Brainwashing or Enlightenment: Challenging Ideas about Nature in the Classroom
The following essay, like "Drive-Thru Nature...," came from my Nature and the American Imagination class I took last term. While I wrote this essay before the last one I posted (the one about Pam and The Office), I didn't have access to this version until recently, which has undergone several edits. This essay required us to discuss Christopher McCandless, a beautiful human being, and the works we've read. I hope you enjoy this essay while I begin working on my next essay about The Office.
Artistic works that elicit strong reactions have often been criticized for the challenge they pose to the established order. Rock music, for example, was vilified for connecting its listeners to their sexuality. Literature, especially when focused on making strong arguments for a particular point, has faced strong criticism. This criticism comes when the arguments contradict the status quo, convincing others to think differently than the majority. Critics are most vocally opposed to ideas they claim result in physical harm to the reader or those around him. That is why nobody was surprised when Nick Jans and other like-minded individuals sought to suppress AMS3025, Nature and the American Imagination. They claimed that its material instilled in Christopher McCandless, a student in the course, a grandiose vision of a natural world that could provide a deeper understanding of himself. The course professor's defense rested on the belief that this material deserved to be taught because it challenged students' understanding of the world, and it is the student's responsibility to balance those ideas with society.
Nick Jans began his attack on the course by introducing its victim: Christopher McCandless. Jans claimed that one of McCandless' main problems was his "big-time hubris" (qtd. in Krakauer 72). McCandless assumed he could conquer anything nature presented and survive. From his own parents, we know that he tried to overcome all obstacles with brute force, not a development of nuanced skill (Krakauer 111). In that way, he is a modern-day version of Jack London's protagonist from "To Build A Fire." In that short story, the man is warned against venturing into the Klondike but ignores the warning and dies as a result. The man believes he knows better than the more experienced old-timer, calling him "womanish" (London 36). McCandless, too, dismisses those who warn him of the dangers of the Alaskan wilderness. Jim Gallien, for example, offered to buy him adequate -- yet essential -- supplies but McCandless refused, claiming, "I'll be fine with what I've got" (qtd. in Krakauer 6). Though Gallien, someone who had great experience with the region, was more knowledgeable than the tenderfoot, McCandless' mission to escape society blinded him to the dangers he would soon face.
"Yeah, I've seen plenty of McCandlesses in my life," Jans continued. He then described these people as "idealistic, energetic young guys" who think they are more capable of surviving in the harshness of Alaska than they are in reality (Jans qtd. in Krakauer 71). What possibly set McCandless apart from the others, according to Jans, was his literary background. His writings took on the style of the authors he read, the men who ecstatically raved about the powerful effects of being in nature. There are obvious similarities between McCandless and John Muir. Muir claims in "The Wild Parks and Forest Reservations of the West" that by going to the wilderness, we can cleanse ourselves of any ills we suffer from. These ills are caused by society's "vice of over-industry and the deadly apathy of luxury" (Muir, Parks 721). McCandless saw his parents' home and lifestyles as buying into the principles of conspicuous consumption. McCandless considered his parents, especially his father, to be hypocrites and promoters of a false ideal -- especially when compared to the situations faced by the homeless of Washington. By journeying into the Alaskan wilderness, McCandless hoped to cleanse himself of the distortions caused by growing up in such a world.
Certainly, many people see nature as an escape from the constant order and overwhelming and stress of civilization. But when a person is led to believe that they must venture into the wild to cleanse themselves, danger looms. There is greater danger when the same man who commands his supporters to journey into nature also describes how he wishes to free himself from the constraints of basic sustenance. Muir contemplates becoming like the animals, "gleaning nourishment here and there from seeds, berries, etc." (Muir, Foothills 153). He suggests avoiding the typical human diet and seeking instead something more natural as part of the cleansing process. By rejecting heartier food, Muir is rejecting society. McCandless found this stance applicable to his situation and went to the Stampede Trail not "carrying anywhere as much food and gear as you'd expect a guy to be carrying for that kind of trip" (Gallien qtd. in Krakauer 4). This would ultimately lead to disaster.
