by Daniela Maffei    11/15/2005
Mother Earth supports my growth
Father Time moves it along
Before I know it, it would all pass.
What is it about this experience;
this reality that we see, hear, taste,
As well as smell, touch and intuit?
The cycles of the seasons and
The cycles of our growth
Remind me that I am one
With the Natural Order.
And I can see the sky
And I can smell the leaves
I can hear the birds
I can taste the salt of my tears
And I can feel the sand
From under my feet.
What is real is what is mine to know.
That is all I have to claim.
I learn and I laugh
I work hard and I cry
When I stick my face in the sun
Is just when I understand
The answer is so simple
I knew it all along.

By Daniela Maffei

 

Ecopsychology is the study of the human relationship to the whole of the planet and all its living and nonliving entities. Roszac (1992) wrote that the goal of ecopsychology is “to bridge our culture’s long-standing, historical gulf between the psychological and the ecological, to see the needs of the planet and the person as a continuum” (p. 14). It is the study of the human experience in its ecological context (Winters & Koger, 2006). Ecopsychology is a call to psychology to address the problematic behaviors of humans toward the environment as well as to consider pathologies of humans as being associated to a disconnection to their primal selves, the self that was once rooted in the natural rhythms of the earth. 

Little research has been conducted in ecopsychology; much of the literature in the field is theoretical, aimed at integrating ecological concepts into the thinking of mainstream psychology. Theodore Roszac (1992), a historian and pioneer of ecopsychology, emphasized that psychology and ecology need each other to pursue its goals of promoting health and harmony among humans and their environments. Moreover, ecopsychology can benefit from integrating the concepts of cognitive psychology, for cognitive psychology may offer perspectives on the minds of humans to answer the pervasive question of why humans are so destructive of the planet at large. 

Many writers on ecopsychology have philosophized about the pathological underpinnings of consumerism and exploitation of natural resources. Uses of clinical diagnostics to describe western society on a collective level are common amongst some writers. For example, narcissism is one of the most common ways westerners are described in terms of their relationship with the natural world (Glendinning, 1994; Kanner & Gomes, 1995). Narcissism is characterized by an inflated, grandiose, and entitled self-image that masks a deeper and unacknowledged feeling of emptiness and worthlessness (Kanner & Gomes). Kanner & Gomes illustrate how much of the corporate advertising that infiltrate the consciousness of their target audiences contribute to a “false-self” or a fictious consumer identity, characterized by the grandiose sense of entitlement to the goods they consume. Yet, the consumers are constantly seeking to fill their inner emptiness by consuming more goods. Another notion used is “collective amnesia” (Metzner, 1995, p. 60), which denotes that we have forgotten the attitudes and practices of our ancestors and the ability to empathize and identify with nonhuman life. Metzner also uses autism as a metaphor for our society too. 

Stereotyped movements and behavior, restricted range of interests, obsessive routines, preoccupation with parts of objects, absence of imaginative play and lack of awareness of the feelings of others are all typical of autistic children. These characteristics can readily be observed in many adults of industrial society when compared to those brought up in oral cultures. (p. 59)

Human attitudes and behaviors toward the environment vary across individuals and regions as well as time periods. One criticism that can be made of these writers is that they overgeneralize diagnostic attributes to a collective society where exceptions can be readily apparent, for example in the existence of environmental activist groups and organizations. Nevertheless, the way in which individuals and organizations relate to the natural world need not only be explained in terms of pathology. 

Cognitive psychology may provide a useful avenue for the exploration of the human-nature relationship. Many of its theories and concepts can be used to understand this relationship. According to Winter & Koger (2004), “inappropriate environmental behaviors can result from inadequate, mistaken, distorted, or missing information about the consequences of our actions, or processing biases and heuristics” (p. 183).  Concepts from cognitive psychology that can be applied to ecopsychology can include schemas and mental models, memory distortions, proximal cognition (Winters & Koger), and heuristics. 

A cognitive concept that can readily be applied to ecopsychology is the notion of schemas. Schemas are mental frameworks for organizing knowledge and they create a meaningful structure of related concepts (Sternberg, 2006). The schemas that people apply to different aspects of the ecosystem vastly vary. For example, an individual who lives in a rural environment will have a very different schema for aspects of the natural environment than would someone who has lived in a city their entire life. In other words, schemas give rise to differing perceptions about nonhuman beings or things such as a tree can be viewed as either an organism that has its own vital role in the ecological interrelationships that comprises our biosphere, or as a commodity that is to be cut down and processed into paper that also has an important role in the composition of documents, books, money and other purposes. The problem with schemas is that it is probably difficult for certain people to see a forest of trees and not think of its possible uses and financial opportunities. It may also be difficult for other people to go to Kinko’s and not think about endangered forests. Schemas then, set up different expectations and perceptions of the natural world. A goal for cognitive psychology then would be to help people shift their schemas to accommodate alternative perspectives of their ecosystem. 

The mental models that many human beings have with regard to the natural world may also be a limiting factor in experiencing biophilia, “the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (Wilson, 1984, p. 1). Mental models are knowledge structures created by individuals to understand and explain their experiences (Sternberg, 2006). “The models are constrained by the individuals’ implicit theories about these experiences” (p. 255). For example, an urban dwelling individual probably has a different mental model of a walk in nature as would a person of an indigenous culture. As a result of these mental models, both individuals would also have different expectations of what they will experience if one should spend the night in the wilderness. The mental models that some westerners have with regard to the environment may be limiting their ability to experience biophilia, especially if they already have preconceived notions about the environment and the kinds of people who interact with it. 

Memory distortions are another possible way in which many human beings lose their sense of connection or harmony with the environment. Transience is a memory distortion in which certain memories fade away (Sternberg, 2006). If a person had a positive experience in nature, unless it was profound, it is possible that a while after they return to their normal environment, transience occurs and the person goes about their ordinary life with a vague recollection of the experience or the details that comprised it. When individuals learn about the effects of humans on the endangerment of species, many are immediately concerned. But over time, if the effects of the endangerment is not readily apparent day to day, transience is likely to occur and the person might only remember that some species are endangered but might not remember why. 

A limitation in our perceptual capacity, according to Winter & Koger (2004), is proximal cognition which is “the tendency to be more motivated by short-term, concentrated benefits rather than long-term widespread costs (Bjorkman, 1984)” (p. 163). It is difficult for many people to switch over to solar heating, for example, when the short-term cost is so high and the benefits are long-term. We tend to be focused on ourselves in the present which prevents us from engaging in behaviors that have future impacts. However, there is a body of research on the immediate psychological benefits of being in nature (see Kaplan & Talbot, 1983). 

The way in which people make judgments and decisions demonstrate bounded rationality, that is, we are rational but within limits (Sternberg, 2006). People make many decisions based on heuristics or mental shortcuts. Representativeness is a heuristic that is common and may also be used in ecopsychology. 

In representativeness, we judge the probability of an uncertain event according to (1) how obviously it is similar to or representative of the population from which it is derived and (2) the degree to which it reflects the salient features of the process by which it is generated, (such as randomness). (p. 446)

The frequency in which many conservatives refer to environmentalists as “radical environmentalists” demonstrate the errors in choice of language and are an example of representativeness (Winters & Koger, 2004). Amish people may be judged in similar ways by those who have little exposure to that particular lifestyle. In addition, such errors in reasoning were used against the Native Americans during colonial times when they were witnessed practicing spiritual rituals which often included love and worship of the Earth as well. 

The availability heuristic is another mental shortcut used where people make judgements based on how easily they can call to mind what is perceived to be relevant instances of a phenomenon (Sternberg, 2006). Often, a person’s memory of a particular phenomenon is so potent that it can only be available when that category is encountered. Winter and Koger (2004) provide a great example of how the availability heuristic can be used to encourage environmentally responsible behavior. They cited the work of researcher Marti Gonzales and her colleagues when they persuaded people to sign up for energy conservation home improvements.

 ’They trained California home energy auditors to communicate their findings to homeowners in vivid  memorable images. Rather than simply point out small spaces around doors where heat is lost, the auditor would say “if you were to add up all the cracks around and under the doors of your home, you’d have the equivalent of a hole the size of a football in your living room wall.” With such remarks, and by eliciting the homeowners’ active commitment in helping measure cracks and state their intentions to remedy them, the trained auditors triggered a 50 percent increase in the number of customers applying for energy financing programs. (p. 56).’ (p.172)

 

In some respect, the manipulations used by many salesmen and advertisers could be used to do good for the planet in addition for the good of alternative energy companies. Getting more information out to the public in the form of potent imagery can have a strong effect on the motivations of people to not only behave more responsibly toward the planet, but perhaps to repair the bonds that have been broken by urbanization. 

