Just World Theory: Victim-Blaming, Climate Denial and Trickle-Down Economics
What is 'Just World Theory' and how is it related to victim-blaming, climate denial and trickle-down economics? A Just World Theory is a part of a person's worldview, and as discussed in the previous article, it is a lens through which we see the world and assess our surroundings.
When communicating with the intention of creating positive social change, we should take into consideration that all humans will have a lens through which they will interpret their experience of life, and effective communicators will design messaging accordingly.
The Just World Theory or Just World Hypothesis is a belief system that the world is a safe, just and predictable place where life is fair and just (Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978). Those with this perspective advocate that financial freedom is earned by merit, that good things happen to good people, and that if a person works hard enough they will be able to achieve anything.
Some of these assumptions seem pretty benign, but on closer inspection of the presuppositions that come with a Just World Theory, we can very quickly see the malicious side of this worldview.
A person with Just World perspective is also likely to believe that poverty or homelessness is an outcome related to how hard a person works, or how smart they are. It is likely that they would assume the winner of any conflict was the right and just cause, that a person is always in control of their life circumstance due to the fact that the world is a fair and predictable place, and if a bad thing happens to a person, then there must have been some wrongdoing on their behalf.
When we consider the implications of a Just World View on a person's judgement of their world around them, we can begin to see how this leads to victim-blaming and belief in the validity of trickle-down economics. It creates a worldview that everything in the world is merit-based, rejects the idea of there being injustice or inequality inherent in world systems and is more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to authorities, governments and administration over individuals and fringe groups.
How this comes into play in the world of climate change communication is that much of the messaging of the climate action movement is currently focused on the injustice of the catastrophic and inevitable repercussions, the instability of the world's climate and the 'end of the world as we know it'.
These statements, though true and completely valid, and not to be dismissed as conjecture, are having the opposite to desired effect when used in a broad and public campaign or online messaging (see the previous article on Ecopsychology for further details). We have to remember that the normal human response to any piece of information is processed through the lens of their worldview.
The idea that future generations will have to deal with an uncertain, unstable and violent future is a message that increases climate science cynicism because of the fact that it contradicts a strongly held pre-existing worldview of a just world (Feinberg and Willer, 2013). The immediate response is 'this contradicts my personal view of the world, and therefore cannot be true’.
The idea that human beings are rational and will act on the best and most recent information made available to them is a hypothesis that has been unequivocally disproven, and it is now recognised by neuroscientists that emotions are in fact a key factor in the human decision-making process (Lakoff, 2010).
It is important to remember that we are generally much more emotionally attached to our worldview/ego self than the objective discovery of truth, and as such, regardless of the truth of the matter, if new information contradicts our pre-existing idea of the world and how it functions, this will cause us to deny the facts, become cynical of the source and even mistrust the messenger.
This type of belief polarisation is also known as ‘contrary updating’ and is a result of generic messaging offered to audiences without consideration for their demographic, ideological or socio-economic background (Hart & Nisbet, 2012).
Even in the statistically uncommon case that increased knowledge alters a person’s attitude, it would be incorrect to assume that opinion or attitude change is equivalent to behavioural change (Goralnik & Nelson, 2011).
There is a more than significant amount of research that suggests, raising awareness with information does not necessarily inspire a change in attitude (McDivitt et al., 2011; Hart & Nisbet, 2012; Byrne & Hart, 2009; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000), much less, behavioural change on the scale that is required in order to address climate change.
The fields of psychology and neurology both continue to confirm that the human decision-making process is not purely rational, but rather emotions actually have a significant part to play (Marshall, 2014; Lakoff, 2010).
Even if a person does not have a victim-blaming mentality or have confidence in merit-based trickle-down economics, we must understand that Just World Theory, like most things in life, is a spectrum or gradient, and not an absolute. A person may not consider the whole world to be a just and equitable place, but the idea that the weather is more often than not predictable and stable is a firmly established cognitive reality, and suggestions that the world is ‘collapsing’ in ‘chaos’ or that we are in a ‘climate crisis’ will contradict the lived experience of the majority of the receivers life and trigger a Just World Theory backfire effect (Feinberg and Willer, 2013; Cook & Lewandowsky, 2015). This is particularly the case when people still confuse the terms climate and weather and continue to use them interchangeably.
So how do we navigate this Just World Theory backfire effect or any of the other innumerable worldviews and pre-existing cognitive biases? The first thing to remember is that it exists, and to maintain an awareness of it, in the forefront of our mind when in conversation or brainstorming the language to be used in a campaign. Consider the position of the person who is most likely to object and play devil’s advocate with yourself or your team. This will help you speak or write in a way that can bypass a person’s mental defences or resistances.
Another step you can take in either conversation or in the designing of campaign messaging is to openly verbalise a receiver’s unspoken emotions if you’re aware of them, or acknowledge their worldview and speak to it directly. An example of this could be saying something like “I know it can feel pretty overwhelming to consider that humans have created climate change, but we can also undo the damage pretty quickly”, or something like “I can understand how scary it might be to think that the climate can become more unpredictable than it has ever been in the past”, or even “speaking for myself, I know personally I felt a lot of sadness and guilt when I first realised how many species have gone extinct in the past 30 years alone”. These are ways of connecting on an emotional level and diffusing any antagonism.
Or you can straight-up acknowledge their worldview if you have recognised it and say something like “I know you believe the world to be a safe, just and predictable place, but you know, sometimes it’s not at all predictable and bad things can also happen to good people as well”. Verbalising unspoken emotions and acknowledging pre-existing worldviews can humanise the conversation, release tension, and allow the receiver to feel seen and recognised, and able to receive what you have to say next with less resistance and more openness.
When we understand that most responses are emotional responses, and we perfect the art of being able to navigate these delicate and sensitive conversations, then we will become more effective in achieving the outcomes of our actions and campaigns, whether that be improving policy related to refugee settlement or calling for action on climate change.
The most important thing to remember here is that peace-building is a process to be a part of and not an argument to be won. The movements we are trying to build will be built with compassion and connection, and our attention should be turned to loving and compassionate dealings with our fellow humans with the intention to build social fabric, develop understanding, include more and more people, and to make them feel good things when they think of our cause or movement. Then will you begin to build a resistless movement that will grow without limit or bound and eventually have the strength to overcome the pre-existing prejudices in our systems of governance and administration.
Turn to your wider public and learn to communicate with wit, and tact, and love and charm, to realise your aims and achieve your objectives. Deep down, people are all very much the same, and the more you understand yourself, the more you will understand people, and the more you understand people, the more effective you will be in your efforts to inspire positive change in society.
- Erfan Daliri
About the Author
Erfan Daliri is an author, poet, social change trainer and consultant with a Masters in Communication for Social Change. He has over 15 years of experience working with NGOs, community groups and government agencies in a diverse range of areas, including participatory development, cross-cultural communication, youth empowerment, education, mental health, settlement services, and social justice advocacy.
Erfan is the founding director of Newkind Social Justice Conference and programme coordinator of the National Unity in Diversity Conference. He consults and advises on communication and project design for organisations such as Amnesty International and the Australian Red Cross.
He is particularly passionate about empowering organisations and communities to address issues of social, environmental and economic justice and to help them build a more inclusive, cohesive, sustainable and equitable society. His most recent book Raising Humanity discusses the underlying causes of socio-economic injustice and covers the themes of ecology and economy, resilience, resistance and what it takes to be an effective changemaker.