Forumers:
I admire George Monbiot's sensitivity to the pulses on analysis and
the contours of the ongoing debate about how the human species is faring
in dealing with the vast challenges we face.
Today he has written about the subject that preoccupies many on this
list: the why, how and what of personal and social change in societies
bound within an environment, both locally and globally, under grave
threat, and now in a process of constant change.
Tom
Crompton’s report is an innovative and incredibly useful analysis of
the social belief structures, which now so complicate any efforts to
change individual and social behaviour towards greater sustainability.
We need his kind of depth and insight in order to grasp the scale of the
challenge, a kind of Social Sciences IPPC, dedicated to the human,
social, ethical, psychological dimensions, that all need to be integrated
when facing challenges like biodiversity loss, peak-oil and climate
change.
My point here is that I believe that Tom has covered ground that was
first tilled by Tim O'Riordan, my professor years back at UEA, when
he proposed (see page 224 of this link; or for the full original 1981
framework, see
page 16 of this link) that world views towards the environment could
be classed along an axis from
Ecocentrism
(eloquently defended as a philosophical position by
Robyn Eckersley) to the opposing end of the scale,
Technocentrism.
This is a point I have not yet seen clearly made yet. Attitudes
to climate change right along the “alarmist warmist” to “denialist”
spectrum, clearly map fully onto the paradigms that O’Riordan defined
back in the 1980s. Yet I can see no reference to O’Riordan’s
framework in Tom’s work, a cross-over area of social science research
that could pay dividends in additional explanatory mileage, as to why the
gulf is quite so deep between one end of the climate change social
debate, and the other.
My BSc thesis back in
1983 was a description of the gulf in world-views between the activists
and thinkers of the
Chipko
‘tree-hugger’ movement active in the Uttarkhand Himalayas in the late
1970s. I showed how, right at the outset of what is now called ‘community
forestry’, O’Riordan’s analytical framework provided great explanatory
power for why conflict over forest resources in India arose due to
opposing world-views, as typified by the eco-activist
Sunderlal
Bahuguna on one extreme, and the Indian Forest Department, still
tainted then by colonial attitudes, that had led to progressive
encroachment by the State on the rights and privileges of the people to
forest resources. I was also able to show how tension between two streams
of the Chipko Movement (an ecological world-view, as opposed to an
eco-development model) mapped onto O’Riordan’s suggested division within
ecocentrism between ‘deep ecologists’ and ‘self-reliance
soft-technologists’.
Faced by threats, to rephrase Monbiot on Crompton's report, people DO NOT
make rational decisions by assessing facts. It is wrong to assume
that all that has to be done to persuade people is to lay out the data,
and they will then use it to decide which options best support their
interests, when a host of psychological experiments demonstrates that it
doesn't work like this.
Perhaps injecting further
psychological insight around
memetics and the
contagiousness of memes can add even more depth to analysis of
the impacts of the human species within planetary bounds. Avatar as a
film, showed dramatically and convincingly our species as a potential
invader of any resource-rich Pandora out there, ready for our rape.
See
Susan Blackmore’s TED podcast here, where she draws on her New
Scientist
argument
(
reproduced here) that ‘memes are the basis of cultural
evolution... what we are now seeing, in a vast technological explosion,
is the birth of a third evolutionary process. We are Earth's Pandoran
species, yet we are blissfully oblivious to what we have let out of the
box. This might sound apocalyptic, but it is how the world looks when we
realise that Darwin's principle of evolution by natural selection need
not apply just to biology.....’
As noted
here, Blackmore asserts that these new digital replicators are
driving the emergence of something entirely new... for now humanity and
this new entity exist in a symbiotic relationship, but that may not
always be the case: Billions of years ago, free-living bacteria are
thought to have become incorporated into living cells as energy-providing
mitochondria. Both sides benefited from the deal. Perhaps the same is
happening to us now. The growing web of machines we let loose needs us to
run the power stations, build the factories that make the computers, and
repair things when they go wrong - and will do for some time yet. In
return we get entertainment, tedious tasks done for us, facts at the
click of a mouse and as much communication as we can ask for. It's a deal
we are not likely to turn down. Yet this shift to a new replicator may be
a dangerous tipping point.
