A Shift in Perspetive: Why did the word “Wilderness” change?

The Trouble With Wilderness, as a whole, prompts us, as readers, to reconsider our perspective on what we understand to be “wild” or “the wilderness.” What really intrigued me was how the language we have used to describe a place without civilization has changed so dramatically.

“As late as the eighteenth century, the most common usage of the word “wilderness” in the English language referred to landscapes that generally carried adjectives
far different from the ones they attractoday. To be a wilderness then was to be “deserted,” “savage,” “desolate,” “barren”-in short, a “waste,” the word’s nearest synonym. Its connotations were anything but positive, and the emotion one was most
likely to feel in its presence was “bewilderment” or terror.'” (Cronon 8)

Land without human touch was once seen as no more than land waiting to be demarcated and domesticated. This was the case even when that “barren” or “savage” land was populated by its native peoples. If in the eighteenth century, we were so uninterested in going to these supposedly terrifying and pointless places, why are we continually more interested in going to them and away from our modern world? If in the past they felt more comfortable in towns or villages, and if they believed the land was just waiting to be built upon, then what happened? Perhaps we aren’t a very communal species anymore. The bustling towns and communities we made could have made us claustrophobic. Maybe we had to change the wording around “wildereness” to have a justifiable escape. Now, instead of feeling “terror” in the woods, we feel it at our office desks, drinking $7 coffees and reading spine-chilling news headlines. Nature and wilderness are now seen as tranquil and solitary, and FREE. Although my dad always used to say “nothing’s free”, he may have a point. I personally have been given the means and privilege to travel to places I really do consider “wild,” but sometimes just getting to the “wild” is expensive.

Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, “true wilderness” is defined as an area “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Although we have changed our vocabulary around the “great”, “vast”, and “beautiful”, wilderness. We still know one thing to be certain, and it is that we cannot remain. The very thing about nature is that it is without us. We have built that construct, and we cannot escape it. We have, in many ways, evolved. We can no longer survive in what is true wilderness. Many men have attempted it for sure, my favorite is Christopher McCandless, whose story I read in Into the Wild, he truly did it right, seeking out the original “deserted, savage, (and) desolate” wilderness.

3 thoughts on “A Shift in Perspetive: Why did the word “Wilderness” change?

  1. Nellie you make this really incredible connection to how the wild determined this once untamed and vile thing we dared not to approach, but now it’s something people seek out and still cannot approach. This commodification of everything around us, the need to make it something we can profit off of and brag about that, makes the whole world what your dad said: “nothing’s free”. We’re forever chasing craving after craving, of domestication, of bragging rights and monetary gain when we’ll never truly find it until we accept natural state and just allow ourselves to be.

  2. Hi Nellie!
    I really like that you pointed out the language and the domestication of land. I have always found the idea of “untouched land” as useless very interesting because before the land is settled into by humans it had to have belonged by someone else or something else? I think about the animals a lot when we’re taking into consideration who was on that land before us as the land of their home too—their home initially. I don’t think it’s correct to think that once we settle into class it the land is now of “use.”

  3. Hi Nellie! I like that you investigated the indigenous presence and the devaluing of wilderness, to the present commodification of visiting the beautiful wild and protected spaces, which are still out of bounds for the average American. This is an interesting direction to critiquing our view of the wild.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *