Dialogue between Vanessa Weihgold and Bernard Mossé
Faced with climate change, the disappearance of biodiversity, the depletion of resources... rationality should lead populations to modify their behavior. However, considering the transition as an opportunity rather than a moral or economic constraint conflicts with our culture and emotions.
In the context of ecological transition, cultural conflict should not be understood as an opposition between cultures, but within the same country, the same society, as the opposition between dominant habits, transmitted by mimicry, from generation to generation, such as: traveling by car for one's journeys, a diet based on meat or products from livestock such as milk, or the purchase of products in plastic packaging...
Cultural conflict is a barrier to change
However, today, it is urgent to question the behavioral foundation that shaped society in the aftermath of the Second World War. In this urgency, the role of emotions is predominant as a place for negotiation with the world, in a mutual exchange on which our way of life depends. But this leads to conflicts, for the individual and society, regarding values, customs in a culture that is not ready to challenge its model. There is a dissonance between what should be done and the natural tendency to do what the majority does, to remain in the comfort of the "world before."
We need to change the narrative on the living, but also on the mineral
Everything that humans consume comes from the Earth. In order for them to continue living, they must preserve nature. However, they behave like a super parasite that uses resources until they are depleted. Societal responsibility would like them to use resources while thinking about regeneration, ecological sustainability, balance between consumed energy and existing energy. In short, they need to transition from a parasite behavior to that of a symbiote that respects the one that feeds them and stops referring to the Earth as a resource.
This predatory attitude is in contradiction with the notion of contract which implies the reciprocity of rights and duties of each party. The question then arises as to what are the rights of the Earth and the rights of the living. This legal approach is progressing notably through the Constitution of certain countries (e.g. Bolivia). Also at the level of international institutions with legal personhood status for forests, rivers, animals. At the level of humans as well, with the right to breathe clean air, to no longer be contaminated by pollutants, etc. It is a conceptual revolution in the relationship between man and his environment. But more than a contract, it is the notion of gift and counter-gift that must bind Nature to Man.
Man has become aware of his vulnerability
Eco-anxiety has become a mass phenomenon. Man is becoming aware that his resources are now limited and that he will no longer be able to support the model that has driven the growth and development of societies since the Industrial Revolution. It is a questioning of all the paradigms of the 20th century. A world civilization that, if it continues, will lead to the end of humanity.
This perception also depends on our place of residence. In the Mediterranean, particularly a hotspot for climate change, the rising temperatures are altering landscapes, even changing the color of foliage and their timing, causing a feeling of disorientation without leaving one's country, a phenomenon well studied by philosophers: solastalgia. This perception is mostly generational. Young people feel that not enough is being done. Not quickly enough. They believe that their future is at stake now and is compromised. They fear they will not survive the changes now being modeled by scientists. They feel that individual actions, changes in behavior, will not be enough. They feel that leaders worldwide are not doing what they should. Hence the emergence of increasingly radical activist movements.
Astonishment and feelings of injustice
However, inaction is currently dominant and contagious. Individuals feel powerless; businesses say it is up to governments to set the course; governments say that changing the model is impossible without a radical change in the behavior of populations. In fact, the ability to act is hindered because, for now, the most prosperous societies, which are the ones consuming the most resources, cannot or do not want to change the model. And those who are most massively affected by climate change are those who have the least impact. At the same time, in societies that are the biggest consumers of resources, it is the poorest social strata, therefore benefiting the least from the system, who suffer the most from pollution, junk food, etc. Hence a sense of injustice, which is compounded by another observation: the most industrialized countries, the United States, China, Europe, Japan, are also the least willing to radically change their way of life. However, on the same planet, everything is interconnected. Just because a country is virtuous, produces little CO2, does not mean it is immune to the effects of global warming; whether it is drought or, for certain islands, their scheduled disappearance due to rising sea levels. Hence a sense of injustice coupled with a sense of inevitability.
Change comes through a ripple effect
The example of companies is interesting. When management promotes and adopts pro-environmental behavior and takes into account employees' suggestions, the entire structure is carried along in a virtuous dynamic. There is even an effect on recruitment: young people who have the choice because they are graduates or trained now prefer companies that want to engage in this process. Empowering people is the strength of the emerging movements that propose an alternative model. The participatory, local approach is a driving force for change.
The change in the production and consumption model can only happen through a change in the societal model based on a narrative that reconnects humans to their environment.
Vanessa Weihgold is a PhD student in philosophy at Aix-Marseille University and at the University of Tübingen in Germany, and is writing her thesis in philosophy on emotion in relation to climate change and environmental degradation.
Bernard Mossé is a historian, responsible for Training Education Research NEEDE Mediterranean Association
References
Norgaard, K.M. (2011): "Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life", Massachusetts.
Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R.E., Mayall, E.E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., and Van Susteren, L. (2021): "Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey," The Lancet Planetary Health, 5, 12, e863‑e873.
Serres, M. (2020): The Natural Contract, Paris.
Moore, Jr., B. (1979): Injustice: the social bases of obedience and revolt, London.
Baptiste Morizot (Morizot, B. (2019): "This homesickness without exile. The affects of the bad weather to come", Critique, n° 860-861, 1, 166-181.)
On relationality
Kałwak, W. and Weihgold, V. (2022): "The Relationality of Ecological Emotions: An Interdisciplinary Critique of Individual Resilience as Psychology’s Response to the Climate Crisis", Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
On Pro-environmental Behavior at Work
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., Paillé, P. (2018): "Overcoming the barriers to pro-environmental behaviors in the workplace: A systematic review". Journal of Cleaner Production.
On the inaction towards climate change Robert Gifford, R. (2011): “The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation”, American Psychologist.