Rose Baker - "The outdoors" vs "Nature", Dr. Redick's thesis introduction

In one event I attended this semester, cultural anthropologist Dr. Hilda Llorens discussed her survey-based study which examined participants’ word-associations through free-answer responses to questions like “what does the outdoors mean to you?” Much of the study’s content served to contrast society’s split perception of “the outdoors” versus “nature.” She began by defining key concepts, describing nature as both a space outside of humans and one that includes humans, as well as a set of conceptual ideas humans have created about the world and how we fit in it.

When comparing the two sets of answers for questions relating to the outdoors or to nature, the contrast was subtle, but significant. In response to the question, “What comes to mind when you think of the outdoors?,” people referenced things like “a place to do things,” feelings/emotions, seasons, things people need, and specific places like national parks. When the question was instead, “What comes to mind when you think of nature?,” some answers were repeated—like peace, which topped the chart for both—while answers which referenced “a place to do things” significantly decreased for nature compared to “the outdoors.” Additionally, the only community-associated answer for nature was family, whereas friends won out when referencing “the outdoors.”

With this in mind, Dr. Redick’s intro to his doctoral thesis stood out to me: “Humans have wrestled with the perception and resulting expressions of being both separated from and part of the natural world as evidenced in ancient artifacts. We built and continue to build cities and live in our own artificial worlds, but we also look beyond the boundaries of our culture and recognize a world that precedes the one we made. We value both worlds but find it difficult to live in the tension produced by such a dual valuation. So it was with Gilgamesh and Enkidu, two human beings who can be interpreted as symbolic of the two human worlds in tension. So it continues to be as developers and naturalists contend one with another.”

Nature is a state of human existence, an immersive call from what we both inherently are, and eternally labor to escape. “The outdoors” as a concept is a concession to our reliance on the wilderness. A tamed, fixated interaction with the nature we hold in our very beings, expressed through isolated outings with a goal in mind. Man is of nature, but yet we define otherness from nature as man’s domain. This struggle to incorporate the taming, civilizing effect of the progression of society with man’s continued need for nature, for “the wild,” contributes to a commercialized, “activity-fied” version of nature, which we dub, “the outdoors.”

My theory behind the variation in survey responses around community between "the outdoors"/nature is that family, the most basic, “natural” community bond, is the relationship which most retains its resemblance to a wilderness state. Meanwhile, modern friendships, rather than resembling the bonds of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, of devoted partners and brothers in the trials of life, begin to resemble companions whose presence serves primarily to occupy moments of play. A “de-wilded” friendship is one which occupies the outdoors, whereas family exists across nature and society.