For What It’s Earth: Transcending the Human–Nature Dualism Through “Deep Nature Connection”

Abstract

This commentary argues that business-society scholars are seriously disconnected from nature. This is problematic because our theorizing about nature largely happens as a mental exercise, thereby restricting our bodies and emotions as power means of transcending the human–nature dualism. As a solution, I offer practical ways for business-society scholars to develop a “deep nature connection.”

To effectively address the current ecological crisis, we must substantively retheorize the human–nature dualism—a paradigm underpinned by rationalism and empiricism that emerged out of the enlightenment period. Scholars have made several notable attempts to do so, including, for instance: learning from indigenous peoples’ ecocentric philosophies (Banerjee & Arjaliès, 2021); devising new ontologies that collapse the distinction between culture and ecology (Ergene et al., 2021); and including ecology as a stakeholder (Starik, 1995). However, these efforts are not enough—they are largely cognitive exercises aimed at thinking and theorizing our way out of the estrangement between culture and ecology. This is problematic because the disassociation between humankind (including organizational life) and the natural world is highly institutionalized and therefore difficult to shift through rational means alone (Gladwin et al., 1995). To truly understand what it means for humans to be “at one” with the natural world, we must also feel and experience alternative ways of being, manifested by deepening our connection with nature.

Business-Society Scholars’ Estrangement From Nature

While Shrivastava (1994) warned three decades ago that management theories are “castrated” from the environment, I argue that business-society scholars are also emotionally and experientially detached from nature. We often operate as dispassionate observers of the natural world without much zest and passion to substantively do something about the ecological crisis (except write academic articles, of course). Indeed, our theoretical discoursing on issues surrounding nature could be considered intellectual peacocking—producing academic echo chambers reverberating with stimulating theories and debates, yet devoid of the raw vitality and suffering experienced by both human- and non-human species brought on by the ecological crisis. One way to potentially avoid such a situation from reproducing itself is to deepen our relationship with nature.

Types of Nature Connection

It is important to distinguish between two types of nature connection. The first, a shallow nature connection, involves instances where nature constitutes a part of a scholar’s identity involving passive interactions with the natural world, lacking emotional investment or embodied awareness. Such a connection is, I argue, pervasive among business-society scholars given that, despite being interested professionally in sustainability, we either remain detached from the Earth’s non-human inhabitants on a sensory level or base our engagement with nature largely on a rational-scientific paradigm. This way, nature is seen as an external object, or “other,” that operates independently from us. In so doing, we utilize nature instrumentally as a sanitized context from which to extract data and theorize without truly being confronted with the distressing realities of the current ecological crisis.

In contrast, a deep nature connection involves cultivating a profound relationship with nature characterized by a sense of oneness with all beings, whether human or non-human. This establishes kinship with non-human species; individuals who are connected this way both empathize with nature’s suffering, while being able to experience awe and wonder at the complexity and beauty of the natural world. Embodying such a connection facilitates the ability to concurrently experience both the intrinsic value of nature and its instrumental utility. For example, indigenous peoples often describe a forest or river not just as a source of sustenance but as sacred in its own right; all natural phenomena must be honored as these constitute the possibility for life, death, and rebirth. As academics (and humans, in general), we should prioritize facilitating a deep nature connection as opposed to a shallow connection because it connects us to nature’s raw power—her suffering, wrath, and productive capacity. Connecting on a deep level with nature encourages us to recognize that these energies are mirrored within ourselves; we can, thus, direct nurture’s power to address the ecological crisis beyond mere academic article writing.

Ways to Facilitate a Deep Nature Connection

Connecting deeply with nature is not complicated. Such a connection is not only facilitated by spending significant time in green spaces but also by developing a felt relation with the natural world—using the senses, our emotions, and the body to immerse ourselves among plants, animals, rocks, and the soil. I provide two well-established practices to cultivate deep nature connection.

One of the simplest nature connection methods regards “forest bathing” (translated from the Japanese shinrin-yoku), which involves simply being with nature, connecting with the natural world via our bodily senses. Similar to the practice of mindfulness, forest bathing involves “going within,” asking ourselves how it feels to, for instance, listen to forest sounds, smell tree bark, taste the fresh woodland air, admire a spiderweb’s intricacies, and so on. Business-society scholars can very effectively harness the benefits of forest bathing. We may need to reconnect with ourselves and de-stress during a busy conference—finding a nearby greenspace with a tree to sit and meditate under, removing our shoes and feeling our feet on the soil, taking big conscious inhalations, and thanking the tree (preferably, out loud) for providing some shade and for just being a tree. Such modest practices may do wonders.

I often take students forest bathing. Instructed to leave their digital devices behind in the classroom, we walk to nearby woodland. Each person finds a spot that they are drawn to and—by themselves and preferably in silence—attunes to the sensory details of a nature for about 45 min. Returning to the classroom, students share their experience, often reporting heightened emotional states, for example, deep sense of calmness, sadness, bliss, or awe. Many also have an “aha moment”—experiencing, for instance: a oneness between self and nature; a special kindship with an ant, a blade of grass, a particular tree, or a gust of wind. These sorts of mind-expanding experiences energize students (and myself) to engage with the sustainability debate with passion and consciousness it deserves.

The second practice requires a bit more effort—working with soil. The most obvious example here is gardening, a highly embodied and intimate way to cultivate a deep appreciation for nature by co-creating with the natural world. Engaging with the soil this way grounds individuals in the physical world, localizing the issue of climate change from the abstract realm of corporate strategies, global politics, and academic theorizing, to the “here and now.” This helps in situations where we, as business-society scholars, may feel uninspired and lacking motivation, asking ourselves on a deep level—why am I doing this? In such cases, immersing ourselves in tasks such as composting, planting, watering, and harvesting may give us a renewed sense of purpose, reminding us of the significance of working with nature. Indeed, our work on sustainability issues becomes infused with profound meaning beyond the “academic game.”

Concluding Remarks

It is no secret that merely publishing in top journals has limited impact on issues such as the ecological crisis. We need to do more. As discussed in this commentary, deepening our connection to nature offers a potential way to substantively reframe our relationship to the natural world, thereby moving our current understanding of nature far beyond the realm of thinking, to fully include our bodily intelligence.

This could have a significant impact on addressing the current ecological crisis. Becoming deeply connected to nature means we fully experience nature’s suffering as our own, which is a great motivator to substantively do something about it. Connecting with natural world also unites us with the sublime power of nature, both in terms of her wrath and immense productive potential; given that we are inseparable from nature, this should remind us of the power within ourselves. Tapping into our own wrath, such energy could be used to vitalize our activism—taking to the streets, so to speak, to overthrow whatever power structure is causing ecological collapse. Alternately, in terms of mirroring nature’s productive capacity, we can direct such energy to radically improve ecological wellbeing, for instance, by actively regenerating natural habitats through rewilding practices. Indeed, when we experience deep connectedness with nature our primary motivation for living is to ensure all life on earth thrives, so that we too can thrive.