The Generic Green «vs» The Cultivated Wilds «vs» The True Wilds, and Why People Don't Really "Like Nature" Like They Say They Do

“I love nature. I worship the Earth and the natural cycles” they say.

Meanwhile: Everything they do, right down to their holiday cycle, is based on an ecosystem and climate on another continent entirely, in a country they’ve never actually visited or ever lived in- and from another century not even remotely like our own; they know nothing about their local ecoregion or microregion, let alone their own agricultural or pastoral culture (past or present); and the vast majority of them have little to no legitimate experience anywhere outside of an urban city.

In other words: I’ve found that most people don’t really “like nature” like they claim to … They like the generic green- and that’s not at all the same thing.

People frequently don't understand what I mean when I say “the Generic Green”, however- and that’s fair. But stuff like “Houseplants” are about as far from what I’m talking about as a bird is from a bee; similar form, but a completely different and frequently unrelated function- and an entirely different role to play.

When I say “the Generic Green”, what I’m talking about is people’s perceptions of nature revolving around the concept of the cultivated wilds. Specifically around an overly generic and romanticized idea of what “nature” and “wilderness” looks like, peddled predominantly by eco-spirituality books, and repeatedly perpetuated by people who’ve never actually stepped a single foot into a truly wild space.

The Holy Wild is honestly a great example of a badly written eco-spirituality book that perpetuates the hyper-romanticization of the Wild by people who don’t know what they’re talking about on any level. Though admittedly it's a more extreme example of what I’m talking about, compared to what most people believe.

“The Generic Green” is essentially the equivalent of a stock photo of nature: A highly fictionalized and romanticized idea of a single, highly localized type of nature, widely spread about as the epitomical image of what untouched nature looks like in its purest state. One which people latch onto and uphold as “nature” regardless of their own location or relative experience with any particular ecosystem.

It's a romanticization of a singular ecosystem and its various components- one which the individual will never actually experience because it's not theirs and doesn't actually exist in relation to them; in the vast majority of cases they have zero relationship to it what-so-ever, and never will ... It's a landscape which exists, certainly, in a real corner of the world (or, at least, may have at one point in Human history). But for the vast majority of people it will never be anything more than fiction for them. And yet still, somehow, it is upheld as the ultimate ideal that everyone aspires to create nature in the image of.

Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, this image- this stock photo- is heavily entertwined with white racism, white supremacy, and white colonialism. And eventually this is something we will also have to recon with as well.

The problem comes, largely, in that people interested in the Generic Green rarely ever actually step outside of that stock photo to get a legitimate look at the nature which exists directly around and in relation to them; they can’t identify a single tree of their own (though they might be able to identify a couple common flowers, or a couple common birds- that capability is usually by sheer luck and oversaturation, however). They don’t know what their Ecoregions are, let alone what Bioregion they’re a part of. They’ve never volunteered with any sort of wildlife services, or visited an open-boundary reserve. They have no idea what animals are native to their area, or what their habits are; and so on.

That’s not to say that any or all of this is required to claim you “like nature”, mind you. You don’t have to know any of this to claim you “like nature”. You just have to be properly aware of what nature actually is ... And it’s pretty safe to say that you don’t actually like "nature" nearly as much as you think you do if your idea of nature is basically a stock photograph; if you've never really experienced the real thing beneath your feet or put a foot into proper nature to begin with, in any actual capacity.

If that’s the case, you don’t actually like nature itself. What you like, arguably, is the idea of it (a very specific, highly factionalized and romanticized, ultimately colonialist idea of it, at that). And that’s really, genuinely, not at all the same thing in the slightest.

I think some people have the mistaken idea that, because I’ve spoken about the differences between the “Generic Green”, the “Cultivated Green”, the “Cultivated Wilds”, and the “True Wilds” (and the weird hypocrisy of modern Paganism in regards to nature and the misrepresentation of their connection to it in light of those differences), however ... That I’m some kind of a purist snob who thinks that the True Wilds are superior or something.

That isn’t the case. I’m not opposed to the Cultivated Green at all ... I'm literally a Master Gardener, and my very first Plant Spirit Ally was the Peony. My second was the Rose. Both are plants that’re very much cultivated to the point that hardly any of us have ever seen a genuinely wild cultivar, let alone see them as anything other than Ornamentals (though the Rose has retained significantly more of its metaphysical and medicinal history than the Peony has).

I am opposed to the Generic Green on some specific levels. But the Generic Green, to me, is still an okay starting place- an acceptable enough gateway- for people to initially step into “nature” through; to pique your initial interest in actually getting to know the natural world around you ... But it's one that should, ideally, eventually be discarded as one progresses; it's not something that should be held onto, or allowed to form one's entire idea or image of nature and what it's meant to look like, how it's meant to function, etc.

There’s also a lot to be said about the Generic Green itself, and its overall development and meaning. Additionally, there's a lot to be said for the irony and hypocrisy inherent in Paganism’s latching onto the Generic Green in particular and never actually letting go of it — or, if it does let go of it, trading it out for what is arguably a misrepresentation of the Cultivated Wilds instead (and, in turn, incorrectly positioning the Cultivated Wilds as the True Wilds when they're far from it). Likewise, there needs to be open discussion about the misunderstandings and misperceptions, and the blatant misrepresentations, of the True Wilds as a whole- especially by those who’ve never actually experienced them in the first place. And all of these discussions must be frank and deeply self reflective.

But it’s genuinely not that I uphold one as any more superior than the other, or think of any as inferior. The Cultivated Green, Cultivated Wilds, and True Wilds all not only have their own place in the everyday landscape and ecosystem, but also in spirituality in general. However: If you want to claim a spiritual connection to and emphasis on nature? Then you do need to understand these distinctions and what they mean not only for yourself, but also for your practice- and you need to know when you’re properly operating in one over the other.