Fatal Attraction; Wildness in Contemporary Film

to appear in Environmental Ethics,  31(3), 297-315 (Fall 2009)

    *

      The concept of wildness not only plays a role in philosophical debates, but also in popular culture. Wild nature is often seen as a place outside the cultural sphere where one can still encounter instances of transcendence. Some writers and moviemakers contest the dominant romanticized view of wild nature by telling stories that somehow show a different harsher face of nature. In encounters with the wild and unruly, humans can sometimes experience the misfit between their well-ordered, human-centered, self-created world view and the otherness of nature, and in doing so face, what Plumwood calls, "the view from the outside." Three films —Gerry, Into the Wildand Grizzly Man — deal with contemporary encounters with wildness. What these works have in common is the central theme of modern humans who are fascinated by wild nature and seek experiences unknown to those limited to the overly cultivated life (psyche) of modern society. Another connecting theme, however, is that any idealization of wildness is in itself deeply problematic. All three films have fatal endings, which in turn fascinates the contemporary viewers. These films show, first, that wildness is conceived as a moral counterforce against the overly civilized world; and, second, that fascination with this wildness has itself become thoroughly reflexive, and refers to a moral meaning of wildness that is both deeply paradoxical and utterly dark.

Ecological Restoration and Place Attachment; Emplacing non-places?

published in  Environmental Values , vol.  18, nr.3 (August 2009): 285-312

The creation of new wetlands along rivers as an instrument to mitigate flood risks in times of climate change seduces us to approach the landscape from a 'managerial' perspective and threatens a more place-oriented approach. How to provide ecological restoration with a broad cultural context that can help prevent these new landscapes from becoming nonplaces, devoid of meaning and with no real connection to our habitable world. In this paper, I discuss three possible alternative interpretations of the meaning of places and place attachment in these ‘new nature’ projects, and show how all three imply a different view on human identity and history.

Wildness as Critical Border Concept; Nietzsche and the Debate on Wilderness Restoration

published in  Environmental Values, vol. 14, nr. 3 (August 2005), p.317-337

How can environmental philosophy benefit from Friedrich Nietzsche's radical critique of morality? In this paper, it is argued that Nietzsche's account of nature provides us with a challenging diagnosis of the modern crisis in our relationship with nature. Moreover, his interpretation of wildness can elucidate our concern with the value of wilderness as a place of value beyond the sphere of human intervention. For Nietzsche, wild nature is a realm where moral valuations are out of order. In his work, however, we can discern a paradoxical moral concern with this wildness. Wildness is a critical moral concept that reminds us of the fact that our moral world of human meanings and goals ultimately rests on a much grander, all-encompassing natural world. Nietzsche's concept of wildness acknowledges the value of that which cannot be morally appropriated. Wild nature confronts us with the limits of human valuing. Wildness as a concept thus introduces the 'beyond' of culture into the cultural arena of values.

The paradox of environmental ethics; Nietzsche’s view on nature and the wild

published in  Environmental Ethics, vol. 21, nr. 2 (1999), p. 163-175.

In this paper, I offer a systematic inquiry into the significance of Nietzsche's philosophy to environmental ethics. Nietzsche's philosophy of nature is, I believe, relevant today because it makes explicit a fundamental ambiguity that is also characteristic of our current understanding of nature. I show how the current debate between traditional environmental ethics and postmodern environmental philosophy can be interpreted as a symptom of this ambiguity. I argue that, in light of Nietzsche's critique of morality, environmental ethics is a highly paradoxical project. According to Nietzsche, each moral interpretation of nature implies a conceptual seizure of power over nature. On the other hand, Nietzsche argues, the concept of nature is indispensable in ethics because we have to interpret nature in order to have a meaningful relation with reality. I show that awareness of this paradox opens a way for a form of respect for nature as radical otherness.

Milieufilosofie en de vraag naar het juiste engagement [In Dutch: The Appropriateness of Moral and Political Commitment in Environmental Philosophy]

Published in Splijtstof,  vol. 38, nr. 1 (September 2009).

My response to the editorial question whether philosophy can and should contribute to the solution of environmental problems.

Brede'en 'smalle' visies op duurzaamheid [in Dutch: Wide and narrow conceptions of sustainability]

in: Lof der duurzaamheid; Reflecties op duurzaam leven; Ministerie van VROM, Den Haag, 2008, p. 50-58.

In this publication of the Dutch Ministry of the Environment, I argue that underneath many debates about the meaning of sustainability lie implicit different normative world views and views of life. Since the age of Enlightenment, we often tend to radically separate 'facts' from values. As a result, moral ideas about what is an appropriate relationship to our natural surroundings, are often considered to be merely subjective opinions. This modernist psychological reductionist approach can also be discerned in all-too-often heard ideas about why religious world views can be significant in the societal quest of achieving a sustainability. However, by looking at world views regarding nature in such an instrumental manner, we implicitly repeat the modernist conception of nature being morally mute.  We should not shy away from a debate about the meaning of nature in which conceptions of life play a key role.

Van bloei tot verschraling (Thema Crisis in de milieu-ethiek?), [In Dutch: From Blossoming to Stalemate - Special Issue on the Crisis of Environmental Ethics]

published in NVBe-Nieuwsbrief (Newsletter of the Dutch Association of Bioethics), jaargang 11, nr 2 (2004), p. 7-9

In this paper, I discuss the decrease of vitality in Dutch environmental ethicists and its shrinking influence on the environmental public debate. I argue that this crisis - paradoxally - is caused by ethicist who neglected the real philosophical problems, and tried to contribute to the public debate in a too direct manner. Ethicists should not try to conceive an environmental ideology, but - as physicians of our culture - help society reflect upon its environmental identity and uncover its deeper 'natural desires' governing its relationship with the natural world.

Het milieu van de filosofen; 20 jaar milieufilosofie in Nederland [in Dutch: The environment of the philosophers; an overview of environmental philosophy in the Netherlands in the past 20 years]

co-authored with Petran Kockelkoren, published in Filosofie & Praktijk, vol. 20, nr. 4 (1999), p. 197-191

An overview of the rise and development of environmental philosophy in the Netherlands.

Onze schizofrene benadering van de natuur [In Dutch: Our schizophrenic approach to nature; On sustainability, science and conceptions of life]

Published in: V. Poels (ed.), Het milieu als offerplaats; Over milieuproblematiek, levensbeschouwing en duurzame ontwikkeling, Damon, Best 1998, p. 195-219

In this paper, I argue that we can only understand the actual use of the notion of sustainability within political debates on environmental issues, when we take into account the different moral meanings of "nature" that are implied in the different world views and conceptions of good life. A distinction should be made between an anthropocentric use of the term sustainability, in which nature is merely seen as a limited resource that should be saved for future generations, and a second, more vague use of the term, that has a more "non-anthropocentric" character. In this second approach, nature is seen as a moral framework: to live in a sustainable way, means to live in accordance with the "way of nature", to respect the rhythm of nature and so on. I show that this second type of moral reasoning has become problematic in our pluralistic age. On the other hand, I argue, the modern approach to these kinds of moral experiences, in which these experiences are treated as if they only reflect singular, subjective individual preferences, does not articulate these experiences adequately. Understanding the different moral meanings of nature that actually play a role in current debates, requires an openness for the ambivalence of our moral experiences of nature.

Maakbare natuur, waanzinnige oase of wonderlijke wereld? [In Dutch: Makeable nature, wild oasis or wonderful world?]

published in: H. Geerts (ed):  Maakbaarheid, macht en matigheid; Korte beschouwingen in het natuurdebat (Annalen van het Thijmgenootschap 86/3), Valkhof Pers, Nijmegen 1998, p.41-46

In this paper, I argue that both proponents and opponents of environmental restoration -- the reconstruction of "natural landscapes"  -- in the Netherlands share a common concept of nature in which nature is defined as absence of human activity. In the work of the Dutch writer Koos van Zomeren, however, a concept of nature can be discerned, in which nature is fully penetrated with stories, meanings, histories and plays as such a key role in human life.

De natuur als strijd van interpretaties? {in Dutch: Nature as struggle between interpretations]

Published in: M. Drenthen & A. Simons (eds.), Al het goede uit de natuur: Ethiek op de tweesprong tussen zijn en behoren, CEKUN, Nijmegen 1998, p. 23-36

In this paper, I show how Nietzsche's philosophy shares a common characteristic of ancient stoic philosophy in the sense that it does not presuppose a distinction between facts and values.

Het zwijgen van de natuur [In Dutch: The Silence of Nature]

published in Filosofie & Praktijk, vol. 17, nr. 4 (1996), p. 187-199.

Environmental philosophy in the Netherlands has become deeply divided after recent publications by Wageningen social-constructivist philosophers Jozef Keulartz and Michiel Korthals. Starting from an analysis of the concept of nature in the work of the environmental philosopher Wim Zweers, I show that Keulartz' postmodernist critique of traditional environmental philosophy rightfully points to a problem that until recently has been neglected by Dutch environmental philosophers: the problem that there exist a plurality of normative notions of nature. At the same time, I show that the postnaturalistic position itself rests on a contradiction. Postnaturalism claims neutrally to facilitate the democratic debate between different normative approaches to nature, but in fact, itself implicitly presupposes a particular (modern) concept of nature, that is: it favors one of the voices within the debate. Finally, I argue that these controversies are the inevitable result of a fundamental ambiguity within our current moral understanding of nature, that should be reflected adequately.

Milieufilosofisch Nederland wordt momenteel verdeeld door een controverse naar aanleiding van recente publicaties van de Wageningse filosofen Keulartz en Korthals. In dit artikel wil ik - aan de hand van een analyse van het gebruik van het natuurbegrip bij Wim Zweers - laten zien dat Keulartz op een tot nu toe onderbelicht probleem wijst: het probleem van de veelheid van natuurbeelden. Tegelijkertijd wil ik echter aantonen dat Keulartz' eigen, 'post-naturalistische' positie op een tegenspraak berust. Tenslotte geef ik aan hoe deze controverses zijn terug te voeren op een onvermijdelijke spanning in onze morele omgang met de natuur, en zoek ik naar een manier waarop deze spanning binnen de milieu-ethiek vruchtbaar kan worden gemaakt.

Milieubeweging en technocratie: Van de natuurvriend die maar geen ozonlaag ontmoette ][In Dutch - On the nature lover who did not encounter the ozone layer]

Published in Konfrontatie, vol. 1, nr. 3 (1991), p. 23-25