Hiking versus Walking

Lately I have been thinking about the differences between hiking and walking. No dictionary definitions really dissect the nuances between them but here’s what I think those differences are. 

Hiking is about conquest. A hiker has a destination in mind. The endpoint, whether the top of a peak, bottom of a canyon or beside an alpine lake is the reason for the hike. Often hikers measure how long it takes to get to their destination competing with themselves and others to get there faster. Once the destination is reached, a bit of time is spent taking selfies of their conquest and then it’s time to return to the starting point with similar determination and focus. Hiking is about personal achievement, goal setting and follow through and is often about getting there no matter what nature throws your way. Conquest over nature, over self and over others defines the spirit of hiking. It’s the destination, not the journey. 

Walking, on the other hand is about the journey, not the destination. Often there is no destination in mind and where one ends up is dictated by what one finds along the way. Because there is no destination, there is no race to get there. The best walks are often slow and meandering and full of discovery. Walking, when shared, is about companionship not competition. When done alone it’s meditative.

Walking is like yoga; hiking is like interval training. Walking is spiritual, hiking is physical. There is a time and place for both. I used to consider myself a hiker but more and more I am now a walker. I am less interested in conquest and raw physical achievement and more interested in immersive discovery and introspection. 

Maybe the choice between hiking and walking is reflective of one’s life stage. I used to be a hiker but now I’m a walker even though when I walk it’s still with hiking boots on.