The Web of Life: A Critique of Nature, Wilderness, Gaia and the «Common Household»

Abstract

A two-word summary of the following article might be «Words matter». It matters whether we conceive of the non-built world as nature, as «wilderness», as Gaia/Mother Earth, or as «our common home». We analyze the emergence of each of these four notions. Nature, by far the most multi-layered of the words, has a complex history rooted in the Greek word phusis. Nature is problematic because of its opposites: supernatural; nurture, culture and civilization. Nature seems to require dualism. Wilderness started out as something terrifying (the realm of the wild beasts), later acquiring a specific American understanding of an area conserved for recreation, of nature partially preserved, all desirable goals inspired by John Muir. In the Scriptures, wilderness becomes filled by promise. Gaia is short for the Gaia hypothesis of Earth as a living, self-regulating organism. It was coined by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis and discussed critically by Bruno Latour. Compared with the view of the Earth as dead matter, «Gaia» is conducive to respect for all living beings. When it is coupled with Mother Earth, the concept becomes problematic from a feminist point of view. The common home or household stem from the teachings of Pope Francis. Although Laudato si’ is rightly viewed as a prophetic text regarding ecology and spirituality, «common home» implies a domestication of all that lives in a worldview that remains anthropocentric (homes are artefacts). A better concept is the «web of life» of which humankind is a part, but not the master. It is such a decentering that may herald hope for the Earth.