63
Humans Are Humus
How could we personally and scientifcally relate in an appropriate, fruitful, and sustainable way to our
‘inner soil’, so that it does not lead us to ideological one-sidedness and dogmatism, but may bestow on
us the right idea at the right moment, the energy and guiding symbols to follow our path to what our
culture needs next?
Patzel (2009: 223)
The current author believes that looking at soil from an eco-psychological perspective is the right
idea, for this moment.
HUMANS AS HUMUS: AN ECO-PSYCHOLOGICAL
LOOK AT HUMAN/SOIL RELATIONSHIPS
As discussed previously, identifying a full and clear defnition of eco-psychology can be a diffcult task
and one that is not necessary here. For the purposes of this chapter, the focus will be on three concepts
that help constitute eco-psychology: non-dualism, non-anthropocentrism and alternative epistemologies that support these two former concepts. This defnitional framework will help avoid some of the
issues encountered by previous attempts of relating to soil. These three concepts seek to address the
‘core issues’ of psychology in general: ‘Where is the “me”? Where does the “me” begin?, Where does
the “me” stop?, and Where does the “other” begin?’ (Hillman, 1995: 17). Furthermore, and specifcally
for the project of eco-psychology, ‘defning the self-world connection’ (Conn, 1995: 157) should be
obvious: dualism is transcended by the non-dual; human selfshness is muted by non-anthropocentrism;
and scientifc materialism is negated by a recognition of multiple ways of knowing.
If, at this moment, paradoxical questions are forming in readers’ minds, then this chapter is so
far meeting with some success. Non-duality, when experienced from within the perspective of duality, is often paradoxical. For instance, Hillman (1995) discussed previous ecologically destructive
attempts at cutting the boundary of ‘self’ and ‘other’ and highlighted the ‘uncertainty about making the cut at all’, only to end up saying ‘we do need to see, however, that the cut between me and
world, arbitrary as it is, nonetheless has to be made’ (p. xix). From a dualistic perspective, of course
the division has to be made: it is the very nature of human existence – we are not the trees (which
is why it is so easy to cut them down). However, from Westernised eco-psychological perspective,
we have, in short, cut ourselves off from our connection to the Earth so thoroughly in our epistemology
and our psychology that even though we are ‘bleeding at the roots’, we neither understand the problem
nor know what we can do about it.
Hillman (1995: 161)
In a non-dualistic reality, individuals continually revise the boundaries of ‘self’ as necessary given
their particular worldview and as the context demands. Not only is there an individual ‘self’, but
that ‘self’ is also holonic, a part of many ‘selves’ that exist within a whole system: ‘family, a community, a bioregion, or the living planetary ecosystem’ (ibid: 164). Or, to take non-dualism to its
further reaches, ‘We are nature with a concept of nature. Nature weeping. Nature speaking of nature
to nature’ (Griffn, 1978: 226).
Thus, from a non-dual, eco-psychological perspective, one could simultaneously talk about
knowing soil on its own terms, that humans are soil, and about humans having a healthy relationship with soil. Greenway (1995) discussed the wilderness effect and how extended wilderness experience programmes can facilitate transpersonal experiences of a non-dual ‘self’, but also points out
that some programmes ‘are not experiencing wilderness on its own terms’ (p. 133). This is not an
epistemologically problematic assertion in eco-psychology. Indeed, it is believed possible to experience an ‘other’ on its own terms. Like Hillman (1995), Greenway (1995) is acutely aware of the fact
that the human ability to:
Humans Are Humus
How could we personally and scientifcally relate in an appropriate, fruitful, and sustainable way to our
‘inner soil’, so that it does not lead us to ideological one-sidedness and dogmatism, but may bestow on
us the right idea at the right moment, the energy and guiding symbols to follow our path to what our
culture needs next?
Patzel (2009: 223)
The current author believes that looking at soil from an eco-psychological perspective is the right
idea, for this moment.
HUMANS AS HUMUS: AN ECO-PSYCHOLOGICAL
LOOK AT HUMAN/SOIL RELATIONSHIPS
As discussed previously, identifying a full and clear defnition of eco-psychology can be a diffcult task
and one that is not necessary here. For the purposes of this chapter, the focus will be on three concepts
that help constitute eco-psychology: non-dualism, non-anthropocentrism and alternative epistemologies that support these two former concepts. This defnitional framework will help avoid some of the
issues encountered by previous attempts of relating to soil. These three concepts seek to address the
‘core issues’ of psychology in general: ‘Where is the “me”? Where does the “me” begin?, Where does
the “me” stop?, and Where does the “other” begin?’ (Hillman, 1995: 17). Furthermore, and specifcally
for the project of eco-psychology, ‘defning the self-world connection’ (Conn, 1995: 157) should be
obvious: dualism is transcended by the non-dual; human selfshness is muted by non-anthropocentrism;
and scientifc materialism is negated by a recognition of multiple ways of knowing.
If, at this moment, paradoxical questions are forming in readers’ minds, then this chapter is so
far meeting with some success. Non-duality, when experienced from within the perspective of duality, is often paradoxical. For instance, Hillman (1995) discussed previous ecologically destructive
attempts at cutting the boundary of ‘self’ and ‘other’ and highlighted the ‘uncertainty about making the cut at all’, only to end up saying ‘we do need to see, however, that the cut between me and
world, arbitrary as it is, nonetheless has to be made’ (p. xix). From a dualistic perspective, of course
the division has to be made: it is the very nature of human existence – we are not the trees (which
is why it is so easy to cut them down). However, from Westernised eco-psychological perspective,
we have, in short, cut ourselves off from our connection to the Earth so thoroughly in our epistemology
and our psychology that even though we are ‘bleeding at the roots’, we neither understand the problem
nor know what we can do about it.
Hillman (1995: 161)
In a non-dualistic reality, individuals continually revise the boundaries of ‘self’ as necessary given
their particular worldview and as the context demands. Not only is there an individual ‘self’, but
that ‘self’ is also holonic, a part of many ‘selves’ that exist within a whole system: ‘family, a community, a bioregion, or the living planetary ecosystem’ (ibid: 164). Or, to take non-dualism to its
further reaches, ‘We are nature with a concept of nature. Nature weeping. Nature speaking of nature
to nature’ (Griffn, 1978: 226).
Thus, from a non-dual, eco-psychological perspective, one could simultaneously talk about
knowing soil on its own terms, that humans are soil, and about humans having a healthy relationship with soil. Greenway (1995) discussed the wilderness effect and how extended wilderness experience programmes can facilitate transpersonal experiences of a non-dual ‘self’, but also points out
that some programmes ‘are not experiencing wilderness on its own terms’ (p. 133). This is not an
epistemologically problematic assertion in eco-psychology. Indeed, it is believed possible to experience an ‘other’ on its own terms. Like Hillman (1995), Greenway (1995) is acutely aware of the fact
that the human ability to: