Into the Wild
Filed under: Uncategorized — Giulianna Maria Lamanna @ 8:34 PM
It’s hard to tell the story of Christopher McCandless without implying that anyone who tries to leave mainstream society and go back to nature is a raving lunatic who will end up getting himself killed. After all, McCandless did get himself killed. Shortly after graduating from Emory University in the early 90’s, he donated all of his money to Oxfam, burned his Social Security card, rechristened himself Alexander Supertramp, and headed out onto the open road alone without so much as a good-bye to his family. A few years later, his body was found in a old run-down bus in Alaska. He had starved to death.
Alaskans generally consider him a total idiot, a naive romantic who had no idea what he was doing. So did many of the people who read Jon Krakauer’s book about McCandless, Into the Wild. The moral these people take from the story, generally, is that nature is a dangerous place that no human can survive in and that you’d be a fool to ever leave your comfortable suburban home. Both Krakauer and Sean Penn, who recently turned Krakauer’s book into a movie, take a kinder approach. Krakauer tries to understand what drove McCandless to escape civilization and draws parallels with himself as a young man; Penn comes close to portraying McCandless as a saint, the swelling music at the film’s climax seeming to imply that Chris reached enlightenment at the moment of his death.
For us primitivists, Chris McCandless’s story is more than just a sad tale–it’s also a cautionary one. Daniel Quinn recommended the book to his readers specifically as a warning of what not to do in their efforts to “walk away” from civilization. Humans are social creatures; McCandless confused our society with all society, and felt that to truly experience life meant to be completely alone, with no other humans around. That attitude, more than a lack of survival knowledge or experience, would become his downfall. Many assume that he starved to death because he couldn’t find anything to eat. On the contrary, he was doing quite well until he got sick from foraging some seeds that were just a few months out of season. Even the best of wilderness experts make that mistake once in a while. The difference is, they usually have friends and family to take care of them until they get better. If McCandless had brought along a tribe, or just one other person, he would never have died. All he needed was the right medicine and for someone else to do the foraging while he rested for a while.
One reason I’ve come to prefer the film version of Into the Wild to the book is that the film stresses the importance of human relationships. McCandless ran away to find rapture in the living world around him, but he forgot one crucial detail: that humans are part of that living world, and a vital part if you happen to also be a human. All of his adventures in the wilderness ended up being moot because he had no one to share them with. The real moral of the story isn’t that you should stay indoors, cowering from the natural world. It’s that when you do try to reconnect with something more authentic than our consumerist culture, you need friends. You need a support network. You need a community. You need a tribe.
Like I said, it’s hard to tell the story of Christopher McCandless without implying that anyone who tries to leave mainstream society and go back to nature is a raving lunatic who will end up getting himself killed. But Sean Penn, bless his hippie heart, tries as hard as he can. And the soundtrack–provided by known Ishmael fan Eddie Vedder–doesn’t hurt, either. Into the Wild is probably still playing at a theater somewhere in your general vicinity. If you’re anything like Chris McCandless–and let’s face it, if you’re reading this blog, you probably have more than just a little in common with him–it’s definitely worth a look-see.
I see it from another angle. Some people prefer to live alone, and don’t mind the risk of dying. We’re all going to die, the question is, are you happy with your life?
Some people like to climb rocks, some people like to kayak in whitewater, some people like to ride motorcycles. All of them are increasing the likelihood that they will die of something other than old age, just like McCandless did. Some people think that rockclimbers, kayakers and motorcyclists are nuts, and should be sitting on a couch in front of the tube rather than taking such risks. Some people have told me I’m nuts for commuting by bicycle in a city that is only marginally bicycle-frienldy. I’m not going to stop, I prefer it this way.
Not everyone *needs* a tribe or a community. You can do without one if you accept the risks. Sure, it might increase the likelihood that you’ll live longer–or it might get you killed quicker, depending on who is in your tribe, and who its enemies are.
Comment by Too Human — 8 November 2007 @ 11:03 AM
Humans are tribal animals, just like bees are hive animals, wolves are pack animals, and dolphins are pod animals. If you can successfully breed with another member of Homo sapiens, you need a tribe to be a healthy, functional human.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 November 2007 @ 12:23 PM
have to say — regarding comments 1 & 2 — you’re both right. As humans we’re tribal but it’s also good to die alone, doing something you love.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 8 November 2007 @ 1:30 PM
Jason might be right…if X then you need Y.
Bees have no choice but to associate with a hive.
Wolves are pack animals, but a pack really consists of a family…two breeding adults and a few of their progeny, with an occasional exchange to or from another pack. In an area well populated with wolves, one will find a number of ‘lone wolves’, typically males of breeding age who have been forced away from their birth pack so that they won’t compete with their parents; these wolves seek territory of their own, to form their own pack, but if they fail to find territory or mates, they will wander throughout their lives. Wolves have no real choice in this, it’s the way they are wired.
I don’t know about the details of dolphins, but I suspect they’ll fall into the same camp as bees or wolves: they have no choice.
Unlike bees, wolves and dolphins, humans can consciously choose to not associate with a tribe. I reject the notion that I *have* to function in this certain way to be a healthy, functional human. Jason, you sound like my mother.
Some personal perspective…
Left to my own devices, I have indeed sought out relationships in my life. I’m on my second marriage. As the first marriage (15 years) died a slow death, I very nearly decided that if and when the time came that I was free, I would go it alone in the woods. When the time came, I chose not to do this for two reasons: one, I met another woman, who is now my wife, which gives me great personal satisfaction, and she is not inclined to run away to the woods, and I’d prefer to stay with her than to go it alone; two, my mother will need my support as she gets older. So I have made the conscious choice to stay in society, not to go it alone.
But many people in our world don’t choose to stay in society. Many men become detached, homeless, perhaps alcoholic, etc. If given a chance to work a steady job, rent an apartment, and participate in society, many of them decide they’d rather sleep on the street and enjoy freedom.
I bring this up because I think that anti-social behavior is a natural and common trait among humans, and I don’t think it is strictly caused by the negative aspects of our corporate, industrial, agricultural, overpopulated, petroleum-fueled modern world. Not everyone likes to participate in a group organized according to someone else’s rules, whether it’s a group of 300 million first-worlders or a group of 150 HGs. It’s a choice we all face, and it’s a choice your tribe will face when it eventually runs off to the woods.
Comment by Too Human — 8 November 2007 @ 4:23 PM
I don’t know if humans actually have free will or not. You’ve brought this up before, but always as an assumption. Do you have evidence for that assertion? I know we like to think that of ourselves, but where’s the evidence for it?
And conversely, assuming we do, where’s the evidence that other animals don’t? I’ll grant that humans might be to cognitive functions what cheetahs are to running, but intelligence is a common trait in the animal kingdom. Not just other apes, but canids, crows, elephants, and many, many other animals communicate abstractly, maintain cultures, and show clear signs of intelligence. There’s no line we can draw there that separates us from them. If they don’t have free will, then neither do we; and we have free will, then clearly, so do they.
You said wolves don’t have a choice but to run with a pack, but that’s not true. Surely you’ve heard of lone wolves. Some are on their way to start their own pack (which you correctly identified with family). Some try to go it as loners. Those ones die. The same thing happens to humans. Tribes are families, too. When people try to go it alone, they die. Usually, they go insane to one extent or another first. Life apart is too contrary to human nature to sustain for very long. When I say that humans need tribes, that doesn’t mean they can’t survive without them, any more than a wolf can’t survive without a pack. Individuals try this all the time. It’s just that it goes contrary to the biological nature of the species; it drives them insane, and then they die.
Homelessness and not holding a job is a very different thing than not participating in society. The very fact that you mention “a group organized according to someone else’s rules” shows that it does have to do with the conflation of “our society” and “all society.” Because in most societies, it’s not “a group organized according to someone else’s rules.” It’s organized anew, all the time, according to your rules. The very fact that we’re talking about rules first and foremost shows that dichotomy, too. That’s a very domesticated view of what society means.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 November 2007 @ 5:34 PM
“I don’t know if humans actually have free will or not. You’ve brought this up before, but always as an assumption. Do you have evidence for that assertion?”
I think it is self evident. I have free will, but I am subject to constraints.
Regarding free will of animals (and humans are animals), of course they have free will, but it’s a matter of degree. In ‘higher’ animals the ability to exercise free will is more pronounced. In a horseshoe crab, free will is irrelevant. In a non-human primate, parrot, or other ’smart’ creature, it’s relevant and somewhat pronounced. In humans it’s more pronounced, and relevant.
When I was about 12 I inherited a Blue-Front Amazon parrot from family, because my aunt had passed away. I was told that the bird was mean, it bit everyone, and was no good. I took it anyway, and after breaking through the barrier over a period of months, we became best friends. But parrots live a long time, and I went away to college, and had to leave it to my parents. He bonded with them, but grew to hate me, because I had abandoned him. That was an act of free will on his part, and on mine. I could respond to simple reason in the matter of minutes, but he could only respond to inputs over months.
“You said wolves don’t have a choice but to run with a pack, but that’s not true.”
Ummm, I didn’t say that.
“Surely you’ve heard of lone wolves.”
Ummm, that’s exactly what I DID say. Wolves form families, but young male wolves head out on their own. Some find another pack. Some submit, some do not. We aren’t much different. We have free will, more pronounced than the wolf. We are less beholden to instinct than the wolf.
“When people try to go it alone, they die.”
Everybody dies. I disagree that going-it-alone means that you MUST die ‘prematurely’.
“Usually, they go insane to one extent or another first…Individuals try this all the time. It’s just that it goes contrary to the biological nature of the species; it drives them insane, and then they die.”
I appreciate your honesty here. You are advocating for a social system that is somewhat different from what we have today, but really it’s fairly conservative. Most people can’t accept the notion that others can reject society willfully. Sure, I love my family—my wife, my mom, the memories of my dad and grandfathers, my dogs, my parrots. I enjoy speaking with you here, but it’s much less of a bond. Countering all this is a desire to reject others. To me, this is what defines humanity, and you can see this in some other species. Some wolves agree to be submissive and stick around another’s territory; some decide to take their chances on their own.
“Homelessness and not holding a job is a very different thing than not participating in society. ”
Hmmm, in the context of today’s society, I see a strong correlation.
““our society” and “all society.”
It’s a matter of scale, and my claim is that regardless of scale, there has always been opposition. Some people naturally build society; others chafe under its structure, and either tend to tear it down, or leave it. Many in the middle resign themselves to it, but exhibit anti-social behavior. This has been true since pre-history.
“It’s organized anew, all the time, according to your rules.”
OK, I’ll buy that. But one of my rules is that some people will never be tightly bound to the group. They will come and go. However the tightly bound groups always have power over the individuals, and make rules such that the individuals are subjugated to the group. It doesn’t matter if you are a group of 150 ‘egalitarian’ HGs, or 300 million first-worlders. In the small group there are elders, and positions of power or respect; then there are the people growing up, not all of whom wish to participate.
I don’t disagree with most of what you are proposing regarding the future of humanity. I think you’re very insightful. But in my opinion, social organization is as much at fault for the condition of today’s world as agriculture. Agriculture didn’t happen by accident. It happened because groups of people wanted more.
Comment by Too Human — 8 November 2007 @ 8:37 PM
Great review. Still haven’t seen it, but maybe I will now.
Comment by Urban Scout — 9 November 2007 @ 1:05 AM
honestly, i’m actually losing a lot of interest in discussions about this (i’ve done my research, checked it against common sense and personal experience, and found pretty reasonable agreement among them), so, i really probably should just stay out of this (for my sake), but i will drop one thing that i think is being overlooked:
anti-social behaviour does not equate to introversion
being an introvert (which i am) actually says nothing about your stance in relation to society
i think our society confuses the issue by painting introverts as “shy” or “wallflowers” or “Ted Kazinsky” or “potential serial killer” etc.
Comment by jhereg — 9 November 2007 @ 9:52 AM
Sorry if I used too broad a brush when I used the word ‘anti-social’. I’m not trained in sociology, so I’m apt to misuse the word. What I meant in general is that some people exhibit behaviors outside the accepted mainstream, and society–whether ours, or all, tribal or family or modern–exerts pressure on those people to conform. I am rather introverted myself, in most ways, but I don’t mind using the word ‘anti-social’ on myself.
Really, the reason I was interested in commenting about it is this: I’ve read a good portion of the posts on this site (not all of it yet), and in general I think it is a well constructed view of one possible future of humanity, an exciting and worthwhile topic indeed. However I sense that too little attention is paid to the roles that free will and individual choice have taken in shaping civilization. I agree with Jason that environmental constraints are the most significant factors in shaping human existence. But compared to other animals, humans have a much greater capacity to choose to deliberately change their behavior, and this has played a signficant role in shaping the world as we know it. I suggest that unless this element is given credibile treatement, the Anthropik view on what humanity will look like after the collapse will be somewhat lacking.
