Protection or Connection? An Ecopsychology Framework for Environmental Advocacy
The idea that humans are rational beings and we always act on available information for our best interests, was thought for many years to be true but has more recently been disproven.
We once thought we were rational beings, and science tells us now that we are in fact not rational for the most part. It is now recognised by neuroscientists that emotions are a key factor in the decision-making process (Lakoff, 2010) and should, therefore, be taken into consideration when designing communications.
Ecopsychology presumes that humans are bound by an inseverable connection with the Earth and can have internal contradictions and emotional management mechanisms activated, particularly when confronted with the anthropocentric nature of climate change (Lertzman, 2009).
The underlying premise of Ecopsychology suggests that the current ecological crisis is as a result of an imagined disconnection between humans and their environment and the resulting dysfunctional relationship. Much like a relationship with an estranged family member, the avoidance of contact or the neglect the relationship goes through does not negate that there is a connection there. Even when a person does not speak with their parent or sibling for 20 years, the connection cannot be severed, it simply manifests itself in a dysfunctional relationship that causes both parties conscious or unconscious pain. The same is true for our relationship with nature; it cannot be severed, and it can only be healthy or dysfunctional. (i.e. causing joy, or causing pain)
The work of John Muir and his educational programs with the Sierra Club was an attempt to establish and reaffirm this connection and love for nature, with an understanding that this ‘experience of’ nature would inspire an extension of ethic towards it, as was proposed by Leopold (1949). Now as the field of ecopsychology develops, we can see the wisdom in that underlying premise of connection over protection.
It has been said by psychologists that their field has a key role to play in both the proper framing and effective communication with the public (Gifford, 2008) and that this research should be made more available to the designers of environmental advocacy campaigns (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Shultz (2000) admits that psychology has lagged in putting forward effective models to understanding environmental concerns and related behaviours and that the degree to which humans see themselves as a part of nature is a key factor in establishing an ethical relationship.
Ecopsychology, as an extension of psychology, suggests the human consciousness cannot be separated from its host environment and that the human being is in a constant state of flux between knowing and not knowing of the current ecological crisis we face (Fisher, 2002).
While psychology looks to understand the barriers between awareness and action (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000) or the gap between rhetoric and behaviour (Booth, 2009), ecopsychology looks to unravel the complex internal contradictions that are activated by conversations on climate change due to an inextricably interconnected relationship between nature and man (Fisher, 2002).
Knapp and Ireland (2007) touch on this palpable tension between an obvious and expressed connection with, and care for, the natural environment, and yet still identified an anthropocentric worldview in participants in their dismissal of the validity of this emotional connection.
Though ecopsychology has roots as far back as the work of Carl Jung, Aldo Leopard and Harold Searles, it has only truly begun to take form as a unique field of research in the last two decades (Fisher, 2002). Fisher (2002) suggests that ecopsychology is the natural progression of the practice of psychology extending from a historic preoccupation with the intrapsychic and broader sociological factors, to now include an understanding of the inextricably interwoven nature of the relationship between humans and the natural environment from which we have sprung.
Ecopsychology sees the current ecological crisis as a physical manifestation of an unconscious dysfunction, resulting in the toxic relationship between two parts of a single organism (Kidner, 1994; Fisher, 2002). Paul Shepard (1973) suggested that the environmental crisis represents as much a crippled state of our collective consciousness as it does an ecological catastrophe.
In this sense, ecopsychology rejects the myth of apathy, which says humans are self-interested and apathetic to the needs of nature or others, and instead of giving credence to suggestions of an ill-informed, unconcerned or unmotivated public, instead recognises the complex emotional management that is activated in suppressing the unresolved feelings of shame, fear, grief, guilt and loss (Lertzman, 2009). This has been found to be true in not just with regards to communication of climate change, but any pressing social issue that has the ability to trigger these feelings of shame, pain, guilt and fear.
Knapp and Ireland (2013) confirm that effective climate change messaging to inspire engagement should acknowledge the receiver’s unconscious emotional response to fears and dangers that they may feel incapable of addressing. It is suggested that empowerment to confront these complex emotions and unpack falsely constructed anthropocentric worldview assumptions will lead to more effective communication (Knapp & Ireland, 2013; Goralnik & Nelson, 2011).
Furthermore, ecophilosopher Joanna Macy (1998) speaks of the importance of acknowledging and resolving this grief as a key part of the process towards achieving clear thinking, effective communications and the development of solutions. Coming to terms with the hurt or damage. we have caused each other or the planet in a less aware state of consciousness, and then allowing space for this grieving to occur, is crucial to allowing the heightened state of awareness to become fully embodied. Whether reconciling estranged friends, family members, or humans with their natural environment, that emotional release provided by grieving, is a prerequisite.
In framing a philosophy for environmental action and comparatively analysing the work and literature of Aldo Leopold and John Muir, Goralnik and Nelson (2011) mirror the sentiments of Shellenberger and Nordhaus (2009) in saying that the discourse of environmentalism should be one of ‘connection with’, rather than ‘protection of’. This ‘connection with’ is said to be empowering, inspiring and leading to a sense of community and togetherness, while the ‘protection of’ perspective reinforces a sense of harm, loss and “otherness” that can isolate, divide and lead to further feelings of shame (Goralnik & Nelson, 2011).
Furthermore, this ‘protection of’ is an anthropocentric perspective that has led us to this dilemma in the first place.
Ecopsychology proposes that human beings experience feelings of fear, grief and shame from witnessing the destruction of nature and knowing they are in some way complicit in the degradation of the natural world, while psychology has traditionally generalized these feelings as anxiety, internalised the problem, and failed to connect the symptoms to the actual external causes (Knapp & Ireland, 2013).
So if we wish for our advocacy and activism to be effective and produce the desired outcomes we have to allow the most recent research to inform our messaging. Let us align our activism with our academic awareness. If a connection with nature is what we honestly believe in, then we should let the findings of ecopsychology guide our communication design. If action is what we want, then understanding the implications of behavioural psychology is required. And if change is what we seek, then change is what we need to be.
If we were to allow the framework of ecopsychology to inform our activism, then we would see climate denial not simply as backwards conservatives with no sense of love or empathy, but rather as the result of a dysfunctional relationship, sprung from unhealthy cultural influences, that now requires healing.
We could see denial as avoidance of pain, and then actively address and vocalise the unmentioned fears and pains people are reacting to. This then would lead to opening hearts and minds, winning supporters, turning opportunities to communicate into conversations, rather than arguments... And eventually to the enlivening and revitalising of the whole human race.
It is up to those of us who care enough about the planet and its people, to turn our activism into a peace-building, world-healing, justice establishing project. Building peace is a process to be a part of, not an argument to be won.
If you know that human beings are emotional and act according to how things make them feel, then use that knowledge to the advantage of whatever movement you are working in. Let people feel good things, like joy, hope, connection or peace, when they think of your cause and let them feel like they want to join you.
Understand and acknowledge peoples fears, concerns and hesitations, make them feel seen, and then you will win their hearts. This is how we create change, in people, and in the world.
- 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.