Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature

by William Cronon (Editor)

In a lead essay that powerfully states the broad argument of the book, William Cronon writes that the environmentalist goal of wilderness preservation is conceptually and politically wrongheaded. Among the ironies and entanglements resulting from this goal are the sale of nature in our malls through the Nature Company, and the disputes between working people and environmentalists over spotted owls and other objects of species preservation.

The problem is that we haven't learned to live responsibly in nature. The environmentalist aim of legislating humans out of the wilderness is no solution. People, Cronon argues, are inextricably tied to nature, whether they live in cities or countryside. Rather than attempt to exclude humans, environmental advocates should help us learn to live in some sustainable relationship with nature. It is our home.

Genres: Nonfiction, Environment, Nature, History, Philosophy, Science, Ecology

560 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

William "Bill" Cronon is a noted environmental historian, and the Frederick Jackson Turner and Vilas Research Professor of History, Geography, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He was president of the American Historical Association (AHA) in 2012.

Reviews

[David Bates · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 1995 Cronon edited a collected series of essays published under the title Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, which strongly criticized the Environmental Movement for aspects of its worldview drawn from a misplaced emphasis on Nature as something set apart from society. “The work of literary scholars, anthropologists, cultural historians, and critical theorists over the past several decades has yielded abundant evidence,” Cronon noted, “that ‘nature’ is not nearly so natural as it seems. Instead, it is a profoundly human construction.” The invocation of nature as a critique of corrupt civilization was a theme rooted in the Enlightenment, and the infusion of nature with aspects of the divine an artifact of nineteenth century Romanticism. “That Thoreau in 1862 could declare wildness to be the preservation of the world suggests the sea change that was going on. Wilderness had once been the antithesis of all that was orderly and good . . .” By grounding their moral authority and activism in a mistaken view of Nature environmentalists had not only pursued the wrong issues, they had shut down dialogue, failed to consider alternative views and become dogmatic. Multiple essay authors referred to the bitter controversy over preservation of spotted owl habitat at the expense of loggers which had recently occurred in the Pacific Northwest as an example. As Carolyn Merchant pointed out in her essay “Reinventing Eden”, western culture was infused by a recovery narrative grounded in the redemption of original sin and the fallen world. It was a cultural theme that had underwritten the “redemption” of the North American wilderness by European settlement. The pivot of Romanticism had changed the attitude toward wilderness, but the redemption narrative was alive and well in environmental thought. The experience of divinity through nature, the Romantic ideal of the sublime, suffused both the creation of the first national parks and, as Candace Slater pointed out, contemporary attitudes toward the Brazilian rainforest as an ecological Eden.

These problematic constructions of nature had disturbing racial and class valences. In her essay “Nature as Community” Giovanna Di Chiro pointed out the cost that the conceptual division between pristine wilderness and corrupt civilization had for urban minority communities. “Mainstream environmentalism generally describes the city as being in opposition to nature” she wrote, “many organizations, such as the Wilderness Society, the Nature Conservancy, and Not Yet New York, portray the large, modern, industrial city as a menacing, noxious sprawl of humanity representing the major threat to the survival of the natural world.” While more than half of all African American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander were located in areas with one or more uncontrolled toxic waste sites, groups such as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense fund had refused appeals, describing these issues as “community health” rather than environmental. “It is no accident that these supposedly inconsequential environmental problems affect mainly poor people, for the long affiliation between wilderness and wealth means that the only poor people who count when wilderness is the issue are hunter-gatherers” as Cronon put it. Their construction of nature encouraged environmental advocates to conceive of issues as struggles between the ethical and enlightened who valued the non-human and those who were not and did not, inviting not only disinterest in the urban environment, but indigenous peoples and those who work in rural areas.

In an essay titled for a bumper sticker printed during the spotted owl controversy, “Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living?” Richard White examined attitudes toward work and the environment. Most environmentalists had come to associate work in nature, especially physical blue-collar work, with environmental degradation. In effect environmentalist advocacy had reinforced the idea that the appropriate way to know nature was through leisure activities such as hiking and kayaking, and this had an obvious class bias. Identifying nature with the play of leisured humans, a place to visit but not to work and live, had led directly to a negative perception of environmentalists as self-righteous, privileged and arrogant, “an ecological Immigration and Naturalization Service, border agents in a socially dubious, morally ambiguous, and ultimately hopeless cause.” Against this attitude White emphasized that people had always known nature through work, not simply leisured appreciation, and that environmentalists should have regard for that knowledge. Returning to Cronon’s theme of the disguising nature of capitalist connections between the economy and the environment, White argued that all work is done in nature, whether the hydroelectric dam, the logging site and the farm are immediately visible as a connection or not. If environmentalists focused “on our work rather than on our leisure, then a whole series of fruitful new angles on the world might be possible” that unmasked our connections with the natural world.

[Alissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought-provoking set of essays by great thinkers, including William Cronon as the editor. Cronon was writing and innovating in American environmental history before folks like Jared Diamond entered the scene and (in my opinion) repackaged some of the thinking of writers like Cronon and Crosby in a way that reached the masses. But Cronon was trying to reinsert the environment in our understanding of history long before it was a popular theme -- he was booed off of academic stages before his ideas were accepted as revolutionary.

[Carlos]

I am going to ignore the conclusion and judge these texts separately. It’s honestly the most charitable way to interpret this book.

Cronon: Introduction/Trouble with Wilderness: Easily the best stuff here. The acceptance of a socially constructed is the only way we can move past the deadly binaries that have for so long been integral to the project of capitalist conquest. There also is a genuine lack of appreciation for the subtle physical landscapes comprising our homes. This essay is easily worth a search in it of itself, and was what inspired me to read this.

Spirn: Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted: Another great one. Olmstead himself isn’t particularly interested, but the project of manipulated nature is. I really liked the section describing the adjustments to Niagara Falls and how the extent of artificial nature is debated even if the concept is implicitly accepted at some level.

Slater: Amazonia as Edenic Nature: A good article on issues facing various indigenous tribes of the Amazon, as well as crises of perception, but I felt the implications were too circumscribed. There was not a genuine attempt to apply the conclusion to other contexts, which was disappointing.

Merchant: Reinventing Eden: Way too long. Classic humanities article guilty of dwelling way too long on details. Nonetheless it is informative and rather convincing, so still a good read.

White: Work and Nature: Another great article, particularly the ending section with the natural assemblage of work. It did dive a little too deep into theories at times, but he did a good job breaking down the problematic tendencies of environmentalists to vilify some forms of labor in nature while praise others.

Price: The Nature Company: Probably my second favorite article. This is a fantastic discussion about different constructions of nature and how certain strains of capitalism market them for profit. Here, she provides an honest analysis of what does and doesn’t work in these different models, and how we can make sense of absurd faux-greenism.

Davis: Touch the Magic: Another really fun article that looks at Sea World’s relationship with nature. This seemed to be a bit preview, because there was a lot touched on that she did not elaborate. It sounds like a good book though. I especially liked the social critiques of Sea World’s estranged nature.

Barbour/Ellis: Ecological Fragmentation/Environmental Discourse: Both of these were pretty boring and forgettable.

Proctor: Moral Terrain of Ancient Forests: Article that sounded really boring but was actually quite interesting. Here the construction of nature flirted with larger morality systems. The analysis presciently explained the current fault lines of environmental discourse, and just how old many of these arguments really are.

DiChiro: Environmentalism and Social Justice: Pretty decent summary on environmental Justice. I kind of wish this one had more detail but it was a suitable survey for the author’s purposes.

Haraway: Vampire Culture: Bad, just bad. Also the longest article here (not a coincidence).

Olwig: Common Nature: Great article on how we can reclaim nature, not just from privatization but by managed public administration. This is pointing towards the radical environmentalism it is actually going to take to build a world uniting town and country.

Hayles: Simulated Nature and Natural Simulation: Great article but a lot of this went over my head. She did do a fantastic job predicting the woes of AI 30 years in the future. I really appreciated the charts at the end, they granted me some semblance of understanding the long dense sections.

