Abstract
Modern theorists draw parallels between interhuman and human-nature relationships. This is evident in their use of relational terms like bonds, love, care, kinship and others. But, as mentioned in Chap. 2, even with this reliance upon such relational terms, modern human-nature relationship scholars build theories of closeness that are at odds with the reciprocity perceived in the closeness experience itself. Such modern theories relocate these powerful relational elements inside the human, where they are supposedly developed in isolation and only afterward projected outward onto a relationally limited, more-than-human partner. This collapsing of reciprocal closeness is attributable to human/nature dualisms that negate the capacity of the more-than-human to make relational contributions. As a means of better understanding how such human/nature dualisms operate, interdependence theory—a common theory of interhuman relationships focused on the exchange of thoughts and feelings—is adapted for use in the book’s exploration of human-nature relationships.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Brooks, J. J., Wallace, G. N., & Williams, D. R. (2006). Place as relationship partner: An alternative metaphor for understanding the quality of visitor experience in a backcountry setting. Leisure Sciences, 28(4), 331–349.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691.
Coggins, G. C., & Evans, P. B. (1982). Multiple use, sustained yield planning on the public lands. University of Colorado Law Review, 53, 424–429.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474–493.
Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1–22.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., et al. (1983). Close relationships. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Martin, P. (2007). Caring for the environment: Challenges from notions of caring. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 23, 57–64.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515.
Morris, M. (2014). Posthumanist education and animal interiority. In T. Snaza & J. Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and educational research (pp. 43–55). London: Routledge.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2008). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment & Behavior, 41(5), 715–740.
Rogan, R., O’Connor, M., & Horwitz, P. (2005). Nowhere to hide: Awareness and perceptions of environmental change, and their influence on relationships with place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 147–158.
Sanders, C. R. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26(3), 405–426.
Saunders, C. E. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 137–149.
Turner, J. (1989). The abstract wild. Witness, 3(4), 81–95.
Van den Born, R. J., Lenders, R. H., De Groot, W. T., & Huijsman, E. (2001). The new biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation, 28(1), 65–75.
Walker, A. (1989). Living by the word: Selected writings, 1973-1987. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.
Warren, K. J. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29–46.
Wilson, C. (2017). Materialism, old and new, and the party of humanity. In S. Ellenzweig & J. H. Zammito (Eds.), The new politics of materialism (pp. 111–130). London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kessler, N.H. (2019). Human-Nature Relationship Model. In: Ontology and Closeness in Human-Nature Relationships. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99274-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99274-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99273-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99274-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)