Abstract
This article explores the importance of contact with nature to subjective well-being (SWB) in Greenland. Through a qualitative approach based on 70 face-to-face interviews in 13 towns and villages in north, south, east, and central Greenland, the objective is first to explore and discuss perceptions of nature and its importance to SWB. Second, the article expands the discussion to include a theoretical debate about how Greenlandic people perceive and interact with nature. This study reveals that nature is highly important to SWB with little variation among locations. More notably, the findings indicate variation in what nature means and how nature is perceived. The importance of nature to SWB highly involves recreational contact with nature, suggesting a possible development towards a paradigm shift in the common perceptions of nature among Greenlandic Inuit, where people mostly perceive nature as an external domain rather than a domain that transcends the physical and meta-physical, as traditional views on nature have been described previously.
Polar bears, icebergs, snowy mountains, or whales diving into the ocean are probably among the most common visual associations with nature in Greenland. The country takes up about one-fifth of the Arctic land area, with a population of approximately 56,000 scattered over an area of around 2.2 million km2. The majority of this sparse population is Greenlandic Inuit, whose traditional lifeway prior to colonization was one that coexisted with, by, and from nature. Today, although most Inuit have adapted to the modern globalized world, they are still living in close contact with nature and are highly dependent on it. Almost the entire national export consists of natural resources (fish, prawns, and shellfish), as well as extracted raw materials. However, the natural resources in Greenland are not confined to the material resources that people can catch, extract, and sell. People depend on nature for nonmaterial reasons as well.
Leading arctic studies suggest that simply contact with nature itself has a significant correlation to quality of life and well-being (Nymand Larsen et al. 2010; Poppel et al. 2007). Most previous research has focused on quantitative studies that measure socioeconomic indicators of contact with nature, such as consumption of traditional food and time spent on traditional activities as a way to unpack certain aspects of well-being and human development (Crate et al. 2010; Nymand Larsen et al. 2015). So far, however, these quantitative arctic studies have not addressed how people perceive nature. To be able to appreciate the importance of nature to subjective well-being in Greenland specifically and the Arctic more generally, we need to understand how people perceive and use nature. What is “nature” to Greenlandic people? Once we know the answer to this question, we can continue to ask, how is nature important to subjective well-being in Greenland? In this study, many people I spoke with viewed nature mainly as a local phenomenon with both physical and metaphysical aspects. To them, nature had something to do with where they grew up, or they saw it as it was where they were in the present as many continue to interact with their immediate natural surroundings as is customary in their families or communities. Findings on the latter indicate further that there is a moral aspect to how Greenlandic people see or rather should see and interact with nature. What happens then when our lives change in a way that forces us to interact with nature differently? Do we see nature the same as we used to, or do our perceptions change as well?
On the one hand, this article seeks to explore and discuss perceptions of nature and its importance to subjective well-being (SWB), and, on the other hand, it expands the discussion to include a theoretical debate about how Greenlandic people perceive nature today and in the past by asking the question: How does contact with nature affect SWB in Greenland? Can a qualitative analysis of the importance of nature provide a new theoretical understanding of nature in Greenland?
Greenlandic Inuit
Greenlandic Inuit were traditionally a nomadic hunter-gatherer people who settled wherever conditions were amenable to hunting and shelter could be erected (Petersen 1993). Living with and off of nature was a fundamental part of life. Today, the lives of hunters and fishers still retain certain aspects of a nomadic lifestyle with seasonal camps; however, the nomadic tradition, as such, has dissolved, and people now reside in permanent towns and villages. People still move around in Greenland, but today, like other global societies, migration is highly connected with job and education opportunities. The number of people hunting for a living is at an all-time low, and today more people work in administration and service industries than ever before (Rasmussen 2007; StatBank Greenland 2020). These changes are the direct result of globalizing forces, capitalism, modernization, and climate change.
In Greenland, perceptions of nature traditionally relate to a symbiotic understanding in which nature was not simply a resource that humans have the right to use or exploit. Nature was part of humans, and humans were part of nature equally. Contemporary studies suggest that this perception still exists and that Greenlandic Inuit view nature as an important part of their identity (Poppel 2015). This article will seek to understand further how Greenlandic people perceive nature and in which ways it affects their well-being in order to determine if the modern age we live in has changed the way Greenlandic people identify with nature.
Theoretical Perspective
This study commenced with an explorative inductive approach, which included the generation of data through personal interviews, followed by selective data sampling as described in the Methods section below. Data analysis and interpretation were undertaken following a hermeneutical approach, where the objective of analysis and discussion is toward an understanding of causal mechanisms through interpretation (Giddens 1984). The discussion shifts between specific segments of well-being and well-being in a wider perspective, in a circular interaction between the two, in order to obtain a holistic understanding of the part and the whole, separately and together (Taylor 1971).
Defining Nature
In Western literature, the definition of nature derives from philosophical discussions and tradition of structuring nature within simple dichotomies, where humans and all human-made material things appear on the one side and the wild, natural world, independent from humans, on the other (Ducarme and Couvet 2020). This distinction between nature and humans contradicts traditional Greenlandic Inuit perceptions. To the traditional Inuit, the concept of nature and the natural world was related to multiple perceptions of natural dimensions, and humans were more or less an equal part of nature. As Colding-Jørgensen (2002:12, author translation) conveyed:
Equality and egalitarianism seem to be entirely fundamental. Granted, not everything is equal for Inuit, yet equality is far more comprehensive than for Middle Eastern and European people, who more or less are raised with the idea of a world order, where God is above everything, and the unshaped clay is beneath everything else.