Harrison: Philosophy of Nature: Working with a Mr. Palomar story alone earns this work praise, but I must admit I also appreciate the creative structure, it made the philosophy easier to digest.

I honestly recommend reading this book with maximum utilitarianism: just read the articles that sound interesting to you, maybe skim the others and go from there.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Collection of great essays on "nature" by folks representing a diverse array of disciplines: plant biology, history, landscape architecture, culture and communications, feminist theory, literature, geography, etc. The "nature" the essayists address includes everything from the well-managed tourist-oriented wilderness (e.g., Yosemite, Mt. Rushmore); commercial nature (The Nature Company); landscape architecture (Frederick Law Olmsted); Amazonia; the very pricey real estate along the cliffs of southern California (which is prone to earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, but provides GREAT VIEWS OF THE OCEAN!) and more. Lots of cool stuff. A couple choice quotes: "Wilderness gets us into trouble only if we imagine that this experience of wonder and otherness is limited to the remote corners of the planet, or that it somehow depends on pristine landscapes we ourselves do not inhabit." "If we do not come to terms with work, if we fail to pursue the implications of labor and our bodies in the natural world, ... we will turn public lands into a public playground. ... Nature may turn out to look like an organic Disneyland, except it will be harder to park." All good essays dealing with some surprising aspects of our relationship to nature.

[Nisha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite being written 30 years ago, there is a ton in this collection that not only stands the test of time but remains underexplored in a lot of mainstream environmental discourse. Though definitely lacking in Indigenous/non-Western perspectives, the overall framework of the volume (and the chapters on work, race and environmental justice especially) still have a lot to offer as a counter to the Western colonial view of nature.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was interesting but kind of dense and hard to progress through. Didn't really work as a bedside table book. I also think it is annoyingly out of date - annoying not through the fault of the authors, but through the fault of time and global warming and whatnot. A book about nature published 25 years ago shouldn't be that out of date, but it is. Just to provide one example, there's a really interesting chapter about The Nature Company stores, which used to be in all kinds of upscale malls. The chapter raises really good points, but you can't help but think the whole time about how all those stores disappeared in the late 90s. Now they don't exist anymore. Also Sea World - there's a chapter on those parks and I feel like the narrative has completely changed after the Blackfish documentary and all the controversy about Orcas.
The underlying issues they are wrestling with are still important though - the tendency of people to create this idea of wilderness as necessarily apart from, and untouched by people. And then basically dividing nature into wilderness, which should be preserved at all costs, and everything else, which has been somehow sullied by people and so isn't worthy of protection. So you chain yourself to "old growth" and fight the loggers with everything you have, but if you are dealing with managed forest that is logged periodically - well, that's just garbage now. There is also interesting stuff here about the idea that the only acceptable way to experience nature is to recreate in it, while people who work in nature all the time (loggers again, for example) aren't really in touch with it, but are destroying it. I hadn't really considered what an odd way of looking at the world that is.

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first third of this book excited me with poignant questions and observations. The middle third fell flat and the last third was an absolute struggle to get through. The first third is entirely worth it though and just pick those essays you want to read from the rest. Nature continues to be more culture than we acknowledge or discuss even though almost two decades have passed since this book was complied.

[Anjuli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cronon promotes a nuanced understanding of historical environmentalism and how it has influenced the movement today. After reading this book, I felt less guilty as a human in nature and ready to redefine my place as part of an ecosystem.

[Bill Michalek · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a “if only” book. Meaning that it could’ve been so much more, if only they had included some scientists - an ecologist, a conservation biologist, hell, even a botanist would’ve been nice. This collections of essays rests on the question, “Can we define “nature”?” Of course we can’t, but it’s worthwhile to explore the various cultural definitions, their histories, and their implications. Between the lines of nearly every essay here, however, is the thesis: since nearly every natural place on our planet has been influenced by human hands, there is no “pristine” nature, so isn’t it nonsensical to define some areas as “wilderness” and some as something less?

