Backdrop versus Reality

Research article by Jikke Lesterhuis

Introduction

Things are beautiful because they keep changing. Seasons change, morning becomes night, and then a new day begins. Living beings are born and eventually die. True beauty is always elusive, indefinable, and found in passing moments. The Wadden Sea is a place where everything is always in motion. With every cycle a new landscape unfolds, never appearing the same twice.

And yet, humans seem increasingly removed from this dynamic reality. Instead of experiencing nature as an ever-changing whole of which we are a part, we often use it as a static backdrop: a background for a selfie, a symbolic sign of authenticity or peace. While nature renews itself continuously, we freeze it into still images.

In this article I explore how the relationship between humans and nature has evolved in a time when nature is both idealized and estranged. I do so from both psychological and sociological perspectives. Paul W. Schultz’s concept of Inclusion with Nature shows how strongly our self-definition as part of nature influences our behavior. Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical lens reveals how nature increasingly serves as a backdrop for self-presentation. Together these theories illuminate a paradox: nature is ever more present in our imagery, while our lived connection to it weakens.

Human–Nature Relations in Psychological Perspective

Environmental psychology poses a central question: do we see ourselves as part of nature or as separate from it? Paul W. Schultz (2002) developed the concept Inclusion with Nature, showing that the extent to which people identify with nature predicts their attitudes and behavior. The stronger the sense of inclusion, the greater the likelihood of care, responsibility, and sustainable action.

The current debate around the return of the wolf in the Netherlands illustrates this vividly. For some, the wolf embodies fear, danger, and loss of control; for others, it represents recovery, wonder, and the return of a primordial balance. The animal itself does not change, but our interpretations vary dramatically. These contrasting reactions reveal how perceptions and values shape our relationship to nature, depending on whether we feel connected to or distant from it.

Schultz (2002) also refers to Darwin, whose theory of evolution demonstrated that humans are not separate beings but embedded within the same ecological laws as all other species (Darwin, 1859). Yet this insight proves difficult to translate into everyday life. While Darwin placed humanity back into nature, we seem to separate ourselves once again reducing nature to something outside us, a background rather than a context in which we are inextricably embedded. 

Self-Presentation and Nature as Backdrop

From a sociological perspective, Erving Goffman (1959) argued in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life that people stage-manage their identities as though performing on a stage. In this dramaturgical model, the backdrop plays a crucial role. Nature often functions as front stage décor, an element that reinforces the image of the self.

This is particularly visible on social media. A photograph with mountains in the background suggests authenticity, freedom, or spiritual depth. Yet such images often reveal more about self-presentation than about genuine connection to the landscape. The symbolic self-completion theory explains this mechanism: people use symbols, including nature, to affirm desired identities (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982).

But this symbolic use of nature reinforces distance from actual experience. The landscape becomes a stage set, frozen in an image, stripped of its constant movement and appears in visual culture as a still and consumable object.

Anthropocentrism causing the environmental crisis

Anthropocentrism has been identified as the root cause of the environmental crisis we are facing. However, this term lacks a precise definition. Many authors trace its origins to Greek words άνθάνθϱϱωπωπoςς (anthropos: human being) and κεντκεντϱϱoνν (kentron: center), or the Latin term centrum (center). This explanation raises the question of who places what at the center of what and what else is consequently excluded from the center. The most apparent response to this question would be that human societies use humans as a reference point. But who exactly is the archetypical human privileged enough to serve as this reference point? This statement erases the diversity of human experiences on an individual, interpersonal, and intercultural level. What defines being human? A similar conundrum arises when discussing 'nature.' In our world, humans and nature are often seen as distinct entities. However, in the physical world, there is no such concept as separate 'things' or isolated events. 'Things' are simply linguistic constructs, nouns. Nouns are not elements of nature; they are components of language. In the physical world, there are no separate entities. The core of the problem may lie in an interwoven web of perspectives and assumptions that collectively undermine efforts to protect the environment from the greed of certain humans. This includes the division between humans and nature, capitalism, consumerism, industrialism, and so on.

Dependency and Fragility

As a sailor on the Wadden Sea, I experience my surroundings not as a background but as an active force that continually shapes decisions. You are dependent on tides, currents, and wind; nothing can be forced, you must adapt and move along. The sea teaches attentiveness and humility, demanding that choices align with forces larger than yourself. This sharply contrasts with the way nature appears in daily life, as optional, decorative, something to be entered or ignored at will.

At the same time, most of us recall the experience of finding a seashell on the beach as a child. You hold it carefully, enchanted by its beauty, aware that it is fragile. Its fragility is what makes you cautious. This simple gesture contains an essential lesson: what is fragile demands care and responsibility. Our environment, too, is fragile. But as long as we treat it as robust scenery or merely as a storehouse of resources, we forget this care.

Other beings embody alternative ways of existence. Jellyfish, for example, live almost indistinguishable from the water that surrounds them, ‘like water in water’. They remind us that life need not be conceived as separate containers but as porous flows. Humans, too, are not hermetically sealed in divers’ suits of skin. Our bodies are porous, traversed by air, water, and microbial life.

The Paradox: Nature Idealized and Estranged

Bringing these psychological and sociological insights together clarifies the paradox. On the one hand, people long for nature, expressed in the desire to picture themselves against it. On the other hand, nature is pushed away, transformed from living environment into still image, from partner into backdrop.

This paradox is intensified by the way we have organized our built environments. In modern houses and cities we live in self-designed microclimates. Temperature, light, humidity, and food supply are largely disconnected from seasons and weather. Where earlier generations aligned their lives with natural cycles, we experience nature less and less as a vital necessity. This creates a sense of autonomy and living comfort but also a psychological gulf (Wood & Runger, 2016). Nature becomes less a direct reality and more an optional backdrop to be consumed or ignored.

My project

How can the fragility of our relationship with the environment become tangible? How can we change our perception of our surroundings like a seashell: precious, fragile, and meaningful only when handled with care? My aim is to create a piece in which the viewer is dependent on its surroundings. Not as backdrop and observer, but as an encounter shaped by fragility, dependency, and reciprocity.

By letting the tide itself power the installation, I want to counter anthropocentrism with another perspective: one where the human is not the center but one participant in a larger, fragile system. The work aims to embody porosity and dependency, an installation that, like a seashell or a jellyfish, only exists in relation to the forces that flow through it.

Conclusion

The relationship between humans and nature today is marked by paradox: nature is idealized in imagery yet increasingly estranged in experience. Schultz’s (2002) concept of Inclusion with Nature shows that connectedness is not self-evident but hinges on how we see ourselves in relation to nature. Reactions to the wolf highlight how diverse this sense of inclusion can be, while Darwin’s legacy reminds us that we are inescapably part of the same ecological system. Meanwhile, Goffman (1959) and symbolic self-completion theory explain how nature functions as décor in our self-presentation.

Art cannot solve this estrangement, but it can render it visible. It can shift perspectives offering ways of seeing the world that reveal fragility as a call for care. Perhaps we should approach our environment as we once approached a seashell found on the shore: fragile, precious, and meaningful precisely because it demands attentiveness. By exploring this fragility, I hope to create a piece where vulnerability is not feared but embraced as an invitation to responsibility and connection.

Literature:

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Klesse, A. K., Levav, J., & Goukens, C. (2015). The effect of preference expression modality on self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv031

Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001

Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4

Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wood, W., & Runger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417