ASEBL Journal – Volume 10 Issue 1, January 2014
9. Extremism and the city.
To be fair to Cooper, it should be added that insofar as solving tragedies of the
commons involves collectivising certain aspects of behaviour in order to optimise the
opportunities of individuals, this balanced approach validates his claim that some
forms of environmentalism are too “strident.” An excess of collectivism is just as
undesirable – and indeed lacking in objectivity, as Cooper recognises2 – as an excess
of individualism. Yet it is “the curious achievement of our own age,” to use Theodore
Dalrymple’s phrase (2005: 51), that we have managed to become extremists in both
collectivism and individualism – and are in denial about it – all at the same time. This
is worrying. When what’s good for the individual, what’s good for the collective, and
what’s real become incommensurate concerns, the callous agrarian totalitarianism of
the kind wrought by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot – not to mention Heidegger – looms.
It would also be unfair to Cooper not to acknowledge that urban life undoubtedly is
estranging, regardless of any philosophical considerations relating to modernity. At
one point Cooper recounts a recurring theme in Daoist poetry, namely, the city
dweller who “escapes into the countryside, there to meditate, reflect and purify
himself” (CN: 18). The crucial question concerns the required duration of such an
endeavour – temporary or indefinite. Most of today’s escapees to the country would
answer happily that their forays are a booster activity, not a permanent pursuit. The
same can be said of meditation, which enhances character just as weight-lifting
enhances the body. Through meditating on nature we can cultivate a more objective
focus in our attempts to improve our lives in that enterprising and co-operative
modern manner whereby human beings thrive.
Of course, getting away from it all will not always be possible. But converging with
nature can also inspire us to develop proxy technologies which remind us of nature’s
profundity rather than screen us from it. I am thinking here of trees, parks and
fountains in cities, and most of all of art – not the “modern” variety which wallows
self-referentially, but art which transports us temperamentally, whether directly via its
aesthetic properties or indirectly via our admiration for the skill of the artist, to the
real world. It is notable that a recent study looking at the qualities that define the
public’s ideal painting threw up the same favoured scene in almost every country: a
natural landscape containing animals and people (see Dutton 2010: 13-18.). Finally,
when all else fails, we can use our understanding of convergence to encounter the city
more mindfully: a cycle ride down the high street, for example, is more engaging and
enriching than being trapped in traffic or a crowded carriage.
10. Conclusion.
I conclude that re-establishing convergence with nature is not about tearing down the
edifice of modernity but reminding ourselves of the foundation on which it is built –
an objective and collaborative attitude to nature that modernity itself is prone to
screening us from. My position, though not identical to Cooper’s, was certainly
stimulated by his argument in Convergence with Nature – a characteristically
inspiring and beautifully written work, which deserves huge credit for restoring
reflection on the profundity of nature, along with the pros and cons of modernity, to
32