european college of sport science

IS-SS09 Friluftsliv - the impact of outdoor education on environmental concerns
deep respect for the wilderness. Nature is thus considered a central part of the Norwegian national identity (Breivik, 1989; Reed & Rothenberg,
1993).
In the beginning of the 20th century and up towards the 1960s sport and friluftsliv seemed to flourish side by side. But old tensions surfaced
in the 1960s and 1970s when elite sport developed into professional show sport. Leading friluftsliv ideologists, like Faarlund and
Kvaløy Sætereng, felt that friluftsliv and sport had to split completely and that friluftsliv was the only acceptable physical culture from an
ecological point of view (Faarlund, 1993; Kvaløy Sætereng, 1993).
In the 1960s and 1970s study programs in friluftsliv were developed at various university colleges in Norway. The theoretical foundation
for the new area of study was sought in the new ecological disciplines and especially “deep ecology”. It was Arne Næss (1912-2009) who
in 1973 coined the term “deep ecology” (Næss, 1973). Later he developed his own systematic philosophical version of deep ecology called
“ecosophy T” (Næss, 1990) From an ecophilosophical platform he sketched how friluftsliv should be experienced and practiced (Næss,
1994).
The paper will be divided into five sections. The first section gives a short presentation of Arne Næss, his life and philosophy. The second
section examines relevant aspects of ecosophy T, especially the ideas of “self-realization” and of “increasing identification with all beings”.
In the third section Arne Næss’ thoughts on outdoor life are presented and discussed, especially the ideas of “hilaritas” and “manysidedness”.
The last section will give examples of Arne Næss’ own practice and discuss implications of his philosophy for outdoor education.
References
Breivik, G. (1989) “F.Nansen and the Norwegian outdoor life tradition.” Scand. J. Sports Sci. 11(1):9-14
Faarlund,N. (1993) “A Way Home”. In: Reed & Rothenberg (1993:157-169)
Kvaløy Sætereng, S.(1993) “Complexity and Time: Breaking the Pyramid’s Reign”. In Reed & Rothenberg (1993:116-146)
Næss, A. (1973) “The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movements” Inquiry 16, 95-100
Næss, A. (1990) Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Næss, A. (1994) “Notes on the Philosophy of Sport”. Manuscript.
Reed, P. & Rothenberg, D.(eds.) (1993) Wisdom in the Open Air. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.
NARRATIVES ON NATURE, NURTURE AND CULTURE
GURHOLT, K.P.
NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF SPORT SCIENCES
Introduction: Autobiographies of prominent environmentalists show that their early lives have been rich in personal experiences of nature
(Milton, 2002). Notably, the early childhood experiences of philosopher and climber Arne Næss (1912-2009) inspired the development of
the philosophy of deep ecology, which influenced the emergence of friluftsliv as environmental pedagogy in the 1970’s. As a subject
friluftsliv was underpinned by the principle of identification with nature and consequently intended to induce people to act protectively
towards nature, not because ‘they think they ought to but because they feel inclined to’. This paper contributes to the understanding of
complex, empathetic relationships to nature by analysing the significance of nature and friluftsliv in the life-worlds of young Norwegians.
Methods: In 2001 and 2006 nearly 200 youths aged from 15 to 19, living in the sub-Arctic, a suburb of Oslo, and a southern seaside
holiday site, wrote essays on their experiences of nature. The question was an open one but stimulated a biographical approach (Gurholt,
2005; Vigane, 2007).
Results: The youth emphasise intimate experiences of nature from early childhood. These experiences are connected to playing freely in
neighbourhoods and hiking with family and friends. They express a love for the native “natural world”. Despite the fact that “nature
means a lot”, the relations to nature have at the time of writing become distanced. When looking into the future, they often dream of living
close to nature, which is not seen antagonistic to urban lifestyles. If they have children, they want them to grow up with the same freedom
to play outside as they themselves enjoyed in their own childhood. The youth are concerned about litter and reflect on “nature’s life giving
significance”, often expressed abstractly as something “we must of course take care of” because “nature is the biggest reason why we
humans are able to live on this planet.” However, the ways in which the youth are acting towards nature, e.g. activities performed and
technology used, represent broad diversity.
Discussion: Processes of self-formation nurtured by close contact with nature are discussed as embodied experiences, which in part are
informed by stories on how nature is perceived and should be treated and nurtured. Recent theories on the ecological self do not take
social relations into account (Milton, 2002: Sutton, 2004). This study indicates that it is the interweave of natural/ecological processes,
transforming selves and socio-cultural relations that underpin young people’s diverse feelings and actions towards nature, friluftsliv and
environmental issues.
References
Milton, K. (2002). Loving Nature. Routledge, London.
Gurholt, K. (2005) Nature Narratives. In Humberstone, B, Nicol, R. Old Traditions–New Trends. Brathay Hall, Ambleside.
Vigane, Å. (2007). Kysten er jo alt for meg! Norges idrettshøgskole, Oslo.
Sutton, P.H. (2004). Nature, Environment and Society. Palgrave, New York.
314 14 TH
ANNUAL CONGRESS OF THE EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE