Innate vs. Acquired

Evans and Nash both point out how the wilderness appeals to man. Evans main goal is to show that if dig deep enough, past the obstacles presented in today’s society, we can return back to the “savage life” we once lived. He uses the word “divest” to show that originally we were once living a simple life, one with nature; however, layers upon layers of civilization have brought us to where we are today. He instills a sense of hope and desire for this utopian world. Likewise, Nash shows his antipathy toward “man and his works”. On the other hand, his strategy is to “escape” our corrupt world and pursue the wilderness, rather that retrieve it. It’s a lifestyle change that humankind needs to acquire. Evans and Nash indicate similar, yet completely different portrayals of nature. Evans depicts the wilderness as a state of mind that is innate and once existed; on the contrary, Nash describes it as a way of life that we need to obtain.

For My Name is Ozymandias

The different perceptions by Estwick Evans and Roderick Nash come from their willingness to explore different experiences. Estwick Evans wants to "acquire the simplicity, native feelings, and virtues of savage life; to divest myself of the factitious habits, prejudices and imperfections of civilization...and to find, amidst the solitude and grandeur of the western wilds, more correct views of human nature and of the true interests of man..." (344). Evans speaks of the wilderness as a place where he can obtain the knowledge of man that has escaped society for so long. It is only in the wild that Evans can truly face the dangers that the primal humans did. He wants to travel away from the disillusioned society that he currently lives with to understand the true goals of humans. Evans’ goal is to return to a primal stage in human culture so that it can do away with the problems of civilization. In contrast to Evans’ view, Roderick Nash believes that a man who wants to explore the wild is only doing so because he is escaping from civilization. He says, “Wilderness appealed to those bored or disgusted with man and his works. It not only offered an escape from society but also was an ideal stage for the Romantic individual to exercise the cult that he frequently made of his own soul. The solitude and total freedom of the wilderness created a perfect setting for either melancholy or exultation” (344). Nash says the goals of those that travel into the wild are to discover the “cult” inside themselves, traveling only to be different than society. The eventual goal may be met by the melancholy or exultation means that that person will either not find what he/she is looking for or to glorify the fact that they had done so and survived. Nash speaks from the civilized view and what Evans is trying to get away from, a prejudiced voice amongst the whole prejudiced civilization.

Nature and Man

Estwick Evans' quote about nature explains his desire for simplicity and return to the 'savage' life of man. To him, there is no real meaning in the present civilization that he occupies. He wants to 'divest' himself of the problems that civilization has given him. He wishes to return to a simpler time when life had meaning. In contrast to Evans' quote, Nash gives his perspective on nature. To begin with, Nash's quote is much more encyclopedic and not as personal as Evans'. The quote seems to take the opposite approach to Evans'. Evans' feels that nature will automatically cure any man of his ills and wants by "(finding) amidst the solitude and grandeur of the western wilds, more correct views of human nature". However Nash's quote ends with the wilderness being 'a perfect setting for either melancholy or exultation.' While Evans wants to experience the 'pleasure of suffering, and the novelty of danger, Nash warns that you could very easily be disappointed or even killed.

Man and Wilderness

The two quotes that start off "Into the Wild" have very opposing views. Estwick Evans And Roderick Nash both set the mood for "Into the Wild" by describing man going out into the wild, however, the similarities end there. The quote by Evans is almost entirely in the first person, except for the last statement dealing with "the season of snows." Evans describes how he wishes to acquire "the simplicity, native feelings, and virtues of savage life." The use of savage points out a discontinuity with civilization, since it means uncivilized. Evans claims that getting away from civilization with remove the "factitious habits, prejudices and imperfections" associated with it. There is no question about it; Evans directly claims that going into solitude and away from civilization will rid man of the imperfections associated with it, and as such, Evans is making his own grandiose claim. After all, how can one be sure that going into the wild will grant a "more correct [view] of human nature and of the true interests of man?" Where Evans' quote is largely claim and in the first person, Nash's quote is more in the passive tone. The wilderness as described by Nash is merely an escape for those who cannot deal with society. It was a way for Romantics, as Nash notes, to explore their own artificial triumph that solitude grants them. However, as the main difference between the two quotes, Nash implies that going into the wilderness will not yield triumph over civilization; it simply is the "perfect setting for either melancholy or exultation." Rather then a large claim as Evans had, Nash is merely stating the obvious: either the Romantic individual will find a new outlook on life, or disappointment from the buildup that an escape from civilization that may not result in anything.

Finding yourself

The two quotes give an insight into the mind of someone who is trying to find himself in a world that is seen as filled with imperfections. In Evan's quote, he wants to return to "the simplicity, native feelings, and virtues of savage life". He wants to find his true self in the wild. By going into the wild with nothing more than the essentials he can carry, he wants to find a deeper meaning to his life.
This is similar to how Nash thinks about his society. He views the wild as "solitude and total freedom". It is every man for himself in the wild, with no technology to hide behind. You can forget about your problems that society forces you to deal with and reach a sense of euphoria.