Colding-Jørgensen (2002) characterizes traditional Inuit perceptions of nature and everything that comes from nature as something that is part of Inuit themselves. In a contemporary context, there is no common Greenlandic definition of the concept of nature. Because the concept of nature involves both physical and metaphysical aspects, in my analysis and discussion, I define nature, following Colding-Jørgensen’s (2002) characterization, as a trichotomy with trajectories to the three overarching understandings of the Inuit worldview, namely pinngortitaq, inua, and sila (Fig. 1). All three concepts are ambiguous, having several meanings depending on the context in which the words are applied, yet they are intertwined in the prevailing Inuit perception of the natural world. The following offers a brief description of each of the three concepts, which by no means can comprehensively entail the full meaning but rather serve as a guide to understand the complexity of Inuit perceptions of nature more fully.
This article’s definition of nature in a Green-landic context.
Pinngortitaq translates directly to nature and refers mainly to a physical place in which humans can be in and interact with, and it is the most common prefix applied in discourses of nature. However, the word’s literal meaning has a vaguer, almost philosophical, meaning. As Lennert and Berge (2017:171) state: “[a]lthough pinngortitaq is often simply translated from Greenlandic as ‘nature’ or ‘creation,’ its literal meaning is ‘to come to being.’”
Inua, a unique and complex concept in Inuit cultures and languages throughout the Arctic, translates to “the soul within,” but also means “the owner,” “the resident,” “the processor,” and is less commonly in the Greenlandic language understood as “the chick in the egg” and the “owner of the dog.” The word was traditionally used to explain the earthly environment in an “animistic” spiritual awareness (Rosing 1998). Inuit believed that all beings (except for the dog, because their inua was their owner’s) and things had inua, even material objects had inua, a soul or mind of its own, which had moral implications in how people should behave (see Rosing 1998). The concept of inua relates strongly to the concept of sila, described below.
Sila, another unique concept in Inuit cultures and languages, is perceived as a cultural ideal, which translates to “natural order” but can also mean “the universe,” “weather,” “wind,” “mind,” “common sense,” “outside,” or “the personified spirit of air” (Sonne 1996). Over the years, there have been many attempts in Greenland and other regions of the Arctic to simplify the concept of sila (e.g., Bjørst 2011; Kielsen Holm 2010; Sonne 1996; Williamson 1974). Sonne (1996) argues that the concept and meaning of sila are multidimensional and enhances the meaning of sila with the concept of balance. The balance of the world (day/night and winter/summer), the body (physical balance of the human body), and the mind (equilibrium of the human mind and mood) all have an influence on each other in both the physical and psychological aspects of the world. In other words, how a person feels or thinks on the inside influences the outside world. This particular understanding is meaningful in a Greenlandic context and therefore considered part of the fundamental concept of sila for this research.
Based on these Inuit concepts, my research focuses on nature as a conceptual field, an amalgamation of the three concepts of the natural world as illustrated in Figure 1, which together provide a holistic understanding shaped by how nature and natural aspects occur in Greenlandic language and history. Here, nature is defined as the entire natural world in which all living beings are dynamically part of, connect with, and live in, by, and with. Nature and the entire natural world is a multidimensional, ever-changing realm not confined to the human, physical, geological, environmental, and geographical realm; rather, nature transcends the physical into the metaphysical and spiritual realm that exists both within living beings and between them.
Outline map of interview locations in Greenland (numbered alphabetically).
Defining Subjective Well-being
Within the social sciences, subjective well-being (SWB) is also commonly referred to as perceived quality of life, happiness, and life satisfaction (Conceição and Bandura 2008; Diener and Suh 1997; Poppel 2015; Veenhoven 2015; Vittersø 2004), which is measured to specify an individual’s SWB and quality of life. SWB is generally applied to discussions about “the good life.” This article uses the Arctic definition of SWB as formulated by Poppel (2014:257) that SWB is
an inclusive concept, which covers all aspects of living as experienced by individuals and includes a person’s subjective evaluation of his/her objective resources and other living conditions. It therefore covers both material satisfaction of vital needs and aspects of life such as personal development, being in control of one’s own life and destiny, and a balanced ecosystem.
Hence, the definition of SWB is related and connected to the understanding of nature. Since nature, as part of a balanced ecosystem, is an aspect of life, it is thus intrinsic to subjective assessment of overall individual life evaluations.
The following section explores empirical research on human contact with nature and wellbeing in the Arctic, including Greenland.
Studies of Contact with Nature in the Arctic
There are several studies in and outside the Arctic suggesting the importance of contact with nature to overall well-being in humans. Martin et al. (2007) suggest that the ability to participate in traditional subsistence activities, which is exercised through contact with nature, partly explains why most Inuit report high levels of life satisfaction. Capaldi et al. (2015), as well as Cartwright et al. (2018), found that being close to nature improves well-being, and further that socially vulnerable people are less likely to suffer from mental illness and report higher levels of SWB when they are in contact with nature on a regular basis. Poppel and Kruse (2009:40) conclude that contact with and closeness to nature is not necessarily a reflection of “romanticists outsiders seeing life in the Arctic through rose-coloured spectacles,” it is essential to well-being and quality of life for Inuit people. Similar arguments have been made by Freeman (1996:49), who purports that the relationship between people and nature is more than “energy and material flows” between humans and natural resources; it also involves elements of spiritual and cognitive character.
Measures of Contact with Nature through Social Indicators
It is not possible to scientifically test or prove that Inuit traditionally used nature as a source of recreational well-being since there is no written tradition of discussing nature as such. The concept of human recreational need, per se, is also well developed in Western societies (Mercer 1973). Most research on the importance of contact with nature for Indigenous arctic peoples has been quantitative studies that measure contact with nature through social indicators. Social indicators, which are used to track trends and changes in human development (Nymand Larsen et al. 2010), are generally measured with both quantitative and qualitative methods in various scientific disciplines. However, regarding contact with nature, the indicators are typically “objective” measures, such as the participation in traditional activities, consumption of country foods (kilograms per annum/capita and income spent on nature-related activities (Crate et al. 2010; Poppel et al. 2007). These indicators are crucial in terms of directly understanding the importance of nature to economic and cultural diversities, for example, yet they fail to explain the causal mechanisms. There is currently no scientific practice of measuring contact with nature using subjective or qualitative indicators, which is highly problematic given the relative importance of contact with nature to the overall wellbeing of arctic peoples. As Crate et al. (2010:109) argue:
Contact with nature, albeit a somewhat intangible attribute of human development and therefore difficult to measure, is nonetheless central to the legacy of and contemporary state of well-being in Arctic societies.
Subjective Studies of Well-Being and Contact with Nature
Qualitative studies that explore subjective perceptions of the importance of nature to well-being are difficult and costly to measure on a large scale. Quantitative social indicator criteria include data availability, affordability, and robustness over time (Nymand Larsen et al. 2010), which makes bridging quantitative (objective) and qualitative (subjective) methods difficult and thus often avoided. The practice of measuring contact with nature has been limited to participation in traditional livelihood activities that involve contact with nature. Based on results from The Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA) in 2006, Poppel (2015:98) argues that well-being has both objective conditions and subjective components. Accordingly, he argues that SWB in the Arctic is “closely connected to the collective wellbeing in social groups, regions, and countries,” leading him to conclude that “[h]uman development shall be measured in ways that reflects subjective well-being; thus, partnerships with the respondents” (Poppel 2015:69). Further, he suggests that contact with nature “ground[s] humans spiritually in their cultural worlds.” Unfortunately, however, he does not elaborate on what that actually means. SLiCA probably conducted the most substantial work exploring the importance of contact with nature for Indigenous people in the Arctic through its research on the importance of ties to nature for Indigenous identity and preferred way of living (Poppel et al. 2007). Findings show that nature is an integral part of most people’s sense of identity. Hence, leading literature has established that contact with nature is important to overall well-being in the Arctic; however, so far, they have failed to question or explain what nature actually is and what it means to people.
Methods
This article is based on 70 semistructured interviews with Greenlandic people between 18 and 65 years of age in 13 locations in Greenland between April 2018 and December 2019. The number of interviewees in each place is visually illustrated in Figure 2. Interviews in towns were planned before arrival, but visits to villages were less structured since factors such as weather, transportation opportunities, and financial limitations made it too risky, if not impossible, to plan beforehand.
Study Limitations and Bias
Table 1 shows the variation in population numbers among the field localities. There is a vast difference between living in a town with thousands of inhabitants and living in a village with only a few dozen inhabitants (Poppel 2007). Furthermore, there are vast cultural differences among regions in Greenland (Hendriksen 2013). Hence, views and perceptions of nature will naturally differ from place to place. This article seeks not to compare nature perceptions among these places but rather explore the importance of nature to SWB and how people see, relate, and interact with nature.
Number of interviews in each location in Greenland (numbered according to Fig. 1).
Conducting qualitative research on subjective aspects of well-being always poses challenges in itself. How people perceive nature and well-being is sensitive to many circumstantial factors, such as the mood of the interviewee, the weather and season of the day, personal experiences, type of occupation, and how much or how little contact with nature has been a part of the individual’s upbringing and/or current lifestyle. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss nature and well-being as uniform or static entities. This also means that even if two or more interviewees each seem to describe their perception of nature and its importance to them similarly (i.e., using identical words or giving it the same rank importance), I fully acknowledge it is only possible to interpret these similarities as indications of the same result.
Data Sampling
The sampling for analysis was carried out through selective coding of approximately 49 hours of recorded data. The data were coded for any content related to nature or contact with nature, both when mentioned unsolicited and in answer to the question that specifically asks about the relative importance of nature (see Interview Questions— Mixing Methods section below). Informed and signed consent was secured from all interviewees in this study. The following two paragraphs describe the criteria for selecting interviewees and the interview questions, as well as the interview methods in general.
Interviewees
The interviewees were between 18 and 65 years old and from varying demographic strata at the time of the interviews. The targeted population of interest was native Greenlandic Inuit people. The criteria for a “native” Greenlander are someone who was either born or raised in Greenland and identified as a Greenlander or someone who has lived in Greenland for a minimum of ten years. This latter criterion may seem contradictory to the first; however, because Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, there are many who identify as Greenlander, but they, in fact, have been living outside of Greenland for a longer period. The most important criterion for identification of a native Greenlander is that the interviewee identifies as such. The interviewees were found through online social media, via Facebook, after posting announcements shared individually or in groups. Press releases were sent to the online news-media platforms Sermitsiaq (https://sermitsiaq.ag) and Kalaallit Nunaata Radio (https://KNR.gl), which then published the articles online, and they were shared on social media. In addition, when in towns and villages, I approached people randomly on the streets, in supermarkets, and other public places and asked if they would be interested in participating or knew of someone who might be interested.
Interview Questions—Mixing Methods
The interview questions consisted of 24 qualitative and quantitative questions. The qualitative questions were a mix of closed and open-ended questions. The interview strategy was to allow the interviewee to open up by initially talking about something more general and related to their own lives. The interviewer then gradually narrowed to closed-ended questions, which were then followed by open-ended questions in order to expand the conversation again. This hourglass interview strategy, illustrated in Figure 3, was developed by the author in the pursuit of two objectives. First, the interview strategy aimed to have the interviewee reflect on their whole life experience from different perspectives. Second, the questions were developed and situated in order for the interviewee to feel safe and to trust the interview situation enough to share personal thoughts and perceptions on multiple aspects of well-being.
Hourglass qualitative interview strategy (own production).
One question asked about nature directly related to the concept of pinngortitaq, which in Greenlandic is as follows:
Skalami 0-miit 10-mut, 10 pingaaruteqartorujussuuvoq 0 –li pingaaruteqanngilluinnarpoq, pinngortitaq illit inuunerissaartutut misigisimanissannut qanoq pingaaruteqartigiva?
In Danish:
På en skala fra 0 til 10, hvor 0 er slet ikke vigtigt, og 10 er meget vigtigt, hvor vigtig er naturen i for-hold til om du føler du har et godt liv?
In English:
On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all and 10 is very important, how important is nature in terms of whether you feel you have a good life?
Similarly asked questions related to family, work, social network, culture, public welfare services, local community, and spirituality. The quantitative questions were asked as a point of departure towards a more in-depth qualitative conversation about the importance and perception of nature. Depending on the ranking, the question would be followed up with: How come you rank it so? If nature was ranked more important than, for example, family or work, I would ask the interviewee: Tell me more about why nature is so important to you? This mixing of methods made it possible for the interviewer to make the interviewee reflect about how important nature was, first by ranking it, to then open up a conversation about the ranking and thus, getting closer to an understanding of how relatively important nature was to the interviewee and why.
Language
The majority of Greenlandic people speak Kalaallissut, or West Greenlandic, which has been the official language since 2009. The second most common Indigenous language variety is Tunumiusut, or East Greenlandic, followed by Inuktun, spoken by the Inughuit of northwestern Greenland. There are also multiple dialects throughout the regions. Due to the colonial history between Greenland and Denmark, Danish is the second national language. The author speaks primarily Danish but can understand and communicate in West Greenlandic, which is why most of the interviews were conducted in Danish and West Greenlandic. Nine of the 70 interviews were simultaneously translated from Tunumiusut to Kalaallissut/Danish or Kalaallissut to Danish. The quoted passages presented in this article thus were translated from Greenlandic/Danish to English. The original quotes are included as endnotes.
The following section provides an analysis of the interview data collected. Each subsection provides quoted excerpts from the conversations categorized by the function/relation of nature to the interviewees.
Data Analysis
Well, that is why we live here. Because nature is so wonderful, right?
(Middle-aged man, Nuuk)
Contact with Nature in Greenland
The following presents the quantitative mean values from the study regarding the importance of nature from each place visited (Fig. 4). The mean values show no significant variation in the importance of nature to SWB among localities, with a high ranking throughout the study. Eight is the lowest score for Aasiaat and Narsarsuaq, and 10 is the highest score for Kangerlussuaq, Kulusuk, Qassiarsuk, and Sermiligaaq. Note that Figure 4 is not representative of the population in each place; it solely represents the expressed rankings of the interviewees, and the number of interviews is only one to two in the places with the highest score (see Table 1).
Importance of nature to the feeling of having a good life on a scale from 0 to 10.
In all locations, one or more interviewees ranked the importance of nature with a value of 10. This is not surprising, yet, what was more interesting is that many people ranked nature higher than all other variables, many even higher than family. Excerpts of conversations with people who ranked nature higher than family are among the examples in the forthcoming analysis.
Nature is very important to me even though I cannot physically get anything out of it.
