The role of stillness and quiet when developing human/nature relationships

Abstract

Abstract The cathartic, transformative and restorative powers resulting from immersion in nature are well documented. Furthermore, they are regarded as the key characteristics that differentiate bush and adventure therapy from more traditional forms of therapy/counselling. But how does adventure therapy access the healing powers of nature? Drawing upon relevant literature and the voices of participants in an ongoing qualitative study, this paper explores the role of stillness and quiet time on the development of human/nature relationships in bush and adventure therapy. Finally, we offer an interpretation of the therapeutic potential of quiet time in order to form a deeper understanding of some of the conditions, attitudes and approaches that underpin the transformational potential of a wilderness experience. Introduction The use of remote locations to evoke the transformative and restorative powers of nature is well documented (Frumkin, 2001; Roszak, Gomes & Kanner, 1992; Szczepanski, 2006). Further, the natural environment is regarded as the key characteristic that differentiates bush and adventure therapy (BAT) from more traditional forms of therapy/counselling (Burns, 1998; Davis-Berman and Berman, 1994; Gass, 1993). The impetus for this paper grew out of our concern that, compared to some of the realities of practice, much of the human/nature literature seemed romantic and remote from our personal experiences as facilitators of BAT. Barbequing grasshoppers, terrorising possums, defacing rocks, abusing the weather, flora and fauna are common realities in the early stages of BAT programs. For example, a hypothetical question posed in a 'Facilitating Wilderness Therapy' student manual (Project Hahn, 2005) is one that resonates with us. You come back to the campfire after setting up your tent and find participants throwing grasshoppers into the fire to watch them explode. How would you respond? (p. 7) Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the literature is incomplete rather than overly romantic. Much of it focuses on outcomes and therefore does not address the kind of questions about BAT process that the grasshopper and similar incidents provoke. How then, might participants with a destructive or ambivalent attitude towards the natural environment access the therapeutic powers of nature? In pursuit of a response to this question, we turn first to the literature and then to the voices of participants. Exploring the literature Edward Wilson (1984) and Theodore Roszak (2001) might well argue that the question we have posed is redundant. From their perspective, humans are genetically predisposed towards a need and desire for immersion in nature. Wilson (1984) and his colleagues maintain that humans have an innate affinity for the natural world and have developed a theory of 'biophilia' to explain the human "urge to affiliate with other forms of life" (quoted in Louv, 2005, p. 43). Whilst this theory is not universally accepted by all biologists, Louv (2005) suggests that it is supported by "a decade of research that reveals how strongly and positively people respond to open, grassy landscapes, scattered strands of trees, meadows, water, winding trails, and elevated views" (p. 43). Roszak, Gomes and Kanner (1992) coined the term 'ecopsychology' to describe their exploration of the relationships between ecology, the human psyche, and contemporary scientific insights into systems in nature. Roszak (2001) argues that "ecopsychology seeks to heal the fundamental alienation between the person and the natural environment and explores the relationship between our own sanity and the greaterthan- human life" (p. 321). Building upon the work of Carl Jung and his conception of a non-material collective unconscious that contains the evolutionary history of the human race, Roszak et al. (1992) posit the notion of an 'ecological unconscious' residing within the collective unconscious. …