This thesis focuses on explaining why group encounters with rural landscapes in Scotland are deemed to be positive for mental wellbeing. The relationship between greenspace and human wellbeing is a phenomenon that researchers across multiple disciplines are grappling with, though little research engages qualitatively. This thesis clarifies, ethnographically, why some people make excursions into rural spaces and why these excursions are believed to be positively transformational and associated with mental wellbeing. It outlines motivations for engaging in excursions from urban central Scotland to areas in rural Scotland. My research explores the intangible, ineffable and ephemeral experience of case study groups in ‘natural’ rural landscapes and what is relevant in the relations between the self and non-human in these circumstances. This thesis describes how and why group interactions within ‘natural’ space is adopted as a positive self-transformation strategy. It considers the ‘nature experience’ as relational between the self, the social and place - with what constitutes the social as ambiguous within case study interaction. This project was multi-sited: I travelled with my case study groups to rural spaces around the lowlands, highlands, and islands of Scotland. Case studies were multiple and diverse: A community living initiative, a youth development project, a mental health initiative, a forestry management project, and a loose community of artistic, neo-shamanic and psychotherapeutic practitioners. To remain responsive to my research communities and their activities I have developed a framework for a serendipitous ethnography which is outlined within the thesis. This project adopted a transdisciplinary research strategy, engaging with a theoretical framework spanning psychotherapy, psychology and eco-psychology, sociology, philosophy, human geography, anthropology and outdoor education as well as landscape and performance studies. This transdisciplinary thesis contributes to understandings of human and nature connectedness providing an account of cognitive, social and cultural experience. Primarily, this research was concerned with the self, the perception of the ideal and ought self in relation to motivations to journey in this manner and the self as part of a group and within the landscape as a dynamic and relational subject. I have considered the sense of self within these experiences as a metaphorical liminal site. I have discussed the group collectively as a site of dynamism and thus liminality. I then argue that this allows for the way that the landscape is perceived to be a site of liminality. With this we see the importance of temporality and structure, or indeed anti-structure, within these excursions as something which aids in the perspective that they are transformative. I have considered notions of perceived affordance and how this changes throughout experience with the increasing ability to associate ideas and abstract experience within one’s personal narrative. I explain how each group differs in how they perceive the rural landscape as something to instrumentalise, personify or anthropomorphise. With this comes an exploration of complex anthropocentric mindsets and the influence of these ways of thinking on experience. I suggest that individuals choose to journey to ‘natural’ rural environments to self-verify an aspect of their ought or ideal self with a desire to re-imagine the self through engagement with others. In self-verifying one’s ideal or ought sense of self, finding a sense of belonging within a group and believing oneself to be doing something good in relation to the ‘natural’ rural space, individuals and groups experience a sense of personal and social transformation.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-10T18:26:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gilmar Henrique da Conceicao.pdf: 751569 bytes, checksum: c95b011674128de8365f09f622a113b6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-11-25 / Commonly, human nature is considered unknown for Montaigne once we are all impregnated and bypassed customs, but poses different problems Montaigne inquiring about the possibility of political actions that enable a company to remain in balance and be improved, in spite of evil present in human nature perceived inconsistency of reason, and parties in conflict. Note that considers possible to improve the state of imperfection of man, but better does not mean eliminate the imperfection. Montaigne considers herself fully and visibly facing out, born to society and friendship (III, 3, p. 55) and broods primarily about state affairs and the world: "[...] haul me to the matters State and the universe best pleased when I'm alone "(III, 3, 56). He rejects the idealization of society, the best policy is one that exists. But, we highlight two jobs that makes the word politics: the first as "obligation to the public good", the second as "the practice of governments." Anyway, consider that living out of politics is to live outside of humanity and did not neglect public duties. Indeed, in Montaigne does not find the word with an unambiguous policy. In view of Montaigne is not possible absolute judgments in politics only because we share and we can not be located entirely outside of any particular perceptive condition to examine whether, on the one hand, the things themselves, and the other the way they present themselves in each one of those circumstances. The argument considers the act of "taking sides" involves, in itself, a presumption of knowledge, then he invites us to observe that this same assumption is present despite our view oscillates between the conflicting views that the ever, we hold as if they had, in general, a strength greater than they can reveal if considered over time. From this we can see that he discusses the political certainties given the insecure nature of the intellectual faculty, who frequently receives false things, hence the need for "moderation" and "dialogue" between the parties. So there is a questionable character in all parties. Unlike the certainty of "I just know that I know nothing" and "I think therefore I am ', Montaigne takes on the motto of Pyrrhus (" Que sais-je? ") which expresses most clearly mark the position of our author. / Comumente, a natureza humana é considerada desconhecida para Montaigne uma vez que estamos todos impregnados e contornados pelos costumes, porém Montaigne coloca diferentes problemas indagando sobre a possibilidade de ações políticas que permitam a uma sociedade manter-se em equilíbrio e ser melhorada, apesar da maldade presente na natureza humana percebida, da inconsistência da razão, e dos partidos em conflito. Observe-se que considera possível melhorar o estado de imperfeição do homem, mas melhorar não significa eliminar a imperfeição. Montaigne se considera uma pessoa inteiramente e visivelmente voltada para fora, nascida para a sociedade e a amizade (III, 3, p. 55) e medita principalmente acerca dos negócios do Estado e do mundo: [...] lanço-me aos assuntos de Estado e ao universo de melhor grado quando estou sozinho (III, 3, 56). Ele recusa a idealização da sociedade; a melhor política é a que existe. Mas, podemos destacar dois empregos que faz da palavra política: o primeiro como obrigação ao bem público , o segundo como prática dos governos . De qualquer forma, considera que viver fora da política é viver fora da humanidade e não se omite das funções públicas. Na realidade, em Montaigne não encontramos a palavra política com um sentido unívoco. Na perspectiva de Montaigne não é possível julgamentos absolutos em política porque somente vemos partes e não podemos nos situar absolutamente fora de alguma circunstância perceptiva determinada para examinar independentemente, de um lado, as próprias coisas e, de outro, a maneira como se apresentam em cada uma dessas circunstâncias. O argumento considera como o ato de tomar partido envolve, por si mesmo, uma presunção de conhecimento; em seguida, ele nos convida a observar que essa mesma presunção se faz presente a despeito de nosso juízo oscilar entre opiniões contraditórias a que, a cada vez, nos agarramos como se tivessem, de modo geral, uma solidez maior do que elas podem revelar se consideradas no decorrer do tempo. Disso podemos perceber que ele problematiza as certezas políticas dado o caráter inseguro da faculdade intelectual, que recebe freqüentemente coisas falsas, daí a necessidade da moderação e do diálogo entre os partidos. Portanto, há um caráter duvidoso em todos os partidos. Diferente das certezas do eu só sei que nada sei e do penso, logo existo , Montaigne toma para si a divisa de Pirro ( Que sais-je? ) cuja interrogação expressa com mais clareza o posicionamento de nosso autor.