Rise of Nature Connectedness Gurus : Romanticising The Imagined.
In recent years, there has been a surge of self-proclaimed gurus advocating for "nature connection" and "wild" practices aimed at reconnecting people with their ancestral roots. These figures often market themselves as guides to rediscovering a primordial state of being, rooted in deep ecological understanding and ancient wisdom. They promise that by following their methods—whether through bushcraft, rewilding retreats, or spiritual workshops—participants can achieve physical, mental, and spiritual benefits. However, a closer examination reveals that many of these approaches are built on vague, romanticized notions of both ancestors and ecology. These gurus tend to offer generalized, ahistorical views that simplify complex relationships between humans, culture, and the environment, and their claims often lack substantive grounding in ecological science or anthropological evidence.
A critical lens on this phenomenon can be found in the paper, Rewild your inner hunter-gatherer: How an idea about our ancestral condition is recruited into popular debate in Britain and Ireland by Noa Lavi, Alice Rudge, and Graeme Warren. The authors provide an insightful analysis of how the idea of ancestral ways of living has been co-opted into contemporary discourses around nature connection. This article will explore the rise of nature connection gurus, critique the generic and romanticized visions they promote, and apply insights from Lavi, Rudge, and Warren’s work to deconstruct the assumptions underlying these approaches.
The Appeal of "Nature Connection" and Ancestral Wisdom
The concept of “nature connection” has become a central theme in various wellness movements, drawing on the idea that modern life, particularly urbanization and industrialization, has alienated humans from nature. Many proponents of this movement argue that reconnecting with nature through ancestral practices—such as foraging, hunting, fire-making, or wild camping—can lead to improved well-being. This idea taps into a widespread cultural anxiety about the consequences of living in a technologically saturated, fast-paced world. It offers a seemingly simple solution: by returning to the ways of our ancestors, we can reclaim lost vitality, mental clarity, and a sense of meaning.
Gurus and influencers in this space often position themselves as custodians of forgotten knowledge, presenting themselves as guides who can help individuals tap into an ancient, authentic version of the self. Terms like "rewilding," "ancestral wisdom," and "primal instincts" are frequently used, but they remain frustratingly vague. The “wild” these figures refer to is rarely situated within a specific ecological or cultural context. Instead, it is presented as a general, monolithic concept—a mythical pre-industrial past where humans lived harmoniously with nature. This vague invocation of "ancestry" and "nature" makes their teachings more palatable and accessible to a broad audience but also strips these concepts of their historical and cultural specificity.
Romanticization of the Ancestor Figure
One of the central tropes in nature connection movements is the idealization of the ancestor. The ancestor, in this context, is often imagined as a wise, resourceful, and ecologically harmonious figure—someone who was attuned to the rhythms of the natural world and who possessed an innate understanding of the land. This romanticized figure is frequently disconnected from the real and diverse histories of human subsistence, survival, and culture. In many nature connection programs, "ancestors" are depicted as generic hunter-gatherers who embody an idealized way of living that modern humans should strive to emulate.
Lavi, Rudge, and Warren critique this generic portrayal in their paper, pointing out that the invocation of the hunter-gatherer figure in contemporary rewilding discourse often serves as a nostalgic vision of a “pure” human condition, free from the complications of modernity. This vision is deeply selective, emphasizing certain traits—such as perceived ecological harmony or physical fitness—while ignoring the complexities and hardships of actual hunter-gatherer life. For example, the portrayal of ancestors in these movements often ignores the fact that hunter-gatherer societies were highly varied in their relationships with their environments and that many practiced forms of agriculture, animal domestication, or managed landscapes in ways that challenge simplistic notions of “living in harmony” with nature.
This romanticized version of the past becomes problematic when it is used to promote specific methods or practices without acknowledging the diverse and context-specific realities of human history. By homogenizing the figure of the ancestor, nature connection gurus erase the cultural and ecological diversity that has always existed within human societies.
Vague Terminology and Unsupported Claims
Another hallmark of the nature connection movement is the use of vague, often mystical language to describe both the problems of modern life and the benefits of returning to ancestral practices. Terms like "reconnection," "rewilding," and "deep ecology" are frequently invoked without clear definitions or rigorous explanations of how such concepts are supposed to work. This vagueness allows these movements to appeal to a broad audience, but it also opens the door to pseudoscientific claims.