Jans then referred back to London's short story. The man makes a series of mistakes that lead to his death; the first is venturing out alone without sufficient experience to survive alone. But perhaps he could have survived if it were not for the accident and the fire. The man falls through the ice, soaking "himself half-way to the knees" (London 36). The man did know it was imperative he dry himself immediately. Even then, he potentially could have survived. But when he builds the fire, he lazily places it under the tree where he collects the fuel. Each snap of a twig creates "an imperceptible agitation" but the combined effect causes the snow they held to fall, smothering the fire and any chance of survival. McCandless experiences a similar series of mistakes. He should have taken more food with him just as the man should have had a partner on the trail. However, he assumed that he could eat the seeds of the wild potato simply because a book told him the plant is non-toxic. He, lacking sufficient knowledge of "botanical principles" (Krakauer 194), made a foolish mistake, ate toxic seeds and died as a result.
The professor then had a chance to respond. "Chris was not as oblivious as that man. That man was careless." He continued, describing how the man did not consider that even slight alterations of the natural world can have major effects when multiplied together. But, more importantly, the man was arrogant and lazy. These characteristics led him to build the fire directly underneath a tree weighed down by snow. And as for Jans' claim that Chris shared the same "arrogance that resulted in the Exxon Valdez spill" (Jans qtd. in Krakauer 71), that is absurd. Chris' actions, though bringing great sadness to his parents, did not physically harm them or anyone else. The Exxon Valdez spill killed thousands of animals. "Chris certainly did kill some animals, but his intent was to survive -- these animals were nourishment," the professor quickly added. "And when Chris killed a moose only to see it all go to waste, he referred to it as ‘[o]ne of the greatest tragedies of my life' (Krakauer 167). This was not a man who went around Alaska shooting anything that moved, leaving the carcasses to rot. No, Chris treated the animals and the landscape with great reverence.”
"Contrary to what you allege, Mr. Jans, Chris was not some arrogant fool blundering in the Alaskan wilderness. He likely died of starvation caused by ingestion of the wild potato's seeds, the result of a simple mistaken assumption. Now, Chris went to the Stampede Trail with a book detailing the plant life of the region. This book does not state this plant's seeds are toxic -- in fact, our search shows that no medical or botanical literature makes this statement (Krakauer 193). Thus, Chris died not by foolishly mistaking one plant for another but by assuming the plant as a whole was safe to eat. And why should he assume otherwise? The book made no warning and Chris trusted the book to have greater knowledge than him. Do you have plans to suppress publication of the field guide too?"
"But all of McCandless' character flaws," Jans replied, "only brought him harm when they were reinforced by the brainwashing effects of the material in this course." The main focus of Jans' argument was that McCandless was convinced that only through exploring nature could he access the true core of humanity. This was an idea found in so many of the works he read in this course. Edward Abbey, for example, tells people that they must leave "traces of blood” to get something out of their nature experience (Abbey xiv). Suffering is a necessary aspect of enjoying nature according to Abbey. Furthermore, Abbey rails against the evils of industrial tourism. In Desert Solitaire, Abbey devotes an entire chapter to identifying the problems with this mindset, which promotes the mass visitation to national parks and monuments and "the complete subjugation of nature the requirements of…industry" (Abbey 47). The men and women of this nation, Abbey claims, are duped into following the ideals of industrial tourism. They drive along the paved roads, visit the chain restaurants and take pictures of the designated photo spots. Abbey romantically describes these people as victims, and counters the system of industrial tourism with a new plan for the national parks. This plan prohibits the elements of civilization that do not belong, such as cars and paved roads, from intruding into the parks. Such ideas appeal to people like McCandless, who found wealth "shameful, corrupting, inherently evil" and its public display embarrassing (Krakauer 115). In Abbey, McCandless found support for his rejection of civilization. Chris came to believe that if a person wants to truly experience nature, they must prepare to suffer and not bring the civilized world with them.
"But can't you see the truth in that idea?" the professor asked. People should not be told to visit the national parks in massive groups to experience nature. Their experience should be personal, created on their own terms. To support a system that desires thousands of visits to a park that soon becomes choked with tourists is to manufacture a natural world that results in distorted views. These "despoiling gain-seekers and mischief-makers" want only money and seek it "with schemes disguised in smug-smiling philanthropy" (Muir, Hetch 814). Americans do not have to accept this stance simply because that is what is encouraged. They do not have to reject it, but people should not be castigated for choosing to follow a different calling. When he read John Muir's passionate defense of Hetch Hetchy Valley, Chris found a man who treated the natural world with veneration. Muir was disgusted by the plans to dam the valley, saying "no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man" (Muir, Hetch 817). Chris found a great deal of support from this essay. When he read how Muir despised those who lift their eyes "to the Almighty Dollar" (Muir, Hetch 817), he thought of his parents who were eager to show off their wealth. Thus, these readings only strengthened opinions Chris had developed in his teenage years.
The deliberations were difficult, but eventually the jury reached a verdict. It became my responsibility to deliver it. While I figured I should not say anything other than the verdict, I felt compelled to express my opinion. "Most people are very comfortable with the way that the world works. They may not always be content with everything, but generally they live without challenging the established patterns of society. Thus when somebody presents an opportunity to experience the world in a deeper way, they ignore it. The system provides an easy path through life -- why should they make their lives more difficult when they are not guaranteed to gain anything tangible? Most of Chris' classmates see all of their assigned readings, even those which contain ideas as magnificent as the ones in this class, as just books -- not ecstatic expressions of joy. These people comprise the mass of people that allows society to function by completing the tedious tasks upon which it is built. No amount of literature by Muir, Abbey and others will change these students' minds. Other students may agree with what these writers say and will work to change others' minds. They find something grand and desirable in their ideas and though they may change their own lives, they will continue living in society. They will work from the inside to spread these ideas. But only a small percentage of students will do what Chris did -- remove himself from the structure of society to pursue his ideal version of truth. And we, the jury, feel that this course, like most courses, can not force students to change their lives in any substantial way. The only students who will make drastic changes are those who are predisposed to it. However, all students should have the opportunity to confront new ideas. This class should not be suppressed, but encouraged for its ability to challenge students -- something that all college campus should have. The class stays."
-Paul
Artistic works that elicit strong reactions have often been criticized for the challenge they pose to the established order. Rock music, for example, was vilified for connecting its listeners to their sexuality. Literature, especially when focused on making strong arguments for a particular point, has faced strong criticism. This criticism comes when the arguments contradict the status quo, convincing others to think differently than the majority. Critics are most vocally opposed to ideas they claim result in physical harm to the reader or those around him. That is why nobody was surprised when Nick Jans and other like-minded individuals sought to suppress AMS3025, Nature and the American Imagination. They claimed that its material instilled in Christopher McCandless, a student in the course, a grandiose vision of a natural world that could provide a deeper understanding of himself. The course professor's defense rested on the belief that this material deserved to be taught because it challenged students' understanding of the world, and it is the student's responsibility to balance those ideas with society.
Nick Jans began his attack on the course by introducing its victim: Christopher McCandless. Jans claimed that one of McCandless' main problems was his "big-time hubris" (qtd. in Krakauer 72). McCandless assumed he could conquer anything nature presented and survive. From his own parents, we know that he tried to overcome all obstacles with brute force, not a development of nuanced skill (Krakauer 111). In that way, he is a modern-day version of Jack London's protagonist from "To Build A Fire." In that short story, the man is warned against venturing into the Klondike but ignores the warning and dies as a result. The man believes he knows better than the more experienced old-timer, calling him "womanish" (London 36). McCandless, too, dismisses those who warn him of the dangers of the Alaskan wilderness. Jim Gallien, for example, offered to buy him adequate -- yet essential -- supplies but McCandless refused, claiming, "I'll be fine with what I've got" (qtd. in Krakauer 6). Though Gallien, someone who had great experience with the region, was more knowledgeable than the tenderfoot, McCandless' mission to escape society blinded him to the dangers he would soon face.
