JOHN V DAVIS HOME

TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY

DIAMOND APPROACH

WILDERNESS RITES OF PASSAGE, VISION FAST, AND SCHOOL OF LOST BORDERS

ECOPSYCHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
--What is Ecopsychology?
--Transpersonal Ecopsychology (Brief)
--Transpersonal Ecopsychology (long)
--Wilderness Rites of Passage
--Psychological Benefits of Nature
--Environmental Problems and Action

AUTHOR

I WILL BE ADDING MATERIAL TO THI PAGE.
PLEASE BEAR WITH ME AND VISIT AGAIN.

ECOPSYCHOLOGY,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION

One of the necessary cornerstones of ecopsychology and environmental psychology is a contribution to understanding and solving environmental problems. If these fields are to have any lasting benefit, they must help us solve the very real problems of environmental degradation and devastation. These solutions must come on broad, cultural, bioregional, even global levels, as well as on individual and local levels. My purpose in this section is to outline some of the ways environmental psychology and ecopsychology can respond to environmental problems and how they can understand and support sustainable and effective action. This is a bold, even grandiose claim, but I think it is both necessary and possible.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

The very real and well-documented environmental problems we face, both locally and globally, also have psychological consequences. This is one of the foundations of ecopsychology and recognizing the depth and closeness of human-nature relationships. This section outlines some of these consequences, drawing on environmental psychology research.

We can idendity three categories of environmental problems: natural disasters, technological catastrophes, and long-term environmental degradation. It is important to point out how these categories are increasingly overlapping. Many natural disasters, if not caused outright by human intervention, are worsened by human factors. Global warming seems to be causing an increase in hurricanes and their severity. Deforestation promotes floods and landslides because the natural buffers of the forests no longer absorb the rainfall they used to. Even the spread of human habitation increases the likelihood of the loss of property and life in natural disasters. So, the boundary between natural disasters and technological catastrophes is more blurred than before.

A. Natural disasters (e.g., floods, hurricanes, storms caused by natural processes)

1. Usually unpredictable (though there may be some short-term warnings), uncontrollable, destructive, acute, BUT they are expectable. While we cannot predict the next tsunami, forest fire, or tornado, we can expect they will occur. Furthermore, they tend to have a recognizable low point. With natural disasters, we generally know when the worst is over.

2. Factors in psychological effects of natural disaasters include the event's duration, intensity, low point. Equally important are a variety of personal and social coping skills, including personality style, adaptive skills, resilience, and social support.

3. Psychological effects: Short-term stress is common. Generally, chronic stress is rare. Often, increases in cooperation and social bonding are seen.

4. Natural disasters are part of the natural order. While they can be disastrous and while I do not wish to minimize this, I also wonder whether natural distasters are easier to integrate because they are part of the natural order. Is it possible that they even reinforce a kind of existential security?

B. Technological catastrophes, sudden, major toxic exposure (e.g., chemical and radioactive leaks, industrial accidents, e.g., Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, Bhopal)

1. Duration is variable. There may be long-term effects, there is often no clear low point, and victims have little control. There may be a lack of visible destruction and no closure since the long-terms effects are unknown and unknowable. Most people have low familiarity with these, and there is low predictablity. Basically, such catastrophes are NEVER supposed to happen, so when they do, people are not psychologically prepared for them.

2. Toxic exposure leads to both neuropsychological effects and stress effects. The belief in exposure leads to stress. In some cases, their low salience may lead to a denial.

3. Psychological effects: Compared to natural disasters, these effects are more severe, complex, longer-lasting, and likely to be chronic. They often increase interpersonal conflict.

4. Since they are not part of the natural order, I hypothesize that they increase existential insecurity.

C. Chronic, pervasive, long-term environmental degradation (e.g., air, water, noise, and light pollution; global warming). While there is some available theory, there is little research on these effects.  Some parallels can be drawn from research on the psychological effects of the threat of nuclear war. It is easy to hypothesize the following effects.

1. Psychic numbing, denial. CF, (Lifton's research on Hiroshima & Nagasaki). This is by far the most common and visible effect.

2. Anxiety

3. Helplessness, depression

4. Alienation, the sense of not-belonging

5. Child development. E.g., the need for a positive future to enable an Ego-Ideal will have negative effects of child development.

6. Kahn has written about "generational amnesia," the process of adjusting our expectations of environmental quality based on childhood experience. Each generation takes what it knew as "natural," "clean," or "pure" to be the aceptable standard, even though it is less natural, clean, and pure than conditions in previous generations. This amnesia allows a slow degradation of environmental quality.

7. There may also be a positive effect of recognizing and dealing with environmental destruction. It may be a call to awareness and service, existential authenticity, responsibility & empowerment (See Roger Walsh, STAYING ALIVE, and Joanna Macy's Despair and Empowerment work in COMING BACK TO LIFE).

Return to TOP OF PAGE

SELF-REGULATION MODEL

Deep Ecologists and Ecopsychologists suggest seeing humans and the natural world as parts of a larger self. Humans are nature. Human actions on behalf of the physical environment are nature's way of caring for itself. The Gaia Hypothesis that the Earth is a single living and self-regulating organism suggests this perspective, too.

It makes sense, for example, to think of consciousness as a process of nature becoming aware of itself, although this may at first seem an odd way of talking. The underlying idea is that conscious organisms such as human beings are part of nature. We are in a sense mere extensions of our environment. (Leff, 1978, Experience, Environment, and Human Potentials. NY: Oxford University Press. P. 7.) See also Deborah Winter, Ecological Psychology, and many of the writings of the Deep Ecologists, e.g., Seed, Macy, et al, Thinking like a Mountain.

If this is a useful way of looking at human-nature relationships, and I feel deeply that is is, then we should be able to apply some psychological understanding of self-regulation to the question of Self-regulation, where "Self" includes the natural and physical environment.

For some years, I worked with stress management, health psychology, and self-regulation issues using biofeedback. The following model developed out of that work and is based on some teaching from Peter Ossorio, a professor of mine at the University of Colorado. The model starts with the premise that, in general, systems will regulate themselves for optimal health. That system might be your digestive system, you, or the Earth. But then, we are forced to ask about breakdowns in self-regulation. How do we understand dysregulation? The heuristic I developed goes like this:

A more complex example: When you are stressed and tired from too much challenge, you will find a safe place and rest. Healthy self-regulation means resting when you are tired, UNLESS... If you are out of touch with your body, you may not know you need to relax until stress-related symptoms such as headaches really get your attention, if you know you need to relax but don't know how, you have stronger reasons not to relax (say your need to prove yourself as competent and hard-working overrides your need for relaxation, or external factors make it impossible to relax (a constant threat of danger, for instance).

We used this simple heuristic in the biofeedback clinic for dealing with self-regulation disorders (like stress-related health problems). The first step was to increase the client's AWARENESS of his/her body. Biofeedback is a useful tool for this since it amplifies the body's own signals. The second step was to teach the client better SKILLS for regulating their systems. We taught relaxtion, breathing, and meditative practices for calming mind and body, and the biofeedback equipment gave immediate feedback to the client about what was, and was not, working. The third step was to deal with the client's MOTIVATIONS. In a psychotherapy and stress management context, this meant dealing with the client's self-image ("I am not the kind of person who relaxes"), beliefs ("If I relax, I will be ineffective or not valuable"), attitudes, expectations, and the like. This is the material that often gets labelled "resistance," but this perspective looks at it as a mistaken or limited view. Successful clients learned to rework their attitudes, motivations, and expectations to incorporate healthy self-regulation with their other goals. Finally, we began to tackle the enormous realm of structural, economic, and lifestyle factors which were BLOCKING healthier self-regulation. This might mean dealing with problematic marriages, difficult work situations, and possible life changes necessary to live in a healthier way. This is also the realm of dealing with the social, cultural, political, and environmental issues which cause stress and limit one's ability to modify it. One particular advantage of this approach is that it puts the control for one's health back in the client's hands, as much as possible.

