162
S. Westlund / Exploring connections between nature and recovery from stress and post-traumatic distress
Buduburam Refugee Camp in Ghana following a real-
ization that his fighting had turned him into an empty
shell and that he no longer felt human. As part of his
personal healing, and to give back to the refugee com-
munity, Morris assembled approximately 200 other
former child soldiers living in the camp, and the young-
sters built a farm to grow and harvest fruits and veg-
etables. The healing and recovery process for these
young people is anything but easy. All of them carry
the stigma of their former roles as combatants, and
many others in the community continue to see them
as rapists and murderers. However, the youngsters find
comfort both in their relationships with one another
and in cultivating new life together [2]. And they carry
hope that others will eventually see that they have the
power to change, to do good, and will one day accept
them into the larger community.
Extending examples such as those of Lt. Gen. Dal-
laire and former child soldier Morris, this paper exam-
ines reciprocal interactions between humans and na-
ture during post-military recovery, with a focus on the
experience-centered narratives of four North American
veterans who regard their recovery from traumatic mil-
itary experiences as intimately tied to their nature ex-
periences. Most of the veterans came accidentally to
the discovery that they felt better in the outdoors, af-
ter which they purposefully sought out more such ex-
periences. Through exploring themes of sensory ex-
perience, safety, sense of purpose, and renewed rela-
tionships, this paper explores recovery from conflict as
embedded in and supported by more-than-human na-
ture.1 In this context, the term “recovery” does not sug-
gest erasing or forgetting the stressful and/or traumatic
experiences that the veterans have lived through, but
1Rather than ‘non-human nature,’ the author prefers David
Abram’s [53] term ‘more-than-human nature,’ which accepts the rad-
ical ecological dependencies and relationships within the larger fam-
ily of things. For example, if a tree defined everything other than it-
self as ‘non-tree,’ the ‘tree’ world becomes very narrow. The ‘non-
tree’ world would include the soil in which the tree grows, insects
that pollinate the tree’s flowers, the birds and winds and squirrels that
disperse the tree’s seeds, the rain and snow waters that help the tree
grow, the animals whose excrement and decomposing bodies pro-
vide essential nutrients to the tree’s roots, the human who sits in the
tree’s shade on a hot summer day and breathes out carbon dioxide to
give the tree breath, the insects and worms that decompose the tree
once its life ends so that it may provide life to other trees, and so
much more. By changing ‘non-tree’ to ‘more-than-tree,’ it is possi-
ble to conceptualize the tree as being in ecological relationship with
all these other beings that, while distinct, are important in the tree’s
lifecycle, and without which, the tree would not live. Similarly, the
term more-than-human accounts for the complex ecological depen-
dencies that form the basis of human life.
rather, that these events provide the context of their
present living, and it is from there that they seek ways
to continue living their lives.
1.1. Theoretical perspectives
In the 1960s, psychoanalyst Harold Searles argued
that most studies in psychoanalysis have been limited
to understanding inter- and intra-personal processes in
personality development. The literature considered na-
ture to be irrelevant, “as though human life were lived
out in a vacuum – as though the human race were
alone in the universe, pursuing individual and collec-
tive destinies in a homogeneous matrix of nothingness,
a background devoid of form, color, and substance” [3,
p. 3]. In response to these studies, and drawing on his
work with schizophrenic patients, Searles began artic-
ulating his vision that nature is of primary importance
to the human psyche, since the human personality ma-
tures within a “total matrix” comprising “predomi-
nantly nonhuman elements – trees, clouds, stars, land-
scapes, buildings, and so on ad infinitum” [3, p. 53].
Accordingly, he observed that when humans ignore the
connections between their psyches and nature, it en-
dangers their psychological well-being.
Meanwhile, social historian Theodore Roszak has
observed that at one time, “all psychologies were
‘ecopsychologies.’ Those who sought to heal the soul
took it for granted that human nature is densely em-
bedded in the world we share with animal, vegetable,
mineral, and all the unseen powers of the cosmos” [4,
p. 14]. Indeed, connections between nature experiences
and human health have been accepted by poets, sages,
and indigenous peoples, amongst others, for thousands
of years. Ancient Greek healing places and temples
were purposefully located on hilltops in the country-
side with views of the ocean, around the same time that
Taoists in China were building greenhouses and culti-
vating gardens as part of their approach for maintaining
health and wellbeing [5,6]. Chinese mystics often es-
caped the activity and clamor of towns for the country-
side, where they sought to find and restore their souls,
while the Christian Bible tells numerous stories of holy
men who retreated to the desert to have contact with
God [7].
In the Middle Ages, gardens were deemed an impor-
tant facet of human healing, particularly in monastery
settings [8]. During the Victorian era, gardens were of-
ten found in hospitals [9]. And beginning in the nine-
teenth century, French churches advocated commu-
nity gardens as a way to improve the circumstances