"Yeah, I've seen plenty of McCandlesses in my life," Jans continued. He then described these people as "idealistic, energetic young guys" who think they are more capable of surviving in the harshness of Alaska than they are in reality (Jans qtd. in Krakauer 71). What possibly set McCandless apart from the others, according to Jans, was his literary background. His writings took on the style of the authors he read, the men who ecstatically raved about the powerful effects of being in nature. There are obvious similarities between McCandless and John Muir. Muir claims in "The Wild Parks and Forest Reservations of the West" that by going to the wilderness, we can cleanse ourselves of any ills we suffer from. These ills are caused by society's "vice of over-industry and the deadly apathy of luxury" (Muir, Parks 721). McCandless saw his parents' home and lifestyles as buying into the principles of conspicuous consumption. McCandless considered his parents, especially his father, to be hypocrites and promoters of a false ideal -- especially when compared to the situations faced by the homeless of Washington. By journeying into the Alaskan wilderness, McCandless hoped to cleanse himself of the distortions caused by growing up in such a world.
Certainly, many people see nature as an escape from the constant order and overwhelming and stress of civilization. But when a person is led to believe that they must venture into the wild to cleanse themselves, danger looms. There is greater danger when the same man who commands his supporters to journey into nature also describes how he wishes to free himself from the constraints of basic sustenance. Muir contemplates becoming like the animals, "gleaning nourishment here and there from seeds, berries, etc." (Muir, Foothills 153). He suggests avoiding the typical human diet and seeking instead something more natural as part of the cleansing process. By rejecting heartier food, Muir is rejecting society. McCandless found this stance applicable to his situation and went to the Stampede Trail not "carrying anywhere as much food and gear as you'd expect a guy to be carrying for that kind of trip" (Gallien qtd. in Krakauer 4). This would ultimately lead to disaster.
Jans then referred back to London's short story. The man makes a series of mistakes that lead to his death; the first is venturing out alone without sufficient experience to survive alone. But perhaps he could have survived if it were not for the accident and the fire. The man falls through the ice, soaking "himself half-way to the knees" (London 36). The man did know it was imperative he dry himself immediately. Even then, he potentially could have survived. But when he builds the fire, he lazily places it under the tree where he collects the fuel. Each snap of a twig creates "an imperceptible agitation" but the combined effect causes the snow they held to fall, smothering the fire and any chance of survival. McCandless experiences a similar series of mistakes. He should have taken more food with him just as the man should have had a partner on the trail. However, he assumed that he could eat the seeds of the wild potato simply because a book told him the plant is non-toxic. He, lacking sufficient knowledge of "botanical principles" (Krakauer 194), made a foolish mistake, ate toxic seeds and died as a result.
The professor then had a chance to respond. "Chris was not as oblivious as that man. That man was careless." He continued, describing how the man did not consider that even slight alterations of the natural world can have major effects when multiplied together. But, more importantly, the man was arrogant and lazy. These characteristics led him to build the fire directly underneath a tree weighed down by snow. And as for Jans' claim that Chris shared the same "arrogance that resulted in the Exxon Valdez spill" (Jans qtd. in Krakauer 71), that is absurd. Chris' actions, though bringing great sadness to his parents, did not physically harm them or anyone else. The Exxon Valdez spill killed thousands of animals. "Chris certainly did kill some animals, but his intent was to survive -- these animals were nourishment," the professor quickly added. "And when Chris killed a moose only to see it all go to waste, he referred to it as ‘[o]ne of the greatest tragedies of my life' (Krakauer 167). This was not a man who went around Alaska shooting anything that moved, leaving the carcasses to rot. No, Chris treated the animals and the landscape with great reverence.”
"Contrary to what you allege, Mr. Jans, Chris was not some arrogant fool blundering in the Alaskan wilderness. He likely died of starvation caused by ingestion of the wild potato's seeds, the result of a simple mistaken assumption. Now, Chris went to the Stampede Trail with a book detailing the plant life of the region. This book does not state this plant's seeds are toxic -- in fact, our search shows that no medical or botanical literature makes this statement (Krakauer 193). Thus, Chris died not by foolishly mistaking one plant for another but by assuming the plant as a whole was safe to eat. And why should he assume otherwise? The book made no warning and Chris trusted the book to have greater knowledge than him. Do you have plans to suppress publication of the field guide too?"