As I said, if we use the metaphor, image, or framework of the world as a self which includes both the human as part of nature (as virtually all ecopsychologists do), then we can apply this self-regulation model to environmental action. Now, it is the world which is regulating itself and our (human actions) are a means for that self-regulation, and self-regulation will mean sustainable, environmentally-responsible behaviors. Here is a modification of the model to reflect this view:

A PERSON WILL ACT IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY-RESPONSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE WAY UNLESS...

1) There is a lack of AWARENESS (of the current state of the environment).
2) There is a lack of SKILLS (for acting in an environmentally-responsible way).
3) There are stronger MOTIVATIONS for acting in nonsustainable ways).
4) Outside forces BLOCK your attempts at sustainable and environmentally-responsible actions.

Now, we can use this model to identify the factors which block the environment from self-regulating (through our behaviors). Awareness factors focus on not knowing the ways the environment is in trouble (or not in trouble). Increasing awareness of the environment, the risks to it, and their salience in the first step.

next: Improving skills.

A big area: Motivations, resistances, stronger motivations not to act in sustainable ways. Examples: despair avoidance, learned helplessness, expertism, social traps (such as the "Tragedy of the Commons"), and concern about self-image.

To be added: Levels of moral judgment in regard to environment. Real world barriers to action.

ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMPLES (TO BE FLESHED OUT)

The Self will regulate itself for maximum health UNLESS

a. Lack of Awareness of dysregulation (the threat/problem is below threshold of perception like carbon in the air or global warming, the problem has come on so slowly that we don't notice it like frog place in cold water brought to a boil, lack of knowledge about negative effects like common household products being household hazardous waste)

b. Lack of Skills (lack of techniques or strategies for self-regulation and effective action, not knowing how to make changes)

c. Motivation (stronger reasons not to regulate like lifestyle changes, self-image, needs hierarchy, learned helplessness, expertism)

d. Structural reasons (political, economic, and social factors that inhibit change like lack of alternatives to car transportation)

CONCLUSION The usefulness of this model is two-fold. First, it sets environmental sustainability as the default condition, the baseline, without denying the many sources of unsustainable behavior. This is important because it is easier to return to a healthy and self-regulated state than it is to create one. Second, it helps us know where to look for the sources of unsustainable and environmentally irresponsible behaviors, which in turn, helps us intervene. Rather that guessing or "taking our best shot" about where to put our efforts, this model can help us design strategies for promoting more environmentally responsible and sustainable behaviors.

Back to Top

BYSTANDER CALCULUS

This model comes from social psychological research on the conditions under which an observer will act on another's behalf. The original research by John Darley, Bibb Latane, and others was based on the death of Kitty Genovese, a woman who was stabbed to death over a period of 30 minutes on a city street while bystanders ignored the struggle. This and other similar cases have been explained by what social psychologists call "bystander apathy" or more generally the "bystander effect." One specific model suggests that observers run through a kind of formula, or "bystander calculus," (albeit mostly unconsciously) in deciding whether to intervene.

Here, we apply this model to intervening into environmental problems and acting in a more environmentally sustainable and responsible way. Since these factors or variables are so difficult to quantity, I see this calculus more as a way to organize our thinking than a literal mathematical formula. Nevertheless, it helps to identify the places we can promote successful environmental action.

The probability that one will take action on behalf of the environment is a function of 4 categories of variables. Note that this is a multiplicative function; if any of these 4 is a "0," there will be no action. If one does not see a risk, for example, s/he will not act.

1. RISK: degree of danger, likelihood of negative consequences

2. SALIENCE: awareness, clear images, nearness, personalness, stake

3. EFFICACY: self-efficacy vs helplessness, optimism, locus of control, expertism, combat learned helplessness ("50 simple things...")