Into the Wild and Out Of Civilization

Krakauer’s use of the quotes from Evans and Nash have two contradicting views. In Evans mind, there is much to learn by going into the wild as it is free from the evils that currently afflict society. Additionally, going alone into the wild will bring out the true person that Evans was meant to be, free from the influence of others. For Evans, going into the wild is a sort of trial that he must go through in order to better himself and as a result humanity. Also, Evans notes that he would prefer to venture into the wild during winter for the thrill of suffering nature’s wrath. This is a way for him to truly discover himself and the purpose which he must fulfill.

In Nash’s opinion, going into the wild is simply an excuse for people to escape from concrete issues that are negatively affecting the world. He criticizes the intellectual ideas of the Romantics such as Evans, stating that going into the wild is an exercise of a cult. By closing with “a perfect setting for either melancholy or exultation”, Nash reasons that going into the wild can have positive and/or negative effects, at odds with Evans’ idea that going into the wild is a learning experience in which the participant can only improve themselves.

Let's Agree To Disagree

From the third set of quotes, one can conclude that both Abram and Siebert have contrasting views concerning human beings and the world around them. Siebert took pride in the concept of the “trans-species psyche”, which Bradshaw came up with. He believed that humans and elephants, as well as other creatures in extension, would be able to understand each other due to the psyche which they all shared. While there are people that believe in this concept, Abram’s view contradicted this. In a sense Abram had an “anthropomorphic” point of view, which Siebert dreaded. His view of animals and their place in the world is keeping him from seeing the connection between humans and animals that Siebert recognized. His constant use of phrases such as, the “Others” and “we live in our bodies” serves as a way of reinforcing his view that humans and animals will always be different. Stating “we live in our bodies” is Abram’s way of thinking that humans cannot shift their point of view. He believed we will only be able to see things through our own eyes instead of all the other creatures of the world. Instead of referring to humans and animals as “family” such as the way Siebert acknowledged them, Abram calls them “Others” as in anything other than human. Not noting humans and animals as similar figures does not blur the line between humans and animals, but defines it. Abram doesn’t believe we should “be elephants”, but instead we should just live out our lives as human beings and just notice the similar culture between humans and animals. While Abrams and Siebert maybe well respected researchers, this is just a topic they will have to agree to disagree on.

The Power of Understanding

Helping someone and truly understanding someone are two concepts that are often associated with each other, but are very different. In “An Elephant Crackup”, Siebert argues that our relationship with elephants has been deteriorating, but can be saved by “in effect, [becoming] elephants” (Siebert 537). Abrams on the other hand states that “we cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of” (Abrams 10-11) an elephant. Although we are helping the elephants recover, we still cannot understand everything about their position. We cannot feel the same way they do because we aren’t in the same situation; we as a race have never approached extinction. I agree with Abrams, in that we cannot actually become elephants, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to. Understanding a person is how we make relationships and become closer. Understanding someone is what will help ease tensions around the world, both in human-human conflicts as well as human-other conflicts.

Civilization to Elephants

"From an animalistic perspective, the clearest source of all this distress [in humans], both physical and psychological, lies in the aforementioned violence needlessly perpetrated by our civilization on the ecology of the planet; only alleviating the latter will we be able to heal the former. (Abran 17)"

"Too much about elephants, in the end--reminds us of ourselves to dismiss out of hand this revolt they're currently staging against their own dismissal. And while our concern may ultimately be rooted in that most human of impulses--the preservation of our own self-image--the great paradox about this particular moment in our history with the elephants is that saving them will require finally getting past ourselves it will demand the ultimate act of deep, interspecies empathy. (Siebert 537)"

Both Siebert and Abram are trying to prove a point about a specific issue in their essays. Both of the quotes are claims, however with different approaches. In Siebert's quote, he mentions that humans have an impulse to preserve our species, whereas Abram states that the civilization needlessly perpetrated the violence. Abram is saying that humans are purposefully creating this dilemma and humans could have avoided this if they weren't so ignorant. Siebert explains that humans unknowingly created this issue because they are not aware of how to stop this problem from happening. He however gives an example of how humans can solve this issue.

Cleaning Up Our Own Mess

On page 17 of Abram's text, he states that we are ourselves the direct source of our distress whether psychological or physical. Interestingly, he remarks that specifically civilization which we have built is causing this distress. The word "civilization" implies that the problem does not result from any one individual person, but us humans as one mass. As one mass we also share one image of ourselves, an image that we are the top, the most advanced and intelligent. Siebert's arguments closely relate to this idea when he introduces a solution to the current crisis between humans and elephants. He says on page 537 that "saving them will require finally getting past ourselves...". In other words, we must look past this image we fabricated of ourselves being the only important ones. Coming to a solution will require us to understand the feelings of the elephants and have interspecies empathy.