Our ancestors could have killed themselves off with their large brains
and dangerous memes, but they pulled through. This time the danger is to
the whole planet. Gadgets like phones and PCs are already using 15 per
cent of household power and rising; the web is using over 5 per cent of
the world's entire power and rising. We blame ourselves for climate
change and resource depletion, but perhaps we should blame this new
evolutionary process that is greedy, selfish and utterly blind to the
consequences of its own expansion. We at least have the advantage that we
can understand what is happening. That must be the first step towards
working out what, if anything, to do about it..... These are the
‘techno-memes’ or
‘
temes’ recently proposed by Blackmore, taking us and the planet over.
I would further argue is that it is the pre-existing ‘technocentrism’ as
the values-system of the individual within their social group, embedded
as we are in industrial culture, that predisposes our denial of climate
change. Take Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear, or Ryan Air's, Senator Inhofe
or Michael O'Leary. These fully-convinced denialists are infected by a
“meme-plex” that is
as virulently integrated into their value system, and as well-defended,
as the belief
system of a born-again evangelical. This was
Richard Dawkin’s original
insight, interestingly
discussed here.
Is it not the case that the main activity of the denialist community is
to 'spread the message'; via endless repetition in all media of little
viral packages of pseudo-arguments, that despite endless rebuttal and
refutation, spread and spread, and wiggle themselves into modern
consciousness?
An on the opposite side, just a few days ago, we saw how fully a group
can embed itself into their shared paradigm. This was glaringly evident
in the debacle over 10:10's attempted launch of a viral meme via a
blood-splattering video that back-fired spectacularly, confirming as it
does, the techno-centrist misconception that ecocentrics or
environmentalists hate humans, and are therefore eco-fascists. There
is little doubt how widely spread this sad counter-meme will become, by
the likes of Fox News, Heartlanders and all friends of the US Senate. See
Climate Safety’s take on what happened.
But where we really are now I think, as a species, was well-expressed by
Aaran Stibbe’s contribution to the 3rd Future Ethics Workshop, when
he
spoke about how apt the
medical metaphor is for the situation we find ourselves in as a
species, where it is this patient’s, and this planet’s, ‘life’ that is
now at stake.
Oliver Tickell thought hard and long through the issues to conclude that
Kyoto2 was the logical best option -
radical surgery. Quite right, but quite impossible, in the mad scrabble
for our energy fix: even now the Canadians, Greenlanders, Norwegians and
Russians ready themselves to dive under the ice free Arctic for more of
the black stuff.
So we are on a scuppered planet, each one of us a member of a species,
watching individually our long-term collective demise. It's happening
slowly by the rapid ticking of the biological clock of each of our single
lives, yet will certainly blight our children's futures even in these
cooler climates, just as it makes any remaining hope for the emancipation
of the rest of our species out of poverty an impossibility. The MDGs
maybe never were going to be met, and now never will.
For those attending the
coming weekend’s event at the Institute of Psychoanalysis, these
issues come to the fore.
Kind regards,
Mark Kowal
ClimAdaptAbility - support to livelihoods
and management of natural resources under climate change risks
Skype ID:
tmkowal Web:
www.linkedin.com/in/tmkowal
October 11, 2010 By George Monbiot.
Progressive causes are failing: here’s how they could be turned
around
So here we are, forming an orderly queue at the slaughterhouse
gate. The punishment of the poor for the errors of the rich, the
abandonment of universalism, the dismantling of the shelter the state
provides: apart from a few small protests, none of this has yet brought
us out fighting.
The acceptance of policies which counteract our interests is the
pervasive mystery of the 21st Century. In the United States, blue-collar
workers angrily demand that they be left without healthcare, and insist
that millionaires should pay less tax. In the UK we appear ready to
abandon the social progress for which our ancestors risked their lives
with barely a mutter of protest. What has happened to us?
The answer, I think, is provided by the most interesting report I have
read this year. Common Cause, written by Tom Crompton of the environment
group WWF, examines a series of fascinating recent advances in the field
of psychology(1). It offers, I believe, a remedy to the blight which now
afflicts every good cause from welfare to climate change.
Progressives, he shows, have been suckers for a myth of human cognition
he labels the Enlightenment model. This holds that people make rational
decisions by assessing facts. All that has to be done to persuade people
is to lay out the data: they will then use it to decide which options
best support their interests and desires.
A host of psychological experiments demonstrates that it doesn’t work
like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we
accept information which confirms our identity and values, and reject
information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our
social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people
with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to
change.
Our social identity is shaped by values which psychologists classify as
either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic values concern status and
self-advancement. People with a strong set of extrinsic values fixate on
how others see them. They cherish financial success, image and fame.