(Older woman, Nuuk)
Nature and Traditions
During my conversations with the interviewees, it became clear to me that many see it as customary or even morally right to have a good relationship with nature. As a middle-aged woman from Nanortalik said: “It is part of our traditions that we are in close contact with nature.” This notion directed my attention to explore not only how essential nature was to people but also how people described their relationship with nature. As others have discussed (e.g., Colding-Jørgensen 2002), nature is depicted as something humans are an equal part of. When asked to elaborate on why he ranked the importance of nature as 10, a young man from Nuuk answered: “Well, we come from the nature. The city is created by humans, and in nature, there is fresh air and fields . . . . We live off it, it is part of us.”1 This interviewee’s perception of nature coincides with the ancient Inuit view of nature’s entangled relationship to humans, yet it also suggests a contradictory distinction between nature and humans, despite his belief that humans are part of nature. Humans and nature are part of one dimension, and everything human-made is part of another, which contradicts the traditional Inuit perspective of Inua, where a drum, clothing, or a dog whip can have a soul (Rosing 1998). Further, it is the only occurrence of the 70 interviews where nature was directly mentioned as an integral part of being human. The following paragraphs present some of the qualitative aspects of other interviewees’ perceptions of nature’s importance classified following their relation to nature and its function.
Nature gives a peace of mind and the feeling of joy when you come back and meet people again.
(Middle-aged man, Sermiligaaq)
Nature as a Place that Provides Physical and Psychological Resources
Many of the people I interviewed saw nature as a force with two dimensions. One where nature provides psychological resources is often described as peace, energy, and healing. Another is where nature provides physical resources, like food, but also a resource that physically mobilizes a social network of sharing. As a woman in Tasiilaq described:
During summer, we help each other here in Tasiilaq. In May, there are capelins, we help each other, and everyone gives to one another. Then I might get a huge bag of capelins, I can’t have them all, so I give some of it to another who might have something else in exchange. . . . It goes like that, you have a network, where you give what you get and catch. . .. Also, to just go out into nature, to be there, out and away from the noise, and some time away from the electronics, for that sake, you know?”
Interviewer: What does that give you?
Her: Peace . . . . Peace within, like you are getting energy, recharging. A couple of weeks ago, me and the children were in Tinit [red; Tinitileqaaq]. I have a special place there, where you cannot see the village. It’s close by, all right, but then I sit out there, and there is just the fiord, the icebergs, seagulls, ravens, only the natural sounds. Then you hear some whales, and even though you can’t see them, you just sit there . . . and enjoy the silence. It gives so much; I don’t know. Energy. Peace (Middle-aged woman, Tasiilaq).2
In this case, nature is a source of food, which is crucial to her, being a mother of several children in a region where resources are scarce. Nevertheless, nature, and the food that can be gathered from it, are also able to connect people with each other and form a community of sharing. Further, it provides meta-physical resources, which she describes as peace, energy, and silence. In Tasiilaq, a young man also described metaphysical aspects of nature.
Nature gives me strength; I feel safe there. Everything is quiet out there when I am surrounded by nature (Young man, Tasiilaq).3
Contrary to common perceptions of Greenlandic nature being harsh and unfriendly, to this young man, it is perceived as a safe place, as a silent place, and this is what gives him strength. An older man from Ilulissat also had a perception of being safe in nature in relation to his hunting activities. To him, nature was one of the most important aspects of his life, and when he was out hunting, it provided him with a feeling of safety. This view is such a contrasting perception compared to the common discourse on hunting as being a dangerous activity connected with serious risks. The relation between hunting and positive SWB was a reoccurring theme in the conversations with men. After ranking the importance of nature as 10, a man from Uummannaq elaborated:
It is very important for me to have contact with nature; one often forgets that when one works so much. One forgets how it affects your soul. My grandfather used to say when we went on reindeer hunts: “Timi tarnerlu pissarsingaarput” or “body and soul,” to get something out of it when you hunt. For example, when you are out in nature, and you come home with reindeer meat, you also come home with something to your soul. It is very important to gain from nature like that” (Middleaged man, Uummannaq).4
Similar to examples from other regions in this study, this man describes contact with nature as highly important, not just as a source of food but as a source of spiritual well-being as well. He further discloses that his perception was shaped by conversations about nature with his grandfather, which indicates that oral transmission of knowledge is still practiced. The following paragraph will present examples of perceived recreational aspects of nature.
It is one of the big forces, where you can get energy from.
(Middle-aged woman, Ilulissat)
Nature as Therapy—A Provider of Energy and Recreation
During my fieldwork in south Greenland, I met a young man who stated that he could not live without nature. The following is an excerpt of this conversation, where I ask him to elaborate on what it is he cannot live without:
I go sailing a lot. I can probably not live without sailing . . . . Mountains and everything. We have the most beautiful nature here in Nanortalik. For example, if I am sad, I just go out sailing. Sometimes you meet polar bears and whales. That’s it . . . . I feel energetic when I come home from sailing and the things I have thought about . . . I always find a solution on how to do things.
Interviewer: Would it not be possible to do that at home?
Him: No. (Young man, Nanortalik)5
The interviewee describes contact with nature with an aesthetic dimension and, perhaps more importantly, as a source of energy and recreation. In another example, a young woman answered the following when asked to rank the importance of nature.
20! 20. If the highest option is 10, then 10! I have realized that it seriously means a lot to my healing. I have not been able to understand what my mother used to say, and I can see it on my father too, how much strength nature can give you. Seriously a lot, apparently, so 20! 10 (Young woman, Nuuk).6
This woman describes how her mother had tried to explain the attributes related to contact with nature, yet found on her own that nature has a spiritual dimension that has a positive effect on her SWB and further indicating that the importance of nature could not be described adequately with the highest value of 10. In the village of Narsarsuaq, another young woman explained why she ranked nature with the value 10, which was higher than how she ranked the importance of family, in terms of her feelings of a good life:
For example, when you are feeling down, it helps a lot to take a walk, to leave Narsarsuaq for a bit and . . . leave all the technology for a bit and go out in nature. It helps a lot. It is like someone is helping me. Telling me that everything is going to be better, but it is nature that helps me. When it is sunny like now or in spring where you can go wherever you want. That is very important, both personally and in the workplace (Young woman A, Narsarsuaq).7
In this case, nature almost takes the form of a person or therapist, or in other words, nature has a spirit or inua helping the interviewee when feeling down, and she indicates that nature has agency in how well she personally feels and that it is important to functioning in her workplace.
In Qaqortoq, I interviewed a young man who ranked nature higher than family, and he similarly saw nature as a place of recreation with a function of therapy.
I found out that nature is very important to my ability to function. If I am away from nature for a longer period, I feel mentally ill. It is as if it is easier for me to find my purpose in life if I am out in nature. Then I have the possibility to think about how to do things in the future and make plans (Young man, Qaqortoq).8
Like the woman from Narsarsuaq, this young man credits his mental well-being to nature, and nature as a place to think clearly, helps the man find direction in his life. A young woman in Nuuk who also ranked nature higher in importance than family similarly saw nature as an agent in her ability to function. She explained:
I cannot . . . I am not a nature . . . . Yes, I am a nature person, even though I don’t go out to the mountains and scream out my frustrations. I cannot function without, I cannot. I lose my mind when I don’t get to see the ocean if I don’t have an outlook. If I can’t see the mountains, if I can only see . . . Tassami [Greenlandic for “That is how it is”], if there is no outlook, I cannot have it. Just those towers everywhere” (Young woman, Nuuk).9
For this interviewee, it is crucial to be able to see or be surrounded by nature for her to feel able to function and be well. She further indicates that being only able to see the tall buildings in cities has a negative impact on her SWB.
To summarize, most people perceived nature as necessary to their SWB, yet few did not ascribe the importance of nature with high values. The following paragraph provides an analysis of such examples.
It is important to be in nature, although I’m afraid
I fall or something.
(Young woman, Narsarsuaq)
When Nature Is Not as Important
On my field trips, I met people who did not rank nature as important as most. The above quote is from a young woman in south Greenland. She believed nature was essential in general for people but was afraid of the dangers of being in nature, which was her motivation to rank it with a value of 6. In the following, I provide a few examples of those who could explain their relationship with nature. In Ummannaq, all interviewees ranked the importance of nature as 10, except for a young woman, who explained why she ranked it with a value between 6 and 7.
It is enormously satisfying for me to just be able to look out the window, and then nature tells me how the day will be for me. It gives a huge satisfaction to be able to use such completely natural things as tools in everyday life.10
For this woman, nature is an external domain that influences how her day is going to be. As such, nature is something to use. Yet, her rhetorical approach insinuates that she sees nature as an entity that can “tell her” something about her day. A young single mother from Tasiilaq elaborated on nature’s importance after ranking it with the value 5.
I used to spend a lot of time in nature back in time, but after I had my child, I don’t do that anymore. In the everyday life I have now, it is not that important. Of course, it is nice if the sun is shining and it isn’t storming the entire winter, but it is not something that means that much (Young woman, Tasiilaq).
After becoming a mother for the first time, with all the pressure that follows and without a father figure with whom she can share parenthood, this woman prioritizes her time with her son. To her, nature is more about how the weather is than anything else, which means that whenever the weather conditions are bad, she mostly stays inside.
In Aasiaat, a young man who also preferred to stay inside ranked the value of nature as 0. When asked to talk about what was important to him, he answered that playing computer games was more important to him than nature, and quality of life to him was measured by being able to play all day. When asked about what could make him feel safe, he answered to be in his room and play, and he felt unsafe when he was out among other people. In a different example, a young man from Nuuk ranked it with a value between 5 and Being an office clerk with a long-distance relationship with his girlfriend, he spends most of this time inside, working, and communicating through the internet. When asked to rank the importance of nature, he answered:
Today? 0!! It’s cold (laughs). If I am being optimistic, I’d like it to have a high value, but in reality, it ends up 5 or 6. If I have to promote myself, I’d say that I am a nature person, I love to take walks in nature, but in reality . . . . Come on . . . (laughs).
However, I love to see new nature, to travel and see new nature, I find that very exciting, but I love human-made objects just as much as I love nature (Young man, Nuuk).
The young man can see something valuable in nature yet feels that it is not very important to him. He mentions that he enjoys experiencing nature in other places but that human-made objects are just as important, revealing that, to him, nature is something to see and experience like human artifacts. At the beginning of his answer, he reveals (albeit jokingly) that the weather influences his physical well-being. However, his answer also reveals that there is a moral aspect to his perception of nature. By stating that, he knows he probably should rank it high in order for him to promote himself as a good person, and yet he genuinely does not feel this way.
Discussion
Subjective Well-Being and the Importance of Contact with Nature
There is little doubt that contact with nature is very important to the SWB of Greenlandic people, regardless of where they live. The majority of the people I talked with perceived nature as very important to their sense of having a good life, and not having regular contact with nature negatively affected their SWB. It is not possible to prove or even suggest what the traditional concepts of inua and sila mean to the interviewees in this study since the terms were not used directly by the interviewer. Yet, there are indications that some people still perceive nature as being part of humans, and it has agency in the form of inua. Many people also talked about the air, which may be connected to the concept of sila. Some of the interviewees also expressed moral aspects to their perceptions of nature, which may relate to traditional views on nature. However, most of the conversations with people who ranked nature as highly important revealed perceptions that differ from what established literature (e.g., Colding-Jørgensen 2002, Rosing 1998) indicates about traditional Inuit perceptions of nature.
In summary, this analysis showed there are two overall dimensions of nature and the meaning of its value, which are unaddressed by previous research on the connection between well-being and contact with nature in Greenland specifically or the Arctic more generally: a physical and a psychological dimension. These dimensions relate more or less to the concept of pinngortitaq. Most people perceived nature as an external domain, something to look at, experience through the weather, or in other ways as something that was less a part of them and more a part of the world surrounding them. These perspectives lean more toward the concept of pinngortitaq than inua and sila since the traditional perception of how humans interact with nature was that the way an individual felt inside could affect the outside (i.e., balance). Considering traditional Inuit views of nature, it seems the interviewees generally perceive nature as is customary in Western societies in the sense that Western societies tend to view humans as separate from nature. Despite numerous indications of such a claim, it is not possible to prove it because I did not ask people specifically about inua and sila or their perspectives on humans versus nature. However, it leads me to question whether the interviewees perceived nature as something equal to them, as Colding-Jørgensen (2002) characterized Inuit views on nature, or if they saw nature as something to use for them to function and to ensure well-being. If we imagine the majority of Greenlandic people share similar perceptions or understandings of nature as the interviewees in this study, it contradicts traditional Inuit views on nature. Nature cannot possibly be equal to humans unless they can give something equally beneficial back to nature; this is particularly true if people do not see nature as equal to themselves. Perhaps this is what Colding-Jørgensen (2002) referred to when he stated that not everything about nature is equal for Inuit. In this thought experiment, it might not be God that is above everything, as Colding-Jørgensen (2002) put it, but seemingly nature that is above humans, because despite our cognitive and intellectual advantages over other living beings, our well-being depends on our interactions with nature. Thus, nature is highest in a world order in which we as humans are inferior and must adapt to these external, natural forces. Further studies on how natural concepts like inua, sila, and pinngortitaq are perceived and how they, as well as the overall perceptions of nature versus humans, might have changed in contemporary Greenland is needed to clarify further what nature truly is to Greenlandic people.
The Relation between Nature and People in a Modernized World
The close connection with nature that Inuit have makes the importance of nature multifaceted. Newer studies show that nature is critical to the Greenlandic peoples’ sense of identity (Poppel 2015) and that nature is not simply a matter of food on the table. However, various examples strongly suggest that the latter is highly important. Such a multifaceted importance of nature has its drawbacks in a modern globalized world. When people perceive nature as something that provides positive energy and a clear mind, it has consequences when they are away from it (i.e., when you spend more and more time doing something other than being in nature). It might seem almost impossible not to spend time in nature when you are in Greenland; however, from the young people from Aasiaat, Nuuk, and Tasiiilaq who ranked nature with values below 6, it is clear that some members of the younger generation have other priorities and interests. Today, most young people are raised with a smartphone or a tablet as a common source of social interaction, learning, and education. Because modern internet connections are most stable and affordable inside, and because electronic devices tend to be sensitive to harsh weather conditions, more and more people tend to be inside when they are at work, communicate with others, or spend leisure time on smartphones, tablets, and computers. It is not implausible that this development will continue to change how people connect with their surroundings, continuing to shift from connecting with nature to connecting online, the latter of which seldom involves contact with nature. Thus, the development in human interactions with and consequently perceptions of nature will most likely continue to change along with modernization and changes in human behavior.
Conclusion
This research finds that contact with nature is highly important to the SWB of Greenlandic people and that their interaction with nature mainly involves different forms of recreational contact— both from a metaphysical and a physical perspective. Previous research has been more focused on the physical aspect, and therefore, has neglected to address the more metaphysical aspects of how people perceive nature. The answer to the question of what nature is to Greenlandic people has proven to be complex, and thus, the results of this study remain ambiguous and inconclusive. The findings suggest a paradigm shift in the common perceptions of nature among Greenlandic people. To a much greater extent, they perceive nature as an external domain, where nature and humans are separate, compared to more traditional Inuit views of nature as an inclusive domain where nature and humans are equal parts of an entangled whole. Changes in how we live our lives, deliberately or not, are further drivers of change to our perceptions of all aspects of life, including nature. In an ever-changing modernized and globalized world, this study suggests that interaction with, and thereby perceptions of nature, will continue to change. The question then is; how will it change, and what will it mean to our overall well-being and quality of life? The article suggests that further studies focus on additional aspects of human interaction with nature, both theoretically and in social reality, are needed to unveil how nature affects well-being and human development more accurately.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the many people in Greenland who, to a small or large degree, helped this study along. My sincere gratitude to the interviewees, who generously provided insight into their lives and thoughts about life through their own stories and mutual conversations. Qujassutissaqarfigaassi. I would also direct a special thanks to Daniela Chimirri, my fellow researcher and traveling companion for half of my field studies, who enriched me with wisdom and support in more ways than she would probably take credit for.
