Positive Ecology

Sustainability and the 'Good Life'

Gerald Schmidt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780815346265
• eBook ISBN: 9781351163668
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

Until recently, there has been a widespread view that we must give up amenities of modern life in order to achieve environmental sustainability. While newspapers and other popular media tend to focus on the negative aspects of environmental change, this volume examines the alternative notion of 'positive ecology'. Initially gleaned from the orientation of 'positive psychology', this argues that environmental science has been all too focused on analysing negative 'pathologies' and forgetting to provide more positive analysis and activism for sustainability. Bringing together a wide range of 'positive ecology' orientated case studies for the first time, the book discusses the wider contexts of how humanity is dependent on a functioning, biodiverse ecosphere of which we are only one part. It provides an original and previously undervalued approach to sustainability, and suggests that work towards sustainability is not only a necessity for our children's future, but necessary, sensible and meaningful in the present.

Introduction

Setting out to consider a novel approach to analysis, and work towards, a transformation to sustainability, it is necessary to clarify its two most basic concerns at once: First of all, reduced to its bare essentials it means nothing more and less than the survival of humanity, which may or may not be threatened by the environmental crisis. The latter argument, especially phrased as a need or desire to save nature/the planet (incidentally, just like when it is framed in the form of a denial that there were any problems, or none that would not be Solved by techno-economic progress) tends to misunderstand actual conditions, the relationships of what to save and why. Secondly, and maybe more importantly – at least more immediately meaningful, as will soon become clear – sustainability is about the prospect for future progress and (the conditions for) human well-being. The issue of material-utilitarian relationships between humanity and environment plays a major role in this view, but further interrelations of "nature" and "culture(s)," environment and development, in cultural, psychological, spiritual, etc. relations, are also raised center stage.

So far, there has been quite a lot of talk, much of it more concerned with keeping power relations (in politics, economy, and even academic "turf wars") at the status quo, rather than with the true changes that sustainability will require, let alone with action towards them. The widespread adoption of "sustainable development" as a supposed guideline in business, for example, tended towards using it simply as a "green" synonym for – eternal, now: sustained – economic growth. The growing counter-movement to corporate globalization appears more intent on believing that "another world is possible" as well as on working towards it, but activism against something is much more prominent (certainly, but unfortunately not only, in the mass media's reception), than action towards actual alternatives.

Both movements tend to miss the point of sustainability in an ecological-cultural perspective:

First of all, the dependence of humanity on the ecosphere, which is constituted only as a dynamic, living assemblage of diverse ecosystems and the species which, in interaction with (bio-)physical conditions, make these up in turn. "Nature," in this regard, has its own rules and rhythms of which humanity is a part, and which "are as real as those of aerodynamics. If an aircraft is to fly, it has to satisfy certain principles of thrust and lift. So, too, if an economy is to sustain progress, it must satisfy the basic principles of ecology" (Brown 2001: 77).

Secondly, there is a need to consider the actual integratedness of ecology, or rather the ecosphel'e, and human culture(s) – in its wide definition as a shorthand for human ways of life and of making a living, spanning material, emotional, intellectual, and even spiritual regards – contained within it. This points, to the requirement for a functioning, biodiverse environment as a precondition for human development and well-being. The other way round, it also points to the fact that much of the nature which we now regard highly has developed in coevolution with its human inhabitants (but can only continue to do so if human activities become oriented on making this possible). All of the ecosphere is now in some ways affected by us, but unlike other "natural features" we could decide whether or not we want our influence to be for the better or worse, of greater or less extent.

Thirdly, then, the suggestion of sustainability-in-practice is that an integration of human activity into the structure and function of ecological-evolutionary features and dynamics should be the guiding principle. This will require doing many things very differently from today, not just quantitatively but also qualitatively. However, it can open up the possibility for utilizing synergies, to improve both the state and continuing flourishing of non-human nature and the prospects of humanity, and including of the individual person.

Taking its cue from the (rediscovered) "positive psychology" (Seligman & Csikszentmihaly 2000), the approach of "Positive Ecology" is that science should not only focus on problems and destructiveness. Rather, in light of the integratedness of humanity and the biosphere in terms of basic necessities for mere survival of the human species, and of possibilities for improving quality of life by a conscious (re-) integration and coevolution of humanity-in-nature, it should look beyond the necessity of a transformation to sustainability for the future of one's children, to the sense and meaningfulness of such a transformation in the present as well as for the future.

As Alfred Korzybski (1958, II, 4 [1933]: 58) noted, "a map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness," So science, in trying to provide a map towards sustainability, cannot be more than a map, and a useful one only if it manages to mirror the structure of reality. Therefore, adequately addressing sustainability as an issue that itself connects facets of life hitherto seen (or at least treated) as basically unrelated, will not work without "creating paths" by bringing together the insights of science, humanities, and cultural resources. Further, it will require crossing the boundaries to the "unscientific" individual and cultural (practical: economic, technological, social) aspects bearing on it, both in theory and in analysis. Finally, without an orientation on also "walking paths" by engaging in activism and action, at the very least by showing examples of the work towards sustainable ways of life that is already under way, the scientific work's value would be lost.

Many building blocks for a "meta-field" of sustainability analysis and action are in existence, both in the form of theoretical considerations, and in terms of empirical, practical examples, but in highly fragmented form. This work represents an attempt at bringing into relation these disparate insights obtained in various fields, in particular ecology (and evolutionary ecology), psychology, and (sociocultural, environmental) anthropology, supplemented by existing suggestions and examples of promising "ways to walk." The aim is to produce an integrated outline of the map for the necessary –and promising – transition to sustainability.

Bynthesizing works, even more so in such a case of "post-normal science" (Kay et al. 1999) necessary to address sustainability even just in its theoretical construct, and even more so as a process that needs to be engaging, and engaged in, in praxis, do not have an easy standing vis-à-vis the continuing specialization of disciplines. Yet, without synthesis and an eye toward application, science cannot provide a usable "map," certainly not one that is a meaningful and engaging, as well as an empirically reasonable, reflection of actual conditions and ways forward. It is hoped that this work can in fact profit from its position in the no man's land between theory and practice, natural and social science and humanities, by connecting the pieces of the puzzle in a first, rough outline of ways toward sustainability, as well as by providing extensive notes on their particular sources, so as to make both better known and usable. Moreover, because of both scientific and personal reasons, the main orientation is – at least trying to be – on the relevance to the individual person, for it is persons, not abstract entities, that are both the victims and the perpetrators of environmental problems and social disruption, and who will suffer or profit the consequences of their – collective – actions. Social, institutional, etc. entities commonly appear all too powerfully real and removed from human agency, but still are emergent features of human action and therefore amenable to being changed by social change; and on the other hand, individual decisions about one's own life, and even identity, are getting all the more relevant in the contemporary context of "postmodern" and "globalizing" culture, while and even because sweeping, seemingly hard to influence, changes are occurring.

Sustainability Paradox

In both scientific and popular views, the most fundamental areas of human life can be reduced to the duality of nature and culture (in its inclusive sense of anything that falls into the, supposedly unnatural, human sphere). The environmental crisis, and more recently the call for a transformation to sustainability, have brought their relationship to renewed prominence. They also focused both debate and practical activity on these related concerns: Social, economic, and environmental issues would all need to be jointly addressed; environmentalist worldviews were transferring nature to a more central position; and conferences and publications on sustainability worked hard at achieving some kind of consensus on just what they are about. Actual progress in transforming society, on the other hand, seems even farther off than it did when the Rio Earth Summit (formally the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992) brought "sustainable development" center stage in the political arena.

In effect, "sustainability" now parallels "nature" and "culture" not only in their fundamental character, and in virtual indefinability, but is further dissolved through its haphazard usage. Furthermore, as an issue that conjoins both nature and culture, and would need to span both hard science and utilitarian economics with ethics, morals and emotion, as well as theoretical considerations with their translation into practical application, Sustainability analysis and activism is even more of a challenge than "natural scientific" research or the all-satisfying definition of just what culture (or life, for that matter) is. Sustainability may be a necessary keystone for theory, and even more so a guideline to inform practice, but it is characterized and challenged by the paradoxa surrounding it.