Cronon has long been a post-wilderness advocate; he and his disciples - like Emma Marris (The Rambunctious Garden) - often use the straw man argument that environmental groups only value “pristine” nature, that they look down on natural landscapes that are less than pristine, and that they see urban landscapes as somehow “fallen”. I’ve worked in conservation for nearly thirty years, and, yes, environmental groups can be strident, but I know of no actual conservation groups that believe any landscape is truly pristine or that urban landscapes are worthless. And here’s the rub - the assertion behind most of these essays - that since all land is human influenced there’s no reason to value “wilderness” over, say, a city park - seems to willfully ignore the fact that “wildness” is a spectrum that runs from completely man-made environments (eg, Times Square) to the wildest ones. And science has shown, more and more with each passing decade, that the wildest landscapes tend to harbor the most species and are usually the most imperiled. So, yes, there are groups that prioritize saving these areas, but that doesn’t mean they don’t value the others. And many environmental groups try to save green space wherever it may be.

Too often in this book, an author makes a point, figuratively saying something like, “Here’s something we just can’t know about nature,” and I was left screaming, “Yes you can! Just ask a wildlife biologist!” I gotta wonder if, during the discussions that led to this book, some TA raised a hand and said, “Umm…professors? Maybe we should invite someone from the science building into these chats? They could probably answer some of your questions.” But it’s as though the authors had their fingers in their ears, saying “La, la, la. We can’t heeear you!”

The history of conservation is messy, fraught with classism, racism, and more, and it’s valuable to approach nature from the side of humanities and social sciences, but in taking on the issues that they do in this book, the authors seem to willfully ignore (and sometimes denigrate) the fact that what the natural sciences reveal about the natural world, past and present, and what they can predict about its future, can provide invaluable, objective information that we can use to chart a path forward. And, in the case of this book, the natural sciences could’ve provided some concrete answers to the questions with which they were wrestling.

How the hell can you write a book analyzing nature and not include any professional scientists? The fact that they didn’t include any made the book feel nearly pointless. It’s like if someone said, “Let’s write a comprehensive book about the history of movies!” and talked only to screenwriters.

*and, yes, I know at least one of the authors had “biologist” in her bio, but, it’s not listed as her main field and after much searching, I couldn’t find any work she’s done in the field. Ditto for any of the other authors who mentioned any natural science-y stuff in their bio.

[Pamela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reframed the way I think about my work! A world-rocking collection of essays about humans and nature—or, put another way, the nature of nature—kicked off by a now-iconic essay by William Cronon called "The Trouble with Wilderness." (free on his site if you wanna sample)

I have so many photographs from this book saved in my camera roll. In short, the collective thrust of the argument is that "nature" is the term for how humans experience the outdoors, and nature can't be separated from our history and cultural values. And by lifting up the idea of nature as the place where humans aren't, we do both the outdoors and our communities a disservice.

Or as Cronon puts it in the conclusion: "Science and post-modernism, which so often seem to be at odds with each other, share a commitment to the idea that we must struggle always to see the world clearly....We humans cannot hope to solve our current environmental crisis unless we try to understand not just the environment whose problems worry us but also the 'we' who choose to understand and worry about those problems."

Some of the essays are uneven—I'm thinking specifically of the tech-focused contributions that felt a little too untethered from the main theme. I get that intersectional understanding and justice are key to protecting critical landscapes for the well-being of people and the outdoors...but it is possible to go too far afield.

