Outdoor Recreation and Everyday Racism in the Outdoors

Defining the Outdoors as White: Outdoor Recreation and the Perpetuation of Everyday Racism in the Outdoors A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Sociology. 2022 Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Examining the Foundations of Everyday Racism in the Outdoors..................................... 7 Culture ............................................................................................................................ 7 Race and Space ............................................................................................................. 13 Environmental Sociology and Race .............................................................................. 16 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 22 The Racial Disparity in Outdoor Recreation................................................................ 22 Everyday Racism in Outdoor Recreation ..................................................................... 24 Methods............................................................................................................................. 27 Findings and Discussion ................................................................................................... 33 Defining the Outdoors as A White Space...................................................................... 33 The “great” outdoors. ............................................................................................... 33 The racialized outdoor leisure identity...................................................................... 36 Defending the Outdoors as A White Space ................................................................... 37 Conquering "nature." ................................................................................................ 37 Intentions and expectations. ...................................................................................... 42 Habitus and investment. ............................................................................................ 43 Microaggressions. ..................................................................................................... 48 “Dealing” with everyday racism............................................................................... 50 Inclusion into the Outdoors as a White Space .............................................................. 52 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 55 Appendix A: Interview Questions .................................................................................... 59 Appendix B: Codebook..................................................................................................... 62 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 63 iii Introduction At the end of each interview, I would ask participants a question that consistently inspired laughter: "What changes would you like to see in outdoor recreation inclusion and accessibility?" James responded once his chuckles had resided, "that's such a difficult question. I have no answer for that." Embarrassed by the questions' naiveté and optimism, I laughed along and said, "I think if somebody did have an answer to that question, we wouldn't be having this conversation." James smirked and replied, "Well, people do. They're just all White men." Constructing a seemingly all-encompassing definition of the great outdoors that comes from a White standpoint, and fails to include and engage all parties' values, perpetuates a lack of acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. This failure to accept, understand, and equally value all outdoor recreation intentions and expectations perpetuates everyday racism in the great outdoors. By asking what practices and values perpetuate everyday racism in the outdoors, this research is an advocate for optimism and the necessity of conversations on the relationship between race and space. As the culmination of many conversations, this research asks how everyday racism in the great outdoors is sustained and perpetuated through the practices and values of outdoor recreation? I illuminate how deep-rooted outdoor recreation practices and values exercise social power and racial inequality. This research adds to scholarship that theorizes how structures of oppression operate in leisure settings (Dashper and King 2021; Harrison 2013; Johnson 1998; Krymkowski, Manning, and Valliere 2014; Lee and Scott 2016; Li and Wen 2013; Theriault and Mowatt 2020; Wigglesworth 2021). In this research, I use the term "practices" to refer to how one approaches and engages with outdoor recreation. The term "values" references what individuals believe in or prioritize in their outdoor recreation experience. An individual's values influence how they go about defining the great outdoors. Individuals' definition of the great outdoors influences their outdoor recreation expectations and thus their intentions and outdoor recreation practices. While every individual's outdoor recreation value system is unique and personal to their own experiences, in our Eurocentric and colonialist society, specific values and practices of outdoor recreation are privileged in the framing of dominant and widely used definitions of the great outdoors (Breunig 2020; Cornon 1995; DeLuca and Demo 2001; Floyd and Johnson 2002; Martin 2004; Stanley 2020). Exclusionary value systems sustain the social hierarchy of outdoor recreation that perpetuates a lack of acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. My research investigates what values are privileged and how these values, which influence definitions and practices of outdoor recreation, sustain and perpetuate everyday racism in the great outdoors. As a prominent yet covert manifestation of racial oppression, everyday racism is often overlooked (Essed [1991] 2002; Finney 2014). Coined by Philomena Essed ([1991] 2002), everyday racism describes the integration of racism into everyday situations through mundane, familiar practices that exercise power, which is situated in Whiteness, and become part of the expected, the unquestioned, and what is seen as normal by the dominant group. While microaggressions are a part of everyday racism, everyday racism is not the same as microaggressions (Bourabain and Verhaeghe 2021). Although they 2 have the same heuristic principles, Essed's ([1991] 2002) concept of everyday racism considers racism structurally. Essed's ([1991] 2002) concept deals with the construction and connection of race relations on the macro level and the micro-level, while the socialpsychological conceptualization of microaggressions grounds itself at the micro-level and focuses less on the macro-level (Bourabain and Verhaeghe 2021; Sue et al. 2007). Therefore, microaggressions are a product of the defense of the great outdoors as a White space and thus perpetuate everyday racism in the great outdoors. Whiteness, which refers to the socially constructed "White" racial category, is the power to control dominant values and institutions while holding a privileged sense of entitlement to space (Harris 1993; Theriault and Mowatt 2020). In general, but in the great outdoors especially, Whiteness comes from a history of colonization (Breunig 2020), slavery (Johnson 1998), and segregation (Harris 1993; Harrison 2013). This research examines the values and practices of outdoor recreation that defend the great outdoors as a White space. Defining the great outdoors is a practice of outdoor recreation. This research expands the definition of the great outdoors to value all recreational expectations, intentions, and experiences. Therefore, the term "great outdoors," which perpetuates the romanticizing of remote, "untouched" land and insinuates that there are outdoor spaces that are not "great," will not be used by the researcher in the analysis or discussion of the research. Instead, the terms "outdoors" or "outdoor spaces" will be used. However, the term "the great outdoors" will be used when referencing participants' interview responses to maintain the authenticity of their opinions and voice. In these instances, "great" will be in quotations to emphasize the subjectivity of what makes outdoor spaces "great." 3 In leisure scholarship, Whiteness has long been used as a standpoint from which to compare racial minorities' engagement with the outdoors (Kivel, Johnson, and Scraton 2009; Arai and Kivel 2009). To combat the centralization of a definition of the outdoors that defends it as remote, inaccessible, and White, in this research, engagement with the outdoors, referred to as "outdoor recreation," can be anything from a short walk around the neighborhood to scaling adventurous peaks in remote and harsh environments. By centralizing Whiteness in their definition of outdoor recreation, researchers use Whiteness to identify the types of normative practices and values in outdoor spaces and thus conceptualize what it means to be an outdoor recreationalist under a definition of the outdoors that defends it as a White space. Without acknowledging the racialization of such values and practices, researchers often assess people of color's (POC's) outdoor recreation experiences and expectations based on specific values and practices that define and defend the outdoors as a White space. Recent research on diverse and disenfranchised populations has begun to raise awareness about the barriers that make recreation in the outdoors problematic. However, much of the inquiry has focused on examining and presenting differences between people based on various identity categories (Krymkowski et al. 2014; Lee and Scott 2016; Li and Wen 2013; Walker, Deng, and Dieser 2001). While identity categories are real in their consequences (Brunsma et al. 2020; Finney 2014), research that examines differences between people based on identity categories neglects diversity within racial and ethnic labels. Examining differences between racial and ethnic labels also masks the socially constructed properties of race and ethnicity and perpetuates a monolithic view of minority groups (Floyd 1998; Kivel et al. 2009). Acknowledging diversity within the 4 socially constructed race and ethnic labels is critical in understanding the diversity within individuals' outdoor recreation value systems and, thus, their practice of defining the great outdoors. While recent findings have advanced knowledge of different racial perceptions of the outdoors, these studies make limited strides towards understanding the impact of the practices and values ingrained in outdoor recreation on the formation and perpetuation of these perceptions. Therefore, the absence of this vein of knowledge in leisure studies presents a rich opportunity for inquiry and informs my research question. Though persistent, everyday racism is often difficult to pinpoint (Essed [1991] 2002). However, researchers are responsible for showing how seemingly neutral practices can perpetuate discrimination. As a researcher who is passionate about the relationship between social justice and sociological research, I will offer evidence-based solutions that can help advocate for change and address specific patterns that the research identifies. While racism is both a micro and a macro-structural problem, individuals are capable of micro-adjustments that combat the covert nature of everyday racism. Therefore, examining the practices and values of outdoor recreation will help provide insight into what micro-adjustments combat the perpetuation of everyday racism in the outdoors. This thesis will first discuss theoretical frameworks that help examine the foundations of everyday racism in the great outdoors. I have divided my theoretical frameworks into three sections: culture, race and space, and environmental sociology and race. In the first section on culture, I will discuss Bourdieu's theorizing on social inequalities and power structures, and focus specifically on his concepts of capital, field, and habitus. In the second section, on race and space, I will discuss the theoretical concepts of racial spatiality (Harrison 2013), grounded in David Sibley's (1995) theory on 5 the geographies of exclusion, and apply racial spatiality to the outdoor leisure identity. Finally, I will discuss environmental sociology and race, paying specific attention to the concepts of the human exemptionalist paradigm (HEP), the new ecological paradigm (NEP), and the treadmill of consumption. Then, I will present the existing literature on the racial disparity in outdoor recreation and then everyday racism and outdoor recreation. I will then describe the research methodology of this thesis before discussing the results. 6 Examining the Foundations of Everyday Racism in the Outdoors This section discusses theoretical approaches that help explain racial inequality in the great outdoors. This section divides into the three focuses: culture, race and space, and environmental sociology and race. Culture Bourdieu's ideas on social inequalities and power structures are well suited to examine leisure behaviors among disfranchised members of society, including racially marginalized populations (Horolets, Stodolska, and Peters 2019; Lee and Scott 2016). Over the years, many researchers have used Bourdieu's concept of capital, habitus, and field to explain how inequality operates within and is reproduced through outdoor recreation (Bunn 2017; Glover and Hemingway 2005; Hargrove 2009; Harrison 2013; Horolets et al. 2019; Lee and Scott 2016; Lee, Dunlap, and Edwards 2014). In contribution to this field of study, I examine Bourdieu's work on leisure disposition and how it constructs and reinforces existing social positions and power relations. Specifically, I use Bourdieu's ([1983] 1986) argument that resources create social hierarchies within fields to examine how the social hierarchy within outdoor recreation gives power to the values and practices of outdoor recreation that perpetuate everyday racism and racial exclusion in the outdoors (Lee and Scott 2016). 