For example, many nature connection programs claim that by adopting "ancestral practices," participants can improve their mental health, enhance their physical resilience, and even achieve spiritual enlightenment. However, these claims are often presented without substantive evidence. While there is research to suggest that spending time in nature can have psychological benefits—such as reducing stress and improving mood—the idea that specific, commodified "ancestral practices" are necessary for achieving these benefits is dubious. The methods promoted by nature connection gurus are often disconnected from the real ecological knowledge and practices of indigenous or traditional peoples, and instead rely on a kind of “ancestral cosplay” where participants mimic superficial aspects of hunter-gatherer life without engaging with its deeper complexities.
The Critique from Lavi, Rudge, and Warren
In their paper, Lavi, Rudge, and Warren dissect the ways in which the idea of the hunter-gatherer has been recruited into popular discourses in Britain and Ireland. They argue that many of the claims made by nature connection movements are based on simplified, selective, and romanticized views of human ancestry. Rather than engaging with the historical and ecological realities of how different societies have lived, these movements often project a universalized narrative of ecological harmony and innate wisdom onto the figure of the hunter-gatherer.
The authors point out that this approach tends to obscure the real diversity of human subsistence strategies and ecological relationships. For example, the idea that all ancestors lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers overlooks the fact that many ancient societies practiced forms of agroecology, landscape management, and mixed subsistence strategies that do not fit neatly into modern romantic notions of the "wild." Moreover, they highlight that the contemporary fascination with the hunter-gatherer figure often reflects contemporary anxieties about modernity, rather than an accurate understanding of human history.
Lavi, Rudge, and Warren’s critique is particularly valuable because it highlights the political and ethical implications of these romanticized narratives. By promoting a decontextualized vision of human ancestry, nature connection movements risk reinforcing colonial ideologies that view non-Western or pre-modern societies as primitive, exotic, or noble in their simplicity. This not only misrepresents the complexity of indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge, but it also perpetuates harmful stereotypes about “authentic” ways of living in relation to nature.
The Role of Commodification in Nature Connection Movements
One of the most troubling aspects of the rise of nature connection gurus is the way in which they commodify ancestral practices. Many of these movements charge high fees for workshops, retreats, and programs that promise participants access to ancient wisdom and deep ecological knowledge. This commodification turns ancestral practices into products to be bought and sold, often divorced from their cultural and ecological contexts.
For example, participants in a nature connection retreat might pay to learn how to build a fire, forage for edible plants, or craft tools using "ancient" methods. While these activities can be valuable in fostering a sense of connection to the land, they are often presented as universal solutions that can be applied anywhere, regardless of the local environment or cultural history. This ignores the fact that traditional ecological knowledge is deeply tied to specific places, climates, and ecosystems. What works in one environment may not be relevant or appropriate in another, yet nature connection movements often gloss over these distinctions in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach.
The Danger of Ahistorical Ecological Narratives
The romanticized narratives promoted by nature connection gurus can also have dangerous ecological implications. By idealizing a mythical past where humans lived in perfect harmony with nature, these movements risk oversimplifying the challenges of contemporary environmental crises. Climate change, biodiversity loss, and habitat degradation are complex, global problems that cannot be solved by simply adopting the practices of our ancestors. Moreover, the notion that there was ever a time when humans lived in perfect harmony with nature is itself a myth. Human societies have always modified their environments, sometimes in ways that led to ecological collapse.
Lavi, Rudge, and Warren argue that rather than looking to a romanticized past, we should focus on engaging with the present realities of our ecological situation. This means acknowledging the complexity of human-environment relationships and developing solutions that are grounded in local ecological knowledge, scientific understanding, and cultural context.
Conclusion: A Call for Critical Engagement
The rise of nature connection gurus reflects a growing desire for alternatives to the disconnection and alienation of modern life. However, the romanticized and commodified visions of ancestry and ecology they promote often obscure more than they reveal. As Lavi, Rudge, and Warren’s work shows, these movements frequently rely on simplified, ahistorical narratives that fail to engage with the real complexities of human-environment relationships. If we are to address the profound ecological crises of our time, we must move beyond these generic and romanticized notions of the past and instead cultivate a more critical, context-specific understanding of how humans can live sustainably within the natural world.