Comment by Too Human — 9 November 2007 @ 11:03 AM
Clearly human beings are social animals and aren’t meant to go it entirely alone. At the same time, considering the mind-controlled world that we live in, solitude might be just as necessary a component of our development as community attachment. Solitude can play a crucial role in deprogramming, without which positive individuation as well as positive social integration can’t take place.
And I think that’s what McCandless was trying to do–deprogram. Judging him by his wilderness survival abilities seems way off base to me.
Great site you’ve got here, btw.
Comment by shane — 9 November 2007 @ 9:37 PM
That’s ridiculous, Too Human. You’re a smart guy, but it’s pretty clear you’re not really thinking through your recieved wisdom here. You’re talking about a change in your relationship with another person. Do you change a long-standing relationship in a matter of minutes? You respond to sudden things suddenly, but you’re not going to go from loving your wife to leaving her in the next five minutes, are you? By the same token, hit your parrot, and you’re going to get a sudden response, not one you’ll have to wait two months for. Sounds to me like you’re both operating under very similar timelines.
And for that matter, what of your horseshoe crab example? You’ve spent enough time with a parrot to see that it has free will, something most people (who’ve never spent that much time with one) would vehemently deny, insisting that parrots simple operate on programmed instinct. But you know that to be untrue, at least as much as it’s untrue for you yourself (though, consider the possibility that what you experience first-hand as free will may be what preprogrammed instinct feels like). So it seems to me that your perception of whether or not horseshoe crabs have free will has a direct correlation with how much time you spend getting to know a horseshoe crab.
I don’t see any evidence for that. If that were true, wouldn’t the split be something like 50/50, as far as those who settle down, vs. those who strike out on their own? Instead, it’s more like 99/1. Actually, I think that might make us more beholden to instinct than wolves, as I’d guess that they might actually have a higher percentage that break from the usual order. It seems to me that our intelligence and free will have more to do with rationalizing why we follow our instinct, rather than making any kind of actually free, rational decision.
Perhaps it doesn’t. Perhaps it’s just a 100% positive correlation for some other reason. But the data’s fairly indisputable: go it alone, and you die, sooner rather than later.
I think of myself as the ultimate conservative. I’m for the really old-school family values.
I still fail to see the evidence for that, though. Like lone wolves, humans who make that choice are very rare, along the same lines of those who develop pathological mutations, which makes it pretty easy to identify this as simply a social version of that. They get themselves killed off remarkably quickly, too, so it’s easy to see this as an evolutionary matter, as well. I certainly can’t see it as a defining aspect of humanity. So much of what we are as a species is rooted in our need for a social context.
But the homeless and others like them still live in society, participate in it, and yes, even contribute to it. It may not be in a manner that our society condones, but I think we all recognize that our society isn’t very smart, even about what it itself needs. That’s very different from a lone wolf that leaves his pack behind.
I don’t think it has been. Tribal societies insist fanatically upon the absolute, unadulterated potential for each individual to fully express themselves in whatever manner they need, at all times, and anyone who tries to restrict that has committed one of the greatest crimes imaginable. By the same token, tribal people know that they cannot express who they are without being nourished and sustained by a strong, healthy community. The dilemma we face of freedom vs. society only holds when society defines itself in terms of restrictions, and that is a recent innovation. Tribal societies are not collections of restrictions, but collections of supports. For them, there is no dilemma here, any more than there’s a dilemma between an oak growing tall and strong, vs. rich soil for it to grow in. There is no choice to be made; you need one to have the other.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the role of elders in a tribal group here. You’re projecting power structures from our society onto another society where they don’t exist. This is precisely what I meant by conflating “our society” with “all society.” In tribal societies, individuals are not subjugated to the rules of the group, that’s precisely the point.
Actually, what people wanted had very little to do with the spread of agriculture—it really spread in spite of what people wanted, but that aside … I can certainly see why you would hold that opinion. The only society you’ve ever experienced certainly holds to that model. But our society is not the only way a society can operate. It will take some in-depth study, but if you follow it, you’ll see that tribal societies do not hold to the parameters you’re projecting onto them at all. That’s why they worked for millions of years.
