> So you do accept that our dominant ideas of 'beauty' in the West
> have serious sexist, racist, ageist and ableist ramifications and
> that appeals to 'beauty' can not be made in an unproblematic way?
> On the question of 'lawn aesthetics', don't you think there is a
> parallel between the social pressure to cut our lawns and
> the pressure on men to shave their faces and women their legs
> (though for sure these last two examples have important differences
> in the deployments of power which occur). Mastery of nature/mastery
> of body - isn't body hair supposed to symbolise sexual power and
> animality??
Wow! Richard!
I actually think lawns originated as a display of wealth. It was a
way of saying, I have so much money, that I can take this plot of land
and devote it to something completely useless rather than using it to
grow food. I don't think that lawns originated as a show of mastery
over nature. Now I think it is just culturally accepted as the norm,
and how lush and green and manicured your lawn is has become a show of
wealth and status. So I would say lawn maintenance is often classist.
Of course our ideas of beauty are influenced by our culture, and often
have sexist, racist, ageist and ableist ramifications, but I still
find crocuses in bloom very beautiful and they fill me with hope and
anticipation of the coming season. I don't think that aesthetic is
based on anything sexist, racist, ageist or ableist. There are some
human aesthtics related to order, relation of shapes, balance, color,
etc. that are I think, more related to what pleases people in general,
and are not specific to society.
I could see a parallel between social pressure to mow our lawns, and
to cut off our body hair. (In fact sometimes shaving is referred to
as mowing.) I actually am not terribly for lawns. I think they
provide a nice play space for children. If I had a large yard, I
might just pick a good sized area to devote to some low growing ground
cover, perhaps even grass, and keep it well manicured for my daughter
to use.
Gardens could be seen as a mastery of nature, but I think they could
also be seen as a harmony with nature. I think those who view it as
mastery are probably more likely to spray toxins all over their
garden. Those who see it as a harmony probably seek out more natural
methods of discouraging weeds and insects.
> As for the idea of seeking out nature 'untouched' by
> humanity, this is totally caught within the idea that we are separate
> from nature. In an important sense we are nature. Moreover, this
> idea has disturbing parallels with mastering ideas of purity and male
> fantasies of 'deflowering' 'innocent' and 'untouched' women.
> Thoughts/feelings?
I said as much in my previous post. That often our thoughts of
wilderness are bound up in our own separation of humans from nature.
Human action is seen as interfering with nature, where maybe we should
see it as a part of nature. A part that is often out of balance,
destructive, and may lead to a world inhospitable to human life. But
still a part of nature.
I think the parallels you mentioned are disturbing. I often find such
analogies helpful for making a point. But I think they are
exagerated, and do not reflect my experiences.
My partner and I do enjoy a nice hike back into the woods, to take a
look at plants and animals, to just be in the forest, to awaken our
spirituality, and to renew our belief that we are not separate from
nature. We like to find those places where the handprint of humanity
is faint, places that are less civilized, less humanized. This is one
way we renew our kinship to the rest of the earth and heal the rift we
feel between ourselves and nature.
I think it is important Richard, to question what we consider beauty,
and to examine our feelings about wilderness, and our separation from
nature. We should also look at how we seek these things, is it to
exert power over these things, or do we find power with them. But I
don't think we have to reject all of our aesthetics or cease seeking
out beauty and wildness in our selves, our civilization or in the
woods.
Speaking of imbalance, I don't want Richard and I to dominate the
discussion here. Are there others out there with opinions on this?
--Stephen