7 An individual's capital is a collection of resources that are important determinants of their social status within a specific field (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). Capital, which takes time to accumulate and is reproducible and transmittable across generations, perpetuates inequality in what is possible for different social actors (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). Bourdieu's concept of capital is divided into three fundamental categories: economic, social, and cultural. Economic capital, which is directly convertible into money, provides access to other forms of capital (Bourdieu [1983] 1986; Lee et al. 2014). Social capital refers to resources that are available through one's social network and the individual's capability to use those social connections as a collection of potential resources to achieve their goals or to improve their position on the social hierarchy of a specific field (Bourdieu [1983] 1986; Horolets et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2014). Social capital is concerned with how many people an individual knows and who those people are (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). Each form of capital is convertible into other forms. Cultural capital refers to both formal and informal education qualifications and the embodied skills and knowledge necessary to be successful in a particular field (Bourdieu [1983] 1986; Horolets et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2014). Cultural and social capital can convert to economic capital (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). All three forms of capital encompass a collection of social resources that are important determinants of an individual's social status within a specific field. In my research, I focus specifically on cultural and social capital. The cultural and social capital that I will be discussing is adequate concerning the particular field of outdoor recreation. Metaphorically speaking, a field can be viewed as an athletic field where players compete to maintain or improve their status by accumulating greater capital in its various forms 8 (Lee et al. 2014). The structure of the field is a state of power relations among the participants or institutions involved in the game or a state of the distribution of the specific capital accumulated from previous games (Bourdieu 1993). The maintenance of the distribution structure of the field's specific capital is constantly at stake (Bourdieu 1993). The position of a player in the social field describes the structural limitations and opportunities they face (Horolets et al. 2019). Each field has its own rules, expectations, and hierarchies (Bourdieu 1993). As a field, outdoor recreation's structure is the state of power relations among participants. An individual's habitus situates them as a player in the social field and thus influences how they perceive the structural limitations and opportunities they face. The habitus, a system of dispositions acquired by implicit or explicit learning, implies the knowledge and recognition of the rules of the field and generates strategies that can be consistent with the interests of its player without having been consciously designed to do so (Bourdieu 1993). Essentially, one's habitus allows one to utilize their social and cultural capital within a field of interest (Bourdieu [1989] 2017). For example, while a rock climber's great success is often recognized as a combination of natural aptitudes and access to available resources, it is also a product of the climber's habitus, which allows them to utilize their capital within that specific field. As a product of habitus, exclusionary value systems sustain the social hierarchy of outdoor recreation that perpetuates a lack of acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. Values influence our tastes, preferences, and how we make sense of the world. An individual's definition of outdoor recreation can privilege a particular 9 habitus and require the accumulation of cultural capital appropriate for the field of outdoor recreation. As the best-hidden form of hereditary transmission of capital, cultural capital can be a product of an investment of time from the family, both through the amount of time the family commits to recreating together and the amount of time free from economic necessity the individual is provided (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). Time investment from family is undoubtedly applicable to outdoor recreation, as free time is crucial in an individual's ability to participate. Even with free time, there is a regulation of access to the right to declare oneself a group member (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). To participate, declare oneself a member of the group, and be accepted as a member, an individual must know how to use their cultural capital in that specific context or field. Therefore, it is no surprise that it can be a challenge to enter the field for newcomers or those who do not come from a specific habitus (Bourdieu 1993; Harrison 2013). While cultural capital can exist in three forms (embodied, objectified, and institutionalized state), I focus specifically on the embodied state and the objectified state (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). I use the embodied state of cultural capital to explain how the manifestation of the values an individual privileges can be misrecognized as natural aptitudes in the outdoors and thus, can lead to a sense of entitlement to space rather than an appreciation for or recognition of what has allowed that individual to enter the space. I use the objectified state of cultural capital to discuss to analyze participant’s perceptions of outdoor recreation gear. Embodied capital, or cultural capital in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body, cannot be transmitted instantaneously and therefore requires the 10 investment of one's time (Bourdieu [1983] 1986; Bourdieu [1989] 2017). The work of acquisition is work on oneself, a drive for self-improvement, an investment that also requires time. For example, in the climbing field, embodied capital is highlighted in the climber's knowledge of the routes, their exacting physical and mental preparation, and their careful calculation of the risks involved (Bunn 2017). The climbing community emphasizes commitment to long-term skill development and favors challenging ascent styles and routes (Bunn 2017). In valuing ascents and strategies, particularly over others, the climbing field influences behaviors that, in turn, reinforce and privilege a value system that privileges the accumulation of certain embodied and objectified capital (Bourdieu [1983] 1986; Bunn 2017). The climber's habitus, a structuring structure, has allowed them to utilize their social and cultural capital to embody the values, tastes, and dispositions of their respective field. Thus, while cultural capital is often (mis)recognized as an effect of natural aptitudes, embodied capital is a product of time and the specific values that an individual privileges. The objectified state is cultural capital objectified in material objects and media (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). Depending on one's definition of outdoor recreation, gear can be critical to an individual's participation ability. While a walk in the park, a run, or a day of sunbathing does not require specific gear, most outdoor recreation requires some gear. However, to use the gear, one needs both the economic capital to acquire it and the knowledge of how to use it for its specific purpose appropriately; this requires access to embodied cultural capital, either in person or by proxy (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). I use the objectified state of cultural capital to analyze outdoor recreation gear as both a perpetrator and a product of an aesthetic expectation of the outdoorsy person. This 11 aesthetic expectation derives from a cultural assemblage of White tastes, preferences, and experiences that creates a White "vibe" that "makes sense" and "feels right" to those who have been socialized in a White habitus (Brunsma et al. 2020: 2010). Therefore, I use the objectified state of cultural capital to analyze participants' relationships with and perceptions of outdoor gear. The volume of an individual's social capital depends on the size of the network of connections they are a part of and the volume of the capital possessed by those to whom the individual is connected (Bourdieu [1983] 1986). These connections, or social ties within a group, allow group members to access resources held by others in the group (Glover and Hemingway 2005). Thus, enabling individuals to expand their embodied cultural capital through access to informational capital provided by other group members. This network of relationships is the product of investment strategies that require time and energy. Outdoor recreation can be a challenging field to enter, especially if one defines the outdoors as inaccessible, remote, and White (Cronon 1995; Dashper and King 2021; Finney 2014; Martin 2004). However, the argument that social capital is necessary or critical for participation in remote, inaccessible outdoor recreation reifies the outdoors as a space where individuals are welcomed and granted access. This attention to inclusion puts pressure on people of color who recreate in remote, inaccessible spaces to be ambassadors for POC who are entering these spaces for the first time. Therefore, I argue that a lack of social capital in the field of outdoor recreation is not a barrier worth focusing on but that a historical lack of access to resources is. An individual's values, which influence their perception and definition of outdoor recreation, assist in deeming specific cultural and social capital necessary or unnecessary 12 for participation. Applying cultural concepts to this research helps explain the power of values; how these values contribute to and influence how one defines and perceives outdoor recreation. In this section, I have discussed the application of multiple cultural theoretical approaches to this research. Next, I will discuss the relationship between race and space and review theoretical approaches that discuss this relationship. Race and Space The meaning of space is historically situated and fluid, as is the nature of race (Neely and Samura 2011). Linking race and space highlights how their respective definitions and meanings perpetuate systemic racial inequalities in outdoor spaces. The embodiment and enactment of difference and inequality, highlighted in individual and collective perceptions of everyday racism, stem from historically situated, fluid definitions and organizations of race and space. In this research, I use Harrison’s (2013) concept of racial spatiality to examine how everyday racism in the outdoors perpetuates and sustains the racialized outdoor leisure identity. Racial spatiality builds on the perception that “certain racialized bodies are expected to occupy certain social spaces and...that the presence of other bodies creates social disruption, moral imbalance, and demands explanation” (Carter 2008: 317)). While racial spatiality is policed - sometimes by actual boundary-making, including the critical White gaze, such perceptions’ exclusionary functions are especially hidden and enduring, making it more challenging to pinpoint explicit instances when such perceptions are expressed (Harrison 2013). In his examination of everyday racism on ski slopes, Harrison (2013) advances the concept of racial spatiality by illustrating 13 how social inequality gets exercised through the routine practice of defining and defending social space. Harrison’s (2013) concept of racial spatiality draws on David Sibley’s (1995) ideas regarding Geographies of Exclusion. Sibley (1995) argues that sociologists should be concerned with raising the consciousness of the power structures that assist in dominant groups’ control of specific geographical spaces (X). In his research, Sibley (1995) aimed to “Foreground the more opaque instances of exclusion...the ones which do not make the news or are taken for granted as part of the routine of daily life” (IX). To combat the concealment of exclusionary practices in the design of places and spaces, Sibley (1995) focuses on how cultural symbols, patterns of everyday life, and prevailing myths exercise power and marshal ignorance in those who occupy and defend certain areas of social space. In the outdoors, socio-spatial exclusions and the defense of social space function to maintain prevailing Whiteness. The configuration of the outdoors heavily perpetuates Whiteness in the outdoors as an exclusive space meant only for individuals that embody a specific outdoor leisure identity. Coined by Martin (2004), the outdoor leisure identity is “a stereotyped composite of who visits wildland areas, and by extension, who belongs there” (517). Cultural symbols, patterns of everyday life, and prevailing myths work together to form stereotypes. The myths and legends surrounding recreation in the great outdoors, formed and maintained primarily by the White idealization of land unconquered and untamed (Cronon 1995; Martin 2004), appeal primarily to Whites (Johnson, 1998). For example, romanticized White recreationists such as Henry David Thoreau and Theodore Roosevelt catapulted the notion of the outdoors into a socially constructed idea of a place where the 14 last remnant of “untouched” nature can be encountered and experienced without the “contaminating taint of civilization” (Cronon 1995:69; DeLuca and Demo 2001). These myths and legends, which rely on the erasure of violent history from which they sprang, contribute to the formation of stereotypes around who is and is not expected to recreate in the great outdoors. These stereotypes play an essential role in the configuration of the outdoors as a social space of exclusion and the formation of a racialized outdoor leisure identity (Finney 2014; Martin 2004; Sibley 1995). The outdoor leisure identity is primarily supported and perpetuated by the media’s portrayal of the typical outdoor recreationist, which often fails to represent non-White, female, queer, fat, and disabled individuals (Weatherby and Vidon 2018). In fact, after analyzing thousands of US-American outdoor magazines photographs, researchers in 2018 found that ninety-seven percent of images were of White people. Analysis showed that even where non-white people were represented, they occupied supporting, less risktaking roles, such as being led rather than leading group activities (Frazer and Anderson 2018). However, outdoor recreation equipment companies such as Patagonia, REI, and Cotopaxi have advertised a public commitment to making their company and their ads more diverse and inclusive over the past few years. These companies walk a fine line between disrupting the Whiteness of outdoor recreation and commodifying diversity by tokenizing people of color who are deemed successful in their outdoor recreation field. Therefore, it is no surprise that such advertisements are often criticized for being disingenuous (Brunsma et al. 2020). The discussion around such ads reifies the notion that White spaces are not always characterized by the absence of people of color but rather as spaces where culture is deployed in ways that secure White racial interests and 15 subordinate people of color (Brunsma et al. 2020). Inclusion efforts, which will be discussed in detail later in this paper, are often deployed in ways that secure subordinate people of color and centralize the definition of the great outdoors as a White space. In this section, I have discussed the importance of connecting race and space to examine everyday racism in the great outdoors. I have introduced Harrison’s (2013) concept of racial spatiality and how spaces, such as the great outdoors, can be defended as White by hidden and enduring boundary-making. I then discussed Sibley’s (1995) conceptualization of geographies of exclusion to hone in on how cultural symbols, patterns of everyday life, and prevailing myths marshal ignorance in those occupying and defending specific spaces. Finally, I discussed the outdoor leisure identity (Martin 2004) and its relationship to the outdoor industry in defending the outdoors as a predominantly White space, built on colonialist values, which perpetuates everyday racism in the great outdoors. In this next section, I will be applying environmental justice theory to my research, with ample attention to environmental racism. Environmental Sociology and Race Environmental Justice, or environmental inequality, refers to a situation in which a specific group is disproportionately affected by adverse environmental conditions and the unequal processes and recognition of certain groups and individuals in environmental conversations. The environmental justice movement seeks to combat environmental racism and prioritizes the deconstruction of a definition of the environment that refers to nature through mainstream, and often White, discourses (DeLuca 1999; Floyd and Johnson 2002; Gould and Lewis 2009; Mohai, Pellow, and Roberts 2009). Environmental racism is a specific form of environmental inequality that merges racism and 16 environmental policy. Per Taylor (1999), prejudiced beliefs and behavior, individual and institutional power to enforce prejudicial policies and behavior, and privilege are three issues that directly affect environmental racism. While many specific scenarios fall under the purview of environmental racism, I will be discussing the application of environmental racism to outdoor recreation. Specifically, I will discuss the interaction between the human exemptionalist paradigm (HEP) and the new ecological paradigm (NEP), and the treadmill of production in the perpetuation of everyday racism in the great outdoors. Coined by Catton and Dunlap (1980), the human exemptionalist paradigm (HEP) asserts that individuals see themselves as apart from the planet's ecological system, in a controlling position, rather than as part of the system. The separation of humans from nature is grounded in the widespread belief that nature should be dominated and exploited for profit. The myth of wilderness and untouched space led influential explorers, such as John Muir and David Thoreau, to reimagine wilderness as a space where dominance and power could be exercised and asserted (Cronon 1995; DeLuca and Demo 2001; Martin 2004). Under the influence of American colonialism, so-called 'uninhabited' land required taming. Those that inhabited the land are removed to 'preserve' the 'purity' of their land for the consumption of White recreationists and tourists. Thus, wilderness spaces are often sites of indigenous genocide/displacement and settler colonialism. In conversation with the HEP is the new ecological paradigm (NEP). Proposed by Catton and Dunlap (1978), the new ecological paradigm asserts that our species is one among many others in the web of life that depends on a finite biosphere for survival. The 17 NEP contrasts the HEP in its argument that humans are part of the planet's ecological system rather than separate from it. However, we have yet to see sociology as a discipline fully embracing the NEP worldview (Gould and Lewis 2009). The lack of total commitment to the NEP is reflected in how the outdoor recreation social hierarchy places its highest value on outdoor recreation activities that celebrate efficiency and productivity in the conquest of remote land, which stems directly from the HEP and the belief that nature should be controlled and dominated. Outdoor climbing's ranking system, which places its highest value on first ascents (FA) of remote and challenging routes, exemplifies a colonial value system. (Wigglesworth 2021). One does not have to look farther than the widespread use of the racialized outdoor leisure identity in the outdoor industry to see how the domination of nature is packaged and sold as an attractive and desirable experience. Nature has long been a backdrop for American cultural fantasies about "freedom," "domination," and "individualism" (Cronon 1995; Finney 2014; Gould and Lewis 2009; Martin 2004). Nature is often advertised as a place waiting to be conquered by human technology (Cronon 1995; Gould and Lewis 2009; Martin 2004). Outdoor recreation companies sell the idea that purchasing an expensive product is the admission ticket to this ego-enhancing performance in nature. The logic of the "Treadmill of Consumption" (Bell 2006) describes how capitalist firms and all neoliberal capitalist society work to construct us primarily as consumers of products, always in need of newer, more cutting edge admission tickets to an ego-enhancing performance (Gould and Lewis 2009). Individuals and corporations run in place faster and faster to keep up in the game of competition with other consumers and the drive to increase product (Schnaiberg 1980) 18 and product ownership (Bell 2006). The outdoor industry attracts buyers by invoking a love of nature but sells products that often disconnect us from nature (Gould and Lewis 2009). For example, gear is often advertised as a granter of access to the great outdoors, when in fact, gear is human technology that perpetuates the human exemptionalist paradigm. The social hierarchy of outdoor recreation is a direct product of treadmill logic, which is both a product and perpetrator of the human exemptionalist paradigm. Zygmunt Bauman (1997) explains that a true outsider is someone who steps off the treadmill. To be socially accepted, a person must revel in the seduction of consumer goods, whether these are the latest Patagonia backpack, the newest model of car, or the lightest weight sleeping bag. The social hierarchy of outdoor recreation sustains the perception that people assimilate the dominant values and practices of outdoor recreation to fit a specific conceptualization of what it means to be an outdoor recreationalist under a definition of the outdoors that defends it as a White space. It has become evident that how people of color define the great outdoors has challenged researchers' and agencies' normative ideas regarding how natural areas should be experienced and managed (Gramann, Floyd, and Ewert 1991). For example, over the last thirty years, primitive and semi-primitive settings, characterized by low people density, dispersed use, and wildland, were viewed as best suited for ideal outdoor experiences (Floyd and Johnson 2002). Many researchers suggest that such ideals may not generalize across racial minority groups (Williams and Carr 1993; Finney 2014; Floyd and Johnson 2002; Gould and Lewis 2009). Research trends over the past few years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, have shown that outdoor recreation 19 participants are primarily motivated by outdoor recreation opportunities with low barriers to entry that are available and accessible within 10 miles of their homes (Outdoor Industry Association 2021). These outdoor recreation participants are more likely to be female, younger, in urban areas, and slightly more ethnically diverse than existing participants (Outdoor Industry Association 2021). Therefore, defining the ideal outdoor recreational experience as one that takes place in a "wildland" or primitive setting defends the great outdoors as a White space and thus reifies that the great outdoors is White. Defining the ideal outdoor recreation experience as remote and free from human impact negates the outdoor recreational experiences of individuals who recreate closer to home. However, a common barrier to entry into outdoor recreation for racial minorities is the lack of accessible and available green outdoor areas within a relatively short distance of their home (Taylor 1999). For example, as a present-day effect of zoning decisions made in the early 1900s that segregated Whites from Blacks and placed industrial zones in African American communities, these communities are often disproportionately separated from green spaces (Finney 2014; Taylor 1999). Spatial mobility for racial minority communities, or the ability to travel to parks outside their immediate neighborhood, can be limited by lingering concern for their safety while crossing through territory deemed as "White." For example, when asked by planners for Gateway Park in New York (part of the NPS system), a group of teenagers, described as "minority youth," explained that they did not want to travel through "miles and miles and miles of uppermiddle-class terrain" to get to a park outside of their neighborhood (Finney 2014:60). The teenager's limited access to green spaces in their neighborhood is an example of what 20 Feagin and Feagin (1986) refer to as side-effect discrimination, or the discrimination in one area (zoning decisions) leading to outcomes in another (the relative inaccessibility of green spaces), even though the latter may not involve any discriminatory intent. While environmental racism may be unintentional in that decisions about park placement may not be a conscious decision to discriminate, because the U.S.'s political, economic, and social structure predicates upon racist ideologies, racism is pervasive in all decisionmaking. Therefore, environmental racism, the foundation for everyday racism in the great outdoors, cannot be effectively isolated and neatly eradicated because it is inseparable from racism in other spheres of social life (Pulido 1996). In this section, I have discussed Bourdieu's concepts of capital, field, and habitus. Additionally, I have discussed the relationship between race and space by examining racial spatiality, geographies of exclusion, and the outdoor leisure identity. Applying racial-spatial theoretical approaches is also critical as it assists in understanding why specific values and practices of outdoor recreation are privileged in the framing of dominant and widely used definitions of the outdoors (Breunig 2020; Cornon 1995; DeLuca and Demo 2001; Floyd and Johnson 2002; Martin 2004; Stanley 2020). Finally, I discussed the relationship between environmental sociology and everyday racism in the outdoors. In my next section, I will review the literature on racial disparities in outdoor recreation and everyday racism and outdoor recreation. 21 Literature Review This literature review divides into two sections: the racial disparity in outdoor recreation, and everyday racism and outdoor recreation. The Racial Disparity in Outdoor Recreation Research has consistently found that Whites participate more often than racial minorities (particularly Blacks and Hispanics) in outdoor recreation (Krymkowski et al. 214; Lee and Scott 2016; Li and Wen 2013; Walker et al. 2001). In 2021, nearly 75 percent of outdoor participants were White (Outdoor Industry Association 2021), and in 2020 95% of National Forest visitors were White (United States Department of Agriculture 2020). Based on these statistics, it is no surprise that leisure research on race still often relies on Whiteness as the standpoint from which to evaluate and compare racial minorities' engagement with the great outdoors. By treating Whiteness as the standpoint in outdoor recreation, researchers conceptualize what it means to be an outdoor recreationalist under a definition of the outdoors that defends it as a White space. Thus, treating Whiteness as a standpoint in outdoor recreation reifies the outdoors as a White space and perpetuates perceptions of everyday racism in the great outdoors. Researchers who study the racial disparity in outdoor recreation often fail to acknowledge the practices and values that defend the outdoors as a broadly inaccessible, remote, White space. Instead, researchers have followed the ethnicity hypothesis, which explains differences in outdoor recreation participation as reflections of divergent norms, value systems, and social organization between majority and minority populations (Floyd 22 1998). They have investigated why racial minorities may not want to recreate in the outdoors as it is defined to defend Whiteness. For example, Johnson (1998) used the concept of collective memory to argue that African Americans' underrepresentation in the outdoors and outdoor recreation is due to the lingering effects of systemic racial oppression and violence passed down through generations. Stemming from a history of white supremacy and violence in outdoor spaces, racially marginalized communities and individuals may fear and mistrust forests and other green spaces (Finney 2014). Research has shown that racial minorities who have a collective memory of violence and oppression in outdoor spaces perceive it as anxiety-inducing rather than as a space of leisure and thus choose not to partake in such activities (Carter 2008; Finney 2014; Krymkowski et al. 2014; Shinew, Floyd, and Parry 2004). In contrast, other researchers have followed the marginality hypothesis, which holds that patterns of outdoor recreation amongst racial minority populations result from limited socioeconomic resources (Floyd 1998), and investigated what restricts racial minorities from recreating in the great outdoors. For example, specific resources are necessary to acquire the cultural capital necessary to be considered authentic and to guarantee acceptance by other participants within the outdoor recreation social hierarchy (Martin 2004). Climbers, for example, require the gear necessary to ascend challenging routes safely, mountaineers require transportation to remote locations, skiers need skis, remote recreation requires safe transportation to and from the location, and all forms of outdoor recreation require time. However, the marginality hypothesis assumes a monolithic class structure among racial minority groups, and as a result, it cannot explain the leisure patterns of minorities in higher socioeconomic strata (Floyd 1998). The 23 ethnicity hypothesis has faced similar scrutiny. In its reliance on racial categories and ethnic labels as a measure of culture to test for ethnic differences, the ethnicity hypothesis perpetuates a monolithic view of minority groups. Researchers' neglect of diversity within racial and ethnic labels sustains a monolithic of minorities and masks the socially constructed properties of race and ethnicity (Floyd 1998; Kivel et al. 2009). Research that follows the marginality and ethnicity hypotheses fails to acknowledge the active and continual definition and defense of outdoor recreation as a White space and expects racial minorities to assimilate to the values and practices of outdoor recreation that sustain the outdoors as a White space. By reifying the definition of the outdoors as a remote, White, inaccessible space and failing to acknowledge the outdoors that is literally outside one's door, research on racial disparity in outdoor leisure reifies the outdoors as a White space that one must be "fit" for. Treating Whiteness as the standard for difference reifies the definition of the outdoors as a White space as normal and universally valued and perpetuates everyday racism in the great outdoors. Everyday Racism in Outdoor Recreation Once one recognizes that racial oppression is inherent in the nature of the social order, in this case, inherent in the great outdoors, it becomes clear that what needs to be exposed and investigated is not simply racism but the fact that racism is an everyday problem. Everyday racism, which can occur whether actors are aware of their attitudes and motives, highlights racism as a process that sustains unequal relations of power and racial injustice (Essed [1991] 2002). While microaggressions are not synonymous with 24 everyday racism, they are a typical product of the defense of the outdoors as a White space and perpetuate everyday racism. The outdoors fits the definition of a ‘micro-public’ well. Defined as “public or semi-public spaces in which individuals from different backgrounds encounter others for short or long interactions,” micro-publics are ‘zones of encounters’ where intergroup exchanges and relations occur (Bourabain and Verhaeghe 2021: 230; Peterson 2017; Wood and Landry 2008). For example, outdoor recreationists often use “trail talk” to describe the short interactions and encounters