Platonic Friendships

I read a book, What We Are, by Lonnie Aarssen. Aarssen is a Canadian plant ecologist, roughly contemporaneous with me. He has made the transition from plant ecologist to evolutionary psychologist—that is, studying the effects of our human evolutionary history on the way our brains work. I have made the transition from plant ecologist to a general science writer, so I know about evolutionary psychology, but do not know as much as Aarssen.

I’m not sure platonic friendship can be defined, but most of us have a general understanding of it. Aarssen makes the assertion that it is very difficult for men and women to form platonic relationships. Why? Rather than attempting a detailed summary of his reasons, I will just say that it is because men are jerks. They want to conquer women, not befriend them. That sort of captures the meaning.

I immediately recognized that this is not true of me. As I think over my life, I have had lots of platonic relationships with women. I recently made a list of people—men and women; all ages; most of them still alive—who have been important in my life, just so I could remember them. The list had 111 names, and the list keeps growing. Of these, 55 are women of a reasonably similar age with myself and with whom I had a close friendship, and with none of which I had sex. What is wrong with me?

In many cases, it would have been professionally unethical—for example, students and colleagues. But in at least 30 cases, there was no such difficulty (they were single and not, at least at the time, my students). So, I ask again, what is wrong with me?

What is wrong with me is love. In earlier decades, it was religious conviction. Later, it was that I did not want to endanger or stress my marriage. Neither of these is known, on a societal level, as a reason why a man does not have sex. But I loved all of these women, and did not want to mess up the trust they were placing in my friendship. I know for a fact that at least a few of them would have welcomed sexual intimacy from me. But a life is something you build, and as I look back on mine, I am satisfied with the choices I have made.

I knew that I was unusual, but I did not realize how unusual.

European Forests Also Need Control Burns

…but are not getting them. European forests have grown up in thick stands of saplings, just like most American forests. In North America, the Natives kept the forest undergrowth cleared away, which benefited agriculture and hunting, by the controlled use of fire, as I explain in chapter 2 of my recent book Forgotten Landscapes. When European diseases and conquest killed off ninety percent of Native populations in America, the forests shifted from bountiful productivity to being “a forest of sticks” choked by undergrowth.  Native fires were an essential part of what a “natural” forest should be like in North America.

It appears to me that the same is true in Europe. It is likely that the tribal peoples of Europe, before (and after?) Roman conquest, burned their forests just as Native Americans did theirs. The forest preserves we see in America, and in Europe, today are not “natural” but have resulted from fire suppression in recent centuries. This would be true even of the last “virgin forest” in Europe,  Białowieża in Poland.

I explored one of the last fragments of pre-industrial Rhineland forest in France earlier this summer. It is (what passes in Europe for) an extensive forest southeast of Strasbourg. I hiked around on just a portion of its extensive system of trails. Beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) dominated the canopy and its seedlings were abundant on the forest floor. Maples (Acer pseudoplatanus) dominated the forest floor and had some canopy trees, along with two species of linden (Tilia cordata and T. platyphyllos). There were a lot of shrubs, especially the field maple (Acer campestre), dogwood (Cornus mas), hazelnut (Corylus avellana), and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna).

This forest had been undisturbed for a long time—the beeches were large and tall. But it was not that long ago, perhaps a century and a half, when the forest had been cut down. In a desperate but successful attempt to control the resulting soil erosion, the French government planted conifers (in the lowlands, Norway spruce, and on the hillsides Douglas fir from America) which persist in a few places, remnants of once successful forestry but now ceding their dominance to hardwoods.

It was a peaceful and wonderful place to hike. But it was not natural. In my book I wrote about Native inhabitants being an essential part of the “natural” landscape in America. And it appears that the same is true in Europe. I suspect this is a general pattern. Sam Goldwyn is said to have quipped that wilderness is “where the hand of man has never set foot.” But I think this may not be true not only in America but anywhere else. Humans have always been, ever since we mastered fire, an important factor in the operation of entire landscapes all over the world.

The only alternative to small, frequent fires is large, perhaps equally frequent fires. This is what is happening in America, where the lack of control burns has allowed huge forest fires to get started especially in the west. But the same is true where I now live in France. With increasing frequency, the forests of southern France burn in the hot, dry summers. With global climate change, the forests where I now live in northern France will also burn more frequently. The problem will take care of itself, though not in a way we would like.

More on Native American Diversity

In my book, Forgotten Landscapes, I wrote that precontact Native Americans accepted more cultural diversity as normal than do most modern white Americans. The principal example I gave was the tolerance of different tribes and languages, which was unavoidable since there were so many tribes with mutually unintelligible languages.

Another example, which I did not include in my book, was an acceptance of sexual diversity. The conservatives would have thrown a fit if I had said this in the book. This is not the reason I left it out, but I just needed to keep the book from rambling. Native American tribes had individuals who did not fit into the model of two distinct genders, just like every other cultural group. In particular, there were some people who did not identify with the prevailing sexual roles. Formerly called berdache, they are today called two-spirit. The meanings of this and related terms, as well as a list of terms used in the Native languages, is given in the Wikipedia article.

The presence of this group of Natives, in each tribe, was recognized as long ago as in a nineteenth-century painting by George Catlin, and in the diary of Don Pedro Fages in the Portolà Expedition in eighteenth-century California. In both of these cases, the two-spirit men were held in esteem by the tribe.