In the scientific community, even a tendency to abolish the term altogether because of the discontent with its vagueness and indiscriminate utilization, and to desist from the discourse because of "[estrangement] from the preponderantly societal and political processes ... shaping [its] agenda" (Kates et. al. 2001: 641) can be found. Most saliently, the concept of sustainable development (or the oxymoron "sustainable growth") which has taken center stage in political discussions, was rather exclusively shaped by economic concerns and theories rather than ecology, even though that discipline is universally acknowledged as of the utmost relevance. Moreover, that sustainability would (have to) represent a transdisciplinary concern has regularly been voiced, but in practice it is a veritable minefield duly avoided, with the natural scienceoriented perspectives tending to misunderstand the social side of affairs, the socially oriented views (whether scientific or activist) underestimating the importance of ecological realities, and the sciences generally reluctant to "market" their findings and translate them into practice.

In public discourse, the situation is even more confounded, not least because of the simplified and often ideologically distorted reception of scientific findings, as well as uncertainties and conflicting interpretations of data that just are a feature of critical science. Hawken, Lovins and Lovins (1999: 309) capture the situation nicely, stating that "(t)he episodic nature of the news [on environmental problems], and [their] compartmentalization ... inhibit devising solutions. Environmentalists appear like Cassandra, business looks like Pandora, apologists sound like Dr. Pangloss, and the public feels paralyzed."

A recent case in point is Bjorn Lomborg's (2001) "The Skeptical Environmentalist" which basically contained the twofold message that everything is not as bad as commonly portrayed in "the [environmentalist] Litany" (though not quite well either) and that, therefore, the continuation of current developmental paths is not only possible but even necessary to have things get better in the future. The first part of the message "offers a detailed and well-developed antidote to environmental doom-mongering" (Grubb 2001; 1285) that many members of the environmentalist movement would indeed be well advised to heed. The conclusion reached, however, speaks of "a stunning lack of attention to cause and effect" of environmental legislation and policy, and improvements resultant thereof (ibid.), which is particularly telling in that the failure of environmentalist "doomsday predictions" to come about is regularly hailed as a success of the market, but more likely to have come about because of environmentalist concerns and legislation implemented because there dire predictions were voiced. Even worse, the conclusion exhibits a fundamental ignorance of ecology and its implications, at the very least of the impossibility that "development" in its current form continued indefinitely (cp. Rees 2002, Vogelsang 2002), and of the potential not only for ecosystemic shifts, but also of alternative developmental paths working with ecology to prevent likely problems before they arise.

The danger, as Grubb (p. 1286) so aptly points out, lies with the conclusion that some media did indeed condense out of this publication (no wonder since it fits squarely with standard environmental economics, and more generally with that which many people quite simply want to hear): "Many (though not all) aspects of the environment are getting better ... Therefore, environmentalists are stupid ... And technologies will solve any outstanding problems, so we don't need policy," let alone social or economic changes.

.This process reflects one of the main aspects of public discourse on environmental issues (and, by extension, on sustainability): the production of a sense of "wellinformed futility" in the public (Wiebe 1973). According to this concept, the individual's sense of personal concern and agency in environmental issues is "narcotized" by the mass media's "onslaught of difficult-to-process information" (Shanahan and McComas 1999: 11; cp. Opotow & Weiss 2000, Kaplan 2000). Furthermore, news of environmental problems may eventually even be tuned out of conscious attention in a mechanism typical of human psychology. This denial and psychological repression of problems that appear not to be imminent, and to be adamant to personal influence, is apparently on the rise even because of environmentalists' constant appeals to sacrificial altruism as the basis for environmentally responsible behavior (cf. Kaplan 2000), which seems to argue that the comforts of modern life would have to be given up in exchange for a meager, bleak existence. Current concerns about political and economic security and corporate globalization have further removed "environmental" concerns from public attention (while their interrelation, and therefore relevance, fails to be recognized). Simultaneously, an undercurrent of apprehension regarding social and environmental issues continues to be a strong issue, and support for the alternative ideas of sustainability, at least in theory, would be high.

Surveys underpin these observations with statistical data: The NEETE/Roper Report Cards (NEETF 1999) on environmental awareness in the USA still do not even ask about sustainability. However, the included question on whether or not environment and economy could go hand in hand, which may be taken to be indicative of the nominal attitude towards sustainability, receives a high count of support. Ray and Anderson (2000: 157ff. drawing on an EPA/PCSD study from 1998-99) report similar findings on high public, voiced support of the ideas of sustainability, and mention that the term itself is considered too technical.