[Ellen · Rating 3 out of 5]

As intended, I guess, I had many thoughts on this book and the definition of nature and wilderness.
--If I were to write an essay to be included here I would write about the 'what is this bug' and 'ID my tree' groups on Reddit and how people cannot identify extremely common organisms in their environment.
--As an urban forester (30 years after this book was written) I've already moved beyond the idea that nature is apart from human management and/or that humans aren't a part of nature but it was a foundational book.
-- I was disappointed that there were no indigenous or Black scholars writing in this book.
--I enjoyed select pieces: Cronon on wilderness, Spirn on designing nature, White on work, DiChiro on environmental justice, Olwig on designing nature
--Sometimes I think I'd like to go back to school and then I read a book like this and think "never mind, I can go longer without seeing the word epistemology"

[Wendy Jensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one blew my mind in many ways. I didn't give it a higher rating because I found it very troublesome to get through. I was getting out my dictionary about 3 times per page in many of the essays. That said, I did learn a lot of new words! But to think that my idea of "nature" is a construct and not exactly and necessarily based in reality is quite a novel idea! Thank you to the authors for taking on this difficult terrain, and introducing me to new ways of thinking about the relationship of humans to our planet.

[Julie Boudreau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Après 8 ans de travail acharné, enfin terminé! Un livre qui renverse complètement notre perception de ce qu'est la nature et la place de l'homme dans la nature. Un livre qui commence avec plein de questionnements et qui se fait un malin plaisir de conclure de la même manière. J'ai trouvé les derniers essais plus ardus, car ils sont davantage portés sur l'homme, la philosophie, mais c'est un passage obligé pour que ce livre soit à la hauteur de ce qu'il prétend être. Toute de même enrichissant.

[Dominic · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book in grad school, and it was eye-opening for me. All the essays in this collection are thought provoking, and they will force any critical reader to abandon simplistic notion of what it means to be an environmentalist, as well as question the relationship between humankind and the natural world. Well worth the read.

[Amber · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fair critique, perhaps more of an observation, is that several of the essays or concepts don't reflect current reality or thought processes, but you can find good environmental writing in this book. I particularly liked the pieces on Olmsted's work on Niagara Falls and the sexton on environmental justice.

[Terrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a collection of essays and some of them were really good and others were absolutely dull. Some of the information was a bit dated but overall the book made me rethink my opinions on the environmental movement.

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Trouble with Wilderness"

[Rhys · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting collection of essays exploring the boundaries of nature.

[Jon]

Admittedly concentrated on the lead essay and a skim for much of the rest.

[Bethany Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has permanently changed how I imagine “nature” and my relationship to it.

[Tomek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spectacular. Really showcasing the incisive capacity of interdisciplinary collaboration.

[Erin]

s'24 - ford - environmental history
research project - hist 204 - f'23

[Brad Austin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, I liked the book and the concept behind it. Some of the essays were a real struggle to get through because of the author's discipline. I wonder if the book is somewhat dated, which still adds to its value for historiography. It would be a good book for class.

[kate lowe · Rating 5 out of 5]

clear and brilliant prose, insightful and compassionate, ethically and generationally informed, underlined every single sentence

[Pierre · Rating 5 out of 5]

A series of essays that provide a well rounded assessment of how humans interact with nature. Environmentalists often perceive their view of nature and "preservation" as morally superior to other uses and needs that we rely upon from Mother Nature. One particular essay, titled, "Are you and environmentalist or do you work for a living" gets at the crux of this issue of how we can sustainably grow and develop societally and enhance our valuation and care for our environment.

[Dustin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good book, full of fascinating stuff. The essay about Simulation alone will blow your mind, and once you throw in all the other stuff, you're going to be sucking up your brain drippings with a wet-vac. But, seriously, this book lays down an expansive challenge to what we think of as "natural" and how we consider our "stewardship" of the planet.

[Jennifer DeJonghe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some good essays about rethinking our views on wilderness and what constitutes as "natural". Some of the essays were better than others - Cronon's piece was particularly good and has influenced a lot of subsequent writings about nature.

[John Vanek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Four stars for the totality of the essays--many are very good, a few are ok. Cronon's introduction alone is worth the fifth star. It's absolutely necessary reading for anyone who wants to think about his/her own place in the natural world.

[Doina · Rating 3 out of 5]

a collection of essays looking at nature and the role of humanity in today's world as well as historical and cultural relationships between man and nature.

[Burgersub · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally interesting geography/environmentalist essays. Not as impenetrably philosophical as the other book I had to read for this class, "Human Geography: an Essential Anthology."