Caroline Fraser, "Rewilding North America"

Questions for Making Connections within the Reading:

1. “Rewilding North America” is not just a story about preservation. It also provides a detailed account of the way that science gets done, and how its discoveries can gradually generate profound social change. Using Fraser’s narrative as your guide, try to define the stages involved in scientific discovery. As you retrace the process and attempt to represent it step –by step, you might ask yourself what causes people to rethink well-established knowledge? What are the relations between theory, investigation, and eventual “proof?"Next, try to define the stages in the spread of such new knowledge. How does it make its way into the world? Pay particular attention to the role of institutions that mediate between science and the public sphere.

2. The key to understanding Fraser’s argument is the term “connectivity.” Re-read the selection in order to take note of all the different forms of connectivity you find, not only in the natural world but also in culture and society. In what ways has greater social connectivity followed from our recent discovery of connectivity in nature? And how have existing institutions—the Sierra Club, for example, or the Department of the Interior— made change in this direction more difficult? Why has nature’s connectivity been so hard for us to notice even though it has been there all along?

3. “Nature,” Fraser writes, “is not a closed system.” But what is a system, and how is nature an open system? Noting all the places where systems are described, try to define the principles governing the way systems operate—principles such as equilibrium and interrelatedness. How do these principles differ from those that govern many human institutions, among them the national parks? Because human institutions often strive for permanence, self-containment, and simplicity (think of the rectangular boundaries of the parks), are they unavoidably at odds with natural systems? It possible to design institutions that are flexible enough to accommodate natural processes?

Questions for Writing:  

1. How does “Rewilding North America” force us to rethink the relations between the natural world and its human counterpart? For a century we have tried to save the environment by enclosing it in parks and preserves, only to discover that this approach is, in David Quammen’s words, like cutting a Persian carpet into little pieces. What assumptions about the way nature works does Fraser call into question—and what assumptions about the proper way for the human community to live? Is there any real alternative to “rewilding”? What might be its implications for the very notion of a “civilization”? How might our civilization benefit from richer connections to the natural world?

2. As we confront the ever-spreading ruin of the natural environment, we can easily conclude that the damage has become irreparable and that all we can do now is watch as the fabric of life on earth unravels. Worse yet, in spite of the urgent need for appropriate action, our institutions can appear to be immovable. Does Fraser’s account present an alternative to conclusions of this kind? Might we say that she provides a blueprint for real and far-reaching transformation? In the making of such a transformation, what role does specialized knowledge play? And what is the role of education in conveying knowledge of this kind to society as a whole?

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:  

1. In “Selections from Into the Wild,” Jon Krakauer tells us that Chris McCandless “went into the wilderness not primarily to ponder nature or the world at large but, rather, to explore the inner country of his own soul.” By leaving behind his home and family, McCandless hoped to see what he could do without the support of civilization. But now, as the human population expands and true wilderness becomes more and more remote,—we might ask if such an undertaking has become a thing of the past. Is it even possible nowadays to leave civilization behind? (Think about McCandless’s books and tools, and his dependence on the bus.) What might rewilding teach us about the “inner country” of our “souls”? If the wilderness is gone, might we in some way still “rewild” ourselves—reconnecting in a new way with the natural world?

2. In “The Myth of the Ant Queen,” Steven Johnson makes an argument about the power of what he calls “self organization.” Beginning with a community of ants, he points to the sophistication of their colonies and argues that they did it all without the benefit of any central leader or prearranged plan. From ants he turns to the British city of Manchester, which rose to prominence over several centuries with “no local government to speak of.” It was, he writes, “the least planned and most chaotic of cities in the six-thousand year history of urban settlements,” and yet it also seemed to possess a “kind of order” that was “wonderful.” Ultimately Johnson appears to believe that the best order will arise spontaneously, without any conscious effort or control. Would you say that Fraser confirms Johnson’s view? Does the complexity of modern life require less planning, as Johnson suggests, or does it demand much, much more, as Fraser implies?