A comparable representative survey from Germany (Kuckartz 2000) shows that sustainability is actually – probably not so much in opposition to the concept's widespread academic and all but random public usage, as because of it –a little known concept in this country. However, as in the American studies, its major components such as the call for intra- and intergenerational equity, the latter being the well known call fol' sustainable development as development to fulfill the needs of the present generation without diminishing the prospects of future generations to fulfill theirs (of the Brundtland Report, WCED 1987) do receive uniformly high support.

Exacerbating the problem of limited knowledge about, let alone implementation of, sustainability even more is the continued focus on activities that are narratively relevant in environmentalist terms (cf. Shanahan and McComas 1999), e.g. activism, recycling, coupled with the unchanged continuance of environmentally more relevant actions, e.g. the rise in sales of SUVs which are perceived only as a (positively connoted) means of transportation.

The statistics on environmental values also show that many people do indeed realize that another, more sustainable, way of life would be necessary, and would probably even be willing to accept change. E. O. Wilson argues that environmentalism "is not yet a general worldview ... compelling enough to distract many people away from the primal diversions of sport, politics, religion, and private wealth" (2002: 40). If it were a worldview that needed to distract from "primal diversions," the outlook would be bleak. This is probably not, in fact, what sustainability needed to do, but what it needed to work with. The problem remains that what you actually do if you want to live sustainably is not yet really known, or as far as it is, not made known in the context of promising appeals to change in the direction of living well or living better than hitherto. Rather, the communication of alternatives, were it exists at all, still follows the course of "classical" environmentalism in seemingly arguing only for the need to give up such ("primal") diversions and pleasures.

In the absence of a strong – let alone positive – vision that explains not only why we should be concerned about, but also how we would be able to make a living, and to profit in other, wider ways from sustainable patterns of living, it is only too easy to continue with business-as-usual. Psychological, social and economic pressure to conform is enormous, particularly when confronted with such a host of seemingly unrelated, more immediate problems, and with the message (inherent in environmentalist catastrophism) that the current situation were better than anything that could come after it. On the other hand, the example of (initially) only a few people, let alone practical changes that can be enacted and followed not because they prove environmentalist concern, but because they constitute an individually felt advantage and progress (and, maybe soon, a new usual way of doing things), can change a lot.

The “Marketing Mistake” of Ecological Sciences

Even while science has always been of influence in the modern world, where it would be most needed contemporarily – in communicating wherefore and how to guide society towards sustainability – and even though "the limited actions ... we already have are very largely driven by scientific data ..., science is not particularly good at selling itself" (Clarke 2002a; 814). Particularly where diverse aims and needs, and scales of time and space (not to forget aspects of social organization) are effective –even though it may analyze these Very factors – science has long been all but totally disengaged in translating its findings into recommendations usable and meaningful in daily life. As Rhoades and Harlan (1999: 278) state for ethnobiology/-ecology, they are "plagued by ... a cowardly disdain for application in solving real world problems."

Ecology, too, though recognized as fundamental to the issue, is conspicuously silent when it comes to engaging in the political and social debate on, and oftentimes even practical (local, educational, etc.) work towards sustainability, focusing an more traditional research and activities such as those in conservation biology and analysis after the fact, instead. This retreat of scientific ecology is somewhat understandable considering how "ecology" has been co-opted as a convenient term for anything concerned with relationships between living beings (or even just entities of some kind, e.g. language) and their environment, or simply for environmentalist issues. The latter "popular ecology," oftentimes looks upon science rather dismissively, focusing on cognitive solutions, i.e. the change of our common world view to one that is supposed to be more positively disposed towards the environment and therefore resulting in less destruction (which overestimates the relation between nominal attitude and actual behavior). But this makes it all the more important to engage in the debate.

From a monist perspective of humans-in-environment, as opposed to the "Cartesian" dualism which separates humanity and nature into distinct spheres which only slightly overlap, even "cultural diversity and the loss thereof, with its frequent corollary of loss of traditional ecological (and other) knowledge and practices, can be seen as an integral part of the overall ecological processes affecting biodiversity on Earth.", Malii 2001: 11). Similarly, Tim Ingold (2000: 60) argues that in such a perspective "there can ... be no radical break between social and ecological relations: rather, the former constitute a subset of the latter."

Scientific ecology alone can, first and foremost, only explain why...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Bibliography
• Index