Wildness

This entry discusses the intersecting ideas of wildness, wilderness and rewilding, and the evolution of these concepts. For much of history, wild places were labeled “wilderness,” a usually pejorative word applied to areas perceived to be threatening and/or useless, the antithesis of civilization. From the 19th Century onwards, however, the word has progressively been invested with positive meanings, transforming wilderness areas into cherished places, and making wilderness preservation a key objective of the environmental movement. The term now has considerable sociopolitical power, and the conceptualization of wilderness as “pristine,” free from human modification and habitation, is well established. Ideas and practices of wilderness preservation have been strongly criticized. Four main critiques are (1) the “no wilderness argument” that, in the Anthropocene, human influence is pervasive; (2) that wilderness is a cultural construct; (3) that wilderness perpetuates a false separation of people and nature; and (4) that wilderness protection is racist, guilty of ethnic cleansing and cultural imperialism. Strong counter-arguments to these and other critiques have been developed, but debates persist. In the 21st Century, the proactive concept of rewilding has rapidly gained prominence, attracting strong support but also provoking many practical and philosophical controversies. Such arguments are leading some to emphasize “wildness” in place of “wilderness” and to explore new ways of integrating people and nature. Despite persistent controversy, wildness, wilderness, and rewilding remain potent concepts in contemporary culture.