(Re)connecting to nature
The transition to postmodern society has raised new questions around social cohesion and individual and collective well-being.
I was born among the hills of Mendrisiotto, surrounded by vineyards, corn and tobacco crops, vegetable gardens, rolling meadows, streams, and small rivers. Back then the area was sparsely built up, although we were beginning to glimpse the changes taking place with the great highway construction site and the development of the building, commercial and financial sectors. I remember childhood summers, spent with friends in the neighborhood among meadows, cherry and peach trees, flowers, and butterflies, inventing many outdoor games. In my early twenties, the allure of the big city and its many opportunities and attractions - like so many young people of my generation who grew up in a rural or little-urbanised context - drove me to travel and live first in Berlin and then in New York. It was these experiences of encounters, exchanges, friendships with people from multiple countries, discoveries of flavors, colors, and foods from all over the world that gave rise to my desire to study sociology and cultural anthropology. Later I had the good fortune to be able to enter teaching and research.
In my nearly 30 years of professional activity, I have delved into concepts dear to the discipline of anthropology such as the relationships between nature and culture, identity and otherness, tradition, and modernity, in their various theoretical and empirical frames. But the most exciting aspect is having internalised these concepts and made them my own in countless experiences in daily life and through adapting them.
Identity, alterity, and belongings
In the dialectic between nature and culture, I have paid more interest and attention to cultural aspects, taking nature-related dimensions somewhat for granted. Curiosity about diversity and elsewhere has driven me to travel, to learn about faraway situations, to immerse myself in new contexts, in a mixture of sounds, languages, landscapes, and encounters. At the center I placed human relationships, the similarities and differences between individuals and cultures, memberships, and social ties. I was, and am, interested in the people one meets on one’s lifepath, their life stories, the beauty of discussion, exchange, and relationships. As my friend anthropologist Marco Aime pointed out, "to meet or clash are not cultures but people. If thought of as an absolute given, cultures become an insurmountable fence that fuels new forms of racism."[1] .
The concepts of identity and otherness often suggest something unshakable and immutable. The spasmodic emphasis on defining supposed national, territorial and regional identities are present-day attempts to respond to insecurities and destabilizing crises. In doing so, barriers and boundaries between individuals and human groups are accentuated, losing sight of the importance of common denominators, of unifying elements. I remember Philippe Zarifian's book that particularly excited me at the beginning of this millennium because it emphasized the emergence and the need to build a unified collective project[2]. This need is still very much present today and finds itself seeking its legitimacy in the tension between the opposing visions described above.
Individual and social identity is plural and has a changeable and situation-specific character. To understand its scope, I prefer to resort to the concept of multiple belongings. Visually, one can represent this concept as an onion cut in half in which the different concentric layers are visible. An individual can be defined precisely by these circles as: the subject of one's personal narrative, part of family groups, friendships, institutions, nations, supranational entities, etc. Identities like belongings are processes in the making, set in motion by narratives, memory and forgetting, the multiple situations of daily life. They interact within us, express themselves through gestures, thoughts, and words, and change according to situations, encounters, and new experiences.
The construction of belonging in contemporary society is the subject of great debate and sometimes opposing trends. While in the past social belonging was linked to the spheres of work and family, nowadays many authors note how affective spheres and personal relationships contribute decisively to the foundation of social recognition. Young generations which have integrated uncertainty involving family, education and work adopt strategies that enable them to seize the best opportunities and chances of the moment to build plural belongings and fluid ties. The uncertainty that touches all spheres of social life[3] , the sharpening of individualism - which have marked the transition from modern to postmodern society - raise new questions around social cohesion and more specifically the bonds between individuals, the intergenerational dimension, and individual and collective well-being. While such changes have freed the individual from tight community bonds, they can generate feelings of loneliness and unease, as centers of strong social identification and belonging such as education, work, social class and family, have weakened.
The challenge of the contemporary individual is to be able to build social and community ties within heterogeneous groups with which to share passions, emotions, values, and projects on local and global levels.
