In Richard Louv’s article, “A Walk in the Woods,” (Orion Magazine, March/April 2009) he discusses some public and private opinions on children’s “right to a walk in the woods.” Knowing the article comes from Orion Magazine, it is easy to assume that Louv would strongly advocate the benefits of nature and each person’s individual right to experience it; in this way, the article holds no surprises. On the other hand, Louv gives several examples to support his opinions that are rather unexpected.
He begins with a reference to a “little girl in Raytown” whose favorite tree was one day cut down. Louv quotes her as saying that she felt “like they cut down part of me.” This was his first way of showing the importance of nature to a young person, and supporting the idea “that human beings are hard-wired to get their hands wet and their feet muddy in the natural world”: E. O. Wilson’s hypothesis of biophilia, that a connection with nature is part of a person’s essential self. I found this idea striking, having just returned from a surprisingly muddy walk in the woods. I felt myself freed from my usual sense of having to do things right and needing to stay neat and clean. I got myself into mud without realizing it and kept forging ahead, looking for a way out. As I continued, the prospects of finding dry land became ever more dim. My destination was approaching and I decided to embrace my mistake. Why turn back when I could just get over myself and enjoy the situation? A little mud never hurt anybody. In fact, it was a lot of fun. Was the mud really an “essential part” of myself, though? I can’t quite attest to that.
What I can confirm is what happened before going on the walk. I wasn’t alone; I was with my boyfriend Jared and my two cousins ages four and seven. Louv refers to some personal research at his former elementary school where he learned that the children “preferred playing video games” to nature. “They favored indoor activities—and when they were outside, they played soccer or some other adult-organized sport,” he elaborates. I personally experienced this sad reality. It was next to impossible to pull my cousin Jaxon away from his personal video game. I’m not sure what convinced him that it would be fun to come explore with us besides the fact that we had somehow convinced his younger brother, despite his worries. “But there are bears in the woods!” little Spencer exclaimed. “But it’s dark in the woods!” he contested. In a brief conversation with his mother, I discovered (as I suspected) that she had used these things to convince him that the woods are scary and not safe—but she didn’t discourage it if an adult was involved. Somehow, he got over those irrational fears.
These kids needed to spend some time outside. As much as Spencer complained about being tired and asked us to wait for him, I think he enjoyed it. (He was just walking through really tall grass, which takes a lot of extra work for someone three feet tall.) The few instances of either of them pretending a stick was a gun or the mud was lava didn’t last long, though. If I followed along with their pretend, they had to inform me that, “Alyssa… it’s not a real gun—It’s just a stick.” The reality of the lack of exposure kids have to nature these days is just depressing.
There are other reasons that nature is important to one’s well-being besides exercising the imagination. We have heard several of these reasons, including the “strong correlations between experience in the natural world and children’s ability to learn, along with their physical and emotional health. Stress levels, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, cognitive functioning—and more—are positively affected by time spent in nature.” Louv refers to Howard Frumkin, director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who suggests that nature “can be seen as a powerful form of preventative medicine.”
The rest of Louv’s article was more philosophically-grounded, while at the same time addressing semi-political issues. He refers to this issue as a movement. People claim rights to so many things. Louv wonders, should we really try to push the right to the woods? The continued building, growth, and existence of neighborhoods that restrict their residents’ outdoor activities is a violation of constitutional rights. And as Louv suggests, is the right to access nature not, in its essence, included in our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? He urges readers to take steps and make choices to “ensure that children in every kind of neighborhood have everyday access to natural spaces, places, and experiences.” We are responsible for the future of this movement. Alongside a “strongly articulated moral principle,” a movement can be successful. The principle behind the right to access nature is incredibly clear and frankly, ridiculous to try to contest. We must make these principles known.
No comments:
Post a Comment