A good example. In our society, we have a very narrow definition of accepted roles, and we expect people to conform to them. They’re much more narrow than the range of human diversity, so the pressure to conform can be quite unpleasant.
This doesn’t exist in tribal societies, at least, not in a form like what we have. The roles there are much broader, and much more fitting human nature (example: the Two-Spirit). The pressure is not to conform to society’s model, but to fulfill your own orenda to the utmost. Rather than lay down limitations and rules to make you conform to their vision of what you should be, the purpose of their society is to provide as much support and aid as possible to make sure that you can express yourself fully. I used the term orenda because really, the Haudenosaunee term means exactly that, and there’s really no English word for it. That alone should say something.
First, I’d need evidence that we actually have free will. I think that assumption’s taken for granted far too much.
Then, I’d need evidence that it’s relevant. Because even if we do, we certainly don’t act like it. Give us more food, and our population goes up as surely as a herd of cows. Really, even if we individually have free will, wouldn’t that alone eliminate its relevance on a large scale? After all, if we have free will, then with nothing else impacting us, 50% will say yes, and 50% will say no, so the only thing that tip a population one way or another is the same, “hard” factors we’ve been looking at. Even if we do individually have free will, it seems evident to me that free will is self-eliminating at the social scale, at least.
I can certainly see that. In fact, even tribal societies will have individuals seeking some solitude to straighten things out for a little while. Well, not solitude, but shifting your companionship from human persons to other-than-human persons for a while. But that’s never something you go to do for the rest of your life. It’s a kind of Campbellian Hero’s Journey, and the Return with the Boon is an essential part of that cycle.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 November 2007 @ 9:38 AM
[…] in Books, Film, Music at 2:21 pm by ruggedindoorsman Giuli has written a nice review of Into the Wild - the film recently made by Sean Penn based on the book of the same name by John […]
Pingback by Something to share with friends « Rugged Indoorsman — 11 November 2007 @ 9:21 AM
Maybe an important reference point for this conversation would be the book Walden. Just a thought.
Comment by anonymous — 13 November 2007 @ 8:02 PM
Why do you suggest that, anonymous? I’ve heard people use Walden both ways, so I really don’t know. But it is important when considering Walden that Thoreau didn’t live by Walden Pond for his whole life, or even for very long; and frankly, even when he did, he was never very far from other people.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 November 2007 @ 9:48 PM
yes, the hive. what bee is dumb enough to live on its own? sure, we can argue, “they have no choice!” and i would like to know what human is living entirely without contact with other humans? if they do for too long they are dead and forgotten.
i imagine were all in the ‘hive’ right now…
any way, saw the movie.
i was deeply moved by the performances and drawn into the story. i saw myself in this guy and was tearful through much of it… mercy please.
i was especially taken by his last realization, that to share life is meaningful and where purpose comes from. being alone is great for initiation and a powerful way to gain clarity, but it can wreak havoc on anyone… look at our lives, surrounded by millions and so alone and isolated from one another.
Comment by walkswithsun — 20 November 2007 @ 4:21 AM
I had the chance to meet Christopher McCandless while living in Alaska I didn’t think much of it at the time, until he died that winter. He struck me as a careless person with very little regard for practical life. Alaska is full of people who do just what he did only they have more concern for the long term. It’s not a statement it’s a lifestyle. One of my favorite people is Bill; I don’t know his last name I never thought to ask it wasn’t important. He would show up and sleep on my couch around the start of Salmon season hire on as a cook for a month or two, make some money buy supplies and go home. His address?? Three days walk out of Eagle River across the gorge on the swinging bridge; you’ll find it stay on the trail. I also met as a guest speaker at a black powder Rendezvous the summer before a man who introduced himself as Earthworm. After his divorce he had a friend drop him off in the Utah wilderness where he promptly threw his close over a cliff and walked into the wilderness for four years. He said he only saw two sets of people the whole time, one set on week two which he didn’t talk to because he hadn’t made cloths yet, the other after 3 years didn’t talk to them either. Nothing to say yet. These people have something Christopher McCandless didn’t; the desire to live life, not just make a statement.
Comment by Adam — 28 November 2007 @ 4:55 AM
Sorry it was chuck not bill in Eagle River, it’s been awhile.
Comment by Adam — 29 November 2007 @ 12:37 PM