they experience when passing other recreationists outdoors (Sprinkleshikes.com 2018). Microaggressions can often come out of these short or long encounters. For example, in a blog post titled, “A Notice to Karens on the Arroyo Seco Trail in the City of Pasadena,” Executive Director of Outward Bound Adventures (OBA), Charles Thomas, reports a White woman refusing to leash her dogs on the request of an OBA trail crew member doing restoration work there (Thomas 2021). The woman, defined as a “Karen” by Thomas, called the trail crew member ignorant as she passed. Similarly, Crystal Gail Welcome, a veteran hiker of the Pacific Crest Trail, writes that the number one question she is asked on the trail, “how can you afford to do this,” is harmless on the surface but packed with privilege (Welcome 2021). Welcome, who identifies as an African American Woman, writes that “this question is only asked by people who don’t look like me…in fact of all the BIPOC I’ve met throughout this journey the topic has never come up” (Welcome 2021). The underlying power relations from which the defense of the outdoors as a White space emerges relies on a particular historic-racial framework that constructs a ‘micro-public’ social space, such as the great outdoors, into a White space. In White 25 spaces, racial minorities become hyper-visible as they do not resemble the White space (Bourbain and Verhaeghe 2021). Hypervisibility can lead to feelings of non-belonging, uneasiness, and superiority feelings for White people (Brunsma et al. 2021; Finney 2014). Consequently, the stronger the presence of Whiteness in the great outdoors, the higher the chances that racial minorities will confront everyday racism, such as microaggressions (Bourbain and Verhaeghe 2021). In this section, I have reviewed the literature on how the values and practices of outdoor recreation perpetuate everyday racism in outdoor recreation. I have discussed the drawbacks of relying on the marginality and ethnicity hypothesis to explain racial disparities in outdoor recreation and the impact of treating Whiteness as the standpoint in leisure research. I also introduced the concept of micro-publics and discussed the relationship between outdoor recreation and microaggressions in the perpetuation of everyday racism in the great outdoors. In the next section, I will introduce and defend the methodology of this research. 26 Methods This research asks how everyday racism in the outdoors is sustained and perpetuated by the practices and values of outdoor recreation. This research diverges from examining differences between racial identity categories by examining only racially marginalized individuals' perceptions and experiences of everyday racism in outdoor recreation rather than in comparison to Whites. This research also critiques the treatment of Whiteness as the standpoint from which to judge racial minorities' engagement with the great outdoors. However, when first conceptualizing and operationalizing "outdoor recreation," I defined it as a remote, extreme outdoor activity such as rock-climbing, mountaineering, white-water rafting, and backpacking. These extreme outdoor experiences value the conquest of land and thus, embody a history of colonization and a Western narrative of the White man 'conquering' the 'wilderness' (Breunig 2020; Cronon 1995; Floyd 1998; Wigglesworth 2021). This definition of outdoor recreation reified and reinforced White-centralizing ideas of the outdoors and outdoor recreation that I claim to critique in my research. Given the parameters I set up for my definition of outdoor recreation, the analysis and discussion of my findings were predetermined. Therefore, in my research, I ask participants to define the great outdoors and outdoor recreation for themselves. For my research on everyday racism in the great outdoors, interviews made the most sense for data collection. I conducted eight semi-structured interviews with students of color. Semi-structured interviews allowed new themes to arise that I had not previously considered. Allowing new themes to arise was incredibly important, considering that I am a White woman who has a lot of outdoor recreation 27 experience. Therefore, my identity limits my ability to understand the perspective of those who are not White and those who are less experienced in outdoor recreation. My experience in social research methods and my position as a sociology research assistant prepared me to effectively and respectfully interview participants and analyze their responses. I used the outdoor program (OP) community at my college as a starting point for a purposive snowball sample, with the hopes of interviewing individuals who have participated in OP trips, who are part of the BIPOC outdoor club, who have participated in BIPOC outdoor activities, or who have experience recreating in the outdoors with friends, family, or individually. I interviewed individuals with a wide range of experience and expertise in outdoor recreation for my sample. As a member of the outdoor program and an employee of the outdoor program's rental shop, I asked the supervisor of the outdoor program for permission to send an email to the program's email listserv, where I asked people to participate in my research. Before starting my sample collection process, I gained IRB approval. The sample of participants for this study was small, and the sample characteristics limit the external validity of the findings of this research. The sample consists of only college-aged students who all have experience recreating in the outdoors through either their college's outdoor program or other outdoor recreation or education organizations. Future research should include all participants of all ages to rule out age as a confounding variable for the emerging themes discussed in this research. Future research should also include individuals with very little to no experience with organized outdoor recreation to understand better individuals' perceptions of everyday racism in the outdoors who may 28 not have personally or vicariously experienced everyday racism when recreating in the great outdoors. Recruiting participants for this research was challenging. While I had initially intended to interview ten participants, I capped the interviewing process at eight. The college's population from which my sample was obtained is 37.5% students of color, and the percentage of students of color who participate in organized outdoor activities at this college is smaller (collegefactual.com 2022). My position as a White researcher made me an obvious outsider. This research asks participants to do emotional labor by describing experiences of systemic and everyday racism to a White person who can empathize to a degree but cannot relate experientially. When recruiting participants, I was aware of how participation can feel like ambassador work for people of color. Therefore, I was hesitant to push individuals who did not show personal interest in the research to participate. Only two participants were recruited from the snowball sampling strategy; the other six were recruited through a personal connection to the researcher. Of the eight participants, three identified as women, and two identified as international students. One limitation of this study was the lack of women represented in the sample. The intersectionality of race, gender, nationality, and ability is critical to research on race and the outdoors. The "great" outdoors is often depicted as a White, male, ablest space. When asked about what identities of theirs they are aware of when recreating, all femaleidentifying participants mentioned gender. In contrast, none of the male-identifying individuals mentioned being aware of their gender identity when recreating. When asked why they did not mention gender identity, all male participants shared a similar sentiment: because "we don't have to." Conceptualized as a White, male, ablest space, the 29 outdoors propels concepts such as challenge, adventure, risk, and the hegemonic premise that participants who engage in physically ambitious outdoor adventures will experience more growth and accomplishment, are dominant, and considered normal (Finney 2014). The three participants in this research who identified as women either did not mention these concepts or only mentioned them in reference to feeling unsafe or uncomfortable in the "great" outdoors due to their gender identity. The three participants in this research who identified as women often described not knowing whether their perceptions of and experiences with microaggressions were attributable to their gender, race, or both. Future research should examine the intersectionality between race and gender in individuals' perceptions and experiences of everyday racism in the great outdoors. Of the eight participants, whose data is discussed in this research, only two were women. The third woman, Taylor, is not discussed in the findings of this research. Taylor, who identifies as Pacific Islander, grew up recreating with her family outside of the Pacific Northwest, where going outdoors was not "normal." Taylor describes feeling an overall absence of any outdoor recreation social hierarchy, norms, or expectations. Taylor credits this to the fact that, "...everyone was kind of…in the minority of people for even being outside…because like where I grew up, not a lot of people know how to recreate so I feel like it's just kind of assumed that none of us know what we're doing." One of the limitations of this study was the location of sample selection. The Pacific Northwest is known for its outdoor enthusiasts, evergreen forests, and towering mountain ranges. Many participants credited their perceived inability to fit into outdoor discourse and outdoor recreation friend groups to their college location (in the state of 30 Washington). Future research should include individuals who attend colleges or live in locations where going outside is not as much of a socio-geographical expectation or stereotype. It is essential to understand whether the themes uncovered in this research apply to locations outside of the Pacific Northwest. Due to the risk of COVID-19, all participants were given the opportunity to be interviewed either in person or on Zoom. All interviews took place in person. Participants decided where the interview would take place. Most took place outside in quiet public spaces, two took place in a public eating area on campus, and one took place inside the interviewer's home. Participants were first provided a summary of the research and asked for verbal consent. Participants were informed that they could choose not to answer any questions and decide to stop the interview at any time. The first interview question topic was general perceptions of the outdoors and outdoor recreation. To avoid reifying and reinforcing the outdoors as an objective concept, I let my interviewees define the outdoors for themselves with the question, "What do you think of when I say the words' great outdoors?'" In the second section of the interview, a definition of everyday racism, as it is defined by Essed (1991 [2002]), was read out loud. The interviewee was assured that this definition was not meant to explain racism to the interviewee but was meant to ensure that the interviewer and interviewee had the same understanding of everyday racism for the research. The third interview question topic was perceptions of racial issues and racism in relation to outdoor recreation. In this section, I was sure to maintain respect for the social power of identity categories by asking interviewees what identities they are aware of when recreating in the great outdoors and how often they think about their race while recreating. The fourth interview question topic was personal and 31 vicarious experiences and perceptions of everyday racism in outdoor recreation. All interviews ended with demographic questions regarding age, gender identity, and racial and ethnic identity. Interviews lasted anywhere from thirty-five minutes to an hour and a half. Interviews were recorded using an iPhone. The interviews were kept confidential and under the security of multiple passwords. Interviews were transcribed and then coded using Nvivo. My overarching coding themes were the great outdoors, outdoor recreation, instances of everyday racism in the great outdoors, perceptions of everyday racism in the great outdoors, privilege, and White space. Daughter codes were then conceived from these parent codes. A diagram of the coding process and codebook can be found in the appendices. I hoped that semistructured interviews and gaining verbal rather than written consent encouraged honesty and trust regardless of my outsider status and created rapport between my interviewee and me. I foresaw only minimal risk to participants. 32 Findings and Discussion The data from all eight participants were transcribed and then analyzed using Nvivo. This section discusses the overarching themes and patterns that emerged from the data. All participants were given pseudonyms to ensure their identities stayed confidential. James is a 21-year-old who uses he/him pronouns and identifies as Chicano. Shelly is a 21-yearold who uses she/her pronouns and identifies as Asian and White. Rose is a 23-year-old who uses she/her pronouns and identifies as mixed, African American, and White. Taylor is a 19-year-old who uses she/her pronouns and identifies as Hispanic, Latino, and Pacific Islander. Salman is a 19-year-old who uses he/him pronouns and identifies as Middle Eastern and White. Ben is a 20-year-old who uses he/him pronouns and identifies as Asian. Asad is a 21-year-old who uses he/him pronouns and identifies as Southeast Asian, Pakistani. Nader is a 21-year-old who uses he/him pronouns and identifies as Asian. Defining the Outdoors as A White Space The “great” outdoors. When asked what everyday racism in the outdoors looks like, all participants directed the conversation towards the lack of representation of people of color in the great outdoors. Many participants credited the media for the greater lack of diverse representation. Others credited a lack of exposure to the outdoors through familial routines and expectations. However, all participants agreed that the lack of POC representation in the outdoors is partly due to the prominent perception of these spaces as 33 inaccessible. Participants’ definition of the great outdoors - and their meanings of such spaces - directly impacted their perception of how accessible the outdoors is. Some participants defined the outdoors as outdoor recreation. For example, Shelly states that outdoor recreation and the great outdoors are connected, “…because…the great outdoors has a connotation of us recreating in like nature and like the wild aspect of what like a forest might have…I think also like the great outdoors is always associated with an activity.” Similarly, Asad said that he pictures a “waterfall, some people rafting down the waterfall, some people canyoneering…people backpacking in the rain, camping underneath a starry sky” when hearing the words “great outdoors.” These participants perceived the “great” outdoors to be highly inaccessible. In contrast, some participants resisted the common conceptualization of outdoor recreation only taking place in a definition of the outdoors that defends it as remote, relatively inaccessible to those without the necessary resources, and White. Rose explains, “Like this backyard would be the great outdoors but it wouldn’t be viewed that way under the definition that people are probably thinking of…and I feel like…I don’t know, this expectation of like I’m gonna go on this huge hike or have this really, I don’t know, catered, planned experience, versus just like being outside and enjoying being outside. You don’t have to do something necessarily.” Rose, and other participants, moved away from dominant White-centric definitions of the “great” outdoors. These participants resisted narrow expectations for outdoor recreation that reify it as remote and inaccessible and, therefore, perceived the “great” outdoors as relatively accessible. However, Rose points out that while an individual’s conceptualizations of the environment are unique, the prominent views of the environment still draw from experiences, values, and nationalistic desires of a privileged 34 few who are in the position to influence and establish legitimacy for their ideas (Finney 2014). James states that he doesn’t like to use the words “great outdoors” to describe outdoor spaces because “...it feels like all encompassing but I don’t really think it is.” James explains that defining the “great outdoors” as a remote and wild space “doesn’t leave room for the fact that somebody in town could consider going to their local park as getting into the great outdoors.” When asked why he thinks it is important to include going to the local park in his definition of outdoor recreation, James explains that “...it is somebody else’s reality and like negating that or…not seeing them as real is um…just isn’t fair. You know, feeling like I am above that person because I go out you know. That’s bullshit.” James continues to explain that, “You know like I don’t think anybody should be differentiated to any legitimate degree because they go further out. You know, I feel like ‘the great outdoors’ does that in quotations. Like it’s a marketing thing… it’s just idealizing. And therefore, excluding. Because if people don’t feel like they can really relate to that then… they’re relationship with whatever type of outdoors is negligible…which is just unfair.” Here, James explains that our construction of nature and the outdoors is incredibly powerful because it influences our behavior towards it and other forms of leisure that do not fall under our definition. For example, James critiques the elitism of remote outdoor recreation and argues that all forms of leisure should be equally valued, independent of their degree of remoteness. Explicitly excluding accessible opportunities for outdoor recreation from the definition of the outdoors perpetuates the perception of accessible outdoor recreation activities as less “great” or worthy of investment. The perception of accessible outdoor spaces as less “great” or worthy of investment negates many recreationists’ experiences, intentions, and expectations. 35 The racialized outdoor leisure identity. Unlike James, many participants excluded easily and readily accessible outdoor spaces, such as a local park, from their definition of the great outdoors. These participants credited either the media or the outdoor industry. For example, when asked about his perception of the great outdoors, Asad states that he associates the “great” outdoors with extreme sports and thrill “...because that is what I usually see on TV.” He continues, “... it’s what you see in documentaries on National Geographic…uh basically on all forms of media this is how they show the great outdoors even like uh adventure movies… it’s kind of like they play this grand music and they show this shot of people going through the jungles and forests and everything, it kind of conjures up this image in your head without really thinking about it.” These same movies, TV shows, and documentaries that Asad describes are also partially responsible for perpetuating the racialized outdoor leisure identity. For example, Asad explains that when growing up, the TV always showed some “big, White Indiana Jones type...hacking (through) the jungle…like walking through and slashing through stuff…like big buff guys.” When asked to describe the typical outdoor recreationist depicted in the media, the participants described a productive, dominant, White, strong man. For Asad, who describes himself as someone who enjoys leisurely recreation, the media’s racialized outdoor leisure identity led him to believe outdoor recreation was not meant for someone who looks like him. In contrast to Asad, James describes himself as an extreme outdoor recreationist, and yet his response to the media’s depiction of the racialized outdoor leisure identity is similar to Asad’s. “Whenever I see a picture of myself out there in that (remote) space, I feel like I don’t belong there. Because that’s not what I see when I look in magazines or pictures…and a lot of that goes with my own like self-image and self-worth.” 36 Images of the White man slashing and hacking through the jungle, magazine advertisements of White people summiting a remote peak, and even deodorant companies’ general portrayal of “the great outdoors” perpetuates a narrow and generally inaccessible idea of what outdoor recreation is, how it is meant to be enjoyed, and who is meant to enjoy it. Outdoor recreation and the “great” outdoors are accessible if we include accessible experiences and spaces in our definitions and value them equally. The perpetuation of the perception of accessible outdoor recreational activities as less great negates the outdoor experiences of many recreationists. The perception of accessible outdoor recreational activities as less great creates a social hierarchy within outdoor recreation that values productivity in the great outdoors and perpetuates the perception that conquering new land is the only approach to outdoor recreation worthy of one’s embodied and objectified cultural capital investment. Valuing the conquering of new land sustains the idealization of remote, “untouched” space and remote recreation, which is less accessible. Therefore, valuing the conquering of new land in outdoor recreation sustains an inaccessible definition of the “great” outdoors as a remote, “wild” space and thus perpetuates perceptions of inaccessibility to outdoor recreation in general. Defending the Outdoors as A White Space Conquering "nature." Participants who pushed back against the centralization of a definition of the great outdoors that defends it as remote, inaccessible, and White quickly pointed out the influence of colonialism on the defense of the great outdoors as a White space. For example, James and Rose said that the "great" outdoors made them think of manifest 37 destiny. Rose explains that even something as nuanced as adding the "great" in front of "outdoors" "...makes it seem like this separate place that's meant to be experienced in some specific way…it feels along the lines of someone who would be trying to conquer new land." Rose describes going on a little walk or "just spending time outside" as "enough," she asserts that "...you don't necessarily have to do something physically demanding…to have like a productive outdoor experience." Rose's perception of "just being outside" as "enough" pushes back against the desire to be physically productive outside, explore new territory, conquer remote land, and assert control over the outdoors elements. However, by pushing back against a common and powerful value system, Rose described feeling othered by her way of connecting with the outdoors, "I feel like yeah like Western and European society does have this view of the outdoors as like yeah like something you are conquering or…a place that you're separate from…but I feel like when I'm going out and…yeah like viewing the earth with like kindness and like just as much life that's within me and like something that I'm going to like connect with and just like be a part of which I feel like makes me then think of like this how people used to live like back before I don't know like racism and colonialism and all of that or just dominating everything in society." James describes feeling aware of his race when recreating in the outdoors with White men due to their failure to acknowledge their privilege when accomplishing a great feat in the remote outdoors and their general sense of entitlement to remote space: "I have never personally gone on (longer and/or more serious outdoor excursions) with another person of color, it's always been with White people, and specifically White men and um…I don't know it's just interesting like you just feel like such a buzzkill like getting to the top of something or doing something and it's like look at what we just did and whatever, and we get down… it's just very self righteous you know like, I did this. We did this. You know it's just so singular and like conquering I don't know it's like manifest destiny almost. It's like I deserve this… it's like I got to the top and I deserve this…and it's like your mom paid for gas, that's how we got here…you know like I legitimately think about that and to be able to sit down and talk to them about how privileged we are and how privileged they are you now there is just not really the space for that." 38 Outdoor recreation practices based on a foundation of values that embody a White history of colonialism and conquest can often obstruct and conceal the complex history of racial minorities' relationships with nature, as Rose alludes to (Johnson 1998; Theriault and Mowatt 2020). Both James and Rose's outdoor recreation practices push back against feelings of entitlement to space, a product of a foundation of values grounded in the separation of humans from nature. However, James and Rose explain feeling othered due to their values and practices of outdoor recreation. The defense of outdoor recreation as a White space perpetuates the perception that to be "fit" for that space, one must assimilate to the dominant values and practices of outdoor recreation. All participants reported recreating more with White people than with other people of color. Rose explains that the only time she has been outdoors with other people of color was for a specific person of color trip organized by her college's outdoor program, which she led. She says, "it was super amazing." ...it was honestly like one of the funnest times I've had. We were just at (a local) lake and we were like just like dancing and singing outside and everyone was just so stoked to even like be outside and I was like wow this was such a different experience (Rose). When asked what made it different, she replied that the friends she usually recreates with would not consider going hiking at a local lake because it is not the most picturesque or "nature-y spot." She continues, "...yeah I don't know I think there's just within different groups of people there's just different ways that people connect and interact and I feel like with that group of people it's just music and dancing…that just became a part of the experience which like I definitely have some White friends that would do that but it usually is way more like we're walking quietly, we must be respectful I don't even know of like the nature sounds…." Here, Rose describes how her White friends, who consider themselves to be more serious outdoor recreationists, and the group of POC had different outdoor recreation expectations, which thus impacted their respective intentions. While her White friends' 39 past experiences with the outdoors led them to expect to connect with "real nature" when recreating, the group of POC recreationists, described as new to the outdoors, were "stoked" to be at a local lake and were excited to connect through dance and music. The contrast in Rose's experiences provides a great example of how the practice of defining the "great" outdoors influences individuals' expectations for their outdoor experiences. However, the intention to connect with "real nature" when recreating is not specific to White recreationists. Many participants share a similar sentiment as Rose's White friends, and expect to experience "real nature" when recreating outside. Salman explains, "I mean like don't get me wrong, I do enjoy walking in the parks but um it just feels so artificial like you know like I see the beauty here but I don't think this is how it's intended to be and I do enjoy it but…in my mind I do think that I'm still (in town), I still hear the sirens…this is not the deepest meaning that I can get out of it, this is not the best I could have." Similarly, Nader says he thinks of wilderness when hearing "great outdoors." He describes wilderness, "...not as in like parks or national parks but backcountry wilderness like where it's really nature and where like human involvement isn't there." Defining the "great" outdoors as a "wild" or "natural" place where human involvement is not present reifies the myth of wilderness and perpetuates the human exemptionalist paradigm. The perception that humans are not a part of nature and instead are separate from the social construction of nature and that our society isn't subject to influence from the natural world perpetuates the widespread belief that we, as humans, are in a controlling position that is enhanced by our technology. By defining the outdoors under a definition that perpetuates the human exemptionalist paradigm, individuals manifest expectations for their recreation experiences beyond the nature they experience in their daily lives and, 40 therefore, beyond what is easily and readily accessible without the necessary embodied and objectified capital. Participants referenced a difference in expectation and intention when asked what differentiated their experience recreating with people of color from recreating with White people. Like Rose, participants who compared their experiences recreating with White people to recreating with other people of color often spoke highly of their time recreating with other people of color. Asad describes recreating with other people of color as "calm and leisurely" compared to his experience recreating with White people, which he describes as "chugging through the whole thing." Asad continues to explain that when recreating with White people, there is an expectation that everything will be efficient, timely, and fast. This expectation, to get as much out of the outdoor experience as possible through constant productivity, made Asad aware of his racial identity and his different approach to recreating in the outdoors. "I like to do things slowly…it is more relaxed. Over here it's like wake up, start working, start hiking, okay stop, five minute break drink some water, play let's keep going, okay stop…okay let's go play hacky sack up there and you're just like…there is no one pressuring you verbally like you have to do this but there is this subconscious pressure like okay everyone is doing it, everyone wants to do it, so something is wrong with me. I am falling behind, I am weird…and it's just this constant go go keep on going, this fast paced lifestyle in the outdoors…that is very uncomfortable at times." Rose recalls a hiking experience with some "White, male, PCT hikers" as one of the most "awful experiences" she had ever had. She credited her experience to the mindset of the other hikes, described as Pacific Crest Trail hikers or long-term thru-hikers, which she described as "go go go go go and like not really appreciating stuff…not really respective (of the) area we were in." Different people will have different intentions for recreating in the great outdoors. Not every person of color enjoys recreating more slowly, and not every White person 41 enjoys recreating in a fast-paced environment. Individuals' expectations for their outdoor experience influence their outdoor recreation intentions. These expectations and desires are a product of their outdoor recreation value system. Prioritizing an outdoor practice that values efficiency in conquering land and perceiving and treating this way of recreating as the "right way" to get the most out of one's investment, whether that is time or money, can lead to a sense of entitlement to space. A sense of entitlement to the outdoors sustains the defense of the "great" outdoors as inaccessible to those new to outdoor recreation. Intentions and expectations. An individual’s outdoor recreation value system and expectations for their experience will manifest in their outdoor recreation practices. These practices can either transgress or sustain and perpetuate everyday racism in the outdoors. A common intention among participants was to escape their daily routine by recreating outside. The general desire to escape the day-to-day led many participants to value remote recreation over accessible recreation. For some, it led them to exclude accessible opportunities from their outdoor recreation definition. For example, when explaining why biking from her house to campus did not count as outdoor recreation, Shelly states that biking to class is not an intentional act of removing herself from her day-to-day routine. In contrast, hiking is more of a special thing that she does and “...not like an everyday thing.” Similarly, Nader explains that the “great” outdoors and outdoor recreation should provide an opportunity to focus on fewer things and escape the worries of everyday life. James explains that by escaping the worries of everyday life, “...the things that don’t matter fall away.” Nader agrees that being in the backcountry (a remote 42 outdoor experience) boils down his responsibilities to strictly eating, sleeping, and getting safely from one place to another. The remoteness of certain outdoor activities, such as hiking in the backcountry, is idealized. Participants who fell into the common conceptualization that outdoor recreation only takes place in a definition of the outdoors that defends it as remote, relatively inaccessible to those without the necessary resources, and White, often perceived remote activities as more valuable, meaningful, and worthwhile than a walk in the park. For example, Shelly explains that when recreating with her family, “Yeah, I guess it’s like we felt like you had to have a reason to go…like if we’re gonna go hiking we would wanna go like up a mountain or something so that’s like an hour and a half drive, a two hour drive, so like justifying the day to do that I think is the thing we would do.” Shelly describes valuing remote recreation over other forms of outdoor recreation, which perpetuates her perception that outdoor recreation is inaccessible to those without the necessary resources. By valuing remote recreation over other forms of outdoor recreation, Shelly describes remote outdoor recreation as the only type of recreation worthy of her family’s investment. It is a cyclical process of investing in the appropriate resources to recreate remotely and therefore defending one’s investment by valuing remote outdoor recreation over all other forms. Habitus and investment. Cultural capital, the best-hidden form of hereditary transmission of capital, is a product of investment. Privileging the investment of time and money to outdoor recreation is often a reflection of one’s values. These values often originate from a socialization space or their habitus (Bourdieu [1989] 2017). Ben describes the importance 43 of one’s habitus in allowing an individual to utilize their social and cultural capital within the field of outdoor recreation: “So, you know to be able to let’s say grow up on the slopes and to be able to know how to backpack and to be able to ski…it requires a level of expertise and skill set that’s not gonna be learned over night and that requires gear and you know equipment that is not going to be able to be purchased over night because it’s expensive…if you didn’t grow up in an environment of which that um the family has started doing these activities…that just gives you a little bit more barrier…it just puts you at a disadvantage because of oh where you came from.” Asad asserts that because he did not grow up recreating in the “great” outdoors with his family, outdoor recreation is like “...picking up a new sport.” He states that outdoor recreation is “not a core personality trait” of his and that he is a “...well defined person who is trying to fit something new into that little space over there. Whereas for (people who grew up recreating), it is something they enjoy, it is already a big part of their life, they aren’t trying to make space for to put it in there…for them it was fun, for me it was a challenge.” Here, Ben and Asad refer to outdoor recreation as a product of habitus, or a space of socialization, where individuals acquire the social and cultural capital necessary to enjoy outdoor recreation. All participants acknowledged that there are degrees of investment necessary to participate, let alone enjoy, different types of outdoor recreational activities. Shelly summarizes, “I think that it depends on like what like recreation you decide to do…depending on where you are I guess like location also ties into this but depending on where you are you can go and park for free or you can go and hike for free and you can hike in normal clothes…but if you are trying to get into climbing or even kayaking I mean like…all of these things are really expensive and there is not really a place where you can just try it for free so you kind of have to like invest in this thing that might not be worth it to people.” Remote recreation requires the most resources and, thus, the highest level of investment for participation. Therefore, the degree of resources necessary for participation in remote outdoor recreational activities influences remote recreation participants’ perceptions of what outdoor recreational activities are worthy of their investment. Perceiving certain activities as more or less worthy of investment is an example of how the social hierarchy 44 of outdoor recreation perpetuates a lack of acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. The personal mis(recognition) of the effect of embodied capital, and an individual’s investment in a remote outdoor recreation, can lead to a sense of entitlement to space rather than an appreciation for or recognition of what has allowed that individual to enter the space. Participants who had not invested in outdoor recreation described a fear of messing up, not knowing how to do things “the right way,” and lagging behind. These same participants often credited a lack of cultural assimilation, or appropriate cultural capital, for their failure to resemble the dominant group or assume the dominant group’s values, behaviors, and beliefs. When explaining the frustrations of his outreach job at his college’s outdoor program, Asad says that when he asks his friends who are people of color to sign up for an outdoor trip, they laugh in his face, “...because they just don’t have the access to it, haven’t had the access to it, think there’s a huge stigma around the fact that um they are going to falter behind and the fact that they wouldn’t feel welcome because they’d just lag behind everyone else and that they’d be amongst a bunch of people who…already know everything, a group of friends maybe, all avid skiers maybe or campers who are just going to be getting everything done while they’re just there like okay I’m messing everything up.” Here, Asad describes a fear of lacking the appropriate embodied cultural capital in a group of “avid” skiers or campers, thus failing to fit in. Asad and Rose also described feeling like they did not belong in a group of White recreationists due to their lack of interest in the group’s fast-paced approach to outdoor recreation. James credits past experiences of microaggressions on a mountain biking trail to his failure to demonstrate the appropriate embodied and objectified cultural capital, “...like people would come by and they would look at me and I didn’t have, at the time I wasn’t assimilated, like I didn’t look like I should be out there like I was wearing clothing that wasn’t outdoor clothing, like and all of my stuff was rental stuff and um…and either I would get just not acknowledged and I would be asking them for directions and they would barely look at me and they would look at what I was wearing and my skin and literally say nothing, or one time I got pushed.” 45 The outdoor recreation social hierarchy places its highest value on outdoor recreational practices that value efficiency in conquering a new space. Valuing efficiency in conquering a new space can lead to the perception and treatment of a fast-paced, efficient, remote, and extreme form of outdoor recreation as the “right way” or the “best way” to recreate. For those who cannot acquire the knowledge, experience, and gear, the “best way” to recreate can feel inaccessible. Those who have acquired the resources, and invested in outdoor recreation, actively defend their place on the social hierarchy by shaming and excluding those who have not made the same investment in gear, experience, and knowledge. The defense of the outdoors as a White space reifies the perception that one can only recreate in these spaces if one assimilates the values and practices of outdoor recreation that sustain and perpetuate everyday racism in the great outdoors. Suppose one fails to assimilate or demonstrate their assimilation through objectified capital (gear) or embodied capital (expertise and knowledge). In that case, the consequences of disrupting the social construction of the outdoors as a White space can be incredibly real. All participants agreed with James that having the “right” outdoor clothing and gear makes you “less questioned” in an outdoor space. The clothing and gear to which participants are referring are expensive. For those entering extreme outdoor recreation, having rental gear is what James calls “outing” and, therefore, “othering.” Salman states that there is a general perception in outdoor recreation that you are not a legitimate participant if you are renting your gear. Nader summarizes the power of gear, “I think a lot of times like it becomes two things there is one of like you don’t have the money to buy the right gear and then you’re not smart enough to have the right gear either and so it becomes a whole sort of like we can look down on these people and we can shame them…and it’s just like…a tactic to put yourself above someone another 46 person or a group…and it’s something that happens in the outdoor industry because it’s oddly competitive like there’s thing this where I have to be better than you at this activity.” Gear is often advertised as a granter of access to the opportunity to conquer nature, which is waiting to be tamed and controlled by human technology (Cronon 1995; DeLuca and Demo 2001; Gould and Lewis 2009). Outdoor recreation companies sell the idea that purchasing an expensive product is the admission ticket to this ego-enhancing performance in nature that will raise your position in the social hierarchy of outdoor recreation. Gear is also a mechanism through which the Whiteness of the outdoors and outdoor recreation is defended. Specifically, the discourse surrounding gear can become what Nader describes as a “gatekeeping approach” to defending the Whiteness of the outdoors and outdoor recreation. For example, Asad describes having a good time recreating outdoors with a group of White college students until conversations about the outdoors would pop up, “...and if it’s like skiing it’s like yeah we’ve all skied, what do you ski on, what skis do you got, how do you ski, what was skiing like at home for you, and then I’ll just be there like yeah I feel out of place, like I don’t ski what am I supposed to talk about? Uh there is nothing for me to talk about, how am I going to click with these people? I’m just going to be an outsider with this.” Shelly agrees that “there are levels of how you can show like you know what you’re doing, and I think clothing is something that really shows that in the outdoor space.” Not having the right clothes, not knowing what to say when talking about the outdoors, or not knowing how to use specific gear, Rose says that all of these things make her feel “lesser” or “she should know this stuff.” She says that, “...it often just has to do with like people who have the resources to like access the gear and that comes with this sense of like oh I have this big knowledge…and you can’t do this unless you also have this expensive gear.” 47 However, even having the appropriate cultural capital does not guarantee acceptance. James explains, “Because I have like knowledge and ability…I am like right below White men (in the outdoor recreation social hierarchy)…(White men) don’t like that…because (they think) it’s not my space. Which sucks because it is. Whenever I am outside I feel more like myself than I do ever…especially in the Southwest because I am Native American and like my ancestors lived in that place and I feel so connected to the land there and I like feel hate.” Here, James describes the overt racialization of the outdoors. James acknowledges that gear perpetuates the gatekeeping of the outdoors and that even the accumulation of objectified and embodied capital is not enough to be accepted into that space as a person of color. He says, “Like I feel hatred coming at me…from White men in spaces like that (outdoor spaces in the Southwest) ...because I don’t belong there quote un quote.” While gear, knowledge, and expertise can make an individual “fit” for the great outdoors, and thus, “fit” for a White-dominated space, routine practices of defining and defending the outdoors as a White space sustain everyday racism in the outdoors. The defining and defending of the outdoors as a White space, which can be hidden and enduring, perpetuates the perception that certain racialized bodies are expected to occupy specific social spaces, therefore making the presence of other bodies a disruption to the space (Harrison 2013). The threat of the consequences of disrupting the outdoors as a White space sustains everyday racism in the outdoors. Microaggressions. As a part of everyday racism, microaggressions are acts of everyday racism that can be intentional or unintentional. However, they always reflect underlying power relations between the aggressor and the receiver (Essed [1991] 2002). All participants described experiencing and perceiving vicarious and personal accounts of 48 microaggressions. Whether participants described themselves as new to outdoor recreation or successfully assimilated into the outdoors as a White space, all participants described staying quiet in the face of everyday racism so as not to disrupt the White space and make others uncomfortable. For example, James, who states that he has “...really settled into this space…I am accepted fairly quickly even in new spaces because I have nice gear and I look like I know what I am doing…”, describes bouldering outside of Salt Lake City with a “bunch of White guys” when a group of young people of color showed up, “...and they had a rental pad they were climbing and the guys that I was with were talking down at them…and it made me feel so bad because I didn’t even, I didn’t say anything. I didn’t say anything to them, as in the people who were getting talked down to, and I didn’t say anything to the people I was with. I just like put on the blinders because I was…trying to maintain my own strength in that situation. Like I was trying to be as strong as possible, period…(me) turning around to the guy next to me and being like, you’re being an asshole you know…is just othering. Like I was trying so hard to assimilate.” Here, James describes an instance where his desire to assimilate led to his passive participation in defense of the outdoors as a White space where certain racialized bodies are expected to occupy certain social spaces, therefore making the presence of other bodies a disruption to the space (Harrison 2013). Similarly, Shelly described hiking with a group of White friends who laughed at a group of Asian people wearing Balenciaga, an expensive luxury fashion brand, on a hiking trail. When asked why she did not say anything to her friends, Shelly states that, “I guess like… it’s easy I guess for people of color to shoulder the burden of it because we are used to it but I think also its this like fear of like okay if I make everyone else uncomfortable then the rest of the hike will be wicked weird and so that is something that I like keep to myself…and like also on a hike…like that’s not the time or space where I personally would want to do work for people…and I think it would feel awkward like everyone would feel awkward…” James and Shelly both describe staying quiet in the face of everyday racism so as not to feel othered by disrupting the White space and making other people feel “awkward.” 49 When asked how this impacted them and their experience recreating in the outdoors with groups of White people, both James and Shelly described feeling “raceless.” James stated that he does not feel like he is being seen as a person of color “because (he is) performing outside.” Shelly commented that, “It’s weird that people feel comfortable making comments about your culture and stuff but then they’re not like…I don’t think it’s in their immediate thing of like oh wait (Shelly) is also like that so like why…I don’t ever know what to say because I feel weird about being like hey excuse me, I’m also a person of color, that can certainly be uncomfortable.” James and Shelly agree that to assimilate into a White space successfully, one needs sufficient cultural and economic capital and must stay quiet in the face of both personal and vicarious everyday racism. James describes this process as one where he “overcomes his race,” which is critical in proving himself to be “fit” for the White space. By doing so, James and Shelly perceived that White people viewed them as “raceless” in the great outdoors. “Dealing” with everyday racism. For POC and White people alike, the social construction of race is incredibly real in its consequences in the great outdoors. However, when asked how often they thought about their race in the outdoors while recreating, all participants said either that they try not to think about it or do not think about it. James says that thinking about his race when recreating is “depressing” and places him in “the in-between.” “It makes me feel separated from the people I’m around then (when recreating) and it makes me feel separated from the people I’m around when I get back, the people of color whenever I get back (James).” While all participants described instances when they were aware of their race when recreating, when asked, all participants also described either trying to not think about their race when recreating or not thinking about it at all. Many also described 50 reflecting on the racial implications of their recreational experience once they returned. For example, Nader says that “often times when I come back (from recreating) it’s like okay lets’ break down that trip in my head and go over everything and process everything because sometimes…I don’t realize I got that dirty look from a person and reflecting back I’m like oh yeah.” Similarly, James and Salman described wanting to be present when recreating but then thinking about their race once returning. Upon reflection, all participants commented on the lack of representation of POC in the “great” outdoors and how little they see other people who look like them when they are recreating. However, all interviewees agreed that not seeing other POC in the “great” outdoors felt normal and that when they did see another person of color, it forced them to confront their own identities. In general, when asked if everyday racism was present in the great outdoors, all participants agreed that it was and that it does not disappear; no matter how remote your climb is or how long you’ve been backpacking, it is always there. However, all participants described avoiding discussions of their race when recreating in the great outdoors and diffusing instances of everyday racism when recreating by emphasizing the importance of their fun and leisure when in the outdoors. Some participants described not wanting to do the work of creating space to talk about race when recreating. Others said it would be too “awkward” or “uncomfortable” for the White people they’re recreating with. Many explained that for POC to successfully enter into a White understanding of the outdoors and outdoor recreation, they must stay quiet in the face of microaggressions and “deal” with the implications of everyday racism once they are no longer recreating. In reference to everyday racism, Salman noted, “racial tensions in everyday life…it 51 seems natural…you cannot avoid it necessarily, you kind of have to deal with it,” but wait to deal with it until you are no longer in the great outdoors. Inclusion into the Outdoors as a White Space Inclusion is the act of being included, which asserts that someone owns space and gets to decide whom they want to grant access to and what is needed to be granted access. Inclusion centralizes a definition of the outdoors that defends it as a White space where others are invited to enter. James explains that a person of color, like himself, is only invited to enter such a space if they can gain the respect of the White recreationists who participate in the act of inclusion: “It’s like I’m stronger, I am faster, I am… better…I get more respect…I already have that respect and whatever might be taken away because I am a person of color is taking away from something that has already lifted me up in their eyes you know.” However, as mentioned earlier, gaining enough respect to be invited into a space does not guarantee acceptance into that space as a person of color or as someone who does not share the same values, expectations, and intentions that centralize the great outdoors as remote, inaccessible, and White. When entering a new outdoor space, James describes feeling like he is a “show pony” because it’s either “...glorified that I succeed or it’s funny that I don’t because it’s like oh, he isn’t really supposed to be here.” James explains that the pressure he feels in these outdoor spaces to “prove my worth to typically White men” comes from a lack of representation of people of color in the outdoors, “... it’s because I am representing so much more than myself, especially in spaces like that, like when things really matter and I am the only person of color.” Often, participants credited the general lack of representation of people of color in the “great” outdoors and White outdoor 52 recreationists’ inclusion efforts as the two primary applicants of pressure to be an “ambassador.” There is pressure to include and bring other POC into that space for the participants who described themselves as successfully entered a White-dominated outdoor recreation space. Ben explains that this pressure makes him feel singled out as a student of color on campus: “...because of comments other people make and suggestions that other people make that I am responsible for promoting the great outdoors or joining a club and setting the example of um of ‘oh you know minority students can actually go backpacking and go cross country skiing, oh amazing you should get your minority friends to come too’ um and it makes me really uncomfortable that I need to represent and encourage other people to join like the greater outdoor community as if I am some sort of trusted member in the community.” Ben describes the pressure to assimilate to the White space to be “fit” for it and to be an ambassador for other minorities to do the same. The pressure to represent their race and be an ambassador for their outdoor recreational activity often places people of color in what I will call “the in-between.” Being in “the in-between” can cause the individual to feel more aware of their racial identity in White centralized spaces and their identity as an outdoor recreationist in spaces centralized by POC. James describes the feeling here: “I personally like going outside you know that’s how I get my escape, I have the privilege to do that and a lot of people… don’t have that privilege or…I think that is um frustrating for them…you know because it’s like going outside…is a systemic privilege…and I like broke the code. You know, instead of using that to do something else I am using it to just go outside…risk my life outside… it’s seen as assimilating…but with other people of color I am just not in any of those groups and I don’t necessarily really feel like…in all White spaces like I’m in that group either. But I am in the inbetween because…I do go outside you know.” “Breaking the code” of outdoor recreation situates James in the “in-between.” James highlights how the racialization of the outdoors puts people of color who recreate in a position of added burden for engaging in a behavior that is perceived as White by Whites and people of color alike. 53 This section has discussed the overarching themes and patterns that emerged from the interview data. I have discussed the practices of defining and defending the “great” outdoors and outdoor recreation as a White space, the values that influence individuals’ definitions and acts of defense, and the power of intention and expectation in the dialectical formation of definitions. Next, I will conclude this research. 54 Conclusion This research asked how everyday racism in the “great” outdoors is sustained and perpetuated by the practices and values of outdoor recreation. Everyday racism in the “great” outdoors is sustained when a definition of the “great” outdoors is imposed from a White standpoint and centralized in our society. Constructing a definition of the outdoors that fails to include and engage all parties’ values perpetuates a lack of acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. This failure to accept, understand, and equally value all outdoor recreation intentions and expectations perpetuate everyday racism in the great outdoors. The act of inclusion reifies that someone owns space and therefore has the power to welcome others into it. The act of inclusion insinuates that an individual’s welcome to that space is contingent and can be taken away. Efforts to include and welcome people of color into outdoor recreation centers Whiteness in the outdoors and reifies that the outdoors is White. Expanding beyond inclusion efforts will negate exclusion efforts and decentralize the outdoors as a White space. The lack of representation of people of color in the “great” outdoors is not due to a lack of inclusion efforts by White people. Rather than extending a hand (more often than not forcing the hand of POC) and pulling people of color into a definition of outdoor recreation that privileges specific values in its construction, the definition of the “great” outdoors needs to expand to include all practices of outdoor recreation. Using a dialectical approach to the arrival at a definition of the outdoors will encourage all outdoor recreation value systems to be equally appreciated and privileged in forming a truly inclusive definition of the great outdoors. Defining the “great” outdoors is a practice of outdoor recreation. An individual’s value 55 systems influence the subjective practice of defining the “great” outdoors. A dialectical practice, or approach to defining the outdoors, will decentralize the Whiteness of the outdoors and equally engage all parties’ values. Exclusionary value systems sustain the social hierarchy of outdoor recreation that perpetuates a lack of acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreationists can trace their practices back to their expectations for their experience. These expectations stem directly from their outdoor recreational value systems. By understanding the value systems that influence different outdoor recreation intentions, and practices, individuals can more readily recognize how their outdoor recreation practice could be either transgressing or perpetuating everyday racism in the great outdoors. Setting an intention for your outdoor recreation experience and understanding what values drive you to desire this specific experience will encourage a greater understanding and acceptance of different value systems, intentions, and practices in outdoor recreation. A greater understanding of and equal appreciation of different outdoor practices and intentions will disrupt the outdoor recreation social hierarchy. Decentralizing the outdoor recreation social hierarchy will negate the perceived necessity of the accumulation of embodied and objectified cultural capital to not only participate in outdoor recreation but to be deemed as “fit” for the “great” outdoors under a definition that defends it as remote, inaccessible, and White. New outdoor recreation participants are largely motivated by outdoor recreation opportunities with low barriers to entry that are available and accessible within 10 miles of their homes (Outdoor Industry Association 2021). Centralizing a definition of the outdoors that excludes accessible outdoor recreation opportunities negates the outdoor 56 experiences of many recreationists. Negating and invalidating diverse outdoor recreationists’ experiences perpetuates the perception that one must fit into a specific conceptualization of what it means to be an outdoor recreationalist under a definition of the outdoors that defends it as a White space. By defining the ideal outdoor recreational experience as one that takes place in the “wild” or a primitive setting, the perceived change in who is recreating outside is invalidated and negated. While much attention has been put on increasing racial representation in the great outdoors through inclusion efforts, not much attention has been put towards deconstructing the existing definition of the environment that refers to nature through mainstream, and often White, discourses (DeLuca 1999; Floyd and Johnson 2002). While inclusion reifies the great outdoors as a White space, it is essential to move towards a new practice, a more dialectical approach, to defining the outdoors under an allencompassing definition that decentralizes Whiteness and equally engages all parties’ values. As James mentioned in the introduction, a lack of White effort to include people of color is not to blame for the perpetuation of everyday racism in the great outdoors. What perpetuates everyday racism in the great outdoors is the systemic lack of access to the practice of defining the great outdoors and the centralization of outdoor recreation expectations, intentions, and experiences of White people. As a facet of racism, everyday racism in the outdoors is both a macro-structural and micro problem that cannot be neatly eradicated overnight (Bonilla-Silva 2021; Pulido 1996). The findings from this research do not provide structural solutions to stop the perpetuation of everyday racism in the outdoors. While this study’s sample size, demographics, and external validity drastically limit the scope and extent of any findings, 57 this research provides insight into what micro-level adjustments can combat everyday racism at the personal or interpersonal level. While everyday racism is embedded in the social foundation of our society (Bonilla-Silva 2021), this research advocates for optimism, beginning at the micro-level. Conversations on the relationship between race and space can create growth and advocate for a more dialectical approach to defining the outdoors and outdoor recreation. This research addresses the micro-foundations of a macro-level problem and, therefore, critically contributes to the existing sociological literature on leisure and race. 58 Appendix A: Interview Questions 1) General perceptions of the great outdoors and outdoor recreation a. What do you think of when I say the words “great outdoors”? b. What does outdoor recreation look like to you? c. How do you like to recreate in the great outdoors? 2) Definitions a. Everyday Racism: everyday racism describes the integration of racism into everyday situations through mundane, familiar practices that exercise power, situated in Whiteness, and become part of the expected, the unquestionable, and what is seen as normal by the dominant group. b. Microaggressions and/or micro-injustices: instances of everyday racism. 3) Perceptions of racial issues and racism in relation to outdoor recreation a. Do you think everyday racism is present in outdoor recreation? b. What does everyday racism in outdoor recreation look like to you? c. How often do you think about your race when you are recreating in the great outdoors? d. What identities of yours are you aware of when you are recreating in the great outdoors? e. Are the great outdoors and/or outdoor recreation racially inclusive and/or accessible? f. What changes would you like to see in outdoor recreation inclusion and accessibility? 59 4) Personal and vicarious experiences and/or perceptions of racism in outdoor recreation a. Have you personally perceived and/or experienced everyday racism when recreating in the great outdoors (racism directed against oneself, usually witnessed, sometimes reported)? i. These can be cognitive or behavioral ii. Feel free to make relevant the seemingly “small” or “trivial” but stressful or humiliating events of everyday life b. Have you perceived vicarious instances of everyday racism when recreating in the great outdoors (racism directed against others who identify as POC, which may be witnessed as well as reported)? c. Have you experienced or perceived reoccurring racial injustices when recreating in the great outdoors? d. What are some routine, or seemingly normal practices in outdoor recreation that remind you of your racial identity in that space? 5) Demographics a. What is your racial and/or ethnic identity or identities? b. How old are you? c. What gender pronouns do you prefer to use? d. What is your gender identity? Possible follow up questions: What does outdoor recreation mean to you? What does the great outdoors mean to you? 60 How often do you recreate in the great outdoors? How would you describe your relationship with the great outdoors? How do you feel when recreating in the great outdoors? What restricts you from recreating in the great outdoors? What attracts you to recreate in the great outdoors? How does one come to belong to the outdoor recreation community? Would you say that you are a part of the general outdoor recreation community? Would you say that you are a part outdoor recreation community?Who do you often recreate with in the great outdoors? 61 Appendix B: Codebook Accessibility Challenge Connection Outdoor Recreation Fulfillment Gear Family Introduction Individually Time Accessibility Money Entitlement Privilege Power Safety Defending white space Staying quiet Confidence White Space Gear Fitness for White space Knowledge Habitus Qualifications Feelings of uneasiness Inclusion language Everyday Racism Perceptions Perceptions of self Reflecting Representation Media Micro-publics Microaggressions White Ignorance Everyday Racism in the Outdoors Personal Vicarious Time Accessibility Aesthetic Money Knowledge Belonging Colonialism The Great Outdoors Connection Escape from the day-today Expectations Gear Relaxation 62 Remote Rurual Bibliography Arai, Susan, and B. Dana Kivel. 2009. “Critical Race Theory and Social Justice Perspectives on Whiteness, Difference(s) and (Anti)Racism: A Fourth Wave of Race Research in Leisure Studies.” Journal of Leisure Research 41(4):459–72. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1997. Postmodernity and Its Discontents. New York: New York University Press. Bell, Michael M. 2006. “Welcome to the Consumption Line: Sustainability and the PostChoice Economy.” Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2021.“What Makes Systemic Racism Systemic?” Sociological Inquiry 91(3):513–33. Bourabain, Dounia, and Pieter-Paul Verhaeghe. 2021. “EVERYDAY RACISM IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH: A Systematic Review and Future Directions.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 18(2):221–50. Bourdieu, Pierre. [1983] 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. Richardson. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Bourdieu, Pierre. [1989] 2017. “Structures, Habitus, Practices.” Pp. 336-340 in Social Theory: The Multicultural, Global, and Classical Readings, edited by C. Lemert. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. “Some Properties of Fields.” Pp.72-77 in Sociology in Question. London: Sage. 63 Breunig, Mary. 2020. “Slow Nature-Focused Leisure in the Days of COVID-19: Repressive Myths, Social (in)Justice, and Hope.” Annals of Leisure Research 1– 14. Brunsma, David L., Nathaniel G. Chapman, Joong Won Kim, J. Slade Lellock, Megan Underhill, Erik T. Withers, and Jennifer Padilla Wyse. 2020. “The Culture of White Space: On The Racialized Production of Meaning.” American Behavioral Scientist 64(14):2001–15. Bunn, Matthew. 2017. “‘I’m Gonna Do This over and over and over Forever!’: Overlapping Fields and Climbing Practice.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(5):584–97. Carter, Perry L. 2008. “Coloured Places and Pigmented Holidays: Racialized Leisure Travel.” Tourism Geographies 10(3):265–84. Catton, William. R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. “Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm.” The American Sociologist, 13(1): 41–49. Catton, William R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “A New Ecological Paradigm for PostExuberant Sociology.” American Behavioral Scientist 24:15–47. Collegefactual.com. 2022. “Whitman College Demographics and Diversity Report.” Retrieved April 01, 2022. Cronon, William J. 1995. “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Pp. 69-90 in Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 64 Dashper, Katherine, and Jason King. 2021. “The Outdoors as a Contested Leisure Terrain.” Annals of Leisure Research. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2021.1899832 DeLuca, Michael K. 1999. “In the Shadow of Whiteness: The Consequences of Constructions of Nature in Environmental Politics.” Pp. 217–246 in Whiteness: The Construction of Social Identity, edited by T. K. Nakayama. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DeLuca, Kevin M., and Anne Teresa Demo. 2001. “Imagining Nature and Erasing Class and Race: Carleton Watkins, John Muir, and the Construction of Wilderness.” Environmental History 6(4):541–60. Essed, Philomena. [1991] 2002. “Everyday Racism.” Pp. 202-216 in A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, edited by D.T. Goldberg, and J. Solomos. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631206163.2002.x Feagin, Joe R., and Clairece Booher Feagin. 1986. Discrimination American Style: Institutional Racism and Sexism. Malabar, FL: Krieger. 2nd ed. Fine, Gary Alan. 1998. Morel Tales: The Culture of Mushrooming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Finney, Carolyn. 2014. Black Faces, White Spaces: Reimagining the Relationship of African Americans to the Great Outdoors. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved November 11, 2021 65 Floyd, Myron F. 1998. “Getting Beyond Marginality and Ethnicity: The Challenge for Race and Ethnic Studies in Leisure Research.” Journal of Leisure Research 30(1):3–22. Floyd, Myron F., and Cassandra Y. Johnson. 2002. “Coming to Terms with Environmental Justice in Outdoor Recreation: A Conceptual Discussion with Research Implications.” Leisure Sciences 24(1):59–77. Frazer, R. Lee, and Kelsey Anderson. 2018. “Media Representations of Race, Ability, and Gender in Three Outdoor Magazines: A Content Analysis of Photographic Images.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership 10 (3): 270– 295. Glover, Troy D., and John L. Hemingway. 2005. “Locating Leisure in the Social Capital Literature.” Journal of Leisure Research 37(4):387–401. Gould, Kenneth A., and Tammy L. Lewis. 2009. Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Gramann, James H., Myron F. Floyd, and Alan Ewert. 1991. “Interpretation and Hispanic American Ethnicity.” Pp.161–177 in On Interpretation: Sociology for Interpreters of Natural and Cultural History (Rev. Ed), edited by G. E. Machlis, and D. R. Fields. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Hargrove, Melissa D. 2009. “Mapping the ‘Social Field of Whiteness’: White Racism as Habitus in the City Where History Lives.” Transforming Anthropology 17(2):93– 104. 66 Harris, Cheryl I. (1993). “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106(8):1707– 1791. Retrieved November 2, 2021 (https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787) Harrison, Anthony Kwame. 2013. “Black Skiing, Everyday Racism, and the Racial Spatiality of Whiteness.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 37(4):315-339. doi: 10.1177/0193723513498607 Horolets, Anna, Monika Stodolska, and Karin Peters. 2019. “Natural Environments and Leisure among Rural–to–Urban Immigrants: An Application of Bourdieu’s Concepts of Habitus, Social and Cultural Capital, and Field.” Leisure Sciences 41(4):313–29. Johnson, Cassandra Y. 1998. “A Consideration of Collective Memory in African American Attachment to Wildland Recreation Places.” Human Ecology Review 5(1):5-15. Kivel, B. Dana, Corey W. Johnson, and Sheila Scraton. 2009. “(Re)Theorizing Leisure, Experience and Race.” Journal of Leisure Research 41(4):473–93. Krymkowski, Daniel H., Robert E. Manning, and William A. Valliere. 2014. “Race, Ethnicity, and Visitation to National Parks in the United States: Tests of the Marginality, Discrimination, and Subculture Hypotheses with National-Level Survey Data.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7–8:35–43. Lee, Kangjae Jerry, and David Scott. 2016. “Bourdieu and African Americans’ Park Visitation: The Case of Cedar Hill State Park in Texas.” Leisure Sciences 38(5):424–40. 67 Lee, Kangjae Jerry, Rudy Dunlap, and Michael B. Edwards. 2014. “The Implication of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice for Leisure Studies.” Leisure Sciences 36(3):314– 23. Li, Kelin, and Ming Wen. 2013. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Leisure-Time Physical Activity in California: Patterns and Mechanisms.” Race and Social Problems 5(3):147–56. Martin, Derek Christopher. 2004. “Apartheid in the Great Outdoors: American Advertising and the Reproduction of a Racialized Outdoor Leisure Identity.” Journal of Leisure Research 36(4):513–35. Mohai, Paul, David Pellow, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2009. “Environmental Justice.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34(1):405–30. Neely, Brooke, and Michelle Samura. 2011. “Social Geographies of Race: Connecting Race and Space.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(11):1933–52. Outdoor Industry Association. 2021. “Outdoor Participation Trends Report.” Peterson, Melike. 2017. “Living with Difference in Hyper-Diverse Areas: How Important Are Encounters in Semi-Public Spaces.” Social and Cultural Geography 18(8): 1067–1085. 68 Pulido Laura. 1996. “Development of the ‘People of Color’ Identity in the Environmental Justice Movement of the Southwestern United States.” Socialist Review 26: 145– 180. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press. Shinew, Kimberly J., Myron F. Floyd, and Diana Parry. 2004. “Understanding the Relationship between Race and Leisure Activities and Constraints: Exploring an Alternative Framework.” Leisure Sciences 26(2):181–99. Sibley, David. 1995. Geographies of Exclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. Sprinkles Hikes. 2018. “The ONE Phrase I’d Like to See Disappear.” Stanley, Phiona. 2020. “Unlikely Hikers? Activism, Instagram, and the Queer Mobilities of Fat Hikers, Women Hiking Alone, and Hikers of Colour.” Mobilities 15(2):241–56. Sue, Derald W., Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. “Racial Microaggression in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychology 62(4): 271–286. Taylor, Dorceta E. 1999. “Mobilizing for Environmental Justice in Communities of Color: An Emerging Profile of People of Color Environmental Groups.” Pp. 33– 67 in Ecosystem Management: Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resource 69 Organizations in the 21st Century, edited by J. Alley, W. R. Burch, B. Conover, and D. Field. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Theriault, Daniel, and Rasul A. Mowatt. 2020. “Both Sides Now: Transgression and Oppression in African Americans’ Historical Relationships with Nature.” Leisure Sciences 42(1):15–31. Thomas, Charles. 2021. “A Notice to Karens on the Arroyo Seco Trail in the City of Pasadena.” United States Department of Agriculture. 2020. “U.S. Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results National Summary Report.” Walker, Gordon J., Jinyang Deng, and Rodney B. Dieser. 2001. “Ethnicity, Acculturation, Self-Construal, and Motivations for Outdoor Recreation.” Leisure Sciences 23(4):263–83. Weatherby, Theodora G., and Elizabeth S. Vidon. 2018. “Delegitimizing Wilderness as the Man Cave: The Role of Social Media in Female Wilderness Empowerment.” Tourist Studies 18(3):332–52. Welcome, Crystal Gail. 2021. “Collaborative Reciprocity.” Wigglesworth, Jennifer. 2021. “The Cultural Politics of Naming Outdoor Rock Climbing Routes.” Annals of Leisure Research 1–24. 70 Williams, Daniel R., and Deborah S. Carr. 1993. “The Sociocultural Meanings of Outdoor Recreation Places.” Pp. 209–219 in Culture, Conflict, and Communication in the Wildland-urban Interface. Boulder: Westview Press. Wood, Phil, and Charles Landry. 2008. The Intercultural City: Planning for Diversity Advantage. New York: Earthscan. 71