"But all of McCandless' character flaws," Jans replied, "only brought him harm when they were reinforced by the brainwashing effects of the material in this course." The main focus of Jans' argument was that McCandless was convinced that only through exploring nature could he access the true core of humanity. This was an idea found in so many of the works he read in this course. Edward Abbey, for example, tells people that they must leave "traces of blood” to get something out of their nature experience (Abbey xiv). Suffering is a necessary aspect of enjoying nature according to Abbey. Furthermore, Abbey rails against the evils of industrial tourism. In Desert Solitaire, Abbey devotes an entire chapter to identifying the problems with this mindset, which promotes the mass visitation to national parks and monuments and "the complete subjugation of nature the requirements of…industry" (Abbey 47). The men and women of this nation, Abbey claims, are duped into following the ideals of industrial tourism. They drive along the paved roads, visit the chain restaurants and take pictures of the designated photo spots. Abbey romantically describes these people as victims, and counters the system of industrial tourism with a new plan for the national parks. This plan prohibits the elements of civilization that do not belong, such as cars and paved roads, from intruding into the parks. Such ideas appeal to people like McCandless, who found wealth "shameful, corrupting, inherently evil" and its public display embarrassing (Krakauer 115). In Abbey, McCandless found support for his rejection of civilization. Chris came to believe that if a person wants to truly experience nature, they must prepare to suffer and not bring the civilized world with them.
"But can't you see the truth in that idea?" the professor asked. People should not be told to visit the national parks in massive groups to experience nature. Their experience should be personal, created on their own terms. To support a system that desires thousands of visits to a park that soon becomes choked with tourists is to manufacture a natural world that results in distorted views. These "despoiling gain-seekers and mischief-makers" want only money and seek it "with schemes disguised in smug-smiling philanthropy" (Muir, Hetch 814). Americans do not have to accept this stance simply because that is what is encouraged. They do not have to reject it, but people should not be castigated for choosing to follow a different calling. When he read John Muir's passionate defense of Hetch Hetchy Valley, Chris found a man who treated the natural world with veneration. Muir was disgusted by the plans to dam the valley, saying "no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man" (Muir, Hetch 817). Chris found a great deal of support from this essay. When he read how Muir despised those who lift their eyes "to the Almighty Dollar" (Muir, Hetch 817), he thought of his parents who were eager to show off their wealth. Thus, these readings only strengthened opinions Chris had developed in his teenage years.
The deliberations were difficult, but eventually the jury reached a verdict. It became my responsibility to deliver it. While I figured I should not say anything other than the verdict, I felt compelled to express my opinion. "Most people are very comfortable with the way that the world works. They may not always be content with everything, but generally they live without challenging the established patterns of society. Thus when somebody presents an opportunity to experience the world in a deeper way, they ignore it. The system provides an easy path through life -- why should they make their lives more difficult when they are not guaranteed to gain anything tangible? Most of Chris' classmates see all of their assigned readings, even those which contain ideas as magnificent as the ones in this class, as just books -- not ecstatic expressions of joy. These people comprise the mass of people that allows society to function by completing the tedious tasks upon which it is built. No amount of literature by Muir, Abbey and others will change these students' minds. Other students may agree with what these writers say and will work to change others' minds. They find something grand and desirable in their ideas and though they may change their own lives, they will continue living in society. They will work from the inside to spread these ideas. But only a small percentage of students will do what Chris did -- remove himself from the structure of society to pursue his ideal version of truth. And we, the jury, feel that this course, like most courses, can not force students to change their lives in any substantial way. The only students who will make drastic changes are those who are predisposed to it. However, all students should have the opportunity to confront new ideas. This class should not be suppressed, but encouraged for its ability to challenge students -- something that all college campus should have. The class stays."
-Paul