| Why the “Right Way” to Garden Often Isn’t Gardening is full of rules that feel unquestionable. Lawns must be neat. Beds must be weed-free. Plants must be placed according to labels, calendars, and long-standing traditions. These norms are so deeply embedded that many gardeners don’t realise they are following them until something goes “wrong” and they assume the fault lies with themselves. But what if the problem isn’t the gardener, the soil, or the plant? What if it’s the norm itself that needs questioning? Garden norms are not laws of nature. They are cultural habits, aesthetic preferences, and historical leftovers shaped by fashion, convenience, and status. When we question them, we create space for gardens that are healthier, more resilient, more personal, and far better suited to the realities of modern life and climate. One of the strongest garden norms is the idea of control. A “good” garden is often defined as one that looks orderly at all times. Straight edges, trimmed hedges, uniform lawns, and bare soil between plants are held up as ideals. This approach prioritises appearance over ecology. In nature, bare soil is rare, plants overlap, and growth is irregular. When we impose constant control, we also impose constant labour, stress, and intervention. Questioning this norm allows us to see that a slightly looser garden is not neglected, it is functioning. Lawns are another deeply ingrained expectation. For decades, the lawn has been treated as the centrepiece of the garden, regardless of how little it is used. It demands frequent mowing, feeding, watering, and repair, yet offers minimal benefit to wildlife and often little joy to the owner. Questioning the automatic inclusion of a lawn doesn’t mean removing it entirely. It means asking whether its size, shape, or purpose actually serves the space and the people using it. Weeding is another area where norms deserve scrutiny. The idea that all “weeds” are bad plants is a cultural construct. Many so-called weeds are simply plants growing where we didn’t plan them. Some protect soil, some feed pollinators, some indicate soil health issues, and some quietly fill gaps until longer-term plants establish. A zero-tolerance approach to weeds creates endless work and removes useful plant diversity. Questioning this norm allows for selective, intentional weeding rather than constant eradication Planting rules also carry a sense of authority that can discourage experimentation. Labels tell us exact spacings, sun requirements, and soil types, and while these are useful guides, they are not absolute truths. Gardens are full of microclimates: warm walls, sheltered corners, damp hollows, and dry ridges. A plant that “shouldn’t” thrive in a certain spot often does when conditions suit it locally. Questioning rigid planting rules opens the door to observation-led gardening rather than instruction-led gardening. Seasonal expectations can be equally limiting. There is a strong norm around what a garden should look like at certain times of the year. Winter gardens are expected to be bare and dormant. Autumn gardens are expected to be tidied and cleared. These expectations drive unnecessary work and remove valuable habitat. Leaving seed heads, fallen leaves, and standing stems through winter supports wildlife and protects soil. Questioning the urge to tidy for tidiness’ sake changes how we see seasonal beauty. Another powerful norm is the idea that gardening must be physically demanding to be worthwhile. There is often a quiet pride attached to exhaustion, aching backs, and “hard graft.” This mindset excludes older gardeners, people with injuries, and those with limited energy or time. It also leads to burnout. Questioning this norm allows for slower, lighter, more thoughtful gardening that prioritises longevity over intensity. Gardening should support wellbeing, not undermine it. Tools and techniques are also shaped by convention. Loud, petrol-driven machinery has long been seen as a marker of professionalism and efficiency. Yet quieter, manual, or electric tools often suit small gardens better, reduce disruption, and encourage more attentive work. Questioning the assumption that faster and louder is better helps align gardening practices with environmental values and community comfort. Garden aesthetics themselves are ripe for rethinking. Many norms are rooted in historical ideals that no longer match modern needs. The clipped formal garden, the perfect lawn, and the colour-coordinated border all come from specific social contexts. Today’s gardens must cope with changing weather, water stress, and shifting lifestyles. A garden that prioritises resilience, shade, soil health, and flexibility may not fit traditional definitions of beauty, but it will perform far better over time. Questioning garden norms is not about rejecting all structure or tradition. It is about choosing intentionally rather than automatically. Some norms exist because they work in certain contexts, but problems arise when they are applied universally. A garden should be shaped by its location, its users, and its limits, not by an inherited checklist of what it “should” be. This shift in thinking also changes how we judge ourselves and others. When we stop measuring gardens against rigid standards, we become more tolerant of variation. A garden can be productive without being tidy, beautiful without being symmetrical, and successful without matching anyone else’s idea of perfection. This mindset reduces comparison and increases satisfaction. Ultimately, questioning garden norms returns gardening to its core purpose: a relationship between people, plants, and place. Observation replaces assumption. Adaptation replaces enforcement. Curiosity replaces guilt. In a world of environmental uncertainty and increasing pressure on time and energy, gardens shaped by thoughtful questioning rather than unquestioned rules are not just desirable; they are necessary. A good garden is not one that follows every rule. It is one that works, evolves, and supports life in all its forms, including the gardener. |
Questioning Garden Norms