Wesley Schultz, a psychologist at the University of California, who specialises in the psychology of sustainable development, suggests that there is a spectrum of approaches to getting people to change their behaviour.
At one end of the spectrum, Schultz suggests the rational choice model, which emphasises egoistic motives for sustainable behaviour. Accordingly, if you are going to encourage someone to change their behaviour such that this becomes more sustainable, you’d better persuade them that this is in their own best interests. An example would be to persuade people to conserve energy on the grounds that this will reduce their energy expenditure.
At the other end of the spectrum, Schultz proposes the psychological inclusion model, which emphasises ecocentric (as opposed to egoistic) motives for sustainable behaviour. Those individuals who make behavioural choices based on ecocentric motivations do so because they feel a concern for other living things – other people, and other animals, perhaps. They have a more inclusive sense of self. That is, they identify with the natural environment to a greater extent. Identification with the environment is something that few mainstream environmentalists work with, but advertising agencies fully understand the power of getting people to identify with the goods that they are trying to sell.
Schultz’s work shows that most people are either unconsciously (or otherwise consciously, but without articulating this) connected to nature. He also shows that people with this connectivity are more likely to make behavioural choices that help the environment.
Many environmental campaigners are careful not to frame their demands in terms of what people ought, or ought not, to do. Building a moral case against something may well be a bad way to go about inspiring people to change their behaviour.
But the more ‘ecocentric’ people in Schultz’s studies aren’t making their pro-environmental behavioural choices because their decisions are more influenced by an understanding of what they ought to do. They are not people who are simply beating themselves up morally, and making themselves behave differently. They want to do things sustainably because their sense of self is bigger; much as I want to save my pet from being run over because I am attached to it.
Playground, Bedminster, Bristol, UK
I might want to buy a Prius because Leonardo Di Caprio drives one, or because it would represent a contribution to making my country more energy-independent. But equally, I might want, just as much, not to fly because I know that it damages the planet. The potential error is to imagine that a more ‘inclusive’ motivation for doing something (by which I mean one that includes a greater set of interests – myself, other people, and the whole of life on earth) necessarily equates with a sense of moral ought. It is not necessarily the case that this is behaviour that we don’t want to take – and that we therefore have to be cajoled into taking.
This seems to present us with a series of choices.
Firstly, we might work to effect radical behavioural change, proportional to that demanded by the environmental crisis, through a scatter-gun approach – relying on a plethora of egotistic motives. Some of these will be there for the taking (save energy, save money), others may need to be contrived in the face of public opposition (increase the tax on flights). This is the approach that many environmental groups take at present. By its very nature, it seems that making things appeal to an individual’s egotistical motives will make for a very fragmented set of environmental interventions.
Secondly, assuming the dominance of egoistic motivations, we might try to persuade people that they should make their choices with a series of ecocentric concerns in mind. This was how environmentalists used to work, and some still do (especially in the case of some faith-based groups working on environmental issues). It works where moral imperatives, and the spectre of guilt, hold sway. If we are to adopt this strategy, we’d better know that guilt has strong persuasive power with the audience that we are targeting.
Thirdly, we might work to uncover, and make explicit, the innate sense of connection to other living things that the work of people like Schultz suggests most of us have (unconsciously, or consciously but unarticulated). We might use this to develop peoples’ sense of self, such that this is more inclusive, in the expectation that people will then want to make behavioural choices with a broader set of interests at heart. (It then no longer makes sense to ask whether this behaviour is egotistic or not; people who make ecocentric behavioural choices do so because they identify themselves with other people, places and living things. Making things appeal to other peoples’ ecocentric concerns in this way will lead, by its very nature, to a more systemic set of interventions.
It’s very helpful to consider the wider spectrum of motives that encourage behavioural change. However, I don’t think it’s a question of either / or. While eco-centric motives reflect a person’s spiritual development, our eco-system may not want to depend on these alone. Powerful are social movements and social identity as drivers of large scale change.
With a little personal reflection on this, it immediately becomes apparent that making a decision to change my behaviour and then stick to that change is heavily dependent on the way this behaviour is viewed by others.
In our consumer society, where we are bombarded with information and environmental cues promoting consumption, is it possible to expect most people to rapidly respond to a plethora of single issue calls and on a daily basis to manage their own behaviour for the benefit of long term environmental and societal goals? It seems highly unlikely.
However, immediate personal spiritual goals can be achieved by feeling that we are part of something greater than ourselves, in a movement towards creating a better, more moral world and feeling more connected to nature (for some a connection to God). For this we need a vision of that world and then we can accept the legally codified limits to our behaviour.
As social creatures we attribute value to things and behaviour predominantly within our own specific social context. Even if I consciously accept a rationale behind a specific call to change my behaviour, say, on the grounds of improving the environment, my own life or the lives of others, if I do not perceive this to be a highly valued change by those around me or society at large, I will be less motivated to change and less likely to stick to that change.
This leaves us with the inevitable problem: However ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ certain types of behaviour may be in terms of the measurable impacts of that behaviour on the environment, when the majority of others continue and we are simultaneously bombarded with advertising that perpetuates the social norm of conspicuous consumption as socially desirable and aspirational, the facts, no matter how irrefutable, will not fit the socially constructed values. To paraphrase George Lakoff, the facts do not set us free, if they don’t fit into our frame they simply bounce off.
So in the face of the massive momentum of ‘normal’ behaviour, is it possible to acheive rapid social change across such a broad spectrum of human behaviour? Are there any historical precedants of acheiving massive social change for a common good and are they comparable? Changing sexual behaviour in the face of the threat of AIDS? Preparing for WWII and the rise of Nazism?
Having recently pledged not to fly and tried to get many friends to join me in this via the site http://www.lowflyzone.org I have experienced how most of them, often highly environmentally aware individuals, find it difficult making such an obvious step, despite the offered choice of a pledge to be free from flying for leisure, excepting a need to do so for work.
Our core values do not appear in a vacuum. They evolve over time. They are the fruit of the efforts of enlightened individuals pushing challenging and nurturing from all directions. This then ripens into moral codes, ultimately reflected in our legal system. It was clear to the Suffragettes and Abolishonists what legal framework was needed for their vision of a better world to be realised.
Environmentalism must not try to compete with the commercial sector for consumer mind space, a battle it will surely lose, but focus on the core values and describe the better, happier, more equitable world we would all benefit from when we choose this path.