Wilderness and the paradox of individual freedom

Abstract

Wilderness, whether designated as such or not, is often portrayed as the embodiment of freedom. The type of freedom to be enjoyed, though, is not clear. Freedom in wilderness may be constructed negatively—individuals freely experience wilderness without societal constraints; or, freedom may be constructed positively— individuals freely experience the fundamental purposes of wilderness as defined by society. The latter construction of freedom inevitably results in a “wilderness morality” that defines—often in a hierarchical manner—the acceptable purposes and uses of wilderness. Philosophers, in a general context, have long contended that these two constructions of freedom are both irreconcilable and at odds with one another. Through an examination of subsistence in Alaska and South Africa it is apparent that while conflict related to wilderness stewardship is ostensibly the result of competing interests, these competing interests are fundamentally rooted in divergent constructions of individual freedom. As a result, conflicting perceptions of wilderness and its purposes may be resolved, or at a minimum more thoroughly understood, if governing policies clearly identify what it means to be “free” in wilderness.

Parent Publication

• Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium

Citation

Tanner, Randy J. 2007. Wilderness and the paradox of individual freedom. In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; September 30-October 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 205-211