A Commonality, Empathy

Charles Siebert believes that humans should relate and connect to animals, whereas David Abram’s beliefs are opposing. Although Siebert’s and Abram’s essays have contrasting ideas, they both share a similar ground in terms of being selfless and caring. Siebert emphasized the need to heal animals by displaying empathy and compassion for them. In order to help heal the animals, people must take down the wall of selfishness and “get past ourselves.” Similarly, Abram stated “only alleviating the latter will we be able to heal the former.” One must go above and beyond to make a difference in order to maintain stability in society.

The Translator

"The traditional tribal shaman, I came to discern, acts as an intermediary between the human community and the larger ecological field, ensuring that there is an appropriate flow of nourishment, not just from the landscape to human inhabitants, but from the human community back to the local earth. By his constant rituals, trances ecstasies, and "journeys," he ensures that the relation between human society and the larger society of beings is balanced and reciprocal, and that the village never takes more from the living land that it returns to it - not just materially but with prayers, propitiations, and praise. The scale of the harvest or the size of the hunt are always negotiated between the tribal community and the natural world that it inhabits. To some extent every adult in the community is engaged in this process of listening and attuning to the other presences that surround and influence daily life. But the shaman or the sorcerer is the exemplary voyager in the intermediate realm between the human and the more-than-human worlds, the primary strategist and negotiator in any dealings with the Others. (Abram 5)

The other part of our newly emerging compact with elephants, however, is far more difficult to codify, It requires nothing less than a fundamental shift in the way we look at animals and, by extension, ourselves. It requires what Bradshaw somewhat whimsically refers to as a new "trans-species psyche," a commitment to move beyond an anthropocentric frame of reference and, in effect, be elephants. (Siebert 537)

---------

While both authors are attempting to discuss the solution to the problems at hand, Siebert is stating that it will require this "fundamental shift" and what Bradshaw "whimsically" refers to it as the "trans-species psyche," like these radical ideas are almost comical. Siebert speaks of these ideas as if they are groundbreaking ideas that will be able to completely reverse the downward spiral that is the human elephant relationship. On the other hand, Abram speaks of this "traditional" shaman as if these connections between humans and the "more-than-human" worlds have been around as long as he can remember. These shamans have been the keepers of balance between the earth and its human inhabitants, and ensures the scales are not tipping in one direction or another. Abram tells us that the shamans are the only ones capable of bridging this gap between both worlds and acting as the translator between these two realms.

The Great Paradox

Abram contests Siebert's idea of becoming elephants in order to understand their plight when he says that "we cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle. " Abram is right in saying that becoming elephants is a dramatic exaggeration of the "trans-specie-psyche". Any living species today has evolved over millions of years and it is impossible to acquaint ourselves with every minute detail that marks their evolution.By suggesting that every living species is as intricate as another, Abram claims that the degree of familiarity that Siebert suggests to attain is a distant dream. It is funny how Abram completely disowns his own idea of an "animistic perspective" with this claim. It is also interesting to note how Siebert puts forth the idea of extreme empathy when he had earlier commented that "preservation of self image" would be the key element behind human want for saving the Elephant.

Interesting and opposing views

The main point that Siebert makes in his essay "An Elephant Crackup" is that humans need to move past the anthropocentric frame of reference and put elephants in their mental picture. Bradshaw calls this phenomenon a "trans-specie psyche" and Siebert does a good job supporting this claim. He claims that this is the way to communicate with elephants and make them respond to human efforts.
Abram, on the other hand, claims just the opposite. Abram observes that "[humans] cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a frass snake or a snapping turtle" (Abrams 10). It is quite peculiar and interesting how Abrams outright dismisses what seemed to be an intelligent idea after reading Siebert's essay. Although Siebert thinks that this fundamental shift in thinking is "difficult to codify", he still believes that it is the key to solving the problems with the human-elephant relationship.

A mile in someone else's shoes...

People say before you judge me walk a mile in my shoes. Well Siebert says that if we follow that quote then, we will learn to be elephants and thus treat them better. Abram on the other hand says we can try to walk in other species’ shoes but we won’t succeed because we are confined by “the possibilities of our form”(Abrams). Humans will not be able to their cultures and rituals. I don’t know who’s right in this case. I do believe that in the case of humans it is really insightful to walk in someone else’s shows before judging them. I know that if we may never be fully able to understand other species but it can’t hurt us to try to understand them. Even if we don’t fully understand them, we can still respect them.