The combination of nature and culture
Anthropology has always focused on the ways and forms by which the environment is reflected in culture. By environment we mean all external nature, the topographical configuration of places, climate, meteorological manifestations, vegetation, fauna. Human beings are not alone on the Earth, in the development of their lives they are embedded in a wide range of relationships, among which technology (science and technology, material and symbolic value of the environment) predominates decisively. If one thinks, for example, of the conception of the Earth - a concrete reality on which human life takes place - one can find a variety of interpretations, for example, the earth considered as a material reality, valued in money or the Earth as a symbol of universality and respected as a deity. These two conceptions (one commercial, the other religious) that are so different from each other are cultural in nature, but they are crucially reflected in ways of social organization and behavior[4].
Humans have managed to survive in almost every corner of the earth. Not being specialized allows this gap to be filled by culture. To adapt we need culture; in this sense culture is a kind of second nature, that is, the ability to adapt in different natural environments[5]. To echo what was expressed by Clifford Geertz[6], a U.S. anthropologist, the existential problems faced by humans in living on the planet are universal while the solutions adopted are varied because they are human and therefore defined by cultural groups in very specific places.
The articulations between individuals, society and the environment are extremely topical today, highlighted in discourses of safeguarding the planet, combating climate change, pollution, urbanization processes and their consequences. It is the younger generation that has alerted us and is taking action to raise awareness of each other and to try to promote environmentally, socially, economically, and culturally sustainable initiatives.
On a personal level, I grew up in a context where nature was always present. But perhaps its very presence meant that I took it for granted, that I observed it from an aesthetic-contemplative point of view in its powers and splendor but without perceiving, experiencing, and internalizing it as a fundamental dimension of identity and of individual and collective well-being.
The (re) connection to nature
In 2010 I experienced a period of personal crisis that allowed me to awaken. At that time, I experienced feelings of great relief, of relieving sadness and despondency by walking in the woods, going to the mountains, observing a landscape, collecting flowers and plants with a dear naturopathic friend. Suddenly I discovered the importance and value of connecting with nature in a process that today I might call crisis-transformation, taking up the etymological meaning of crisis as choice, opportunity. Before that time, I had never felt within me such a strong sense of belonging to the world of nature and a need to find myself in this new reassuring and meaningful dimension. Instinctively I was drawn to the need to be outdoors to contemplate the surrounding world in a kind of healing process. It was precisely during this period that passions that had slumbered over time resurfaced: herbal therapy, remedies related to folk medicine and knowledge passed down on the care of body and mind, positive emotions felt through contact with nature.
More recently - and in conjunction with the shared values within the Blue Arbor Foundation community around the impact of nature on well-being and forms of social cohesion through the renewal of certain agricultural traditions - I have been asking myself: why are humans happy in nature? Why do we talk more and more about reconnecting with nature? To give some answers to these questions, beyond subjective perceptions, I came across a book that provided me with some interesting keys that I want to try to share with you, readers of this blog. The book, entitled "Le lien naturel. Pour une reconnexion au vivant" was written by Alix Cosquer, a researcher and environmental psychologist at the Center for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in Montpellier[7]. The author examines the complexity of the relationships between individuals and nature and the effects of the development of human activities. In particular, she reconstructs the processes that have led to a progressive estrangement from nature in Western societies, the so-called disconnection. The latter can be traced back to progressive urbanization, the development of information and communication technologies, telecommuting and the increasing virtual dimension, accelerating biodiversity loss, agricultural exploitation, climate change, to name but a few factors. In the concluding section, some individual and societal perspectives to foster connections with nature and reconnection with it, are suggested.
Numerous pieces of research are cited by Cosquier, I recall here those that seem most significant to me. As early as the 1980s, it was established that individuals benefit at times when contemplating natural landscapes because the presence of alpha waves in the brain promotes a state of relaxation[8]. Other researchers later highlighted how exposing people to nature promotes physical, psychological, and emotional well-being as well as aiding self-perception and self-esteem. In fact, states of anxiety and denied thoughts are reduced, sleep, memory, concentration and learning abilities are improved when in close contact with natural environments compared to closed and artificial places[9]. Children develop more imagination, creativity and problem-solving skills by spending time in nature[10]. The correlation between outdoor education and learning motivation, as well as calmness, enthusiasm, and development of interpersonal skills, has been demonstrated.