Footnotes
↵1. Original quote: “Altså vi kommer jo fra naturen og byen er menneskeskabt og i naturen er der friskluft og fjeld, det lever vi jo af, det er en del af os.”
↵2. Original quote: “Om sommeren, her i Tasiilaq, sa hjæilpes vi ad sådan, fx der om foråret, maj maned, sa kommer der ammassatter, og alle giver til hinanden, så får jeg måske en kæmpe stor pose ammassatter, jeg kan ikke have dem alle sammen, sa giver jeg en slat videre til den anden, som så har, altså . . . det går sådan der, man har et netvæirk, hvor man giver af det man får eller fanger.... Også bare det med at kunne komme ud i naturen og væire der, ud og væk fra larmen, og væk fra, hvad hedder det, nogen gange væk fra elektronikken, for den sags skyld, ikke?”
Interviewer: “Hvad giver det dig?”
Kvinde: “Fred. . . altså fred indeni, lige som man henter energi, lader op, her for et par uger siden så var vi i Tinit en weekend mig og ungerne, jeg har et bestemt ovre i Tinit, hvor jeg, hvor man ikke kan se bygden, den er godt nok lige bagved, men så sætter jeg mig derud, så er det bare fjorden, isbjerge, måger, ravne, kun de der, hvad kan man sige, naturlige lyde, ikke? Så kan man høre nogen hvaler, selvom man ikke kan se det, så sidder man bare der og er der. . . og nyder stilheden. Det giver bare sa meget. Det ved jeg ikke. Energi. Fred.”
↵3. Original quote: “Naturen giver mig styrke, jeg føler mig tryg der. Alting er stille derude, når jeg er omgivet af nature.”
↵4. Original quote: “Det er meget vigtigt. For mig er det meget vigtigt, at have den der kontakt med naturen, fordi det glemmer man tit, når man arbejder sa meget. Sa glemmer man hvordan det pavirker ens sjæd. Altså, fx min bedstefar plejede at sige, når vi går på rensdyrjagt: ‘Timi tarnerlu pissarsingaarput’ eller krop og sjæl at få noget ud af det, når man går på jagt, fx når man er i naturen og kommer hjem med rensdyrkød, så har de også fået på sjælen. Det er meget vigtigt at bruge naturen.”
↵5. Original quote: “Jeg sejler meget. Uden at sejle kan jeg nok ikke leve. Fjeld og alt muligt.... VI har den smukkeste natur her i Nanortalik. Så hvis jeg er ked af det så sejler jeg bare. Nogen gange møder du isbjørne og hvaler. Det er det.... Efter sejlturen når jeg kommer tilbage så føler jeg mig frisk. Det jeg har tænkt over, så finder jeg altid en løsning når jeg sejler. Så finder jeg altid en løsning på hvordan jeg skal gøre det og det.”
Interviewer: “Ville det ikke være muligt derhjemme?”
Mand: “Nej.”
↵6. Original quote: “20. 20. Hvis den højeste kun er 10, så 10. Jeg har indset, at det betyder sygt meget for min heling. Jeg har ikke kunne forstå hvordan min mor plejer at sige, og jeg kan også se det på min far, for han vil ikke sige det, hvor meget styrke naturen kan give en. Sygt meget, åbenbart. Så 20! 10.”
↵7. Original quote: “For eksempel når man er nede nogen gange, det hjælper meget at gå en tur, forlade stedet, og alt teknologien, og gå ud i naturen. Det hjælper meget. Det er som om nogen hjælper mig, at alting kan blive bedre. Men det er naturen der hjælper mig. Når der er sol og det er forår, og man kan gå hvor hen hvor du vil, det er meget vigtigt, både privat og på arbejdspladsen.”
↵8. Original quote: “Naturen har jeg fundet ud af betyder rigtig meget for mig, for at være i stand til at fungere. Hvis jeg ikke er i naturen i en længere periode, så får jeg det mentalt dårligt. Det er som om det er nemmere for mig at finde mit formål i mit liv hvis jeg er ude i naturen. Så får man mulighed for at tænke over hvordan man kommer til at gøre tingene i fremtiden og lægge planer.”
↵9. Original quote: “Jeg kan ikke. . .Jeg er ikke et natur . . . Jo, jeg er et naturmenneske, selvom jeg ikke går ude i fjeldet og råber mine frustrationer ud. Jeg kan ikke fungere uden, det kan jeg ikke. Jeg bliver sindssyg hvis jeg ikke ser havet, hvis jeg ikke har et udsyn. Hvis jeg ikke kan se fjeldene, hvis jeg bare kan se . . . Tassami, hvis der ikke er udsyn, jeg kan ikke have det. Bare de der tårne over det hele.”
↵10. Original quote: “Det er enormt tilfredsstillende for mig at bare kunne kigge ud af vinduet og så fortæller naturen noget om hvordan dagen bliver for mig. Det giver en enorm selvtilfredshed, at kunne bruge sådan nogen helt naturlige ting som værktøjer i hverdagen.”
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.