In conclusion, ecopsychology need not stand alone as a forgotten field of psychology. By integrating concepts from other subfields within it such as cognitive psychology and perhaps many others, their influence may be more robust. In addition, if ecopsychology as a field were to behave as a therapist on a macrocosmic level, then it may behoove them to adopt principles of positive psychology as well. Focusing on our pathology and our leaps in cognitive reasoning may only put people on the defensive and may not be much of a motivator for changing behavior. Moreover, psychology as a whole could have a very profound influence on western society and our collective need to take more environmental initiatives by integrating ecological concepts into research and practice. 

 

References

Gendinning, C. (1994) My name is Chellis and I’m in recovery from western civilization. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc. 

Kanner, A.D., Gomes, M.E. (1995). The all consuming self. In T. Roszac, M.E. Gomes, & A.D. Kanner (eds.). Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of wilderness experience. In M. A. Gass, Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 44-46). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Roszac, T. (1992) The voice of the earth: an exploration of ecopsychology. New York: Touchstone.

Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Cognitive psychology, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winter, D.D.N., Koger, S.M. (2004) The psychology of environmental problems. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

by Daniela Maffei

        Ecopsychology, most frequently referred to as a new, emerging branch of psychology (Roszac, 1992; Sevilla, 2006) seems to have barely established itself in the greater, mainstream psychology. This unfortunate fact can be attributed to a number of reasons and depending on your frame of reference, all seem to lay blame on various fields of inquiry. For example, the mainstream psychological standpoint could easily argue that while ecopsychology’s theoretical principles seem sound, it lacks an empirical basis or foundation. From the point of view of the ecopsychologist, mainstream psychology does not want to take ownership of its anthropocentric biases (e.g. Sevilla, 2006). However, the debate cannot be that simple. Nor should fingers be pointed when, in fact, we have our livelihoods on the planet at stake. The purpose of this essay is to outline some of the major claims made by ecopsychology and to offer an alternative explanation of how ecopsychology can achieve greater success within the psychological community. 

Alienation from the Natural World

      The first claim of ecopsychology is that humans are “insane” as a result of our alienation from the natural world (Roszac, 1992). Such a claim is risky when trying to infiltrate a field that has for centuries rigorously studied the workings of humans to understand “insanity” and offering no scientific evidence of its own to support this claim. Regardless, ecopsychology has made the important point of calling out psychologists on their anthropocentric bias and their lack of acknowledgement of understanding human pathology within the context of the natural world. , the entirety of civilized humans can be considered anthropocentric, a point of view whose roots are suspected to originate with the rise of the Abrahamic religions (Sessions, 1995). Exploitation of the natural world, according to Sessions, can be seen in the very first chapter of the bible, the Genesis. Sevilla (2006) argues that many psychologists lack the awareness of these roots in their own orientations to the disadvantage of their students and clients and much more to the detriment of the natural world. He, nor the field ecopsychology at large, do not claim that psychologists are responsible for the plight of our natural resources. Rather, it seems that ecopsychology is trying to point out that psychologists could be the proponents of a movement that could potentially solve the human emptiness/suffering problem and our environmental issues all in one shot.

       It seems from many ecopsychological writings, the ultimate cure for excessive consumerism is to get back to our roots in nature ( e.g. Glendinning, 1995; Turner, 1995). This can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Going out for walks in nature or going camping is one thing, but “returning to our roots” in nature is quite another. This is not to denigrate this perspective but rather, it is to illustrate that our society is centuries deep in its pathological behavior with regard to the natural world that the thought of “returning to our roots” seems very alien, if not frightening, to most people. Either a better illustration of what is meant by this idea or a refocusing of the goals of the field may be necessary if ecopsychology is to make a wave in the mainstream world. 

      One possibility that struck me as I contemplated this idea was that rather than focus on bringing humanity back to its roots, or the past as the term implies, ecopsychology ought to beg the question, how can we create a better future where humans can live in harmony with the natural world and everyone/everything benefits? I believe that the refocusing of the question takes into account the immense evolutionary progress that most humans and many psychologists, like to believe we have made. This is evidenced by the exponential increases in technology in recent decades. Though many ecopsychologists criticize the techonological movement, its benefits and implications for the future cannot be denied or else ecopsychology as a field will be hopeless in the face of the majority. When seen in the context of evolution, ecopsychologists can only hope to help their fellow humans create a future that allows for technological advances as well as human health and harmony with the entirety of the biosphere. 

     Again, when seen in the context of evolution, we really can only assume we are making progress. For example, as global warming became evident to the majority with the help of former vice president, Al Gore, more and more people are interested in investing in or researching alternative and sustainable technologies. Indeed, a growing number of houses and buildings are being built from recycled materials and energy efficient appliances and so forth. At this point, the thought of moving backwards seems daunting and highly unlikely. Therefore, it would behoove ecopsychology as a field to work with people on envisioning and creating a future of living in harmony with the earth rather than focusing so much on where humanity and/or psychology has gone wrong. 

The Cost of Blaming and Shaming

     One major problem with some of the arguments made by many ecopsychologists as well as many proponents of other environmental causes is in the act of shaming others. As many practicing psychologists know, shaming others does not make them want to change but rather, it makes people feel defensive and unseen. By doing so, division and animosity are created where unity and cooperation are essential. Especially when the issue in question concerns our relationships, with nature as well as each other! Rather than alienate itself from the other disciplines of psychology, ecopsychology can benefit from many of the practices of psychology which would suggest joining with the other disciplines in a collaborative effort rather than aggressively dismissing them because of their shortcomings. 

    In addition, focusing on the negative does not really help progress. In the act of trying to address the pathologies of humanity, ecopsychology seems to be diagnosing the problem but does little to treat it. In a world of “evidence-based-practice” so to speak, one solution is to first conduct more research to establish better credibility. Second, to provide compassion and support, as many therapists would their clients. Third, perhaps exploring the past could help us understand how we got to this point as well as provide clues as to how to proceed for the future. 

 

References

Gledinning, C. (1995). Technology, trauma, and the wild. In T. Roszac, M. E. Gomes, and A. DKanner (Eds.):Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 41-54). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Roszac, T. (1992) The voice of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. New York: Touchstone

Sessions, G. (1995). Ecocentrism and the anthropocentric detour. In In G. Sessions (Ed.) Deep ecology forthe 21st century (pp. 156-183). Boston: Shambhala. 

Sevilla, J. C. (2006). Ecopsychology as ultimate force psychology: A biosemiotic approach to               nature estrangement and nature alienation. Xlibris Corporation.

Turner, J. (1995). ‘In wildness is the preservation of the world.’ In G. Sessions (Ed.) Deep ecology for the               21st century (pp. 331-338). Boston: Shambhala. 

Here is my first blog on this site. You may be wondering what I am trying to convey by the name “green healer.” I am currently a PhD candidate at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology. I am studying clinical psychology; thus I consider myself a healer or rather, a healer in training. Even though my school does not offer a curriculum in ecopsychology or environmental psychology, I have independently studied these subjects extensively after having had many enriching experiences in nature. My dissertation is devoted to studying individual experiences of visiting natural, holy places. It is my goal to eventually integrate these learnings into the realm of clinical psychology. There is a subfield of ecopsychology known as “ecotherapy” which incorporates nature experiences into the therapy but I do not believe that this form of psychotherapy has been well researched or developed. I will probably talk more about that in future blogs. Furthermore, while “holistic” practices are becoming more researched and widely accepted and applied, holistic typically implies “mind-body-and spirit.” The foundation of my graduate studies is this dynamic. I intend to argue here that awareness and healing of the mind, body and spirit cannot occur without a forth dimension and the context of the existence of the mind-body-spirit– the planet. So I beg the question, how can you possibly understand the dynamic movement and existence of your mind, body, and spirit without also regarding the environment in which you exist? 

If the natural world prior to civilization was the world that our ancient ancestors were born from, everything about how they adapted to this life was dependent on their surroundings, the earth, and unseen forces. Transpersonal psychology attempts to address the relationship between these unseen forces and the human spirit and mainstream psychology and medical science has tackled the mind-body question. But how could we have an integrative health system that does not take into consideration our place in the ecosystem at large or our interdependence with other species of life?

I find myself in this strange position trying to integrate this concept of “green” into mainstream psychology and clinical practice during a time where “green” is in vogue. Sustainable living, energy independence, conservation, and green living are all hot topics in everyday culture, much to my excitement. Interestingly this green movement has not seemed to hit mainstream psychology in the same way it has in most other areas of living. I find this paradoxical and I hope that starting with this blog and later on, my future research publications, that I can help heal this rift between the field of psychology and mainstream society. 

In addition, I think that while mainstream society has taken a very important step towards healing the disharmony between us and the natural world from dominance to interdependence, more work needs to be done and I believe that research and clinical work will serve an important role in this. The field of ecopsychology elaborates on this concept but unfortunately, the most recent publication is 1997 and virtually none of these publications are grounded in data. In addition, other than bringing clients out into nature, little work is done in the way of bringing ecological concepts into the urban clinician’s office. I believe therapeutic techniques and advanced theory development can ameliorate these deficits to bring forth a truly holistic psychology that can benefit humans as well as the planet. 

Thank you for reading and stay tuned for additional posts on this subject.