In the final part of the book, several theoretical and practical perspectives are formulated to foster and nurture connection with nature as individuals and as a society. These transformative proposals fully coincide with the vision, mission, and values with which the Blue Arbor Foundation operates and their concrete translation into its pilot projects: the Arbor Hubs. A first element is the reconciliation of food production and biodiversity enhancement through, for example, permaculture, practiced in the pilot project in Finalborgo. A second aspect is the creation of educational pathways for awareness and experimentation for the new generation with a view to environmental education, the value of biodiversity and the recovery of local agricultural traditions in the pilot project in Brè. And finally, the importance of the experiential, emotional and affective, sensory, and physical dimensions, the feeling of freedom, of being able to distance oneself from the hectic daily rhythms through physical activity, art and music assumed in all projects.
From individual well-being to collective well-being in nature
A question that challenges many area and non-area project promoters is how to increase the well-being of communities and not just individuals while taking into consideration the complexity of societies and areas?
If we take the standard definition of individual well-being, the reference is the concept of health in its physical, mental/psychological, and social dimensions. Related to it, for the World Health Organization (WHO), are the social determinants of health and all the indicators and measurements developed over the years. I believe there are additional components to consider: well-being involves mindfulness, connection with nature, inner balance, and peace. It is about seeking and finding with other human beings the dimensions of sharing, listening and commonality of interests, values, and social ties. In short, a community of belonging and shared values.
In the implementation of territorial initiatives and projects, well-being cannot be considered exclusively from an individual perspective but rather from a relational perspective. It is the outcome of people's abilities to mobilize individual and inherent societal resources and to link them in a collective perspective. The approach to be taken is the promotion of a more inclusive and supportive society. Fundamental to achieving this goal is the development of capacities to activate participatory and collaborative processes during the various stages involved in local projects. Also fundamental are the promotion of an ethic of responsibility capable of identifying, valuing, and networking all kinds of resources (human, organizational and financial) and the development of active citizenship. Finally, co-construction of synergies and partnerships among all social, public, and private actors should be contemplated in the various forms of planning[11] .
Alongside the above-mentioned elements, it can be said that well-being is multidimensional since it involves connecting to the self, people, and nature. The Blue Arbor Foundation, through the Arbor Hubs, develops in individual projects all these dimensions through a bottom-up approach, marked by mutual learning, sharing of values and team building. It is ultimately about promoting individuals and communities in a systemic perspective starting from the local context.
[1] Aime M. (2004) Eccessi di culture, Einaudi.
[2] Zarifian P. (2000) L’emergenza di un Popolo Mondo. Appartenenza, singolarità e divenire collettivo, ombrecorte.
[3] Bauman Z. (2002), Modernità liquida, Laterza.
[4] Bernardi B. (2011) Uomo, cultura, società. Introduzione agli studi demo-etno-antropologici; FrancoAngeli.
[5] Aime M. (2013) Cultura, Bollati Boringhieri.
[6] Geertz C. (1987) Interpretazione di culture, il Mulino, Bologna.
[7] Cosquer A. (2021) Le lien naturel. Pour une reconnexion au vivant, le Pommier.
[8] Ulrich R.S. (1981) "Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects," in Environment and Behavior, vol. 13, pp. 523-556.
[9] Bowler D.E., Buyung-Ali L.M., Knight T.M. & Pullin A.S. (2010) "A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments," in BMC Public Health, vol. 10, no.456.
[10] Kahn P.H. & Kellert S.R. (2002) Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations, Cambridge, MIT Press; Nedovic S. & Morrissey A. (2013) "Calm, active and focused: Children's responses to an organic outdoor learning environment" in Learning Environments Research, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 281-295.
[11] Brunod M., Moschetti M. and Pizzardi E. (2016) La coprogettazione sociale. Esperienze, metodologie e riferimenti normativi, Erickson.