Intrinsic values concern relationships with friends, family and
community, and self-acceptance. Those who have a strong set of intrinsic
values are not dependent on praise or rewards from other people. They
have beliefs which transcend their self-interest.
Few people are all-extrinsic or all-intrinsic. Our social identity is
formed by a mixture of values. But psychological tests in nearly 70
countries show that values cluster together in remarkably consistent
patterns. Those who strongly value financial success, for example, have
less empathy, stronger manipulative tendencies, a stronger attraction to
hierarchy and inequality, stronger prejudices towards strangers and less
concern about human rights and the environment. Those who have a strong
sense of self-acceptance have more empathy and a greater concern about
human rights, social justice and the environment. These values suppress
each other: the stronger someone’s extrinsic aspirations, the weaker his
or her intrinsic goals.
We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the social
environment. By changing our perception of what is normal and acceptable,
politics alters our minds as much as our circumstances. Free, universal
health provision, for example, tends to reinforce intrinsic values.
Shutting the poor out of healthcare normalises inequality, reinforcing
extrinsic values. The sharp rightward shift which began with Margaret
Thatcher and persisted under Blair and Brown, all of whose governments
emphasised the virtues of competition, the market and financial success,
has changed our values. The British Social Attitudes survey, for example,
shows a sharp fall over this period in public support for policies which
redistribute wealth and opportunity(2).
This shift has been reinforced by advertising and the media. The media’s
fascination with power politics, its rich lists, its catalogues of the
100 most powerful, influential, intelligent or beautiful people, its
obsessive promotion of celebrity, fashion, fast cars, expensive holidays:
all these inculcate extrinsic values. By generating feelings of
insecurity and inadequacy - which means reducing self-acceptance - they
also suppress intrinsic goals.
Advertisers, who employ large numbers of psychologists, are well aware of
this. Crompton quotes Guy Murphy, global planning director for the
marketing company JWT. Marketers, Murphy says, “should see themselves as
trying to manipulate culture; being social engineers, not brand managers;
manipulating cultural forces, not brand impressions”(3). The more they
foster extrinsic values, the easier it is to sell their products.
Rightwing politicians have also, instinctively, understood the importance
of values in changing the political map. Margaret Thatcher famously
remarked that “economics are the method; the object is to change the
heart and soul.”(4) Conservatives in the United States generally avoid
debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that both
appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms
that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which
progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more. The progressive
response to this trend has been disastrous.
Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to
it. Once-progressive political parties have tried to appease altered
public attitudes: think of all those New Labour appeals to Middle
England, which was often just a code for self-interest. In doing so they
endorse and legitimise extrinsic values. Many greens and social justice
campaigners have also tried to reach people by appealing to
self-interest: explaining how, for example, relieving poverty in the
developing world will build a market for British products, or suggesting
that, by buying a hybrid car, you can impress your friends and enhance
your social status. This tactic also strengthens extrinsic values, making
future campaigns even less likely to succeed. Green consumerism has been
a catastrophic mistake.
Common Cause proposes a simple remedy: that we stop seeking to bury our
values and instead explain and champion them. Progressive campaigners, it
suggests, should help to foster an understanding of the psychology which
informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They
should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the
advertising industry – which make us insecure and selfish.
Ed Miliband appears to understands this need. He told the Labour
conference that he “wants to change our society so that it values
community and family, not just work” and “wants to change our foreign
policy so that it’s always based on values, not just alliances … We must
shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to
life than the bottom line.”(5) But there’s a paradox here, which means
that we cannot rely on politicians to drive these changes. Those who
succeed in politics are, by definition, people who prioritise extrinsic
values. Their ambition must supplant peace of mind, family life,
friendship - even brotherly love.
So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values
must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we
want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are
empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are
selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want
to see.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Tom Crompton, September 2010. Common Cause: The Case for Working with
our Cultural Values.
WWF, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, CPRE, Climate Outreach Information
Network.
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/common_cause_report.pdf
2. J. Curtice, 2010. Thermostat or weathervane? Public reactions to
spending and redistribution under New Labour, in Park, A et al, S (eds.)
British Social Attitudes 2009-2010: the 26th report. Sage, London. Cited
by Tom Crompton, above.
3. Guy Murphy, 2005. Influencing the size of your market. Institute of
Practitioners in Advertising. Cited by Tom Crompton, above.
4. Margaret Thatcher, 3rd May 198. Interview with The Sunday Times. Cited
by Tom Crompton, above.
5.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/28/ed-miliband-labour-conference-speech
