, Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 2006 April 9-11; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 216-225.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Little, D. (2002).Women and Adventure Recreation: Reconstructing Leisure constraints and Adventure Experiences to Negotiate Continuing Participation. Journal of Leisure Research. 34(2): 157-177.

McDermott, L (2004). Exploring Intersections of Physicality and Female-Only Canoeing Experiences. Leisure Studies. 23(3): 283-301.

Sharpe, E. (2005). Delivering Comunitas. Wilderness Adventure and the Making of Community. Journal of Leisure Research. 37(3): 255-280.

No comments: