Defending the promise: Maintaining a place from which to act in the age of climate change
Joe Alizzi
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Social Sciences
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of New South Wales
- September 2020 -
i Acknowledgements
This journey has been a privilege that not many people are able to experience, and something I am lucky and grateful to have been able to undertake. Part of that privilege has been the many people I have been able to meet, spend time with, and learn from – some have been guides and luminaries, and others supportive friends and confidants.
Firstly thank you to my intellectual guiding forces – to Noam Chomsky, who kindled a thought about the good of humanity that will not be extinguished, and to Ernest Becker who confronted the hardest thing to face and made life better for it.
Thank you to my family, who observed from afar and wondered what it could be that I was doing, but who gave from within to support the mysterious task. Thank you to my friends who reminded me why bonds of relation make life precious, and to Doudou who shared the final stretch with me, cheering me up and cheering me on.
Thank you also to my instructors and mentors, who I am grateful to know. To Andrew Metcalfe, whose timely intervention understood what lies ‘between’ Thou and It. To Melanie White, whose knowledge, love and guidance has opened my world of thought. And thank you to Claudia Tazreiter whose support, love, faith, care, wisdom and openness over many years has allowed my journey the freedom of its path.
Finally to the web of life, thank you for the beauty and majesty that makes life a gift.
ii List of figures
Figure 1.1 Guardian online thread 14 Figure 1.2 CO2 industrial carbon emissions 23 Figure 1.3 Global GHG-induced temperature increase (Consensus) 24 Figure 1.4 Global GHG-induced temperature increase (NASA) 24 Figure 2.1 Alternate/historical human rights cosmologies 60 Figure 3.1 Scott Morrison brings a lump of coal to parliament 75 Figure 3.2 Cameby Downs thermal coal mine 75 Figure 3.3 Juukan Gorge caves 76 Figure 3.4 Rapid warming data consensus 87 Figure 4.1 Apple iPhone global sales 2007-2018 105
Figure 5.1 Fundamental individual security schema categories 137 Figure 6.1 Dialectical place security schema model 149 Figure 7.1 Examples of pro-climate action groups in the Australian context 182 Figure 8.1 Dialectical place security schema model 202 Figure 8.2 The security schema of dialectical place 211 Figure 8.3 Outer influences on stability of dialectical place and action 215
iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii List of figures iii Table of contents iv
Introduction 1
I. No time to leave it to the youth 1 II. Thesis hypothesis and questions 2 III. Theoretical orientation 3 IV. Methodology 6 V. Thesis Structure 9
Chapter 1: A world on fire 11
1.1 The world is burning 12 1.2 Climate change – science or symbol? 17 1.3 The stakes: material and symbolic injustice 25 1.3.1 Refugee displacement – a loss of home 28 1.3.2 Future generations – a loss of stable conditions 29 1.4 Different symbolism, but the same anxiety 30 1.5 Australia and climate change 32 1.5.1 The promise of a flourishing life in Australia 33 1.5.2 The promise under threat and failed political action 35
Part 1: Two narratives about security 39 Chapter 2
Humans-in-nature: Security through interdependence 41
2.1 Dialectical relation: an ongoing web-of-life discourse 42 2.2 A dialectics of struggle 44 2.3 The human within the web of life 50 2.4 An interconnected and interdependent dialectical reality: evidence through fractured relation 56 2.4.1 Marx and disrupted interdependencies of time and space 58 2.4.2 Disrupted interdependencies revealed through human rights discourses 60
iv 2.4.3 Interdependencies demonstrated in alternate epistemologies 62 2.5 The human animal in the struggle for life: a vulnerable or liberal subject? 64
Chapter 3: Humans-over-nature – The promise of security through
‘control’ of uncertainty 67
3.1 What I can measure I can control 68 3.1.1 Human centrality and an exploitable Earth 69 3.1.2 Instrumental rationality 71 3.1.3 Elevation of the individual 77 3.1.4 Aggression and competition or mutuality and cooperation? 81 3.2 The promise of life, liberty and property 83 3.3 Governments embrace principles of separation: Enclosing what is common 88 3.3.1 The principle of profit 90 3.4 The effect of the principles within the narrative of modernity 93
Chapter 4: A false promise of freedom persists 95
4.1 The promise of freedom transferred: the rise of neoliberalism 96 4.2 Structuring life for an imagined ‘liberal subject’ 99 4.3 The false promise of security through profit 103 4.4 A vulnerable subject in a liberal subject’s world: voices of Australian Interview participants 106 4.5 The embedded narrative guides state action 114 4.6 Corporate and state synergy 117
Part 2: The individual dialectically pursuing security in the outer world 121
Chapter 5
Factors mediating individual action in the web of life 122
5.1 The vulnerable human animal in relation with the web of life 123 5.1.1 A sociological outline of relation 125 5.1.2 An individual relational self 126
v 5.2 Factors mediating the individual-to-web-of-life relation 128 5.2.1 Acting to cope with the fear and anxiety of ‘creatureliness’ 129 5.2.2 The promise: individual expectations of flourishing and meaning 134 5.2.3 The individual pursuit of secure outer-world frames of action 138 5.3 A dialectical exchange mediated by fear and a need for security 142
Chapter 6: Plotting a stable path to pursue the promise 147
6.1 Assessing the outer-world terrain to protect security 148 6.2 Pursuing the promise in relation to modernity’s promise 154 6.3 Systemic dependence, vulnerability and pursuit of the promise 163 6.4 Acting to maintain a secure platform of action 166
Chapter 7: All is not well in the land of promise 171
7.1 The Australian context: hopes based on promises from a flawed narrative 172 7.1.1 Eroded fibres of interdependence destabilising the outer world 173 7.1.2 Leadership undermined by the hollow promise of modernity 175 7.1.3 Outer-world narratives affecting the inner world 178 7.2 Protecting one’s base of action so as to act in a destabilised world 183
Chapter 8: Dialectical place – the platform of action in a promising world 190
8.1 The individual: an inner and outer exchange 191 8.2 Authoritative power and its implications 194 8.3 Dialectical place in shared place: the individual within the eco-socio-cultural web of life 202 8.4 The security schema of dialectical place 209
Chapter 9:
Pursuing the promises securely from dialectical place 217
9.1 Australian climate encounters: the Adani mine and the Great Barrier Reef 217 9.2 Existential fear, voice and the pursuit of a meaningful life project 221
vi 9.3 Pursuing the promise supported by fibres of interdependence 231 9.3.1 Speak to the promise: School Strike for the Climate campaign 233 9.3.2 Speak to the individual: Extinction rebellion (EX) 236 9.3.3 De-couple from capitalism and apply interdependence: Via Campesina 237
Conclusion 240
References 245
Appendix 285
i. Additional notes on the interview methodology 285 ii. The interview participants 286 iii. Interview materials 293 a. Interview guide questions and ‘actions’ list 294 b. Audio-visual discussion prompts 297 c. Pictorial climate symbolism task in association with emotion 298 iv. What I was able to hear 301
vii Introduction
I. No time to leave it to the youth
In 1968 microbiologist, environmentalist and humanist, René DuBois, began his Pulitzer-prize winning book So human an animal saying:
This book should have been written in anger. I should be expressing in the strongest possible terms my anguish at seeing so many human and natural values spoiled or destroyed in affluent societies, as well as my indignation at the failure of the scientific community to organize a systematic effort against the desecration of life and nature. Environmental ugliness and the rape of nature can be forgiven when they result from poverty, but not when they occur in the midst of plenty and indeed are produced by wealth. (1968:3)
After musing that it is not his style to write in anger and that he would proceed to write a mild account on collective human guilt for the destruction of nature, he says:
The most hopeful sign for the future is the attempt by the rebellious young to reject our social values. (1968:5)
That was fifty years ago, yet similar hope, or hopeful deflection of responsibility, continues today. Should not all humans be angry that the future of humanity is threatened by climate change? The younger generation is; and again it is looked to for hope. Many plaudits, for instance, have been directed towards now-prominent activist and youth movement leader, Greta Thunberg (2018). In a seminal TED talk, she ponders the cognitive dissonance between how clear the threat of climate change is, and the continued inaction in its regard. She muses that though the threat is critically urgent, there is a comparatively yawning silence to address it by those with the power to do so. Then, after picturing the dark future that awaits her and her fellow youth, she says:
Today, we use 100 million barrels of oil every single day. There are no politics to change that. There are no rules to keep that oil in the ground. So we can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed. Everything needs to change, and it has to start today (2018).
1 Thunberg sees climate change as a threat to survival requiring immediate structural change to address it, namely an immediate change to ‘the rules’ of exchange. Are her concerns unfounded?
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is an environmental crisis threatening Earth’s life-sustaining systems (Lenton et al. 2019:592), and scientists conclude that humans have roughly a decade to radically respond before its widely destructive consequences are unleashed (IPCC 2018; 2019). Consistent and extended research identifies human ‘fingerprints’ (Neukom et al. 2019:656) on earth’s systems, and unequivocally demonstrates that the effects of massive human-generated carbon emissions are causing climate change. Meta-analyses of scientific literature regarding the human causes of global warming reveal a preponderance of agreement on human involvement, with scientific consensus at above 97% (Cook et al. 2013:6; 2016:6; Oreskes 2004). Thus climate scientists like Stefan Brönnimann (in Watts 2019) confidently say that ‘there is no doubt left’ in the scientific community that recent unusual global warming is the result of human-induced, or anthropogenic forcings through industrial emissions, as part of a new geological age branded the ‘anthropocene’ (Crutzen & Stoermer 2000; Crutzen 2002).
Yet despite certainty in the scientific community, doubt persists in public understanding. Though the dangers of climate change have been known for decades, and it is understood as a preeminent threat to life on Earth, according to the IPCC (2019), human action is both failing to adequately address its fundamental causes, and to redirect human action towards sustaining life. How has it come to this?
II. Thesis hypothesis and questions
The thesis hypothesises that the impasse of widespread inaction on climate change stems from the very cause of climate change, namely a flawed understanding of the human-to-rest-of-nature relation. This flawed understanding has destabilised living systems of which humans are a part. If, as climate change demonstrates, all human life involves deep interdependence with the rest of nature, then why do humans continue to act in a manner that does not fully acknowledge interdependence? Could it be that something inhibits the understanding and enactment of interdependence from functioning as the leading principle in human-led exchanges? In addressing the hypothesis and asking what hinders clear acknowledgement of interdependence
2 principles in daily exchange, I also ask whether the human desire for a good life is important when trying to understand action on climate change.
Thus, the thesis first contends that climate change arises because humans persistently fail to act in a manner that understands they are not separate from but are part of nature. Currently, this failure is exemplified by the capitalist system of exchange, whose effects have destabilised eco- socio-cultural stability. Second, the thesis contends that the experience of human vulnerability, which is associated with fear and anxiety, conditions the failure to acknowledge human interdependence with the rest of nature. One key area of focus that follows from the hypothesis is the desire for a secure and flourishing life as a shared enterprise of humans and a motivator of action. My investigation uses the human instinct for self-preservation as a path to understand what has led to climate change and prevents adequate action to address it, asking how the human condition of vulnerability, a functional aspect of interdependence, obliges humans to cautiously navigate life. Thus, my thesis asks what implications the pursuit of security has for action on climate change.
While I investigate how principles within a capitalist ethic relate to the hinderance of human practical enactment of interdependence, this is an ancillary point that supports my main investigation, namely what implications the human pursuit of security has for climate action. Consequently, I consider how the representations, or ‘symbols’, of security and a good life particularly linked to capitalism resonate with the human animal’s common motivation to live a secure and flourishing life. By symbol I mean objects, signs or concepts that represent or express something else (Abercrombie et al. 2006:387). The symbols of freedom and success tied with security that emerge from the period encompassing modernity and the enlightenment, considered in the first part of the thesis, are instructive in telling us how climate change has come about, and how principles from this period inhibit humans from appropriately acting to address the climate crisis. An associated question of the thesis, then, is whether investigating what symbolically informs individual action can reveal details about the individual’s contribution to climate change.
III. Theoretical orientation
My theoretical discussion finds much inspiration in classical literature, from Marx and the Frankfurt school, to Durkheim and other foundational social l theorists. However, the discussion is interdisciplinary, reflecting Horkheimer (in Held 2004:33), who argues that Marx’s foundation can be enhanced by insights from ‘philosophers, sociologists, economists, historians and psychologists…in a lasting working partnership’ to deal with specific issues ‘while not 3 losing sight of the universal’. To consider the above questions I use a sociological grounding but consciously work across disciplines, as I feel the question of action on climate change involves multiple fields of enquiry. While it is acknowledged that regarding climate change, those with expertise in natural sciences benefit from social sciences epistemologies and methodologies to identify how problems emerge and how to mitigate them (Bruin & Morgan 2019:7676; Forum 2013:151), other disciplinary bridges are also important to link otherwise siloed approaches to climate change (Roser 2015:350).
Psychological perspectives focus on the inner reasoning of the individual when confronting climate change by examining the effects of uncertainty, costs, worldviews, social comparison, perceived risks and limits to cognition and behaviour (Stern 2000; Stern 2011; Gifford 2011). Environmental psychology explores implicit beliefs about the connection between the self and nature and its consequentiality to action (Schultz et al. 2004; Bruni & Schultz 2010). Sociology and in particular, critical theory (Parsons 1951, Weber 1948, Horkheimer & Adorno 2002), conversely, dedicate much thought to understanding capitalist and other structural impacts on social action. Environmental humanities and materialist literatures bring social theory sensitivities to the issue of climate change directly (Hulme 2009, Urry 2011, Rose et al. 2012, Emmett & Nye 2017, Foster, Clark & York 2010). But what hasn’t been clearly captured, I submit, is a converging point in the relation between what the individual experiences, what I will call the ‘inner world’ to describe an inner individual domain of constituted identity and security, contrasting with what I will refer to as the ‘outer world’, the rest of nature inclusive of ecology, society and culture (eco-socio-cultural outer world).
The individual’s inner world engages in dialectical relation with the outer world in a process that continually organises nature. In this sense I am guided by a materialist and dialectical approach in line with the dialectical tradition highlighted by Foster, Clark & York (2010:262), where ‘the production of human society involves a constant interaction with the natural world, which involves a continual transformation of nature and society’. This sees society as embedded within and dependent upon nature, and Karl Marx provides inspiration for this thesis in this respect. In his critique of capitalism, Marx (1979:283) evokes a notion of a living bond through the discussion on ‘metabolism’, identifying labour as ‘a process between man and nature’ through which human action ‘mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature’. Some materialist or historical critiques have built on a Marxian dialectical legacy to develop a dialectical conceptualisation of the relation between humans and the rest of nature (Foster, Clark & York 2010; Moore 2015). In this thesis, I hope to contribute a further element in these critiques. So, to unite a functionalist imagining of society with the rest of nature, I see nature as the entire human and nonhuman web of life, though at times I abstract the human part
4 of nature (the individual/society/people) for analytical purposes. By focusing on the human symbolic capacity, I hypothesise that since the individual is a potent and catalysing force, and, by virtue of being part of nature is in ongoing dialectical engagement with the outer world (the rest of nature), it follows that focusing on the intersubjectively shaped inner domain is of key importance.
Following the central hypothesis that inadequate climate action can be explored through the common human desire for security, another key thinker for me is cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker. Becker (1973:xvii) describes the fear associated with awareness of an eventual demise as ‘a mainspring of human activity’ – humans act, Becker says, to maintain a secure footing in shared space to avoid material or symbolic death. Becker’s focus helps underscore the human struggle to survive that I posit is vital to contend with when thinking about human action. In addition, the process of promise-making has been explored as a means of feeling in control, a way of managing risk and indeed ordering and sustaining life, where such promises can provide a secure sense of future expectations amid the uncertainty and ungovernability of the world (Arendt 1958:243-247; Luhmann 1995:308; Nietzsche 1994:35-37). I consequently deploy what I call the promise to describe a process of creating pathways of action based on a future that promises a flourishing life. The thesis works towards describing the pursuit of the promise through a spatial imagining, using the idea of geographical ‘place’ (Relph 1976:6; Tuan 1977:138) to imagine a centre of felt value that constitutes a psychic dialectical place that locates the individual and provides a platform from where action emerges.
Thus, the thesis explores what happens to action when an individual’s fundamental, primal reflex to pursue ‘self-preservation’ (Rousseau 2011:168) is activated in the dialectical exchanges between the individual’s inner world and what is functionally the outer world, particularly when encountering the issue of climate change. This process of material or symbolic self-preservation involves maintaining ontological security, which Giddens describes as the maintenance of an inner predictable mental framework or system that, through continuity in one’s life, provides a sense of security and staves off fear and anxiety that come with an unpredictable life (Giddens 1991:35-44). I use Giddens’ idea of ontological security as an organising concept in conjunction with thinkers like Goffman (1974:3) and Berger (1967:19), to examine both the internally constructed frameworks of the individual that stand in relation to frameworks perceived as external that the individual accesses to conceptually order the world so as to act in it.
5 IV. Methodology
Attempts to explain climate change in academic or media discourses often involve scientific explanations about rising temperatures and ocean acidity, melting ice caps and threatened species. Scientific arguments reference fossil fuels like coal and oil and describe how humans increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and deplete what scientists call ‘carbon sinks’ as they burn fossil fuels for energy, all the while transgressing ‘planetary boundaries’ (Lenton et al. 2019:594). Yet for people who are not scientifically trained or attuned, those facts present a barrier that prevents proper active engagement.
An alternative approach is to describe climate change in relation to how people encounter it, and by encounter I am thinking of both material and symbolic ways of engaging and experiencing the issue. I see action or inaction related to climate change as the result of a struggle over what humans share, but this struggle is underpinned by the fundamental human need of material and symbolic security. The struggle I imagine in the thesis unfolds within an interdependent, densely woven ‘single web of being’ (Smith et al. 2007:343) or ‘web of life’, namely ‘nature as a whole’ (Moore 2015:3). My conceptualisation of the web of life thus includes all human and nonhuman, material and ideational aspects of lived existence. The individual is part of nature and in constant relation with the rest of nature, namely ecological, social and cultural systems, processes, institutions and mentalities, and climate change indicates a problem somewhere within the relation. Rather than approach the issue by dwelling on a ‘systems’ level, I focus on the individual as a unit of analysis that is within an organic but interrelated whole with a complex of internal relations between ostensible parts in ‘an endless maze of relations and interactions’ (Ollman 1971:53-54), namely the web of life.
To understand why climate action is currently inadequate, I examine the way the human-to-rest- of-nature relation has been conceived, namely humans as ontological entities that are separate and largely independent of nature, or as interdependent entities within a relational whole. The thesis associates these two broad conceptions of the human relation to nature with value systems from which competing narratives about what brings security emerge. Narratives offer a useful technique to analyse the relationship between these conceptions of the human/nature relation, which I use in order to highlight the taken-for-granted elements of the ‘background conditions’ (Block 1990:30) that negatively impact human exchanges through their separating effect. Indeed, humans have resorted historically to narratives or stories that manage life’s complexities (Marshall 2014:105; Gottschall 2012) in an attempt to alleviate existential anxiety and fear that comes from uncertainty and unpredictability, and to be assured of what will keep them secure
6 and help them flourish. These stories need to make sense or have ‘narrative fidelity’ that feels true (Fisher 1985:349), but are not necessarily dependent on facts (Marshall 2014:106). Consequently, narratives can also be powerful life-denying ideas when shaping human action. Understanding how one narrative has inspired principles of exchange leading to climate change can potentially also reveal barries to climate action, and how action can be redirected towards a more life-sustaining direction.
The thesis is primarily theoretically oriented but deploys ethnographic observation and ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1993:3), by drawing on everyday situations, choices, and politics to concretise the concepts explored and provide both empirical support and reflections for the ideas explored. The theoretical explication of the core problem of the thesis also draws on qualitative and quantitative academic literature and data, scientific reports, institutional publications, news/media articles, public forums and debates and related social discourse analysis, as well as examples of material object relations. The empirical materials are ‘exhibits’ of the kind of relational encounters that prompt individual engagement with climate change. The thesis also includes ‘exhibits’ in the form of in-depth interviews. Participant comments are drawn on progressively, to illustrate the resonance of broader social narratives in individual lives. With these, I analyse and test the theoretical claims of dialectically-driven individual action.
Qualitative approaches are arguably more equipped to capture the complex aspects of exchange that arise through interconnectedness, providing ‘rich descriptions and explanations of processes’ within unique contexts and experiences (Miles & Huberman 1994:1). I utilise thematic analysis to identify and analyse themes within the conceptual and material resources turned to here (Braun & Clarke 2006). This approach incorporates discourse and narrative analysis, and grounded theory (Burman & Parker 1993; Riessman 1993; Glaser & Strauss 1967). I thus move between different levels of writing, from theoretical to pragmatic, from descriptions of immaterial concepts to concrete examples of social organisation in institutions and civil society.
The literature I draw on emerges primarily from discourses in economically advanced Western liberal democracies, and my critique is functionally in a Western frame since the period of accelerated capitalism and industrialised consumption under examination developed from ideas emerging out of Western enlightenment and modernity. I concentrate on Western imaginings in acknowledgement of the continued critique that ‘Western-centric modernity’ warrants due to its continued domination of global discourses and suppression of alternate epistemologies (Sousa Santos 2018:5). So, while at times I do theorise at a meta narrative level by considering ideas
7 and concepts that are coextensively applicable to all humans, such as the individual and group need for security, my arguments have a principle focus on Western conceptions of capitalism with an Anglo-American focus, namely the seat from where industrial capitalism emerged. Of course, coextensive and broadly universal applicability also emerges via global and interconnected capitalist structures. For example, 189 countries are part of the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF and similar financial institutions play significant roles in shaping national exchanges. From such a context I see a global application of the ideas considered here to the extent that capitalist principles filter throughout the global economic, and thus social, system.
Though the thesis looks at climate change within a global context, I develop the case study of Australian debates and struggles surrounding the issue of climate change. Multiple studies indicate most Australians desire action to address it (Merzian et al. 2019:31; Morrison et al. 2018:9; Ipsos 2019; Oliver 2018:4; Lowy 2018; Leviston et al. 2015:21). Jackman et al. (2019:52) found 78% support reducing fossil fuel use and 64% support raising taxes on the rich and introducing a carbon tax. Nevertheless, Australia is one of the worst performing countries of the G20 in relation to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate action (Climate Transparency 2019:22). The choice of Australia as a focus is helpful to understanding the overall predicament for several reasons. First, it is a liberal democratic ‘Western’ society, and thus aligns with the thesis’ primary contextual focus. This also facilitates the consideration of equity and justice both between so-called ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations, and within more affluent societies. Further, the debate around action on climate change remains politically charged in Australia, and the context serves to highlight how individuals attach various symbolisms to apparently competing objects in the climate debate.
I incorporate a micro case study of qualitative interviews conducted in Australia, which renders a narrative thread to the thesis. The interviews are with citizens, permanent residents, and temporary visa holders from diverse ethnic and social backgrounds, with varying political leanings and socio-economic circumstances, and so give lived resonance to the theoretical position the thesis builds. The interviews offer instructive phenomenological experiences to illustrate and provide a ballast for the key parts of the discussion. As such, the interviews are illustrative and explanatory aids to building the theoretical positions. They are a pre-theoretical foundation of real-life human experiences, and capture nuances that the thesis is arguing are important in understanding the foundational aspects of individual action.
The overall goal of the thesis is a conceptual engagement in normative analysis to stimulate consideration of futures. The claims ought to be considered as applicable relative to an
8 individual’s locus within different societies, where differences such as gender, ethnicity, status, religion, or socio-economic background generate different social responses according to the socio-cultural context. Still, I aim to capture key common features that are implicated regardless of individual variables – just as all humans have core survival needs, though the quality, quantity and access to shared ‘goods’ has deep implications on the individual experience.
V. Thesis structure
The thesis begins by laying out the outer field of enquiry, namely the interconnected web-of-life domain that the individual is born into, but which takes on a particular characterisation through the period of enlightenment and modernity. Chapter one explains what climate change means and outlines a broader picture of the national and international dimensions of climate change. It also illustrates the kind of climate encounters an individual may materially or conceptually confront and thus respond to, and argues the human symbolic capacity is a key element related to understanding the dimensions of human involvement in climate change. The final part introduces key aspects of the Australian context, which are progressively used to explore some of the complexities and political dimensions of action on climate change.
Chapter two provides a preliminary theoretical and empirical framework for imagining the human animal as part of a continuous and interconnected interaction of interdependent relations. While surveying relevant theoretical approaches, I argue that though underacknowledged, dimensions of dialectical relation and interdependence constitute a humans-in-nature narrative that explains what brings security, and which is critical to understanding and resolving the current crisis of climate change.
In chapter three I extend the theoretical and empirical framework for imagining the human animal interacting with a broader interconnected field by focusing on the principles and ideas supporting a humans-over-nature narrative that fails to adequately recognise humans as part of nature. I explore how principles tied with this narrative have become part of daily exchanges and argue they fundamentally work against principles of interdependent mutualism, setting parameters of action on a life-denying trajectory. Chapter four brings the trajectory of the narrative to the present day, explaining how the narrative perpetuates the life-denying conditions causing climate change and inhibits action in its regard. I consider how modernity’s promise is transmitted through capitalism, and now manifests through state and corporate promises of security and flourishing, which set the parameters of individual action according to an imagined ‘liberal subject’.
9
Chapter five begins part two of the thesis, whose emphasis in on how the individual, who pursues security and flourishing, relates with the outer world in search of secure pathways to pursue a meaningful life project. The chapter uses sociological thinkers to locate the individual within a set of relations that are used to manage anxieties and fears, and to pursue aspirations. It introduces the idea of the promise which is one of three key factors the chapter argues mediate individual action alongside the dominant principles examined in chapter three. To explain the mediating factors in line with ideas from sociology and critical theory, I turn to key ideas from Ernest Becker, which help tie the discussion on the implications of the human instinct for self- preservation in daily action.
Utilising evidence from social psychology and continued reference to interview participant comments, chapter six begins to visualise the mediating factors within individual responses to climate encounters to further understand barriers to action. The chapter considers the individual need for security, and observes the vulnerable individual seeking the promise while negotiating a terrain designed for an imagined liberal subject. Chapter seven specifically returns to the Australian context to consider how individual pursuit of the promise plays out in a country where modernity’s promise and narrative of security through the economic rationality of capitalism is staunchly defended.
Having explored the relation between the individual and the wider outer world, and the role that striving for security and flourishing play in action, chapter eight proposes a conception imagining the individual as a ‘centre of felt value’ (Tuan 1977:138). It presents the dialectical place security schema model to capture the individual relationally, working to stabilise one’s locatedness in an ever-changing terrain, and constituting a position from which to navigate. Chapter nine consolidates the key ideas of the thesis and supports the security schema of dialectical place model using further interview material and examples. The chapter speculates on the potential theoretical advantage when the individual’s security needs and pursuit of the promise are taken into account. To conclude, I synthesise the connections of the thesis’s themes, and suggest future areas of research, exploring the potential use of the notions of the promise and dialectical place.
10 Chapter 1
A world on fire
2020 is a year of dramatic events – from a global pandemic to widespread street marches against injustice occurring for communities of colour, it is easy to forget that merely months earlier many parts of the world were seriously aflame. Living in a complex and interconnected world presents a challenge to the individual, namely knowing what existential issues to prioritise in the rapid flow of change. This chapter describes encounters with one preeminent issue, climate change, and introduces a discussion about how individuals and groups respond to existential threats. Climate change is an issue that is hard to grapple with because it does not puncture the consciousness in the way immediate public health threats, or violent state crackdowns on vociferous protests do, though it is beginning to, as the chapter illustrates.
The chapter starts with an Australian example that introduces the crisis of climate change as an object of encounter. The 2019-2020 Australian bushfires involve various interactions that are of interest to this thesis, namely exchanges affecting individuals within larger ecological, social and cultural contexts – I imagine these exchanges as dialectical within a context of continuous interconnected interaction of interdependent relations, a discussion furthered in chapter two. The chapter explains what climate change means and outlines a broader picture of the national and international dimensions of climate change; however it also contextualises what an individual may materially or conceptually encounter and thus respond to when assessing the stakes for their hope of a free and flourishing life. Individuals encounter the idea of climate change through association with material events, like a drought, or conceptual representations, like an activist, international climate conference, or news reports about climate-related events. Consequently, the chapter argues the human symbolic capacity is a key element related to understanding the dimensions of human involvement in climate change, and what is potentially at stake or imagined as threatened for the human participant, both materially and symbolically. The final part explains why looking at encounters with climate change in Australia provides a valuable analysis and specific case study regarding the complexities and political dimensions of climate change.
11 1.1 The world is burning
The second half of 2019 saw three million hectares of the Brazilian Amazon forest burn. Since the forest produces 20% of the world’s oxygen, it made international headlines, with G7 leaders calling for international crisis meetings at the sight of the globe’s ‘lung’ up in flames, and French President Emmanuel Macron tweeting ‘Our house is burning. Literally’. Australians, who live in the ‘sunburnt country’, are familiar with such extreme events, with bushfires being part of Australian living conditions for generations. But soon Australians faced their own environmental catastrophe, unlike any bushfires previously experienced. The bushfire crisis that unfolded in the 2019-2020 Australian summer would again vividly illustrate humanity’s connectedness with, and dependence on, the natural environment. On November 11, 2019 in the state of New South Wales, Australia, a state of emergency was declared to address raging bushfires that were producing unprecedented and catastrophic conditions. While some politicians and media commentators maintained that they were normal conditions for Australian summers (Oriel 2020), scientists have established that climate change increases the possibility and intensity of bushfires through the ‘link between a hotter, drier climate, land-clearing, excessive irrigation and increased fire risk’ (CSIRO & The Bureau of Meteorology 2018). The materiality of the fires raises questions regarding what caused them and who is responsible, and through this interactive process with material, social and conceptual objects, climate change becomes an object of encounter.
By February 2020, four hundred and fifty people had died, either directly caught in the fires or due to bushfire smoke and related health complications (Duckett et al. 2020:8). Almost 3000 structures had been destroyed, and eighteen million acres had been torched, making the Amazon fires look like a scrub fire, and there are estimates of up to three billion farm animals and wildlife incinerated or displaced, with great losses in threatened species, with elevated threats to endangered animals, and with expectation of worsening heatwaves to follow (Cox & Remeikis 2019; WWF 2020; The Guardian Staff and Agencies 2020). Entire town populations had to be relocated; wind gusts blew, temperatures rose beyond 40°C, and residents scrambled to secure fuel supplies and personal goods – the loss of homes and properties ‘hit a lot of people really hard’, one resident said (Hannam & Geraghty 2020). People in urban contexts, ostensibly separated from nature, did not escape its effects. Smoke from the fires put the major metropolitan centre of Sydney under a toxic cloud. The smoke provoked health issues that led to, inter alia, inundated hospitals, high economic productivity losses, the closing of schools and death (Aubusson & Gladstone 2019). What was previously an invisible connection through the
12 atmosphere became very clear as smoke filled the sky and lungs, inhibiting people from living a productive stable life.
While the bushfires burned, humans directly experiencing them responded. The response is illustrated in a fierce political row and broader discourse that erupted in Australia. After a Greens Party Member criticised the government’s climate change policies, the state and federal conservative party leaders accused the Greens and ‘all those other inner-city raving lunatics’ of politicising the tragedy (Smith & Crowe 2019). The opposition Labor party Shadow Climate Change Minister also argued that public debates about climate change ought to be set aside while communities faced the blazes (Readfearn 2019). The rhetoric increased when members of the conservative right suggested the blame for the fires lay with the Greens’ policy demands on restricting back-burning as hazard reduction. Meanwhile, amongst overwhelming public calls for action, twenty-three former fire chiefs led by former NSW fire chief, Greg Mullins, held a press conference expressing concern about the climatic conditions. The chiefs said the government had paid little attention to the information they had provided, and noted the constraints current fire chiefs have in treating climate change as an emergency (SBS News 2019). As the fires progressed, Indigenous Australians began showing their grief at the destruction of Country by flying Indigenous flags at half-mast. The anxieties and frustrations that arose, through a perceived lack of government action and the refusal by politicians to openly discuss climate change during the crisis, is illustrated in the comments of an open online thread published in the Guardian newspaper (Figure 1.1).
13 So ‘this is not the time to talk about climate change’? Sounds very much like the My mental stress was impacted NRA’s playbook after a too. I was concerned about mass shooting, doesn’t it? future events if I was in the This government is heartless, greedy, rude midst of this climate nightmare and negligent of its duties to a level that that I would probably need should be made a criminal offence! – hospital care. – LovelyDaffodils ClosetIntellectual
They have really missed the As I look around at all the devastation I am sad but also so angry public mood in parliament and that our politicians still have their eyes closed to the reality of seem to be out of the solar climate change. This is not normal. This is not just another system compared to reality. – drought to be explained away as a natural cycle. Nearly 1 million misterwildcard hectares of NSW is burnt, much of that hadn’t burnt for hundreds of years because it was always too wet! And in November. Stop all the stupid denial and do something, Mr Morrison. – anginpapps Smoke, smoke, and more smoke from the Lindfield How these two little ones have survived the Park fire in Port Macquarie past 18 days is beyond me, and worries me to that has been burning since death day and night. LATE JULY. Residents have been putting up with very poor air quality all day, every Let’s see if this government day for months. What else are we not changes significantly after this supposed to talk about that is has passed, or whether it is uncomfortable for politicians? business as usual. – Don’t talk about war during a LovelyDaffodils war? Don’t talk about hardship while people are suffering through it perhaps?
Figure 1.1 Guardian online thread (Guardian staff and readers 2019)
These expressions are of interest to me for the way they describe the disruption of stable conditions that make life possible; fire and smoke threaten life immediately, generating anxiety about the present and future survival of individuals and their families. The anger, shock, frustration and fear in these expressions also reveal to me that for these impacted individuals, stability and security is taken for granted, even expected. Further, such stability and security are not just part of an autonomous individual’s expected path in life, but fall within a set of relations with the state, an agreed pact that demands action. There is an expectation of responsibility that the government, with its resources and authority, should respond to scientific understanding with the appropriate measures. Voices encouraging ‘business as usual’ or denialism about what is causing the bushfires are rejected and action is demanded, accompanied by a judgement that inaction is negligent, greedy, and corrupt.
Though these examples are narrow, anecdotal, and not representative of other potential responses considered below, they are illustrative of the dialectical relations I seek to highlight, dialectical in the sense of being part of ‘an endless entanglement of relations and reactions’
14 (Engels 1947:30), a discussion I pursue in chapter two. The examples depict a flow of relation – interconnected and interdependent exchanges within the scope of human and nonhuman parts of nature that I will discuss. Extreme events like the bushfires are moments that allow humans to consider their relation with the rest of nature. On a material level, the bushfires, which I shall theoretically abstract as the nonhuman part of nature, contribute to a dialectical discourse with the actions of the human part of nature, likewise theoretically abstracted. The human part of the web of life anxiously responded amongst itself about how to behave in relation to its nonhuman counterpart. I am pointing to a dialectical relation constantly underway, dialectic not just in the sense of an exchange of ideas, but with the interaction of contrasting forces illustrated through the situation of climate change, which makes humans confront what their relation is with the rest of nature. Aside from the material consequences of the exchange, I am interested in the human element, namely if there is something active in humans that can be associated with the material outcome of climate change, along with action in its regard. Thus, while I discuss a dialectic between all entities in the web of life, my thesis focuses more on human-to-human exchanges. So, what further social interaction occurred at the time of the fires that might be relevant to this investigation?
While community responses show anxiety and grief, the political blame-game illustrates another aspect of Australian society’s climate encounter. For instance, the exchange continued in the business world. During the height of the debate, influential corporate figures, like billionaire media and mining tycoon Kerry Stokes, argued that policymakers ought not make ‘snap judgements’ to respond to climate change, placing doubt on its connection to the fires (Duke 2019). Some of the mainstream media also demanded climate action – The Guardian newspaper, for instance, in 2019 pledged to dedicate significant resources to drawing attention to the climate crisis. However, such a direct stance is met with concerted opposition in a media landscape dominated by Rupert Murdoch’s right-leaning News Corp, which, at the time of the fires, produced a flood of highly politicised perspectives promoting climate denial. This uncomfortable fact was even noted by Murdoch’s climate-conscious son, James Murdoch, who, issued a statement denouncing News Corp’s ‘ongoing denial’ (Waterson 2020). In these brief examples, we see individuals referring to civil society, epistemic communities, economic and social institutions, and mention of government reactions to climate change. How did the Australian government respond to the fires?
Before the bushfires began, the corporate media reactions in Australia found synergy with the government’s trenchant resistance to significant climate action. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison described environmental protesters targeting fossil fuel industries through businesses boycotts as anarchists who threatened mining interests. He signalled a crackdown on the right to
15 protest, threatening ‘penalties to those targeting businesses who provide services to the resources industry’ (Karp 2019). While the bushfires burned, Morrison redirected the discussion away from climate change, saying ‘there is a time and a place to debate, you know, controversial issues and important issues. Right now, it's important to focus on the needs of Australians who need our help’ (Hartcher 2019). As will be considered, the government response to climate change overall is seen as inadequate by many, but not all, in the Australian community. The varying responses of the actors involved in the human-to-rest-of-nature relation form part of the analysis of this thesis as it seeks to understand how people respond to the open and vulnerable human condition.
Research indicates that the Australian reactions briefly outlined above are in line with global attitudes. Individuals can have varying positions on climate change, ranging from outright denial to determined conviction in the science and in the need for consistent action (Morrison et al. 2018; Fagan & Huang 2019; Ipsos 2019). Nevertheless, the Australian bushfires affected people regardless of their economic or social status, and demonstrated how the deterioration of the otherwise stable and predictable natural ecological systems destabilises the life processes of both nonhuman and human entities. We also see that climate change can be an encounter that is attached to something other than scientific facts, namely, symbolic meanings, when, for instance, people wanting action are depicted as ‘inner-city raving lunatics’ instead of concerned rational actors responding to science. Scientific evidence becomes clouded through ideological left/right wrangling, often associated with ideological divisions regarding the level of government involvement in people’s lives or how common resources should be distributed.
Indeed, climate change forces humans to ask how shared resources – things as simple as clean air and water and as complex as life-sustaining ecological systems – are to be treated and to what end. The political stoushing and evasion exemplified in the Australian bushfire emergency seems confounding in light of scientists’ warnings that the world is dangerously close to disaster, already having crossed climate tipping points which constitute ‘an existential threat to civilisation’, which places humans ‘in a state of planetary emergency’ (Lenton et al. 2019:595; Rockström et al. 2009:472). Such conflict and avoidance of addressing the climate crisis is also striking in light of the rapid and far-reaching actions taken in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the varying positions people take on the issue, the next section outlines the symbolic dimension of the human subject, a perspective I feel is helpful when considering human encounters with climate change. I introduce ideas from Ernest Becker, an important thinker for this thesis, and consider why a scientific definition is inadequate when thinking about what is happening in web-of-life exchanges that is inducing climate change.
16 1.2 Climate change – science or symbol?
What is climate change? A scientific answer is necessary but is also inadequate because the term ‘climate change’ is produced and reproduced through forms of social encounter as part of a socially constructed ‘reality’ (Berger & Luckmann 1967:3). Accordingly, climate change is an encounter that stimulates the symbolic capacity of humans. As mentioned in the introduction, symbols can be gestures, objects, signs or concepts that represent or express something else (Abercrombie et al. 2006:387), which play a significant role in human relations with ‘the non- empirical aspects of reality’ (Parsons 1968:422) and are part of a system of ideas through which ‘individuals imagine the society to which they belong and their obscure yet intimate relations with that society’ (Durkheim 2008:170-171). While a person does not encounter a literal object, one may encounter climate change through sense perception via its material consequences: like Australians encountering bushfires, or people living near Russian melting tundras that are releasing methane gas, or travellers viewing bleached coral on a diving trip to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
In academic circles, the disciplines of environmental studies and science, environmental humanities, social and critical theory, psychology, economics, politics, or international relations, will each offer analysis according to the complexities each discipline discerns – material and social values, constructed meanings and norms, political ideologies and worldviews, uncertainties and risks, material costs, benefits, and opportunities or threats. These too are encounters and generate other encounters. They are products of and produce the notion of climate change. Consequently, one may encounter the concept ‘climate change’ on the news. Individuals may see nationwide protests on climate inaction, such as one led by School Strike for Climate Action in Australia in March 2019 involving an estimated 300,000 people. Equally, a climate change encounter may come via a proposed petrol tax associated with addressing it, like the one that prompted people to put on a ‘yellow vest’ and protest in Parisian streets. An individual may observe these cases, ‘see’ or imagine climate change, and affirmatively align the experience with the scientific consensus, accepting climate change as reality. Or an opposing view may be generated; that environmental changes are part of a natural rhythm, that people’s protests are misguided, and that a ‘carbon tax’ is unwarranted. The thesis considers how each perspective generates a symbolic assessment of these material and/or conceptual encounters with climate change.
Such varying analyses and encounters combine to produce a milieu of scientific and non- scientific information, which circulates within personal and social exchanges. Sociological
17 thought has understood the intersubjective effects of such exchanges, which constantly form and re-form understandings dialectically to constitute the structures and ‘facts’ of an individually interpreted social ‘lifeworld’ (Schutz & Luckmann 1974:3-4; Giddens 1991:52; Durkheim 1982:50; Mead 1934:138; Garfinkel 1967:36; Goffman 1959:1). Goffman (1974:21) tells us that when an individual acknowledges an event, the response involves ‘one or more frameworks or schemata of interpretation’, which facilitate the user ‘to locate, perceive, identify, and label’ any number of encounters. The person does this to determine a reality, namely the current world as perceived by the individual (Goffman 1974:3). Thus, in response- evoking encounters, socially located tools are deployed to establish facts and/or experiences so as to determine the personal implications of climate change.
To examine the human subject’s response to such encounters, my goal is to clearly imagine the human relation with nature, as this also affects the symbolism around climate change encounters. This involves critiquing an established imagining regarding that relation – that human life is separate to nature. Biological scientist Kim Quillin (2013:1288), for example, notes that using a worldview that implies ‘humans occur in a category separate from animals’ threatens human survival because it separates humans from ‘deep within the context of ecology’ that sustains their life (Quillin 2013:1288). Leading naturalist Ernst Haeckel (1870) defines the context of ecology, pursued in chapter two, as the complex evolutionary interrelations underway within Charles Darwin’s vision of ‘the conditions of the struggle for existence’ (in Kormondy 2012:442). So, as I observe the individual interacting in the web of life, I aim to remember the human being is part of, and dialectically in relation with, the rest of nature. This aligns with the reality of human embeddedness within, and unity with the naturally evolved world. Recalling the biological kinship with other animals helps in this respect. Accordingly, I use the phrase ‘human animal’ periodically to describe and recognise humans within and part of the web of life. It is perhaps an awkward phrase for our civilised pretensions, but reminds, me at least, of the natural composition of my human nature.
Remembering this biological kinship complements my use of the insights of a materialistic, dialectical approach. I draw on Marx and Engels’ (1947:30) view of infinite and constantly changing entanglements of relations and reactions, and also the work of Foster, Clark, and York (2010:261), who argue a dialectical approach addresses the complexity overlooked by a mechanistic though materialist economists view, and adds the materialism that idealistic deep ecology approaches tend to reject; these matters are discussed in chapter two. I focus on an important distinction: the human animal’s highly advanced use of both material and symbolic information to engage in the complex evolutionary interrelations occurring within ‘the struggle for existence’. Though not encompassing the symbolic aspect, the view that naturalist Charles
18 Darwin (1859:61) had of animals engaging in the ‘struggle for life’ to survive is echoed in a social understanding of an individual’s fundamental, primal reflex to pursue ‘self-preservation’ (Rousseau 1761:168). Humans use symbolic tools to develop an organised understanding of the world, including language which ‘constructs immense edifices of symbolic representations’ for everyday experiences and take on real significance for the person (Berger & Luckmann 1967:40). I consider this symbolic faculty as an important element in the action around climate change. Accordingly, I try to reconcile the fundamental commonality with other entities – that of struggling for life, and the significance of the human animal’s developed use of representation within the struggle for survival.
Cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, recognises the Darwinian description of humans sharing a ‘predisposition toward self-preservation in the service of survival’ with other forms of biological life (Becker 1971:44 & 1975:142-143; Cohen & Solomon 2011:316; Solomon et al. 1998:11). However, in distinction from Darwinian approaches, Becker (1973:26,51,87) highlights the challenge humans confront in dealing with their ‘creatureliness’, the disquieting human predicament of the existential paradox, namely of being ‘half animal half symbolic’ as ‘the condition of individuality within finitude’. Becker’s focus helps underscore a human struggle to survive that I posit is vital to contend with when thinking about human action within the broader web of life. As will be considered through Becker’s ideas, the symbolic human animal is not just looking at survival of the organism, but survival of the ‘self’ through symbolic meaning found in heroic or purposeful actions that engender feelings of continuance. This one of the mediating factors lacking, I argue, in dialectical considerations of humans in the web of life.
The fear of death, says Becker (1973:16), is necessary ‘for the organism to be armed toward self-preservation’ but simultaneously needs to be suppressed ‘else the organism could not function’, since consciousness of being unique animals yet facing the same end as other animals – death – creates a sense of meaninglessness. I will argue that the human encounter with the issue of climate change provokes this instinct for self-preservation, accompanied by a general fear and anxiety in the vulnerable human animal, thus engaging the individual processes involved in pursuing security. Becker’s insights, in discourse with other schools of thought, help explain the symbolic role in human decision-making for those who accept the science of climate change and those that do not. Thus, the symbolic aspect of the human is examined as a vital element involved in the dialectical action of humans within the web of life. Having described these preliminary steps in seeing the human in relation to climate change, the context of this relation can be deepened by considering the scientific understanding of climate change.
19 The terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used variably to describe a problem but involve technical differences in focus; climate change is seen as more generic and less evocative than ‘global warming’ (Hulme 2009:234). The problem includes rising temperatures and the resulting consequences for ecosystems and all living entities, such as rising seas, more extreme weather events and disrupted wildlife and habitats. Rising temperatures affect climate systems in multiple ways and affect weather across regions over time, from the effect on land, air, and sea temperatures, humidity, and air pressure. When such systems exceed thresholds (Steffen et al. 2015:737; ISSC/UNESCO 2013:8), the otherwise stable and life-sustaining terrestrial features are destabilised, with significant implications for human and nonhuman biological and social life.
When scientists talk about the issue of climate change, they make a distinction between what is seen as naturally occurring climate change, or non-human induced, and what humans are doing that pushes climactic systems beyond natural cyclical thresholds. In this latter sense, climate change is a problematic increase in global temperatures specifically due to excessive release of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, through human behaviour from the industrial revolution of the 19th century on (NASA 2018). The rapid accumulation of heat- trapping gasses in the atmosphere is pushing environmental systems beyond thresholds that maintain the safe conditions that sustain human life (Rockström et al. 2009:473; Lenton et al. 2019:593). Since human behaviour within the web of life is, on the whole, threatening rather than sustaining life, I define such outcomes as life-denying in comparison to life-sustaining potentialities.
What does it mean to say that humans can be destabilising agents in the natural world? How can stability in nature be thought about in the first place? Natural scientists following the Marxist tradition offer a valuable dialectical materialist view of the natural world. Foster, Clark & York (2010:262, 266) point to scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levins, and Richard Lewontin to explain that change through interactions within the physical world ‘is not typically smooth and continuous, but rather often occurs very rapidly following periods of stasis (temporary periods, of indeterminate lengthy, of counterbalancing forces leading to relative stability).’ This important conclusion counters an idealist view of the world as in continuous balance and harmony, while acknowledging there are periods of stability. Change that can occur both gradually and rapidly can be imagined through the idea of ‘punctuated equilibria’ (Gould & Eldredge 1977:116), referring to extended periods of stasis, punctuated by brief geological periods of rapid change. Can humans be responsible for disruptions to natural systems?
20 Punctuated equilibria can be seen in the context of resiliency of ecosystems driving the climate, namely ‘the ability of ecosystems to resist permanent structural change and maintain ecosystem functions’ (Cresswell & Murhpy 2017:165). Resiliencies like the oceans capacity to absorb heat have helped keep the complex system of global climate relatively stable for extended periods, providing humans the opportunity to flourish. However, stable conditions can rapidly change if sufficiently disturbed, through for instance, human-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Foster, Clark & York 2010:269). Human activities like land conversion and carbon emissions ‘are increasing both the rate and the intensity of change’ (Cresswell & Murhpy 2017:165). Planetary thresholds are being transgressed, threatening to precipitate sudden change in the natural world. Through natural interdependencies, the potential for human impact on the web of life is real.
The potential comes through GHG emissions from industrial-scale production impacting the climate. This dialectical effect was not immediately understood and was initially overlooked. Nevertheless, scientists developed climate-related knowledge that would reveal the human contribution to climate change. So while the Trevithick-designed locomotive (1803), the internal combustion engine (1826 by Samuel Morey), and the first oil refinery (1851 by Scotsman James Young) emerged, scientists like Fourier (1820s), Tyndall (1861) and Arrhenius (1896) observed the atmosphere’s role in trapping heat, demonstrated the heat-trapping qualities of methane and carbon dioxide, and explained the relation between temperature change and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 19th and early 20th century scientific investigation also revealed interconnected ecological systems like trophic1 structures, productivity and dynamism in ecology as part of broader scientific understandings of real ecosystems overall (Kormondy 2012:441). Still, scientific understanding did not keep up with the rapid post-WWII acceleration of the ‘treadmill of production’ (Schnaiberg et al. 2002:15), which had already produced significant social and ecosystem damage.
In 1968 Sweden proposed an international conference after awareness of industrialisation- related transboundary pollution (acid rain) raised global environmental concern, leading to the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, which established the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). The UNEP’s main function was to provide practical structures and guidelines that encourage government action ‘to protect and improve the human environment’ (Brisman 2011:1039). As the UNEP started monitoring human effects on the climate and atmosphere, scientific understanding rapidly developed. As global warming became an issue of increasing public concern, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the
1 Trophic refers to an organism’s position in the food chain 21 UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) in 1988 as the highest authority on climate matters by drawing together scientists from many countries to look at all the climate science in a comprehensive fashion.
To eliminate concern of political agendas, the IPCC does not conduct any science, but compiles the global scientific community’s latest climate research and condenses it into a single report. It achieves consensus through: a) consilience of evidence by using data from all over the world; b) social calibration by agreeing on standards for that evidence; and c) social diversity where many people from a variety of backgrounds globally contribute to establishing consensus (Miller 2013:1294; Cook et al. 2013; 2016). A large body of knowledge has by now consistently established the human fingerprint on earth’s atmosphere, and that burning fossil fuels produces CO2 – such as Revelle & Suess (1957:18) on increased atmospheric CO2 related to carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean, or Loeb et al. (2009:748) on less heat escaping to space. These established best practices in scientific investigation produce the most reliable, though naturally limited, scientific knowledge in a fluid terrain. While the IPCC is increasingly emphasising the consequences of human action (United Nations 2019), controversy still remains.
Establishing these relations from which climate change emerges helps me later explain why the view of humans as separate to nature is of key relevance. Despite clear data showing that humans impact the rest of nature, the extraction/production/distribution/consumption/disposal processes we all participate in demonstrate that business-as-usual fossil fuel burning persist (Leonard 2010; Heinberg 2011). While efforts to develop alternative methods of sustainable and reliable energy delivery proceed (Marglin 2013; Hawken 2017; Enkvist & Klevnäs 2018), the principles applied in current production practices, like the pursuit of profit, and externalisation of costs to be discussed in chapter three, indicate that a comprehensive understanding of humans as part of nature still eludes economic systems that drive energy policy. On one hand, the anthropogenic impacts on the environment have become clear, with climate change becoming the subject of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since its establishment in 1992, and now broadly being considered a primary threat to the stability of earth’s physical environment. On the other, business-as-usual principles of rapid development, production and consumption continue in the direction causing climate change. However, the main protagonist of the thesis is the individual, who must navigate a complex terrain of knowledge and decide how to act while pursuing what appears best for personal well-being. I progressively illustrate that the ideas of consumption and growth are problematically tied to a promise of human flourishing, thereby implicating the individual in climate change.
22
Knowledge about industrial emissions causing climate change has prompted the neologism ‘the anthropocene’,2 which is used to describe the contemporary ‘human-dominated, geological epoch’ (Crutzen 2002:23). Crutzen & Stoermer (2000:17-18) first suggested it to describe a geological period beginning with the creation of the steam engine, from when human activity has since become a significant geological force, emphasising ‘the central role of mankind in geology and ecology’ (Crutzen 2006:13,16). The term is now commonly used to capture both the scientific and social aspects of environmental change leading to an increasingly destabilised, less predictable and less harmonious Earth (Kotzé 2017:vii).
The heat-trapping qualities of carbon dioxide is now clearly linked to the human-generated, or ‘anthropogenic’ contribution of CO2 through industrial processes (NASA 2018, 2020b). Figures 1.2, and 1.3, below vividly illustrate the exponential increase of industrial emissions and their scientifically-established tie to rising global temperatures from excess carbon in the atmosphere through industrialisation – produced first and principally by ‘Western/developed nations’, and later by ‘developing/emerging nations’ who follow principles of capital-driven industrialisation, like China and India.
2 The term is pending official approval by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, with the Anthropocene Working Group to submit formal proposal by 2021. 23
Figure 1.2 CO2 industrial carbon emissions (Global Carbon Project in Tollefson 2019)
Figure 1.3/1.4 Global GHG-induced temperature increase (NASA 2020b)
24
As climate change has ‘anthropogenic’, or human-animal causes, understanding what affects human behaviour is a relevant line of investigation to understand the input that threatens the web of life. The thesis links the current anthropogenic climate dilemma to the period that sees the progressive embedding of Western modernity narratives that are implicated in the anthropogenic contribution to the web of life. From this period emerge principles that become core drivers of exchange, whereby Max Weber (1976:181) observes that the ‘modern economic order (capitalism) determines the lives of all the individuals born into this mechanism’, a mechanism reliant on the consumption of fossil fuels, whose influence, Weber notes, might continue ‘until the last ton of fossilized fuel is burnt’. I consider the period of accelerating capitalism that proceeds with the European enlightenment, with a focus on key principles and accompanying ideas that become entrenched into daily exchanges now affecting interdependencies with life-denying consequences. What potentially life-denying consequences are there? While considering the stakes associated with climate change below, I propose they reveal broader human expectations that are symbolically threatened and point to more fundamental human motivations provoking action.
1.3 The stakes: material and symbolic injustice
As illustrated by the Australian bushfires, human lives can be swiftly impacted negatively when systems humans are reliant on are disrupted. This may mean, however, that feedback might sufficiently penetrate social awareness only after ecosystem resilience is depleted – when it is too late. Earth has already warmed approximately 1°C over the last century, and projections of a rise of between 2-4°C above pre-industrial levels portend catastrophic consequences for the secure and stable environment humans expect and need if they are to flourish (Cox et al. 2018). The scientific consensus described in the 2018 IPCC report reveals interdependent ecological processes already critically destabilised, and exceeding 2°C warming threatens the collapse of ecosystems, endangering the quality of life and life itself for many people, with mass species extinction and loss of biodiversity of other-nature already underway (WWF 2018). The melting of glaciers and ice caps, sea level rise, increased heatwaves, intensified storm systems and floods, droughts, and mass extinctions, threaten the stable, predictable elements that produce a life-sustaining environment for humans, namely the ‘safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth System’ (Steffen et al. 2015:737). Despite such scientific understanding, social awareness of the operant interdependence is nevertheless subdued.
25 The conditions that arise from climate disorder run counter to an expectation for stability and predictability that begins at birth, as humans rely on predictable mental and physical frameworks that structure and order life for daily action (Giddens 1991:42-46). Consider what every human expects when they wake up in the morning and take a breath, namely that they can easily do this rather than inhale particles of ash from a bushfire. The immediate human reaction to the latter is alarm, fear and even anger. Humans need resilient ecological life systems and climates predictable enough to live in security, yet these are at risk according to the IPCC, resulting in threatened food production, the spread of disease, mass migration, and many other ‘large-scale discontinuities’ resulting from ‘dangerous climate change’ that requires immediate action (Smith et al. 2009:4135). The frequency and intensity of climate ‘discontinuities’ is anticipated to increase (Lenton et al. 2019:592), with the most vulnerable people and nations already feeling impacts on food and water security, health, droughts, floods, and wildfires (Porter et al. 2014; Singh et al. 2014; IPCC 2014a; IPCC 2018). The international medical journal, The Lancet (Swinburn et al. 2019:2), cites climate disruptions as a serious contemporary threat to human security and survival.
Though it may seem obvious, the alarm from scientific and international bodies like the UNFCCC and the IPCC is a response to the threatened material stability, continuity and security that humans need to live and flourish. However, the alarm has failed to prompt the required urgency on a group and individual level. As climate consequences impact the lived space of all persons, there is a reflex to defend space and place. For instance, as sea levels rise, the Maldives plans to build artificial islands, fortified with three-metre-high sea walls (WEF 2019:61). Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, then President of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, and eleven ministers held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting to draw attention to the serious threat their country faces, appealing to those in positions of power to act. Though easily dismissed as a stunt, it demonstrates anxious concern to protect the physical place from which a meaningful life project is pursued. Human geography demonstrates that individuals and groups, whether on an individual, local, regional or national level, go to great lengths to protect what they consider ‘their places against outside forces of destruction’ (Relph 1976:1). Whether considered on the level of individuals, small groups or nations, human history demonstrates people seek security and expect an equitable share of the common resources that help maintain security. Humans act to protect the places and spaces that give them security within a web of life that can be enriching, cruel or benign. In this general sense, the defence of place is to maintain security through a familiar, predictable, relatively stable locus in response to threatening forces. Climate change is one such force.
26 The activities of human agents within the shared space of Earth now undermine vital environmental redundancies that cushion variability, like polar icecaps or the ocean’s heat- absorbing capabilities. Consequently, I am interested in what human elements influence the relation. Industrialised capitalist expansion, which is at the heart of the human relation with nature, has tended towards exploitation of the raw materials and labour of underdeveloped states, to the benefit of industrially developed capitalist states, with injustice manifesting as social disparity through wealth inequality both across countries and within countries (Wallerstein 1979; Hobden & Jones 2008:136). The capitalist principles that I shall consider are associated with current human consumption. Averaged across national populations, humans currently consume at a rate which is roughly the equivalent of 1.75 earths per year, an ‘ecological overshoot’ where humanity draws on excessive geological resources to sustain the consumption and waste that they generate (Global Footprint Network 2020). However, particularly in Western, affluent countries, material resources equivalent to six planets are needed to sustain current living standards, and material footprints per capita indicate the high- income countries maintain a footprint sixty per cent higher than the upper-middle income group, and in excess of thirteen times the level of the low-income group (Leonard 2010:152-153; IRP 2019:8). The principles driving such disproportionate exploitation have inevitably shaped the material and symbolic experiences within the relation, and I explore how they affect individual perspectives regarding flourishing.
On an international level, the exploitation of international commons prompts claims of climate- related injustice in the context of a ‘right to development’ (Khoday/UNDP 2007; Löfquist 2011). A right to development is not found in epistemologies and practices of domination (Sousa Santos 2018:2). If the global commons are to be equitably shared by all, exploitation and uneven distribution of ‘commons’ that otherwise support the web of life in a life-sustaining way is an injustice (Thompson 1993; Hardin 1968; Dietz et al. 2003). Further, global interdependence ensures that the suffering from this injustice occurring internationally also affects the individual’s actions through material or symbolic implications for an individually constructed life project of meaning.
It is the global poor – the people generally less responsible for climate change – that pay the heavier, initial, cost of privileged historical extraction and exploitation, practiced by affluent countries in line with colonial and capitalist expansion for centuries (Kotzé 2019:1-2). Consequently, the way nations developed in the past (through extraction/exploitation of the environment by burning fossil fuels) is seen as a ‘right’ by developing nations now in order to square the plate. Indeed, Agenda 21 – a ‘blueprint for sustainable development’, which the 1992 Rio Earth Summit produced, asserts that the historical and contemporary goal of material
27 advancement of high-income countries are the cause of most global environmental issues today (UNCED 1992). This material injustice, embedded in national disputes, is fundamentally a symbol of a hindered right to pursue a good life in security for the individuals in those communities. But it raises a fundamental contradiction, namely that developing-nation calls for their own right to flourish are now enmeshed with the principles and ideas that drove Western development and growth through exploitation, but that cause instability, insecurity and climate change.
The drive of industrialised capitalist expansion through fossil fuel burning continues to steal from ‘the commons’ of a stable atmosphere by continuing to exploit Earth’s ‘credit account’ or carbon ‘budget’ (le Quéré et al. 2018:2143). A serious consequence is the disruption of natural stabilising boundaries of a ‘single complex, integrated system’, described in the planetary boundaries (PBs) framework which ‘defines a safe operating space for humanity’ (Steffen et al. 2015:7). The exploitation of commons thus impacts everyone because it damages Earth’s systems. The expected consequences are complex, and include disruption of stability by forcing people to move from their homes; disrupting natural habitats or even erasing them; and leaving much of the younger generation looking to the future with despair. I shall consider two examples, refugee displacement and the expectations of future generations, to understand that climate change represents a real or anticipated threat to security and flourishing for many, and as such is experienced as injustice.
1.3.1 Refugee displacement – a loss of home
Just like the Maldives mentioned above, many low-lying island states face a future of rising sea levels that threatens their very home. A conclusive definition for ‘climate change refugees’ is a challenge because of the multiple push-factors involved in migration (McAdam 2017:17; Dun & Gemenne 2008:10; Foresight 2011:44). The IPCC (2014b) nevertheless concludes that climate change will cause significant ‘human displacement and migration’. Such displacement is underway in low-lying Pacific islands like the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Kiribati, representing a threat to a secure and stable future for many whose homes are located there.
In regions including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many Pacific Island countries, increases in inland warming, changes in rain patterns and sea level rise will result in decreased living standards and more survival pressures generally (Mani et al. 2018:4), with economic and social knock-on effects potentially precipitating mass human displacement. Albert et al. (2016:4) demonstrate this is underway with evidence showing the Solomon Islands have lost
28 five reef islands completely to sea-level rise, and another six afflicted by severe erosion. This directly impacts the material and social conditions of individual flourishing – Nuatambu Island, the home of 25 families, has lost over half of its inhabitable area and 11 houses to the sea since 2011 (Albert et al. 2016:7). The disruption of stability for those households is evident by the loss of the security of a safe dwelling that provides a capacity to engage with life in creative openness, forcing them to relocate and re-establish a measure of security in order to pursue a life project. Many in affluent or protected regions have avoided disruption, though this relative stability is increasingly punctured, like the US 2005 floods of hurricane Katrina, or the 2019 Australian bushfires affecting Sydney.
In 2014, Marshall Islands president, Christopher Loeak, spoke of king tides displacing over 1000 people from their homes, saying ‘If this is what we see now, what does our future hold?’ (in Roden 2014). Such displacement thus even clouds the trajectory towards a stable, flourishing life in the place Marshall Islanders view as ‘home’. This is an injustice felt by people of those regions as caused by ‘actions of other countries … not the actions of their own leaders’ (McAdam and Loughry in Roden 2014). Since half of South Asia’s population, more than 800 million people, reside in what will become climate hotspots (Mani et al. 2018), anxiety about the future environmental, economic and social impacts illustrates an unfolding cross- spatial injustice. For those feeling the impacts now, the intrusion on their space is a clear threat – with their security destabilised, climate change represents an injustice as the opportunities for a flourishing life diminish and a struggle for basic security increases.
1.3.2 Future generations – a loss of stable conditions
The loss of an imagined future due to climate change is keenly resonant for those immediately impacted, usually poor and developing populations. In affluent nations there is increasing realisation of a threatened future, with majorities in developed countries seeing the dangers of climate change (Fagan & Huang 2019). As carbon emissions continue to rise, they deplete natural redundancies in Earth’s carbon ‘credit account’ that maintains stability, undermining the stratospheric and tropospheric protective layers, destabilising climate systems and effectively robbing conditions for flourishing from present and future generations. Prominent climate scientist James Hansen argues ‘Climate change is a human rights issue…We are seeing injustice against the young. The present generation has a responsibility to future generations’ (Watts 2017).
29 The real implications of what I label as theft are understood by many youths and their families. Swedish youth climate activist, Greta Thunberg, has become a standard bearer since speaking at the UN 2018 Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP24). Youth all over the world now take the lead in political climate action, attempting to confront the ongoing enactment of the unjust future instability they face (Foran et al. 2017:361; Banerji 2019). Thousands of school students across Australia, for instance, walked out on classes in series of rolling strike action, despite rebukes from Prime Minister Morrison himself (SBS 2018). This flowed into a global youth action spanning from Jakarta to New York (Marris 2019:471). The climate crisis touches youths’ hopes and aspirations – they expect a secure future in which to flourish and see it slipping away. So, globally youth movements seek to address the injustice of a lost future (Hertsgaard 2019). Unfortunately and as will be considered, the wealthiest benefiting from the system precipitating climate change are dulled in their reaction, short-sightedly protecting the benefits they gain.
Common to both examples is a present or anticipated disruption of meaningful life projects. As the result of stolen environmental stability, refugee displacement and theft of a stable future are two of many unfolding climate-related issues that represent a threat and equally reveal what humans commonly value – security. The loss of security can be understood as an injustice through the loss of an expected opportunity for a flourishing life, and something that provokes anger, fear and anxiety. While I have outlined some responses and issues related to the scientific opinion that climate change poses an immanent and far-reaching risk to human life, not everyone sees the material threats discussed above as the stakes that are symbolised in climate change. For those not accepting that climate change is human-induced, it represents another kind of threat. In the next section, I address the stakes represented in climate change for those who reject human responsibility for it, asking if the differing stakes might still symbolically involve the same basic desires.
1.4 Different symbolism, but the same anxiety
Not everyone agrees that climate change poses a threat to life or that humans are responsible. A Pew Research survey (Fagan & Huang 2019) shows that while majorities in most countries see climate change as a major threat, this varies in different national jurisdictions – from 90% in Greece to 66% in the UK, 60% in Australia, 59% in the US, and 38% in Israel. While US surveys indicate 73% believe global warming is happening, only 51% are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is, and only 20% understand the level of scientific consensus on the issue, leaving a significant number unsure about its reality or cause (Leiserowitz et al. 2018:3). In Australia,
30 Merzian et al. (2019:5) note that 77% of the population agree that climate change is occurring, though only 61% believe humans cause it. So how is climate change perceived by those who reject or are sceptical about the scientific consensus?
For some climate change is misguided at best or a complete hoax at worst, and establishing regulations to address it is consequently treated as a threat to current standards of living associated with a free-market system because it interferes with the short-term profit-making strategies and local priorities that currently drive economic exchange (Cseh 2019:140; Heath & Gifford 2006:66). Or, people may not question the science but have immediate concerns centered around employment, electricity and fuel prices, and a stable economy, and these will trump other concerns because of their immediate association with personal security (Pew Research Center 2009). There are many reasons why someone may reject or be sceptical of the science of climate change. First, there is the influence of well-documented efforts to sew scientific doubt via corporate-funded think-tanks and foundations to protect the values and interests that climate action threatens (Oreskes & Conway 2012:246-248; Jacques et al. 2008:352). The spread of climate denialism by neoliberal thinktanks has been most successful in the US and Australia, where fossil fuel, mining and energy industry interests ‘operate as political entrepreneurs in the news media – where most people get their information about science’ (McKewon 2018). Framing climate action, such as taxes, regulation or phasing out certain industries, as destabilising or as a threat to freedom is a strategy also adopted by those that want to create doubt (Oreskes & Conway 2012:60-61; Hardisty et al. 2010:86; Freudenburg et al. 2008:15).
Such strategies have a powerful effect on people’s attitudes because concerns about putative freedom or economic stability may be reflected in particular political party ideology. This is relevant, as many studies demonstrate an alignment of political party loyalty, associated education and related belief or concern regarding climate change in the US (Dunlap & McCright 2008:26; Hamilton 2011:231; McCright & Dunlap 2011a:155/2011b:1163); the UK (Carter 2014:423; Carter & Clements 2015:204); in Australia and Canada (Rootes 2014:166; Young and Coutinho 2014:89) and in Europe (McCright, Dunlap & Marquart-Pyatt 2016:338). From a social psychology perspective, rejection of climate change may occur if an individual’s ‘in-group’ rejects it, demonstrating loyalty to in-group attachments and seeing the ‘out-group’ as threatening one’s personal worldview (Hatemi et al. 2013:279; Smith & Henry 1996:635).
Ideological rejection of climate change via symbols is illustrated in segments of the Australian media. Consider the response to Greta Thunberg, who, as a symbolic crucible of climate change, receives a barrage of attacks when she calls for governments to address the climate
31 crisis at international forums. Looking at 1.7 million tweets related to Thunberg, Jung et al. (2020:14) find ‘that political polarization permeated the tweets.’ Thunberg has been called ‘deeply disturbed’ (Meade 2019). Such antipathy also arose in the US and the UK (Jung et al. 2020:11), with Thunberg being the target of mockery and associated with ‘prophets of doom’ by US President Donald Trump (Lyons 2019b; Craw 2020). Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison dismissed her appeals for action, characterising her words as generating ‘needless anxiety’ (Murphy 2019b). The negative response to Thunberg’s activism indicates that an encounter with climate change for some is representative of something other than an ecological threat, and one that equally creates anxiety. It is relevant that while consistent scientific evidence demonstrates human-generated emissions from industrialised production induce climate change, this reality faces resistance particularly in relation to ideas tied to the contemporary system of capitalism. My investigation thus considers the principles and ideas in capitalism’s promise, investigated in chapters three and four, as important to explaining this resistance.
The variety of encounters with climate change foregrounded above are to hypothesise that the meaning of climate change for individuals is considered with stability, predictability, and security in mind. That is, an encounter with climate change represents a threat; for some it threatens the environment, and consequently threatens security and flourishing in a hospitable planet, but for others it is a symbolic threat to the predictable status quo, which for some provides security in line with an ideological worldview and/or a materially beneficial situation. To pursue the varying complexities of such encounters with climate change, I aim to provide specific examples to underpin the theoretical discussion. The Australian context is a key source of such examples, so I will speak further to Australia as a focus case next.
1.5 Australia and climate change
While covering the international aspects of climate change, this research focuses on the Australian encounter, as it captures similar debates and concerns experienced particularly in the Western world, which is responsible for the lion’s share of the climate crisis. Australia is a liberal democratic multicultural society, with socio-cultural systems strongly influenced by Western enlightenment thinking. While it has a mixed free market/state interventionist economy, since the 1980s under prime minister Bob Hawke and treasurer Paul Keating, and particularly through the period of government of John Howard (1996-2007) it has increasingly undergone economic liberalisation (Taylor 2014:48-49, 56; Redden 2019:714), including extensive deregulation and privatisation, replacing its social-democratic interventionism with
32 more market-oriented neoliberal policies (Quiggin 1999:250). It is accordingly of interest to the thesis, which is critiquing principles emerging from Western enlightenment and modernity, and questioning the effects of capitalist principles, many of which are exaggerated through neoliberal policies.
Viewed from the international context, Australia faces questions of equity and justice between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations as a member of the Pacific region of states (Lyons 2019a). Despite the nation’s economic and resource wealth, Australian governmental policies regarding climate action have regressed in recent years, with emissions falling between 2007-2012, but particularly from 2016-2019 overall emissions have increased on average by about 1% per year (Climate Action Tracker 2020; Merzian et al. 2019:3; Saddler 2019:6). The Australian government’s climate-related efforts are recognised as inadequate nationally. For instance, globally the Climate Transparency report (2019:7) examining OECD country contributions noted that Australia, along with South Korea and Canada, is the furthest off track to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions for 2030 emissions targets. As interviews conducted for this thesis will illustrate, individuals in Australia variably encounter and digest international discourses on climate change such as the Paris Agreement, the IPCC, China’s emissions, with a great deal of variance. Such differential discourses are also evident in the Australian media and in political debates, traversing international and local issues and deliberations. Below I describe some contextual elements of Australian life and culture that translate symbolically to the explanatory device of the promise of a flourishing life, which I consider in chapter five.
1.5.1 The promise of a flourishing life in Australia
Australia has a rich supply of natural resources, a favourable climate, a diverse and unique terrain of flora and fauna, and a strategic location that keeps it at a distance from global problems. Though it is considered a ‘Western’ nation, its historical connection to the British empire is dwarfed by the rich and long history of its original Indigenous inhabitants, with a rich and developed social economy and culture at the time of English colonisation (Pascoe 2018:12). The Indigenous Australian epistemologies that imagine the human spatial and temporal experience remain sidelined by the dominance of a Western secular culture and highly developed mixed/free-market economy. How does Australia hold the promise of a flourishing life? Two objects holding symbolic significance in the national psyche help paint a picture – Australia’s extensive reserve of coal, and the largest living structure and wonder of the natural world, the Great Barrier Reef. Both carry symbolisms within Australian culture associated with a promise of well-being now threatened by climate change. Consider coal.
33
Australia is a major G20 fossil fuel supplier and exporter (Climate Transparency 2019:26). Natural endowments in fossil fuels like coal play a prominent symbolic role in Australian social life. Bound with the birth of modernisation, and historically fused with the notions of limitless growth and prosperity (MacLellan 2015:42), coal is a major source of Australia’s energy. Australia is a key exporter in the international coal market, which supplies 40% of global electricity needs through the abundant and low-cost resource (Nuccitelli 2011; Jotzo et al. 2018:8). The coal industry generates around 57,900 jobs (Merzian et al. 2019:18), and promises more jobs through newly proposed coalmines, like the controversial mega Adani mine, which the thesis progressively discusses (Jotzo et al. 2018:8). Being Australia’s top export, coal is seen as a source of economic prosperity and depicted as crucial to its energy security (Lehmann 2018). As such, scaling back its production has been characterised as unpatriotic in conservative media (Kenny 2019), though its economic contribution is overestimated both in political rhetoric and Australian public awareness (Merzian et al. 2019:6), and many are fighting to scale back production.
In sum, coal has both positive and negative symbolism. Positive because of ‘job creation, employment opportunities and regional development’ (Lehmann 2018; Moffat et al. 2017:6), and historical involvement in providing Australia a prosperous export item, representing financial security and economic success. However, there is a trust deficit because of damage to the environment and water quality, because of extraction methods that ignore Indigenous rights, and because of questions about governance and the way benefits of mining are socially distributed (Moffat et al. 2017:12; Chan 2019). Further, attitudes towards coal are changing. In a study involving 1960 participants, 68% of Australians agree that coal should be steadily phased out, and with 64% opposing any new mines (Merzian et al. 2019:6). Overall, coal is a complex object within a national discourse around identity and security, and is bound up with the seemingly inevitable security framing of capitalism. What about the Great Barrier Reef?
The Great Barrier Reef also carries much symbolic value. It is an environmental wonder representative of Australia’s bounteous beauty and natural ecosystems that connects both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to ‘the land’ (Pascoe 2018:144). Apart from its economic importance as a tourist destination, the reef forms part of the Australian identity. The Indigenous Traditional Owners’ connection to the reef spans over 60,000 years, creating a strong connection with Indigenous identity (Marshall et al. 2018:276), with its natural features being ‘deeply embedded in Indigenous culture, spirituality and wisdom’ (Deloitte 2017:45). For both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians it provides nonmaterial benefits ‘from
34 ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences’ including cultural diversity, education values, knowledge systems, social relations, aesthetic values and a sense of place (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005:40). It informs a sense of identity, and pride in it being designated a World Heritage Area, aside from generating aesthetic appreciation and appreciation of biodiversity, lifestyle, scientific contribution, and overall well-being (Marshall et al. 2018:273). The symbolic and real, social and economic value of the reef is representative of a broader symbolic promise of a nation where a good life is possible, forming part of individual and national constructions of security and justice.
Australians want the reef to remain for future generations (Marshall et al. 2018:273), a desire accompanied by a moral obligation in guaranteeing its health because of its importance to planetary biodiversity (Deloitte 2017:31). But in recent years the reef has been under threat. Its health is seen as very poor and at a critical stage due to rising ocean temperatures, causing severe bleaching and habitat losses (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2019:2-5). It is also threatened by a recently approved mega coalmine by the Adani Group. In this context two iconic objects collide in symbolisms of security and wellbeing, especially in the case of the Adani coalmine, which is adjacent to the reef.
1.5.2 The promise under threat and failed political action
The climate stakes for Australia are high. Long-term trends reveal that Australia faces increased warming, along with more extreme heat, variable rainfall, lengthier bushfire seasons, rising oceans, increased ocean acidity and marine heatwaves (CSIRO 2018). An Australian government report shows droughts are likely to intensify and be more enduring, affecting communities, businesses and farmers on an ongoing basis (Department of Agriculture 2019:5). Extended and worsening droughts push farming communities to the brink, with feelings of insecurity and isolation (Hall 2015; Cox 2018). Further, an Australian Government Defence White Paper (2016:41,55-56) describes climate change as a key driver shaping Australia’s security environment, with expected consequences being species extinction, food chain disruptions and undermined economic activity locally and regionally (Urban 2015:571; Hoffman et al. 2019:11). Hence, though living in an ostensibly secure place like Australia, people still face threats to food security, increased disruption caused by unpredictable and destructive weather patterns, and associated economic unpredictability and social instability. This new reality prompts the design of ‘national security’ strategies in response to climate change (Barrie et al. 2015:iv; Australian Government 2016:56).
35
A Lowy Institute poll (Oliver 2018:4) indicates an increase in Australians who see global warming as a serious threat (59%), and almost 84% desire explicit government action with a focus on renewables. A 2020 poll of nationally representative samples of Australians after the bushfires shows 79% are concerned about climate change, an increase of 5% from a similar poll in July 2019 (The Australia Institute 2020:1). Morrison et al. (2018:9) show an increase in those accepting the scientific consensus that climate change is human-induced, but issue fatigue has reduced engagement. This is largely owing to three decades of political wrangling over what action, if any, Australia should take. While public polls consistently show Australians want Government leadership, rising emissions demonstrate an effective climate policy is lacking (Merzian et al. 2019:31; Leviston et al. 2015:65).
Despite the sentiment for change, political ideology and infighting has resulted in the government ignoring its own Climate Change Authority reports and reviews by appointed chief scientist (Alan Finkel) (Colebatch 2017). At the time of the 2019-2020 bushfires, the Prime Minster Scott Morrison stated that Australia is ‘carrying its load’, though emissions are increasing (Martin 2020). Bushfires are one of multiple predicted climate-related disasters resulting from climate change, amongst great unknown future consequences from, for instance, the melting of the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland (NOAA in Hannam 2017). This predicament raises many questions about security, justice and the promise of flourishing for the Australian public.
There is something important to note in Scott Morrison’s comments after declaring ‘Australia is carrying its load’:
We are doing what you would expect a country like Australia to do, but what I won’t do is this: I am not going to sell out Australians – I am not going to sell out Australians based on the calls from some to put higher taxes on them or push up their electricity prices or to abandon their jobs and their industries. (in Martin 2020)
Morrison’s comments illustrate anxiety about security and the ability to pursue a good and successful life in Australia, though his perspective on the threat is very different to what the science indicates is threatening the possibility of human flourishing. While the surveys and comments considered above illustrate that many Australians feel the Morrison government’s approach to climate policy is reckless, irresponsible, and contributing to insecurity by sustaining rather than transitioning away from the coal industry, his words appeal to another kind of insecurity, one related to jobs, the economy and prosperity in financial terms, and threatened
36 standard of living. It raises questions about how security is imagined, questions that I pursue by considering principles that depict the human relation with nature and how security is pursued through that relation.
The politics around climate change present a significant barrier to adequate action, making Australia a valuable case to study action through the issue of climate change. The human expectation of a stable and flourishing life, I will argue, is seen as threatened for those who accept climate change is real and those who do not. The dynamics around the issue in Australia provide context for the nineteen in-depth interviews conducted with residents in Sydney (Australia). While I am engaging in theoretical discussion looking across disciplines to explain my core problem, the interviews provide empirical ethnographic qualitative voices, allowing me to illustrate key arguments around individual action in relation to climate change while illustrating the exchanges between the individual and society more broadly.
While I give more detail regarding my approach in chapter four, which begins to introduce participant comments, I will outline a little of my motivations for including interviews here. The interviews give a contemporary snapshot of the lived experiences and concerns of the encounter with the issue of climate change in Australia. In the process of developing the thesis I considered what I wanted to understand about people’s experience with climate change and what would help me best achieve it. Since the thesis focuses on ‘the individual’, my ideal scenario was far too ambitious, namely a multi-cultural interview agenda in Western and non- Western, developed and developing countries, each with unique accounts of climate change, experienced in variable forms of governance with their respective government authorities, in a variety of socio-cultural systems with varying manifestations of the principles of capitalism within each society. This was clearly unrealistic. I had also contemplated conducting a simpler cross-cultural project, for instance comparing the Australian experience in an archetypal neoliberal state to conditions confronting a developing nation such as China, which deploys a state-driven socialist market economy.
However, while considering my approach I contemplated how climate change has been a vexed issue in Australia since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement to cut emissions, recently affirmed by the tension about building the Adani coalmine in north-east Australia while Australia’s Great Barrier Reef faces a climate-induced crisis. It became clear that I would find a spectrum of experiences in Australia – from those who are highly concerned and engaged with the climate crisis, to those who know little and consider it little, to those who are completely, ideologically opposed to action on climate change. Finally, I decided to limit the interviews to Australia, and to observe a snapshot of people encountering climate change in an affluent country whose
37 climate action is lacking despite its capacity to do more. Though not statistically representative, the interviews are nevertheless instructive regarding the concerns that arise through encounters with climate change in Australia, and help illustrate my conceptual arguments surrounding the human pursuit of security, providing insights into the issue of action on climate change and action more broadly. The climate crisis clearly provokes anxiety and insecurity, regardless of whether one accepts it as a real issue or not. In the following overview to the two parts of the thesis, I explain how I will approach an examination of anxiety and vulnerability at play within the individual, and my aim in understanding individual action in the web of life.
38 Part 1 Two narratives about security
The Australian bushfires outlined in chapter one are a vivid illustration of both the beauty and the terror involved in being a human being on Earth. Earth’s beauty and the wonderful conditions humans enjoy are quickly appreciated when they are abruptly disrupted, and terror arises in the suddenness with which that can occur and the uncertainty it creates. The bushfires bring into relief the various web-of-life relations involved in encounters associated with climate change. They also reveal a taken-for-granted expectation that the ecological systems humans are part of remain stable, though this is only revealed through the shock when that stability is disrupted. The loss of stable living conditions, the loss of prospects for a secure life, or the threat to shared worldviews illustrated in chapter one are examples of what can feel threatened when one materially or symbolically encounters climate change. In light of clear human involvement in Earth’s systems, visualising the human animal’s relation with the rest of nature is important to explain what individuals and groups do, why they do it, and how it is involved in the current climate crisis humans face.
Having considered the situation, stakes, and primary human and nonhuman participants involved in the situation of climate change, I proceed with the first part of the thesis, starting in chapter two with a discussion on one conception of the human animal in relation to the rest of nature. That discussion reveals a material relation that began before human history and has proceeded to include human beings since their appearance on Earth. As I feel there is something important to be understood about how industrial development and capitalist expansion began to seriously change the relation between humans and the rest of nature, chapter two describes the reality of a relation of interconnectedness and interdependence. This relation provides the life- sustaining conditions that not only make human life possible, but also allow the possibility of living a good and meaningful life. Of course, this possibility significantly depends on the way humans act within the relation of which they are a part. Such behaviour, I consider, involves not just material conditions and the allocation of resources, but also ideas about the relation with the rest of nature, and ideas about what brings security. I accordingly continue in chapters three and four to consider a different conception of humans and nature within the ideas and principles of modernity and the enlightenment – not a conception of humans as a part of nature but as separate to nature, and nature as a resource to exploit. Again, the aim of a good and meaningful
39 life is central, but the ideas proposing how it is achieved and what brings security to achieve it are very different.
These two competing accounts set the scene and provide an important context to understand what the individual uses as reference points to manage the uncertainty and insecurity that comes from being vulnerable in a broadly unpredictable world. The context is one of dialectical relation between humans and the rest of nature. My idea of a dialectical relation involves exchange and response that results from an agonistic struggle of opposing forces, a tension of cooperation and struggle (Greek agon) (Lexico 2020a), with an opposing force involving both senses of the word, namely the sense of conflict or competition with someone or something, or simply differing from, being opposite to and facing as part of an encounter. That is, there is a constant exchange that occurs amongst humans, and between humans and the rest of nature, both material and spoken exchanges that evoke corresponding responses. The nonhuman part of nature is in discourse with the human part of nature in an unspoken but interactive sense through exchanges between interconnected bodies and consequent feedback that indicates whether the exchange is constructive or destructive.
The relational context from the first part of the thesis informs the second part of the thesis, which focuses on the individual as a relational being within human-to-human exchanges, and what that means for human behaviour. If the individual is relationally informed by the outer world, how do the circulating ideas and established principles of exchange affect the vulnerable human that is constantly seeking secure conditions in which to act? The first part of the thesis is thus in a sense put in dialectical relation with the second part; the wider ecological, social and cultural world is put into discourse with the individual who is part of it to understand how the individual’s actions then feed back into the wider world, all in the context of climate change and action in its regard. Key sociological thinkers like Anthony Giddens work side by side with Karl Marx and critical theory, which, with insights from psychological literatures, are brought together by insights from Ernest Becker. These figures inform my discussion on the role of fear, the pursuit of security and the aspiration of a life project of meaning in the individual’s action on climate change. The second part of the thesis works towards an imagining of an individual platform of action, described as dialectical place, where security is maintained and from where action emerges.
40 Chapter 2 Humans-in-nature: Security through interdependence
The Australian bushfires bring into relief the ongoing human relation with ecosystems. Relation with things like air and water, particles and animals, soil and crops, all become clear through their disruption. Such events also reveal the individual’s relations with other people, including figures of authority from the state or civil society, corporate entities, scientific institutions, or people within a closer circle – family members, friends and community connections. Such relations may be described, in line with Ollman (1976:52), as descriptive of ‘the language of dialectic’. Ollman (1976:53) examines Marx and Engels’ dialectic description of an internal relation between nature and society involving interconnected bodies that ‘react on one another’, and the mutual reaction that ‘constitutes motion’ (Engels 2010:363). The purpose of this chapter is to examine the various dimensions of dialectical relation, which involves the interdependence of ‘things’ functioning through spatio-temporal ties with other ‘things’, including humans with physical and social needs (Ollman 1971:26), in order to better conceive the human-to-rest-of- nature relation and elevate its relational aspect from its underacknowledged status.
The bushfires illustrate that though climate change is distantiated from daily experience for many, people in both affluent or less affluent contexts are increasingly experiencing its consequences in their daily lives. They thus become aware of a greater whole of which they are a part. My later focus is on how these relations are revealed sociologically within the human field through the creation and disruption of predictable frames and shared reality (Giddens 1991:36), which exist as taken-for-granted expectations that come from the experiences and activities of living beings. This chapter provides an initial context for imagining the human animal interacting with a broader interconnected field. I argue that though underacknowledged, the dimensions of dialectical relation and interdependence constitute a narrative about what brings security, and are critical to understanding and resolving the current crisis of climate change. It is the first of two overarching narratives I want to highlight over the next three chapters.
By considering two conceptions of the relation between humans and nature, I ask if each narrative tends towards a life-sustaining or life-denying trajectory, and thus if they present a
41 narrative offering a pathway to pursue what is sometimes described as a ‘good’ or a flourishing life. This chapter illustrates with literatures a dialectics that humans participate in, namely a process of continuous relation within the web of life. As many social and environmental theoretical approaches draw on Marx to understand the eco-social ‘metabolism’, the chapter follows a Marxian focus on ‘the complex interconnections between society and nature’ (Foster, Clark & York 2010:216), drawing on Marx’s notion of metabolism and alienation as entry points to deeper understanding of the human animal as a part of nature. I give an overview of ecologically-focused theoretical approaches that decentre the human and elevate nature as the active force, representing a coproduced web of life. By counterposing Marx/Engels’ dialectical discussion with descriptions of the human within nature from literatures of deep ecology, historical materialism and new materialism, the chapter reveals the process of struggle within what constitutes an interdependent world while considering the qualities and ideas indicating security for a vulnerable actor that accompany interdependent exchanges.
The second part of the chapter demonstrates a world of interdependence by considering the disrupted interdependencies revealed by Marx in Capital (1979), human rights discourses, and interdependencies revealed in alternate epistemologies. The literatures contextualise the predicament the individual faces as an open dialectical being, meaning there is constant adjustment necessary in relation to personal security. I contemplate the concept of struggle and the exchanges constituting dialectical relation that occur in the notions of symbiosis and politics to demonstrate the idea of dialectical exchange that arises in the struggle for life. I am interested to discover if the relations discussed in the literatures and witnessed in the web of life constitute a broad humans-in-nature narrative that sees interdependent humans connected to and part of living systems that can provide nourishment and safety. This narrative contrasts with a humans- over-nature narrative, considered in chapter three, generated from Western enlightenment thinking and modernity’s promise of advancement, a conception that sees humans as separate to nature, and nature as a resource to be exploited for human benefit. The conception of the human animal in each narrative provides a theoretical backdrop and context through which to explore the individual’s pursuit of a good and meaningful life while simultaneously trying to maintain security, and these dimensions are related to the situation of climate change humans are now confronting.
2.1 Dialectical relation: an ongoing web-of-life discourse
The situation of climate change described in chapter one vividly depicts the systems that humans are bound with, and how dependent we are on them for our survival. Engels describes
42 the continuous interconnected interaction of interdependent relations, where the constant movement and change of things means that ‘nothing remains what, where and as it was’ (Engels 1947:26-27), and climate change demonstrates that the ideal living conditions humans benefit from ought not be taken for granted. In Marx and Engel’s relational approach, the dialectic involves relationships ‘between different entities’ within an organic but interrelated whole with a complex of internal relations between ostensible parts; things are ‘moments in their own development in, with, and through other things’ in ‘an endless maze of relations and interactions’ in a stream of change (Ollman 1971:52, 53-54, 131). In this reading, the entities within the web-of-life dialectic include those within the relations of capitalism, which are themselves bound up with nature. For instance, in fossil fuel extraction, considered through the example of fracking soon below, we see the fossil fuel entrepreneurs, their workers, the local humans, flora and fauna of a given site, the citizens of a given country, the water table in a given area, the water, sand and chemicals used in the process, and so on. While there is dynamism between each of these interacting human and nonhuman ‘parts’, they also change within themselves – corporations have their own dynamism, as do worker collectives, as do nonhuman ecologies, and so do human animals (Ollman 1971:52). Their interaction considered through the Marxian materialist and dialectical approach follows a tradition which recognises ‘that nature includes processes that operate on their own terms and that have no inherent “purpose”. At the same time, this tradition recognises that the production of human society involves a constant interaction with the natural world, which involves a continual transformation of nature and society’ (Foster, Clark & York 2010:262).
Foster, Clark & York (2010:215) note a division in Marxist traditions in how to approach the relation between humans and the rest of nature, where Western Marxism leaned on a ‘historical- cultural frame of analysis focusing on human praxis that excluded non-human nature’, but Marx’s dialectical and materialist approach imagined an ‘ultimate unity between nature and society, constituting a single reality and requiring a single science’. This unity is important, I feel, in understanding the anthropogenic causes of climate change. Important for me is the question – in a dialectical materialist vision, is the transformation of the natural world ultimately life-affirming or life-denying?
We know that Marx was responding to Hegel, who describes a dialectic that reveals contradictions to be part of a struggle, a constantly improving march toward an Absolute reality or ‘truth’ (Hegel 1977:187). Marx (1988:141-145) criticises Hegelian idealism while seeing value in the dialectical notions therein. Both Hegel and Marx explore dialectical human striving towards greater freedom, though each had their own views on what human freedom means (Swain 2012:18-32). Marx and Engels see more of a non-linear potentiality for development
43 rather than the more linear Hegelian claim, they see a ‘spiral form of development’ where ‘progress is not uniform or free of all retarding effects and influences’ (Engels 2010:313; Ollman 1971:57), which provides for regressions like the life-denying direction that climate change is taking. For this reason I am considering principles that guide material and symbolically-motivated exchanges in the two overarching narratives under consideration, viewing them as influencing whether the outcomes of struggle tend towards life-sustaining or life-denying outcomes, not in terms of an either/or outcome but in terms of an ongoing struggle that sees some principles prevail over others at given moments. By ‘principle’ I mean something considered as a fundamental truth or a founding proposition for a system of belief or behaviour (Lexico 2020b).
The Australian bushfires illustrate the dialectical exchanges that I am emphasising; between humans and the rest of nature and within aggregate human groups. Individuals, groups, communities, civil society, and governments struggled with the rest of nature, but also struggled over what justly and equitably ensures life. The struggle manifests variably: as antagonistic – for instance, the Cobargo residents telling the Prime Minster to piss off; or amicable, illustrated by the impacted communities nevertheless sharing resources and collaborating to overcome the bushfire threat. Or on a meta level there are corporate forces driving business-as-usual production and consumption of fossil fuels which leads to harsher climates, while social movements collaborate and struggle against this force. In contexts of climate change debate – international forums on climate change like the UNFCCC climate conferences, national deliberations on fossil fuel subsidies, local governments funding ‘green’ infrastructure projects, or debates between individuals themselves – there is an ever-present underlying tension of struggle that connects with symbolic assessments of the action’s life-sustaining or life-denying qualities for the respective parties.
I thus next consider the idea of agonistic struggle to illustrate that different tendencies are possible, for instance aggressive competition with accompanying principles, or mutual recognition with accompanying principles. I place the latter possibility of mutuality within a narrative that sees humans as a part of nature, and that humans can flourish when the principles that align with a vision of interdependent mutuality result in life-sustaining relation.
2.2 A dialectics of struggle
As mentioned in chapter one, Darwin (1859:60) lays out a vision of ‘the conditions of the struggle for existence’ within the complex evolutionary interrelations underway within ecology.
44 Since human animals are a part of the web of life, the idea of struggle, applied to broader group dynamics as well as the individual, exposes principles and ideas guiding the exercise of power. To struggle can involve ‘forceful or violent efforts’ and conflict, but can equally involve striving ‘to achieve or attain something in the face of difficulty or resistance’ (Lexico 2020c). Striving to attain something in the face of difficulty need not be competitive; it allows for struggle to include qualities like dignity, love and compassion, qualities that Nussbaum (2001a:711-712) sees can be part of political exchanges in relations between people, for instance. Vulnerability and dependence equally demonstrate both the potential of powerlessness and loss of agency, or the exercise of power through an agent applying mutuality and care (Mackenzie et al. 2013:5, 13). Indeed, dialectical struggle may involve a spectrum between aggression and compassion, and a mix of self-interest and cooperation. Humans develop varying individual and group notions of equitable distribution of commons, but exchanges within the shared space involve a struggle in determining the distribution. The type of struggle (Greek agon) is important. As may occur within a family, an agonistic tension can unfold through empathetic, non-violent, cooperative struggle. Equally, struggle may unfold otherwise through potentially violent and contentious competition.
In the general notion of a Darwinian struggle for existence, the tension reflected in ‘agon’ raises a question regarding the nature of a struggle for existence, namely if it is cooperative or competitive, if it tends toward construction or destruction. Though often associated with a ‘might makes right’ worldview, Nietzsche is instructive in this regard. Nietzsche (2006:95-100) sees no separation between humanity and nature, arguing that both ‘natural’ and ‘human’ characteristics ‘have grown together inextricably’. Turning to the ancient ‘humane’ Greeks for a broad model of existence, Nietzsche argues that in Hellenic life competition was vital to the well-being of society, and through the context of struggle, renewal and growth were ensured through a constant ‘new contest of powers’ that developed talent through struggle. In this sense, the struggle was constructive; avoiding the cruel destructive intent, it was the opposite of a ‘pre- Homeric abyss of a gruesome savagery of hatred and pleasure in destruction’ that was devoid of these constructive notions of the contest in Greek life (Nietzsche 2006:99). According to Deleuze (1962:6-10), Nietzsche sees a plurality of forces, ‘acting and being affected’, and life struggling ‘with another kind of life’, but rejects dialectical reasoning for its negative element, substituting ‘negation, opposition or contradiction’ with ‘the practical element of difference, the object of affirmation and enjoyment’. Essentially, Nietzsche opposes the dialectical ‘no’, preferring ‘affirmation to dialectical negation’ or joy and enjoyment to dialectical labour (Deleuze 1962:6-10). Wong (2011:198-199) argues that Nietzsche’s conception of ‘agon’ highlights striving for excellence in ‘the relational nature of the individual’.
45 I think Nietzsche describes a picture of outcomes with the potential for flourishing. Whether involving aggression and competition, or mutuality and construction, agonistic struggle occurs within the pursuit of a flourishing life. Aristotle3 provides an early imagining of a ‘good life’ that still shapes Western associations of realising full human potentiality. He imagines a life of eudaimonia – where the individual can live according to one’s nature, with the capacity and freedom to pursue a ‘good’ or ‘flourishing life’ of constructive activities, lived and done well in social cooperation (Aristotle 1996:5; Nussbaum 1986:318). Aristotle’s conceptualisation influenced Western enlightenment principles regarding what is needed for a comprehensive ideal of well-being in ‘the full range of human life and action’ (Nagel 1972:252). Beyond Aristotle, Huta (2013:207-208) shows similar conceptualisations in Western philosophical traditions and religious traditions in the East and the West that involve ‘eudaemonia as a way of behaving’, which includes inter alia notions like excellence, authenticity, autonomy, and engagement, and ‘eudaemonia as a form of well-being’, including a life of meaning, awe, connection, and fulfillment. These conceptions imply a dialectics of struggle in an overall life- sustaining trajectory that produces a flourishing life.
In the context of struggle, an alternate vision with an eco-centric rather than human-centric focus from the environmental humanities sees flourishing as a broader fulfilment of emerging life. In the setting of ‘multispecies entanglements’, Ginn et al. (2014:113-114) imagine flourishing as ‘an ethic which enshrines life’s emergence and the prospects or conditions for life’s emergence as the good to be upheld or nurtured’. In this view, a life has an opportunity to fulfil itself, with the surrounding conditions supporting the possibility of that outcome. Within human-to-animal relations, for instance, animals can flourish when the immediate environment and surrounding human stewardship practices consider the interdependencies that encourage their health (Green & Ginn 2014:167). This interdependent conception of flourishing offers alternate ways to see ‘the valuable unfolding’ (Cuomo 1998:77) of living beings in the web of life, but includes an element of ‘constitutive violence’ to flourishing, in that flourishing may at times reflect the struggle of ‘many species knotted together…working with and against other multispecies assemblies’ during the struggle for life ‘in processes of becoming’ (Ginn 2014:115; Haraway 2008). This destructive element is seen in ‘flourishing’ algal blooms or ‘thriving’ economic markets.
These varied imaginings of flourishing, including their destructive potentialities, illustrate that dialectic relation is not so much an idealistic march leading to an ultimate vision of
3 Aristotle’s vision is limited as it excludes many individuals (women, children, people of a lower socio- economic bracket etc.), yet illustrates a historical imagining of flourishing 46 emancipation, but that an agonistic struggle towards flourishing may equally produce life- denying results, as is the situation with climate change. So is it human attitudes and ideas within agonistic web-of-life relations that affect the outcome? Through the foundational ideas in this chapter and the next I hope to demonstrate that human action will manifest outcomes according to the principles relied upon that are drawn from the surrounding lifeworld. Web-of-life exchanges would then oscillate according to dominant principles, either tending towards constructive encounter and struggle, which can shape space in a mutually life-sustaining direction, or towards destructive encounter and struggle involving aggressive, purely self- interested and competitive exchange ultimately tending towards life-denying outcomes. Thinking about this in terms of symbiotic interaction helps inform this idea.
Symbiotic relations are an example of life-sustaining and life-denying dialectical potentialities. Symbiosis describes a process involving ‘the close association of members of at least two different species of organism’ in the case of organisms in an ecosystem (Allard 1996:42). Symbiosis is seen in numerous natural relationships interacting within a ‘web of complexity’, like the symbiotic relationship humans have with bacteria and microorganisms (Rothenberg 1987:186; Yukalov et al. 2014:1). A complex system of symbiotic relations connects all organisms in the Earth’s ecosystem, with mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism being the traditionally symbiotic forms. Of these three, only in mutualism do ‘both species benefit from the association’ in a mutually life-sustaining way, whereas in commensalism ‘one species benefits,’ though ‘the other is neither harmed nor benefited’, but with parasitism ‘one species benefits and the other is harmed’ (Allard 1996:42). The point being that in mutualism, relationships are mutually sustaining, whereas in parasitism one robs the other of sustenance (Allard 1996:42).
In the context of the anthropocene and given that humans currently consume at a rate which is roughly the equivalent of 1.75 earths per year, the current relation overall resembles parasitism, though in the end humans are also harmed, while life-sustaining mutualism is the kind of relationship needed to maintain an environment conducive to human life. In the climate crisis mutualism is lacking, and other principles and attitudes (discussed in chapter three) command the trajectory. Of course, the relational aspect is complex. Political theorist Jane Bennett, known for work on nature ethics, captures what I think is an important image of the vital materiality of terrestrial life as ‘a swarm of competing ends being pursued simultaneously in each individual, some of which are healthy to the whole, some of which are not’ (Bennett 2010:12). Identifying ideas and principles that influence the general human ‘end’ may reveal how actions have led to the life-denying trajectory of climate change. Humans need a life-sustaining relation, yet climate change demonstrates a life-denying one. This predicament involves another
47 manifestation of dialectics in the form of political struggle around how commons are shared, so what is the quality of political struggle?
Imagining the potential for constructive exchanges, Arendt (2005:130) distinguishes politics from violence in her treatment of agonistic struggle, namely an agreement to argue rationally and avoid violence though not removing the need for conflict, echoed by Honig (1993:2) in her treatment of displaced politics, as she considers alternatives that celebrate agonistic conflict rather than allowing it to be displaced. A social manifestation of the political form of ‘agon’ is illustrated in Marx’s (1979:344) description of the tension within class relations, which critical theorist Craig Browne (2017:3) describes as expressing ‘dialectics of control’, in the sense of ‘conflictual relations of interdependency’, such as those in capitalism’s historical role of shaping responses through institutional modifications. An agonistic exchange can similarly be observed in Polanyi’s (1957:136) ‘double movement’ between a market continually expanding into the commons, and a social reaction to protect erosion of the stabilities provided by the commons. Again, there is a contrast of struggles, either involving mutualistic aims despite conflict, as per Arendt and Honig, or antagonistic aims like those of class struggle, as per Marx and Polanyi. The ‘struggle’ plays out according to which ideas and attitudes prevail in the given context, and this often comes down to power.
Political struggles are layered with the presence of legitimised and illegitimate exercises of power and/or violence (Lukes 2005:32-34; Parsons 1963:237). The political struggle around climate change revolves around humans realising the implications of interdependence demonstrated in the category of ‘the anthropocene’, and acting on them. The anthropocene reveals whether the legitimised and illegitimate exercises of power and/or violence on the web of life by states and corporations have produced security, and the result of climate change reveals it hasn’t. Within the anthropocene a dialectical struggle in many directions can be observed – among humans and between humans and the rest of nature. The example of fracking illustrates this ongoing agonistic struggle in a context of interconnected and interdependent systems, and the various interactions at play.
Fracking is a process involving ‘high-volume hydraulic fracturing’ and drilling by large energy corporations, such as the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association or ExxonMobil in the US, to extract fossil fuels like oil and gas. While these fossil fuels are exploited to provide energy to sustain life, the process to do so has the ‘potential to adversely impact human health, environment, and water resources, with uncertainty about impacts’ (Aczel & Makuch 2017:1). Extracting energy through fracking is also potentially life-denying because it impacts surface and groundwater systems, pollutes the air (in the short term, and long-term
48 through GHG emissions), and degrades land which in turn affects fauna habitats (Aczel & Makuch 2017:2-4). The ecological consequences of this dialectical engagement can include induced seismicity or impacts on life systems. In such circumstances, intrusion into complex systems disregards dimensions of threat and uncertainty of ‘the precautionary principle’ (Sandin 1999:889), a principle outlined in the UNFCCC (1992:4) that stipulates measures must be taken to anticipate, prevent or minimise causes of climate change. In this instance where the principle of mutualism is lacking, it is as if the nonhuman part of nature ‘speaks’ in response to the human disregard of mutual care in the exchange. When the ecological and health consequences are cognitively or physically understood and felt, those who are not pursuing a pecuniary advantage through exploitation will ‘agonistically’ react – anxiety raises community insecurity and demands to halt fracking, while those pursuing profit will resist such calls. Dialectical relation thus produces not only environmental, but human social responses in the form of a ‘political’ reactive struggle over commons, illustrated by calls to impose moratoria on fracking in New York and California, or in the Australian Northern Territory in 2016, and the commensurate resistance to regulations by fracking companies that wish to exploit nature in their own capitalist fight for survival (Aczel & Makuch 2017:4; Marx 1979:748). Depending on the principles applied, the outcome of the struggle can tend towards life-denying or life- sustaining results.
Though there may be shared agency in what the agonistic relation produces (Moore 2015:37), the human difference in focus here is the organising around both material resources like fossil fuel or other natural ‘goods’ drawn from nature, and symbolic ideas that promise survival and security. Also relevant are the disregarded principles that otherwise deliver security – trust, mutuality and care being examples. Fracking manifests agonistic struggle whose outcome may be life-sustaining or life-denying depending on, inter alia, how the relation with nature is imagined, the principles and ideas that govern relation, and how the consequent struggle develops. For corporate entities, investors and shareholders, fracking represents growth, advancement and profit, for impacted local residents it represents a threat by the poisoning of waterways and land, and destruction of habitats. Agonism is found in the symbolic interaction that occurs within the human animal in relation with the world, along with different coalescing power within the relation. The promise of a good and secure life for me is key – the symbolism it holds for the human animal, and how it resonates with the fear and anxiety of the struggle. Fracking falls under the umbrella of human actions prompting climate change, and the dialectical exchanges that include the human animal’s response therein. A greater picture of the process of dialectical relation between humans and the rest of nature is necessary to appreciate the interdependence involved in processes like fracking, so I shall further consider dialectical
49 relation pertaining to the humans-in-nature narrative, which also contextualises the individual’s participation therein.
2.3 The human within the web of life
Conscious observation of natural surroundings has long made the nonhuman world’s intrinsic or instrumental value, its ethical importance, and finite or infinite state the subject of philosophical debate. ‘Formal and systematic’ ecological study is traced in the West to ancient Greece around the third/fourth century B.C. (Kormondy 2012:441). Deriving from the Greek oikos, ‘ecology’ describes a ‘branch of knowledge concerned with the community of nature and unceasing interaction between its components … [namely its] biological units – plants, animals and men… [and] the physical and chemical elements of the air, earth and water”] (Hagen 1972:3). The Stoics imagined a ‘logos’, or complete, interconnected and stable world, constituting time and space which required humans to live harmoniously with the logos according to nature and its laws. Contemporary scientific investigation reveals logos-type interconnectedness in bonds between a species and its community (Dobson 1995:40), and thus humans can be understood as part of a ‘network of energy and material continuously flowing into the community from the surrounding physical environment and back out, and then on round to create the perpetual ecosystem cycles on which our existence depends’ (Wilson 2003:11). This interconnectedness enables human survival. Yet the understanding of the human/nature relation since early Greek imaginings has from the vision of a unity inclusive of humans where life is coproduced (Coole & Frost 2010:33), to nature seen as separate to humans, and as merely a resource to dominate and control (Jonas 2001:34). So how did humans become separated from the unity of nature?
In Marx and Engels’ discussion on dialectics, Engels’ (1947:30) reflection on ‘nature at large or the history of mankind’ describes ‘an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, [permutations and combinations,] in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away’. However, from Democritus of the 5th century B.C. to Descartes (1596-1650) a scientific effort to understand has relied on atomistic descriptions of substances, with the idea that ‘the way to knowledge is to separate substances and events into their ultimate components and reactions’ (DuBois 1968:27). Engels argues that in an effort to get details, the dialectical outlook dating back to ancient Greece, was disrupted by trying to examine processes in isolation, breaking up interconnections and classifying them, for which he points to Francis Bacon and John Locke among the instigators that brought ‘the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole’ from the natural sciences to philosophy (Engels 1947:31).
50 Despite this deviation, the writings in the formalised study of ecology in ancient Greece inspired naturalists in the 18th and 19th century, Darwin and von Humboldt among them, to re- envision interconnectedness (Kormondy 2012:441). As a contemporary of Darwin, Marx also made important contributions to understanding human relation with the rest of nature. One way he does this through his concept of social metabolism. Social metabolism describes a complex interaction between human beings and the earth, dynamically shaping matter and energy to deal with ‘nature-imposed conditions’ in the struggle for life, which supports Marx’s theory of alienation exploring the deleterious effects of capitalist production on human beings (Marx 1979:290; 637-638).
For Marx (1979:199, 637-638) social metabolism is seen within the labour process in the ‘complex, dynamic interchange’ between humans and nature. Marx observes the new economic system of capitalism generating modes of production, each of which creates ‘a particular social metabolic order that determines the interchange between society and nature’ (Foster, Clark & York 2010:75). He witnessed the consequences of change resulting from modernity and enlightenment, a period of great flux and of historical relevance. As the use of fossil fuel accelerated, the human impact on Earth – the effect of an increasing number of consuming individuals in the dialectical relation – becomes significant (Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2014:27). The conceptualisation of a nature/society separation strengthens as industrialisation grows in the nineteenth century, despite the actuality of an ever-present ‘material metabolism between the two’ (Urry 2011:50). This conceptual separation, importantly, justifies the exploitation of what is interdependent without considering the consequences of its interdependence.
The cumulative disruption of nature’s ecological and social interdependent bonds that arises from seeing the world as a separable and infinite resource for humans to exploit was not immediately apparent. This is partly because of the resilience of ‘thick’ bonds of interdependence in both ecological and social systems (nature) and their latent capacity to deal with the intrusive exploitation, which have provided a capacity to tolerate destructive practices until now. For instance, the ocean’s capacity to store excess heat and be a ‘repository of the Earth’s energy imbalance’ (Cheng et al. 2020:137; IPCC 2018) has concealed disruptions caused by excessive carbon emissions. The disruption of interdependent processes could proceed because the cognitive gap in understanding about these interdependent bonds persisted even into the 20th century.
However, contributions like those from biologist and conservationist Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) began to dialectically puncture human awareness about human impacts on the rest of nature, and brought a rapid increase in consciousness of the human effects on the natural
51 variations of Earth’s systems. Growing ecological understanding, which demonstrates ‘an ecological worldview that emphasises interaction and connectedness’ (Kreller & Golley 2000:1- 2), has changed how humans imagine themselves in nature. As already mentioned, the category of ‘the anthropocene’ reveals the dialectical relations underway as humans act within nature, showing that from the beginning of the industrial revolution, human exploitation of land, forests and fossil fuels is responsible for manifold interacting effects that change Earth’s environment on an unparalleled scale, coinciding with scientific data demonstrating accelerating increases of GHG emissions (NASA 2018; Crutzen 2002:23). This awareness prompted a theoretical reengagement with ecology as a focus.
Deep ecology is a green philosophical approach and social movement that emerges from the dialectical punctures of human awareness that come in relation to the effects of the anthropocene. In the 1970s Arne Naess (1973:95) and George Sessions (1974:79) introduce principles for guiding human-to-rest-of-nature relations. In deep ecology the human is decentered to give other ecological life forms the same moral standing as humans, with the principles of well-being, diversity and symbiosis, used to imagine an egalitarian terrestrial life project (Mathews 2001:218; Naess 1995:68; Eckersley 1992). The deep ecology approach views the world in ways that maintain a sense of systemic holistic interdependence (Dobson 1995:44). For instance, in the Gaia hypothesis, Gaia refers to the Earth as a living organism that comprises an intricate self-regulating system, ‘a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil’ that in its totality is a feedback system of internal relations seeking an ideal physical and chemical ecosystem for life on earth (Lovelock 2000:10). Deep ecology emphasises the de-centering human dominance, and emphasises nature’s subtle and interconnected complexity (Foster, Clark & York 2010:260).
Accordingly, deep ecologist regard environmental movements as belonging to a different intellectual, though still environmental, camp. Unlike deep ecology’s ecocentrism or ‘life- centred’ methodology, the alternate camp is seen as ‘human-centred’ because, it is argued, it adopts a mechanistic, a technocentric focus tainted by anthropocentrism, instrumentally focusing on issues that have an effect on human quality of life (like overpopulation, pollution or conservation) rather than a deeper philosophy, thus having ‘shallow’ rather than ‘deep’ ecology methodologies (Capra 1995:20; Naess 1995:67; Madsen 2020). The social sciences have reflected this resort to technological solutions for environmental problems through ideas such as ‘green capitalism’ (Beck 2009:34). Still, all ‘deep’ or ‘shallow’ ecology approaches acknowledge the act of separation as an errant step, with political ecologists continuing to target ‘those forms of thought that “split things up”’ (Naess 1995:68; Dobson 1995:38). The environmental humanities reflect an ecocentric approach when acknowledging pre-modern
52 notions that see ‘Nature and Culture’ as ‘mutually embedded categories’, and the powerful narrative of deep ecology that looks at climate change beyond simple scientific terms, symbolically connecting it to a sense of loss and human diminishing (Holm et al. 2015; Hulme 2009:344; Emmett & Nye 2017). Again, these efforts recognise the need to recalibrate perspectives by acknowledging the reality of humans-in-nature interdependence.
New materialist literatures draw on cultural studies, which consider human and nonhuman associations, assemblages, networks, or cyborg and other hybrids (Haraway 1987:1-2; Latour 2004:16; Descola 2013:86). However, new materialist approaches seek to address the persistent nature/society divide and the ‘hubristic’ faith in modernity (LeCain 2015:4) that lies in assumptions of human power. They deemphasise human power by challenging modernity’s ideas of human superiority over inorganic matter, nonhuman organisms or ‘to the Earth as a whole’ (Coole & Frost 2010:2, 59; Bennett 2010:10) and Cartesian duality of humans as separate to nature (LeCain 2013:2). LeCain (2015:4,8) argues this is achieved by reallocating power as coproduced and understanding that ‘humans derive much of what we like to think of as our power, intelligence, and creativity, from the material things around us’, making human processes as natural as any other natural process. All these approaches affirm the reality of humans as a part of nature, and ground the accompanying narrative that security is achieved if human action accords with such understanding.
Two significant approaches that have grappled with how to describe the effects of human power in the dialectical relation come from Foster, Clark & York’s (2010) The ecological rift, and Jason Moore’s (2015) Capitalism in the web of life. Foster, Clark & York (2010:340) argue that environmental sociology has too strongly embraced ‘social constructionism/idealism’ and neglected to develop a sociology of ecology ‘rooted in realism/materialism’. In an extensive critique of capitalism Foster, Clark & York (2010:46, 242) develop Marx and Engel’s ‘concept of socio-ecological metabolism’ and critique of the ‘alienation of nature’ and ‘alienation of humanity under capitalism’. They (2010:14-18) see the significance of the anthropocene and argue that the transgression of three planetary boundaries – climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss, as pointed out by Rockström et al. (2009:473), and later Lenton et al. (2019:593) – constitute ‘an extreme “rift” in the planetary system’ associated with the anthropocene era that represents ‘a potential terminal event in geological evolution that could destroy the world as we know it’. Moore, however, finds prioritising the anthropocene problematic.
Moore points to a conception that was already underway, that of ‘Nature’ and ‘Society’, when the exploitation of natural resources, like fossil fuels in England’s coal revolution of the 1500s,
53 propelled colonial expeditions of ‘early capitalism’ to exploit what Moore describes as ‘Cheap Nature’, the unpaid labour and exploited energy of slaves, women, and natural resources (Moore 2017:181, 191-192). Moore (2015:172-173) argues that restricting the critique of capitalism to the historical period of the anthropocene neglects ‘the relations of power, capital, and nature that rendered fossil capitalism so deadly in the first place’, relations that arose with the earlier rise of capitalist civilisation after 1450. For Moore, to erase these early origins of capitalism is to misunderstand how to respond to the crisis.
Consequently, Moore (2015:28, 171) critiques the category of the anthropocene as having a fundamental Cartesian dualism at its core, which creates a problematic distinction between nature and society, thereby separating what is ‘bundled’ together and fragmenting an ‘understanding of power, exploitation, work and liberation’. He applies this critique to environmental sociologist, ecosocialists, the social sciences, and ecological thought broadly, inclusive of Foster, Clark and York’s account of dialectical materialism and metabolic rift (Moore 2015:3-6). While praising Foster, Clark and York’s dialectical insights, Moore (2015:47, 75-76) thinks metabolism-based studies overlook the interactive aspects of dialectical relationality, thus limiting, and even hardening rather than bridging, the nature/society divide. But is distinguishing between nature and society by way of abstraction in the manner of Foster, Clark & York dualistic?
Foster (in Angus 2016) defends the expansion of Marx’s concept of metabolic rift, outlining an important account of dialectics in the process, saying:
dialectics is all about the mediation of totality, the process that both separates and unites individuals and society, humanity and nature, parts and wholes. The social metabolism in Marx’s theory stands for the human role as a self-mediating being of nature through production. We focus on the separation of humanity and nature, on the degradation of natural processes and life, because that is the concrete reality of society, life and nature under the current alienated system of production, capitalism.
I feel Foster’s point about mediation is important. One thing all of the above approaches do is speak to the clear embeddedness of humans within and as a part of nature. They are all foundational in countering a discourse of separation that undermines interdependence. However, to understand what mediates the dialectical relation of nature’s totality, I see value in focusing on (while not elevating) the individual human element bound within the operation of dialectical relation in order to avoid overlooking what I argue are crucial mediating aspects in the relation, and I feel this complements both Foster, Clark & York, and Moore’s approaches,
54 and indeed all the above ecological approaches seeking to avoid ‘splitting things up’. To understand the effects of human relation with the rest of nature, focusing on the individual’s pursuit of security and a meaningful life, the reflex for self-preservation (Rousseau 1761:168) and the need to manage anxiety, deepens the view of the interwoven aspect of humans in the broader struggle for life, a matter I take up in the second part of the thesis. It is an effort to acknowledge particular elements of ‘the active power in human beings’, their vital materiality as one of the multitudes of vital material bodies shaping the web of life (Bennett 2010:11-13). So, while de-centering human dominance is crucial, a deepened understanding of some active elements that accompany human action further informs a humans-in-nature imagining.
Indeed, de-centering the human is an important reaction to the human elevation in the instrumentally rational thinking of modernity and the enlightenment. Green political theory is part of a broader enlightenment critique, challenging modernisation’s depiction of progress and the embedded taken-for-granted background that came with it. Critiques of capitalism and enlightenment were a key part of Frankfurt school critical theory, which built on Marx to problematise the domination and exploitation of human and nonhuman natures (Eckersley 2007:251). Horkheimer and Adorno criticise the penetration of enlightenment instrumental reasoning into the human and nonhuman domain. For instance, they critique enlightenment thinking’s mathematisation of nature, a separating act that treats nature as something that needs to be subjugated and mastered in or order to give humans a sense of control, requiring humans to ‘distance themselves from nature in order to arrange it in such a way that it can be mastered’ (Horkheimer & Adorno 2002:19, 25, 31). Habermas follows that tradition, though more optimistically, arguing that the aberrations of the project of modernity can be learnt from (1997:51) and instrumental rationality can be kept in check through critical deliberation (1976:118). These principles are the subject of the next chapter.
For now, the survey of literatures above illustrates an overarching narrative that rejects human centrality and recognises a humans-in-nature reality. However, these can be contextualised in a broader conceptualisation of the relation humans are part of, namely the situation of interconnectedness and interdependence. Seeing the individual within the context of interdependence helps explain the security achieved through interdependence and how vulnerability and systemic dependence could thus influence the human animal’s action. It is an underacknowledged story about what delivers predictable frames for individual action. The next section accordingly provides examples of the constant condition of interconnectedness and interdependence within which the individual constantly navigates, despite a narrative that seeks to selectively supress its reality.
55 2.4 An interconnected and interdependent dialectical reality – evidence through fractured relation
Above I have considered literatures emphasising the human and nonhuman relations in dialectical tension that involve interactive exchanges shaping the web of life. The individual is constantly implicated in such dialectical exchanges and subsequent changes because of the reality of interconnection and interdependence. How can the latter be defined? While some eastern and western imaginaries see the boundaries between human and nonhuman as ‘blurred or even non-existent’ (Davis et al. 2009:174), bioethicists Beever & Morar (2017:21) describe interconnectedness as ‘a set of causal relations’ whereas ‘interdependence or co-constitution captures a qualitatively distinct mode of determination that is spatiotemporally inclusive, mutually dependent, and normatively driven’. Interconnectedness can thus be thought about as a structural reality, an organised system of attachment which might, but does not necessarily mean that an effect on one part will affect another part of the system. Interdependence, however, more closely implies that the connection is not only recognised and felt, that one part or person of the interconnected relation needs the other in some way to maintain a secure locus, and that an effect (positive or negative) on one part of the ‘web’ of interconnection affects the other dependent parts of that relation, though the term can include ‘a sense of relying on and being responsible for’ the other (Smith et al. 2007:340).
An example from Yellowstone National Park illustrates such interdependence and the potential for life-denying or life-sustaining outcomes in relation to what occurs through these fibres staying connected or being disrupted. It provides a snapshot of a perpetual process of encounter between entities in a shared space, with the potentiality of outcomes being both/either life- sustaining and/or life-denying. I am referring to what happens in an interdependent ecological process known as trophic cascades, which involve powerful but indirect interactions that can regulate entire ecosystems (Steneck 2012:7953). These occur ‘when predators limit the density and/or behavior of their prey and thereby enhance survival of the next lower trophic level’ (Silliman & Angelini 2012:44), illustrated by what happened when wolves were re-introduced into the Yellowstone National Park in 1995, after earlier having been largely eliminated by government predator control programs. While wolves clearly kill some animals, their presence within their natural habitat is life-sustaining overall. When wolves re-entered the habitat, flow- on effects began to occur – the deer changed grazing habits leading to regeneration of areas, which led to increases in birds and beavers, reptiles, amphibians, and many more small and large animals returned. Eventually entire river flows were altered in a life-sustaining manner as riverbanks were stabilised by new tree growth – all because of interdependent relations
56 managing complete ecosystems (Fortin et al. 2005:1320). This illustrates that while the struggle for life involves both life-sustaining and life-denying aspects, the overall trajectory can be determined by what elements affect the interconnected processes within the particular context. In Yellowstone, the wolves might be likened to a positive ‘principle’ within the mutual exchanges of that context that should not have been removed. When reintroduced, the overall struggle moves in a life-sustaining direction, correcting the life-denying trajectory the intrusion had resulted in.
The above relational exchanges may seem disconnected from the human exchanges within the issue of climate change. However, as vulnerable biological and social beings (Mackenzie et al. 2013:12), humans also meet their needs dialectically from the constantly unfolding relational flow in the web of life, and look for elements within the web of life that materially or symbolically promise to meet those needs. The interconnected relationality can be imagined as invisible ‘fibres’ that are activated as the individual refers to and exchanges with other people, things, and ideas in the world at large. While vulnerable humans have the capacity for self- determined agency (Mackenzie et al. 2013:13), the principles guiding that expressed agency lead towards life-denying and/or life-sustaining outcomes according to their composition within the exchange that conducts the flow.
The negative potential is not inconsequential. For instance, because of principles that have induced climate change, the Australian Great Barrier Reef faces destruction, along with an extensive coral reef ecosystem it is a part of that sustains over 500 million people throughout South East Asia, threatening food accessibility for millions of people (Barrie et al. 2015:20). Severed or altered fibres of interdependence within biospheric systems mean climate-related drought is becoming more severe and widespread in Australia, so farming communities have to manage drought spells ‘beyond their lived experience’, with serious negative consequences for mental and physical health and well-being (Department of Agriculture 2019:1-2). Further, disrupted interdependence has also resulted in massive losses in polar ice caps (Smith et al. 2009:4135; Irvali et al. 2020), and a climate-induced accelerated loss of biodiversity, species extinction and threatened ecosystems, which in Australia involves the loss of 60% of mammalian species (Ceballos et al. 2017:6093; Wilderness Society 2019:4). These are just some of the physical consequences. However, the dynamic interdependent web-of-life interchange also affects the potential of many people to pursue a good life in other ways.
The following section brings into relief socially-practiced but under-recognised interdependencies within the flow of human exchange. The principles of mutuality and care within these interdependencies ensure predictable frames that provide security for individual
57 navigation if applied. Before a comprehensive critique of capitalist principles in chapter three, a succinct precis of Marx’s Capital (1979) illustrates the breadth of interdependence and reveals latent aspects of social metabolism which become evident as capitalism generates an alienating metabolic rift that separates human and nonhuman nature. Then, I examine a specific ‘fibre’ of interdependence within the context of human rights discourses, namely the notion of dignity. Finally, I consider interdependencies in alternate epistemologies, which are instructive for their descriptions of principles of interdependence and mutuality that provide predictable frames conveying a safe and supportive path for the individual to follow. Using the word ‘disrupted’ highlights the taken-for-granted and unacknowledged mutuality that becomes apparent through the pain felt from disruption. The examples provide a contrast to the narrative considered in chapter three, which separates that which is mutually interdependent. They also show human dependence and vulnerability in action, which can highlight how relation in a world where these fibres are disrupted is more precarious and anxiety-inducing, with consequences on action considered in part two.
2.4.1 Marx and disrupted interdependencies of time and space
As capitalism accelerates, Marx observes distinct and novel disruptions of social processes that otherwise could function interdependently to facilitate the regeneration and/or continuance of human society. While pre-capitalist societies were plagued with their own destabilisations in the form of dispossession, conflict, and invasion (Sayer 1991:44-48), Marx (1979:290) critiques the effects of industrialised capitalist production during the 19th century, describing disruptions to the ‘purposeful activity’ of labour as ‘the universal condition for the metabolic interaction [Stoffwechsel] between man and nature’. Marx (1979:285) points to human interdependence with the rest of nature, with nature becoming ‘one of the organs’ of individual activity providing material stability and subsistence, purpose, and fulfilment. Indeed, throughout Capital, Marx (1979:131, 283, 285-286, 307 ft.) highlights the indivisible connections and interdependencies that facilitate the purpose, regeneration and continuance of humans which were threatened by capitalist disruptions.
For example, Marx (1979:341, 362) describes the need for time to rest, and for physical, mental and social nurturing, along with ‘the domestic and private life’ in familial interchange. Each of these relations has latent ligaments of constant connection with counterparts of engagement, interdependent exchanges requiring time and space for exchanges to occur, where mental and physical energies can be renewed. Marx shows that capitalist principles governing time and space take a toll on the mental and physical energies needed to enjoy intellectual potentialities,
58 creativity, education, capacity to develop, indeed one’s ‘living personality’, which constitute life-sustaining exchanges (Marx 1979:270-368, 375-376, 615-620, 797-799). The effects are connected to how the worker’s relation with time is structured (Marx 1979:375; Thompson 1967:60). As increased demands for ‘productivity’ shape time to the needs of production, less time is left for the worker to dedicate to the human needs vital to regenerate life forces. Control of people’s time, which comes when bare subsistence wages for labour compel people to work longer, has a negative impact on the intimate regenerative bonds constituted between an individual and time or space (Marx 1979:341-362, 375-376, 811-813). Time that is otherwise used for a range of intellectual development, social engagement, and rejuvenating ‘free play of the vital forces’ of mind and body is sacrificed at the altar of capitalist gain due to the worker’s dependence and vulnerability.
The relation Marx observes, between the individual and capitalist production, is relevant to the insecurity and alienation that results from such disruption. Interconnected bonds of enmeshed time, space, discourse and interchange with both social and biological counterparts, are all necessary for the development and continuance of a human being. Industrial capitalism usurps interdependencies of time and space by measuring productivity and profit against time use, and production workers had to internalise the time expectations (Hope 2016:19; Thompson 1967:60). Capitalism’s relentless demands deplete personal resources and destabilises the stable and predictable frames required to pursue a flourishing life. Marx (1979:187, 201-204, 344-416, 443-451, 518. Ft.39, 521 ft.46) demonstrates capitalism disrupting an intricate web of bonds of cooperation and mutuality related to the relational aspects of humans interacting with the rest of nature – the social process of production becomes atomistic and divided, a process that alienates connection with what is produced, and bonds between people at work and at home are interrupted . Consequently, Marx (1979:615-618, 285-286, 443) argues, the ‘security as far as the worker’s life-situation is concerned’ is undermined as human-to-human responsibility in the workplace is lost between employer and employee, worker-to-worker relations are stifled, and the complex bonded mix of mental, physical and social energies that create purposeful living is torn asunder. This consequently compromises the inherent stability purposeful living provides for individuals to pursue life projects.
This concise precis of what Marx witnessed highlights the interdependencies that capitalist principles like rationalising time and space disrupt. Due to vulnerability and dependence, the people he observes had little choice but to yield to capitalist structures if any hope of a future could be maintained, and capitalists were able to ignore principles of mutuality and care otherwise needed to make conditions secure. Marx’s critique reveals the interdependent fabric of daily life, and he demonstrates that disregarding interdependencies has serious consequences
59 for the individual. By focusing on what is disrupted, his examples demonstrate the security naturally present when principles of interdependence like mutuality and care are otherwise operative. This reality of what brings security remains underrepresented in daily affairs until it is disrupted. Ever-present but latent interdependencies are also revealed when human rights abuses bring them to the fore, considered next.
2.4.2 Disrupted interdependencies demonstrated through human rights discourses
There is a long history of human rights predating the post WWII so-called ‘universal human rights system’, both in Western thought through the Stoics up to Kant (Moyn 2014:366), and in Indigenous, Eastern, and other religious and cultural traditions and cosmologies. Figure 2.1 illustrates historical protection of what can be seen as juridical, civil, corporal, social and cultural principles of interdependence that empower individual freedoms.
Confucianism 16th century Indigenous /tribal Buddhism under humane Hindu Navajo traditions cosmologies have Siddhartha governance and movement considering value systems Gautama within Islamic founded by relationships safeguarding and promotes free traditions Al Krishna between the protecting the speech and Farabi promotes Chaitanya individual, the environment for religious self- promotes legal community and human and non- freedom the Earth determination equality and equality. human life
Figure 2.1 Alternate/historical human rights cosmologies
Here I consider the concept of dignity as a key invisible thread facilitating mutuality in interdependencies within this long history, and equally prominent in contemporary human rights discourse that aim to ensure justice and freedom. As Rosen’s historical analysis highlights, however, dignity is a complex term not easily categorised. For instance, dignity is deployed to mean an inviolable part of the human essence and worth, connected to human freedom and provoking restraint and mutual responsibility for the other (Rosen 2012:2-4). But it equally can simply refer to respect for another’s autonomy, a capacity to assert claims, or describe an aesthetic quality, like someone being dignified, that can be deployed in a contradictory way – for instance the Catholic Church’s belief that ‘dignity requires the inviolability of all life’ from conception to expiration, while the Swiss organisation Dignitas assists those who wish to ‘die with dignity’ (Rosen 2012-5-6). Such deployments indicate a lack of universality and inalienability.
60 Dignity for the thesis involves the conception of mutual human respect because of the intrinsic value of a human (Kant 2002:55-56), but extended to the nonhuman by virtue of connectedness and interdependence. This may manifest as something intangible and inalienable within human beings (Rosen 2012:9) that is practiced through behaving or being treated in a way that expresses respect for life with the duty of mutuality this implies. The principle of mutual dignity, though latent in relational exchange, binds the individual to the local, national, or international social body, and engenders self-esteem – an essential element of ontological security. Whether merely professed, or striven for and achieved, the concept of dignity is a foundation for both ‘soft’ customary and ‘hard’ juridical law.4
Amongst humans, dignity exemplifies mutualistic interdependence because we depend on the ‘other’ for it. Having dignity for all as an end in itself is a principle that facilitates constructive vulnerability where care is involved whereby each party responds to the other’s needs and facilitates the advancement of another’s own agency (Mackenzie et al. 2013:13). Whether it is through ‘positive’ enacted actions, or ‘negative’ restraint of action, as in positive and negative rights and duties, it is an act of mutual recognition (White & Perelman 2011). Dignity implies an equal human standing and a place for each person to live. Ignoring this principle results in insecurity, and injustice is felt when something prevents the opportunity to flourish. Hence, it is implied in modern institutional arrangements that reflect enlightenment ideals of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and the ‘natural, inalienable and sacred rights’ of ‘man’ (Hunt 2007:15-17).
Contemporary efforts at maintaining human dignity are seen in the goals of human rights discourses to protect political, civil, economic, and social rights. Aside from the aspirational goal to respect the ‘inherent dignity’ of all humanity in the key human rights documents, we can look to the Capabilities Approach, human development goals, and the ‘human security’ paradigm expressed through the Sustainable Development Goals seeking to provide dignified conditions of well-being (Nussbaum & Sen 1993; Nussbaum 2001b:416; UNDP 2010:2; Foresight 2011:44; Robeyns 2016). Within these discourses, humans seek to represent the fundamental values of dignity, along equity and justice, as interdependent and interrelated, equal and indivisible within how human political, civil, socio-cultural and economic life is organised (Kotzé 2010:137; OHCHR 1986:Article 6(2)).
4 Human rights discourse and associated instruments still face critique through their association with Western imperialism, and resistance to their universal enforced codification is ongoing, despite being widely deployed (Heinze 2011:167; Donnelly 2003:187-8). 61 Despite inadequacies, these constitute a body of human rights movements, principles, norms, legal arrangements, and procedures established which states (may) use to guide behaviour (Moyn 2018:186; Anaya Muñoz 2017:1). Fundamentally, they seek to preserve security- rendering fibres of interdependence associated with human dignity, and demonstrate that humans clearly desire a context within which to pursue a life project in security while exercising awareness of the effect of one’s action upon the web of life. Instruments like the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth (2010) and The Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change (Davies et al. 2017:217) extend the dignity and respect desired for humans to the rest of nature, reflecting a deep-seated respect for all ‘ways and forms of life’ (Naess 1973:95). The above instruments seeking to preserve dignity are a testimony to ever-present fibres of interdependence. The interdependent ‘threads’ operative through the concept of dignity – acknowledgement, restraint, care, obligation, duty etc. are equally latent, though their existence is often brought into relief through their neglect or abuse. Human rights discourses addressing injustices indicate the constant operation of latent principles of interdependence, which provide security, and which humans expect.
Human rights discourses add to the emerging picture of a terrain involving principles that can nurture the human need for security; it constitutes a lifeworld of predictability the individual relies on for coordinates to plot a secure path. I end the consideration of latent but ever-present interdependencies by looking for their presence in alternate epistemologies, again to contrast how modernity’s narrative considered in the next chapter imagines human relation with nature, and the implications for the individual.
2.4.3 Interdependencies demonstrated in alternate epistemologies
In this brief consideration of non-Western, alternate epistemologies, I agree that an idealised representation of traditional societies and Indigenous groups ‘as living in a harmonious state with nature prior to the intrusion of the “modern” world’ should be avoided (Foster, Clark & York 2010:258-259; Viken & Müller 2017:281). Without essentialising or idealising Indigenous societies, an enduring Indigenous phenomenology provides instructive principles, values and potentialities. My emphasis is thus on the principles within the processes of relation Indigenous groups have (successfully or unsuccessfully) practiced and to some extent maintain. The principles and their broad goal, regardless of outcomes, illustrate exercised awareness of interconnectedness in contrast to the suppression of interdependencies in the project of modernity, which, by treating nature as a separate entity needing to be tamed and civilised by an industrial force, illustrates ignorance and/or failed application of principles of
62 interconnectedness (Oelschlaeger 1991:68).
Indigenous community practices demonstrate interdependent forms of knowledge in the various cultural and ecological enactments of their relational imaginings, immaterial bonds which are experiencing equal erosion from industrial capitalism (Lenzerini 2011:101-102; Sessions 1995:158). Within an intangible cultural heritage are fibres of cultural interdependence expressed in lived experience of ‘oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts’ (UNESCO 2019; Aikawa-Faure 2009:13-15). Since every society has these, why are Indigenous communities held up as examples of them? It is, perhaps, that the interdependencies become more visible through their considered practice, including the way concepts of time, space, and relation with the land are guided, experienced and expressed by a mutualistic view (Ingold 2002:323). Ingold (2002:323) argues that in a sense ‘none of us are Westerners’, but that non-Western perspectives challenge Western modes applied to work, time and space. By prioritising mutuality, relations with the rest of nature are experienced in terms of an ‘essential relationship’ that is felt through interconnectedness (PTTIACHR 2005).
Some Indigenous forms of relation incorporate an understanding of human social and ecological interdependence, though their conceptions are often not acknowledged as scientific in the traditional, Western sense (Cajete 2000:3; Callison 2014:51). Indigenous knowledge is unique in that it functions experientially and as something felt, an interdependent knowledge that Cajete (2000:2) says is formed by close engagement and participation within the natural world, employing ‘sensation, perception, imagination, emotion, symbols, and spirit as well as that of concept, logic, and rational empiricism’. This is different to a calculated and rationalised relation that breaks down, separates, and objectifies nature. Ingold (2002:81), for instance, considers four groups of contemporary non-western peoples’ relation with cultivated plants and domestic animals: the Achuar Indians of the Upper Amazon, the people of the Mount Hagen region of the Papua New Guinea Highlands, the Dogon of Mali, and peasant farmers of Boyacá in Colombia. Each group’s mutual approach to plant and animal care, the interdependent exchanges with the forest and land, and the way labour is exercised in relation to the rest of nature, contrasts with the ‘colonial image of the conquest of nature’ (Ingold 2002:82-84). The different relational approaches of Aboriginal communities in what is now called Australia were noted by their colonisers, namely the responsibility and care taken in animal husbandry, planting, and sharing of produce that comes from viewing Earth as mother (Pascoe 2018:56-57).
In brief, a felt relation common to all humans is illustrated within Indigenous knowledge systems through mutuality. At a minimum, Indigenous and traditional epistemologies elevate
63 principles of interdependence, magnify alternate modalities, and create alternate lifeworld predictable frames that ensure security by prioritising a dominant relational process that involves mutuality and interdependence as the first point of departure. They acknowledge the constructive openness that comes with being a vulnerable being. These fibres of interdependence facilitate collective living and action within the dialectical web of life that is different to a competitive and exploitative relation considered in the next chapter.
The examples from Marx, human rights discourses and alternate epistemologies illustrate the interdependent and interconnected realities with organising principles which, if prioritised, I posit, could establish a system of exchange that avoids issues like climate change. These fibres of interdependence are in constant agonistic tension with a counter narrative based on principles of the enlightenment modernity, now embedded within capitalism, and which tend to separate and disrupt the ever-present but underacknowledged and deprioritised system of interdependent exchange. The examples raise important questions regarding what happens if the interdependent bonds that conduct dialectical relation in daily exchanges are affected by principles that tend towards separation. The dialectical world illustrated above thus constitutes the first of two broad narratives I want to highlight, namely the humans-in-nature narrative. It is the terrain the vulnerable subject that stands in, in distinction to the imagined liberal subject – but what do I mean by this?
2.5 The human animal in the struggle for life – a vulnerable or liberal subject?
The condition of interdependence, and the dialectical relation that functions because of it is inextricably related with the human condition that makes such relations the source of life but also a potential threat to life. I am talking about the common human condition of vulnerability, acknowledging that levels of wealth and privilege can mean vastly different experiences at least in terms of material vulnerability. Vulnerability in a general sense refers to each human’s bodily and material needs, openness to accidents, physical injury, illness and death or emotional and psychological openness to, manipulation, exploitation, abuse and so on (Mackenzie et al. 2013:1). Vulnerability as openness is a constant and ongoing condition within nature, making all that is part of the humans-in-nature relation susceptible to damage from rapid social or environmental change (Adger 2006:268). The 2019-2020 COVID-19 crisis is a reminder of human vulnerability and openness that creates anxiety through uncertainty. Yet the vulnerability that makes humans susceptible to disease is equally an openness that facilitates life-sustaining exchange with good bacteria, with life-sustaining water and nourishing food, and with mutually
64 supportive and thus empowering relationships. It is thus a condition with both life-sustaining and life-denying contingencies.
Due to life’s unpredictable and uncertain variability, vulnerability can provoke feelings of ‘powerlessness, loss of control, or loss of agency’ (Mackenzie et al. 2013:9). Accordingly, humans try to avoid vulnerability through, for instance, thinking the uncertain aspects of life can be controlled and attempting to control them (Giddens 1991:56-58). And decisions may come from an imagined, unitary self that conceives it can maintain the integrity of the ‘borders’ of the self, or that struggles to avoid their erosion (Benhabib 1992:157). This contrasts with the relational and interdependent condition considered above, which can be a source of security when principles like mutuality, dignity and care prevail. So vulnerability is not merely a fragile and insecure condition that exposes humans to illness, injury, emotional and psychological woes and death (Misztal 2011:1; Mackenzie et al. 2013:1). The openness and permeability that make us vulnerable to danger are also a necessary and crucial part of engaging with, or ‘being’ – living and experiencing the world with all its wonders and possibilities. In order to pursue flourishing, ‘being’ requires such openness or vulnerability, which engages personal intersubjectivity or mutual recognition alongside depersonalised, non-subjective vital exchanges within the rest of nature, all of which facilitate individual self-realisation (Misztal 2011:47), and are fundamental happenings in identity construction and self-realisation.
Accepting vulnerability as ‘universal and constant, inherent in the human condition’ allows the imagining of an interdependent human ‘vulnerable subject’, and recognises the inherent uncertainty of the human condition, which, as Fineman states, is ‘understood as arising from our embodiment, which carries with it the ever-present possibility of harm, injury, and misfortune’, and openness ‘to other forces in our physical environment’ (Fineman 2008:1, 8-10). As Mackenzie et al. (2013:12) note, ‘the concepts of vulnerability, harm, and need are closely connected’, and are part of negotiating a terrain of open interdependence as one pursues a life of flourishing. Mackenzie et al. (2013:13) see both the notion of need and the duty to care as necessarily bound with vulnerability and dependency; as social beings work together to meet each other’s needs they enact ‘self-determined (rational, emotional, and relational) agency’ to do so. Understanding dependency as part of vulnerability is important to comprehend the choice to align with or avoid particular ideas and worldviews.
These aspects of vulnerability inform my discussion on human-to-rest-of-nature relation as I use Fineman’s (2008:2) comparison of a liberal subject, which the liberal tradition presumes to be ‘autonomous and independent’, alongside the reality of humans as vulnerable subjects. This contrast helps highlight the competing accounts about what humans need to flourish, and how
65 an imagined liberal subject is constructed in the liberal/neoliberal socio-economic frame that downplays human vulnerability and fails to acknowledge empowerment through interdependence. I am cognisant that liberal ideals are conceptually associated with Western systems of governance, a matter I speak to further in chapter three. However, since some of the ideals of the putative liberal subject to be considered circulate through capitalism, they will to some extent influence any socio-economic system incorporating the capitalist system of exchange, which imagines an autonomous, independent subject enacting its rules of exchange.
Fineman’s (2008:1) assessment that vulnerability is ‘universal and constant, inherent in the human condition’ opens up a discussion regarding a contrasting liberal subject, discussed in chapter three. I extend the liberal subject imagining from the sense of people living in a Western system of liberalism, to what the dominant principles embodied in capitalism assume as the human condition, and from which corresponding structural frames emerge. This assumption, which develops as part of the second broad human-centered narrative I next discuss, imagines a self-interested, autonomous and independent actor (Fineman 2008:2). I thus consider the embedding of particular principles into the socio-cultural processes of exchange which have important consequences for any individual in contact with capitalist structures who seeks predictable frames in the constant process of self-preservation, anxiety alleviation and the pursuit of a meaningful and flourishing life project.
As considered, Marx indicates the destructive and alienating consequences of a disrupted metabolism resulting from viewing society and nature as separate rather than as an organic but interrelated whole with a complex of internal relations. The next chapter discusses the failure of the enlightenment thinking and the culture of modernity to acknowledge interdependence, and instead adopt rationalising, competitive and exploitative principles within the socially organising system of capitalism. My interest in understanding the principles now embodied in capitalism is at least twofold. First, to consider which principles can be linked to the issue of climate change. But more important is how these principles shape the world which the individual navigates and through which action occurs. Vulnerability, as the constant and ongoing open condition within nature, is a primary factor in the human animal’s struggle for survival, but understanding how to survive as a vulnerable being has taken two broad routes that interpret the struggle as individual, self-interested and aggressive or as survival through cooperation and support.
66 Chapter 3 Humans-over-nature: The promise of security through ‘control’ of uncertainty
Chapter two demonstrates a vision of an interdependent, dialectical world. Despite the existent fibres not being obvious in everyday exchanges, relations of interdependence constitute the reality of the human experience. But interdependence does not necessarily equal stable or life- sustaining relation. This chapter focuses on the principles and ideas supporting a humans-over- nature narrative that fails to adequately recognise humans as part of nature. I explore how principles tied with this narrative have become part of daily exchanges and argue they fundamentally work against principles of interdependent mutualism, setting parameters of action on a life-denying trajectory, especially in relation to climate change. The discussion supports the idea that ongoing web-of-life exchanges can tend towards either life-denying or life-sustaining outcomes, depending on what operative principles mediate the exchange As climate change is anthropogenic, this chapter sketches a history of key principles dominating human-to-rest-of-nature exchanges that are now steering the dialectical relation towards life- denying results. I also outline what Western enlightenment, modernity and the resulting system of capitalism promise about security and success. This informs my discussion from chapter five regarding how the individual effort to alleviate the anxiety of uncertainty and pursuit of security and meaningful life project can be considered mediating factors affecting the web of life.
My focus is on the development of a conception of humans as separate to nature, and nature viewed as a limitless resource for humans to control and exploit. These ideas are accompanied by an elevation of the individual, and the concomitant rationalisation of exchange that facilitates exploitation, the idea of profit that becomes the ‘end’ of the control over nature, and the attitude of competition and aggression to meet that end. I am interested in how these principles are gradually embedded within a liberal tradition that develops during this period of rapid social restructuring, and then are gradually diffused globally through capitalism. There is potential dissonance, of course, in exploring Western notions of modernity and enlightenment both when I imagine ‘the individual’ in a generic sense, and when talking about an international issue like climate change. However, since all nations are implicated in the human-induced climate crisis, I regard some of the founding principles emanating from Western enlightenment and modernity as key because of their global influence through past and contemporary Western imperialism
67 and colonisation, capitalism and industrial expansion (Mignolo & Walsh 2018:4; Moore 2017:179). Along with a broader promise emanating from the enlightenment and modernity, these principles are embedded within capitalism and diffused in various concentrations throughout the world, and to that extent influence everyone.
After outlining the key principles in focus, I consider contributions to the culture of modernity that build the idea of a sovereign, autonomous individual with a right to ‘life, liberty and property’ (Locke 2005:41), and ideals of success attached to material accumulation. I look specifically at Locke’s description of freedom in relation to land, and refer to the example of the commons in England to consider how together the principles and promise of the enlightenment and modernity constitute a narrative that disregards interdependence and shapes conditions in the web of life within that frame.
3.1 What I can measure I can control
The received wisdom of custom, tradition, and religion has historically served a significant social organising mechanism (Durkheim 2008:317-320). Such systems in a sense clarify the future and thus alleviate uncertainty and unpredictability by showing what action to take next, providing predictable frames for the anxious and vulnerable human animal to draw reassurance from. Sociologists Anthony Giddens tells us the need for predictable frames is ‘characteristic of large segments of humanity in all cultures’ because they provide a sense of ‘ontological security’ necessary for action, namely the security felt through continuity, a ‘framework of reality’ and ‘stabilised world of objects and persons’ that gives humans a mechanism to deal with uncertainty and deliver a sense of security from the ‘chaos’ that lurks behind ‘day-to-day action and discourse’ (Giddens 1991:36-44).
My interest is in the circumstances surrounding and flowing from ‘the period of the new’, as modes of behaviour and institutional arrangements associated with modernity in post-feudal Europe start to take hold (Giddens 1991:14-15). Giddens (1991:189) compares pre-modern societies, where ‘fragmentation of experience was not a prime source of anxiety’, with modernity’s ‘post-traditional orders’, saying in the latter ‘an indefinite range of possibilities present themselves, not just in respect of options for behaviour, but in respect also of the “openness of the world” to the individual’. The ‘the world’ of modernity constantly penetrates the individual’s inner world, supplying continuous phenomena that need to be ‘integrated into frameworks of personal experience’ (Giddens 1991:189), a process that raises anxiety through continual change. The effects, inter alia, of accelerating capitalism and industrialisation,
68 rationalisation, individualisation and state formation, all pre-eminent concerns for Marx (1981:729-731) throughout his critique of capitalism, are significant as they mark an insecurity of modern life that contrasts with pre-capitalist societies, which though challenging had certain predictabilities or ‘at best very slow change’ (Sayer 1991:11).
Modernity’s ascension, with the scientific method at its centre, thus destabilised once familiar frames. Accompanied by secularisation and the search for universal principles to improve human life, the culture of modernity began to organise the world into new predictable frames, replacing the sense of control that the previous system provided. It challenged previous organising systems, and with them the sense of security that came with their proffered predictability and sense of control over personal destiny. Though no specific date marks the beginning of the enlightenment and culture of modernity, ‘modernity’ is generally associated with a period of so-called European and Western ‘enlightenment’, variably seen as occurring from the 1600s-1900s (Oelschlaeger 1991:68), when industrialisation promised a new, rational, controllable, predictable, and myth-free existence. From the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 emerge ‘distinct social forms’ like the nation-state (Giddens 1991:15), and the Westphalian system of state sovereignty thus drives post-feudal Europe restructuring, beginning a period of modernity in an industrialising world. The feudal system gave way to monarchical forms of governance, and subsequently revolutionised social contract-type arrangements of parliamentary government. These changes were accompanied by accelerating capitalism and industrialisation, and the synergy that came with the ‘industrial revolution’ generated a rapid, revolutionary change to both economic processes and ‘social and intellectual’ ways of thinking (Ashton 1960:8). The individual would thus be exposed to new socio-cultural systems that would shape possibilities of action.
3.1.1 Human centrality and an exploitable Earth
The period was a hopeful one in its promise. Enlightenment and the project of modernity envisioned a scientific, technological, and liberal democratic approach that would transform a wild and untamed physical and social environment ‘into industrialized, democratic civilization’ (Oelschlaeger 1991:68; Sprintzen 2009:8). As worldviews were rapidly shifting, the episteme of modernity (Foucault 2005:183) drew on the scientific understanding of the day apropos the human relation with the rest of nature, within which the principle of human centrality prevailed. Francis Bacon’s worldview upheld notions of ‘domination and control of nature’ (Bacon 1620 Aph.59). René Descartes (2006:51) saw a world pursuing the desire to ‘make ourselves as it were the masters and possessors of nature’. Their visions inform Isaac Newton’s assertion that
69 the workings of this machine universe could be understood by reducing it to a collection of solid, impenetrable, moving parts (Newton 1846:384-385; Capra 1983:52). These respective worldviews imagine humans as central in the living domain, conceiving them as separate to nature, and possessing the ability to control nature, with nature perceived as atomistic, mechanical moving parts (Capra 1995:21; Coole & Frost 2010:94). Note also the descriptors of domination, control, mastery, possession. These descriptors inform a broader narrative promising security.
The mechanistic scientific ideals of Bacon, Descartes and Newton significantly contribute to developing ‘background conditions’ (Block 1990:30, 44) of enlightenment thinking and consequently Western thought as a whole (Capra 1983:52). In a rapidly changing world, establishing predictable frames would be primary for the vulnerable human animal who struggles with the anxiety of uncertainty, and the reassuring sense of control that a mechanistic view imparts should not be underestimated. Recall Engels’ (1947:30-31) observation that the dialectical vision of the world as an everchanging ‘endless entanglement of relations and reactions’ was dislodged by efforts to examine processes in isolation by the likes of Bacon and Locke. This ‘habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole’ (Engels 1947:31) is a vastly different worldview to the dialectical reality conceived in the ecological explanations of ancient Greece. Why this process of separating and ostensibly controlling was powerful is of course complex, with influence from Christian and Gnostic dualisms within Cartesian thinking that depict humans as masters over, and possessors of the separate sphere of nature (Coole & Frost 2010:7; Jonas 2001:14). However, one important part of such efforts to understand nature through separation, I feel, is the attempt to control. The dichotomy conveys a sense of security by making possible ‘the distinction between the knower and what he knows’ (Çüçen 1998). I see the security this action promises as influencing the trajectory of modernity’s promised order.
While secularisation was weakening the religious promises of perfect freedom (through immediate forgiveness or holy transcendence, for instance), a promise lay within the ideal of perfection conveyed through the enlightenment. Habermas notes this ideal. Inspired by modern science, the enlightenment contained the idea of ‘infinite progress of knowledge and advance towards social and moral improvement’ (Habermas 1997:39). The enlightenment presented the pursuit of happiness and progress towards ‘perfection’ as viable goals, achievable however, by rational scientific laws and technologies that would ‘force nature to serve their well-being and further their happiness’ (Kramnick 1995:xii). In light of the reality of interdependence considered in chapters one and two, this key ideological intervention, supported by the ideas of Bacon, Descartes and Newton, is a skewed view of human-to-rest-of-nature relation. It ignores
70 mutuality and moves towards self-interested exploitation in the name of security. Scientific understanding still maintained that ‘all dealing with the nonhuman world’ was ‘ethically neutral’, understood as if ‘it impinged but little on the self-sustaining nature of things and thus raised no question of permanent injury to … the natural order as a whole’ (Jonas 1984:4). With such a view, principles of interdependence like connectedness, mutuality and responsibility are not directly considered in the ordering of the world.
Further, something powerful lay within modernity’s orientation towards control (Giddens 1991:149) and instrumental rationalisation – these orientations promised the predictability humans need to pursue a flourishing life. Core to modernity’s promise was the idea that enlightened knowledge and rationality, tied to industrial revolution, would bring rapid technological advancements leading to progress that ameliorates living conditions (Kramnick 1995:xii). ‘Modern’ enlightened ideas promised a joyful future, an environment of empowerment and growth, a transformation of individuals and the world (Berman 1988:15). The narrative of modernity, then, promises to control unpredictability, and that by exploiting nature humans can be secure and flourish.
3.1.2 Instrumental rationality
But this rational approach is problematic. Berman (1988:15) notes how modernity’s promise of advancement equally created an environment ‘that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are’ through a process of continual disintegration of what is ‘solid’. He is referring to Marx’s (1988:212) well-known statement that ‘all that is solid melts into air’ because of the ‘constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation’ that came with capitalist production. Instrumental rationality is in no small measure responsible for this conflictual promise of advancement coupled with destabilisation.
Weber observes the dramatic effects of instrumental rationalisation, particularly as it coupled with capitalism to set the course for how future exchanges would be conducted. Weber (1976:25-26,68) notes how economic exchanges were increasingly measured, controlled and subject to rational calculation due to exacting competition, which in turn shaped values in a similar direction. The increased calculus of information and prioritisation of scientific knowledge marked the entry of rationality into practices of daily life (Edles & Appelrouth 2010:142). This mode, Weber (1948:293) says, leads to an emphasised ‘means-end rationality’ – a goal to attain a specific and practical end by precisely calculating the means. This evokes
71 Kant’s (2002:55-56) idea of the categorical imperative, as means-end rationality treats people and things – nature – as a means to an end instead of an end in themselves. In a context where ethics are ‘systematically and unambiguously oriented to fixed goals’ (Weber in Giddens 1972:44), calculated, measurable actions facilitate the separation of more difficult to measure and latent interdependencies. The ‘end’, considered soon, is often profit, with its implicit promise to alleviate the anxiety of unpredictability and threat to survival.
The promise of modernity is thus tied with the ‘widespread use of material power and machinery in production processes’ of industrialisation, and capitalism, namely ‘a system of commodity production involving both competitive product markets and the commodification of labour power’ (Giddens 1991:15). The sense of control gained through imagined mastery over the earth calms the anxious, security-seeking human, but disregards the dialectical relation between humans and the rest of nature, described by Marx as metabolism. For me, the need for a sense of control is part of the human condition of vulnerability and openness. It is reflected, as Arendt (1958:244) shows, in the process of making promises to establish predictable guideposts for action and reduce unpredictability as humans manage the existential anxiety in their struggle for life, ideas I pursue in chapter five. Rationalisation was a path to that control, though it replaced the relational security imbued in interdependence.
Rationalising principles result in humans, on a generalised mass scale, increasingly treating things that work in mutual dependence as something that can be taken apart. Moore (2015:62) describes the phase of early capitalism’s operation, and of interest is what symbolic promise he argues the new principles imply:
‘Early capitalism’s world-praxis, fusing symbolic coding and material inscription, moved forward an audacious fetishization of nature, crystallized in the era’s cartographic, scientific, and quantifying revolutions. These were symbolic moments of primitive accumulation, creating a new intellectual system whose presumption, personified by Descartes, was the separation of humans from the rest of nature’.
With its early Cartesian coding, the ‘new intellectual system’ presumes human separation from nature, which facilitates its exploitation by aligning the idea of development and prosperity through growth with the promise of modernity. As ideas of exploitative accumulation are embedded in capitalism, exchanges based on flawed principles begin to undermine life- sustaining possibilities of flourishing. The capitalist equation of prosperity with the pursuit of constant growth for profit (Schumacher 1993:47), for instance, destabilises the web of life by depleting non-renewable natural resources and overloading planetary ‘sinks’ that process wastes
72 in the environment (Meadows et al. 2004:51), to the detriment of the lived relations therein. Importantly, the destabilising principles of instrumental rationality produce life-denying effects that are not immediately noticeable, while constructing the broader structures within which individuals act.
Horkheimer & Adorno (2002:23) see instrumental rationality as a systemising all-governing principle and schema which, contrary to its promise, negates human freedom because ‘reason serves as a universal tool for the fabrication of all other tools, rigidly purpose-directed and as calamitous as the precisely calculated operations of material production, the results of which for human beings escape all calculation’. These latent structuring effects have implications for an interdependent world, particularly in their separating and alienating effect (Marx 1988:69). Sprintzen and Rosenberg (1973:158) similarly identify the emergence of a Newtonian- Darwinian science, ‘a science which, while claiming a value-free objectivity, has been essentially mechanistic, quantitative, reductionist and deterministic’ and allied ‘with social- political forces supporting commercial-industrial civilization’. The emerging socio-political forces and commercial interest in this alliance are relevant to the subsequent structural conditions that would lead to human behaviour precipitating climate change. By viewing the world as an object of exploitation, social-political forces would shape ‘common understandings’ involving ‘stable features of everyday activities’ that individuals use to navigate daily lives and tasks (Garfinkel 1967:36). Consider an example of these principles manifesting today within Australia’s relationship with coal.
In Australia, efforts to move away from coal – the fossil fuel that first powered modernity’s promise of advancement – cause much tension. Recall from chapter one, coal holds a mixed symbolism in Australia, especially linked to economic security. Thus in the lead up to the approval of the massive Adani coalmine in north-east Queensland in 2019, the conservative Liberal/National government Resources Minister asserted it was in Australia’s interests to build new coal plants, rather than reduce them despite national and global calls to reduce fossil fuel extraction and consumption (Murphy 2019a). Government policy has failed to adequately support a broad and consistent preference for clean energy in the Australian public (Merzian et al. 2019:5). In part coal symbolises a path to prosperity; it is bound with the idea of security by equating profit and financial gain through its sale. Such is the power of its symbolism that even as industry and government reports show the viability of coal fading (Jotzo et al. 2018:4), the Australian attachment to coal holds strong.
The continued exploitation of coal globally illustrates how modernity’s promise of freedom, tied with continued unsustainable exploitation of Earth’s resources, is diffuse and persistent. In
73 part this is due to the externalisation of costs that leaves others to deal with ‘externalities’, namely the negative effects of activities that are deliberately not considered in the market price in pursuit of profit (de Grauwe 2017:14). Coal creates a conundrum in Australia: while it promises flourishing, it is ultimately a false promise. Extracting and burning coal maintains the human-centred, limitless-Earth view, and, by ignoring key principles of interdependence, the consumption of coal dialectically affects other life-sustaining elements within the relation (air, climate, ecological cycles etc.). Instrumental rationality coupled with disregard for interdependence distort coal’s value by not counting externalised costs in terms of ‘impacts on human and environmental health’, giving the impression that burning coal is cheap while ‘in reality we are paying a much higher cost in the long run’ (Nuccitelli 2011:1). A serious consequence of the promise of security and symbolism of flourishing being based on flawed principles of instrumental rationality, human-centredness and continuous growth is the destabilisation of the safe operation thresholds of Earth’s planetary boundaries, manifesting inter alia as climate change.
This demonstrates the symbolic perception functioning at an individual and group level. One problem is that in an immediate sense, burning coal does bring opportunities for security – it provides cheap energy, and its export provides profits. Since such benefits are tied to short-term and transient security and progress, they encourage the continued burning of coal and avoidance of the responsible action needed if interdependence is acknowledged. The significant role objects like coal have played a in powering human progress creates an image of permanency, and seemingly eternal predictable frames symbolising what can deliver security are reassuring. In Australia, the strong symbolism tied to the mining industry imagines such perceived and real conditions of security (Moffat et al. 2017:6). So it was that in 2017, in the context of a heated debate about the merits of renewable energy versus the prospects of a revitalised coal industry, the conservative government’s then-treasurer now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison (Figure 3.1) fondled a lump of coal in the parliament whilst accusing the opposition party ‘of an “ideological approach to energy” and negligence in policy planning’ (Taylor 2017).
74
Figure 3.1 Morrison brings a lump of coal to parliament (News.com.au 2017)
The approach reflected internal party positions, with other Government Ministers denying climate change and carrying a ‘renewables-are-a-socialist-plot ideology’ (Taylor 2017). It illustrates a clash of symbolisms: on one hand continued coal use threatens the environment and thus the future, on the other hindered coal use threatens the economy and thus the future. Each symbolic threat relies on the frames of reference used to assess security. Coal’s symbolism, it may be said, is a legacy of colonisation tied to the advancement of modernity, carrying a blinding ideology that deploys flawed principles of exploitation and separation in pursuit of security. Images of massive contemporary coal extraction (Figure 3.2) illustrate the enduring humans-over-nature view of the world. Such images carry a sense of domination and control of nature, and a continuation of colonial exploitation.
Figure 3.2 Cameby Downs thermal coal mine (Mining.com 2019)
75 In Australia, new proposed mines echo such colonial domination, as they threaten to desecrate sacred culturally significant Indigenous sites and extinguishes native title laws to make way for large mines like the Adani mine mentioned in chapter two (Chan 2019; Doherty 2019). In 2020 mining corporation Rio Tinto disregarded any principles valuing cultural heritage and blasted the Juukan Gorge containing 46,000-year-old Aboriginal rock shelters (Figure 3.3), causing significant distress for the Puutu Kunti Kurrama traditional land owners (Hepburn 2020). Policy debates around natural resources reflect an agonistic struggle played out through the two competing narratives about how to treat nature’s commons. They also involve a disregard for precautionary principles that show awareness of the broader effects of extraction and consumption, and thus disregard of the narrative that says security is achieved through an applied awareness of interdependence. And, as the interviews will show, such debates convey a story about security that influences individual decision-making processes and symbolically delineates trajectories for individual action.
Figure 3.3 Juukan Gorge caves (Photo: PKKP Aboriginal Corporation/AFP)
The symbolism and constructed value (Simmel 1971:52) in an object like coal is a product of the humans-over-nature narrative which deploys principles like instrumental rationality or externalisation of costs, constructing both processes and ‘subjects’ for its new system of relational exchange with nature. The symbolism provokes both the desires and anxieties of the vulnerable human animal. Within our pockets, many of us will find a smartphone produced and
76 distributed with the aid of coal and based on a human-centred conception as its founding principle. The next chapter considers the example of the smartphone, and how the latent principles therein tie the individual to the promise of modernity. For now, I shall proceed with another key principle within the humans-over-nature narrative.
3.1.3 Elevation of the individual
The process of enlightenment and culture of modernity also promised freedom from social hierarchies in a new kind of world premised on notions of individual freedom, where ‘self-made assertive men’ could ‘achieve their place through hard work’ rather than inherited privilege (Kramnick 1995:ix). With this ostensible promise of freedom from once-fixed social structures of hierarchy and privilege, personal aspirations would be fulfilled through capitalistic growth and industrial technology initiated by ‘democratic, industrial, and scientific revolutions’ (Oelschlaeger 1991:69). These were bold promises. Individualism would be a platform of operation, promising the individual control in a generally uncertain world, but a world that was also rapidly changing and increasing in unpredictability. Existing social safety nets, like traditional, social and material ‘commons’, were slipping away, and the individual was given a new vision, one to be pursued as an ‘unshackled’ individual.
The emergence of ‘a spirited individual’ has been associated with Renaissance Italy in contrast to earlier Middle Age conceptions of self only as embedded within a group (Burckhardt 1878:52; Baldwin 2001:342). Such individualism favours self-reliance and prioritises individual freedom over collective control, which is possible through the emerging systems ‘linked to capitalism, liberalism, and an incipient industrial revolution’ (Baldwin 2001:341). As society broke away from medieval and religious constraints (Weber 1976:105), emergent individualism brought with it a tension regarding how the individual would enact life. Would the actions expected from a liberal subject be influenced by a social Darwinian model of survival through ‘excessive aggression, competition and destructive behaviour’ (Pepper 1986:101) rather than a model acknowledging vulnerability and interdependence? Darwin’s ideas did indeed have an influence, which I consider further below. For the individual, who gauges action based on coordinates received from collective association, the principles deployed therein would somewhat oblige aligned individual action.
The process of individuals forming cooperative groups in pursuit of security and success has always been part of human sociality. The idea of security and flourishing through social cooperation can be seen in the development of modern institutions which were animated by
77 ideas of human emancipation or freedom. The initial unshackling from rigid constraints of tradition and religion through rationality, led gradually to rational understanding being applied beyond the areas of science and technology, to include ‘the human social life itself’, and so ‘human activity was to become free from pre-existing constraints’ (Giddens 1991:211). The principles that developed from Western enlightenment were formed in the context of emergent conceptualisations of the ‘social contract’ from thinkers like Hobbes, in Leviathan ([1651]1985), Locke, in Two Treatises of Government ([1689]2005), and Rousseau in The Social Contract ([1762]2011), which conceptually seek ‘perfectly just institutions’, alongside more pragmatic traditions grounded in actual institutional and societal arrangements from, for example, Smith, Bentham, Marx and Mill (Sen 2009:5-8).
Social contract theories offer a starting point to discuss inequitably shared commons, namely an ‘ideal history [that] begins from the state of nature as a state of equal jurisdiction in which everyone acts reasonably and rationally’ (Rawls 2007:138). Locke (2005:8) outlines this basic principle in the condition of equality ‘wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another’. This equality principle associated with natural individual rights imagines that individuals ought not to harm others in their life, health, liberty or possessions. The ideas of Locke and his contemporaries have been built on by, for instance, Rawls (1971:10, 20) who applies the justice aims of the social contract to modern governance, and presents an alternative to utilitarian approaches through a well-ordered society’s inclusion of commonly agreed-to principles. Also building on Locke’s prioritisation of the individual in the context of natural rights, Nozick (1974:16-19) alternatively imagines distribution through an ‘invisible hand explanation’, which believes that market pressures and rational self-interest can form something resembling a minimal state.
Though social contract theories are not part of the remit here, they contextualise one important relation through which the individual seeks security, namely a relation with the state. This relation is important in so much as it significantly informs the individual regarding parameters of action from which symbolic meanings are drawn to shape action, ideas that ‘like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest ’ (Weber 1946:280). The individual’s broad action strategies are influenced by cultural values and construct pathways of action to pursue their primary interests. A social science focus looks at the role of states in ‘imagining and guiding social transformation’, transformations that most recently have been influenced by the ideas of neoliberalism impacting state and corporate governance, while feminism, human rights values and environmentalism, for instance, have influenced civil society institutions, popular movements and academic networks (Held & Moore 2007:5-6). Held & Moore (2007:6) argue that though ‘these projects of transformation and the
78 ideas that underpin them cannot be clearly labelled cultures – in the sense of the beliefs, values and lifeways of distinct and identifiable groupings… they do represent beliefs and values that structure and shape the practices and lifestyles of ordinary individuals in their everyday existence.’
So, what principles of the foundational social contract ideas were transformative in the way society is organised? The centrality of the individual along with notions of ‘self-made assertive men’ is nested in Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau’s goal of how to fulfil the basic human desire through ‘just institutional arrangements for a society’ (Sen 2009:5-6). These thinkers focus on the independent and autonomous individual, who, with enough freedom, can alleviate uncertainty, achieve security and pursue justice. Hobbes (1985:183), Locke (2005:8) and Rousseau (2011:36) each start with the basic proposition of a state of human equality from birth – the starting point of the human animal’s expectations of justice and fairness. As the putative founder of liberalism, what does Locke, lay out regarding the individual pursuit of freedom and security?
Locke’s (2005:8) idea that the state of nature involves ‘a state of equality’ among humans is embodied through an individualised existence, emphasising autonomy and equal opportunity, with the law of nature demanding the respect for another’s ‘life, health, liberty or possessions’. Locke sees civil society and government as effective arbiters to manage human bias and passion. Unlike Hobbes’ (1985:270) justification of absolute sovereign power, Locke (2005:99) views a tyrannical state as subservient to natural law, and any social contract of obedience would dissolve if legislators interfere with the natural right to property and freedom through arbitrary exercise of power. Locke foresaw the need for a system of authority in a political society that seeks communal protection from the precariousness of life (Locke 2005:41), although Locke appears to have a particular vision of who could participate in such a system of authority, considered soon. As social obligations of loyalty to a ruler move to an image of society that is based on individual self-interest, Locke (2005:46) asserts the core values of liberalism by associating the value of individual freedom with economic freedom, and seeing an accountable government as responsible to enact that freedom.
In principle, the promise of individual liberty implies the opportunity for all to flourish without fear or threat, and justice for all, suggested by equal opportunity. Locke maintains a human- centered version of flourishing. He refers to a naturally inherited ‘title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled (sic) enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature’ – an ostensibly equal ‘man’ has a natural right ‘to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men’ (Locke 2005:41). Such a vision helped
79 constitute and embed an elevated image the individual within the social order. Locke's and other social contractarians’ focus on individual liberty demonstrate enlightenment thinking that in general ‘valorized the individual and the moral legitimacy of self-interest’, seeking ‘to free the individual from all varieties of external corporate or communal constraints, and…to reorganize the political, moral, intellectual, and economic worlds to serve individual interests’ (Kramnick 1995:xii).
Subsequent political theorists and economists continued to convey the hopeful enlightenment promise through the frame of a liberal individual. It was during the era of revolutionising production that Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations (1776), a founding classical economy text that progressed the ideas of a capitalist free market, with forces of an ‘invisible hand’, promising fair distribution. The now entrenched individualised approach, which aligns to principles of separation, was emphasised in classical economics within a model of a self- regulating market. Smith (2007:13) imagines a well-governed society that can deliver ‘universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people’, and argues that individual freedom to pursue self-interest leads to a prosperous society (Smith 2007:16). Smith advocates a system of private ownership free from state control, and theoretically free from control of private monopolies (Smith 2007:349), a risk Smith indicates he was aware of when discussing potential dangers associated with imbalances of power. Since the merchants and manufacturers were ‘the principal architects of policy’ and the entire mercantile system, Smith was in favour of corporate regulation benefitting the ‘poor man’, and condemned ‘the vile maxim of the masters of mankind’, namely, ‘All for ourselves and nothing for other people’ (Smith 2007:111, 321).Indeed, Dwyer (2005:662) describes Smith as insistent ‘that economic and ethical progress needed to be grounded on the mechanics of sociability’, and he had intended that Wealth of nations be read alongside his Theory of the Moral sentiments (1759), though it never was.
Political economist, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), also links the enlightenment promise of progress and happiness with individualism and legitimised self-interest (Mill 2001:8-9). Though political economy does not deal with ‘the whole of man’s nature’, Mill argues, it sees the human actor as a rational ‘being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end’ (Mill 1967:285). With such calculus, he gives prominence to the value of freedom and rights, providing notions of individual liberty that endure today (Berlin 1969; Rawls 2001:44, 112). Thus, as principles of liberalism take hold during the enlightenment age, individual freedoms are prioritised, which shaped the emerging socio-political structures. These founding principles demand a ‘rationalist orientation to action’ and ‘methodical and calculative procedures’, applied not only to economic practices, but to numerous ‘spheres of life’ (Edles & Appelrouth 2005:147). The individual is thus seen within a
80 broader enlightenment promise – that human knowledge and rationality, strongly tied to industrial revolution and rapid technological advancements, would lead to progress that ameliorates living conditions (Kramnick 1995:xii).
There are two points to be taken from this overview. First, though modernity involves new systems, it maintains a promise, namely to order ‘an inherently untidy experience’ (Douglas 1966:4) in a world that in many respects is unpredictable. This promise helps allay the anxieties of uncertainty within the vulnerable human animal. Second, the rationalist orientation and legitimised self-interest join an atomistic view of the world and promise freedom and success, essentially security, through inter alia, control of an external and exploitable natural environment. The principles of rationality and reason, scientific measurement, and individualism all carry a separating and atomising quality, which disregards the various interconnections and threads to which an object is related, avoiding the responsibility and implications of a separating act. This early foundation for an emerging capitalistic system of exchange imagined a liberal, autonomous individual, with corresponding principles of action rather than incorporating principles into the foundation that imagine a vulnerable individual in a dialectical and interdependent reality. This new trajectory promising security and success has implications for an individual who is dependent on the wider world for security, in terms of what principles one must adopt simply to act. Yet there are two more principles to consider within this trajectory.
3.1.4 Aggression and competition or mutuality and
cooperation?
The backdrop forged by the scientific revolution – of a mechanistic, atomised and dualistic and human-centered world, alongside formulations of social organisation based around the individual actor, remain influential throughout the 19th century. A key figure during this time is Charles Darwin, with his paradigm-shifting insights into ecological evolutionary processes broadening the insights on the conditions shaping the ‘struggle for existence’. As Darwin’s understanding of the natural world found synergy with earlier scientific imagining of an exploitable, human-centred world, his message resonated with laissez-faire capitalism.
The Darwinian struggle for existence poses questions about the human instinct for survival, and Herbert Spencer (1864:444) drew a particular interpretation of Darwin’s natural selection, coining the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’. Spencer was a leading proponent of Social Darwinism, which applies Darwinian evolutionary concepts to elevate individualism and
81 laissez-faire capitalism, characterising the struggle for life as involving a competitive and violent principle, and arguing that human progress results from superior individuals and cultures defeating competitors (Klein 2003:394). This worldview significantly influenced the so-called robber barons of the 19th century like industrialist Andrew Carnegie, railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt and oil tycoon J.D. Rockefeller, and was critical in the rise of cutthroat capitalism of the period. Carnegie (1920:327), for instance, speaks of having an epiphany regarding the development of ‘man’ and the march to perfection, seeing ‘the law of competition’ as preeminent, and though this law ‘may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures survival of the fittest in every department’. Social Darwinism equally allowed Rockefeller ‘to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” Hsü (1986:534) argues the ruthless monopolistic practices of capitalist like Carnegie and Rockefeller drew on social Darwinism’s principles ‘in a defense of competitive individualism and its economic corollary of laissez-fair capitalism in England and America.’
This attitude regarding competition is unlike competition that works towards renewal and growth and thus common well-being, as outlined in chapter two. Social Darwinism’s influence on the general attitude of capitalist exchange I think is significant in terms of what principles manifest, especially in contrast to the alternate pathway of interdependent mutuality and cooperation. Sociologist and anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, is a contemporary of Darwin who provides a valuable counterpoint in Mutual Aid: A factor of evolution ([1902]2017), where he counters interpretations of Darwin that take a social Darwinism path. Kropotkin (2017:2) seeks to put Darwin’s contributions into perspective, observing commonplace phenomena demonstrating that ‘struggle is replaced by cooperation’; so while Darwin’s struggle for life – as a limited ‘struggle between separate individuals’ who struggle to survive through extermination – was taken to justify extreme individualism that places little value on other persons and things, Kropotkin challenges this individualised view. From nesting associations of birds to human sociality in medieval European villages Kropotkin (2017:48, 185; 4-5) demonstrates that there are equal or more examples of survival based on ‘mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society’. This sees the general struggle to survive as achieved through interdependent mutuality rather than individualistic aggressive competition. Naess’ (1973:96) deep ecology view reflects Kropotkin when he says ‘the so-called struggle of life, and survival of the fittest, should be interpreted in the sense of ability to coexist and cooperate in complex relationships, rather than ability to kill, exploit, and suppress. “Live and let live” is a more powerful ecological principle than “Either you or me”’. My point is that while Darwin and Kropotkin both acknowledge natural interdependence, their views regarding survival involve diverging visions of the human animal:
82 Darwin (1859:61) tends toward an individualised, separated human promoted by social Darwinism, while Kropotkin (2017:46-47) sees a relational and interdependent human where sociability and collective sense of justice gives the individual the greatest chance of survival.
Though social Darwinism is discredited (Hofstadter 1944), can its influence be seen within the overall principles of capitalism today? In the end, ‘excessive aggression, competition and destructive behaviour’, instead of constructive mutuality, becomes a dominant principle characterising human relations within expanding capitalist system of exchange (Pepper 1986:101). The embodiment of an aggressive and competitive attitude in existing ‘liberal’ systems of governance is demonstrated in debates that diminish the value of a welfare state (Klein 2003:394), or criticise attempts to provide social protections as coddling, and unemployment support as ‘giving money to people for doing nothing’, which Reich (2012) sees as a rebirth of social Darwinism in US politics. The principle of aggressive competition is recognised as driving capitalism today (Schumpeter 1994:143; Boltanski & Chiapello 2005:288; Harvey 2005:87). Foster, Clark & York (2010:109) describe competition as the engine forcing constant capitalist expansion to ensure its survival, making accumulation ‘its sole aim’. This conception, I posit, inhabits contemporary structures of action regulating exchange, and, recalling the discussion on constructive contestation in chapter two, promotes the idea of security and flourishing through aggressive competition, continuing to subdue a narrative of interdependent mutuality as a path to security and flourishing.
Above I have outlined some consistent principles that appear in the upheavals that came with modernity and enlightenment thinking. These include a human-centred view of the world as something limitless and exploitable, instrumental rationality that allows that exploitation, elevated individualism that accompanies the human-centred vision, and an aggressive and competitive attitude that conditions exchanges toward self-interest. I consider a final principle of the profit motive and its link to endless growth below, but do so in the context of the human relation to land, comparing the legacy left by Locke with Marx. I narrowly focus on parts of Locke in relation to the use of land to suggest that an incomplete assessment about the human relation with nature, and a weak application of principles of interdependence, influenced the later formations of social organisation that is bound up with capitalism.
3.2 The promise of life, liberty and property
Locke’s discussion on life, liberty and property demonstrates elements of both conceptions of the relation between humans and nature being considered here, namely humans-over-nature
83 separation versus humans-in-nature interdependence. How so? First, consider the ideas of Locke that align with principles of interdependence. Resembling Marx’s discussion on metabolism, Locke ties the capacity to actualise freedom with land, labour and recognition of mutual need. For the individual, who is born in a state of nature, Locke affirms the right both to survive and pursue a good life through hard work and reaping the fruits of that labour. Locke (2005:18) conceives a limitless world given to ‘man’ in common to control, so that humans ‘make use of it to the best advantage of life’, though he says once a worker adds something to nature through labour, it becomes ‘the unquestionable property of the labourer… at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others’. Locke (2005:20) thus demonstrates general consideration of principles of equitable distribution, saying though one can make use of as much of nature’s bounty and the products of labour ‘before it spoils’, anything beyond that ‘is more than his share, and belongs to others.’
Yet despite Locke’s hopeful description of equal use of the commons, it is equivocal, inconsistent and rapidly moves to justifying exploitation. Consider two examples. First, while acknowledging the ‘compact’ of the commons, he declares ‘the common is of no use’ unless contained under the banner of property, where labour puts a distinction on fruits of the common, and adds ‘something to them more than nature…had done’ (Locke 2005:19). This disregards, unwittingly perhaps, the work done by interdependent systems, where seeds yield new life, and trees supply the benefits associated with a complex ecosystem. Also, while Locke’s (2005:20) provision on spoilage implies limits to the use of land, he argues that commons can be enclosed under the banner of property as long as the land is cultivated ‘to the best advantage of life’, while failing to define what that might actually mean. Applied now, for instance, these loose terms would allow for the extraction of fossil fuels deploying technologies like fracking, which destroy a water supply while claiming what is produced is for ‘the best advantage of life’ – presented as life-saving energy, but in reality being a pursuit of profit that undermines living systems. Further, though pointing to the need for common consent, Locke (2005:20) justifies privatisation through enclosure under the banner of a God-given right to subdue (control) the earth, saying ‘As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose (sic) it from the common.’ In fact, he encourages hoarding of money and land as a worthy enterprise, while justifying the inequality this leads to (Locke 2005:27).
Overall, Locke’s treaties of government based on property ownership displays an ideology that problematically binds freedom with constant accumulation through the exploitation of nature. Further, it revolves around the value of money – Locke (2005:27) condones the system of private accumulation despite knowing it leads to ‘an inequality of private possessions’ that is
84 backed by governmental laws. Indeed, Locke’s foundation for political power is property (2005:7), and with property as the basis for his ideology, his definition of political power and justification of laws has individual gain – profit – as its end. This is a problematic ‘end’, as these limits to government expounded by Locke (2005:116-117) align with a narrative that prioritises individualised self-interest at the cost of mutuality, and as will be seen favours a narrow, moneyed group. MacPherson (1962:269) critiques Locke for this individualistic worldview, which sees the human essence as:
‘freedom from any relations other than those a man enters with a view to his own interest… The individual is proprietor of his own person, for which he owes nothing to society’, making society ‘a series of relations between proprietors. Political society is a contractual device for the protection of proprietors and the orderly regulations of their relations.’
Can it be said that Locke encourages profit-centred action to become the defining standard of exchange? In being foundational to a system of laws that primarily protected those moneyed enough to possess property, accumulate wealth and exercise privileged power, Locke is part of a trajectory away from an equitable share of commons. For instance, Locke’s right of ‘man’ to own property imagines the ‘man’ who was in a position to own land and extract value – the labour for which often comes through a different kind of ‘man’ (dehumanised being) to work it, namely slaves and colonised people, not to mention the free labour contributed by women. These dehumanised ones extract the land’s value but lack the freedom to own land and receive the fruits of their own labour. The labour of servants was counted as the labour of property owners, and the lands of the ‘needy and wretched’ Indigenous Americans, who ‘knows no enclosure’ were being taken away (Locke 2005:18-22). The separating, individualistic, human- centred vision in originary European social contract theory would contribute to Euro-centric expropriation – Moore (2017:192) describes a pattern of European imperialistic capitalist-driven expropriation based on binaries like nature and society, where, by labelling Indigenous populations as ‘naturales’ or part of nature (as with Indigenous Peruvians), Indigenous populations were dehumanised through the nature/society binary, and their exploitation was legitimised.
Locke’s social contract imagining is thus entwined with enlightenment promise of progress while disregarding many aspects of interdependence. The notion of individual rights is incorporated into the emerging state structures, with Locke’s vision becoming institutionalised in the English Bill of Rights and the English Act of Settlement (Mattei & Capra 2015:65). In so doing, the foundational embedding of individually-centered aspects of liberal imagining
85 proceeds from the core of industrial capitalism. This human-centred vision has a certain type of ‘man’ at the centre, who is empowered to govern land that is myopically envisioned as limitless (Locke 2005:20). This imagining fails to grasp the greater context of web-of-life interdependence, and sidelines the aspects of life and liberty that come through common property, mutuality and interdependence. Such embedding into liberal socio-political frameworks affects all aspects of society, which, as MacPherson (1962:276) notes, are slowly subsumed by the emergent capitalism of the time, acquiescing to market forces and a possessive-individualist conception of socio-cultural life and individual self.
These founding principles involve an association between promised freedom and a justification of how to treat the rest of nature to meet that end. Denying the reality of interdependent humans-in-nature bonds through a humans-over-nature vision legitimises the extractive exploitative ideals that were arising in capitalist expansion and had attached to them the ideals of freedom and flourishing. In the pursuit of freedom and security, the view of humans as separate to nature facilitates an ease of exploitation, especially for those with power, because it does not require the actor to be accountable for the consequences of separating fibres of interdependence. My emphasis here is the gradual incorporation of these principles into systems of governance through a narrative promising security while disregarding interdependence, which filter down into social and cultural imaginings of freedom and security.
As with the example of fracking in the previous chapter, the human animal’s actions causing climate change are based on such latent separations. For instance, fossil fuel-driven industrial production increases carbon in the atmosphere, which disrupts the right balance that moderates Earth’s temperature, and thus ‘separates’ the stable elements of the atmosphere. Though the build-up of carbon and heat in the air and the ocean is invisible, scientific monitoring shows water temperatures hitting record levels in 2019, demonstrating convincing evidence of accelerating planetary heating (Cheng et al. 2020). Scientific consensus demonstrates this long- term rising trend (Figure 3.4).
86
Figure 3.4 Rapid warming data consensus (NASA 2020a)
Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Smith, and Mill, despite their important founding contributions to the idea of individual liberty, miss the full implications of what an idealised liberal state and subsequent capitalist system of exchange would bring, or as Mészáros (1995:63-64) puts it, ‘the devastating consequences’ arising from capital’s capacity to disrupt social metabolic bonds through principles of aggressive competition. They illustrate that despite hopes for promised security, flawed founding conceptions of the human/nature relation have interfered with the aims of freedom. The centrality of ‘man’, which sees nature as separate and not interdependently bound to humans, allows what is common to be easily exploited by those with the ‘right’ to own property. The latter are a limited group, most often privileged by the fortune of birth, a privilege that is maintained through patterns of hierarchical, patriarchal and inherited power.
Consequently, while the hope and expectation of freedom and security to flourish were within enlightenment thinking, humans would pursue this promise imagining themselves at the centre, separate to nature, and with an aggressively self-interested attitude. Nature, as an object of exploitation, was rationalised by specific principles within capitalism that align to these ideals. The enlightenment narrative of what would provide the conditions of security and flourishing was established, but best-suited a limited group, with the associated ‘natural rights’ only for those whose station in life guaranteed it. It is useful to look at an example of the transition involved in the embedding of the principles that delineate who primarily benefit from Lockean freedom. Actions during England’s enclosure movement, enacted through parliamentary
87 Enclosure Acts (Fairlie 2009:28) predominantly in the 1800s, involved an end to traditional rights that allowed common use of lands in the open field system. What was commonly owned or at least commonly accessible to serfs would become a vehicle to pursue profit, the last of the principles in consideration here.
3.3 Governments embrace principles of separation: Enclosing what is common
The enclosure of European commons is a manifestation of Lockean arguments and encapsulates how government structures and law became skewed (or evolved earlier hierarchies) to protect a limited group – allocating rights to some by abusing the understood natural rights of others, as the agricultural commons of the feudal system were appropriated in the operationalising of the right to ‘life, liberty and property’. The separating principles that were applied to allocate commonly shared natural resources and spaces also illustrate an institutional embedding of flawed principles establishing the trajectory of problematic relations associated with climate change today.
The term ‘commons’, discussed here in relation to the enclosure movement, has origins in the Magna Carta (1215) and Charter of the Forests (1225) in Medieval England, defining the freedom of all members of a kingdom to benefit from a lord’s lands, considered to be a form of public goods (Aguiton 2017:78). Garrett Hardin’s (1968:1244) often referenced ‘tragedy of the commons’ controversially argues that a resource shared in common will inevitably be destroyed because people will act individually in the pursuit of self-interest. Hardin’s argument is critiqued for failing to see that in reality commons were typically managed cooperatively (Fairlie 2009:17), being more than ‘common goods’, and instead being ‘processes of socially managing the different elements and aspects that are necessary for a human community’ (Aguiton 2017:77). Countering Hardin, Ostrom (1990) demonstrates that communities effectively manage commons when acting together with a common goal.
The enclosure movement is part of the historical trajectory putting faith in the market’s ‘invisible hand’ to bring prosperity, and demonstrates the embedding of the self-interested, human-centred, profit-driven relation with the rest of nature. Since the first principles of capitalistic exploitation and profit had already begun with shipbuilding (Moore 2017:181), global trade with potentially lucrative profits enticed European merchants and landowners to change from perishable crop production to non-perishable crops like wool, and begin the process of enclosing land to facilitate the shift (Varoufakis 2017:40-42). To keep up with
88 expanding global trade and industrialisation, the dismantling of commons was considered necessary to enrich merchants and all within their supply chain. The agricultural commons, once set aside for serfs who depended on them for livelihood and survival, were increasingly closed off to suit the rise of large-scale production for the market.
Comprehensive enclosure was an application of a set of principles of separation that come with viewing nature and its interdependencies as separable and exploitable. Marx (1979:876) calls this period of mass expropriation ‘primitive accumulation’, describing a time of ruthless terrorism where ‘the great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled onto the labour market as free, unprotected and rightless proletarians.’ Thompson (1991:218) describes enclosures as ‘a plain enough case of class robbery, played according to fair rules of property and law laid down by a Parliament of property-owners and lawyers.’ By privatising things once shared, such robbery would become part of a historical process of institutionalised theft of publicly-shared, life-sustaining nature, in part through government conceptions of how to distribute what is common. There are clear parallels with climate change, where theft of environmental commons like the atmosphere and oceans occurs through deregulatory power that allows the environment to be ‘enclosed’ by being a dumping ground for pollutants (Heynen & Robbins 2005:6).
The words of those who resisted early attempts at enclosures illustrate the disrupted stability and injustice it brings. Uprising speeches of 1549 under ‘The Oak of Reformation’ in Norfolk England, recorded by English historian Alexander Nevylle, describe the significance of enclosures for those expelled from lands:
The Commons, which were left by our forefathers for the relief of ourselves and families, are taken from us; the lands, which within the remembrance of our fathers were open, are now surrounded with hedges and ditches; and the pastures are enclosed, so that no one can go upon them. The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and all the fruits so unsparingly brought forth by the earth, they look upon as their own, and consequently use them as such (in Bernstein 1963:22).
These words describe the felt injustice that came when capitalist profit-driven principles drove the acceleration of such enclosures, disrupting the opportunities for security and flourishing for those subjected to them. Spanning across the 16th to 18th centuries and inclusive of the comprehensive General Enclosure Act of 1801, the process inhibited relational and dependent exchanges that people had formerly enjoyed. Compensation for the landless or smallholders was also discouraged by economists, who, after reading Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’, dissuaded
89 Prime Ministers like William Pitt in 1801, from social programs in favour of a stronger market (Fairlie 2009:26-27), and millions were forced to sell their labour in cities just to survive. By disrupting material interdependencies, enclosures simultaneously disrupted social interdependencies within the communities relationally dependent on the commons. This theft of commons was facilitated by the state through ‘rationalization of agriculture’, which dislocated ‘the laborer and undermined his social security’, creating conditions of uncertainty (Polanyi 2001:96; Marx 1979:883-884).
The separation from the commons and the ‘social relation with material and immaterial goods’ therein (Aguiton 2017:78) would destabilise the core sense of security of the people involved by taking away predictable frames of action. As collateral damage of industrialisation, the dispossessed faced economic and political exploitation as so-called ‘freedom’ that came with free trade put workers in vulnerable positions, and any effort to resist exploitation ‘was met by the forces of employer or State, and commonly of both’ (Thompson 1991:199). The reflexive need for security and self-preservation, along with their expectation of flourishing, I posit, would have been deeply engaged, forcing individuals to adapt to these new systems of relation to realign their destabilised pathway, discernible in their compelled move to industrial centres and new forms of coerced labour just to survive.
3.3.1 The principle of profit
The process of enclosure and exclusion in England exemplified the wilful and/or ignorant separation of interdependencies in practice, the individualising and atomising of the population driven by market demands. Importantly, the institutionalisation of such principles came with Parliamentary Acts in a government made up of privileged elites writing laws to benefit themselves. These laws served the needs of a privileged few, ensuring already-advantaged elites their capacity to freely pursue their life projects, while the promise of greater liberty for all was illusory. Early in the 18th century, the increasing privately-owned lands of the gentry were used for the increase of non-perishable crops, such as wool converted into yarn and textiles for trade (Thompson 1993:16). Later, when Indian and US cotton replaced products like wool, the lands were redeployed as farmland to feed an increasingly large working class supporting the new system of mass production. Such developments embedded the principle of exploitative separation as a means for the ‘end’ of profit within social and economic structures. In effect, it delivered freedom and security for a few, while undoing what was otherwise a stable interdependent (albeit flawed) system of land distribution, and the stability of many within it. Polanyi (2001:164) notes the destabilising association between embedded capitalism and these
90 laws, where ‘the masses were being sweated and starved by the callous exploiters of their helplessness’ through laws that deprived people of a home and abandoned them to market forces for the enrichment of a few. Thus, the imagined ‘freedom’ of liberalism takes on a particular quality; the system promises freedom and success for all but only significantly delivers for a few. Enclosure demonstrates the exploitation of human and nonhuman nature for a specific ‘end’, namely profit.
Karl Marx sees the enclosure movement as a critical moment. From the end of feudal tenure of land proceeded the theft of ‘fraudulently appropriated’ lands so that ‘the rights of modern private property’ were established; commons disappeared, becoming private property of capitalists with the support of the state (Marx 1979:883-886). Marx’s dialectical frame understands a disruption in the complex interconnections between humans and the rest of nature. Though his dialectic approach is more developed in terms of society than nature (Foster, Clark & York 2010:216), Marx (1979:636-638) observes the subsequent eco-social effects of industrial-scale agriculture. The enclosure of lands disrupts the life-sustaining interdependent bond between life, labour and land by alienating people from the capacity to produce for themselves in a mutually sustaining way (Marx 1979:730), and thus the possibility for ‘regeneration and/or continuance’ (Foster, Clark & York 2010:75). The social effects occurred in harmony with soil depletion as nutrients were shipped to cities, disrupting the metabolic relation that kept the soil fertile. This of course enriched a few whilst profoundly disrupting the socio-ecological ‘metabolism’ (Marx 1979:283). It fed the capitalist aim and reveals a central principle of capital, namely ‘the unceasing movement of profit-making’, where ‘the appropriation of ever more wealth in the abstract is the sole driving force’ motivating the capitalist (Marx 1979:254).
Marx felt he was witnessing a rapid and unmatched restructuring of social exchange. He observed the lengths capital structures allow the exploitation of human and environmental resources, regardless of the cost, due to capital’s primary intent of profit. Instead of seeing the state as a neutral force, Marx (1979:348) sees a capitalist ruling class/state synergy, rejecting the idea that the state acts in the interests of all, especially since capitalism entrenches class structures that cannot be reconciled, thus any state intervention ostensibly in the common interest is in reality affirming the interests of the ruling class (Swain 2012:60). With Engels (1998:211), Marx observes that the already uneven class relations of the feudal system were nothing compared to the disruption caused as capitalism’s industrial-scale production pitilessly tore ‘asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”’. The most fundamental driver of exchange – profit – would take over relations,
91 embodying the view of humans as separate to nature, self-interested and individually acting in a live-and-let-die struggle for life.
Greek economist and politician, Yanis Varoufakis (2017:49) argues the shift from feudal commons to land ownership was an important liminal period during which, ‘in the triumph of exchange values over experiential values, as societies with markets evolved into market societies, something else happened: money was transformed from being a means into an end’. The transformative nature of this process happening in Britain – the putative capital of the industrial revolution – formed a new kind of society, a market society, different to earlier feudal societies, which, though brutal, were not based on commodity production and not driven by the profit-motive as a foundation for capital exchange in markets (Varoufakis 2017:38-39). Would this market ideology affect the broader socio-cultural fabric? For Marx (1988:229) ‘the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class’ since control over the means of production delivers power over intellectual force, and thus ‘over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it’.
Marx’s observation invites examination of how such symbols of the ruling class are embodied in objects – from cars and mobile phones to Twitter profiles and Trump-branded straws. As can be seen in the prioritisation of market profits in daily news bulletins, or the lionisation of the rich in mainstream media, or the promotion of self-fetishization and consumption in advertising, capitalism’s driving principles are embedded within culture (Ewen 1976:48,89). Accumulation and profit appear as signs of success, enmeshed in everyday embodied exchanges, and constituting the ‘sign-vehicles’ of success that individuals draw from to decide a trajectory of action (Goffman 1959:1; Mauss 1973:3). Modernity’s principles, which were shaping the use of time, space and individual energy in relation to value, involved ideas and material conditions working together to constitute social and cultural frames of action. They could be adapted to existing belief systems to equally (re)establish predictable schemas that provide assurance, demonstrated by Weber’s discussion on the Puritans and the spirit of capitalism (Weber 1976:157). Weber’s (1976:163) emphasis on ideal notions within the Protestant ethic, of godly approval through profit and material success being a force in the emergence of capitalism, complements Marx’s materialist approach – through material conditions and symbolic ideas we see the gradual establishment of the profit-motive as a fundamental principle driving economic (and thus social) exchanges today (Moore 2015:17; Varoufakis 2017:49). Thus, as Moore (2015:95) describes, modernity becomes ‘a mighty control project’, operationalising various ‘quantifying and categorizing procedures oriented towards identifying, securing, and regulating historical natures in service to accumulation’.
92
Ideas of modernity implied human control (Descola 2013:247; Bennett 2010:17), coupled with the belief ‘that powerful humans and their cultures are distinct from the natural material world’ (LeCain 2015:8), and as this formulation shapes the way things are produced and begins to spread through the eco-socio-cultural frameworks organising society, there are implications both for those who accept its promise, and for any that are exposed to the principles the new way of thinking generates in social exchange. Though the systemic changes reify practices of separation, they should not be viewed as a social development separate from nature, but as the human element mediating the relation with nature, with the flawed understanding of the time guiding the trajectory. I shall consider how feelings related to existential survival and flourishing within the human animal are elements contributing to the living dialectical relation. My consideration involves the influence of the narrative of freedom and security that developed from enlightenment and modernity mingling with the fear of uncertainty within the human animal’s struggle to survive.
3.4 The effect of the principles within the narrative of modernity
Horkheimer and Adorno (2002:7) argue that the enlightenment imbued an unshakeable confidence through a sense of control over the world, ostensibly freeing humans from previously-held myths and fear. Though leading in a life-denying direction, modernity’s promise nevertheless constitutes the ‘background conditions’ (Block 1990:30) from which the individual seeks to draw trustworthy coordinates of action. While the early liberal foundation for democratic governance acknowledged the drive for security and the pursuit of a flourishing life, its founders were blind to the complexities of interdependent mutuality. The systems of governance and exchange emerging from modernity replaced previous modes of structuring the world, providing new delineation of boundaries, and restoring a sense of power and control, and in so doing ostensibly alleviate anxiety for the human animal, who is dependent on predictable frames to feel secure (Giddens 1991:40-44). A reliance on rationality and capitalist advancement held chaos at bay by constructing ostensibly stable meanings regarding the world. However, the founding principles now embedded in systems of exchange are revealed as flawed through the manifestation of climate change.
Climate change is an example that the limited and flawed understanding regarding the human relation with the rest of nature remains part of the dominant narrative of what brings security. Contemporary governance structures may contain modernity’s promise to protect individual liberty and opportunity to flourish, but the principles and arrangements therein still
93 predominantly protect certain segments of society – the privileged and powerful. Civil society institutions often battle against these structures to create secure conditions for the individual (Cohen & Arato 1997:ix). What is problematic is that particularly since 1945 ‘the rich North’ has founded a ‘modern dream’ for each person’s life upon ‘increasing incomes, wealth, security, movement, wellbeing and longevity’ which was generated by ‘many decades of growth fuelled by the high carbon systems of production and consumption’ (Urry 2011:48), a ‘dream’ developing nations now pursue. It is problematic because it propagates the flawed promise of security through exploitative use of global commons and burning fossil fuels. In reality, it is an aspirational fantasy for most, especially because continuous growth in the context of a finite Earth is self-contradictory and is leading to systemic collapse.
The dynamic interaction enacted through the two overarching narratives described here constitutes a dialectical struggle centred around the desire for a good, secure life. Each narrative offers predictable frames for action, but with life-sustaining or life-denying potentialities depending on which principles prevail. Since the individual refers to socio-cultural frames for coordinates that promise a secure path of action, the effect of the prevailing principles and accompanying narrative on the individual is a key part of this interaction. By equating consumption of goods with freedom, societies enacting the principles and rationalised processes of industrial capitalist production inevitably carry ‘the political ideology of consumption’, with democracies being predominant in promising security through consumption (Ewen 1976:89). In theory such a promise, embedded within the precepts of liberalism, implies the opportunity for flourishing and justice for all. In practice, the ‘social order defined by capitalism’ (Sprintzen 2009:20-22) generates massive disorder through ‘creative destruction’ (Schumpeter 1994:81). Destruction comes through the constant revolutionising of markets that fail to acknowledge interdependencies. Externalising the cost of pollution is a case in point, creating the externality of climate change that the most vulnerable, and future generations will have to pay for.
But of what significance is the dialectical engagement between the individual and modernity’s symbolic promise? To fully appreciate how principles now embedded in systems of exchange influence individual action, I next examine how the historical narrative of enlightenment and modernity persist in neoliberal forms and its relevance for individual action. After that I can consider how symbols of control and advancement resonate with the hope a flourishing life, and placate the constant anxiety that come with uncertainty and fear of material or symbolic death.
94 Chapter 4
A false promise of freedom persists
Chapter two considered the humans-in-nature narrative, which describes a dialectical and interdependent relation that broadly provides stable and secure living conditions for humans through mutually beneficial reciprocal frames. A contrasting humans-over-nature narrative, described in chapter three, promises that the rationalising principles and ideas from Western enlightenment and modernity, which treat nature as separable and exploitable, can deliver freedom, prosperity and success, and thus a secure world through the capacity to control nature. This chapter argues modernity’s promise was transmitted through capitalism and persists in the ideals of neoliberal capitalist governance. The individual is in relation with structures of exchange that are shaped by state and corporate interests; structures associated with working and consuming, practiced through everyday experiences like supermarket shopping, or consumption of technologies like smartphones. This relation, I argue, has implications for action, affecting the web of life and serving as a vehicle for the flawed originary principles of modernity.
I briefly consider the transition from classical laissez-faire capitalism to neoliberal forms of economic and administrative governance, with a focus on neoliberalism, drawing on Marx and Marxian thinkers like David Harvey alongside supporting literatures, to see how modernity’s promise and the related principles operate within institutions, processes and mentalities to sustain the action parameters of an imagined liberal subject, while shaping attitudes about climate change. I examine the objects the smartphone and coal of to highlight the problem that arises when a promise of freedom becomes a conduit for life-denying principles in everyday exchanges. I also begin to draw on some interview comments, which help illustrate the presence of the dominant narrative tied to capitalism within the individual sphere, and to what effect.
Again, while the thesis primarily focuses on both epistemologies and experiences from Europe and North America, broadly described as ‘the West’, I discuss principles and ideas that have been diffused globally through the spread of capitalism, and that dwell within structures of exchange. I note that I cannot go into the complex dynamic of social development associated with the ideas of modernity and capitalism. While acknowledging the positive achievements of
95 modernity, I focus on the negative implications of relying on the human-centred ideas of control and empowerment for survival while disregarding principles of interdependence.5
4.1 The promise of freedom transferred – the rise of neoliberalism
As considered, while Adam Smith was writing about the Wealth of Nations, Western colonialism and imperialism – enacted through England, France and Holland – was already accelerating its project of international extraction and exploitation (Mignolo & Walsh 2018:116). Massive displacement from enclosed commons in England and Europe led to industrialised urban centres, where technological advancement was paralleled by increased poverty and suffering of many displaced labourers (Macionis & Plummer 2008:14-15; Polanyi 2001:41). The emerging political economy would establish state-supported capitalism as the dominant global system of exchange, involving the fundamental capitalist principle that stresses ‘unlimited accumulation of capital’, feeding ‘the economic circuit’ with the primary goal of deriving a profit (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005:4-5). The principles driving this expansion begin to shape ‘the concepts of time and work’ that individuals contend with, imbuing the human-to- human and human-to-earth relations with ‘specific meanings’ (Ingold 2002:323) regarding paths to security through growth, as the historical transition of accelerating capitalism and expanding industrial manufacture takes hold.
Indeed, the restructuring that occurs during the transition from classical laissez-faire capitalism to contemporary neoliberal forms involves a period of great historical flux and revolution (Schumpeter 1994:75). The ruthless laissez-faire capitalism of the so-called 19th century robber barons, global economic depressions and suffering associated with WW2 were briefly tempered by Keynesian economic approaches . Keynesian centralised planning, which maintained some social safety nets, was a manifestation of the countering force involving fibres of interdependence. However, the struggle would again shift in a life-denying direction with a new expression of the principles of modernity that arose in the form of neoliberalism, the most recent part of capitalism’s transitions (Urry 2011:49).
5 For instance, poverty reduction, increased life expectancy, reduced hunger, greater participation in childhood education, and so on have been linked to modernity and capitalism, with the implication that only these allow the possibility of freedom to enact advancing ideas (Pinker 2011:xxii; Norberg 2001:58). While the project of modernity has achieved many advances, the countering force from principles of interdependent mutuality involved in the agonistic struggle for better conditions should not be diminished. Further, while capitalism effectively creates material prosperity, it also results in, inter alia, unequal delivery of benefits globally (de Grauwe 2017:11), and consistent 1% versus 99% type disparity in access and well-being potentialities, with current levels of social and economic inequality both in the ‘West’ and throughout the world at record highs (Payne 2017:6-7; Picketty 2013:534). 96 Neoliberalism is founded on the tenants of classical economic liberalism, which ‘proclaimed “the market” as the proper guiding instrument’ to organise people’s lives (MacEwan 1999:4-5), but is also regarded as a political strategy whose main aim is to reduce the role of government in regulating national and international economic activities so that the market can step in (Harvey 2005:2). One of its founding fathers, Ludwig von Mises (1963:151, 259, 282), emphasises individual freedom, and opposes excessive state or societal control, which for him hinder the free operation of the market and individual action. Later, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman continue to associate ‘unwarranted’ governmental regulation and organisation with oppressive rule and the stifling of freedom (Hayek 2001:29). Utilising the promise of prosperity through free markets, UK leader Margaret Thatcher and US president Ronald Reagan led a global shift in the reconstruction of economies through institutional change via the ‘Washington Consensus’ (Wolff 2016:4; Harvey 2005:39-63), leading to neoliberalism gradually becoming ‘the most powerful ideological and political project in global governance’ following Keynesianism (McCarthy and Prudham 2004:275).
Many of the limited protections that had been established under Keynesianism were quickly eroded by the free market approach ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan, who had adopted the economic views of Friedman and Hayek (Hertz 2002:24-25). Neoliberalism brought renewed disruptions similar to what Marx observed, and particularly in the so-called global South, when nations were compelled to join neoliberal economic bodies such as the IMF and World Bank (MacEwan 1999:4). In neoliberalism the promise of freedom for all to pursue individual flourishing is maintained through its own representation of freedom through individualisation and unregulated exchange (Harvey 2005:20-21), though neoliberalism again restructures the conditions for individual action in a manner that imagines and autonomous, atomised ‘liberal’ subject, thereby continuing the separations that Marx (1988:69) associates with human alienation. Neoliberalism amplifies the separating principles hitherto discussed, which are antithetical to acknowledging the vulnerable, interconnected human condition. Thatcher famously proclaimed that there was ‘no such thing as society, only individual men and women’ as she began to smash unions, roll back the welfare state, increase privatisation of public commons and attack ‘all forms of social solidarity that hinders competitive flexibility’ (Harvey 2005:22).
For Hayek (1978:149), from whom Thatcher found inspiration, ‘there can be no freedom’ as long as the government controlled the various aspects of civic life, such as transportation, media, and public spaces. Government control represented a fundamental threat to freedoms enjoyed therein. An important through-line can be seen from the promise of freedom in Locke’s right to life, liberty and property, to the latent but identifiable promise in the rhetoric and
97 processes justifying industrialised capitalist production in neoliberalism. Chapter three outlined the intimate connection made in liberalism between property ownership and individual freedom. Locke paints an anthropocentric vision of ‘man’ with a right to dominate and accumulate wealth through exploiting the commons. From within a market order founded on private property, the individual could use property, personal labor and capital to meet needs, with an assumption that a free market will guarantee individual freedoms, a key refrain of neoliberal thinking today (Harvey 2005:7). However, the relation between freedom and property is problematically extended through the idea that the process of constant material and economic growth constitutes prosperity. Meadows et al. (2004:6) note the multiple actors pursuing this idea:
Individuals support growth-oriented policies, because they believe growth will give them an ever-increasing welfare. Governments seek growth as a remedy for just about every problem. In the rich world, growth is believed to be necessary for employment, upward mobility, and technical advance. In the poor world, growth seems to be the only way out of poverty [and] government and corporate leaders do all they can to produce more and more growth.
Each of these actors maintain a belief in the symbolism of a story depicting material growth as a means to achieve security, seeing it as a pathway to pursue fundamental aspects of a secure and successful life. But this is a problem. Recalling the discussion regarding the anthropocene, the growth imperative is at the heart of a fundamental contradiction in human-to-rest-of-nature relations. The imperative requires the constant process of extraction, production and consumption, relying on the burning of fossil fuels and releasing pollutants into life-sustaining ecological systems that are already reaching their waste absorption capacity (Speth 2008:118). Thus, the stability of earth’s systems is sacrificed for short-sighted economic growth.
The growth imperative equally encourages corporate externalisation of costs through the exploitation of human capital purely to enrich those in power and achieve profits for shareholders. This may occur in developing nations, where for instance extraction of rare minerals for phones leads to human rights violations (Ayres 2012:185), or in rich countries in the form of low-wage jobs, where the wages of workers at large corporate institutions like Walmart, for instance, are so low they remain below the poverty line, qualifying workers for government food stamps (Kovacic-Fleisher 2017:2-3). For the long-term, such originary principles of the project of modernity, establish exchanges that quietly begin destabilising the foundations of nature, leading to the contemporary climate crisis. I am pointing to the blinding effect of the growth imperative – the principle of exploitation and growth combines with the idea of freedom and success to obscure an important reality, namely that this pathway towards
98 flourishing is, contrariwise, life-denying. In this way the promise of freedom, repackaged in neoliberalism (Wolff & Resnick 2012:335), supresses the notion of equitably distributed commons through mutual care, relying on individualised self-interested actions and ‘the market’ to produce the security it promises. Such conflation between freedom and the neoliberal economic system would profoundly influence the institutional arrangements that imagine an autonomous liberal subject and empty social contract obligations between individual and state of their assumed protections.
4.2 Structuring life for an imagined ‘liberal subject’
The neoliberal doctrine of limited government reflects the limits to government as expounded by Locke (2005:116-117), though more exaggerated. In the individual liberty that emerges in enlightenment thinking, the government in principle plays a role in delivering freedom, though curtailed to prevent its power to curb liberty and control property. Thus, Paine (1945:4-6, 244), Locke (2005:46) and Rousseau (2011:43) see the government as a necessary evil and appeal to a social contract. The vision of freedom in neoliberal governance, in contrast, diminishes the role of government to essentially protecting private property, thus undermining many of the promises of a social contract that move beyond a property focus.
Social contract traditions have in many Western and non-Western states developed to include democratic principles and how to pursue justice through them (McAffee 2008:119; Habermas 1996:24-24; Sen 2009:xi; Honig 2017:18). Yet, neoliberalism increasingly entrenches ‘policies of liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation and fiscal constraint’ under the promise of freedom and security throughout global systems (Scholte 2004:1051). In effect, neoliberalism undermines any communal or social contract ideals that potentially incorporate principles of interdependence by elevating the profit principle, externalisation of costs through deregulation, limitless accumulation and growth, and means-to-an-end instrumental rationality. Allowing the market to take the place of government means that these principles and their separating effects on the web-of-life organic whole (Marx 1964:87) are what regulate exchange.
Thus, neoliberalism has been applied in reference to a variety of social, political, economic and cultural processes (Lyster 2019:43), but understood as a bankrupt account of political economy that is not interested in the average individual, and is instead ‘a hegemonic ideology, a project for the restoration of class power, and authoritarian politics, and a mode of governing subjectivity and society’ (Golder & McLoughlin 2017:1). Venugopal (2015:166) suggests the power neoliberal structures have over states, social actors, policy creation and the ‘market
99 order’ indicates actual neoliberalism is more a ‘project of authoritarian capital’, and a ‘project of neo-colonial domination’ (Venugopal 2015:172-175). As shown by the 2008 global financial crisis, in many instances state governance is dominated by neoliberal financial markets; states bail out banks with communal funds that could otherwise support social systems providing individuals basic security (Konzelmann et al. 2010:952). Similarly, individuals and firms ‘externalise’ costs while maintaining profits, whereby government policy allows pollution causing environmental degradation, the burden being carried by the rest of society (Harvey 2005:67-68).
Importantly, neoliberal capitalist governance constructs systems of exchange imagining a self- interested liberal subject, and while exalting modernity’s promise of freedom it maintains flawed principles of separation as the basis for a path to flourishing. The humans-over-nature narrative neoliberalism embodies sees the human animal as a purely self-interested ‘homo economicus’ or ‘economic man’ who is narrowly focused on the ‘rational’ pursuit of material success – the central protagonist of Rational Choice Theory (Haidt 2012:150; Bourdieu 2005:44; Scott 2000:126). In contexts where capitalism and neoliberal governance have influence, to varying degrees depending on state deployment of capitalism, and regardless of the realities of communal life, ‘economic man’ represents the ‘prescribed’ human motivations presupposed ‘from its transcribed actors’ (Latour 1988:306-307), and life is structured accordingly, with implications for individual action.
I thus see all individuals engaging with capitalist exchanges as subject to the principles that imagine a ‘liberal subject’ as interlocutor. This vision sees the liberal subject not merely in terms of being a self-sufficient and autonomous employer/employee, consumer, manufacturer, citizen and taxpayer, as Fineman (2008:10) describes, and not in terms of a liberal subject that is necessarily part of a liberal democratic state. Anyone dialectically engaged with the principles tracing back to the enlightenment and modernity is, through consumption, in effect colonised by those principles, and by using the structuring system of capitalism is reproducing it. Part of the problem is the way billions of people use objects on a daily basis that are founded on the flawed principles of capitalism but bound up with the promise of freedom and security. I shall illustrate this problematic next through the smartphone, and by corollary coal, which is burned for the energy needed to build and operate it. Relation with a smartphone elucidates the association between a false promise of freedom through principles of modernity that resonate with the human animal’s pursuit of security and flourishing, and dependence on the outer world to do so.
The ubiquity of smartphones, now increasingly accessible in both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations (Vimalkumar et al. 2020:1-2), illustrates how principles of capitalism enter both
100 Western and non-Western systems of exchange and continue to diffuse the narrative of modernity. A conundrum lies in the complex relation with these objects, which are not purely ‘bad’ or ‘good’. On one hand, smartphones and coal sustain life, and are objects through which people pursue their own chance at a life project of meaning.
For instance, coal is an energy source that sustains billions of people, and is supporting industrial processes that a bringing millions out of poverty, as has happened in China. If used with principles of mutuality, like responsibility and awareness of limits, coal could be part of an overall life-sustaining relation. Likewise, smartphones are used for many life-sustaining activities – daily social communication and organisation, activism and human rights abuse documentation, locating someone lost or hurt, not to mention the positive effects in alleviating poverty through broadening community connections, access to finance, relief workers and so on (Wilhelm et al. 2015:307). If responsibly sourced, with principles of mutuality and care, and with applied awareness of interdependence, they potentially could be part of a life-sustaining relation.
However, since their production disregards the principles applied with an awareness of interdependence, both the smartphone and coal are part of a system generating excessive GHG emissions and precipitating life-denying climate change. Consider how producing and consuming them involves life-denying potentialities that are enmeshed with life-sustaining promise. There are an innumerable number of interconnected and interdependent relations associated with the smartphone that are potentially affected, so I will just outline a few illustrative threads describing the extent of connectedness and interdependence. After designing smartphones, the human animal engages in the web of life by extracting and processing finite raw materials from the Earth, manufacturing and assembling components sometimes in different locations, and then packing and globally distributing the product using various transport channels, burning energy to power vehicles (Wilhelm et al. 2015:303). Production may involve ‘conflict’ minerals like coltan, whereby disregard for responsibility and care in the countries of origin leads to exploitation and contravening principles of dignity, freedom and justice through inter alia child labour, let alone the endangerment of life (Ayers 2012:178; Leonard 2010:27; Prendergast & Lezhnev 2010:2). ‘Planned obsolescence’ disregards the finiteness of resources; phones are made to be continually disposed of and replaced, perpetuating environmental waste issues (Sarath et al. 2015:537; Ongondo & Williams 2011:1307; Leonard 2010:29, 161, 202), and ignoring the interdependent fibres connecting nature’s ‘resource taps and waste sinks’ (Foster, Clark & York 2010:103). The principle of accumulation sees outdated phones put in draws, while producers accumulate profits to again expand production (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005:8-9). This failure to think long-term is a failure to apply appropriate precaution involving
101 an awareness of interdependence and care that comes with life-sustaining principles of mutuality.
Not considering the vulnerability of relational humans in dialectical exchange means people face the dangers of extracting and recycling toxic minerals, and introduces toxins into the food cycle through ‘soil-crop-food pathways’ through associated burning processes (Leonard 2010:103; Ayers 2012:179; McAllister 2013). And directly tied to climate change is the energy use and waste in making, using and shipping them, disregarding the connection between burning energy for transport and depleting atmospheric reserves (Leonard 2010:103). Further, there are many social impacts like the vulnerability that comes with engineered debt to possess them, through surveillance and disruption of spatio-temporal aspects of daily life, and associated disrupting effects of social media (Ball 2016:5; Akin 2017:127). Many of these exchanges involve the externalisation of costs (Harvey 1993:7), a principle within the ‘efficiencies’ of capitalist production, that comes from a distortion of value and overlooks interdependencies in the pursuit of profit.
A companion in the production/distribution/consumption phases of smartphones is energy from fossil fuels like coal. While coal generates around 40% of the world’s energy, its production/use has both local and broader impacts: the areas from where it is extracted experience destroyed vegetation, soil, groundwater; destruction/displacement of flora and fauna, degrading of air through dust/ash, scarred landscape, waste in the form of ash and sludge containing mercury, uranium, arsenic and other heavy metals with real and potential threats to local water reserves, to the detriment of people and natural habitats (Leonard 2010:35-36). The motivation to extract and consume coal has, from industrial times, coterminously ignored the effects of its emissions in an interdependent finite system, thereby polluting soil, air and water, and gradually consuming the atmosphere’s carbon ‘budget’ leading to climate change (McDonough & Braungart 2002:62). Coal is part of the flawed accounting of capitalism, with extraction of resources that don’t ‘grow back’ (Harvey 1993:5). These extractive processes are ‘energy- and water-intensive, waste-spewing, often poisonous, and all-around dirty processes’, displacing communities, producing toxic by-products, and setting up infrastructure to extract and later process the fossil fuel involves land clearing (hence biodiverse habitats) and has potential environmental and health impacts for the workers and surrounding communities (Leonard 2010:20-21). Meanwhile, its production is marketed as a ‘clean coal’ strategy and disposal of its toxic waste as ‘sanitary landfill’ (Leonard 2010:207). Ultimately, burning coal contributes massively to GHG emissions, which threaten global environmental stability.
102 Each of these ‘fibres’ affects another, and as can be seen there are many repercussions of interconnectedness. The use of smartphones and coal, then, involve an overall failure to apply an awareness of interdependence and the associated principles of mutuality, responsibility and care. What I am considering in regard to the individual, however, is the complexity that comes when their use is tied to the possibility of flourishing, while using them also engages flawed principles within the exchange. The smartphone and coal promise freedom and provide security by being critically tied to employment, connectivity with others, daily energy use and so one. Meanwhile, the destructive quality of the principles they embody is concealed or overlooked while also actively undermining the broader conditions needed for the freedom and security the individual seeks.
This mix of promises and undermining principles is part of the taken-for-granted ‘background conditions’ (Block 1990:30, 44) that construct ‘stable features of everyday activities’ (Garfinkel 1967:36). It raises a conflict where engagement in daily affairs pushes the overall web-of-life relation in a life-denying direction by virtue of the individual struggling for personal life- sustaining outcomes. This implicates the individual in life-denying processes; with a smartphone in hand, one may be oblivious to them, but nevertheless party to them. Anyone carrying a smartphone, anyone relying on coal-powered energy, anyone willingly or reluctantly engaging in the capitalist system is forced in some measure to act as a liberal subject despite in reality being a vulnerable subject, with vulnerable-subject needs. Through the separation and estrangement that occurs via this liberal subject imagining, the individual is also an alienated subject (Marx 1988:71). To understand this, we can return to the idea of profit, the principle that now dominates global exchange.
4.3 The false promise of security through profit
Profit is central to how capitalism has induced climate change. Profit as an end, rather than a means to an end, is a primary driving force (Varoufakis 2017:57), ‘the absolute law’ of capitalist production (Marx 1979:769), and an immensely powerful tool of private enterprise, which reduces ‘the totality of life…to one aspect – profits’ (Schumacher 1993:215). Recall the smartphone; though used in contexts of interdependent exchange, its profit-driven production encompasses the principles constituting the flawed humans-over-nature narrative about what brings security, principles that extract human and nonhuman ‘cheap nature’ in the form of exploited energy of people and natural resources (Moore 2017:191-192). Though not apparent when someone uses a smartphone, these principles have already separated abstract and concrete web-of-life interdependencies, from dignity to the atmosphere. Thus, imagine the cumulative
103 effect of flawed principles undermining interdependencies just in the production and consumption of hundreds of millions of Apple iPhones alone (Figure 4.1). The latent principles drive constant competition for production and growth in a so-called free market, which is imagined as producing prosperity and freedom for the individual actor, while the system externalises the costs involved in having a stable living environment.
Figure 4.1 (Statista Research Department 2020)
Faith in a profit-oriented market is accompanied by the belief, originating in enlightenment thinking, that the individual can flourish through competing with others as rational, self- interested, autonomous and thus free selves. In a general sense, the promise of freedom associated with the profit motive obscures the consequences of undermined stabilities since it relies on instrumental ‘rationality’ that narrowly measures, counts, and separates (Weber 1976: 68). What is the consequence for the individual? First, it can influence values. It is notable, for instance, that in a survey of community residents’ belief on human-induced climate change,6 those who trusted a ‘rational’ profit-driven free market, with an underlying assumption of optimism through faith in the ‘invisible hand’, demonstrated greater environmental apathy or willingness to act on climate change (Heath and Gifford 2006:52).
Or consider the exacted social cost from those that must work within the frameworks dictated by its principles within smartphone production. At the ground level, workers’ health and life expectancy, safety and security, autonomy, and rights like equal opportunities are impacted; and then there are the environmental costs through resource exploitation, energy use, and poorly
6 190 Canadian adults (18+) 104 managed waste disposal (Wilhelm et al. 2015:304-305). At the consumer level capitalism usurps interdependencies of time and space through what Hope (2016:7) describes as the modern ‘communication frameworks, architectures and lifeworlds’ like ‘global television news, internet platforms, cyberculture and the built environments of spectacular consumption’. As an imagined liberal subject, the individual end-user’s time and space is consequently disrupted, co- opted through a network of consumption attached to the phone – from being on constant call, paying off a phone plan, or engaging with media platforms.
Looking more narrowly, the consumption of YouTube illustrates the potential impact of profit- oriented market principles promising freedom. In one study of 139,475 videos created by German YouTube channels between 2009 and 2017, YouTube users confront an increasing amount of product promotion with concerning social and economic impacts, such as the power of social media influencers to ‘strongly influence children and teenagers in their perceptions as well as decisions’ because of the trust imbued to them (Schwemmer & Ziewieck 2018:10-11). In these contexts, the medium portrays a path to success through consumption promoted by ‘influencers’, namely ‘those who use their ability to communicate to influence behaviour and opinions of third parties’ (Aran-Ramspott et al. 2018:73). As drivers of consumption, the relations emanating from YouTube illustrate the perpetuation of market exchanges involving a promise of flourishing enmeshed with modernity’s flawed principles of endless consumption and the profit-motive as the ‘end’ of an exchange.
Through its objects and its ideology, the market promises to be the means to achieve individual security and flourishing through a heightened focus on individualism and rational self-interest. Concurrently ‘the institutions, devices and organisations of industry’ convert individual achievement into numerically measured productivity of labour, a ‘technological rationality’ with ‘truth values’ that create ‘a common framework of experience for all occupations’, and make compliance a matter of survival (Held 2004:67; Marcuse 1998:56, 60). Again, my focus is on the parameters of action that are structurally imposed and accepted as the way to freedom. Acceptance of market principles means accepting processes that forget how the human animal’s dialectical relation with the web of life directly affects that very web of life. The individual is not directed to principles of interdependence which can maintain relative stability needed for human life, but is structurally guided through the image of the liberal ‘homo economicus’ subject (Haidt 2012:150, 229), which has become a flawed mainstay in economic theory (Schumpeter 1994:160).
The constructed frames of action thus disrupt the dialectical relation’s life-sustaining trajectory. As the human animal acts according to systemic principles, the frames transmit the alienating
105 effects ‘of capitalist production on human beings, on their physical and mental states and on the social processes of which they are a part’ (Ollman 1976:131). The synergy between modernity’s ideals and capitalism is revealed in the alignment of the pursuit of profit with the enlightenment association of mastery over nature, or the association of productivity and development with consumption and prosperity. These are linked with the problematic conception of limitless nature, resulting in a vicious consumeristic cycle ‘which failed to deliver on its promises’ (Schor 1991:122; Sagoff 2001:476; Schumacher 1993:134-135).
The imagined promise is thus entwined in an ethos of continuous growth, producing a culture of consumption involving ‘accumulation for the sake of accumulation, production for the sake of production’ (Marx 1979:742). Production and consumption proceed within the narrative’s human-centred promise that industrialisation could convert material scarcity into ‘heaven on earth’ by applying rational principles when managing social and natural resources in a ‘continual conquest of nature’ which ‘would ensure limitless material progress’ (Sagoff 2001:475; Sessions 1995:161). Polanyi (1957:250; 2001:31) sees this economic system as possessing mythical-like power that becomes ‘embedded and enmeshed in institutions, economic and noneconomic’, with the noneconomic entanglements within governmental and nongovernmental institutions supporting the structural organisation and operation of the economy. To appreciate how this contradictory mythical assumption manifests directly in the individual sphere, I shall introduce the interview participant comments that inform this project. I progressively draw on these to illustrate the dialectical discourse that informs individual encounters and shapes action in relation to climate change.
4.4 A vulnerable subject in a liberal subject’s world: voices of Australian interview participants
It was important for me, as part of this project, to draw on personal expressions that illustrate a significant relation between the individual and the wider world. The in-depth, qualitative interviews conducted with a small sample of Australians for this thesis, bring to life the relations that emerge out of the multiple exchanges the individual has with the ‘socially standardized and standardizing’ order that constitutes ‘rule governed activities of everyday life’, whose role is to establish ‘stable courses of interpersonal transactions’ (Garfinkel 1967:35- 36,44). I refer to participant responses at selected moments to illustrate and concretise ideas regarding the individual’s inner-world experience and interaction with the outer world, while also engaging with them more comprehensively in part two to help illustrate the proposed imagining of the individual base of action or schema of dialectical place, discussed later.
106
The interview materials are derived from nineteen semi-structured in-depth interviews with ‘everyday’ residents and citizens in Sydney, Australia. The number was sufficient to demonstrate best practice for qualitative research to ‘… build a convincing analytical narrative based on “richness, complexity and detail” rather than on statistical logic’ (Baker and Edwards 2012:5; Marshall 1996). Recruitment involved both targeted and open invitations by a mix of non-probability sampling and purposive sampling, which involves the selection of participants who could address the phenomenon under investigation (Marshall 1996:523). For instance, organisers of online ‘Meet-up’ groups were approached to recruit participants. These groups of cohorts meet to discuss a broad range of specific interests, included the ‘Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom club (passionate capitalists)’, New South Wales Humanists, The Sydney Ideas Exchange, Philosophical Sailing and so on. A snowball sample was also generated through participant leads. The interviews were conducted to observe the thoughts and decision-making process as individuals encounter the issue of climate change in daily life. The interviews explored material and conceptual objects of engagement that are directly or indirectly associated with climate change, and how their symbolism mediates individual action in its regard. I was interested in acts of protection of physical, cognitive and symbolic spaces where ‘habits include those taken-for-granted modes of thinking, feeling, and acting that people invoke without reflection…’ (Charmaz in Denzin & Lyncoln 2005:525-6), which an interview context can elicit.
The participants come from all walks of life and varying age groups and circumstances – male/female, single or partnered/married and/or with children, ages ranging from 19 to 75. Some participants own a home or are paying off mortgages, some rent. One participant is retired, some are students and researchers, and most have either part-time or full-time employment whose income varies in a range from the lowest financial bracket (0-$18000) to the highest ($180000+). While some grew up in rural/farming contexts, most currently live in an urban/densely populated city environment, with their cultural backgrounds reflecting the multicultural diversity present in Australia, ranging from Anglo-Australian, Continental European, Indonesian, and New Zealander, along with a Chinese international student. Their political affiliations range from left-leaning (seven), to independent/centrist/swing voter (seven) to right-leaning (three) and hard-right (two). Six participants agree, and ten completely agree, that climate change is happening and it is largely human-induced. Two are unconvinced either way, and one completely disagrees.7
7 See appendix for further details regarding interview question schedule and media materials, and further details on the participants 107
One aim was to generate moments of encounter with climate change. The interviews were semi- structured, involving open-ended questions that allowed respondents to guide the direction of the conversation and to answer on their own terms but still generated occasion for comparability across individuals (May 2001:123). The interviews first involved a series of open-ended questions about values and personal histories, and thoughts on the issue of climate change. Participants were then asked a targeted series of questions about ‘action choices’, ranging from energy efficiency efforts in relation to the use of electricity or transportation; efforts to stay informed; financial investment choices; as well as engagement with or support of activism. Participants further responded to actual/potential governmental policies, and discussed ‘political engagement’, such as petitions, voting, or protesting. Further, participants were invited to respond to photographic images the Great Barrier Reef, graphs, or political ads, or video clips arguing for or against climate change. This direct engagement with media was to imitate encounters that arise in daily life and can elicit the spontaneous reactions to help gauge participant experience when faced with objects of climate encounter.
Several lines of reasoning arose in the interviews that are important but beyond the scope here to pursue (or pursue in depth), such as the connection between an individual’s connectedness with the rest of nature and actions on climate change. However, the interviews do reveal if and how fear, security, and vulnerability may be primary motivators of action. This next section considers some participant expressions illustrating the dominance of a narrative tied to capitalism alongside the principles hitherto considered, and the embedded narrative’s promise as it shapes perspectives and imposes its expectations. Participant comments reflect the interpenetrating dominance of capitalism’s ‘rules’, expectations, and contradictions that are bound up with the promise of modernity. Consider sixty-seven-year-old business and accounting educator, George, who indirectly engages with the issue of climate change, but hopes for a better planetary outcome than the one he feels is currently on the horizon:
Unless we undertake some drastic changes and move money away from being the God and the control of all aspects, or economics and capitalism being the driver of all activity in the world, it’s not going to change.
We build big houses with massive air-conditioning units. Are we worried about climate change? Just have a look at all the building going on at the moment in the city here, all these buildings here and all of them are sealed units with air-conditioning units. How many of them have got the solar panels on the side to make themselves efficient? So why don’t we make all these buildings, power self-reliant? It wouldn’t take a big
108 deal…[but] let’s do it this way and we’ll have a bigger profit because all the developers are making lots of money...That’s the world today and it’s all driven by money and nobody gives a shit about anybody else as long as we’re making money.
George’s words carry a sense of inevitability. When encountering the issue of climate change he observes a godlike power of capitalism’s dominant principle, the pursuit of profit. He acknowledges the destructive consequences of this principle, and the need for systemic change, but also the dominance of self-interest – it is taken-for-granted and irresistible. There is resignation, cynicism and even sadness as he states that ‘all is driven by money and nobody gives a shit about anybody else as long as we’re making money’. George appears to echo a primary consequence of the narrative of modernity, which prioritises self-interest and imagines growth as prosperity without considering the consequences.
Sixty-one-year-old town planner, Jeff, describes a similar narrative dominance enmeshed in the issue of climate change. He reflects on why Australians are responding badly to the climate crisis:
The power of money; the dollar. The money that's been generated by cane farming; the money that's been generated by coal mining and so on and all the ports and things that that has to [sic]– you have to provide for that. I guess then there's the irony that the tourism industry, which lives off the reef, generates a lot of money as well. So, I suppose then that brings into an equation that it's not just money but it's certain powerful money groups of interests. I think – and that's where I think the Australian difficulty is that the – the embedded power structures are quite perverse; very strong and they're very perverse in terms of any positive environment outcomes.
Jeff’s reflections also observe a dominant narrative – accumulating wealth as an end, regardless of the means and external costs. Reminiscent of the relations set up by Locke, discussed in chapter five, he notices the ‘perverse’ role of power and moneyed interests in the state/corporate synergy, and communicates resignation and disempowerment in relation to state and corporate forces and their agenda. From his perspective, the established interests and relations of state and corporate power maintain a structural stranglehold on the Australian debate on climate action, will little room for a social response to these power structures. For Jeff it is clear that the existing socio-economic system’s principles are designed for an imagined ‘liberal’ subject, progressively eroding supportive interdependencies raised in chapter two. He says:
109 You can see it playing out in politics in Australia; the party politics, parliamentary politics quite obviously, which is another indication that everyone's trying to grab what they can while they can. But that disparity between the individualistic ethic and the more group ethic is quite stark... When I started working as a town planner, I swapped my job for about 18 months with one in London. It happened to coincide with Thatcherism. I could see the changes happening there with her reorientation of society through that idea of the individualistic ethic. I've only been back once since then and when I went back I could actually see how things - how the wonderful way that sort of public systems operated in England earlier on when I had been there on a holiday before I went there to work; their train systems and their postal systems and so on were - you could notice the deterioration. I find that quite distressing...’
Jeff clearly observes operationalised examples of the individualistic ethic and application of instrumental rationality. Capitalism’s capacity to separate and atomise for him is evident in the dismantling of public systems designed to practice mutuality and care in social living. The capitalist ethic destabilises not only environmental interdependencies, but also social expressions of interdependent support such as publicly funded accessible transportation, postal services, and other public utilities that otherwise support daily exchanges, providing the stable predictability that facilitates daily action. Jeff’s words describe the broader erosion of stabilities of interdependence caused by the late march of modernity’s narrative within the ‘unrestrained application of neoliberal principles’ that on balance have led to significant environmental and social disruption globally (Harvey 2005:172-173).
Participant comments also reveal how principles of capitalism frame daily discourse and narrow an individual capacity to imagine how to act beyond capitalistic market-oriented mechanisms. For instance, twenty-eight-year-old Bill is a climate scientist, focusing on the relation between Australian heatwaves and climate change. In a discussion about sufficient action, Bill says:
‘I’m sceptical of a political solution for climate change from what I’ve seen so far. I think that if we’re going to really limit to 2°C, which I don’t think is going to happen, but if it were to happen I think it would have to be through a market-based… yeah a carbon tax, and through subsidies that allow industry to massively develop and reduce the price of solar panels to the point that it doesn’t make sense to have any new coal- fired power plants.’
Despite knowing the scientifically established relation between an economic system based on fossil fuel burning and climate disequilibrium, Bill refers to the taken-for-granted, market-based
110 option for action. Though understanding the implications of continued consumption, his perspective is conditioned to look to an option that relies on price mechanisms, competition, and financial incentives to shift consumption while ignoring the root of the problem. The option appears taken-for-granted, though Bill’s scepticism about a political solution perhaps acknowledges the inadequacy of market solutions.
Conversely, one’s personal worldviews may align directly with the principles and promise of capitalist narratives. Forty-four-year-old, tech analyst, Peter, who accepts the science of human- induced climate change, nonetheless disagrees with policies that undermine capitalism. He strongly opposes government initiatives to support renewable energy.
I don’t agree with what they’re doing by – they kind of screwed everything up by mandating a certain amount of renewables and then that becomes cheaper and then the coal can’t compete, so the coal stations shut down, so the electricity price goes up. I think that’s bad, because I think that the expensive electricity we get, the detrimental effect that has on our society, including jobs for the poor and disadvantaged in factories, for examples, outweighs the kind of small contribution it will make in the environment in 1000 years’ time, if the human race is still around to measure it.
Within the discussion about market-driven electricity prices, Peter’s words reveal a central focus on security, accompanied by a personal construction of justice regarding ‘the detrimental effect’ on society, on ‘the poor and disadvantaged’. He adopts the dominant market narrative – and its fundamentally flawed promise of security by virtue of its ecological destruction through coal’s contribution to global warming. Even though the problems around electricity prices Peter raises also arise through capitalist principles, such as limited market choices, privatisation, deregulation etc., he nevertheless has confidence in the vaunted promise of capitalist principles:
‘I know the people you can’t trust are the people who say renewables are going to fix everything and that we need to go 100% renewables, now. That can’t happen. The thing is, if it could happen, go and do it. If you can do it, go do it. There’s no one stopping you. Go and start a company, tell the banks, listen, we can go 100% renewables. Start the factories tomorrow, start the planning tomorrow. The capitalist society will let you do it. If you can do it, do it, but you can’t, because it’s not cheaper than coal, full stop. That’s the issue.’
Capitalist principles of competition, self-interest and profit are what frame action in Peter’s scenario. This framing takes for granted the principles and relations of power established
111 through modernity, which decide the distribution of commons to suit the status quo, like the millions in taxpayer funded government subsidies dedicated to fossil fuel infrastructure projects (Harvey, F. 2017). Such distribution supports the idea that capitalist markets provide security, but in reality, contributes to the undermining of the commons that make a stable ecosystem possible. Here, the promise of capitalism bound up in Peter’s worldview generates trust in the power of the invisible hand, while overlooking the embedded structural power and dominant narrative that actually maintains exploitative relations. Schmeichel and Martens (2005:659) show that acceptance or rejection of particular outlooks can depend upon individual perceptions of how a particular view relates to one’s personal worldview, and how such an outlook impacts the individual security position. If the idea destabilises one’s personal worldview or connected self-esteem, the individual is likely to reject it because it feels threatening and induces anxiety. Peter recounts that he was once politically left-leaning but ‘became kind of more on the right side of politics’, developing a worldview that was ‘more attuned to waste that goes on and the inefficient things we do in our society.’ His worldview shift was a significant experience – ‘it was harder to come out as conservative than come out as gay. I felt like it was like coming out to my parents, that I no longer believed what I used to.’ Peter sees himself as a realist, but says ‘I think if you’re a realist, you’ll get called hard right’. Though Peter accepts human-induced climate change, the symbolism of climate action conflicts with his worldview and his self- identity. For Peter, capitalism offers the best chance at freedom and flourishing, and so he adheres to capitalist principles and reacts to ideas that threaten his values.
These brief examples illustrate the power of a narrative to shape socio-cultural structures of exchange, or to frame action in a way that compels choice by indicating no other pathway to security. The dominant narrative driving contemporary capitalist exchanges continues to promise security, proffering flawed but embedded predictable frames, offering a form of predictability that the individual needs to act securely. Nisbet (1962:236-237) encapsulates the trajectory I have outlined of an atomistic view of the individual becoming a primary organising tool surrounding the idea of freedom, whereby:
‘a whole ideology of economic freedom arose on the basis of the eighteenth-century atomistic view of man. Society was envisaged by the classical economist as being, naturally, an aggregate of socially and culturally emancipated individuals, each free to respond to the drives that lay buried within his nature. Economic freedom would be the result, it was declared, of the same conditions that produced economic equilibrium: masses of autonomous, separated individuals, a minimum of social constraint of any kind, and a reliance upon the automatic workings of the free market’.
112 Nisbet describes a system constructed around an imagined liberal subject. The persistent narrative, now embodied in many state structures, compels the vulnerable subject to act in this liberal subject frame, governed by principles that inherently function through what is a competitive ‘survival of the fittest’ modality. Driven by the struggle for self-preservation, capitalism demands aggressive competitive action (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005:5). Within the reality of interdependence, capitalism’s precepts increasingly underpin and shape social arrangements that only ostensibly promise stability. Instead of the mutually supportive relation that interdependence implies, the fundamental base relies on principles of separation, with an aggressive, individualised and competitive attitude.
Consider how this competitive attitude plays out on a state level, but then impacts the individual sphere. According to the World Meteorological Organisation (2019:4) state commitments need to increase fivefold if the world is to meet its 2015 Paris climate agreement pledges. To protect ‘national interests’ state leaders are reluctant to significantly curb fossil fuel consumption. They continue to express an atomised rather than mutual view to national security, acting within the liberal subject frame like singular rational actors (Newell & Paterson 1998:680). For example, though climate change is increasingly affecting many people’s living conditions in Australia through for instance drought and bushfires, the current (2020) Morrison government continues to prioritise coal exports in the name of meeting Australia’s long-term national interest (Jericho 2020). Trump’s Republican Party similarly is accelerating fossil fuel production and removing regulation encouraging a shift away from coal, prompting a 3.4% increase in GHG emissions (Holden 2019). Such ‘national interests’ in reality reflect the security of a corporate and social elite rather than the everyday person’s security (Galbraith 1972:297).
While there are several reasons for the lack of state concern about impending climate crisis, the continued power of the false promise of modernity, I feel, is one key reason. An ostensible sense of control is gained through the idea market logic and the pursuit of growth solves any problems through the work of an ‘invisible hand’ (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005:4-7; Macionis & Plummer 2008:469-472; Foster, Clark & York 2010:90). As states structure economies around rationalised free-market principles, the vulnerable individual has limited choices of action because they depend on established frames to maintain individual security. The individual’s dependence upon such structures thus conducts action in the direction of a dominant narrative. How so? In discussing the organisation of systems of action, Parsons (1951:14-16) points to the crucial role that ‘the potentiality of gratification or deprivation from objects’ plays, and argues that society establishes ‘a shared symbolic system’, which provides ‘ways of orienting’ along with ‘external symbols’ that control these ways of orienting. Within a shared symbolic system ‘external symbols bring forth the same or complementary pattern of orientation’ (1951:16) from
113 those who engage with it. Parsons describes such a system, ‘with its mutuality of normative orientation’, as ‘the most elementary form of culture’ (1951:16). What significance does this have for individual action perpetuating climate change?
Like Giddens’ discussion on predictable frames, Becker (1971:79), whom I discuss in detail in the next chapter, claims regarding culture that it ‘provides just those rules and customs, goals of conduct, that place right actions automatically at the individual’s disposal’, and that this relation is associated with an individual’s action because it provides a person with ‘a steady buffer against anxiety.’ As capitalist economic rationalisation has infiltrated social systems, its symbols have become ways of orienting life, adopted socio-culturally with imbued authority. In becoming institutionalised, economic processes have a sense of unity and stability, providing ‘a structure with a definite function in society’ (Polanyi 1957b:249). Accordingly, they provide the predictable frames that individuals look for to alleviate anxiety for that desired sense of ontological security (Giddens 1991:56). Polanyi (2001:262) argues these institutions embody human meaning and purpose and make freedom contingent on understanding the meaning of the symbols therein.
The consequence is that despite greater understanding of the flaws within an anthropocentric narrative promising security, deviating from embedded structures is difficult without an alternate narrative of security and commensurate system to transition to. The next section further illustrates the embedded narrative within state, corporate and media structures which perpetuate its flawed ideals. This is relevant for the vulnerable individual, who references a socio-cultural outer world for coordinates through which to act while ensuring security, and is thus influenced by them in the actions taken.
4.5 The embedded narrative guides state action
States operate in an interconnected global context where the re-branded capitalist ideology in neoliberalism manifests as a ‘mega-instance of hegemony’ influencing culture broadly and specifically (Lukes 2005:10). States are thus inevitably influenced by the overarching economic rationality within institutions regulating international exchange like the IMF and the World Bank, where economic rationalisation leads policies that increase consumption (Hobden & Jones 2006:148). Neoliberal agendas drive ‘radical laissez-faire economic policy’ to influence much of social and political life globally, constituting a ‘project of authoritarian capital’ (Venugopal 2015:172-175). The theoretical ability of populations, in a social contract arrangement or otherwise, to hold the state accountable if it acts against a population’s interests
114 (Locke 2005:99; Mill 2001:69-71) is thus already tenuous. In fact, Mattei & Capra (2015:101) show that many legal systems of today remain aligned with the prevailing scientific, mechanistic, atomistic vision of modernity. This means principles of modernity are subsequently translated into law through property rights, contract freedom, state sovereignty, or limited liability for corporations. They are all legal creations facilitating the accumulation of capital, and accordingly are the principles underlying state governance.
Thus, though the state in theory sends representatives to international climate change negotiations to pursue the interests of its citizens, state power may nevertheless reflect the groups whose interests it prioritises. Alignment between state interests and those of fossil fuel industries is evident at international COP negotiations (Banerjee 2012:1764; Levy & Egan 2003:814). Since state and corporate entities pursue security through the narrative of economic expansion and growth, the suggestion to regulate fossil fuels threatens the same fundamental interests, and thus ‘the centrality of fossil fuels in producing global warming is combined with the centrality of fossil energy in industrial economies’ (Newell & Paterson 1998:682). As with the Kyoto Protocol (Scott 2014:12), this nexus influenced the global response as enacted in the Paris Agreement. The failure of the 2015 Paris Accord to establish adequate carbon-cutting action in line with the science is widely viewed as resistance to moving away from business-as- usual international production and trade, as was made clear by James Hansen, the ‘father’ of contemporary climate science (Hansen 2018), and much of the scientific community who publicly expressed disappointment at the conference outcome (The Guardian 2015; Bawden 2016; Manolas 2016:167; Sharma 2017:11).
This international systemic stranglehold translates to structures at a national level. Citizens struggle to hold states to account, especially when pluralist distributions of power cede to elite or realist power structures, making the state a primary actor with consolidated power that clashes with civil society (Mann 2012:28-50). Even in democracies, where in principle the general population has power over the state, such power is ostensible because, as Chomsky (2017:xiii) notes, the democracy that ‘puts power into the hands of the general population and takes it away from the privileged and the powerful’ is largely an illusion, and part of modernity’s myth of freedom. As most national economies depend on capitalist exchange, with money as the key lever, such power asymmetry is likely in both Western and non-Western forms of governance. The final section discusses how corporations maintain this power nexus, ensuring the parameters of action remain within a human-centred frame.
115 4.6 Corporate and state synergy
The synergy outlined in the previous chapter between state and moneyed interests remains today between the state and corporations, who replicate the flawed principles of modernity, seeing nature and other humans as instrumental means for the end of elite enrichment. Mattei & Capra (2015:45) show that the juridical property foundations at the time of the commons, laws designed to convert commons into capital, have continued according to the same enlightenment worldview that triggered the accumulative and extractive mentality of the industrial revolution and later model of development. Contemporary property laws in democratic and other forms of governance are manifestations of the governance in Locke’s model, namely where the privileged principally have power.
However, these large corporate and elite entities have a problem – the system they profit from is responsible for climate change. A 2017 report compiled by CDP, a non-profit operating a global GHGs disclosure system, shows that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions (Griffin 2017:5), with just 20 companies currently responsible for one third of global emissions (Taylor & Watts 2019). These companies are within a collective of mega global corporations maintaining current production processes. For instance, Amazon, Walmart, Volkswagen, Toyota, Apple, and Samsung oversee massive global production networks, and work hand in hand with BP, Exxon, China National Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell (Fortune 2019). Because these corporations are largely responsible for climate change, they must maintain the narrative in modernity’s claim that constant consumption leads to growth, and thus freedom and security. In reality, it is the corporations’ survival at stake, so principles of aggressive competition are maintained. Consider the power held by fossil fuel producers and large manufacturing and distribution corporations maintaining international ‘value chains’ of trade (UNCTAD 2013). Since these corporate networks can threaten to disrupt entire economies through rapid withdrawal from a country, the small number of corporations responsible for a large amount of greenhouse gasses are able to maintain global production processes which systemically lock in business-as-usual exchanges.
Importantly, note how this systemic corporate power is sustained through modernity’s embedded narrative of security and freedom. The top 10 Fortune 500 most powerful companies globally includes seven fossil-fuel driven energy companies – State Grid, Sinopec Group, China National Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Saudi Aramco, BP, two are car manufacturers – Toyota Motor, Volkswagen, and at number One, Walmart is a huge player in the process of capitalist production (Fortune 2019). Their products form part of the larger
116 system of exchange, making the system self-sustaining because the products become essential if anyone is to have a chance at a flourishing life. The production of an automobile, for instance, maintains the power nexus of companies through the promise of modernity it represents. The automobile, like the smartphone, shows great alignment between the narrative of freedom, the capitalist requirement for constant economic expansion, the satiation of corporate interests through profit and the individual’s need for an object that is literally and symbolically seen as necessary to survive through systemic dependence generated when an entire system is built around the automobile’s production.
The state regulates roads and forms of transportation that supports a national economy, and it decides what forms of transport to favour through taxes, import regulation, broader infrastructure, safety regulations, environmental impact regulation and so on.8 Freund & Martin (1996:3-4) thus argue that the prevalence of auto-centered transport in affluent, capitalist economies ‘represents the successful melding of a pattern of consumption with psycho-social needs, and with a landscape structured in its image… because it has become integral to the fabric of everyday life, the auto is removed from the "discursive realm"; neither its form nor its use are critically questioned or analysed’. The melding of consumption with ‘psycho-social’ needs is not just associated with the functioning of daily life, but finds association with fundamental ontological security needs. This may not be evident in a car at first glance, but for many, in urban centres for instance, a car generates predictable frames through the capacity to work and move, via social standing and identity, and facilitates daily actions in an individual’s life trajectory. There is thus a potentially powerful link between the automobile and an individual’s fundamental life project.
Capital-driven economies centre themselves on objects of consumption like cars, shaping the entire way life is lived, and demonstrating the power of capitalism’s taken-for-granted principles to structure individual and group action. This link – between a mass-produced product like a car or a phone and the security needs of the human animal – deeply complicates individual action. Corporations are masters at utilising images of ‘success’ as themes in product design, marketing and public relations in a way that touches the essence of the human animal’s security needs and desires in the struggle for life (Korten 1995:149). Such objects become part of what is necessary for security or to pursue a life project and thus the relation between the systemic promises of modernity and the individual pursuit of security drives action through
8 While climate change is challenging this by prompting a structural shift to electric vehicles, the pace of change is slow compared to the urgency required. This applies equally for relations between electricity grids and coal production (Jotzo et al. 2018:4), supply and distribution systems and fossil fuels, and so on (Leonard 2010:106). 117 systems that are enmeshed with life-denying principles. While there is increased global commitment to sustainable futures, the central tenant of the flawed capitalist narrative, the profit motive, is maintained. In terms of systemic change, even corporations are subordinated by competition to follow the ‘external and coercive laws’ of capitalist production (Marx 1979:739) by prioritising profits and growth (Braund & Ashcroft 2012:114). So, whether manufacturing cars or others goods, corporations will reflexively hinder as systemic transition if it threatens their survival; they will maintain the exploitative status quo rather than change it.
Accordingly, corporate power makes every effort to influence public discourse and government policy, portraying the interests of those benefiting from capitalism’s exploitation as common to all, tying innovation and job creation as dependent on their existence (Mises 1963:138-40), some Australian examples of which will be considered in part two. To oppose calls for fossil fuel reserves to be kept ‘in the ground’ (McKibben 2016) which threatens the status quo, fossil fuel corporations in particular adopt strategies mirroring anti-tobacco actions of manufacturing doubt by undermining the science of climate change (Pooley 2010:35; Oreskes & Conway 2012:136). It is well documented that actors like The Global Climate Coalition, think tanks like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Koch brothers, and corporations like Exxon have actively obscured scientific certainty and, instead, actively promote climate change denialism (Oreskes & Conway 2012; Supran and Oreskes 2017, Manne 2016; Pooley 2010; Weathers 2015). Supran and Oreskes (2017:12) examine 187 climate-related communications of fossil fuel company ExxonMobil, revealing that though ExxonMobil knew exactly how their company and fossil fuels in general were contributing to climate change, they publicly, deliberately expressed doubt about human causes. Oil corporation Shell has a similar pattern in their public communications (Cushman Jr. 2018). In other words, these companies deployed a ‘Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM) – a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge’ (Supran and Oreskes 2017:15; Freudenburg et al. 2008:2).
This powerful capacity to orient discourse creates action-inhibiting doubt and mistrust that the vulnerable individual must contend with while assessing what is best for personal security. Corporations have also exercised media influence to control the debate on climate change (McCright & Dunlap 2011a:159), and encourage equal representation of denialists, referred to as ‘balance as bias’, with the implication that there are two equal sides while in reality the scientific consensus on climate change is clear (Boykoff & Boykoff 2004:125). Indeed, the media is an active player in maintaining the narrative promise of security through capitalism. Though extensive consideration is not possible here, a brief point can be made regarding the influence mass media has in shaping the narrative because of the corporate domination of what is considered an important aspect of the public sphere.
118
Mass media, a subset of broader media practices, includes ‘the publishers, editors, journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession, and who disseminate information, largely through newspapers, magazines, television, radio and the internet’ (Boykoff and Roberts 2007:2). Media plays a critical role in informing publics about climate change, and is looked to as ‘the fourth estate’ within democratic governance, theoretically part of the public sphere – ‘the places and forums where issues of importance to a political community are discussed and debated, and where information is presented that is essential to citizen participation in community life’ (Herman & McChesney 1997:3). As such, mass media is tasked with informing citizens regarding government and corporations actions that disregard the public interest. Mainstream and online media are conveyors of scientific information from epistemic communities, civil society and NGO monitoring groups, but also convey messaging from government, political lobbyists and environmental activist groups, where a struggle between them seeks to shape the political agenda. Because of the trust imbued, mass media has considerable power to shape discourse, and thus the socio-cultural tone on issues and the action that follows.
As a primary source of information, the media’s task to ‘speak truth to power’ ought to be supported with checks and balances that prevent conflicts of interest. Without these, the principle of profit will naturally have influence. Mass media, Herman & Chomsky say (1994:1), is ‘a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda’. Herman & Chomsky’s (1994:298) propaganda model recognises the synergy between mass media’s aims and principles of capitalism, seeing the media (principled journalists and associations notwithstanding) as serving the ‘societal purpose’ not of informing publics to equip them in engaging in the political process, but, rather, to ‘inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state’.
Veblen (1912:14) and Gramsci (1999:134-145) speak to similar social reproduction of hierarchies through progressive embedding of capitalist ideology through institutional structures associated with family, schools and universities, media, and workplaces. One problem lies with the principle of generating profit that media organisations, as corporate entities, are beholden to. If a media corporation has interests in maintaining the status quo, ostensibly independent ‘think tanks’ and ‘institutes’ that are in reality corporate-funded may be given a platform to publicly
119 oppose policy investments in clean energy or other structural change, for instance (Checks & Balances 2012:2). Accordingly, ‘experts’ from ‘think-tanks’ have been deliberately recruited to manufacture doubt, portraying an authoritative voice but that runs counter to tested scientific consensus (DeMelle 2012; Westervelt 2018; Oreskes & Conway 2012:75-77). A report examining the media traction of ten fossil fuel-funded organisations shows that they use financial clout for media access and deploy a ‘neutral’ appearance to gain media attention and ‘influence the public for their client donors’ (Checks & Balances 2012:3). Whether ‘democratic’ or not, media organisations may communicate in such a way as to reaffirm the concentrated forms of power (Marcuse 1968:22-24), protecting the aims of capitalism’s principle of profit (Snow 2003:9), and aligning with elite interests, which are ‘valued far higher than freedom of information’ (Broadbent 1993:175).
What can be concluded from this chapter? The interview comments and examples of the embedded narrative within state and corporate structures illustrate the broader lifeworld structures the individual refers to for navigating coordinates of action. Contemporary cultural systems are infused with principles of capitalism and enmeshed with the erroneous idea that these principles are the path to life-sustaining security. Regardless of how aware one is of the life-denying aspects of contemporary capitalist systems, the individual cannot easily escape from the influence of flawed principles, and is committed to act according to systemic rules. This means conforming to structures designed for an imagined liberal subject, and consequently the individual, who draws on socio-cultural structures to guide action, becomes a participant in reproducing flawed principles in a life-denying dialectical exchange within the web of life. The next chapter is the start of the thesis’ consideration of the implications of this. I begin to look in more detail at what motivates the vulnerable individual and the consequence of individuals having to pursue a life project through governance that is enmeshed with capitalist principles based on a hollow narrative of security.
120 Part 2 The individual dialectically pursuing security in the outer world
The first part of this thesis has presented evidence demonstrating two narratives that describe a relation between humans and nature, and that each involves a story about how humans can achieve security through that relation. Importantly, though web-of-life relation through mutualistic interdependence, described in chapter two, is the foundation that consistently delivers the safe parameters humans need to pursue a good life, what I described in chapter three as an embedded flawed understanding about what brings security prevails, resulting in its principles mediating the originary relation that otherwise delivers life-sustaining conditions in which humans can flourish. Despite modernity’s promise of security, the opposite is true, demonstrated by how its principles that separate, rationalise and exploit for profit have powerfully influenced human exchange to the point of destabilising environments and leading to the crisis of climate change. Part one of the thesis is the backdrop for me to now examine individual action, and helps explain why a flawed understanding of what brings security is relevant to how vulnerable humans, who manage fear and uncertainty, act in relation to climate change.
Having considered that humans are part of a continuous interconnected interaction of interdependent relations, I turn my attention to the implications of being a vulnerable human in relation with an overarching system that is based on flawed principles that simultaneously structures daily life. I focus on the individual as a relational being, and what that means for human behaviour. If the individual is relationally informed by the wider web of life, considered in part one, how do the circulating ideas and established principles affect the vulnerable human that is constantly seeking secure conditions in which to act? To understand why it can be said that the impasse of widespread inaction on climate change stems from the very cause of climate change, the second part of the thesis considers why modernity’s promise of security and flourishing is powerful in light of the basic human desire for security and a good life. I again draw on the Australian case study and interview comments to illustrate the individual within the organic but interrelated whole of which we humans are all a part, and work towards an imagining of an individual platform of action, described as dialectical place, where security is maintained and from where action emerges.
121 Chapter 5 Factors mediating individual action in the web of life
Part one describes a web of life where dialectical relation carries both life-sustaining and life- denying potentialities, and I suggested that that trajectory is affected by prevailing principles. The climate crisis humans face indicates that the principles applied to achieve human development, despite rapid advancement in some areas, are ultimately flawed, as the term ‘the anthropocene’ describes. While the principles are applied on an industrial scale, interconnectedness implies that human behaviour as a whole is responsible for the crisis of climate change, so how do we understand the individual within this context?
Individual inputs to the web of life are not easily imagined in daily practices. The Australian bushfires reveal that responsiveness often comes after rupture. So we see what individuals may feel when a normally secure life is disrupted – feelings of fear, insecurity, and injustice emerge. Climate disruptions like floods or bushfires reaffirm that in an uncertain world humans are vulnerable and face the potential of death at any moment. They also reveal people’s hopes by disrupting aspirations of daily life that drive choices and actions. In these human conditions I am looking to see what mediates human action or inaction on climate change, a kind of reverse engineering if you will. With the backdrop of part one in mind, this chapter uses thinkers from the schools of sociology and critical theory to investigate these mediating factors. The chapter first locates the individual within a set of relations – ranging from one’s relation with the rest of nature, with family and community, and an understood relationship with the state – that are used to manage anxieties and fears, and to pursue aspirations. It then presents three factors that arise in line with the condition of vulnerability, arguing that these are key factors mediating individual action. Since vulnerability starts from birth, one’s birth is a moment where a) the promise of a good life mingles with b) the fear and anxiety of death. These two mediating factors are considered in light of modernity’s promise. Since modernity’s principles are leading humanity down a life-denying trajectory while promising security, the significance of the symbolic human animal’s relation with the socio-cultural world, the third mediating factor, is considered in relation to individual vulnerability and need for security.
122 To explain the mediating factors in line with ideas from sociology and critical theory, I turn to an important thinker to the thesis, cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker. Becker helps tie my discussion on how the human instinct for self-preservation manifests in a relational context, and thus why the human need for secure parameters to pursue a life project might incite action that pushes exchanges down the life-denying trajectory causing climate change.
5.1 The vulnerable human animal in relation with the web of life
To imagine the individual in the broader web of life, I return to human vulnerability. As considered in chapter two, vulnerability is an inevitable aspect of the human condition that ‘carries with it the ever-present possibility of harm, injury, and misfortune’ (Fineman 2008:8). But vulnerability in the sense of openness equally makes flourishing possible when human agency is coupled with mutuality, responsibility, love and care (Mackenzie et al. 2013:3, 10). The individual is thus left to navigate the web of life cautiously to avoid negative outcomes while pursuing positive ones. Becker (1971:66-67) tells us the search for a secure path begins ‘with the first infusion of mother’s milk, of warm support and nourishment… Self-esteem becomes the child’s feeling of self-warmth that all’s right in his action world’ and thus ‘the qualitative feeling of self-value is the basic predicate for human action’. This initial moment of vulnerability makes the immediate relation from birth an important one for the prospects of survival, and one that locates the individual in the world. While the details of early childhood development is beyond the scope here,9 what is important for the thesis is not the development itself, but that the formed individual’s experience informs a personal perspective on material, social and individual security needs and establishes a unique centre of action from which the individual pursues a life project, seeking secure relations to have a safe pathway to follow.
High stakes arise from birth as each individual struggles for life. There, chances for survival and development are inescapably bound to a reality of communal interdependence. While the human animal is dependent on the rest of nature for life-sustaining elements and nutrition, an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing are mediated by one’s relation with other humans. Sprintzen & Rosenberg (1973:154-155) say:
9 My discussion on personality/ego structure remains on a general level to limit the scope, so I cannot explore in depth the development of self and personality, nor the complexities of individual emotion, intelligence, perception, cognition, and motivation. However, the security schema I discuss assumes a developed individual with all these aspects, which inform the way an individual interprets the security position they seek to maintain. 123 ‘In the primal mammalian family unit, inordinate demands are placed upon an offspring almost totally lacking in instinctual cues to action – requiring it to be sensitized to the personal wishes and social routines of those upon whom its survival and self- satisfaction depends.’ But with the appearance of language, Sprintzen & Rosenberg continue, ‘a distinctively human environment emerges. Language allows the organism to reflectively distinguish itself from others, and to participate actively in the social process of mutual self-constitution. Out of this symbolic context a linguistic self- identity – an “I” – may emerge to fix the experiencing subject’s space-time coordinates. This further expands the human organism’s ability to control the natural and social environment, while raising the problem of his ultimate demise’.
In Sprintzen & Rosenberg’s account, the individual, who is trying to securely locate itself in the world, is driven by vulnerability to adapt its position in relation to others, using a symbolic faculty in a way that ensures survival. The individual is cared for because interdependence allows groups to ‘find their way together’ (Butler 2004:30-31) through social support networks that are in turn connected with Earth’s life-sustaining systems. The dynamic relational aspects of dependence and interdependence shape the relation between what is experienced as the ‘inner’ self or ‘I’ that fixes ‘the experiencing subject’s space-time coordinates’, in contrast to the ‘outer’ web-of-life ecological, social and cultural environments. Despite the humans-in- nature reality that reveals an organic and everchanging interrelated whole (Engels 1947:26-27), imagining an ‘inner’ individual world and broader ‘outer’ world, I feel, is a useful abstraction to understand how the individual locates itself within the web-of-life which it dialectically relates with.
The human being is found in relation with domains and actors that constitute a field of human social interaction. The individual ‘experiencing subject’ seeks protection from the precariousness of life by forming cooperative groups, including protection under the broader umbrella of the state, as outlined in chapter three. Because of the stakes of survival, individuals also direct trust towards other people and groups – associates, neighbours, family members, or religions, trusting they can indicate a safe trajectory for the individual’s life project (Sleeth- Keppler et al. 2017:2-3; Foddy & Dawes 2008:57). These domains and actors may be said to be part of a broader ‘outer world’ context involving the social life of societies. An outer-world imagining accordingly includes the interconnected people and/or things of social systems that work together inclusive of governments of the day, groups, organisations, institutions or inter- social actors working through social structures, bound together through common culture, to ‘maintain some boundary or unity’ as a society (Abercrombie et al. 2006:92, 361-362). Though there are many ways to define the cultural dimension of societies, sociologists sometimes
124 contrast culture with social structure, as does Parsons (1951:162-163), seeing it as the vehicle for integration and goal attainment, and as the locus of symbol systems embodied in objects which serve as means of cognition, orientation, and evaluation (Abercrombie et al. 2006:92). Further, though ecology is often conceptually separated from society and culture, ecology is nonetheless ‘the community of nature and unceasing interaction between its components’ of which humans are part (Hagen 1972:3). Chapter two highlights the interconnected/interdependent fibres that draw these eco-socio-cultural fields into constant relation, showing them in a context of struggle and disruption.
5.1.1 A sociological outline of relation
To consider how the vulnerable individual is located relationally within this outer-world field, foundational sociological thinkers inform a dialectical view by describing outer social influences that affect the individual’s inner world. Durkheim (1982:50) describes invisible dynamics at play ‘outside’ the individual while the individual reacts internally to them, namely formal and informal ‘social facts’ and material conditions, anything from values and practices within households to institutional frameworks and social statuses and hierarchies, that the individual contends with. In line with Durkheim, social ‘facts’ like the dominant principles, structures and systems described in chapter three could powerfully shape an individual’s inner world and consequent behaviour, dictating social obligations and boundaries. Or consider Parsons, in line with the human animal possessing a symbolic faculty. Parsons (1951:5) shows the importance of meaning in constituting individual security, and the role of value construction in the decision-making process in relation to the ‘relevance to satisfaction of drives’. he (1951:4-5, 169) contends that the individual draws meanings from the outer world and assesses them in relation to personal goals and interests, and orients action accordingly. The meanings drawn from a dominant narrative promising security, then, could powerfully influence the individual’s goals and desires and potentially orient action as the individual seeks to maintain both individually-constituted security and socially-constituted security.
Weber, too, presents motivations of the individual’s inner world in relation to the outer world by describing four ‘types’ of social action. Weber (1947:116-117) describes an individual variably deploying strategies that help maintain security by aligning inner world needs and desires with an outer-world context, namely ‘rational action’ that weighs utility and urgency of an action, ‘value-orientated’ action that is not for an end but ‘for its own sake’, ‘affectual action’ that comes from specific states of feeling, and ‘traditional action’ that follows customs and tradition. In line with Weber, principles like the pursuit of profit may influence rational
125 action in terms of material security, but worldviews could align with value orientations to maintain individual security in relation to the social security gained, and cultural symbols associated with success and status, like symbols of wealth and power, could equally inform efforts to feel individually secure and securely located in relation to a broader group. These classical sociologists, Durkheim, Parsons and Weber, all build a picture of the dialectical exchange between individual inner worlds and the broader outer world where constructed meaning and value abides with influential, symbolic ideas which are assessed in the context of the best trajectory for an individual life project.
Aside from Durkheim, Parsons and Weber, George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman also provide an account of the human animal’s ‘inner’ self in relation to the ‘outer’ society – Mead (1934:173) founds symbolic interactionism10 through his analysis of ‘I’ and ‘Me’ constituting the individual self as one interacts socially and internalises values and norms, and Goffman (1959:15) discussing the development of a social identity through roles that are adopted in encounters due to social expectation, identity maintenance and self-protection. Further, Schutz and Luckmann (1974:3-4) focus on the taken-for-granted aspects of lifeworld, namely the ‘province of reality which the wide-awake and normal adult simply takes for granted in the attitude of common sense’, expanded on by Garfinkel (1967), and Habermas (1984, 1987). In addition, Simmel (1971) reveals the processes of value construction and exchange, and Luhmann (1979) speaks to the role of trust and communication in social relation. I have outlined these foundational thinkers with chapters part one in mind to illustrate the dialectical exchange occurring between the broader ‘outer’ framework and the individual’s ‘inner’ frame of reference. Chapters three and four discuss flawed but socially embedded principles that constitute a taken-for-granted, seemingly ‘common sense’ background that individuals draw on, align themselves with, and act upon to maintain security. As with the dependent vulnerable relation from birth, the individual must ‘locate’ itself securely in the broader terrain to survive and uses this relation to do so. Having considered the outer world, how can the individual’s inner world be further visualised?
5.1.2 An individual relational self
Anthropologist Gredys Harris (1989:599) notes that the terms ‘the individual’, ‘the self’ and ‘the person’ are variably utilised with specific applications, namely ‘human beings as (1) living
10 Symbolic interactionism emerged out of American Pragmatism, a school of thought including John Dewey, William James and Charles Pierce, but dominated by Mead and built on by Goffman (Chalari 2017:20-21). 126 entities among many such entities in the universe (individual), (2) human beings who are centers of being or experience (self), or (3) human beings who are members of society (person)’. While each category communicates a particular meaning about a human entity,11 I am particularly focused on the ‘self’ as a centre of experience, though this centre is informed by the biological, psychological and sociological socially-constructed experiences Gredys Harris describes, which the self consolidates through introspection, or ‘intra-action’. Intra-action is explained by Chalari (2017:25) as a type of inner dialogue, ‘the exchange of action within the individual’ or an acting towards oneself in a similar way as one acts towards others, and refers to ‘subjectivity and inner life’ (Chalari 2017:3). Intra-action thus describes an internal reflexivity which symbolic interactionists like Mead (1934:173) argue occurs between the ‘I’ part of the self and the ‘me’ part of the self. So how does this inner and outer world relation relate to the individual’s effort to maintain security?
The exchanges I am theorising involve movement between both between the individual’s inner world and the outer world, and within the individual itself. As noted in chapter one, climate- related events like the Australian bushfires illustrate human vulnerability and reveal expectations of communally realised security when personal security is threatened. They also reveal the injustice felt when such security isn’t realised and the expectation to flourish is inhibited. For instance, after Australian Prime Minster Scott Morrison went on holiday during the bushfire crisis, he was heckled upon return when visiting the fire-affected township of Cobargo. When he attempted to shake a local resident’s hand, she refused unless he would provide more funding to the Rural Fire Service – ‘So many people have lost their homes. We need help’, she said. Others yelled ‘You won’t be getting any votes down here buddy. You’re an idiot’, and ‘Go on. Piss off’ (The Guardian Staff and Agencies 2020). These voices reflect palpable disappointment –the stable living environment nature provided was disrupted, and the expected security of a social contract with the government wasn’t honoured.
The people confronting the bushfires are an example of humans experiencing the potential of constant vulnerability that arises in dependent and interdependent relations. In the first instance, people sought and expected security and flourishing from within interdependent social and environmental relationships, and need such relations to be stable, predictable, mutual frameworks that provide security in order to pursue individual life projects. But as considered, such expectations are continuations of expectations from the vulnerable human animal’s birth.
11 The use of language within and between groups, institutions and/or the state can acknowledge or deny the selfhood or personhood of an individual. E.g. states deny an individual of full personhood in a legal or practical sense when inhibiting equal capacity to pursue goals within a society, illustrated by Arendt (1951) and Agamben’s (1998) work on the citizen and bare life. 127 From birth, humans seek to avoid pain and survive, looking for material sustenance and pleasure through relation with the outer world, both ecologically and through the community of humans that can provide a sense of security and belonging.
Accordingly, from birth the individual’s vulnerability and dependency are immediate, prompting the individual from then on to seek relations that promise survival and flourishing. Benhabib (1992:5), communicates a similar picture of the individual in a context of dependence related to the anxiety and fear of survival:
I assume that the subject of reason is a human infant whose body can only be kept alive, whose needs can only be satisfied, and whose self can only develop within the human community into which it is born. The human infant becomes a “self,” a being capable of speech and action, only by learning to interact in a human community. The self becomes an individual in that it becomes a “social” being capable of language, interaction, and cognition. The identity of the self is constituted by a narrative unity, which integrates what “I” can do, have done and will accomplish with what you expect of “me,” interpret my acts and intentions to mean, wish for me in the future, etc.
Benhabib’s description again captures the crucial role a socio-cultural context plays in plotting individual trajectories in relation to survival and meaning. Though matured, the initial dependent relationship between individual and primary caregivers continues in the (inter)dependent bonds of broader social life, which is consequential considering that the individual is found in within an eco-socio-cultural context dominated by principles that themselves undermine stability. Recall from chapter one, Becker (1973:16) contends that the individual is ‘armed toward self-preservation’ and develops strategies to maintain personal security, one of which is shelter from socio-cultural groups (Becker (1973:133). The individual condition of vulnerability makes the chances of survival and potential for a meaningful life dialectically dependent on the outer world. The relation, then, is a crucial one, and the principles involved in its enactment that inform the individual’s actions can be the difference between a life-sustaining or life-denying trajectory. But there are other factors involved in mediating individual action that subsequently affects the trajectory of relation, which I shall next propose.
5.2 Factors mediating the individual-to-web-of-life relation
Recall in chapter two I argued the striving for a good or flourishing life is integral to the struggle for survival. Dialectical relation produces both life-sustaining and life-denying
128 outcomes, and the universal human condition of vulnerability reveals this from birth. The yearning to live exists alongside the struggle to survive; an expectation to flourish is found in the future hopes and wishes of the individual, but is accompanied by the constant potential threat to life. I summarised the pursuit of flourishing as broadly aligning with the human-centric the Aristotelian life lived well in social cooperation, or the broader eco-centric vision of ‘the valuable unfolding’ of emergent living beings as part of the everchanging metabolic life on Earth. In light of the Darwinian struggle to survive, I begin here to think about what is involved in the task of survival, which is a prime motivator of action, to understand if it informs us about the consequence of climate change and action in its behalf. Seeing as vulnerability reveals uncertainty and eventual death are ever-present factors humans must manage, to survive and flourish would necessarily involve efforts to avoid losses, to maintain security and manage vulnerability. I shall consider three mediating factors I argue are involved in mediating action in the effort to survive, and thus mediating factors in the web-of-life dialectical relation. The first I describe is the fear and anxiety arising in vulnerability.
5.2.1 Acting to cope with the fear and anxiety of ‘creatureliness’
Becker provides an integrated interdisciplinary view12 of the individual navigating a socio- cultural terrain. To address the basic question ‘What makes people act the way they do?’, he explores how the fundamental contours of the individual psyche develop while confronting mortality, and observes that the realisation of mortality, as it mixes with the overwhelming drive to survive, plays a critical role in understanding human action. As outlined above, Becker contends that ‘the idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else; it is a mainspring of human activity – activity designed largely to avoid the fatality of death’ (Becker 1973:xvii).13 He (1973:87) says: ‘The creatureliness is the terror’, which is not just a realisation that one shares the same end as other animals, but is:
12 Becker’s key works, inter alia, include The birth and death of meaning (1971), The denial of death (1973) and Escape from evil (1975). 13 Becker’s methodological approach has faced criticism for not employing empirical scientific methods and being too philosophical and theoretical (Martin 2016:12,13) and consequently was generally overlooked ‘in the wider community of social scientific thought’ (Liechty 1998:47). This situation motivated the founding of Terror Management Theory (TMT). TMT’s principle proponents valued Becker’s work and wanted to provide empirical testing to support it (Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon 2002:3-5; Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski 1991; Greenberg & Arndt 2012). Extrapolating from Becker, they see ‘cultural worldviews and self-esteem as the principal instruments people use to keep the terror of death at bay’ (Webb 1998:72). TMT deals with the criticism of Becker’s work, offering ‘experimental confirmation that death anxiety is a powerful psychological force that pervades our experience and influences our thinking and behaviour when we are not conscious of it…’, giving empirical support to Becker’s ideas (Webb 1998:75; Jong 2014:87-879; Liechty 1998:47,48). 129 the anxiety that results from the human paradox that man is an animal who is conscious of his animal limitation. This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expression – and with all this yet to die.
Becker starts with the Darwinian assumption that sees humans, like other forms of biological life, sharing a ‘predisposition toward self-preservation in the service of survival’ (Becker 1971:44; Cohen & Solomon 2011:316; Solomon et al. 1998:11). This starting point, as shown in chapters two and three has shaped the trajectory of modern thinking in multiple ways, and reflects the historical approaches of economic thinkers like Marx and Veblen, who saw the strong connection with the pursuit of survival and the organising of life through socio-economic institutions (Dowd 2002:51). Becker (1973:26,51) describes the disquieting human predicament of the existential paradox, namely of being ‘half animal half symbolic’ as ‘the condition of individuality within finitude’, a condition that drives the human animal to work with the rest of nature to survive. This resonates with Marx’s description of the entwined state of humans with eco-social metabolic order determining the interchange between society and the rest of nature (Marx 1979:199, 637-638; Foster, Clark & York 2010:75). The difference between humans and other biological life is that they have developed a ‘capacity for symbolization and self- consciousness’, making them ‘uniquely aware of the inevitability of death and their ever-present vulnerability’ (Cohen & Solomon 2011:316).
Understanding that the anxious striving for survival applies ‘in relation to the overall security system the individual develops’ (Giddens 1991:43), and, I feel, is a core and ever-present but underacknowledged factor in all human action that informs an understanding of what influences human action currently producing climate change. For Becker awareness of death creates an existential paradox that is at the heart of human action (1973:26), regardless of efforts to avoid death, or sublimate it through cultural symbols of permanency (Solomon et al. 1991:96). Complications emerge as the symbolic human animal manages existential anxiety and fear that arises from threats to one’s ‘yearning for life’. Constantly active fear and anxiety are thus present in every action, mediating actions taken by the human animal within the struggle to survive.
Reflecting on how individuals cope with this complexity, Becker says that to protect oneself from an unpredictable world one needs to develop ‘an obliviousness both to the terrors of the world and to his own anxieties. Otherwise he would be crippled for action’ (1973:178). This insight, acknowledged but not central in social theory (Adorno 1967:72; Parsons 1951:13; Giddens 1991:54-55; Urry 2011:12-13), describes the ever-present but denied influence of fear
130 on action – the reflex for self-preservation. Becker’s analysis of the existential paradox utilises Søren Kierkegaard’s (2000:351) analysis of anxiety, which he saw ‘as a basic response to man’s condition – to his pitiful finitude, his impotence, and his death’ (Becker 1971:42), the dread that, as Giddens (1991:37) notes, exists as ‘the chaos that threatens on the other side of the ordinariness of everyday conventions’. Becker draws on thinkers that also influence the Frankfurt school and critical theory. He builds, for example, on Sigmund Freud’s early insights14 (Becker 1973:xix; Martin 2012:143) and develops his understanding of Freud using insights from post-Freudian thinkers Otto Rank and Gregory Zilboorg (Becker 1973:xix). Further, Becker (1971:138; 23-24) combines psychological understanding with the sociological, referring to thinkers such as Goffman and Mead to explore the effects of socially constructed symbolisms on the self in relation to existential fear and anxiety. But what is meant by fear and anxiety?
Recalling Darwin’s description of the ‘struggle for life’, the role of fear can be seen from a naturalist perspective, relating specifically to ‘the primitive survival instinct of the organism’ and/or the survival of its species (Armon-Jones 1986:62).15 Though a distinction can be drawn between fear and anxiety (Giddens 1991:43),16 both look at ‘a psychic condition of heightened sensitivity to some perceive threat, risk, peril or danger’ (Hunt 1999:509). For the thesis, fear and anxiety carry a similar weight in terms of what action they prompt, and I generally deploy them as ‘a single phenomenon’ (Kolnai 2004:36; Smith & Korsmeyer in Kolnai 2004:8). If fear and anxiety are implicated in every aspect of the human animal’s condition of vulnerability, then action while striving for security and a flourishing life takes on a particular quality.17 What role do they play in the human animal’s relation within the web of life?
As fundamental (though not exclusive) drivers of action, fear and anxiety are active primary emotions when confronting climate change. In a longitudinal study on Australian attitudes towards climate change, the authors note that ‘anger, fear, and powerlessness were rated as the most commonly felt emotion in response to climate change’ (Leviston et al. 2015:viii-x, 54).18
14 Becker accepts Freud’s concept of ‘a dynamic unconscious’ but downplays ‘the role of instinctual drives’, exploring the anxious ‘symbolic distortions of childhood perceptions’ as children interact with parents and other caregivers, upon whom they rely for security and life (Freud 2010b:1036; Freud 2010a:177-178; Freud 2010c:4900; Liechty 1998:49). 15 Fear also has a social ‘instrumental role’ in regulating attitudes, values and moral systems of groups, to maintain a moral order in given societies (Armon-Jones 1986:62-64). 16 Both derive form the German Angst but are often treated as separate affects, namely an ‘amorphous mood’ (anxiety) versus ‘emotion with intentional object’ (fear) (Smith & Korsmeyer in Kolnai 2004:8). 17 The complex neuro-scientific mechanics of fear responses (Franks 2006:53), are beyond the scope here, as is a consideration of every dynamic of fear related to life and death. I focus here on the role of fear driving the individual’s constant need to maintain security for daily action. 18 17,493 respondents from multiple regions 131 The study’s focus on fear is in direct relation to the symbols of threat that climate change conveys. But in light of the individual’s symbolic striving for self-preservation, the implication of the threat, namely on how fear influences action when life project is at stake is directly related to one’s action. This would put the individual’s prioritisation of security to ensure material or symbolic self-preservation at the heart of action.
Of course, the complex relational aspects of fear reveal other emotions that are involved in decision-making and action, like love, for instance (Ahmed 2004:67). The complex dynamic between objects of fear and love, described by Ahmed (2004:68), and Barbalet’s (2001:157) description of fear as part of a suite of ‘symbolically based emotional reactions’, reveal that separating fear from other emotions is difficult. However, all emotions fundamentally drive human agency and action to ensure social functioning (Barbalet 2001:66), and thus individual well-being and security are entwined in the intent of self-preservation. My interest is in how fear and anxiety inform encounters with climate change as the individual pursues security and flourishing by evaluating ‘external and internal stimuli in terms of their relevance for the organism’ when the encounter requires a response (Barbalet 2001:66). The phenomenological experience of insecurity delineates space, locates the individual, and in ultimately impacts individual action (Ahmed 2003:378). An encounter with climate change will resonate according to the way it is interpreted consistent with the experience of individual security in relation to values and worldviews, levels of vulnerability, felt connection with nature, and so on. So climate change will resonate differently for an Australian farmer facing drought, a Chinese farmer facing floods, an urban dweller facing bushfire smoke, or a Bangladeshi facing sea level rise. Still, each individual’s sense of security is touched and provoked to respond, in harmony with the human predisposition toward self-preservation in the service of survival outlined by Becker. But is focusing on fear and security unique to Becker? Consider examples from the Frankfurt school and Anthony Giddens.
Early critical theory’s reflection of the role of fear in line with a critique of the outer world helps reveal the socially and culturally embedded structures that influence the individual inner world’s psychological and emotive elements of action. Pioneered by the Frankfurt school, the dissenting tradition of Western Marxism includes Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse, and Habermas. They analyse the structure of reason, and the entangled relation of enlightenment, nature, and myth-driven domination (Browne 2017:6; Held 2004:40, 249). It was felt psychoanalytic work helped further an understanding of relation and critique of capitalist society by integrating the individual within the social order while also revealing individual resistances and desires for freedom (Browne 2017:11; Held 2004:43).
132 Horkheimer’s reflections in a context of shifting inter and post-war economics reveal an important insight regarding the relation between stability/security and fear. He ponders the division between employed and unemployed and a fragmented labour movement, where the unemployed, already facing ‘horrors’ of unemployment, are willing to join a revolutionary movement, but for the employed ‘the fear of losing their jobs becomes progressively the only criterion of their action’ (Horkheimer 1950:282-283). While Horkheimer attributes the fragmentation to ‘the “nature” of the capitalist process of reduction to separate interests in socialism’ (Horkheimer 1950:282-283), I suggest this bifurcated effect of fear provides an important insight regarding decision-making. The two groups of disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals confront the same structural conditions dominating them, but entirely different action is taken because of a differently experienced security position. One fights to regain a lost position of security for fear of annihilation, the other fears losing the more ‘stable’ (or less precarious) position and seeks to protect it. I would argue each gauges the stakes in reference to an individual life project seeking to survive and flourish. The lesson, I feel, is that while there is variability in envisioned pathways, the same goal of security to protect a life project is in play. I suggest the ongoing assessment of an individual or group position of security in relation to one’s goal of flourishing and one’s relative security is key to understanding climate change action, and shall pursue this point soon.
Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1991:55) also highlights many of the elements that the individual uses to protect immediate and long-term ontological security within a given context, namely questions associated with the continuity of self-identity, of existence and being in relation to objects, and of finitude and human life. His description echoes Becker’s existential paradox, with (re)action being related to fear of losing security. Giddens (1991:50) also discusses the centrality of an awareness of inevitable death in action. Drawing on Kierkegaard, Freud and Heidegger, Giddens (1991:48-49) considers a similar conundrum that influences action, namely that from infancy humans struggle with their finitude and ‘fear of non-being’. Giddens (1991:54-55) sees this anxiety within a broader consideration of ontological security, where the management of existential questions determines the difference between an unstable or ‘a reasonably stable sense of identity’.
Becker is thus not an outlier in his focus on the fear of death, but it was central to his theoretical framework because he felt it informed every aspect of action. I too feel this central focus is a key mediating factor of action, however I argue what I call pursuit of the promise helps explain why a fear of death becomes a mediating factor, and that these two factors work with a third mediating factor to influence individual action, namely the constructions of meaning intersubjectively drawn from a socio-cultural context. I thus consider the promise next.
133
5.2.2 The promise – individual expectations of flourishing and meaning
As noted, Becker (1973:87) describes the sublimated fear of death as involving a realisation that despite a ‘yearning for life’ one is to die – that is the terror, ‘it seems like a hoax’. As part of managing this anxiety, Becker (1973:36, 109) describes the deployment of a ‘causa sui’19 or ‘self-cause’ project, which provides the actor a feeling of heroically transcending vulnerability and human limitations. The promise I imagine involves the dimensions of a life plan similar to the causa sui, but provides a qualitative nuance in its connection with perspective and pragmatic application. It relates to an imagined ‘free and rational’ individual who pursues a life plan reasonably expecting ‘favorable circumstances’, and deriving happiness when the plan can be ‘more or less successfully’ realised (Rawls 1971:10, 79), either physically or symbolically. In a general sense, people seek ordered patterns of success and associated ‘prestige’ (or status) as models to imitate for an individually successful life, be it physical imitation, as Mauss (1973:73) highlights, or larger life-project goals that improve individual and group status, shown by Goffman (1959:126). The desire for meaning and flourishing is relevant to individual action because the individual necessarily prioritises security to pursue achieve them, and this prioritisation has implications for action associated with climate change.
The promise outlined here is not argued as a mere desire for happiness (Kant 2012:27), but as an expectation implied from birth in the human animal’s struggle to live, ‘a yearning for life’ emerging from within the initially dependent relation with one’s immediate caregiver(s) and progressing to relations where autonomy, dependence and vulnerability are entwined when life is enacted (Anderson 2013:135). My conception of the promise acknowledges Nietzsche’s (1994:35-37) description of nature as having a task of breeding ‘an animal with the prerogative to promise’, where Nietzsche ties the ability to make and keep promises as a sign of mastery and free will, though I see Nietzsche’s assumption of human mastery over an ever-changing terrain as faltering20 because it sees the human animal as an autonomous being that can control nature, rather than as an interdependent human as a part of nature. The process of promise- making has been understood as a means of feeling in control, and a way of managing risk by ordering and sustaining life, where such promises can provide a secure sense of future expectations amid uncertainty and ungovernability of the world (Arendt 1958:243-245;
19 A concept considered variably by other thinkers, like Spinoza, Sartre, Freud, and Norman Brown 20 Nietzsche’s idealised account of power, while insightful, ignores differentials in power and the implications of greater security that comes with power in contrast to vulnerability, and the way each relate to action.. 134 Luhmann 1995:308; Nietzsche 1994:35-37). Arendt (1958:175) describes promise-making as a key social mechanism that creates stable worldly structures. I see the individual as also participating in a process of promise-making to create stable inner world structures, namely if we think of hopes and aspirations for the self as involving the pursuit of ‘wants, preferences, choices, and calculations’ (Appadurai 2004:67), the promise imagines a process of self- commitments in the form of hopes and ambitions tied to values and meanings. One fulfils individual aspirations by making promises within the outer world to pursue those hopes, which provide the individual a pathway that decreases uncertainty.
The promise is thus ‘what gets us up in the morning’, one’s aspirations about a meaningful life project through which the individual maintains consistency and plots a future pathway according to individual hopes and values. In dire circumstances, the promise might simply be about making it to the next day to continue the struggle for life. It is being able to see a future through the promise that alleviates the anxiety of uncertainty that threatens survival. I use the idea of the promise to encapsulate the primary concerns of individual security, self-preservation and flourishing. Lost homes or a lost future because of the material implications of climate change represent a threat to reasonably expected favourable circumstances for survival and success, and a lost opportunity to flourish – a threat to the promise. Equally for those that see climate change as an ideological question rather than a reality, action in its regard is seen as an unjust use of common resources that could be used for other purposes (Boussalis & Coan 2016:93), which potentially threatens the promise they imagine.
Pursuit of the promise both imparts and requires security, but how does one achieve security? As illustrated in the example above of the Cobargo residents, security is sought and expected within the context of formal or informal associations. First, as implied in a social contract, individual security is often dependent on group security via a strong socio-politically, cohesive state. In exchange for fulfilling personal duties and responsibilities, people expect states to deliver secure conditions for individual flourishing by protecting personal, political and social rights, namely entitlements as part of the collective and freedom from interference (Bauman & May 1990:132). I cannot pursue the full dimensions of the security the individual seeks from the state, but what is important here is the relation with outer-world systems of collective security, namely the outer-world coordinates the individual refers to when pursuing the promise. What messages the individual receives about what actions lead to security or insecurity is consequential, as examples to be considered will show.
From the individual perspective, what imparts security and a sense of well-being within the individual inner world? Again, only an overview is possible, but fundamentals suffice for my
135 purposes. Maslow’s (1970:36-52) hierarchy of needs includes fundamental, lower order physiological needs, such as food, and shelter; safety and stability through order and freedom from fear; and higher order needs, such as love and belongingness through friendship and trust, self-esteem through individual and group acknowledgments, and finally self-actualisation through realising one’s full potential, and transcendence through personal value systems. Referring to Maslow, Schwartz (1992:5-12) hypothesises individual values in relation to well- being as including ‘safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self’, which he includes in amongst other primary value types, such as creative self-direction, social power, and wealth. An individual often depends upon communal and in-group belonging to enjoy levels of esteem and worldview reassurance to feel a sense of security (Smith & Henry 1996:636). Crompton (2010:10) and Kasser (2011:6), carrying on from Schwartz, propose a model of intrinsic and extrinsic values at play in the pursuit of well-being, with similar tensions between self-enhancement and self-transcendence considerations. These aspects of security capture the fundamental categories that I explore progressively and in my culminating discussion on an inner-world security schema, which develops from one’s earliest existence. My focus is on a schema of ‘mental structures that an individual uses to organise knowledge and guide cognitive processes and behaviour’ (Michalak 2020), particularly security felt through material relation, social relation, and individual ontological and phenomenological experience, depicted below.
Materially constituted security
Individually Socially constituted constituted security security
Figure 5.1 Fundamental individual security schema categories
The schema is about describing how the human can be imagined as positioned in the world through individual values and meanings related to the materially, socially and individually constituted realm of security. As the individual acts, these values and meanings constituting security are brought into relation with encounters that convey the cultural patterns ‘of value- orientation, normative ideas, and evaluative symbols’ regarding security that the actor uses to orient their own orientations (Parsons 1951:164). More justification for the security schema is given in the next chapter. My point for now is that climate encounters prompt a response to
136 maintain one’s basic sense of security. What I am visualising is an individual that constantly gauges a personal security position with what is outside the self with the intent of self- preservation. The representations of security and the narrative framing that promises flourishing within socio-cultural frames, become influential to the choices made. Such a process involves an unfolding constitutive process shaping ‘the experiencing subject’s space-time coordinates’, which allows the individual to have a sense of control over the natural and social environment, but at the same time remember one’s ultimately vulnerable condition through relational dependence (Sprintzen & Rosenberg 1973:154-155). That is, the individual, from birth, learns to ensure survival and t to control the essential conditions of one’s locus in the world, according to individual capacities, by translating coordinates from the external environment into a means of ensuring survival and, hopefully, flourishing.
At this point, a contextualising example from participant comments may be helpful to visualise how the individual is located in a broader outer world, and in encounters with climate change assesses personal security positions both in relation to the eco-socio-cultural context and in reference to an individual life project of meaning. Note how forty-seven-year-old interview participant Loral illustrates the interpenetrating reach of outer-world discourses surrounding climate change upon the individual’s inner world, and one’s management of vulnerability and anxiety to maintain a life project of meaning. She says:
I think we all have a limited capacity to think about things, and if you actually thought about everything that was wrong with the world, you’d be huddled under the table cowering and crying… Some people’s inclination to include in their brains stuff that is beyond their own personal realm is limited, it's a choice, so I choose to engage beyond my own personal role, but you know, I have got to write my PhD and function as a person and live in this world as well so, you can get into kind of super dilemmas of like: “oh my god, so rice, you know, I’ve been to Narandra where they used to grow rice and it's a dust bowl, and Australia shouldn’t grow rice because it causes irrigation issues and mucks up the rivers, and down in South Australia there’s no water left in the Murray so that’s terrible, but if I buy it from Pakistan maybe the people were slave labour and it got flown to Australia on a plane” … you’ve got to make a decision in the end, and say “well I’ve reflected on this and this is what I’m going with”, because it’s too complicated otherwise.
Loral is a researcher, wife and mother. Like many Australians, she is concerned about climate change, not only how it will impact her and her family, but the broader social and international repercussions that return to affect her immediate world. While discussing the process of staying
137 informed, Loral describes the complexity faced and her limited capacity to make decisions regarding climate change while at the same time being able to pursue her project of meaning. Note the anxious expression in Loral’s observations. Loral is seeking to act morally, according to her personal value system and within the scope of her personal resources – the material, social and individual aspects of her security needs are in discourse with each other and the outer world. She incorporates broader consideration of food production dilemmas, environmental degradation in Australia, potential slavery in Pakistan and transportation causing climate impacts (‘flown to Australia on a plane’) and weighs them against her individual position to affect her action. Her considerations are comprehensive of complex local and global situations, but are assessed, I posit, with her primary pursuit of the promise at the forefront (‘write my PhD; function as a person; live in this world as well’). Loral’s words illustrate to me the activation of an individual schema involving material and symbolic interpretations of security. The anxious guarding of the promise manifests as the prioritisation of the individual project and maintenance of individual security to pursue that project, weighing the important aspects of her security needs against each other and in relation to the outer world so she can plot a path of meaning.
The dimensions outlined through Loral’s example, namely the constant assessment of one’s security position and the idea of the promise, are guiding paradigms that I argue the individual assesses encounters with climate change. I next put the context of ever-present existential anxiety, and pursuit of security to ensure the promise in context by considering the third mediating factor, namely the individual’s resort to the outer world for predictable frames utilising meanings intersubjectively drawn from a socio-cultural context
5.2.3 The individual pursuit of secure outer-world frames of action
As argued from the beginning of the chapter, from the moment of birth the stakes are high for the vulnerable human. Almost immediately the individual is driven to adapt their position in relation to others, being sensitised to the wishes and routines of those who can ensure survival and self-satisfaction. The individual then gradually develops a symbolic faculty for the same end survival. In line with the idea of dialectical relation, this pattern continues throughout life though adapted to a broader range of dependent and interdependent relations. The individual extracts coordinates from the outer environment, in order to navigate life’s challenges and fulfil a personal life project, which gives meaning to individual lives. I consider this a third factor that necessarily mediates and individual’s action that combines with a person’s pursuit of the promise and the ever-present anxiety of death. First, consider that an individual is dependent on
138 socio-cultural structures which offer frameworks to pursue hopes and aspirations. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (2004:67-68) when discussing the capacity to aspire, notes that aspirations ‘form parts of wider ethical and metaphysical ideas which derive from larger cultural norms’, they are never simply individual’ but, in line with sociological thought, ‘are always formed in interaction and in the thick of social life. As far back as Emile Durkheim and George Herbert Mead, we have learned that there is no self outside a social frame, setting, and mirror.’
Appadurai (2004:67) argues that while ‘aspirations about the good life, about health and happiness, exist in all societies’, they vary according to cultural background and context, ‘but in every case, aspirations to the good life are part of some sort of system of ideas (remember relationality as an aspect of cultural worlds) which locates them in a larger map of local ideas and beliefs’. The problem, however, Appadurai (2004:67) laments, is that aspirations ‘have been assigned to the discipline of economics, to the domain of the market and to the level of the individual actor’. This, I feel, captures an important issue when thinking about the principles discussed in chapters three and four. Namely, ‘the market’, the principles of modernity and its related promise have stepped into the socio-cultural domain that constructs aspirations and promises.
Recall, these principles and ideas are the ones regulating exchanges that are pushing dialectical relations in a life-denying direction. It is therefore problematic that the individual must draw coordinates from the outer world parameters through to maintain security. But the consequence of the inescapable fear and anxiety associated with vulnerability is that the individual needs security to pursue a hopefully flourishing life, ensuring security through an ordered world becomes a vital component of individual action. Like Giddens (1991:42-46), who argues individuals require stability in the form of predictable mental and physical frameworks to act, Berger (1967:19) describes nomization – from nomos, ‘a meaningful order’ that also alleviates anxiety to facilitate action. Constructing and maintaining meaning is what guides individual action; it constitutes security and alleviates fear and anxiety of death – literal or symbolic – and is done so through dialectical relation with the outer world. Berger (1967:22-23) says:
The most important function of society is nomization. The anthropological presupposition of this is a human craving for meaning that appears to have the force of instinct. Men are congenitally compelled to impose a meaningful order upon reality. This order, however, presupposes the social enterprise of ordering world-construction. To be separated from society exposes the individual to a multiplicity of dangers with which he is unable to cope by himself, in the extreme case to the danger of immanent extinction. Separation from society also inflicts unbearable psychological tensions upon
139 the individual, tensions that are grounded in the root anthropological fact of sociality. The ultimate danger of such separation, however, is the danger of meaninglessness. This danger is the nightmare par excellence, in which the individual is submerged in a world of disorder… Anomie is unbearable to the point where the individual may seek death in preference to it. Conversely, existence within a nomic world may be sought at the cost of all sorts of sacrifice and suffering – and even at the cost of life itself, if the individual believes that this ultimate sacrifice has nomic significance.
I see Berger, Becker and Giddens as complementary accounts of the individual’s need for order and predictability to abate anxiety. Berger above is speaking to the constructions of meaning intersubjectively drawn from the socio-cultural context, which Becker (1973:5, 159, 187) shows the individual uses to ensure a sense of security through heroic transcendence, since people ‘want to guarantee some kind of indefinite duration, and culture provides them with the necessary immortality symbols or ideologies’ (Becker 1975:63). Security may be achieved through the predictability of shared worldviews, group familiarity and belonging, and established identity in relation to those groups. The individual may thus prioritise the socially- constituted elements of the inner schema (in relation to individual and material security elements) to feel securely located and stable enough to act. For Giddens (1991:55), individual engagement in social activity necessarily evokes existential questions involving ‘existence and being’; ‘finitude and human life’; ‘the experience of others’; and ‘the continuity of the self’. The effect of these existential questions, namely anxiety and fear, arise alongside the promise of flourishing. The individual looks for predictable frames and ‘modes of orientation’ that can safely guide action and alleviate anxiety (Giddens 1991:37). The frames may thus also manifest through overarching ideas about ‘success’ (as per modernity’s narrative), or frameworks of action that are built according to that vision which may engage the individually or materially- constituted elements of the inner world to feel securely located. The individual thus draws on necessary ‘symbols or ideologies’ intersubjectively established with the socio-cultural context to ensure survival. What is the significance of this tension as individuals have exchanges in the web of life?
For me, understanding how individual action contributes to climate change revolves around the human animal’s felt sense of security or insecurity, which is drawn through predictable frames. If the individual has a primary motivation to protect the promise, then material, social and individual security are needed for action. The individual would seek predictable and stable material conditions, consistent stable relations in social groups, and stability pertaining to individual self-esteem and value in order to fulfil a life project. Individual action in this formulation, then, is about how to pursue a flourishing and/or meaningful life project while
140 maintaining the security needed to ensure that life project. But what are the parameters for such action? As chapters two to four demonstrate, while principles of interdependence constitute the fibres of everyday relation, principles of separation shape outer-world conditions either by structuring the parameters of material action, or conceptions of freedom, value and success, and the individual draws both on those outer frames and one’s own value systems to decide how to act. I am thus envisioning the mediating factors of a pursuit of the promise, fear and anxiety, and the reference to outer frames combining when an encounter with climate change engages the individual symbolically to influence action. I see these mediating factors as active elements in the dialectical exchanges affecting the web of life that combine with the flawed principles of modernity and currently are push dialectical relation in the struggle for life in the life-denying trajectory of climate change.
Loral, mentioned earlier illustrates the individual pursuing the primary task in the struggle to survive, namely dealing with the fear of vulnerability, gaining a sense of control over the world, and thus ensuring material and symbolic survival. Becker (1971:79) says regarding culture that it ‘provides just those rules and customs, goals of conduct, that place right actions automatically at the individual’s disposal’, with the consequence that this discourse (between what is inner and outer to the individual) provides a person with ‘a steady buffer against anxiety’. Putting individual security systems and the notion of the promise into discussion with what the socio- cultural narrative tells the individual about how to flourish, a nuanced vision of individual action emerges. Recall, chapters two and three considered two narratives, each with an inherent or stated promise of security and flourishing. Modernity’s promise is of freedom, happiness, well-being and success. Transmitted through enlightened values, it promises through knowledge and rationality to ameliorate people’s living conditions, a transformation of the world that would provide security through predictability. Since the individual is dependent on the eco- socio-cultural outer world for security, this puts the individual’s life project (the pursuit of the promise of flourishing) in discourse with the narrative promising a path to flourishing. What the outer world signals regarding survival would thus influence the individual’s choices. For the vulnerable human animal, the outer world impacts the inner world in an ebb and flow of dialectical readjustment, and actions result from weighing the needs/demands of the dialectical relation.
Therefore, I have focused on ideas arising from a historically embedded narrative linked to capitalism and modernity’s promise because it is what dominates relation today. My concern has been the way that narrative, which is based on a flawed description of the human-to-rest-of- nature relation, promises success and freedom, shaping parameters for action in line with a flawed conception. My conception sees principles of separation latently shaping the taken-for-
141 granted ‘background conditions’ (Block 1990:30, 44; Foster, Clark & York 2010:25), whereby rationalisation and pursuit of profit, for instance, shape time, space and exchange and become ‘stable features of everyday activities’ through time (Garfinkel 1967:36). But how and why are the lifeworld structures that strongly condition everyday activities relevant to the individual pursuit of flourishing?
5.3 A dialectical exchange mediated by fear and a need for security
Becker’s key idea regarding symbolic socio-cultural authority shows that the pursuit of the promise, and the fear of losing it, will affect individual action on climate change if socio- cultural authority demarcates what kind of action is safe to take. Berger and Giddens both show that the individual craves meaningful order in the struggle for life to alleviate the anxiety of an unpredictable world. Climate change challenges this desire because it is evidence that contemporary ordering systems are flawed, tending in a life-denying direction while being the only apparent way to pursue a flourishing life. Because the human animal deploys a symbolic ‘meaning-giving’ function to order the world, climate change challenges the legitimacy of ‘orders of authority and basic norms’ (Habermas 1973:118) by challenging symbols that emerge from modernity and the enlightenment, associated with freedom and success. Since many of the material ordering systems humans refer to for predictability and security are based on the ideals associated with the putative liberal subject, socio-cultural representations reflect those principles. An Australian example can illustrate this.
Australia promises a good quality of life for citizens. There, the capacity of symbolic associations to push action in conflicting directions, for instance in people being against or for developing the mine, is illustrated through a $22 billion coalmining project in Queensland by the Adani Group. The decision to expand coal production in Australia pits the symbolic object of coal, discussed in chapter three, against another symbol of flourishing, the Great Barrier Reef. After long battles, the mine was approved in June 2019 despite Australia’s top scientific body, the CSIRO, having serious reservations about Adani’s environmental management program, let alone the many groups that opposed and continue opposition to the mine (Hasham 2019; Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2019). Both the Queensland state and Australian federal governments see it as an important boost to employment and the economy through exports to ‘energy-hungry’ India, and tie it to economic well-being (McKenzie et al. 2017). In a sense, they seek to maintain the predictable, ‘safe’ and now well-embedded frames of capitalist processes, and deviation from them symbolises an economic threat.
142
But for environmentalists the mine symbolises a threat to treasures such as the adjacent Galilee Basin and the reef, and reneges on the commitment in the Paris Climate Accord – it continues the burning of fossil fuels, transgressing planetary boundaries through excessive carbon emissions, which increase ocean temperatures and acidification and directly harm the delicate balance of the reef. It betrays the global effort to ensure a viable future for coming generations, alongside those already suffering climate consequences like drought and fire. Choices around the mine play out as an ideological war, but are founded, I argue, on interpretations of security and flourishing. And as will be seen in further participant comments, individuals encounter the broader debates, provoking assessments of security that directly affect individual action since the vulnerable human animal, regardless on one’s position on climate change, must interpret safe, predictable pathways in a personal trajectory utilising outer-world signals that have mixed messages about what is a safe path to take.
The issue of climate change materially and/or symbolically reminds humans of their inability to control an uncertain life, evoking the powerful emotion of fear. Justifying systems that appear to create security like the current system of capitalist exchange is thus a form of denial since in reality capitalist principles exacerbate uncertainty. In discussing global warming denialism, Feygina et al. (2010:327) describe system justification theory, where ‘our evaluations of social systems and institutions are influenced by epistemic needs to maintain a sense of certainty and stability, existential needs to feel safety and reassurance, and relational needs to affiliate with others who are part of the same social systems’. Becker (1973:4) describes such comfort coming through an illusion of security that society and culture provide in the face of the inevitable reality that one cannot control the world; socio-cultural systems are symbolic action systems that allow the average person to feel ‘at least secure that the cultural game is the truth, the unshakable, durable truth’ (ibid 1973:188). The taken-for-granted narrative within capitalism, I argue, creates a potent yet flawed structure of ‘truth’.
Whether one believes climate change is real and rejects a humans-over-nature narrative, or one rejects the threat of climate change and accepts it, the systemic structural demands of action will compel action in one particular direction until a humans-in-nature narrative with accompanying principles can change what mediates exchange. Being reliant on a socio-cultural world infused with flawed principles that conduct exchange, the fears and insecurities evoked within the individual when one’s ‘meaningful order’ is threatened will mediate subsequent action. In other words, fear, anxiety and insecurity about losing the promise of a flourishing life mediate action, and are mediating factors in climate change through how they mingle with the promise of modernity.
143
I am proposing that as the individual seeks to determine how to have a successful life project, the symbols of success determined by the outer world come to define what actions are needed or possible for personal success because of the anxiety and fear that must be managed. Since the promise of flourishing is developed relationally between the individual and the outer world, capitalism’s false representations of how to achieve security and flourishing lead action, broadly speaking, down a life-denying path. For example, recall the human use of coal, the smartphone and the car: if objects upon which one depends for a successful life in capitalist frames are threatened – we are told to drive less, phones are destructive, or we must transition from coal, then the core survival reflex may be triggered – if I can’t work or have electricity then how am I to live? Putting fuel in a car, buying mass-produced products of industrialisation, or flying to another country, for many are now necessities to merely live in the world. Those engaged in such activity may tell themselves that to be successful or simply secure I must have this, drive there, fly over there, while at the same time muting the dissonance that such actions provoke. In such a scenario, fear and the individual pursuit of the promise are mediating elements within actions dialectically affecting the web of life by virtue of the individual’s engagement with the flawed principles of modernity.
Consequently, the individual, who from infancy is sensitised to the demands of the outer world, ‘upon whom its survival and self-satisfaction depends’ (Sprintzen & Rosenberg 1973:154-155), is directly implicated in the ruptures of capitalist exchange. The daily realisations of the capitalist system’s destructive effects, through the constant rise of greenhouse gases and commensurate warming and destruction of the planet (Smith et al. 2009; Ceballos et al. 2017), are not strong enough to break through the anxiety of self-preservation for many not directly touched by climate impacts. The individual thus faces a conundrum when ‘perceivedly normal courses of action’ (Garfinkel 1967:35) and the worldviews and living conditions one is accustomed to are threatened by the issue of climate change, whether one accepts it as a pressing issue or not. To cope with the potentially crippling despair of one’s possible demise, humans utilise socio-cultural systems to have a sense of order, control, and meaning, which allays anxiety by promising ‘symbolic and/or literal immortality’ that symbolically give a sense of continuation and avoids the reality of death (Becker 1971:141; Cohen & Solomon 2011:316). Thus fear, the pursuit of the promise, and the individual’s resort to outer-world frames can mean action is coerced to comply with those frames insomuch as constructing the future occurs through them.
A central issue, I feel, is the need to maintain security. The despair of people living in low lying islands as tides rise, or the chants of youth at climate marches, communicate a sense of
144 insecurity and injustice that accompanies the consequences of climate change. Equally, voices staunchly opposed to government regulation and policies to curb emissions express anger and anxiety about climate change, though through opposition. Each example describes a felt threat to one’s perceived path to flourishing. I argue such encounters equate with a need and expectation of security, security that Giddens (1991:42-46) tells us can be felt via predictable mental and physical frameworks which alleviate the anxiety of uncertainty and provide clear pathways for action. Through predictable structures one can know how to act, one can plan and look to the future. Each individual begins to construct essential markers in a security schema – a ‘pattern-making tendency’ through which ‘each of us constructs a stable world’ (Douglas 1966:37), which is depicted in figure 6.1 above. Schema conceptualisations are not new, but this chapter is laying the groundwork for a nuanced schema imagining that prioritises self- preservation in conjunction with the promise, and captures the complex dynamic interaction this produces between the individual and the outer world.
What I have hopefully achieved above is a vision of the individual within the web of life. The chapter describes a vulnerable individual in relation to eco-socio-cultural frames, both striving for survival but also striving towards a life of flourishing. An existential issue like climate change is replete with symbolic associations that prompt actions in relation to one’s life project – from purchasing solar panels or avoiding meat, to posting one’s disdain for a government policy on Facebook. Not only do such acts inform an individual project, but they maintain a sense of order when one’s cognitive unity is disrupted. I consequently see a connection between the ‘meaningful order’ (Berger 1967:19) and predictable frames (Giddens 1991:36) the individual seeks for ontological security, and Becker’s (1973:4) discussion on the role of socio- cultural systems in providing a relief from the fear and anxiety induced by life’s uncertainty by providing structures of action. It dialectically connects eco-socio-cultural systems with daily choices humans make to maintain a predictable pathway, and connects the choices we make to the purpose of our choices, namely the goal of material and/or symbolic survival and pursuit of the promise and flourishing.
The chapter particularly set out to highlight three mediating factors of individual action that inform encounters with climate change. The idea of the promise was presented as an individual’s aspirations involved in achieving a flourishing life and meaningful life project. These aspirations arise alongside the ever-present anxiety and fear that is part of being vulnerable beings aware of an eventual demise in death. To avoid paralysis through fear and anxiety, the individual pursues predictable socio-cultural frames within the web-of-life. This process of managing anxiety to pursue the promise has implications for individual action as it now occurs in an outer world whose frames of action are designed under modernity’s flawed
145 principles while also functioning under a sustained narrative promising security, freedom and flourishing. The individual must thus manage being a vulnerable subject who is part of and interdependent reality while functioning in a system of exchange designed under principles of separation for an imagined liberal subject. As a consequence, navigating life is challenging and we see fear and anxiety, and the pursuit of the promise as key mediating factors in action regarding climate change. I proceed to consider this idea in the next chapter, returning to interview participant contributions to illustrate the individual’s prioritisation of the promise that depends on a secure base of action when deciding how to act.
146 Chapter 6 Plotting a stable path to pursue the promise
In my introduction I hypothesised that the impasse of widespread inaction on climate change stems from the very cause of climate change, namely a flawed understanding of the human-to- rest-of-nature relation. Testing this hypothesis has involved three key ideas. First, that the flawed understanding that emerged from modernity and the enlightenment has destabilised living interdependent systems that have consistently provided the relative stability humans need to flourish. The second idea involves considering motivations that emerge from vulnerability to envision the human animal’s involvement in the dialectical exchanges constituting the web of life. Chapter five hence outlined the protagonist in focus, the vulnerable human, and proposed three mediating factors of action involved in the individual’s struggle to survive. The individual must constantly manage existential fear and anxiety associated with the ever-present threat of death, while also pursuing aspirations of a flourishing and meaningful life-project, encapsulated in the idea of the promise, but is dependent on outer world frames for security. These factors mediate individual action in the web of life, namely they inform the exchanges between the individual’s inner world that seeks security and the outer world that potentially offers it, and thus affect action that then impacts the web of life in ‘an endless maze of relations and interactions’ (Ollman 1971:53).
A third idea in testing the hypothesis involves considering why action on climate change has stalled even though it is clear that human behaviour is inducing it. While chapter five covered this in part, this chapter begins to visualise the mediating factors within individual responses to climate change encounters to further understand barriers to action. By considering evidence from social psychology and continued reference to interview participant comments, I consider the individual need for security, and observes the vulnerable individual seeking the promise while negotiating a terrain designed for an imagined liberal subject in line with the humans- over-nature narrative. By doing so I am working towards illustrating a schema of security needs that constitute a base of action (Figure 6.1) to be discussed in chapter eight as dialectical place, while the vulnerable individual pursues the promise of a meaningful and flourishing life project.
147 Materially constituted security
Individually Socially constituted constituted security security
Figure 6.1 Dialectical place security schema model
I shall first discuss and illustrate the caution the individual demonstrates as outer-world promises are assessed against personal expectations, and the individual acts to maintain sufficient ontological security to pursue the promise.
6.1 Assessing the outer-world terrain to protect security
Since an individual gauges action in relation to an eco-socio-cultural outer world, the dominant authoritative assertions promising security will influence the individual’s assessment of what action to take. What, then, if the outer-world reference points are unstable? As noted, modernity provides ‘constant phenomena’ and ‘fragmentation of experience’ unlike pre-modern times (Giddens 1991:189), which complicates the individual’s effort to maintain a safe trajectory. This manifests in late modernity as individualisation, where increased individual possibilities are matched by increased atomisation, individual responsibility and complexity in planning and conducting life merely to survive (Beck 1992:88). Further, Honig (2013:59-60) describes severely disrupted social conditions of late modernity that prevent the ‘common love for and contestation of public things’. Indeed, when security is a constant concern, finding trustworthy coordinates is challenging in a terrain of multiple voices. Despite robust institutional checks and balances (Miller 2013:1294), and IPCC consensus supported by an overwhelming number of climate scientists, noted in chapter one, the climate crisis is not eliciting an adequate response. This in part is because epistemic knowledge communities often struggle to accessibly communicate the complexity of climate science (Sleeth-Keppler et al. 2017:2). The task often falls to information ‘entrepreneurs’ like journalists, nongovernment organisations, and opinion shapers, yet, as considered in chapter four, this terrain is also contested. If we think about the climate as a public thing, how do disrupted social conditions affect individual encounters with the issue of climate change?
148 As outlined in chapter five, vulnerable individuals look for authoritative figures and associations to trust and reduce complexity (Luhmann 1979:13), which helps one manage the fear and anxiety of uncertainty. Further, since ‘vulnerability is a precondition for trust’, trust is a foundation for normative expectations of reciprocity, and ‘viewed as an important factor behind societal well-being and as the glue that holds families, societies, organizations and companies together’ (Misztal 2011:17, 18). Trust is accordingly a determining factor for action, and is part of the ‘framework of interaction which is influenced by both personality and social system’ (Luhmann 1979:6), and Luhmann (1979:28) tells us that ‘the person and social arrangements in which one puts trust become symbol complexes’. I raise the idea of trust not to assess it, though important, but to observe the presence of caution, insecurity and fear as individuals instinctively deploy trust/mistrust to preserve their security position in relation to what symbolically appears as a threat.
In a complex and rapidly changing terrain, the anxious individual may seek protection through a higher authority like government-regulated state institutions, trusting that these systems will protect them. However, while individuals may seek protection through the authority of state governments or even business and corporate figures, increased mistrust of authority means individuals also direct trust towards other groups. Sleeth-Keppler et al.’s (2017:2) survey of 1737 US adults shows that those determining how to approach climate change through trust consult both formal or informal communicators. The latter may include associates, neighbours, family members, or religions, trusting they can indicate a safe trajectory for their individual life projects (Sleeth-Keppler et al. 2017:2-3; Foddy & Dawes 2008:57). To reduce the complexity of an overwhelming proliferation of information through trust, people engaged in the issue of climate change may seek out sources they feel are reliable and align with their worldviews, as demonstrated in studies examining the relation between climate attitudes, climate action and trust (Whitmarsh 2011:691, 698; Sleeth-Keppler et al. 2017; Smith & Mayer 2018; Taniguchi & Aldikacti Marshall 2018).
However, exposure to too many sources of information and authoritative claims potentially overloads or raises anxiety through confusion or mistrust (Livio & Cohen 2018). Therefore decisions and positions on climate change come in a terrain with multiple and competing sources of authority (Giddens 1991:195), but a terrain where undermined trust and amplified mistrust creates an increased sense of risk (Kasperson & Kasperson 1996:99) – it exacerbates uncertainty, which, in turn complicates the trust necessary for decision-making. In the search for security, individuals may thus draw on what I describe as socially-constituted aspect of their security needs in line with worldview alignment and ingroup security (illustrated in figure 6.1 above and discussed below). While the interviews could not examine the full scope of how
149 individual schemas formulate what is or is not a threat, the thesis is informed by expressions that indicate the delineating of safety and danger. When asked about the sources of information they trust, some participants stick to sources within their worldview parameters; others make a conscious effort to know ‘both sides.’ Jonathan’s approach in establishing the reality of climate change reveals fear and anxiety in the process. Notice Johnathan’s sense of vulnerability with not feeling ‘qualified’, and how trust facilitates his decision-making by alleviating fear:
I actually try and pay a certain amount of attention to climate denialist publications, just because I think it's worth trying to understand as far as possible how the other side thinks if you like. I guess I'm kind of aware of kind of the dangers of living in a bubble, but it's sort of funny, because often I personally feel like I'm not qualified. I read it and try and understand it, but often it's… in a sense I'm not equipped to kind of engage with it that critically, because often it turns on all sorts of empirical information that I'm not aware of myself. I feel like at the end of the day you do have to trust someone. And I know that yeah, because it's based on trust there is a possibility that you can be deceived, but I feel like this is the way life works and we rely on people to make the decisions for us, because actually we just don't have the time to make them ourselves. And if we didn't behave like this we couldn't function; because life is too complicated to investigate everything for yourself.
Jonathan’s words show the complexities that an encounter with climate change can evoke, and the decisions that need to be made in order to act and act securely. He is aware of ‘the other side’ and the ‘danger’ of living in a bubble, he feels unqualified and anxious he may not understand important facts, and even his resort to trust is about not being paralysed – ‘otherwise we couldn’t function’. With finite inner resources in an increasingly complex, fractured and contested terrain, Jonathan withdraws to a trusted group or authority, otherwise he would be completely paralysed. The complexity can be mentally and emotionally taxing, and ultimately increases anxiety. Access to mass information through multitudinous media platforms embedded in phones, computers and social networking apps there-in, provide information, reliable and unreliable ‘news’, political commentary on inter alia climate change, which are social ‘artefacts’ flowing from ‘authorities’ and ‘experts’. Such a flood of information, sometimes described as ‘information overload’ (Levitin 2014:2), characterises the anxiety that comes with having to negotiate an increasingly crowded and conflicted terrain of competing worldviews and life ‘solutions’. It is easier to find security through aligning with groups that accord with one’s worldview rather than challenge it.
150 From the field of social psychology we learn that individual responses to climate change involve strategies to constantly assess messages from the outer world so that pertinent coordinates can be used to establish a secure pathway; resorting to worldview agreement for security is one such strategy. By building an identity that is socially anchored, adherence to belief systems and worldviews of groups then guide choices in relation to climate change. For instance, McCright et al. (2016:351) and Leviston et al. (2015:62) show left/right political worldview cleavage on the issue of climate change in, inter alia, the US and Australia when dissonance arises between political positions. People’s worldviews provide assuring foundations, forming structures to maintain material, social and identity security. Justification of action or inaction may be guided by worldviews like religious traditions of belief in a higher power (Hulme 2009:151-162). Indeed, worldviews and values constitute a key plank locating the individual in broader social context securely, which can be reaffirmed when collective framing of narratives affirm individual biases, known as ‘confirmation bias’ (Del Vicario et al. 2015:1).
Thus, people do not always follow ‘rational self-interest’ in voting, for instance, but they ‘allow bias, prejudice, and emotion to guide their decisions’ (Lakoff 2009:8). These studies illustrate that the human animal’s constant process of maintaining a secure individual locus, involves not just material security, but security that comes through social bonds and individual self-esteem endowing values. These factors are in constant discourse to maintain the security of self, discussed in chapter eight. Reliance on worldview symbolic associations, I posit, is used to answer a question – what will ensure my own self-preservation and my capacity to pursue a life of flourishing? Choices are made by deploying questions related to vulnerability and protection of one’s life project.
The interviews reflect what a good deal of research indicates, namely that people gravitate towards ‘authoritative’ or trustworthy sources that accord with individual worldviews and ideologies to reduce anxiety, protect the self, and affirm feelings of security (Giddens 1991:194- 196; Ward et al. 2012:25; Sleeth-Keppler et al. 2017; Taniguchi & Aldikacti Marshall 2018). The security felt through group belonging is achieved through the synergy found with personal values like altruism or self-interest, future orientations, and political affiliation, which can then heavily influence attitudes towards the environment (Dietz et al. 2007:203; Feygina et al. 2010:328-329). Corner et al. (2014:2-3) note that value orientations can be thought of in terms of ‘intrinsic’ (socially-oriented) and ‘extrinsic’ (self-interested), or descriptions can be based on an ethical orientation about societal arrangements, or even values related to political ideology. Of interest is how one protects value orientations, which constitute one’s inner world security. Stern’s (2000:412; Stern et al. 1999:81) ‘values-beliefs-norms’ (VBN) theory of
151 environmentalism shows protective action occurs when personal norms are activated by the belief that one’s individual values are threatened. Hansla et al. (2008:2) similarly show individuals engage in pro-environmental behaviour to ‘the extent that the environmental problems have threatening and harmful consequences for egoistic, social-altruistic, or biospheric objects that they value’. In other words, the individual responds to encounters that may be interpreted as threats to a life project of meaning.
While Stern’s assessment is focused on pro-environmental behaviour, action activation when a person feels their personal values threatened can also apply to anti-environmental action in defence of what I call individually-constituted security that may come through self-esteem, for instance, whereby values, worldviews, and beliefs on the perceived efficacy of one’s action work together to constitute empowerment (Stern 2000:413-415). I say this recalling Becker (1973:7), from whom we learn that feeling the security of a group can bolster self-esteem through action in relation to a socio-cultural project of meaning. Solomon et al. (1991:97) refer to ‘the dual-component cultural anxiety buffer’ where self-esteem ‘consists of viewing oneself as a valuable participant in a meaningful drama’, which creates a buffer against the condition of vulnerability and gives a sense of escape from death by deriving value through attachment with something more enduring, like culture, or ‘making a permanent mark on the world’ in relation to the socio-cultural group. The discourse between worldviews and values points to the individual’s inner world and protection of one’s socially-constituted security through belonging, and one’s individually-constituted security position comprising the personal values and worldviews that are in discourse with trusted socio-cultural worldviews and in-group accordance.
The exercise and protection of individually and socially-constituted security needs is illustrated in the deployment of mistrust by fifty-seven-year-old dentist, Jerry, who describes himself as ‘sort of between centre right and far right…to them, to most people, I’d be regarded as far right…libertarian.’ He says he was getting suspicious about climate change ‘on party grounds, partisan politics, you know, it’s all getting a bit lefty, sounds all very lefty and the solutions were all rather lefty, leaving me a bit suspicious.’ His scepticism has become full-blown opposition to action on climate change. He cites a ‘UN plot’ that involves ‘green’ solutions:
The UN was formed from the ashes of the League of Nations, which in turn was formed largely of the Fabian Society (democratic socialism). The Fabian Society in turn was formed to continue the work of Karl Marx. If you look at the core values of the UN, those are the exact same core values as the Nazis. I’ve read Agenda 21 and managed to pick up a couple of first-edition copies. I’ve read it cover to cover... It’s like these are
152 green Nazis and if you look at some of the solutions for climate change, global warming, they are so insanely green as to be completely insane. People haven’t realised it yet.
Here Jerry delineates between trustworthy and untrustworthy – between safety and danger. The symbolism of ‘green parties’ for Jerry is rather potent and strongly conflicts with and threatens his worldview. He associates the Greens with ‘lefty’ ‘Marxist’, and equates them with Nazism – all vivid descriptions of a menace threatening his security. His symbolic connections are lived as a clear existential threat of a danger ‘people haven’t realised’ yet. As will be considered later, Jerry consolidates his security by trusting a network of people and groups he regards as informed and acting meaningfully in relation to that group.
Reliance on group security makes the symbols attached to climate change – such as images of destroyed environments on one hand, or socialism, regulation, and destroyed economies on the other – significantly powerful for the symbolically-driven human animal. In the exercise of mistrust, we can identify an association with fear and vulnerability. Interview participant Joe, for instance, says he needs ‘a healthy scepticism’ because ‘everyone’s got an agenda’, which clear expresses caution and self-protection. One must be careful of ‘agendas’, as these may mislead towards danger and pain (Ahmed 2004:68-69), so one must be cautious as to not be misled on an issue that can potentially affect the capacity to pursue the promise. What agendas may be involved? Some participants were suspicious of the motives of climate scientists and the organisations that manage the issue. Jerry is untrusting of the science because of potential ulterior motives:
As I investigated things deeper, it quickly became evident that the UN itself is a fraud. How convenient that the UN promotes the “crisis” and profits very handsomely via the Paris agreement to “combat” the “problem” they created. How convenient. (the inverted commas here indicate Jerry’s physical gestures)
For Jerry, climate change is a manufactured issue with an ideologically driven agenda, so it threatens his worldview and represents an exploitation of resources from innocents so he cannot trust any information, scientific or otherwise, it produces, even if it promises a path to security. However, lack of trust in scientists due to the corrupting influence of money by those rejecting the anthropogenic causes of climate change is equally reflected in the mistrust of corporate and financial interests by those who do accept the science of climate change. Kolya points to industries:
153 Climate change is basically because of industries producing basically more carbon and other pollutants heating up the earth. But I think one link is the power of big multi- nationals being able to force agendas that are in their favour.
This contrast is revealing. The same action – the act of mistrusting, and by corollary a symbolic reaction to a threat from an opposing worldview – arises regardless of one’s position on climate change. While the source of mistrust for Jerry is diametrically opposite to Kolya, the use of an individual inner worldview and value system is what is common for each individual. Indeed, all the participant’s comments above reflect a delineation of space in relation to ‘agendas’ that are potentially threatening to one’s own position. They indicate to some extent an assessment of the outer world in relation to personal worldviews to see how they symbolically relate to an individual life project, and acceptance or rejection of them occurs in relation to what threatens one’s individual base of security.
In the examples above, worldview alignment maintains a measure of control through the predictable frames of worldview agreement, and the individual thus feels (ostensible) ontological security. In finding alignment with social groups, one avoids the anxiety of unpredictability, which feels threatening. One can act with the assurance that comes from group protection, and have clear parameters for personal action, thus establishing a clear pathway that helps one continue to pursue the promise, namely one’s life project of meaning and flourishing. As Becker contends, the driving quality propelling individual action is the relation between pursuing an individual project and being able to fulfil it within socio-cultural expectations and frames (Becker 1973:46), so through ‘meaningful action’ (Becker 1971:79) the individual maintains the base of security while also acting towards a causa sui project. As security is needed to maintain the individual path towards a flourishing life (to move/act), the outer-world ‘stable features of everyday life’ (Garfinkel 1967:36) and taken-for-granted ‘background conditions’ (Block 1990:30) have great relevance because they provide the coordinates indicating the safety of a movement or action. I next consider the interaction between outer- world promises and the individual pursuit of the promise of flourishing to understand how the dominant narrative has an effect on individual action.
6.2 Pursuing the promise in relation to modernity’s promise
As argued, individual action is dependent on predictable frames drawn from the crucial relation between the individual and the outer world. Becker tells us that from birth and through the life trajectory, the question of one’s purpose and contribution affects all dimensions of being and
154 existence but dwells in an internal centre of navigation or inner world. Becker (1971:126-127) describes the individual’s centre as including:
‘notions of time, space, power, the character of his dialogue with nature, his venture with his fellow man, his primary heroism – all these are embedded in a network of codified meanings and perceptions that are in large part arbitrary and fictional. This begins in the earliest childhood, and it occurs as Adler said: as a reaction to the child’s impossible situation’.
As shown, the individual addresses the ‘impossible situation’ of dependence and vulnerability with the development of intersubjective relations with an outer world upon which one depends for survival; it is a vital relation for ontological security. That is, one’s locus or solid anchoring in the eco-socio-cultural web of life is interdependently constituted and supported, and thus one’s life project is realised through that relation. To imagine this locus or solid anchoring, in chapter eight I compare the individual’s inner world or center as a ‘place’ representing a sufficiently secure platform of action that the individual constitutes through relation with the outer world. However, for now my focus is how the individual intersubjectively relates with what is outside, which influences the inside because of its representational meaning of security. Through the discourse between inner and outer worlds, the individual looks for coordinates that provide a sense of locus, representations of a secure trajectory, so that a sufficiently ontologically secure self can live and act.
To establish a secure pathway the individual assesses messages from the outer world, incorporating the pertinent coordinates to pursue a life project. The field of social psychology tells us part of the challenge of acting in relation to climate change lies in how immediate threats to security provide more concrete and incontrovertible direction on how to act. In relation to material costs, for instance, Kahneman’s (2012:300-310) work on the psychology of decision-making shows that people want to avoid losses, and short-term costs with more immediate impacts are felt more keenly than long-term, uncertain future costs (Marshall 2015:57). Or, consider neutralisation theory, where people downplay the negative impact of their behaviour, and ‘system justification’, where prioritising security needs leads to justifying otherwise questionable effects of a system; these also demonstrate rationalising and minimising of the effects of individual behaviour (McGregor 2008:265; Feygina et al. 2010:327). Along with judgemental discounting and denial, these allow the individual to ignore the effects of non- environmentally friendly behaviours and avoid responsibility (Gifford 2011:293). The studies conclude that justifications can be a defence mechanism through assumptions of necessity, and the priority of securing immediate stability and predictability (Feygina et al. 2010:326, 335;
155 McGregor 2008:269).
This does not mean that the individual will not respond to the issue of climate change, but prioritisation of immediate needs and self-interested ways of decision-making still arise even when one feels they are acting. For instance, in the ‘low cost hypothesis’ and acts of ‘tokenism’, individuals participate in ‘green’ actions that are easy and cost the individual little but have little efficacy (Diekmann & Preisendörfer 2003:443; Gifford 2011:296), and ‘the rebound effect’ studies how climate friendly behaviour is undermined by later non-climate friendly behaviour that is justified by the initial act (Joireman et al. 2009:181). The actions, classed as tokenistic and temporary, perhaps indicate an effort to balance what I refer to as materially-constituted security with individual values and worldviews. Significantly, the actions align with outer- world frames that structure choices in a particularly way, namely an imagined liberal subject, and maintain embedded principles to sustain the status quo. That is, the individual acts on climate change but choices are limited, so actions nevertheless maintain the status quo relation with the rest of nature. Leading global climate expert, Michael Mann (in McKie 2019) argues climate denialists, for instance, exploit capitalism’s individualised framing by deflecting ‘attention away from finding policy solutions to global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour… the forces of denial are exploiting the lifestyle change movement to get their supporters to argue with each other. It takes pressure off attempts to regulate the fossil fuel industry.’ With influence from a narrative of individualisation, separation and atomisation, even proactive climate action is fractured by the dominant principles that govern exchange. Despite a desire to act, protection of one’s individual/immediate security remains, and the current embedded and predictable structures are used to do so, especially when alternatives are not apparent.
Hence, one aspect of the cultural worldview I have focused on has been the effect of what modernity promises in shaping how people pursue a life project. Neo-Marxist sociologist, Henri Lefebvre, provides an important reason for concern that can be thought of in the context of dialectical exchange in interconnected spaces. He observes capitalism penetrating and reshaping the ‘levels, layers and sedimentations of perception, representation, and spatial practice’ in social space (1991:226). Capitalism’s penetration of social space consequently reproduces dominant relations, which serve as a means of control, domination and power, which makes social space ‘determined economically, by capital, dominated socially by the bourgeoisie, and ruled politically by the state’ (Lefebvre 1991:227). Building on Marx, Gramsci (1999:145) also describes the coerciveness of structures that influence the culture of societies. In this light, the individual deals with outer world narrative constructions designed for what I have described as an imagined liberal subject. Capitalism takes on hegemonic power to the extent that society is
156 organised through its dependence on the actions of capitalists (Przeworski 1985:138). This hegemonic power brings with it ideological organisation. It promises freedom to realise a fulfilled life through free economic exchange, but the equating of consumption with political freedom, for instance, has meant democracies reliant on capitalist exchange are variably infused with ‘the political ideology of consumption’ (Ewen 1976:89). The institutional conditions favouring capital’s primary goal – profit – reflect those ideologies as the organisation of capitalist democracies becomes dependent on systems of industrial production to meet those ends (Przeworski 1985:140).
Through the hegemonic authority that resides within a broader ‘ensemble of relations’, proponents of the flawed humans-over-nature narrative gain consent in social arenas, through ideological power rather than through coercion (Gramsci 1999:386-389). I have thus argued that a socio-cultural promise of a path to flourishing is particularly coercive because of the synergy found with the individual project, the promise, and the need to alleviate the fear and anxiety that comes with existential uncertainty that puts one’s life project in doubt. Capitalism’s promise of freedom and the associated structures that come with it resonate with the human animal’s need for predictable frames that can lead to fulfilling a personal life project, and can exact action accordingly, as some participant comments considered below illustrate in relation to climate change.
It must be remembered that the human pursuit of success through the hegemonic authority of capitalism is hollow. Apart from the exploitation human and nonhuman nature since its inception, capitalism has in effect been enacting a generational theft of the inbuilt terrestrial stabilities by virtue of the system of exchange based on extraction with the ‘end’ of profit that has subsequently also stolen from the present and future (Foster, Clark & York 2010; Moore 2015). These actions are not the only unjust thefts. As shown in chapter two through Marx (1988:71), capitalist principles not only alienate, but stealthily invade space and ‘steal’ time that would otherwise be directed to contemplative and life-sustaining activities, perhaps the most crucial of resources when it comes to action. In this way, the principles of exploitation, externalisation of cost, and profit as an end, intervene in the human-to-rest-of-nature dialectical relation in a negative way. Considering the extent to which the operative narrative, now embedded through capitalism, regulates systems of daily exchange, ideas about success filter into the individual realm and either shape views or shape the direction one must take to fulfil personal values and life projects. While the individual pursues a ‘heroic’ life project that gives meaning and/or a sense of continuation, through the socially ‘codified hero system’ (Becker 1973:7), one’s behaviour is inevitably shaped to some or large extent by the main system of reference. I shall illustrate this further through interview comments.
157
Participant comments illustrate a dialectical assessment of the individual stakes within climate encounters. The primary concern of self-preservation, whereby one seeks to maintain security in order to be able to pursue the promise, plays a clear role in decision processes. The ‘shared symbolic system’ from the outer world orients and regulates action as the individual internally incorporates ‘external systems’ (Parsons 1951:16). This would mean the individual relates the symbolic elements to their own security position and filters them through the security schema with its values, worldviews, and lifeworld constructions. Though each individual has a different perspective there is a commonality, namely, how one’s personal trajectory and promise of a flourishing life will potentially be affected.
For instance, notice how Loral, introduced in chapter five, symbolically interprets climate change in relation to her life project, the threat to her immediate world and how she survives in it, but also broader values that are part of what make her life meaningful and give her a sense of symbolic continuation. When asked about the kind of feelings or thoughts when thinking about global warming, Loral says:
It’s sad, and it’s concerning. Not so much for me because I don’t know in my lifetime if the real repercussions will happen, but I’ve got kids and I’ll have grandkids I presume and so I think ‘what’s going to be left for them.’
The trans-temporal implications of climate change seem to provoke concern about an uncertain future for Loral. The immediate effects to her pursuit of flourishing, and the broader effects of an unjust outcome for her children have implications for her project of meaning, in terms of what she rightly expects in her hope to flourish, but also what that means for her own legacy and continuation. Included in her life project are her values and desire for justice beyond her family, illustrated in her concern for other people:
‘Mostly I think about the personal realm, but I do think as well about that idea of hunger and people having to move from their country; you know you think about a place like the Maldives which will be underwater soon, there’s a whole bunch of islands, and then you think about how heartless countries like Australia are in taking refugees, and there’s actually going to be a whole mass of climate refugees in 50 odd years.’
Interconnectedness brings the global climate impacts into Loral’s inner world, becoming a climate encounter that activates her system of values and meaning within the individually
158 constituted part of her security schema. Her value system encompasses care for others, and her enactment of it affirms her self-esteem and secures her in the world, grounding her platform of action. But these values are weighed in relation to other security considerations. Loral does what she can to reduce her carbon footprint, but, recalling her comments in chapter five, though she is concerned about climate change, she prioritises action in relation to what will maintain the secure pursuit of a life project – her career, the future of her children and grandchildren, her ‘heroic’ impact on the world that gives meaning and value to that project.
Fifty-five-year-old Kolya is also concerned about climate change and goes beyond conscientiously managing his own ecological footprint (eating less meat, monitoring energy consumption). He is engaged in political activism, participating in environmental movements, supporting environmental organisations, and even engaging with local politicians to encourage a pro-climate agenda. Kolya explains why he is concerned:
What my biggest concern is just the effects that it is going to have on my children and grandchildren. Just to see there will be global effects in terms of huge numbers of refugee numbers from countries like Iraq and eventually Bangladesh and all those low area countries.
The stakes for Kolya not only involve the promise of a personal future threatened by disruption. Climate change symbolically touches his personal value system in his concern for others, and thus his process of symbolic self-preservation. His care for others may be seen as part of his project of meaning, transcendence and continuation, developing a legacy through his actions and working to preserve the future for his children and grandchildren. We might say Kolya’s values are part of his individually-constituted security. Being the son of immigrant parents he says he has ‘an empathy for refugees and what they’ve gone through, knowing that is what my parents went through’, and this informs his worldview. Consequently, visions of climate refugees symbolically inform his centre of felt value and engage his value system. He is appreciative of his life opportunities, so climate change with its various symbolic and real risks threatens Kolya’s values associated with his perspectives of justice, but also his promise of a flourishing, meaningful, and ‘heroic’ life (Becker 1973:190). His struggle for a better world, I suggest, demonstrate he seeks to preserve his security and symbolic continuation by acting in reference to the values that give his life meaning and purpose.
However, Kolya’s motivation to act through personal adjustment and political activism, which bolsters individually and socially constituted security, is assessed in relation to his own real-life circumstances, namely those things providing his materially-constituted security. When
159 discussing how he feels about corporate power ‘being able to force agendas’, Kolya makes a surprising connection:
It’s a little bit overwhelming sometimes because I just look at that generally, now and then we are struggling, especially sometimes when I’m between contract roles and things like that. You see bills constantly going up, income reducing and just the basic necessities like schooling which were almost free in my time.
Here Kolya references the consequences of corporate power structuring the outer world that threaten his security; an outer world that has been designed for an imagined liberal subject, namely a world modified by economic rationalisation (casualised employment and contract work), with diminishing interdependencies that support security positions (accessible education). Kolya finds it ‘overwhelming’ and sometimes he struggles within a precarious context, so while he engages on climate change, he is also cognisant of his systemic dependence and must navigate carefully, otherwise his security might be compromised. Despite the difficulties, however, Kolya is proactive in climate action, agonistically struggling while enacting his meaningful life project by actively speaking to local Members of Parliament, and participating in social action opposing the Adani mine. Viewed in terms of the thesis, though Kolya still acts against the injustice he perceives, his action is tempered by the anxiety that arises from unstable financial conditions. His material security is dialectically put in discourse with his socially and individually constituted security elements, an inner-world discourse that determines what action to take. His personal values and worldviews prompt him to act, yet his action is in a context of economic instability and uncertainty, which also threaten to destabilise his base of action, so he weighs action carefully to ensure basic stability. While Kolya feels ‘overwhelmed by a tide of vested interests’, and frustrated at the disparity that power and money create, he manages to maintain a stable base of action and pursues his life project of meaning.
It does make me angry…Yes, I do feel disempowered. Like I’ve said before though, I feel definitely, even though we are sort of outnumbered and all that, movements can make a difference ...
Kolya’s engagement, I feel, illustrates how the promise has a direct bearing on action – one’s security is always monitored, and while his materially-constituted security is unstable due to his work precarity, Kolya finds alternate, individually-constituted security through the meaning he gains by acting to protect his children’s future and pursuing what he feels is right through activism, bolstering his socially-constituted security. He is acting to ensure a future for himself
160 and his family, and each aspect constitutes action that maintains a secure inner world in order to pursue the promise.
In contrast, George’s expressions indicate the pursuit of the promise can mean that climate encounters produce action in a diametrically opposite direction to Kolya’s, even if one accepts the threat of climate change. The pursuit of ontological security and self-preservation leads the action, determined through what is individually set as a path towards meaning and flourishing within the outer-world narrative of success. Recall that George is saddened by capitalism’s dominance and the commensurate lack of climate action where ‘all is driven by money and nobody gives a shit about anybody else as long as we’re making money’, yet for him there is no use fighting an inexorable structural problem to one’s disadvantage. First, when asked if the dominance of the pursuit of money made him less inclined to engage with climate issues, George points out the structural conditions based on the profit motive shaping each exchange, and feels that ‘too much self-interest’ and the pursuit of money is at the heart of many of the fundamental social problems including climate change. But what does money represent for him?
Money represents comfort, lifestyle, being able to help my kids buy an apartment, being able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, knowing where the next meal comes from…Security is very important.
Though he sees money as problematic, it is also the means that the outer world offers George to pursue the promise – a comfortable lifestyle, security, well-being, but also a sense of purpose, meaning and continuation by ‘being able to help my kids buy an apartment’ – involving all three aspects of his security schema. Pursuing material security strengthens his individual project through ensuring security for his family, and enacts a socially-constituted worldview. Because of George’s view on the structural barriers inhibiting action and the prime motivation of money dominating these structures, he assesses working against them would disadvantage his security position. Despite being flawed, the current structures provide the predictability for his pursuit of the promise. In the context of his personal climate action George is asked if he has divested investments from fossil fuels:
No – I’ve just made a $310,000 investment in a coalmine in Indonesia…it’s an opportunity for me to make some money because I have some friends who know about the project.
161 Making money is George’s means of pursuing the promise. He indicates investment in coal is an opportunity to capitalise on structural conditions to strengthen his individually/materially constituted security position. This may be better understood within the context of George’s life experiences. George is an immigrant, having been a refugee fleeing the conditions in Hungary after the 1956 Hungarian revolution. He considers himself lucky to have made it to ‘the best country in the world’. When asked if Australia had changed, he says:
The world has changed over the years, not just Australia. I mean it’s a whole new environment where we have money as the new god, and whatever it takes to make money is whatever we do, and that affects all aspects of our life.
George, like Kolya, appears to be following a complex, but unique mix of materially, socially, and individually constituted security in line with his individual self. Personal values within a constructed worldview are used to pursue the expectation of a flourishing life, and for George, acting on climate change through divestment does not align with his life project of meaning. He places the responsibility to act on the government, since the issue is too large for him to have any effective impact:
I have a very simple value concept that personally, if I cannot add value to another person or if I cannot add value to an issue, or, if I cannot add value I do not get involved. Basically, there’s no point stressing about things that one cannot control. So, if you can control or contribute to an outcome make it positive, if not stay away, don't get involved on the negative side. And when I say negative side, basically, human beings are very important, if there’s anything that’s going to be done that harms human beings, we should try to avoid that. But unfortunately, governments, due to their policies, governments, due to their belief systems or, I don’t know how to call it, they seem to do what is best for government, not necessarily best for the population.
Though George’s value system involves security and fairness, he does not make a connection between his value of not hurting people and his investment in a coalmine – the latter contributing to global warming, which is affecting and will affect millions of people. Or if he does, his prioritisation of a personal project of flourishing is weighed against it and responsibility attributed to the government since he cannot afford to waste personal resources that inhibit his opportunities. Modernity’s promise through capitalism is success and security. In negotiating the pursuit of the promise in relation to the ultimately life-denying humans-over- nature narrative, the individual must weigh a personal project in relation to resources. George, to me, also illustrates pursuit of a trajectory by primarily focusing on security and stability of
162 his centre of felt value, his locus in the world. George’s action is for him best channelled into a personal project of meaning with its own representations of present and future flourishing, inclusive of a future for his family, especially since he finds social contract arrangements to support the population unreliable. In this way he seeks to best maintain his secure centre of action.
Such dialectical participation in the web of life via the symbolically-understood and materially- experienced ideas of security, justice, and success, may be seen as acts of self-preservation and assuaging the anxiety of creatureliness. Loral, Kolya, and George demonstrate (with more of their comments to come) that a base of security involves variable, intersecting and internally interacting elements that together render the individual secure or insecure. They pertain to socially constructed security through worldview belonging, and individual security through self- esteem by pursuing personal values, alongside material security to support material life. But if the individual’s primary goal is maintaining security to pursue the promise, then an unstable individual locus from an unpredictable outer world can potentially also disrupt action, either inhibiting it or leading it to be misdirected. In the next section, I think further about how disrupted outer-world frames affect individual choice and action.
6.3 Systemic dependence, vulnerability and pursuit of the promise
The progressive separation of the integral metabolic fibres of the web of life creates a more precarious terrain of action to navigate. Ecologically, people face more intense environmental disruptions through floods, droughts and fires, as well as depleted and fragile ecosystems. On the human front, fractured and multilayered information and communication exchange processes, precarious employment, diminishing public spaces, and widening economic disparity are indicators that fibres of mutual interdependence are being damaged. ‘The commons’ are being exploited, creating an increasingly destabilised terrain. This leaves the vulnerable and anxiety-driven human animal, who needs the stability of predictable mental and physical frameworks to pursue the promise (Giddens 1991:44), struggling to get such predictable coordinates from the outer world.
Marx’s account of disrupted social metabolism and its connection with an alienated individual, or the human rights discourses that aim to protect a vulnerable agent’s dignity, discussed in chapter two, indicate action occurs in an outer-world terrain that suffers from repeated disrupting effects from the separating principles of capitalism. Capitalism’s ‘creative destruction’ of constant revolutionising of products and markets (Schumpeter 1994:81),
163 alongside the ‘velocity’ of circulating information, ideas, goods, and people means that even distant decisions or activities can impact local circumstances (Hope 2016:41-42). Such constant and unexpected change commensurately evokes continuous anxiety by disrupting the predictability and familiarity of one’s locus of security. Capitalist principles produce ‘national regimes of legal regulation’ that assume ‘who workers are and what they need’ (Fudge & Owens 2006:3), or, as I have described, they establish frames according to the model of an imagined liberal subject. These rules of exchange within the web of life constitute increasingly shifting background conditions, and in the case of worker’s conditions, for instance, this can result in eroded social protections and precariousness which induces, as Standing (2011:19) describes, ‘anger, anomie, anxiety and alienation’, where ‘anger stems from frustration at the seemingly blocked avenues for advancing a meaningful life and from a sense of relative deprivation’. I see such anxiety and alienation as disrupting the individual’s ontological security.
Being dialectically engaged with the outer world ‘space’, the individual must thus manage anxiety on several fronts: the general anxiety in the struggle for life as a vulnerable being; the increased anxiety from a destabilised eco-socio-cultural outer world; and the related anxiety arising through symbolic threats to one’s security that may inhibit pursuit of the promise. What else can the vulnerable human animal do but prioritise action to manage the feeling of insecurity that accompanies destabilisation to avoid being overwhelmed by the greater fear of the threat to one’s life project. Such conditions thus distract, or confuse and overwhelm, thereby draining resources merely to maintain a measure of stability. Simply put, the human animal, as a vulnerable subject, struggles to survive and prioritises action towards immediate threats in relation to basic and higher-order needs, meaning larger issues like climate change might be deprioritised unless fighting for the issue is part of the immediate value system key to self- constituted security. The individual responds to the anxiety of threatened stability by working to stabilise the ‘place’ or locus in the world to maintain a trajectory that fulfils one’s life project.
Systemic authority affects the individual whether benefitting from the system or not, especially for those more vulnerable to instability because of not having easy access to resources. Just as George can invest $300k in a coalmine, an affluent Australian with a well-paying job puts faith in principles of growth to maintain the standard of living already enjoyed, and the individual will monitor vulnerabilities that threaten such ‘success’. A poor Australian, equally, monitors financial vulnerability but in a different way, perhaps with daily concern that the next day will bring disaster to the fragile security position that is barely maintained, and is compelled to act according to systemic demands. I am pointing to the commonality of vulnerability-related fear in action regardless of one’s ‘position’. This recalls Horkheimer’s (1950:282-283) reflections
164 raised in chapter five regarding the division between employed and unemployed; the unemployed, already facing ‘horrors’ of unemployment, are willing to join a revolutionary movement, but for the employed ‘the fear of losing their jobs becomes progressively the only criterion of their action’. My point is that though people’s situations and consequent actions may vary, what is common is vulnerability and anxiety about a future pathway.
The French ‘Yellow Vest’ protests in response to proposed petrol tariffs as a climate measure are an instructive example of different manifestations of threatened promises reacting to modernity’s destabilising frames. After long-tolerated attacks on general living standards, coupled with government favouritism towards the wealthy and elite through tax breaks, many of the citizenry have joined in protest against further attempts at neoliberal restructuring (Wilkin 2020:71). Like the unemployed in Horkheimer’s example, the protestors demand restoration of social support systems to address the precarity of everyday life. Wilkin (2020:72, 82) argues that ‘the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) are a protest against the consequences of both austerity and the marketization of society’, with the dominant principles and structures presenting a problem for the French government, namely ‘of managing the conflict between citizens demanding better public services, welfare and pay, as opposed to meeting the interests of capital’. In the yellow vests protests people with different social and economic backgrounds and ‘nominally very different political outlooks’ are brought together (Wilkin 2020:82) in reaction to modernity’s false promise abiding in capitalism’s frames. Notice that in relation to climate change, however, the problem of immediacy of security needs noted above comes to the fore, whereby economic precarity translates as more immediately urgent for protection of one’s security than proposed climate measures, with precarity forcing people’s immediate security to be prioritised just to get by.
Applying the ideas of the thesis to answer what brings the ‘Yellow Vest’ protestors together we may say it is a common threat to the promise from increased outer-world destabilisation threatening security. Conversely, the narrow group that benefits from the structural inequitable distribution established through the principles of modernity resist any change due to the threat to their own promise of flourishing. Importantly, climate action is postponed for those fighting for immediate security, climate action is rejected by those who benefit from the status quo, and action overall remains affected by the established capitalist frames. Regardless of one’s security position, vulnerability, fear and self-preservation are common driving forces for a personal project of meaning, though responses to encounters with climate change may be different in relation to protecting that position. The way state and corporate interests shape outer-world structures can determine how the individual engages with the outer world, and thus engagement on the issue of climate change. How so?
165
Recalling Giddens, Berger, and Becker, a predictable system of action alleviates the anxiety of unpredictability, providing a cosmos of order. Discussing Becker’s description of an individual cosmology, Sprintzen & Rosenberg (1997:153) argue that Becker attempts to deal with the human self-experience of an ‘inside’ and its relation to the ‘outside’, and ‘the need to integrate inside and outside, feeling and behaviour, reflexive self identity and socially approved roles.’ Each of us becomes a ‘centre of a sort of mental space’ involving outward flowing zones of interest with which we connect and interdependently rely upon biologically, culturally and psychologically (Tuan 1971:185). Or as Parsons & White (1964:183-184) describe it, the link between society that ensures some level of individual conformity while the individual reciprocally seeks ‘meaningful guidance from society’. The individual thus seeks to constitute and maintain stable internal frames, while seeking coordinates in the outer world for a predictable pathway. This intersubjective condition sees one’s ‘centre’ continually referencing the outer web of life to establish security through the comfort of stable inner/outer dialectical frames of reference. Pursuit of the promise, inclusive of worldviews and self-affirming action, is in discourse with the outer world now dominated by modernity’s promise.
But modernity’s promise has in effect produced a context of eroded social protections, income inequality, job precarity and endemic poverty for many (Wolff 2016:26-31; Harvey 2005:15-19; Standing 2011:26), meaning that the fundamental security that stability endows is unravelled alongside environmental stabilities. Consequently, as the individual depends upon the outer world to pursue the dimensions of a project of meaning, action will necessarily be influenced by the principles and conditions therein. The implication is that as the individual navigates the social terrain, the individual constantly works to render it sufficiently stable and secure to ensure the promise. The individual’s fear and struggle to survive dialectically exchange with the dominant narrative shaping choices within that struggle, and what results mediates the web of life by virtue of the individual perpetuating capitalist humans-over-nature exploitative frames. That is, the dominant narrative compels action to align with it, perpetuating the erosion of interdependencies through the flawed principles it propagates. A general condition of existential anxiety is exacerbated, further disempowering action on climate change by its capacity to divert energy away from it. I return to the interviews with these propositions in mind.
6.4 Acting to maintain a secure platform of action
In chapter five I argued that regardless of how an individual engages with climate change, each level of engagement is motivated by common striving for security and a flourishing life. Such
166 engagement involves symbolic interpretations of encounters through personal expectations and assessments of their implication for security. I have posited the individual pursues the promise via an inner world that acts as a centre or base of action referencing the outer world to maintain security and to struggle for a fair distribution of the commons. Interview participant comments illustrate how action in relation to climate change corresponds with its relevance to one’s overall life project carried within the ‘inner world’ or self, and is prioritised accordingly. The extent to which climate encounters symbolise a threat to one’s life project, and the resources one has to dedicate to action, I suggest, will guide prioritisation of action in relation to maintaining security.
At the time of the interview, Bill, introduced in chapter two, was about to submit a PhD and was applying for future positions. It is relevant that Bill is a climate scientist, highly aware of the breadth of the climate disaster facing humanity. Through the course of the interview various potential ‘actions’ on climate change, Bill began to discuss his decision-making processes around actions taken.
I guess I would say what I do is I do as much as I can without inconveniencing me too much, so it’s not really an active… I mean the little things you can do, like recycling, or buying second-hand furniture is something we do A LOT... But if something was going to inconvenience me a lot, if I was tossing up going to a conference in the US and I was like, ‘well, there’s this amount of air miles or pollution’, it wouldn’t really affect my choice’.
When asked to speak to the cost/benefit analysis, Bill said: ‘Yeah, I’d weigh the conference as being more important…for my career’. Bill prioritises his life-project of meaning and material security. This doesn’t inhibit climate action, but his action is relative to his place of security; he balances what he values as important to maintaining security with what can be achieved in a dialectical relation of dependence. At the end of the interview, regarding whether Bill thought he was doing enough on climate change, he said:
Um, it’s so complicated. I’d separate it. I guess for me it’s harder because you’re working in the space… I think I’ve chosen a topic and a research area that is relevant to society; I’ve done that on purpose, and for me that’s important. And I’d feel I’d say I’m doing all I can in that regard but on a personal space I’d say probably I could do better.
Bill’s individually constituted values have shaped his career choices and inform his life project of meaning, which directly includes the issue of climate change. Interestingly, however, Bill
167 had earlier in the interview maintained that for climate action to be taken seriously, it would take ‘a lot of people saying we need, we’re demanding action now’. Bill was asked to discuss why he had raised the need for a lot of voices to engage a few times, but why he didn’t seem to include his own voice in that:
It sounds a bit contradictory… I guess the sort of thinking I had is that you need to reach a sort of critical mass, right, a few marches … well there does seem to be a bit of a ground swell, I probably shouldn’t down-play some of these amazing big movements, but even that is not enough, so what is going to make governments think “this is really big, lets introduce a major policy”? I think in part that you’re a tiny number – you have the action and when are they going to wake up? And maybe that I feel I can play a part in science more effectively than I can do being a number on the street.
Though Bill sees there is broader political action through social movements, its ineffectiveness to date is for him disempowering. Still, he feels he is playing his part. In my imagining of a personal base for secure action, he undertakes a process of assessment, weighing effectiveness, purpose, and life goals as part of a life project of meaning. His pursuit of both individual and broader justice lead him to prioritise action according to what ensures a continued stable base of action so that he can do both things with relative ontological security. He is acting in line with his security schema according to immediate and broader goals as part of his life project, balancing personal justice (pursuing a fulfilling life) with broader justice (helping others do the same). Yet his voice remains out of the processes that he himself identifies as necessary for serious action, namely, outside of the domain where individual voice connects with other voices for a critical mass strong enough to demand serious action. His voice remains within the atomised frames of the liberal subject; perhaps because alternative means are not seen as viable, effective, or safe, or perhaps it deviates too strongly from his own life project of meaning and what he assesses is needed to fulfil the promise of flourishing.
Loral is quite conscientious about reducing her carbon footprint, and feels she is doing more than most on climate change. Yet Loral demonstrates that her individual values and security position are prioritised in line with an individual life project of meaning.
I think that there’s not enough courage or willingness to take risks or legislate in Australia…It’s pathetic, but I don’t think that can change, and it’s interesting I don’t vote for the Greens because I don't believe in their social policy, so I'm a conservative left leaner.
168 We might say Loral’s environmental values are lower in her schema hierarchy, and her action in their regard is commensurate to the value they hold within her life project. If a choice fundamentally conflicts with the core values of her security schema – ‘I don’t vote for the Greens because I don't believe in their social policy’ – her core values, which give her a sense of security and locus in the world take precedence. As material and symbolic self-preservation is pursued, maintaining an overall stable base of security takes priority to ensure one can continue striving to fulfil a flourishing project of meaning. This may occur despite dissonance of conflicting values:
… when we sold our last house we abandoned all our scruples, we got an interior designer to come and tell us how to make it look beautiful to sell it. We had to make the lawn green, we had a native garden and she said people don’t like that, so we pulled all that out and planted all the stuff that everyone has, hedges and gardenias, and there was just a mountain of fertiliser and water that went on to that... So that was a little episode where it was about what I’m accusing other people of thinking, about making money. So we did that to make money then and I felt really bad.
Here Loral illustrates a constant process of assessment to ensure individual security and pursuit of the promise. There’s an active ‘re-calibration’ of values, an apparent intra-subjective assessment (discourse within the self) deciding how to prioritise one’s material, social and individual security needs in relation to self-preservation and pursuit of the promise. Capitalism’s ‘promise’ (‘make money’), abiding in socio-cultural frames, may be used to guide action if that vision of security is more tangible, and the individual acts to accommodate each choice into one’s overall schema of meaning and security.
Consider another participant example that illustrates a vision of the promise in relation to it being threatened. While discussing the debate around a carbon tax, fifty-one-year-old right- leaning business owner, Joe, points to China as producing ‘80% of the world’s manufacturing’, noting that since China has ‘become like the engine room, the manufacturing engine room of the world’, it is:
incumbent and appropriate that the world, countries that buy products from China, appreciate that they are vicariously liable for the pollution that’s being created over there. You have to have some sort of awareness that you’re complicit in that.
The actions of nations, industry, and corporations are clearly present in Joe’s personal domain, and he symbolically associates national trade discourses with security. Notice however, Joe’s
169 primary focus – security and a stable pathway to pursue what in this thesis’ terms is the promise:
You can’t just go all of a sudden, “Oh look, we’re just going to slug all the coal fired power stations with a 20% carbon emissions tax,” or whatever, because then all of a sudden they’re going to go, “What?” Then they’re going to go, “Well, okay, that just means everyone’s energy’s just gone up”, everyone’s energy bills. Because what are they going to do, you know? They’re an organisation that needs to employ people, turn a profit, etc. Do you want them to shut down straight away? No, it can’t work. Your question posed to someone from a different stage of their life, an earlier stage of their life where they’re basically just trying to get ahead, pay mortgage costs, they’re not going to give much of a rats about paying more for anything potentially.
Joe articulates what I have described as the assumed right to pursue the promise of flourishing – in one’s ‘early stage of their life’, when people ‘basically just trying to get ahead’ and pursuing a personal project of meaning they require stable conditions. And here, modernity’s mythical narrative of success within capitalist exchange is the visible path towards that goal. In this case, how a carbon tax is described in the national discourse – as a threat to the economy rather than a means of protecting the environment – symbolically threatens that pathway.
What the above examples show, is that as the individual pursues a project of meaning, namely, the promise of flourishing, they are constantly assessing their security position. This position involves material security, security from groups and security that comes from fulfilment of individual values and goals which endows as sense of well-being and self-esteem. At the same time, the individual must negotiate parameters from the socio-cultural outer world upon which they depend for sufficiently stable structures that can be used to negotiate a terrain. I have also considered that dominant principles embedded within the background conditions, though providing a somewhat predictable structure through familiarity, are coterminously undermining interdependencies and creating a more precarious and anxiety-inducing terrain. To consider this further, I return to the Australian case study in the next chapter. Australia is a nation-state where the promise of modernity lives strongly in the enacted neoliberal capitalist policies that shape the lived experience of many Australians. As a consequence, though being a rich nation, Australia has stalled in taking the climate crisis seriously and in recent years it has even regressed as a country in its efforts to curb emissions and transition to a sustainably driven economy.
170 Chapter 7 All is not well in the land of promise
The previous chapter began to consider the implications of the mediating factors of individual action, namely the instinct for survival and self-preservation and the pursuit of the promise of flourishing, in relation to an outer world with parameters dominated by separating principles enacted through capitalist frames. I considered how an anxious and vulnerable individual, in the face of increasingly changing and unpredictable parameters in line with an image of the liberal subject, acts cautiously and prioritises a stable base of action to maintain security, which allows continued pursuit of the promise. The chapter outlined three foundational areas of security, namely materially-constituted, socially-constituted and individually-constituted security that forms an inner-world centre of felt value and platform of action, which I explained using social psychology data and examples of individuals maintaining their platform of action when negotiating outer world encounters with climate change.
Here I return specifically to the Australian context to consider how individual pursuit of the promise plays out in a land where modernity’s promise and narrative of security through the economic rationality of capitalism is staunchly defended by a state/corporate synergy resembling the one established by Lockean liberalism. As the chapter three discussion on Australia’s relationship with coal shows, in broad terms, economic and social structuring in Australia (at least White, settler Australia), continues to be informed by the humans-over-nature narrative. Socio-cultural organising relies on modernity’s promise that through exploitation of nature Australians will prosper. Through its actions, government policy illustrates that nature is considered separate to, and not in dialectical relation with, the Australian citizen or indeed the global population. Such a conception thus propagates principles that have emerged from enlightenment and modernity – economic rationalisation, the pursuit of profit, aggressive competition pursuing continuous growth in a world viewed as limitless, all in the name of capitalist expansion, and these ideals filter through to the individual domain, influencing action as a result. Using further interview narratives I reflect on the possible effects of the sustained humans-over-nature narrative and the unstable terrain that results from modernity’s principles of separation on individual encounters with climate change, working toward the model of the inner-world platform of action I describe as dialectical place in the next chapter.
171 7.1 The Australian context – hopes based on promises from a flawed narrative
In chapter one I described my choice to focus on Australia, a liberal democratic multicultural society, with socio-cultural systems strongly influenced by Western enlightenment thinking. I noted that Australia has increasingly undergone economic liberalisation, including extensive deregulation and privatisation, replacing its social-democratic interventionism with more market-oriented neoliberal policies. Australia is a good case for questioning how action is influenced by capitalist principles, now often implemented through exaggerated neoliberal policies. While there is a narrative that such economic strategies deliver economic security and prosperity under the banner of freedom, the steady erosion of simple things that support individual and societal freedom, such as a stable job or access to medical care, creates instead a precarious terrain for many individuals seeking to live out a life project in security.
As illustrated in the introduction, Australia is a rich country full of resources and systems that can provide the services and ‘goods’ to deliver the Lockean (2005:8) social contract ideal of equality amongst people ‘wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another’. The shared space, and shared material and social resources of ‘the commons’ within nature are ample to create conditions of flourishing for the citizenry and indeed to spread that globally. And, indeed, there is a long-standing cultural expectation that the government support everyone through things like universal health care, access to education, social housing, and employment which are highly respected social compact arrangements in Australia (Dryzek & Lo 2015:8).
Yet I shall consider examples that even in Australia, the individual increasingly faces a terrain that prioritises the principles of capital and a relation with the state that dedicates public goods to a capitalist agenda. As more commons are enclosed through neoliberal property and governance regimes – things like urban spaces, publicly-owned media, even public utilities like transportation – social bonds are disrupted because of the extra costs involved in creating spaces of collaboration that would otherwise develop when commons are shared publicly and state structures work to ensure public goods (Heynen & Robbins 2005:6; Hope 2016:5, 75). The ‘impossible situation’ of the vulnerable human from birth (Becker 1971:126-127) makes the individual yearning to survive and flourish both dependent and demanding of a fair distribution from the outer world. And in Western liberal democracies, where the governance systems are based to some extent on the Lockean idea of ‘life, liberty, and property’, the promise of success via individual ‘freedom’ is seemingly sustained. As considered, the same freedom is imagined
172 as possible through free-market exchange in contemporary capitalist-driven societies. Nevertheless, approaches that produce an imagined ‘homo economicus’ liberal subject problematically assume a separated, self-interested actor as a rational actor, not least in the country of Australia.
7.1.1 Eroded fibres of interdependence destabilising the outer world
While there is this nationwide expectation of basic rights as part of participating in the community, the neoliberal turn in Australian governance, outlined in chapter one, has steadily eroded many of these social support mechanisms, exacerbating the inherent instabilities of a capitalist system. So-called ‘economic rationalism’ has precipitated significant rises of inequality (OECD 2018:60). In part the inequality is from weak wages growth, creating greater family financial instability (Stanford et al. 2018:4-5). This is coupled with a corporate erosion of job security through fracturing permanent work arrangements. For instance, once securely- employed journalists are now employed as ‘freelancers’ with few rights; employment through transport and delivery ‘apps’, like Uber and Airtasker, means workers have little job protection; cleaners are forced to work as ‘contractors’ (Bornstein 2018:159-60); and casualisation of over 80% of university teaching staff positions means an increasing number of academics lack job security (Andrews et al. 2016:13). This is not to mention erosion of other social safety nets, such as medical care. ‘Neo-liberal health sector reform’, for example, results less community- focused care, reduced access to comprehensive primary health care, with increased costs reducing individual health promotion actions and compounding insecurity and uncertainty (Baum et al. 2016:45; Callander et al. 2019:5).
Further, there is no positive outlook for youth according to Cairnduff et al. (2018:174) who note that ‘young workers confront a very challenging labour market: in which precarious and insecure jobs are the norm; it takes longer to gain access to full-time work; occupations and skill requirements are changing constantly; and wages for many young workers lag further behind economy-wide averages.’ Former Labor party leader, Bill Shorten, worried that this generation will be ‘the first generation of Australians who hands down a lesser standard of living to our children than the one we inherited from our parents’ (Johnson 2019:3-4). In other words, millions face a threat to the promise of flourishing. The individual may be referencing a more unpredictable outer world with eroded ‘fibres’ of interdependence for coordinates to try and live a successful life project, and such a relation would increase existential anxiety when making decisions to act.
173 The examples above illustrate embedded rationalising principles that result in unstable living and working conditions for many as regulations are cut, and citizen and worker protections are removed in pursuit of ‘productivity’ at the cost of adequate health outcomes and employment stability (Hope 2016:106-112). Such economic rationalisation continues the enclosure of time and space through ‘time-discipline’ expectations with increasing work (Thompson 1967:78-85). This restructuring of time and space robs individuals of the security that generally comes from reasonable predictability and expectation (Luhmann 1995:308) that can exist in contexts respecting individual control over time and space. With the disruption of environmental and social interdependencies because of the prevailing value system of capitalism that is absorbed into state practices, the individual encounters the issue of climate change in contexts lacking socially-centered support systems, namely in an increasingly unpredictable socio-cultural terrain. The erosion of fibres of interdependence in a relational world means the coordinates that dialectically inform the individual inner world are fractured, less predictable frames of reference.
Facing an increasingly unstable outer-world terrain to navigate such as the one illustrated, people may look to the shelter of leadership for security. As implied in the idea of the ‘social contract’, some interview participants identified the government as the responsible party for providing the conditions that allow the populace to pursue a meaningful life project. However, while they look to the government for leadership they remain frustrated, like septuagenarian retiree Phillip:
I get angry at the short-termism of our thinking and I get frustrated at the fact that we do know so much and yet ‘believers’ are not taking the action that I believe that they should to even significantly begin to change the way we do business… We give politicians power to act on our behalf in our best interests. People will say, I’m an idealist, but I think that’s a minimum expectation of my relationship with the politicians which we put in power.
Phillip is frustrated and communicates a sense of disempowerment because of the inadequate responsiveness of the democratic, ‘social contract’ processes that only nominally empower citizens. Governmental failure to heed scientific consensus frustrates individuals that accept the science on climate change, but using the ballot box may not be enough to produce change. The inadequacies of democratic solutions are beyond the scope here, but I will begin to suggest why understanding the individual mediating factors can illuminate the dimensions of democratic action that can be strengthened. One aspect involves how overall leadership attitudes inform the
174 individual’s inner world and affect responses in terms of the stable frames one feels are reliable to ensure continued individual security.
7.1.2 Leadership undermined by the hollow promise of modernity
As I outline ongoing Australian government prevaricating on the issue of climate change, what I think can be seen is staunch adherence to faith in modernity’s promise of flourishing through Australian dependence on the profit principle that demands growth through exploitation of natural resources. Australian hesitation on climate action became clear when in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol saw countries begin serious attempts to tackle climate change. For the Australian government, the negotiations were seen as a risk not as an opportunity, and negotiators, led by ‘“true believers” in the market ideology’, worked to reduce the ‘burden’ on Australia, rather than a strong commitment to reduce emissions (Taylor 2014:48). Though the best policy approach was seen as an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the then Liberal/National (conservative) government led by John Howard was not convinced. It took the build-up to an election in 2007 to pressure the Howard government to commit to introduce an ETS if re- elected, however the election was won by Labor.
The Labor party under Kevin Rudd attempted to introduce an ETS, however hedging from the smaller but consequential Green party, and what turned into several changes in political party leadership that led to alternating Labor and Liberal governments, precipitated a parade of short- term and internal political, ideological struggles, while the dominant public sentiment desiring climate action was ignored. Over the last two decades government and opposition parties have oscillated on versions of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), instituting them, rejecting them, revising them and scrapping them according to each party position and internal wrangling. Much of the wrangling centres around the portrayal of transition as an economy destabiliser. Though technically not a tax, the labelling of changes to reduce emissions as a ‘carbon tax’ during the Labor 2010-2013 government led by Julia Gillard was characterised as threatening economic security, couched in rhetoric of fear regarding its potential threat to major industries (steel, cement, automotive) by then soon to be Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a steadfast opponent of climate action and supporter coal exploitation.
After continued heated debate over energy policy, the conservative government, next led by Malcolm Turnbull who won a leadership battle with Abbott, commissioned the 2017 the Finkel review on the electricity market but ignored its recommendations in favour of ‘National Energy Guarantee’ due to internal party pressure against the review’s suggestions. In August 2018
175 Turnbull, due to pressure on his leadership, dumped the government’s emissions reduction target from the National Energy Guarantee. Turnbull nonetheless lost party leadership, particularly because of his desire to establish an emissions reduction regime conflicting with the climate denialist in the right wing of his party (Kousser & Tranter 2018:101), and was replaced by Scott Morrison in August 2018, who subsequently won the national election in May 2019.
After ousting its own leader for wanting to establish an emissions regulatory regime, the present conservative government led by Scott Morrison has decidedly taken a further step back from climate action. At the UN General Assembly, Morrison (2019) asserted ‘Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary.’ He also snubbed the 2019 United Nations climate summit while on the high-profile visit to the US, and in a speech at the to the UN General Assembly, Morrison expressed his ideas on international institutions as ‘unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy’ whose ‘negative globalism’ needs to be avoided (Murphy & Doherty 2019. The effect of deriding international cooperation, along with abandoning another Paris commitment to the Green Climate Fund (Hasham 2018), and its pro- coal positioning and softening of language around climate change at the South Pacific Climate forum (Lyons 2019a), is that Australia is increasingly viewed as a ‘denialist’ nation (Morton 2019a).
As a result of the fluctuating internal political stoushes and politicisation of climate change generally, the advice of two major reports – ‘Garnaut Climate Change Review’ (2008) and the Finkel Review (2017), both examining the impact of climate change on the Australian economy – was largely ignored (Jaspal et al. 2016:808). Though Australian attitudes toward climate change are again more closely reflecting the scientific consensus, this oscillation in leadership on the issue has influenced public sentiment, reflected in fluctuating public attitudes over the years. For instance, a Lowy Institute report indicates ‘the number of Australians who saw global warming as a ‘serious and pressing problem’ needing significant action fell from 68% in 2006 to 36% in 2012’, and Kousser & Tranter’s (2018:101)21 experiments reveal polarisation along party lines around climate change in Australia, in line with the power of worldview loyalties considered in chapter six. However, by 2018, almost six in ten Australians (59%) say global warming is a serious and pressing issue, ‘up five points since 2017 and 23 points since 2012’ (Oliver 2018:13). In a sense, the Australian example illustrates a tension between the sustained humans-over-nature narrative of modernity’s promise, and the individual’s pursuit of the promise of flourishing. The bushfires discussed at the beginning of the thesis illustrate how puncturing the promise of security can change people’s attitudes quickly, especially when the
21 1211 respondents to questionnaires 176 individual inner-world locus that seeks to maintain relative stability is threatened, and it is clear that the narrative promising security and flourishing is flawed. Until then, though, modernity’s promise remains powerful.
The sustained support for modernity’s promise inevitably filters into the individual inner world, where safe parameters of action are sought. Discussions in the general national narrative that include international considerations, like Australia’s coal sales to China, thus shape individual attitudes on security, as demonstrated by Joe and Loral in chapter six, and any threats or opportunities within the debates regarding resource use emerge as potential parameters for how to act. In Australia, companies like BHP are responsible for their lion’s share of global emissions (Heede 2014), and coalmining from the six largest Australian miners causes more GHG generation globally than the entire Australian domestic economy (Moss and Fraser 2019; Morton 2019b). Nevertheless, Australian debates often avoid the benefits of having a healthy planet over having oil and coal industries. Ignoring the costs of disregarding interdependence, the political debate on how to respond on climate change, instead, is enacted in the media as a narrow choice between a functioning planet or a functioning economy (McLaren in Senior et al. 2014:39). It is perhaps unsurprising – Norgaard (2006:365), through field work in Norway, shows willing denial and deflecting of narratives regarding the link between fossil fuels and climate change in a population that flourishes economically from fossil fuel production, a pattern reflected in Australia and the US (Norgaard 2011:178). For the individual, governmental denial creates dissonance with scientific evidence, producing anxiety and obscuring predictable frames.
The Australian case illustrates the continued dominance of an exploitative, human-centred narrative, established at the time of modernity and now embodied in corporate power. In line with the discussion in chapter four, it is sustained in cases where the vested interests of states align with corporate interests generally. It is particularly hard for states with oil concentrations like Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia, or coal concentrations like Australia, the US, Indonesia and China to contemplate giving away the ‘money pits’ they represent (McKibben 2016). A strong relation between a state’s climate negotiating position and the extent of its fossil fuel reserves, is revealed, for instance, by looking at the 2011 Durban talks. There, the climate targets of a coalition of Small Island States, the EU and Africa, where there are low ‘carbon reserves’, were way more ambitious than the US, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Russia, where ‘60% of the world's potential fossil-fuel CO2’ lies (Clark 2012).
Importantly, fossil fuels are associated with security and freedom, which is effective symbolism exploited by a state/corporate nexus to gain public legitimation and consent. And this speaks to
177 the mediating factors outlined in chapter five. That is, the examples illustrate the dominance of authoritative power when social frameworks and embedded common understandings that the individual relies on to act are infused with what Gramsci (2000:345, 421) describes as hegemonic ‘common sense’, namely a ‘conception of the world of the leading group’. Gramsci describes popular ‘common sense’ as containing part-truths alongside misrepresentations that shape perceptions and values, leading people into subordination, encouraging them to accept a ruling-class worldview, and conditions of inequality and domination as natural and unchangeable. Australian socio-cultural debates infused with hegemonic ‘common sense’ filter down into the individual domain and thus affect assessments of how to act, but my point is that the effect is powerful because of the other mediating factors, namely the effect of fear and anxiety on vulnerable individual’s need for security, and the individual’s pursuit of the promise through structures that are dominated by capitalist principles. This is illustrated by interview participants’ incorporation of global discourses, which I continue to illustrate below.
7.1.3 Outer-world narratives dialectically affecting the inner world
Indeed, the entire terrain described above combined, which incorporates flawed principles of exchange that destabilise outer-world frames while equally promising flourishing, has a direct bearing on someone who may want to act more on climate. Consider an Australian who is concerned about the impending climate disaster and reads that the four largest Australian banks, by loaning over $7billion to 33 new or expansionary fossil fuel projects, are effectively undermining the suite of Australian emission-reduction commitments of the Paris Accord twenty-one times over (Smee 2020). That individual could write to the banks, or organise a petition or a protest. Imagine the same individual is affected by the inequality and job instability outlined above. They may have unpredictable or insufficient work, a family to feed, or rising rent, while confronting uncertainties of a government discourse like in Australia, which equates a destabilised economy if serious emissions reductions are attempted. The individual security schema must make a choice about where to direct resources that are already limited and threatened. Or consider the individual who may accept the facts on climate change, but whose worldview or ingroup associations – political parties, clubs, acquaintances and friends – deny or downplay climate change and ideologically oppose action in its regard. Again, the dissonance can be destabilising or threatening to one’s centre of felt value and induce anxiety – as the studies in chapter six show, the individual will likely re-affirm worldview or ingroup associations to thus re-establish predictable frames to maintain a secure base of action.
178 Regardless of the interpretation, what the dialectical place model I lay out in the next chapter indicates is that action will be taken to sure-up the stability of one’s ‘centre of felt value’ to reduce anxiety, a reaction demonstrated in system justification theory, outlined in chapter six, which shows that individuals may act in order to maintain the status quo because of ‘epistemic needs to maintain a sense of certainty and stability, existential needs to feel safety and reassurance, and relational needs to affiliate with others who are part of the same social systems’ (Feygina et al. 2010:327). Accordingly, proposed shifts to renewables may for some be a needed shift to preserve security, while for others, like a climate denier or a coal worker in northern Australia seeking to keep or find employment, they may represent symbolic threats to worldviews or material positions. The schema imagining sees a commensurate response to maintain security that ensures continuation of an ability to pursue the promise.
The events around the Adani coalmine and the and implications for the Great Barrier Reef raised in chapter one also demonstrate the discourses on climate change from political leadership in Australia filtering down and influencing the individual sphere. Debate surrounding the opening of the Adani coalmine reveals two ends of a spectrum of climate positions in Australia, characterised by anti-climate change and pro-climate change activism, with the general population in between. Anti-climate change activism often reflects a relationship of power between state and corporate actors, and backed by corporate media outlined in chapter four. For instance, in the lead-up to the mine’s approval when the IPCC put out a report warning that emissions must be curbed to keep temperature rises to 1.5ºC, conservative Australian media, derided the IPCC’s authority, promoting coal consumption and calling IPCC findings elitist ‘clap-trap’ (Sloan 2018). As pressure was building against the Adani mine, the false choice between economy or environment was maintained by characterising lobbying for climate action as unpatriotic ‘virtue signalling’ and ‘globally co-ordinated ideals’ as causing increased cost, threatening the power grid and costing jobs while generating mistrust towards UN bodies (Kenny 2019). This characterisation backed the Morrison government’s derision of international institutions as unaccountable bureaucracies that need to be avoided (mentioned above), while the government bristled at global criticism regarding its failure to meet its global climate commitments (Murphy & Doherty 2019). Recalling the state/corporate/media synergy outlined in chapter four, the continuation of the market narrative has gone hand-in-hand with the lobbying of interested parties. For instance, mining magnates and the resources industry are accompanied by attacks on science via conservative media outlets like Rupert Murdoch’s ‘The Australian’ newspaper, and funding for ‘think tanks’ that produce obscuring counter-narratives, like mining magnate Gina Rinehart, who provides key financial support to the think-tank the
179 Institute of Public Affairs22 – ‘a consistent promoter of climate science scepticism’ (Readfearn 2018).
According to former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, climate action has been consistently undermined by concerted campaigns by the world’s biggest multinationals (Glencore, Rio Tinto, BHP) to influence government action and maintain the dominant narrative’s key principle – making profit – by avoiding carbon taxes ‘through a vast lobbying network and an “umbilical” relationship with the Murdoch media’ (Knaus 2019). Rupert Murdoch’s media empire dominates the media landscape in Australia (Dwyer & Muller 2016: Newman et al. 2016). Of note are Murdoch’s ties to the fossil fuel industry, with Murdoch on the board of Genie Energy as one example of a web of extensive commercial entanglement (Marsh 2020). Efforts to respond to corporate exploitation are painted as a threat to everyone’s security. For instance, the Murdoch press has described legal efforts of green activists to oppose the Adani coalmine as a ‘tactic’ of ‘green lawfare’ that is ‘exploiting environmental laws’, described as disruptive, hindering the entire economy, tying up regional development projects (implying a threat to jobs), and putting ‘$65bn of investment at risk’ (Shanahan 2020).
The power of the state/corporate/media synergy to shape the social landscape needs to be taken seriously. Jeff’s observance in chapter four of the moneyed interests ‘perverse’ use of their influence to shape the discourse is seen in the posturing of some fossil fuel companies. For instance, while Australia's biggest multinational mining company, Glencore (2019), has pledged to transition in line with a lower carbon economy, it concurrently has spent millions on political lobbying, pro-coal media campaigns, and efforts to derail climate activism. In a multimillion- dollar campaign called ‘Project Caesar’, Glencore hired high-level political consultancy and communications firm, C/T Group to influence government and public attitudes towards coal via ‘sophisticated pro-coal, anti-renewables messaging across social media, using slick video, memes and graphics through supposedly grassroots Facebook groups’ (Knaus 2019).
Glencore is just one example of corporate lobbying, propaganda and a swathe of climate denialism designed (Levy & Egan 2003:304) to obscure scientific evidence to pursue the capitalist imperative to grow or die at the national and international policy level (Banerjee 2012:1762). Attempts at such influence are seen in a global pattern where think tanks that deliberately obscure the scientific certainty, like that of the UK Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), are revealed to be funded by fossil fuel companies BP and ExxonMobil (Carter & Ross 2018), or the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia funded by mining magnate Gina Reinhart
22 Revealed in documents made available because of a legal dispute with her daughter 180 (Morton & Smee 2019; Readfearn 2018). Such organisations consistently publish research arguing climate change to be a natural and even beneficial phenomenon, despite the international consensus otherwise (Pegg & Evans 2019).
In contrast, there is energetic pro-climate change engagement in Australia. Activist campaigns have involved many approaches, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous battles of local and national groups illustrated in figure 7.1 below.
Australian Friends of the Earth - Conservation School Strike for the Grassroots campaigning; Fossil Free UNSW - Foundation - Climate - gathering the urge government universities activists protection of youth energy to start a commitment to encouraging Australian ecosystems; broad social renewables; information divestment aims: force key movement dissemination; synergy decisions, equip with broader projects activists
Wangan and Jagalingou 350 Pacific - Stress Traditional Owners GetUp! - platform and Lock the Gate - the climate effects of Council - opposing distribution network; Fighting business-as- eroding their homes, destruction of ancestral targeted campaigns; usual, fractured culture and sense of homelands, waters, and fund-raising; opposing national approach and place. sacred sites from the coal-lobby groups addiction to coal Adani coalmine
Extinction The Australian 350.org - Demand Seed - Indigenous Unfriend Coal - rebellion - Youth Climate a fossil-free youth climate Pressuring deploying civil Coalition - future; network opposing insurance disobedience to campaigning educational on fracking, engaging companies to exit induce action against the Adani ‘real climate with Traditional the coal business coalmine action’ Owners
Figure 7.1 Examples of pro-climate action groups in the Australian context
These organisations find synergy and complementarity in their various endeavours: organising activist activities; strategically raising awareness of the IPCC science on climate change; engaging in local elections to support representatives that have pro action-on-climate-change policies, rallying members and responding to negative developments in the Adani mine battle, encouraging citizen engagement like contacting parliamentary ministers; reminding members of
181 what threatens precious natural assets; encouraging greater social discourse, political engagement both locally in elections and in national strategies.23
Between these two ends of a spectrum of discourses regarding climate change there are millions of Australian individuals that engage at different levels on the issue. The politicisation of climate change in Australia in recent years illustrates the continued influence of the dominant over governance and the maintenance of the status quo by the state/corporate alliance deciding how to distribute commons. Such neo-liberal driven governance, which contradicts the science on climate change, creates uncertainty and hesitation around climate action in Australian society. For instance, Leviston et al.’s (2015:21)24 study regarding Australian attitudes towards climate change during this politicised era of climate change notes political engagement in the form of, for example, taking part in political campaigns or contacting government members was low, with 85% or more on average not engaging at all, and political engagement either for climate change or other issues being generally between only 5-10% of those interviewed – an apathy that arguably reflects the failures in leadership of the same period. Thus while a large proportion of Australians desire action on climate change, the broader social context has subdued political action, and only a small proportion engage politically in activities such as meeting with government representatives, collective organising or protesting (Oliver 2018:4; Lowy 2018; Morrison et al. 2018; Ipsos 2019; Merzian et al. 2019:31).
These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they illustrate that the narrative power, established when modernity’s promise was bound with the industrialisation driven by fossil fuels, still circulates and affirms capitalism’s systemic hold. This has implications for broad social action if corporate and state leadership – the significant actors shaping the outer world that the individual navigates – fails to follow established scientific warnings and maintains ideological stances to ensure the status quo. Another meta-analysis25 regarding the formation of belief in climate change concludes that values, ideologies, worldviews and political orientations have the most predictive power related to people’s attitudes to climate change (Hornsey et al. 2016:4). At a minimum this means that the individual’s need for security through shared worldviews and stable in-group relations may lead to unresponsiveness of a significant section of the population despite the reality of impending danger.
23 While social action has some corporate engagement, it is usually financially self-interested, avoiding the costs of physical, transition and liability risks and is not necessarily a strong trend (Harrell & Bosshard 2017:8) 24 269 repeat respondents 25 Of 25 polls and 171 academic studies across 56 nations 182 For those whose values align to the dominant narrative, challenging notions of consumption, even by suggesting viable alternatives to fossil-fuel based production, is to threaten the foundations of security. However, those who accept climate change science and struggle against the humans-over-nature narrative are nonetheless influenced by its framing, both by a narrowed perspective of alternatives because the humans-in-nature narrative is concealed, and in their daily actions through systemic dependence. The next section considers how the above context influences individual climate ‘encounters’. Further interview responses illustrate individuals managing action in a destabilised terrain, and how action is filtered through individual assessments of a common goal – to ensure maintain security while pursuing the promise of a flourishing and meaningful life project.
7.2 Protecting one’s base of action so as to act in a destabilised world
As I have argued through Becker’s (1973:91) account of a fear of death and striving for ‘cosmic significance’, the human animal uses symbolic meaning in striving for security and self- preservation to enact a meaningful life project of expected flourishing. This view integrates Weber’s (1947:88) argument that an ‘acting individual’ attaches subjective meaning to something while also incorporating the behaviour of others to intersubjectively orient a course of action, and Parsons (1951:5) affirmation that meaning and value construction constitute individual security in relation to their ‘relevance to satisfaction of drives’. Regarding the constant anxiety of uncertainty managed by the vulnerable human subject I have proposed that increased uncertainty and unpredictability represent potential destabilisation of a base constituting security, which the individual must restabilise to continue acting. The alienating elements of rationalised capitalist exchanges increase anxiety, draining individual resources that could otherwise be exercised as political claims for broader security and justice, and the need to control the anxiety is a strong motivator of action. Bauman (2006:114) argues that when facing fear ‘we also wish the remedies to be immediate – “quick fixes”…We resent solutions that stop short of promising quick effects’ because long-term solutions do not easily abate the anxiety of uncertainty. If this is the case, maintaining as stable base of action is of itself also a significant determiner of action; namely, one acts to maintain a base of action so that they can in turn pursue a meaningful life project. Alongside the important examples and studies considered, do the interviews illustrate action being moderated to ensure stability and security?
During the interviews, many participants convey a sense of a precarious world in which the wrong kind of action can lead to serious problems. Note, while the source or cause of precarity
183 is different, the concern is the same. That is, the comments suggest that a sense of instability is provoking insecurity and touching one’s inner anxiety and fear about life’s uncertainty. Joe, for instance, rejects any climate policies influenced by the Greens political party, arguing they do not relate to daily life:
If they do environment at the expense of businesses, we’ll stop being able to employ people. What’s that going to do if people want to get a job and have a standard of living?
Joe’s words imply that environmental action is an either/or choice – environmental security or economic security, which aligns with rhetoric that has occupied Australian discourse for decades. He imagines climate action as a precarious threat to economic security, the latter signifying a stable, secure life. Like Joe, Peter also sees climate action as a destabilising threat. He feels the government’s climate-related policies unjustly undermine security, and he thus opposes them:
I don’t agree with what they’re doing by – they kind of screwed everything up by mandating a certain amount of renewables and then that becomes cheaper and then the coal can’t compete, so the coal stations shut down, so the electricity price goes up. I think that’s bad, because I think that the expensive electricity we get, the detrimental effect that has on our society, including jobs for the poor and disadvantaged in factories, for example, outweighs the kind of small contribution it will make in the environment.
In Peter’s words I again see the common pursuit of security and self-preservation being expressed through a personal worldview. The mandating of renewables symbolises a threat to security and the pursuit of the promise, either for himself or others.
In contrast, Jonathan sees the capitalist principle of self-interest actively destabilising the web of life, and is somewhat alarmed and paralysed by the situation:
It makes the future seem quite uncertain and maybe I feel, like, when I look at politics today, I feel like there's not a lot of principle and a lot of, basically like self-interested behaviour I guess. To a certain extent things are already kind of bad, but I feel like the reason it's not worse is because, not for everyone, but at least for maybe most of us, there's kind of enough of everything to go around. So there's self-interested behaviour, it isn't as bad as it could be, but I guess with climate change if resources are scarcer,
184 sure I wonder what that kind of combination of poor behaviour and scarce resources is going to lead to.
For Jonathan, the contemporary system of exchange functions under principles of self-interest rather than of mutuality, and this is a destabilising threat creating uncertainty. He feels that an already precarious terrain within conditions of relative abundance portends further social precarity as climate change progresses because self-interested behaviour governs the current system of exchange.
Kolya too, contrary to Peter and Joe’s opposition to climate action, is moved to act on climate change because of the immediate and future destabilising threats that impact him personally. Electricity prices are going up, he says, ‘as a direct result of [the government] having avoided investing in the right infrastructure.’ More broadly, he sees a globalised economic system of exchange creating greater instability:
I can see it pretty much in my industry. I’m in Information Technology, when you say you’re in IT or computers, people always think, that’s a very in demand job and all that and still is. Certainly now, the level of outsourcing has made it a whole lot more competitive and on top of that then just the amount of immigration coming in with IT workers. So, I have to sort of balance that as well… I’ve been mostly a contract worker for a while, the kind of rates that I can now charge are a lot lower than what they were 10 years ago and it’s a lot harder to get a lot of these roles.
Building on his comments from chapter six, Kolya’s material security position is precarious. The principles of free market capitalism precipitate fractious conditions – casualisation, outsourcing, individualised labour etc. Kolya’s and Jonathan’s encounter with climate change through climate policies directly oppose Joe’s and Peter’s feelings regarding policy choices, but they arrive at the same notion of a precarious terrain. While they see different causes for the precarity, each is commonly affected by the atomised outer-world terrain and concerned about security – standards of living, fair distribution of resources, employment – and acts to ensure this symbolism does not destabilise their own base of security and life project.
Kolya’s precarious situation is worth further consideration. It kurbs some of his freedom to talk about climate change or choose who to work for – his vulnerability and need for stable, predictable frames influences his action, and though it doesn’t stop his climate action, it shapes his choices. He doesn’t feel he is in a position to challenge the environmental choices of the firms he works for, and regarding the contracts he takes on, he says: ‘It is by degrees, at the
185 end…I do have to make sure that I don’t lose the ability to an income totally. I definitely make choices when I can.’ Stevenson (2010:285-286), recalling Bourdieu’s (2003:29) description of neoliberalism, says it institutes ‘a mode of domination based on the institution of insecurity, domination through precariousness: a deregulated financial market fosters a deregulated labour market and thereby casualisation of labor that cows workers into submission’. Stevenson (2010:285-286) argues that the result of this hegemonic system of values is a completely destabilised terrain for those not shielded by the system’s authority and power because it produces an economy of disparity and division, creating a class of elites and vulnerable publics.
The dominance of modernity’s promise and capitalist principles also restricts action by narrowing the vision of pathways to security. Loral, mentioned earlier, once studied business, accounting, finance, where she quickly realised ‘the whole set of values that business involves were fairly repugnant’. When asked if she sees a connection between climate change and the distasteful business values she discovered, she says:
‘Sure, it’s all about the self and profit, and the people who choose those kinds of careers think about accumulating stuff, and if you have this kind of attitude of accumulating stuff you don’t really care about what it costs to accumulate that stuff, you just want it… The more money you have, in a sense, the more you just don’t really care. Maybe it’s not just money, I mean I think a lot of people are like that, they just maybe don’t have the money to indulge it.’
Loral observes the principle of capitalist accumulation, its exploitative nature, and its alignment with the flawed narrative hitherto discussed, namely a promise of security based on the uncoupling of a finite interdependent world. Further, her words illustrate that capitalism defines success through accumulation of objects, and offers it as maker of flourishing. Later in the discussion, however, Loral was asked if she would participate in public protest in response to the climate crisis. Notice what options regarding action Loral felt were at her disposal:
‘I don’t actually think [public disobedience] is particularly effective, and I think that as a consumer I can actually make a difference in the choices I make as a consumer so I focus on those. I don’t have the time, I don’t have the brain space, and I also don’t like some of what’s associated with some of these things.’
Loral sees money as a corrupting and alienating element in the pursuit of flourishing, but despite Loral’s disdain for ‘business values’, her view of alternatives remains narrowed by their systemic dominance by relying on her ‘power’ as a consumer to make a difference. For Loral,
186 the cost of alternative action is too destabilising – it taxes temporal, physical and material resources, challenges her values and threatens to increase anxiety through lost predictability. By weighing her security needs she ensures the overall security of her base, aligning with the dominant narrative despite fundamentally rejecting it.
Loral’s limited sense of empowerment contrasts with the sense of disempowerment and hopelessness present in Jonathan’s experience of the contemporary system. After discussing the importance of responding to the climate crisis, Jonathan felt he was not really responding at all. When asked to explain the dissonance between his belief in the need to act and his self- described lack of action, Jonathan said:
‘I guess I feel like it's such a big problem and it needs such a major change, that I guess I'm kind of sceptical of these sort of really individualist kind of ideas where it's just sort of like, oh, we just buy the right products and ride to work a couple of times a week and everything is fine. I think that kind of stuff is appealing, because it makes us feel empowered, but in terms of what actually needs to be done, as far as I can tell it falls far short. So I don't want to disparage it, but I also guess I feel it's maybe a kind of a false solution. And also I guess maybe because I feel like it is a kind of systemic problem, I also feel that kind of attitude almost splits people up into the virtuous few that ride to work and have veggie patches and buy organic products and whatever, and all those arseholes that don't or something.’
Jonathan observes market inadequacies and its alienating capacity, capturing the atomising and destabilising effects that chapters three and four describe. He describes a hollow promise and ‘a false solution’ that ‘splits people up’, yet he feels disempowered by the enormity of the problem and the lack of options for action outside the dominant system and the frames of action that dictate one acts in a particular manner. Both Jonathan and Loral, I think, reveal personal value systems at play, assessing what can be done and how, and deciding what action if any is available to them. Crucially, in order for them to pursue their life project, they assess the options that align with their security position, and so different choices emerge – limited or no action, or system-aligned action, neither of which they feel is adequate, and both options conforming to capitalism’s disempowering ‘business-as-usual’ model.
In pondering the above examples, Joe and Peter to me illustrate how personal worldviews and value systems affect individual choices on climate change. They interpret symbols from the outer world dominated by the contemporary narrative, and weigh them against personal security positions and personal worldview assessments. But Jonathan and Loral, who want to see action
187 on climate change, also remain within the influence of capitalist frames, either being paralysed by them or being conditioned to conform to them. All the examples indicate that modernity’s promise, though hollow, nevertheless maintains a narrative that it is the only means to pursue a flourishing life, and state and corporate use of the narrative powerfully manages behaviours so that the narrative is maintained for those who benefit most from its exploitative principles.
The examples indicate to me that capitalism’s framing of action for an imagined liberal subject creates a fractured, dissonant and unpredictable terrain, manifesting as precarious and inducing anxiety. It can paralyse or atomise action due to the flawed principles that combine with a false promise of security. Vulnerable individuals are required to fend for themselves according to capitalistic ‘rules’ dictating movement and action. Individuals in an unpredictable and ever- changing terrain that is also impacted by principles that destabilise and atomise must constantly re-establish stability of their base of action in relation to an ever-changing set of often-disrupted circumstances. Considering the mediating factors of chapter five, individual action in the first instance involves a process of maintaining a secure platform of action in order to pursue the promise. It is an act of self-preservation that is dialectically determined through relation with the socio-cultural outer world. Thus while some interview participants act to address their ecological footprint, their individualised, fragmented actions maintain the status quo of the fundamental drivers of climate destruction.
With many of the stabilising factors of social interdependence eroded by the principles set forth by modernity, the individual base of action is deeply threatened and insecure. Now embedded in neoliberal capitalism modernity’s narrative affects both Western societies such as Australia where it is dominant, as well as any society to the extent that principles of capitalism are incorporated into their governance processes. Needing predictable and stable frames through which to act, the individual is affected on two levels. Firstly, because the frames of action available and familiar are those established in capitalist society, while the alternate narrative of mutualistic interdependence remains underacknowledged. The individual thus faces a terrain that is familiar but precarious and constantly disrupted, which thus alters personal trajectories. Consider the example that Standing (2011:130) gives when reflecting on Bourdieu’s habitus in relation to capitalism’s exploitation of workers; he explains the effects on what I have described as an imagined liberal subject, and how these effects inhibit action:
‘The precariat lifestyle matches its workstyle in being fleeting and flexible, opportunistic rather than progressively constructed. People may shrink into a closer space out of fear and anxiety bred of insecurity, but it will be a surly anomic shrinking.
188 In a society based on flexibility and insecurity, people dissipate time more than use it to construct a developmental model of behaviour.’
Standing here highlights the role of fear, anxiety, and the need for security in action that I have been discussing. A destabilised terrain only serves to narrow individual movements, restricting capacities to be responsive to broader issues like climate change. Capital’s asymmetrical power either limits one’s actions in regard to climate change, or encourages the individual to disregard climate change, or reject it outright and see it as threatening because of belief in capitalism’s hollow promise.
In this way, a destabilised terrain confines action relative to individual resources and capacities, which are under constant stress. Often all one can do is struggle to restabilise their base of action since deviating too much from established frames requires already stretched mental, temporal, and material resources. For those who want to act on climate change, action that varies from committed activism to simply reducing one’s ‘carbon footprint’, can overstretch resources to the extent that, in ever-changing and precarious conditions, individual security may feel/be threatened, thereby discouraging further action. Further, despite their life-denying qualities, the principles hitherto considered constitute the background conditions that provide ‘world-maintaining interpretive systems’ for people to use as frames of meaning through which to function and avoid chaos (Habermas 1973:118), and their predictability is comforting for the vulnerable human’s dependent condition. Or individuals may rely on governments to act, but as the Australian case as well as the inadequate global Paris Accord commitments demonstrate, governments broadly fail to escape the modernity’s narrative power embodied in capitalism and the taken-for-granted.
The final two chapters are dedicated to explaining and illustrating the security schema of dialectical place that I have laid the groundwork for. What I outline, I feel, can contribute a nuanced and novel imagining of the acting individual. Dialectical place imagines the dynamic action that occurs when an individual seeks to maintain a platform of security to ensure not only survival but a capacity to pursue the promise of a meaningful and flourishing life. It involves a spatial imagining that accounts for the way individuals are part of the broad dialectical relation that constitutes the web of life, and contributes to understanding the mediating factors from the individual perspective that have contributed to climate change, and that are involved in action being inhibited from correcting the life-denying trajectory humans are currently on.
189 Chapter 8 Dialectical place – the platform of action in a promising world
A key part of this thesis has focused on the principles that at the core of modernity’s humans- over-nature narrative. The narrative promises security but proves to be fundamentally flawed because it is based on an imagining that sees nature as separable and infinitely exploitable, and that security is achieved through rational control and exploitation of nature. A consequence of the narrative’s dominance is that individual action is often structured through these principles, which through capitalism govern most daily exchanges and have led to the climate crisis. The following two chapters further explore the implications of this and bring together the thesis’ conclusions, thinking about the vulnerable individual within the dialectical relation humans are part of, and what this means for action on climate change.
Building on the ideas presented regarding the dialectical and interdependent web of life, and keeping in mind the factors mediating human action and constant human pursuit of security, this chapter proposes a nuanced conception of the individual as an active intersection where one’s biography interacts with external signals to constitute an inner, psychic and immaterial dialectical place or ‘centre of felt value’ (Tuan 1977:138). In this re-imagining of individual action and its motivations I use the term ‘place’, which is usually used in the context of a physical locality in relation to space, to imagine a relation between external influences and the individual’s inner world which continually (re)constitutes the individual’s base of action. Human geographers describe geographical place as a ‘special ensemble’ of influences constituting the quality of a locality that meets the security needs of human and nonhuman animals (Lukermann 1964:170). In a similar fashion, the ‘centre of felt value’ I describe acts as an internal means of locating oneself in the broader outer world, a dialectical place of inconsistent but desired security and stability that serves as a platform of action.
This chapter imagines the individual in the dialectical reality described in chapter two, thinking about how dialectical place orients the individual relationally, as one constantly works at stabilising one’s locatedness in an ever-changing terrain, and constituting a position from which to navigate. I thus imagine dialectical place as within the individual and not as a physical place. Instead, it refers to a locus of security, a felt locatedness and anchoring that provides and
190 maintains the ontological security needed for action within the broader web of life. Here I am thinking of the relationships between things within 'an endless maze of relations and interactions’ in which ‘nothing remains what, where and as it’ in a constant relational flow (Engels 1947:26-27; Ollman 1971:53-54).
My discussion on place (applied to the individual’s inner world) and space (applied to the eco- socio-cultural outer world) particularly involves the effects of humans-over-nature principles, along with modernity’s promise of security, on the vulnerable human animal. This imagining sees that as the individual navigates the web of life, the individual’s inner world engages with the outer world, striving to maintain a sense of security and pursue the promise of flourishing in the common struggle to survive. Navigation imagined here involves the individual’s security schema, where, as introduced in chapter one, the individual responds to encounters through ‘one or more frameworks or schemata of interpretation’ (Goffman 1974:21). I am linking the individual’s organising rules within such schemas to the task of reflexively maintaining security and finding predictable paths of action, which allow the individual to safely pursue the expected promise of flourishing in an increasingly destabilised context, inclusive of the alienating and anxiety-inducing effects of capitalist principles of separation (Marx 1988:69). In harmony with the thinkers that have already informed the thesis, human geographers like Edward Relph and Yi-Fu Tuan alongside Marxian thinkers who explore a spatial imagining, like David Harvey and Henri Lefebvre, help me imagine this dialectical place model.
While my imagining continues on a theoretical level, I again draw on interview comments to illustrate the security schema model in relation to what is provoked through encounters with it. I first return to the intersubjective relation between the individual’s inner world and the outer world. Human vulnerability increases the power of authoritative arrangements of states and broader institutions within the relation as the individual depends on them to ensure an equitable stake in the commons to pursue the promise. The ‘story’ of paths to success within socio- cultural frames hitherto considered is discussed as an important mediating element that resonates with the other mediating elements considered, namely fear and anxiety and the pursuit of the promise, which in the end impact the dialectical relation of the web of life.
8.1 The individual – an inner and outer exchange
While the effect of the dominant narrative on people’s choices is important, I have been emphasising the relevance of a pursuit of survival and the promise to these choices. I described a dialectical relation with the outer world whereby from infancy the individual’s development
191 moves from dependency to (inter)dependency, a process of socialisation that produces stability for the individual to make choices (Parsons 1951:17-18). Interdependence thus makes the outer environment I have been discussing a critical source of security. The individual cannot do without exchange within the web of life in order to survive. Consequently, even if individuals accept the reality of human-induced climate change and try to change what and how they consume, dependence on contemporary systems to act in life – using public infrastructure, shopping at a supermarket, driving a car and so on – inevitably shapes the individual’s action, and thus one’s consequent impact on the web of life. As outlined in chapter five, within this process, vulnerability, fear and the urge to survive (Becker 1973:87) constantly impel the human animal’s striving for security. These shape action in relation to the individual’s security position, which involves one’s resources and the three core aspects of security discussed in chapter six, namely material needs, social and in-group connection, and individually constituted security as realised through what imparts self-esteem. How do individuals assess their security position?
First, recall in chapter five I outlined theoretical descriptions of the individual’s inner world, including the biological, psychological and sociological combination constituting a self through introspection, or ‘intra-action’, which is explained by Chalari (2017:25) as a type of inner dialogue, ‘the exchange of action within the individual’ or an acting towards oneself in a similar way as one acts towards others, and refers to ‘subjectivity and inner life’ (Chalari 2017:3). This understanding of intra-action pertains to the internal reflexivity imagined by symbolic interactionists, and through this inner discourse, the individual can interact socially, as in Benhabib’s (1992:5) description of the individualised self becoming social through ‘language, interaction, and cognition’, and developing an identity or ‘narrative unity’ that integrates individual capabilities and actions with social expectations.
Symbolic interactionism seeks to capture the inner world activity in relation to the outer world, namely the activity of a porous but contained individual self, a dialectically engaged entity navigating the outer world while trying to ensure ontological security. Though concepts of the self or ‘true self’ (Winnicott 1986:65) can be ambiguous, vary, or can be viewed as fluid and contextual as outlined by Goffman in the Presentation of the self in everyday life (1959), a general conception of the self imagines a true, authentic, inner or real self as a creative, driving potentiality for life, described by William James – ‘the palpitating inward life’, or as psychotherapist Karen Horney (1991:155) says ‘The real self… is the alive, unique, personal center of ourselves.’ This goes beyond seeing ‘need-dispositions’ within the individual actor, which seek gratification as a part of action, as described by Parsons (1951:14). My imagining of dialectical place involves the materially, socially and individually constituted security needs I
192 have illustrated within an individual schema, that work relationally with a personal history and biography (Wright Mills 1959:12). This base of action represents fundamental expressions of need-disposition categories that work in discourse to ensure the individual’s fundamental ontological security and avoid material, social and personal injustice, while also facilitating pursuit of the promise of flourishing as it manifests for an individual life project.
The above imagining delineates the ‘unity of [one’s] person’ that develops in conjunction with a ‘unity-enhancing perspective of a life-world’, which imparts ‘identity-securing world-views and moral systems’ (Habermas 1973:117-118). The inner locus I describe sees the complexities of a delineated individual as part of an outer world and constantly striving to maintain security within that web of life. Outer-world pressures dialectically engage the individual ‘narrative unity’, which contains historical, biographical and constituent desires of the promise in relation to external expectations, interpretations and intentions for that individual. Following Mead and Goffman, dialectical relation between the individual human animal and the eco-socio-cultural web occurs through symbolic interaction, which sees a social person’s actions ‘led by constant lifelong social interaction’ where meanings and symbols shape individual thought and produce a ‘shared understanding’ (Chalari 2017:22-23), as with Parsons’ (1951:14-16) symbolic system with shared normative orientations. The symbolic system is shared by humans but embodied in objects and structures shaped through human forces, thus encompassing the sociality of material objects through their commonality with humans as a part of a natural and historical dialectic (Marx 1988:75), and their sociality through human design (Latour 1988:303).
Thus, this navigating centre involves unique biographical structures and those socially constituted. Sedikides et al. (2011:98) describe three fundamental components of the cognitive structure of ‘self’ that arise from birth; the individual self that involves one’s unique traits, aspirations, experiences and so on, the relational self that involves one’s interpersonal side, and one’s collective self or self that is contextually/culturally determined and shapes through interaction with in-group members. The inner world activity of a personal centre’s security needs ‘intra-acts’ in relation to a personally constituted ‘causa sui’ project of meaning while assessing extrospective encounters. The unique part of the individual is thus dependently enfolded with culture, the latter constantly influencing the ‘individual’ action of a socialised ‘self’ that emerges in the context of society through activity with it (Mead 1934:135), a ‘self’ within a fundamental existential experience of being, constantly striving to survive and flourish. Since this critical relation of dependence is often with systems of governance based on principles that undermine basic expectations of security, the authoritative power of the outer world has an impact on the individual. I consider this next to then further imagine dialectical place.
193
8.2 Authoritative power and its implications
The individual’s relation with social authority evokes Durkheim's (2008:10-11) observation that basic established concepts of fact act as ‘solid frames that enclose all thought’. Implied in the idea of ‘solid’ frames is that the predominant narrative can imbue a sense of security through predictable parameters that impart a sense of control over an unpredictable environment, the point made by Giddens. Through a ‘unified system of beliefs and practices’ (Durkheim 2008:46), like those of religion and tradition, individuals feel security through social order. Religion exemplifies the function of establishing a social ‘ultimacy’ within a community, which, through authoritative influence, is adopted by individuals as expressive of ‘true reality’ (Young 2005:6). An important trait of a social ordering system, then, involves an overarching system of beliefs with social ultimacy and somewhat mystical authority.
My focus has accordingly been on the comparable overarching narrative and system of beliefs of modernity’s promise, now manifest in capitalism, which include a promise of freedom through ‘life, liberty and property’, replacing religion with rationality as a path to perfection. These beliefs are underpinned by the erroneous idea of human centrality within an infinite exploitable earth, and refrains of growth and profit leading to success. They hold authoritative weight as a pathway to the ‘seductive ideal’ of freedom and security (Harvey 2005:5). These now primary foundational embedded beliefs of exchange still hold their power despite contradictory evidence that challenges their promise. The capitalist system’s authoritative power is thus imbued with coercive social power, reflecting the kind of trade-off that occurs between individual and state where certain aspects of the socio-political order are accepted through internalisation of values (Lukes 2005:8), or consent that comes through the power of ‘prestige’ and confidence associated with a dominant group’s apparent success (Gramsci 1999:145). Consequently, like other social facts the social values the capitalist system constructs are imposed as an external force experienced by the individual as superior entity involving relations of dependency (Durkheim 2008:154-156), which resonate within a vulnerable subject who is primarily concerned with security.
The principles, as exercised through state and corporate structuring of exchange, maintain the ‘mental channels’ in line with an image of the individualised and self-interested liberal subject that emerges from the flawed narrative. The powerful image of ‘success’ and ‘freedom’ through profit-driven consumption mixes with and shapes individual values, potentially converting ‘intrinsic’ socially-oriented values of mutual respect and kindness, to ‘extrinsic’ self-interested values that prioritise immediate gain, self-aggrandisement, and increase of power and status 194 (Kasser 2011:6). At a minimum it sets ‘rules’ according to extrinsic values. Why are extrinsic values detrimental for action on climate change?
A cross-national cultural values study26 shows consistent results across cultures suggesting extrinsic values work against climate action because unlike intrinsic values, they are associated with ‘lower levels of concern about bigger-than-self problems, and lower motivation to adopt behaviours in line with such concern’ (Crompton 2010:10). In other research regarding worldviews and value orientations, the majority of people with strong communitarian or egalitarian perspectives (attuned to collective and social approaches to deal with injustice and inequality) also accept the scientific climate consensus, whereas those with hierarchical and individualistic perspectives (disinclined to support social programs but inclined to support free market economics) are more inclined to reject it or what its conclusions imply (Kahan et al. 2007:4; Corner et al. 2014:4; Aasen 2015:5). This makes action in relation to worldviews and socially constituted in-group security powerful. Accordingly, Crompton (2010:8,18) points to the inadequacies of ‘the “enlightenment model” of human decision-making’ that assumes instrumental reason combined with self-interest would lead to action if ‘people only knew’. Since cognitive science research indicates that ‘instrumentally rational’ facts must be accompanied by emotion for any real change to occur (Lakoff 2009:8), fear, the urge for security and thus maintenance of a security position are key points to incorporate into models of action.
An associated complication arises, as Giddens (1991:195) notes, when modern capitalist processes produce multiple conflicting surrogate ‘authorities’ whose message may resonate with emotion rather than fact. Bearing in mind the already complex terrain involving state and corporate signalling, pseudo authoritative messaging also floods the field of human action, and these divert attention and corral it by appealing to cognitive bias. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter serve as platforms for multiple actors claiming positions of authority about how to act in pursuit of flourishing. For climate action, as with other contested issues, these platforms often constitute echo chambers that maintain confirmation bias (Del Vicario et al. 2015:4). In a study looking at two prominent Facebook climate denial groups – Watts Up With That and The Global Warming Policy Forum – Bloomfield & Tillery analyze how scientific information is received and reinterpreted as it flows through networks. They (2018:9) conclude that it is increasingly difficult to filter accurate information from false because of repeated misrepresentations of peer-
26 A survey of over 1,800 college students from 15 different countries
195 reviewed research, especially in ‘echo chamber’ contexts that generate in-group belonging and trust through authoritative claims.
Alongside mass media, these platforms disperse ideas throughout the broader social discourse, along with the often-false or misleading but authoritative claims that essentially evoke an idea of security, inviting a recipient’s trust. Individual needs for security can find resonance within broader worldviews, which is problematic for climate action when those worldviews correlate with systems of governance, entrenched by corporate power and authority, which reiterate the flawed aspects of modernity’s narrative of security. Investigation of Western conservative and politically right-leaning attitudes towards climate change consistently reveals less concern, greater scepticism and denial, and greater mistrust of institutions seeking action on climate change, and greater mistrust in government broadly (Whitmarsh 2011:697; Tranter & Booth 2015:161; McCright et al. 2016:351; Tranter 2017:2). Conservative political parties often align with fossil fuel industries, creating climate ‘denial machines’ in efforts to disseminate misleading information countering the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (Dietz et al. 2007:186; Cann & Raymond 2018:435). Further, for those holding conservative worldviews a structural change that incorporates interdependence threatens a hierarchical and individualistic view of life, which in turn appears to undermine their security.
Looking more broadly, the symbolic content of the idea of ‘freedom’, which is linked to security, means that action on climate change may be seen as a threat when couched in terms of stifling economic activity. Whether politically ‘left’ or ‘right’, once one accedes to the system, dependence becomes a powerful coercive social tool. As Durkheim (2008:154) observes, socio- cultural power generates a ‘sensation of perpetual dependence’ that can categorically demand our cooperation and even coerce servitude, making people forgetful of their own interests. Accordingly, the sustained narrative of freedom through a free-market ideology that is now embedded in socio-cultural systems of exchange maintains anthropocentric behaviours, achieving dependence by propagating the idea that the market leads to freedom while suppressing understandings that climate change results from its ideology. Whether an individual aligns with the ideology or not, everyone is necessarily implicated because dependence makes deviating from its frames risky – one can barely shop, drive, communicate or associate without utilising objects that are produced through capitalist principles or risk social and material paralysis. The narrative thus holds authority, and the individual may forgo a measure of control and allocate responsibility to the social body from which one draws security, hoping the higher authority – the state, corporations, the in-group etc. – will help in transcending life’s uncertainty (Giddens 1991:195; Becker 1973:212). The principle goal of being able to individually keep pursuing a life project is a priority, however each action of the human animal feeds into the
196 web-of-life dialectical relation, thereby perpetuating the current life-denying narrative that undermines natural stabilities.
This imagines a spatial dimension where narratives have authority over an individual looking for navigating coordinates from the outer world to plot a pathway. Neo-Marxist sociologist Henri Lefebvre (1991:26) observes how capital produces dominant relations in space, which act as a means of control, domination and power. My focus on how state systems are often fundamentally structured around processes of capitalism and industrialisation is to highlight a fusion that has occurred, so that state systems embody the principles of capitalism and thus the compromised promise of modernity. Industrialised capital, Lefebvre (1991:227) argues, dominates social space, as space is determined economically, dominated socially by an elite and privileged class, which is supported politically by the state. Its dominance is not least because of the promise of empowerment and security that capitalist consumption conveys. Becker (1975:30) observes a sense of health, power and security conveyed in ‘the magical free- enterprise powers’, which ‘are working for us so long as we continue to buy, sell, and move goods.’ Hence, during the Australian bushfires the Prime Minster said it wasn’t the time to discuss climate emissions reductions, and corporate leaders discouraged ‘snap judgements’ when addressing climate policy – the ‘economy’ must be protected.
To the extent that this primary premise underlies government and corporate action, systemic authority and dependence impacts climate action. When individuals translate climate change through internal processes, the message of security through the market is latent within the signalling. Further, in line with Giddens, uncertainty and powerlessness from feeling engulfed by dominant external forces which the individual is ‘unable to resist or transcend’, can drive people towards an ostensibly ‘stabilising authority’ that provides a form of kinship and sense of community through more predictable ‘binding doctrines’ and behavioural expectations ‘endowed with strong normative compulsion’ (Giddens 1991:193-195). Modernity’s narrative of freedom and security has led to the binding doctrines of capitalism that have a normative compulsion to consume for growth and ‘success’, but this hollow promise has led to climate change, and continues to inhibit action in its regard.
In terms of the signalling emanating from a market economy, Horkheimer & Adorno critique capitalism’s culture of consumption by noting the symbolic power of the promise of security, arguing that it defrauds people who engage with and rely on the market, as they ‘cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful. They, too, have their aspirations. They insist unwaveringly on the ideology by which they are enslaved’ (2002:106). Such loyalty relies on capitalism’s hollow promise. However, the narrative’s ‘system of belief’ is undermining
197 rather than delivering security through Smith’s ‘invisible hand’, by destabilising interdependent systems that sustain life. As individuals and groups pursue a life of flourishing, capitalism’s attractive but hollow and ultimately life-denying promise produces a type of ‘pernicious love of the common people for the harm done to them’, with a related ‘mindlessness’ and desire for success, or in my terms the promise, regardless of the cost (Horkheimer & Adorno 2002:106).
In the climate debate, consider how this idea of a pernicious love for the ‘harm done’ might apply to both the ‘successful’ (developed nations broadly speaking) and ‘unsuccessful’ beneficiaries (developing nations broadly speaking) of the capitalist system. Gladwin et al. (1997:238) suggest that belief in free market ideology displayed by ‘northern elites’ in developed nations involves unsustainable, addictive mentalities associated with pursuit of quantitative over qualitative growth despite the clear manifestation of environmental destruction. And raised in chapter four, those in the poor world aspire to the apparent success of such pursuit of growth, despite its destructive qualities (Meadows et al. 2004:6). Like a pernicious love for harm, the false promise of modernity conducts behaviour in a life-denying but addictive direction. All who are implicated in the current system are complicit to some extent in the continuation of this dominant narrative. On a broader level, those in affluent countries that have benefited from the exploitation of earth’s systems may feel threatened by changes to the system that produces conditions that in comparative terms globally allow flourishing, while emerging economies aspire to the promise affluent countries appear to be enjoying, like ‘defrauded masses’ they cling ‘to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful’ because ‘they, too, have their aspirations’ (Horkheimer & Adorno 2002:106).
However, ‘addictive mentalities’ is perhaps not the right description, because it does not speak to the motivation, namely what belief in the tenants of growth, efficiency, and trust in technology promises (Gladwin et al. 1997:240). Changes to the standards of living enjoyed in affluent countries, or prevention to achieve them in developing countries, both equate to a threatened capacity to pursue the promise, but rely on the hollow promise of modernity. In other words, despite awareness of the causes of climate change, systemic dependence and vulnerability still lead individuals to inadvertently, or through necessity, rely on, or even hope in, the system within which they seek security, showing a kind of ‘mindlessness’ for the life- denying direction it leads.
Consider how thirty-year-old Chinese PhD candidate, Doreen, gives an account of a right to pursue the promise and security as she recounts the hypocrisy she sees in Western posturing regarding emissions. Doreen’s father is an industrial engineer in a steelworks in China. Many people in China are now losing their jobs, she recounts because of the strict government order to
198 upgrade industrial equipment for sustainable production, or to close the factories if they are unable to do so. She resents Western accusations that China is causing global warming:
Yeah, they said something like Chinese people can’t drink milk, Chinese people can’t eat meat, because we’re too many people and if we consume milk and meat, we’re going to destroy the earth. Yeah, that’s what Obama said. Like Chinese people don’t deserve this better life. That’s why it’s so hypocritical, they care about the human rights and they also blame China like they’re growing too fast. Everything goes with the price, right. And if they close factories they reduce the emissions but so many people will lose their job and then they criticise you about human rights... I grew up in this heavy industrial city, and the people in this whole city, every position, every kind of job relies on the whole industry. And then the government forced people to upgrade their industrial structure. Is that an easy thing? If that’s an easy thing why is Australia now still selling the resources? Why don’t you change, why don’t you upgrade your industrial structure? Why do you blame us?
Doreen is referring to a speech given by US President Barack Obama (2014) at the university of Queensland where, in the context of sustainable development, he said ‘if China, as it develops, adapts the same per capita carbon emissions as advanced economies like the United States or Australia, this planet doesn’t stand a chance, because they’ve got a lot more people.’ The symbolic threat to survival and a pursuit of the promise to flourish is clear in Doreen’s words. She feels the injustice of exploitation from the West, who hypocritically uses China to mass- produce their goods but then blame China for being unsustainable. She ardently defends her fellow citizens who are merely trying to improve their lot in life, reflected through the threat to the livelihood of people depend upon industrial development to make a living, and who have a right to a flourishing life like those in the West. Combined with Western accusations of civil rights abuses, Doreen’s encounter with climate change symbolically touches her dialectical place, which she vigorously defends. Modernity’s ‘addictive mentality’ expressed through industrial capitalism is tightly bound with the need for control, security and pursuit of flourishing, and its principles set the ‘rules’ to pursue them.
Or recall Jeff who in chapter four discusses a context of ‘money that's been generated by coal mining and so on and all the ports and things’ that go with it. This reference involves not only corporations profiteering, but literal coal miners working to survive, and points to systemic authority and the complexity of systemic dependence when pursuing the promise is prioritised in the face of destructive exchanges. For workers in such industries, dismantling the production processes without viable transition strategies may represent dismantling their opportunity for a
199 meaningful flourishing life, let alone self-preservation. For the individual, the choice between personal flourishing and a seemingly distant climate upheaval may see the former take priority if action within that system is the only understood means offering a path to flourishing that doesn’t imperil that trajectory. Jeff continues:
Why doesn't the broader Australian society say to those really niche groups, you know, cane farmers and the coal miners, you know, "You've had enough; go away"? I don't know. It's sometimes – perhaps a bit like me – it'll be apathy, sometimes it'll be “it's all too hard and too difficult. I've got enough problems to look after myself, thank you very much; in terms of trying to grab as much as I can to ensure my own survival and my family's survival”.
Jeff’s connection of apathy to survival is important. Jeff communicates a sense of disempowerment that comes in the face of systemic authority when limited resources must be dedicated to maintaining individual stability despite knowing there is a greater issue at play. In cases of survival, immediate security may trump other action because of dependence and vulnerability, and individual life-projects are prioritised in relation to resources and means available – it’s already hard enough to care for one’s immediate needs let alone to rail against industrial and state power and authority. Further, dissonance arises when the authoritative narrative powerfully argues that the way to freedom and flourishing is by adhering to the principles that have been long established as part of the project of modernity.
The power of the promise of freedom, authoritatively presented, ought not to be underestimated. When Marcuse (1972:30), for example, discusses the effect of accelerating consumption promising ‘a world of ease, enjoyment, fulfilment, and comfort’, he is indicating the false sense of security within the idealistic enlightenment promise, which implies freedom from uncertainty, while being unable to fulfil it. Harvey (2005:5) notes, ‘the founding figures of neoliberal thought took political ideals of human dignity and individual freedom as fundamental, as “the central values of civilization”. In so doing they chose wisely, for these are indeed compelling and seductive ideals.’ Harvey (2005:183) goes on to discuss how the idea of freedom was successfully bound up with an ideological promise and is easily drawn upon as a value to protect in the face of whatever potentially ‘threatened’ it. With the narrative of modernity’s promise maintained, the systemic dependence of vulnerable human animals accordingly compels individuals to act in a liberal subject frame to have any chance at the proposed promise the narrative communicates. Further, as vulnerable individuals look for authoritative figures to trust and reduce complexity (Luhmann 1979:13), the authorities that appear to provide what the individual security schema needs are influential. Struggling for a
200 sense of control and needing to trust someone because of complexity makes authority (trustworthy or not) a powerful factor influencing individual action.
Indeed various iterations of the promise have been part of governance, from earlier religious and traditional forms to the ones introduced through modernity, because it speaks to fundamental needs and fears, namely the human instinct for self-preservation, and thus pursuit of security and a life project of meaning and continuation. The contemporary promise of freedom within the dominant narrative sustains its power as it couples with underlying principles that maintain a separated and atomised terrain of action, a terrain that in turn magnifies the fears associated with being vulnerable. Recall, Marx (1981:949) characterises undermined or unstable conditions for individual action through the idea of alienation, which he links to the damage occurring to the relation between humans and the rest of nature, namely an ‘irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism’, which creates a perpetually unstable context (Marx 1979:283, 638). In Marx’s alienated human we see the dialectically distanced, separated, and atomised individual as the principles of capitalism unpick fibres of interdependence and erode individual capacities. The inner world I am imagining, then, sees the individual interacting with a more precarious outer world with the key goal of survival, while pursuing a life project of meaning and continuation (Becker 1973:36), captured by what I describe as the promise. This inner world is what I describe in my security schema (see Figure 8.1 below, discussed soon), a base of action involving materially constituted, socially constituted, and individually constituted security.
Materially constituted security
Individually Socially constituted constituted security security
Figure 8.1 Dialectical place security schema model
These aspects of the inner self, inclusive of a person’s history and biography, are in constant discourse within the individual – in terms of a dialectic that weighs and prioritises which part of the schema feels more insecure or unstable, and between the individual and the outer world – from which coordinates are gained and assessed in relation to internal dialectical need
201 assessments. Though constantly adjusting through the changes that encounters demand, an overall stabile trajectory can be maintained by ‘accommodating or transforming the tensions of relational life’ (Montgomery 1993:215). The interaction, then, functions through ‘shared understandings’ affecting the immediate situation, shaping the individual’s thoughts and subsequent actions. Symbols involved in the interaction lead ‘individuals to evaluate, and choose appropriate forms of action’ (Chalari 2017:25). Individual choices of action emerge not just from an assessment of which need-disposition to prioritise (Parsons 1951:14), but from a baseline of the individual’s personal expectations, judgments about what a meaningful life project ought to be, and how to safely pursue it within a frame of just or fair action. I see this incorporation of vulnerability, fear and security in relation to the pursuit of the promise of flourishing as fundamental but neglected inputs that determine individual action, as demonstrated through action on climate change.
Given the relational context described above, I can now imagine the individual in this dialectical relation, namely a vulnerable human animal as a contained but porous unity with fluid borders, open to an interactive outer-world space. This individual is connected with encounters of opportunity and promise on one hand, and risk and threat on the other. Such an imagining dialectically relates one’s internal state – inclusive of meanings and values related to the promise of a flourishing life – to action in the outer world, whereby maintaining a dialectical place, or immaterial platform from which to act, equals maintaining a sense of security. The model below builds on Becker by considering how individual action includes how an entity feels about itself in relation to ‘the objects in its field, and the values it has learned to give to itself and to those objects’ (Becker 1968:157), with the idea that the individual’s desire to flourish is applied to object encounters. Becker (1968:157) argues that values attributed to objects provide ‘the form of rules for navigating in a particular social world; the rules are embodied in the behavior that we learn for deriving satisfaction from this world.’ Climate change, and all its associated objects of exchange, are such objects of encounter. In that light, action on climate change can be discerned through the relation one has with the outer world and its material and conceptual objects in terms of how they represent the ultimate values associated with an individual’s life project of flourishing.
8.3 Dialectical place in shared space – the individual within the eco-socio-cultural web of life
The relational, spatial approach adopted here helps counter, I feel, the persistent and still dominant enlightenment conception that space and objects can be fragmented, which is enacted
202 in capitalism’s atomising processes. The concepts of dialectical relation, metabolism, and interdependence, or the contrasting ideas of accumulation and growth, or rationalisation and control, all involve spatial imagining; as do the concrete ideas of land and resources, or groups and states, though not all these concepts are explicitly envisioned as such. By combining varied traditions of space and place with concepts of security, a relation between a sense of security and an understanding of ‘place-ness’ emerges. Through concepts of geographical space and place I am conceptualising an immaterial place constituting a platform of action in the individual experience. This place refers to a felt sense of being securely located socially and existentially; securely enough, that is, to cope with changeability and imagine a secure pathway to pursue the promise. I deliberately move from more geographical notions of space and place, and work from Relph’s (1976:6) exploration of place as understood in landscapes to describe an internal sense where dialectical place involves a sense of stability for action.
The schools of thought on space and place are broad, with varying contributions to the spatial analysis of cultural, social, economic and political life. These come from such varied intellectual traditions as phenomenology, Marxism and feminism, and newer discourses of space and place within developing postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural theory (Hubbard et al. 2004:1-5). For instance, Foucault’s discussion (1979; 1980:194-196) of dispersed power relations through a complex apparatus and the social body is a spatial conception deployed to understand social and cultural power. From a globalisation or informational society point of view, Sen’s (2009) discussion on equality involves inter-area or inter-state comparisons, Beck’s (1992) discussion on reflexive modernisation captures an individual and institutional exchange across a terrain of risk and uncertainty. Or Giddens’ (1979, 1991) spatial imagining is reflected in examination of spatially and temporally structured routinised patterns of behaviour that influence change and social reproduction. Lefebvre (1991) provides an important critique of the spatial dimensions of urban life and his key work of the Production of Space problematises the national and global spatial expressions of capitalist modes of production, carried on by Harvey in his consideration of space produced within capitalism with its inherent contradictions (2006b), and certainly Bourdieu’s (2012) account of habitus is spatial by virtue of seeing the exchange between overarching structures that shape individual subjective intention or experiences. While these thinkers are not always overtly spatial, their considerations have shaped a spatial imagining in contemporary theory.
I expand on my discussion of lifeworld with the use of these thinkers to sketch a novel image of the individual within the web of life relation. For instance, in chapter five I outlined the idea of the everyday lifeworld, which according to Schutz and Luckmann (1974:3-4) is a ‘province of reality which the wide-awake and normal adult simply takes for granted in the attitude of
203 common sense’. Such taken-for-granted social constructions, influenced by modernity’s narrative embodied by capitalism, were argued as constituting a background consensus from which the individual draws symbolic reference points for navigation in everyday life (Garfinkel 1967:36; Habermas 1987:119). The model security schema brings the discussion above about the individual and the intersubjective constitution of the self with the social in alignment with Becker’s (1973:5) discussion on the individual’s relationship with the socio-cultural system. A lifeworld of common understandings provides a system of action for the individual to pursue a life-project of meaning. The individual takes for granted a shared ‘fundamental structure of reality’, which emerges from human exchanges with ‘things in the outer world’ where there is reciprocity with others and ‘that a stratified social and cultural world is historically pregiven as a frame of reference’ for the navigating individual (Schutz and Luckmann 1974:4-5). These dimensions have helped shape my inner and outer world imagining.
Further, in chapter five I discussed the role of cultural systems of morality and meaning in providing a buffer against the terror of existence by giving ‘a sense of order, control, and meaning that allays anxiety by promising symbolic and/or literal immortality’ (Becker 1973:120; Cohen & Solomon 2011:316). Berger (1967), Douglas (1966) and Giddens (1991) speak to this when discussing concepts of order and predictable frames of action. These descriptions of the individual/social relation reflect a dialectical spatial exchange, within which I include the varying dynamics of security associated with the human animal’s movement (action) in the web of life. With this background in mind, this section particularly draws on thinkers such as Yi-Fu Tuan (1971; 1977) and Edward Relph (1976) who provide existential insights from a human geography perspective regarding the security of a locus. Neo-Marxian thinkers like Lefebvre (1991), Harvey (1991; 2006a; 2006b) Bauman (1991; 2006), and Massey (1994) help to imagine the embedded principles of capitalism spatially, Becker brings individual and socio-cultural aspects together, while Ahmed (2004) assists in explaining how fear and avoidance of pain is involved in the delineation of borders and subsequent movement or ‘action’ out of self-protection.
Relph (1976:1) tells us that ‘to be human is to live in a world that is filled with significant places: to be human is to have and to know your place’. Sometimes its connection with space is as a unit of space, as with a city, region, country etc., or more narrowly as a specific part of or what may occupy space, like a house, a school, a theatre (Relph 1976:2). As part of a tripartite vision of space including space as fixed and measurable Newtonian, Cartesian or Euclidian space of individuation, and relative space associated with the non-Euclidian geometries of Einstein, Harvey (2006b:271-274) describes a relational concept of space where ‘it is impossible to disentangle space from time’, thus the ‘relational notion of space-time implies the
204 idea of internal relations; external influences get internalized in specific processes or things through time (much as my mind absorbs all manner of external information and stimuli to yield strange patterns of thought including dreams and fantasies as well as attempts at rational calculation).’ The above sees space accompanied by not only the correlate of time, but of place – which is often, but not always, differentiated from space, but relationally connected through the dialectical space-time forces that affect it.
Usually ‘place’ lies within ‘space’ with more specificity, rootedness and identification. My earlier discussion on the principles of capitalism imposing themselves on the individual is an example of this space/place relation in action. The idea of dialectical place imagines the individual dealing with this relation. As discussed, the individual manages existential anxiety through a socio-cultural ‘antidote’. That is, the individual’s life or ‘hero project’ described by Becker (1973:4,36) involves imagining a pathway towards flourishing but is dependent on a relation with one’s socio-cultural context. One’s outer-world context provides self-esteem, meaning, and coordinates of action, which in turn provide a sense of security because of the commensurate predictable frames of action that arise. One can look ahead, plan and hope for a flourishing life, thereby dealing with the anxiety-generating reality of inevitable death.
The individual dialectical place I imagine involves a centre, described at the beginning of the chapter, which I see as an inner platform from which to act. Quoting Aristotle, Relph (1976:24) notes that as in Euclid’s concept of space, ‘a place is defined by “the boundary of that which encloses it”, and then argues that ‘place is basically understood as location definable by sets of coordinates.’ While this description speaks to physical coordinates, cognitive coordinates derived from the socio-cultural system of meaning for me serve a similar function. Dialectical place is not a physical location per se, but is defined by ‘the boundary of that which encloses it’, namely, an individual ‘unity’ and ‘centre of felt value’ (Tuan 1977:138) that locates the individual in relation to an outer world, through constantly calibrated, intersubjectively determined coordinates. The individual feels safer the more the outer coordinates align with the needs of the security schema constituting a ‘centre of felt value’ (Tuan 1977:138). But being an ‘open’ and vulnerable entity, these boarders are fluid, requiring constant re-assessment from dialectical engagement.
Tuan describes the role of place when visualising it in the context of space. Speaking more of material place and space, Tuan (1977:2-4) notes that ‘place is security’ and ‘spaces are marked off and defended against intruders. Places are centres of felt value where biological needs, such as those for food, water, rest, and procreation, are satisfied’. Relph (1976:12, 8) sees the various connections that develop in ‘existential or lived-space’ as intersubjectively shared ‘and hence
205 amenable to all members of that group for they have all been socialised according to a common set of experiences, signs and symbols’. As ‘basic components of the lived world’ (Tuan 1977:3), the ideas of space and contingent place are used in the process of achieving security, and help me imagine the individual struggle for self-preservation while being dialectically engaged in the web of life.
The dialectical place I imagine is constituted through material and symbolic web-of-life interaction with the rest of nature, as well as ‘intra-action’ within the self (Chalari 2017:22-25; Mead 1934:135). Through web-of-life exchanges, shared understandings affect the individual’s immediate situation and shape individual thoughts, which are specifically attuned to one’s ontological security. One’s dialectical place, comprising the materially, socially and individually constituted security needs, is ‘marked off and defended against intruders’ by seeking and establishing predictable frames and systems that ensure a stable platform of action. As encounters produce meanings, they lead individuals to evaluate the situation and act (Chalari 2017:25), with a focus, I argue, on ensuring material and/or symbolic self-preservation. The individual necessarily needs to feel securely ‘placed’ (physically and socially), or stably grounded in the web of life in order to act without undue anxiety. Tuan (1977:6) describes the ‘pause’ of the ‘security and stability of place’ that allows reasoned decision-making while being ‘aware of the openness, freedom, and threat of space’. Dialectical place thus imagines a type of fluid unity that establishes an internal locatedness from which the individual navigates the web of life. From one’s dialectical place, threats or future pathways are observed and reacted to.
I am describing an inner sense of locatedness carried within the individual through schematic predictable forms (or coordinates) that translate into an existentially stable platform of action. Therein one finds the inherited, socially conditioned dispositions of habitus (Bourdieu 1977:84), and the disciplinary influences of power diffused through the fine channels of a complex ‘apparatus’ or network of ‘discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions’ (Foucault 1979:138; 1980:194-196). It consequently also includes the signification coming from social space that is infused with the ‘functioning of capitalism’, which moulds shared space through coercion and violence to ‘reduce the obstacles and resistances it encounters there’ (Lefebvre 1991:49), and consequently sends signals to the individual actor engaging with it. The primary action from dialectical place is a response to the fear that arises from vulnerability and threats that destabilise ontological security, namely the existential fear Becker (1973:xvii) refers to, which I argue becomes manifest when threats or barriers to achieving the just outcome of the promise are encountered. Actions are responses to literal and symbolic threats to life, indicating the consequential nature of space, where the
206 individual struggles for expression and survival while avoiding suffering (Lefebvre 1991:33- 34). The individual constantly monitors the relational exchanges with the external eco-socio- cultural milieu (Mead 1934:44) to regulate dialectical place so that physical and psychic needs can be met.
Meeting those needs as an imagined liberal subject is challenging. It involves not only acting from an individual locus through autonomy that is ‘understood in very narrow terms, linked to economic self-sufficiency and a sense of separation from others in society’ (Fineman 2004:xvi). It involves a broader separation from a system of metabolic eco-socio-cultural bonds outlined in chapter two, a separation that disrupts the fulfilment of real needs of a vulnerable subject, who requires both a secure physical locus with enabling infrastructures and safe lived environments, and socially secure stability and security through mutual support, community, social safety nets – that is, through interdependence. From dialectical place one follows the wishes of the promise, pursuing a causa sui project of meaning. Individuals, accordingly, decide on how to follow a personal trajectory while weighing the significance of an issue like climate change to that pathway.
Every unique individual schema shares a common trait, namely each seeks security and pursues the promise by gauging the outer world where the value system associated with the narrative’s dominant principles, embodied by capitalism, have shaped the coordinates. The individual must assess these coordinates to establish whether an action will maintain or threaten ontological security. Recall that Becker points to the individual’s action being dialectically bound to the socio-cultural system because of the security it imbues:
‘the causa-sui project is a pretense that one is invulnerable because protected by the power of others and of culture, that one is important in nature and can do something about the world. But in back of the causa-sui project whispers the voice of possible truth: that human life may not be more than a meaningless interlude in a vicious drama of flesh and bones that we call evolution…’ (1973:187), namely the individual obtains power ‘from the cultural causa-sui project, the symbols and dramatizations of our transcendence of animal vulnerability’ (1973:229)
What is critical in the climate action debate is that the individual relies on power coming from a flawed narrative generating symbols of promised freedom that intra-act within the individual’s dialectical place while pursuing the promise. As individuals and groups gauge their security positioning, they may thus align with the narrative and produce contradictory actions, like continued fossil-fuel use despite its climatic destabilising effects, either believing the promise of
207 security that the narrative portrays or conforming so one’s security position can be maintained. Actions are essentially to maintain security and stability of dialectical place so that one can continue to pursue a life project, so fear is activated if one’s social locatedness is threatened or destabilised, because it threatens that project of meaning.
We can apply the emotion of fear in this spatial context through the individual’s creation of conceptual borders – the delineations of boundaries and differences when interacting in the web of life as individuals and groups strive for security. Recalling the constancy of fear in every action and its purpose in self-preservation considered in chapter five, consider here an illustration from sociologist, Sara Ahmed, to see it in a spatial imagining. Ahmed (2003:388- 389) discusses the process of symbol-driven fear establishing relational distances and regulating the given proximity between objects of engagement. Ahmed (2003:388) describes how pejorative symbolic associations of black people, with stereotype labels like ‘the Negro’ – imagined as bad, animal, cold, ugly, angry and so on – illustrate how false, preconceived notions operate symbolically within people, prompting them to create a boundary and distance because of the symbolic power of an object. The fear accompanying the association ‘constructs’ bodies, and ‘does something: it reestablishes distance between those bodies’ by superficial reading of their meaning (Ahmed 2003:388). In other words, symbolic associations that prompt fear can separate, create boundaries and direct action. In the climate debate, the symbolism associated with climate change in socio-cultural, political and economic exchanges creates its own boundaries and distance.
Boundary creation occurs in the example of ideological tribalism, through conspiracy theories on the malintent of scientists, conflation of ‘green’ with communism, or with a UN plan to take over national governments (Nature 2010:345; Douglas & Sutton 2015:100). Boundary creation also comes with the way climate change provokes existential fear and the threat to security. One might respond through psychological distancing because of negative imagery associations (Leviston et al. 2014:442), denial because of its symbolic threat to prosperity (Norgaard 2006:347), displaced or confused perception of who is responsible (Lam 2014:5), and deciding on whether to engage in climate action through value-orientation and associated symbolism, and so on (Corner et al. 2014:2). Conversely, fear boundaries may arise in relation to carbon emissions or negative associations with over consumption that prompt social action. In each case, the individual’s engagement – one’s ‘approach’ towards or ‘avoidance’ of the issue is in relation to the stress it evokes (Roth & Cohen 1986:813). Action is affected by the representative threat to symbolic or literal self-preservation, which creates ‘boundaries’ of doubt, or tampers with processes of trust. Uniting a) the individual’s need to maintain security with b) the constant assessment of one’s security of dialectical place and c) the symbolic
208 interaction that informs the individual, we see ‘movement’ or actions that respond to existential fear. An assessment of a climate encounter from dialectical place, weighing the encounter against material, social and individual security needs prompts the individual to respond in a way that maintains a stable and secure place of action from which the promise can be secured. How is dialectical place a platform for action?
8.4 The security schema of dialectical place
I see dialectical place as comprising latent constructions that constitute an individual’s security schema, a term used variably depending on the psychological or sociological context, but broadly describing ‘knowledge and information-processing mechanisms’ that help one order the world and make it predictable (DiMaggio 1997:269; Solomon et al. 1991:98; Goffman1974:21; Douglas 1966:37). My proposed dialectical place security schema incorporates the ever-present influence of fear/anxiety associated with a threat to ontological security and one’s life project, while in constant discourse with the outer world. Each individual’s schema, with a unique biography and history, mixes with social structures to determine unique engagement in the web of life. Though security schema constructions make life easier to navigate, their symbolic construction means they do not always work in the individual’s immediate or long-term interests, and often can manifest problematic and destructive individual (and group) consequences. One thinks of tensions surrounding the US debate about confederate statues, post 9/11 symbolism tied to the label of ‘terrorist’, the symbolic association of wearing a protective mask against COVID-19 and party loyalty – these are a few examples of the incendiary potential of symbols in daily exchange, and climate change is not short of them. As Becker (1971:126) notes, symbols play a powerful role of shaping human action from birth, but the individual’s central perceptions of the world ‘are embedded in a network of codified meanings and perceptions that are in large part arbitrary and fictional’ and open to contextual influence.
The following dialectical place security schema model (Figure 8.2) illustrates the inner workings of individual positionality as dialectical relation with the outer world prompts assessment of materially, socially and individually constituted security parameters that are entwined in everyday experience. Relation occurs 'intra-subjectively' within the individual, and 'intersubjectively' with the outer world in a dialectical flow of relation constantly underway. The experience of ‘individual’ is necessarily also ‘social’ but within that relation the individual uniquely constitutes a self so that individual goals, though shaped socially, are unique configurations of the individual. The discourse is ‘intra-subjective’ in terms of what the individual weighs/prioritises from the three broad fields of security needs to maintain ‘stability’,
209 and between the individual’s inner world and the outer world in terms of the path – the goals, expectations/pressures and responses needed to maintain a secure trajectory.
Eco-socio-cultural outer world Materially constituted security: Protection of one’s material security position involves, inter alia, monitoring financial vulnerabilities in relation to present and future frames, material resources, and relationships with material objects with symbolic significance. The individual's materially constituted security is conditioned through the dominant narrative’s taken- for-granted background values, which 'intra-act' with socially and individually constituted reference points to determine a stable pathway to success (action).
Socially constituted security: Individually constituted security: Protection of one’s social Protection of individually constituted security position involves security involves pursuing a personal monitoring ingroup belonging, causa sui project of meaning and the worldviews and associated promise of flourishing in line with ideologies, and value culturally symbolic constructions of attachments. Social and cultural meaning and ‘heroism’ . Biographical architecture influences structural values constitute inner reference determinants – government, legal points which link to outer world frameworks, institutional ‘common understandings’ and influences, and cultural material conditions promising symbolism promising freedom ‘success’. An inner expectation of and success. These interact with security and opportunity to flourish materially and individually (the promise) mix with socially and constituted reference points to materially constituted reference points determine a stable pathway to to determine a stable pathway to success (action). success (action).
Figure 8.2 The security schema of dialectical place
The eco-socio-cultural coordinates incorporated into dialectical place form a key part of the coherent architecture of an individual’s security schema by providing the individual ‘standardized systems [that] give structure to the formulas for heroic transcendence’ (Becker 1975:154). Within dialectical place the individual establishes perceived truth, used in the construction of one’s place in the world, helping the individual heroically transcend, namely ‘make the biggest possible contribution to the world life, show that he counts’ (Becker 1973:4). Dialectical place is thus fiercely defended when the values and perceived ‘truths’ therein are threatened (Ahmed 2003:384). The security schema is in discourse with the outer world, including its dominant narrative and the structures of navigation designed for an imagined
210 liberal subject. This relation informs the vulnerable individual’s action, either by shaping values, perceptions and pathways, or by challenging the schema security needs and pursuit of the promise. I see this constant discourse as shaping individual action and making individual choices consequential in the dialectical relation of the web of life.
The construction of dialectical place includes the socio-cultural worldviews of the outer world because the individual refers to them to find coordinates for plotting a stable trajectory, thus protecting the individual from fear and ontological insecurity by finding symbolic resonance within a larger social body (Becker 1971:127). Individual engagement with and response to the physical and symbolic aspects of climate change can be imagined as defining predictable frames for action, giving ‘the world of events a fixed point of self-reference [which] allows man to live in a symbolic world of his own creation’ – they are ‘fixed’ points that the individual ‘scans and appraises’, thereby creating a position or place of action in the flow of time (Becker 1971:16). Resembling Massey’s (1994:154) imagining of physical place or locus, namely a site ‘constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus’, dialectical place involves immaterial constellations of eco-socio-culturally constituted understandings weaving, meeting within and relating with the individual’s inner world. Thus, the dialectical place is the inner domain an individual uses to locate oneself spatially and relationally in the outer world; it is a platform from which to act, and determines action as the individual seeks to maintain security to pursue the promise.
While I will continue to illustrate the schema through the interviews in the next chapter, a brief illustration is warranted here. Encounters with climate change force the individual to ask: how does climate change affect my ontological security and trajectory to fulfil the promise? Returning to the example of Greta Thunberg illustrates such a climate encounter. Thunberg has become a politically polarising figure due to her activism on climate change (Jung et al. 2020:2). As she enacts her own discrete encounter with climate change, her public actions become their own symbolic encounter with climate change for those observing her, and generate much discussion from varying perspectives. One such instance was her 2019 address at the UN Climate Summit, after travelling to New York via sailboat to send a message about carbon neutrality. Representing the anxiety her generation of youths feel, Thunberg accused the assembly of stealing ‘her dreams and her childhood’ due to government inaction on global warming (Ormiston 2019). Because the scientific facts are clear, she said, any action other than immediate and drastic response is both renouncing responsibility and immoral negligence.
Her words have inspired millions and spawned global youth protests regarding the failure for proper governmental and corporate leadership on the issue (Banerji 2019; Singh et al. 2019).
211 Considered through the eyes of Greta, or one of the millions of youth protesting climate change, such action can be viewed as action to protect the promise. The action emanates from dialectical place, deploying materially, socially and individually constituted values driving a project of meaning, like attachment to and intrinsic value of the environment, a vision of future economic possibilities, group worldviews regarding corporations and so on. It is a response to a threat to one’s capacity for future flourishing and an exercise of heroic transcendence now. Individually constituted values dialectically refer to socially constituted values about social contract expectations of justice, of the right of all to benefit from the commons, and the cultural symbolism that may be attached to corporations that exploit the environment for profit at their expense. The outer world coordinates are then internally weighed, an internal discourse occurs, whereby, for instance, a climate activist’s material position may be vulnerable, but this security need may be superseded by personal values which also constitute the individual’s security through meaning and drive the activist to act. Or the activist may be in a safe material position and can thus prioritise action affirms a worldview and values, thereby bolstering symbolic security through a meaningful expression of the causa sui project. The combinations of response in relation to climate change are myriad, but the above illustrates the core aspects of the schema in symbolic and social interaction, while also involved in inner ‘intra-acting’ to assess what action is needed to maintain stability of dialectical place, and prompting movement to achieve it. This is an activists perspective, but consider other responses to the symbolism of Thunberg.
While garnering much support of the public, academics and some politicians (The Guardian 2019; Donnelly 2019; Corbyn et al. 2019), Thunberg’s actions equally met opposition. Consider comments in Australia in relation to Thunberg’s activism from former Minister of Government in the conservative Liberal/National coalition, Amanda Vanstone. Now a radio commentator, Ms Vanstone was one in a large number of media commentators that responded negatively to the global climate strikes on 20 September 2019 that Thunberg spurned, and after Thunberg’s speech at the UN Climate Summit. Vanstone (2019) decries the Greta Thunberg ‘media circus’ as a ‘complete farce’, seeing Thunberg’s comments as berating, and her efforts to travel sustainably as hypocritical. After citing various criticisms, Vanstone (2019) suggests an individualised, autonomous actor market alternative for Thunberg’s activism, saying: ‘If everyone who skipped school had planted a tree in pre-agreed areas that needed revegetating, that would have made an impressive statement.’ Rather than mass solidarity, individual action is proffered as the solution.
Other rhetoric from conservative commentary in Australia was less charitable. It equally derides Thunberg’s actions, disparaging the scientific basis of climate change with claims that the striking children are merely ‘doing what they’re told’ through politically correct indoctrination
212 (Donnelly 2019), and seen as ‘pawns in a bid to undermine capitalism’ (Newman 2019), with Thunberg becoming a target of the political right who assert she is ‘deeply disturbed’ and ‘strange’ (Bolt in Meade 2019). These reactions, I posit, are equally defensive reactions to a threatened promise shaped by symbolic interaction with the outer world. They express worldviews and individual perceptions of what brings material and symbolic security. Vanstone’s expectation of individually planting a tree, for instance, echoes the implicit individualised, atomised and separated background expectations of modes of behaviour outlined in preceding chapters. Indeed the negative reactions to Thunberg’s activism more closely align with the narrative of separation and human-centredness, and with the idea of individual autonomy applied to an imagined liberal subject’s assumed freedom to act. The reactions reflect a system that eschews the actual structural conditions that Thunberg is criticising, limits action to autonomous actors from within a market, and denies the asymmetries that make most individual action largely ineffective.
Or from a non-Western perspective, for interview participant Doreen, Greta symbolises Western hypocrisy that fails to consider the situation of developing nations. She says:
It’s not that what she said is not right, but you need to see the whole picture, you need to know what is happening all over the world, not just in your country.
Because Doreen feels that Greta is not factoring in the complex politics around climate change, she sees Greta as a cudgel for Western criticism of China, and as such her actions are paradoxically threatening, creating distance and a ‘border’ of separation, though Doreen agrees action on climate change must be taken. Importantly, the reactions illustrate that Thunberg’s actions in pursuit of the promise, inclusive of dialectical place worldviews and values of justice, are symbolically a threat to other people’s enactment of their own promise. In other words, regardless of the variation of reaction, the reactions are tied to the relevant cherished but threatened values (Wright Mills 1959:11) that the human animal individually constructs in relation to the promise. Whether the reaction is based on symbolic resonance with Thunberg’s actions, or is symbolically threatened by them, the spectrum of reaction reflects the deeper existential question of survival with the accompanying fear and anxiety. Each person responds through a schema seeking to ensure individual security of dialectical place so that a pathway to the promise of flourishing is maintained.
Thus, Figure 8.2 illustrates a ‘centre of felt value’ (Tuan 1977:138) carrying a ‘special ensemble’ (Lukermann 1964:170) of intra-active and interactive elements in a dialectical relation within the web of life. These work together to establish a platform of action which both
213 seeks and maintains fluid but desired security and stability, constituting predictable frames of action to sufficiently deliver ontological security so that the individual can alleviate the fear and anxiety of ‘creatureliness’, not be paralysed in action, but to pursue flourishing (Becker 1973:87). As Giddens (1991:48) notes when considering Kierkegaard’s analysis of anxiety, ‘to “be”, for the human individual, is to have ontological awareness’, and the ‘struggle of being against non-being’ that Kierkegaard points to ‘is the perpetual task of the individual, not just to “accept” reality, but to create ontological reference points as an integral aspect of “going on” in the contexts of day-to-day life’.
The above-mentioned individual is thus a ‘unity’ with fluid, immaterial borders that are shaped by human vulnerability, fear and anxiety, and the constant need for security. I have been progressively pointing to fear’s role in dialectical action, and Ahmed’s account about the role of pain and fear is helpful here. Recalling Freud, Ahmed (2004:24) sees pain as mediating one’s inside/outside perception of self, mediating ‘the relationship between internal or external, or inside and outside’. Anticipation of pain (fear) involves movement away from something, and a reorientation of action away from ‘the cause of the pain’ (Ahmed 2004:24). In an encounter with climate change, then, individuals adjust their ‘position’ when ‘pain’ through threat to one’s immediate security position, is anticipated or felt. Thunberg’s actions as well as her opponents are such movements in the terrain of action – she is moved to defend her present and future security position that climate change threatens, and her opponents are moved to oppose her action as it represents a threat to their own security positions. Climate change symbolisations and associations which translate into threats of pain, loss etc. will likewise affect ‘movement’ – action from one’s dialectical place to reconstitute security. Ahmed (2004:11) describes the role of emotion in action as ‘what moves us, what makes us feel, is also that which holds us in place, or gives us a dwelling place’. An emotion as primary as fear of death and its converse the promise of flourishing are indeed going to be levers that move us to act. Figure 8.3 illustrates the ongoing exchanges and the contingent fears and vulnerabilities that prompt or inhibit individual action.
214 Life-sustaining/life-denying agonic struggle: Empowerment or disempowerment: Dialectical relation prompting movement away - Level of percieved threat and vulnerability from from/across/towards climate 'encounter' - Striving for ontological security - Structural barriers and opportunities - Fear/anxiety, uncertainty/unpredictability, - Trust/mistrust of relational group or authority vulnerability, risk-taking - Level of energy/resources - For/against action on climate change - Sense of effectiveness in relation to the promise
Passive/active action relative to: Conscious/unconscious awareness of: - Level of ontological security - Separateness/alienation - Issue salience, and associated anxieties/fears in - Instability/disruption of terrain relation to the promise - Dependence/interdependence - Stability and predictability of pathways ensuring - Object relations continuation and meaning - Spatial and temporal intrusion
Figure 8.3 Outer influences on stability of dialectical place and action
Dialectical place, then, is an open but delineated locus, the core of a ‘unique unity’ that sees itself ‘with a set of beliefs about itself’ within an open terrain (Gredys Harris 1989:601). Like a physical location, dialectical place is part of the dialectical flow of action that shapes and is shaped within the web of life. It is an immaterial locus that carries the dialectically established predictable frames, acting as a platform to locate the self in the world. Tuan (1977:54) says of a physical place: ‘Compared to space, place is a calm center of established values. Human beings require both space and place. Human lives are a dialectical movement between shelter and venture, attachment and freedom.’ Similarly, I have sought to sketch the centre of established values concentrated within the individual, which can be (ideally) a centre of calm that anchors the individual in daily action, acting as a platform from which to act in the world. Threats to that ‘calm’ are responded to – by rejection, avoidance, denial, protest, action and counter action – to re-establish the anchoring it provides. The individual’s self-identity and biography entwined within dialectical place constantly construct predictable frames for the necessary ‘calm’ to act, though such calm fluctuates. The need for predictable frames is prompted by the dynamic of fear, anxiety and security-seeking that seeks self-preservation. Their creation is guided by the value established through sacrifice as described by Simmel (1971:49), and the value understood by real or anticipated pain (Ahmed 2004:23), which delineates a ‘border’ (Ahmed 2004:25) for that dialectical place.
215
Having presented this imagining of individual action and its motivations, the final chapter consolidates this imagining of dialectical place, and brings together the themes of the thesis to consider some potential implications of what has been discussed. I further draw on Australian encounters with climate change to draw out the materialities of dialectical relation that the individual participates in. I also shall discuss potential application regarding bridges between individual and group action to think about what may potentially change the critical situation of the life-denying trajectory humans are facing that manifests as climate change.
216 Chapter 9 Pursuing the promise securely from dialectical place
This thesis has been about the human animal’s effort, as a vulnerable being within the web of life, to securely pursue the promise of a flourishing life, and how this informs action in regard to the crisis of climate change. In describing ‘the human animal’ I have sought to visualise the individual within a dialectical relation with the rest of nature. This individual, I have argued, embodies an immaterial, dialectical place or centre of felt value, a platform of ontological security from which action takes place, and a platform whose security is prioritised in order to continue to act, not only to survive but to achieve the expectation of a flourishing life. As the human animal exercises its symbolic capacity within dialectical place, it assesses what implications the encounter has for one’s material and symbolic security. Climate change is one such symbolically loaded encounter, and as assessment of what will bring security unfolds, the individual decides what kind of action to take.
The purpose of this final chapter is to consolidate these ideas and discuss the security schema of dialectical place model that I have proposed as a means of imagining individual action with the use of additional interview material and examples. Further, I speculate on the potential theoretical advantage when the individual’s security needs and pursuit of the promise are taken into account. After considering some final participant comments, I consider examples of individuals engaged in contemporary social movements. The examples illustrate the value of incorporating the individual’s need for security and the pursuit of the promise when thinking about collective engagement in climate action, and how by rejecting the humans-over-nature narrative, communal action can be strengthened. First, I return to symbolic objects in the Australian case study, coal and the Great Barrier Reef, to see the instructive elements of viewing action on climate change through the mediating factors I have outlined.
9.1 Australian climate encounters: the Adani mine and the Great Barrier Reef
The symbolism associated with both coal and the Great Barrier Reef can illustrate how dialectical place, as ‘a centre of felt value’, is touched when things associated with the pursuit 217 of the promise and a flourishing life feel threatened. As introduced in chapter one, the Great Barrier Reef is a precious natural phenomenon. It is part of Australia’s valued Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage, and is Australia’s ‘canary in the coalmine’ when it comes to climate change, but is now threatened by rising sea temperatures and alkalinity. At the same time, the Adani coalmine has been recently approved for construction adjacent to the reef, though opposition continues. The sustained government support for the Adani mine, and the powerful role of corporate and financial interests demonstrate the dominance of modernity’s distorted conception of the promise conveyed through capitalism. A strong symbolic association between coal and security (Jotzo et al. 2018:23) clouds human abilities to adequately link climate change with coal’s carbon emissions. Coal for me symbolically embodies modernity’s flawed narrative promising advancement, security and success.
As the reef continues to lose coral cover to bleaching and intense storm events due to climate change, living populations within the interdependent ecosystem like fish and larvae are decimated (Australian Government 2018:4-5). Such negative climate change consequences also impact the lives of those 64,000 workers dependent on the reef through tourism and related industry. Participant expressions illustrate that coal and The Great Barrier Reef are symbolically connected to striving for self-preservation, security and the promise of flourishing, a connection that mediates their assessments regarding climate action. Some of the participants were shown images of the reef’s degradation, or listened to the chief scientist monitoring the reef, Terry Hughes (Wall & Slezak 2016), describe its degradation from rising ocean temperatures, rising acidification and increasing intense weather events.
The symbolic injustice regarding a loss of something that is a shared good as the reef and is associated broadly with flourishing is reflected in Rick’s response when asked what the reef represents to him: ‘Well, besides being an iconic Australian natural wonder it represents a very fine balance within nature doesn't it?’, and for Rick what was happening to it is ‘very alarming because they're the kind of thin end of the wedge indicators aren't they’. For Rick, the reef not only holds a symbolic cultural value that adds to the richness of flourishing, but it holds a symbolic representation of security and stability. Thus, his encounter is one of alarm, threat and portents of future destabilisation.
For Lenka, a fifty-five-year-old naturalised Australian, originally from Bulgaria, the reef symbolically links with a sense of wellbeing within her security schema. She recalls that ‘when we were there 11 years ago, it was a fairy tale. It was impossibly beautiful’. So after watching a video regarding how it is being affected, she too is dismayed. Her connection with nature means that watching the destruction unfold touches her dialectical place. Lenka feels
218
‘very devastated. It's sad that something that is unique and beautiful is dying. The last sentence that the scientist said, that there is still hope that we can do it, again, gives you some hope.’
Lenka’s devastation at the death of the ‘unique’ and ‘beautiful’ reef, which she ties to her experiences that had produced a sense of well-being, to me illustrate a symbolical threat to her life project of meaning. It touches her dialectical place, which, as will be discussed, she is willing to defend. Though Lenka expresses hope for ‘a miracle’, when it comes to stopping the Adani coalmine, she doesn’t rely on government but on people power:
I never put my future in the hands of the politicians. I don’t accept them as my presenters (sic), purely because my history with corrupt governments. So, it doesn’t disempower me… I think we have to fight.
Though Lenka is hopeful that the mine could be stopped, the opposition to it thus far has been inadequate to stop it. Lenka’s felt relation with nature can be compared to the relation the Indigenous peoples of the region have with the reef. The Wangan Jagalingou Council has been leading efforts to stop the Adani Carmichael mine, which threatens traditional sovereignty and cultural heritage: ‘Our ancestral lands and waters stand to be destroyed by this mega-mine. Our laws and culture are under sustained attack’ (Burragubba 2019). For the people of Wangan and Jagalingou country, the mine disrupts to an ‘essential relationship’ (PTTIACHR 2005:vii) that directly threatens the material and symbolic security of dialectical place for those affected. The threat and destabilisation prompts a response due to its immediacy, fighting the transfer of lands once owned under native title to the Adani group: ‘Our ceremonial grounds, in place for a time of mourning for our lands as Adani begins its destructive processes, are now controlled by billionaire miner Adani’ (Burragubba in Doherty 2019).
The comments of Rick and Lenka, as with the expressions of the members of the Wangan Jagalingou Council, illustrate the symbolic significance of the reef that is processed through individual dialectical place as a threat to security and an injustice. These views contrast, however, with those who do not link coal, climate change, and the degradation to the reef, and have a different relation with coal. In the interviews, participants that were right-leaning and unconvinced or sceptical about climate science had different opinions about the mine. For instance, Peter, who called himself right-wing but ‘realist’, is concerned about the reef’s situation but responds through other symbolism that he connects with injustice, namely, he disagrees with the suggested policy responses.
219
Australians are so bloody stupid. They reckon, oh, we can’t build this coal mine, because the Great Barrier Reef is going to bleach. It’s got nothing to do with anything we do. They’re building so many coal power plants in China and India, 30% of the people in India don’t have electricity. They’re going to build so many coalmines and coal power plants to give these people electricity that we take for granted. We’re now, in the rich West, saying “you know what, you should have dearer electricity. You shouldn’t be able to have what we have”. I say, screw that. Give them electricity and we’ll just have to sort out what happens with – we can’t stop progress, you can’t stop people wanting to have a better life, you can’t stop people lifting people out of poverty.
Peter’s comments to me illustrate an activated ‘centre of felt value’, namely his dialectical place, where his worldviews and values produce a conception of the promise influencing his position. The symbol of coal is processed through his dialectical place, interacting with an expectation of justice for himself and others, which he equates with equitable distribution, security and flourishing – ‘people wanting a better life’, and ‘lifting people out of poverty’. Despite the reef’s destruction, he views solutions through the dominant capitalist frame. Coal has been part of the historical promise of flourishing, and for Peter, people in developing nations also ought not to be unjustly deprived of the promise he pursues. He does not view the principles of capitalistic rationality as flawed and undermining the possibility of others to flourish, nor does he imagine an alternate, interdependent understanding of how the promise can be achieved because, I posit, the dominant narrative prevails. Such examples affirm to me the power of modernity’s promise and emphasise the importance of having a clear alternative narrative regarding what can provide security. Though principles of interdependence are understood scientifically and examined sociologically, they are by no means a powerful narrative in daily social exchange. Further, while the simple capitalist ethic of ‘growth equals prosperity’ (and thus security) permeates social policy and discourse, an alternate clear conception of how principles of interdependence can and do produce security is lacking, though they are constantly operative.
While Rick, Lenka and Peter’s expressions also reflect anxiety and fear about the future, each person’s action remains within their realm of security. Rick takes measures to reduce their footprint but stays distant from political engagement. Lenka and the First Nations people of Wangan and Jagalingou country, however, actively engage politically, both being part of groups that oppose the Adani mine and engaging in public communication of their beliefs. Conversely, Peter and opposes policies that showed government intervention in the energy market. Because of this worldview and the security that is felt around it, Peter, like Jerry and Joe in previous
220 chapters, feel policies overriding principles of capitalism would put Australians at a disadvantage, and result in injustice for Australians or people in developing countries. Regardless of their worldviews, values and political positioning, the participants illustrate a common primary drive of seeking security, demonstrating what the thesis has argued – that action is tied to a symbolic expectation for security and flourishing through the pursuit of the promise that abides in individual security schemas of dialectical place.
9.2 Existential fear, voice and the pursuit of a meaningful life project
The varied participant comments illustrate that existential fear and the attendant pursuit of security engenders different responses. According to individual assessments of what is threatened and a prioritisation of how to respond to threats while also maintaining security in relation to the outer world, the promise and a socio-cultural relation as factors mediating their action are apparent. As considered, navigating a complex web of life engenders a resort to short- cut methods of symbolic interpretation and in-group trust, rather than through evidence-based decisions. Dialectical place, with the worldviews and values therein, directs action since a person’s reflex is to maintain security utilising symbolic markers that help judge an encounter as safe or as a threat. A further factor complicating one’s effort to maintain security, I have shown, is that socio-economic systems are destabilised by modernity’s flawed principles, which intensifies existential fear and the reflex for self-preservation. Adorno (1967:72) says of the power of fear: ‘In the face of the disproportion between institutional power and individual powerlessness this fear has become so pervasive in advanced exchange society that it would require superhuman powers to live outside it; and meanwhile the system ceaselessly erodes each individual’s powers to withstand it.’
A good deal of participant comments illustrate such fear, though the word fear is seldom used. A sense of threat can be observed in the defence of the promise, the pursuit of justice, or rejection of policies of scientific assessments since these acts symbolically link with questions of survival. In line with Adorno, living outside of the contemporary system of exchange creates anxiety. But a destabilised outer world also creates anxiety through unpredictable frames. Fear of a destabilised dialectical place of action, an undermined future, or a threat to material or symbolic self-preservation, thus potentially override and silence the individual’s capacity for ‘political’ responses. Bauman (2006:6) notes an outcome of fear when describing ‘our liquid modern society’ as ‘a contraption attempting to make life with fear liveable’. Bauman (2006:7) links the fundamental human experience of existential fear and anxiety with a cyclic system of
221 consumption promising to alleviate them, saying the capitalist system of exchange maintains consumption by producing goods that appear to fight fear for frightened consumers, ‘hopeful that the dangers they fear can be forced to retreat and that they can do it (with paid help, for sure).’ Entertainment through sophisticated electronic devices can endow a sense of transcendence, a car can make one feel empowered and admired. But by ‘silencing’ fear through consumption, the individual is also silenced by accepting structures that alleviate the fear, thereby exempting some actors from responsibilities associated with production (Bauman 2006:6-7). The individual’s dependent relation with the socio-cultural sphere naturally inhibits questioning the structural legitimisation of the system promising to ‘silence fear’. The structural relation is ‘trusted’ as given and silences the actor ‘unnoticed’ and ‘noiselessly’ (Mathiesen 2004:14). In other words, there is comfort in the status quo for its beneficiaries, and challenging the ostensible security it provides is thus inhibited.
This analysis again illustrates how fear and pursuit of the promise are entwined with the false promise of modernity. The promise of satisfaction and success through consumption can give a false impression of security, or it can equally commit people to a pursuit of ephemeral objects that symbolise success, as well as commit them to the system promoting it. Fear and pursuit of security and the promise are thus active ingredients contributing to the web of life and mediating factor in life-denying or life-sustaining trajectories. Recall some of the participants for this thesis – George invests in a coalmine, Loral, though trying to act on climate change renovates her house in unsustainable ways, and Kolya who is deeply engaged in climate action nevertheless must use unsustainable objects of consumption – like coal-powered electricity to survive and a mobile phone for work – since other structural options are not possible in his personal circumstance. The agonistic struggle in the web of life is presently tending towards life-denying, unjust outcomes, and I have argued this is in part because capitalism’s principles are flawed in their pursuit of ‘success’ but structural dependence and a false promise mean people’s action is compelled to remain within its system unless unique circumstances allow otherwise. By internalising the dominant humans-over-nature narrative of capitalism and modernity’s promise of security, the individual may act as is they are invulnerable to consequences, and being in ‘blind’ relation with nature, mindlessly consume without being able to fully entertain alternative paths to security and flourishing that do not coterminously undermine the conditions needed for their pursuit.
I must emphasise, however, that fear is not necessarily paralysing and in fact it is a powerful motivator for action. In line with Becker, it is associated with a deep concern for ensuring not just survival but a meaningful, ‘heroic’ life project according to individual worldviews and values that constitute individual security. As I have argued, the individual project of meaning
222 plays out in different ways according to an individual security schema. Hence people on completely different sides of climate change can be acting in pursuit of security or social justice, according to the individual meaning they attach to the issue. Jerry, introduced in chapter six, is actively engaged in anti-climate change action. He is the son of Polish holocaust survivors who immigrated to Australia World War II. Describing himself as being far-right politically, he engages in fighting climate action at every available level. He attends meetings, organises rallies, heads anti ‘carbon tax’ groups, and engages with politicians, scientists and commentators who reject anthropogenic climate change. He has a deep mistrust of the IPCC and feels the science has been manipulated. Jerry recounts stories of ‘far-left Fascists’ threatening his life, but he is dedicated to continuing his opposition. When Jerry was asked if he thought there were any costs associated with the climate issue he said:
The costs and repercussions of acting on it, trying to combat it is infinite money going down the gurgler, and those resources could be going to better things.
The fact that I know what’s going on behind the scenes, I know of the massive fraud… I’m realistic to know that no one else is going to be sharing my passion. But to wake people up, that as far as I’m concerned is my duty, because otherwise the repercussions are truly horrendous.
Jerry’s feeling of duty to oppose any action on climate change became part of his life project after his father, a chemical scientist, ‘woke him up’ to the ‘Malarkey’, ‘baloney’, ‘con job’, ‘rort’ – words Jerry uses to describe ‘the global warming slash climate change rubbish’. He includes it as part of a broader hidden UN agenda associated with ‘Agenda 21’ to reduce the world population (Harman 2015), and describes it as a rort by scientists in pursuit of funding. Though some of Jerry’s views align with conspiracy theory thinking (Douglas & Sutton 2015; Lewandowsky et al. 2015), Jerry’s engagement on climate change mirrors the pattern of engagement of other interviewees. That is, Jerry’s worldview and values drive him according to symbolic interpretations within his security schema. Jerry’s engagement reflects a balance of core values, maintenance of security and opposition to a threat to dialectical place. A constant though sublimated presence of the fear of death is evident, alongside the pursuit of a meaningful life project, acting to leave a heroic legacy that provides a sense of continuation.
For me it’s a mission; probably more than anything else, because how long am I going to live? I’m 57. Thirty years, if I’m lucky? So I might as well make my mark on humanity…[I’d like to] turn the pendulum, and they realise, “Oh, this is a load of
223 bullshit”. The Emperor’s New Clothes – I’d like to be remembered as the boy who cried out at the end, “The emperor is wearing no clothes!”
As demonstrated, strong conviction based on symbolic interpretation within a security schema drives individuals to act. Jerry finds support in the world that shares his worldview:
‘Peter Ridd, I know him. Dr Jennifer Marohasy, she was sacked for her views… As you can gather, I’ve quite a heavy lot of connections through my dad, because Dad was a head kicker in his day, too. He’s 87, he’s got out of it. I’ve got some pretty darn good connections, and up to Lord Monckton.’
In his anti-climate change action, then, Jerry re-affirms his project of meaning that delivers security. He dedicates material resources to his mission, finding support for his social and individual security needs within dialectical place through his trusted networks. Feeling the security of a group and bolstering his self-esteem through ‘heroic’ action in relation to his socio-cultural project of meaning (Becker 1973:7), his action feeds into a life trajectory, and provides a system of predictable frames that give him security and a capacity to fulfil the promise of flourishing.
Jerry is an example of passionate action in pursuit of a causa sui project, but passionate action may be hindered if one’s platform of dialectical place is destabilised or threatened. Anxiety and fear can cause a withdrawal and redirection of energy to reaffirm security. Thirty-year old community worker, Lisa, displays the pursuit of a meaningful life project that is tied to a love of nature and concern about climate change. Her expressions, I feel, again indicate a pursuit of flourishing, anxiety and fear, and the imposing effects of socio-cultural frames influencing her willingness to engage, but also causing her to disengage. First, notice how she discusses an initiative she organised focused on protecting old local trees that were being cut down for an infrastructure project. The trees symbolised ‘a physical, emotional and spiritual’ connection to nature for Lisa, carrying enough meaning for her life project to be strong enough to prompt purposeful public ‘political’ action. Lisa linked the initiative to climate change in the lead-up to the 2015 Paris Conference. When she first learned about climate change at university, she ‘got really angry’. Lisa recalls:
It’s the first time, for me, that a lot of the global, I guess, causes of climate change become quite crystallised and you learn about the history of trade and all these things that have – like, the growing division between the rich and the poor and how that’s
224 connected, and you just go like, oh my god, this is depressing. It makes you angry, but then you don’t know what to do with it.
Knowing ‘what to do with’ the personal assessment and feelings of injustice – ‘the growing division between the rich and the poor and how that’s connected’ – is challenging. In light of the arguments mounted in this thesis, this may be because the individual conterminously must maintain security while navigating the socio-cultural context, and must decide how to balance resources with action. Caution must be taken so as not to disadvantage one’s own security position – one must hold down a job, be careful where and how political beliefs are expressed, consider how much money to spend, and so on. So, while personal and objective injustice is felt, security must also be maintained.
Lisa describes how the local initiative to protect ancient trees she organised arose from a personal connection, having grown up with them as part of her world, and was a meaningful act to protect local heritage and things she valued that provided a sense of historical locus and significance. When she found out that the state government wanted to remove them, she got involved – ‘I got a bit more involved than I probably would have liked to, but just because there was an absence of anyone else getting involved’. She tied her action with climate change because she felt tying the everyday experience with something larger would help the issue resonate. From there, Lisa got more involved with action on climate change directly:
I’d started going to those kinds of rallies – that wasn’t the first time I’d been to a big rally, but it was definitely a different experience because of what I’d learnt through my own campaigning. Now, I’m kind of not into rallies that much, actually, weirdly enough.
Her action initially coincided with her values, her worldview, and what constituted a localised sense of security and belonging, and she acted to address the injustice she felt was occurring. However, her action rests on an intricate balance between a drive for meaning and a secure sense of dialectical place and its related resources. Lisa discusses the emotional and temporal toll the initiative took, which threatened her base of security:
Well, yeah, emotional, then just also your time. I, personally, I do think of it in the context of climate change, but with the tree stuff, I devoted a lot of my time to that and I was knowingly sacrificing a lot of other things that I could have been doing with that time.
225 Lisa notes how her activism involved a lot of mental, emotional, and temporal resources, but she was willing to sacrifice them as they fell within her life project of meaning. When asked to discuss how the sacrifice and costs that came with organising the tree initiative will affect future action, she says:
I think it’s part of what makes me a lot more wary about getting involved in protest kind of actions, because for me, I can’t just rock up and do the thing and then go home and forget about it. It’s not even just the time that you spend at the event, it’s all the time afterwards that you’re kind of dwelling on it. Whether it’s feeling debilitated, or whether at the thing they’ve asked you to do a list of all these other things, like go home and write an email to this person and this person and this person, and do this, this, this…
Lisa finds some social movement approaches antagonistic, which for her is taxing on the individually constituted aspect of her schema that makes her feel secure; she disagrees with some approaches that deploy pressure and guilt within protests and activism, and this challenge to her values pushes her away from more political engagement despite her core beliefs aligning with the climate cause:
I think it’s overwhelming for a lot of people, and that’s why a lot of the response is then to just turn off and do nothing, instead… I think, well, nobody really wants to feel bad and guilty, really. It’s not a nice feeling. People want to feel good, so they’ll just do something else that will make them forget about it.
Lisa had to withdraw from her previous level of political engagement – it was too taxing, indeed ‘overwhelming’ and even ‘debilitating’. We might say she had to protect her dialectical place of action, acting in a way that ensured physical and symbolic security. Lisa’s experience indicates a potential problem if political movements neglect the fibres of interdependence and mutuality that are needed to provide security of place, and overlook the broader complexity of individual security schemas. Political engagement can reinforce, rather than subvert, the feelings of separateness and alienation that come with capitalism if conducted with a linear us/them mentality and guilt-tripping. People will be more likely to engage if they ‘feel good’ or secure. Finding ‘predictable frames’ when one engages politically – feeling safe within that action, encourages engagement. In light of this discussion, such feelings may be more likely if bonds of interdependence and mutuality can be fully applied to the context of political action to provide a sense of security and belonging.
226 Lisa’s experience illustrates the process of individual navigation of encounters with climate change. Though Lisa still acts on climate change, she felt compelled to adjust and somewhat withdraw from her engagement, due to the ‘confronting’, and ultimately alienating experience with activism. Recalling Ahmed’s (2003:388; 2004:25) account of fear and pain delineating and creating distance between bodies, one delineates real or imagined boundaries, ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ areas and actions, which consequently guide intersubjective relations through a subjective perspective. We might say, then, that Lisa could not find outer-world predictable frames that assured a safe trajectory and would allow her to continue to act, so she had to readjust to more reliable ones according to her security schema.
A conclusion can be drawn in the context of the thesis that individual’s approach towards or avoidance/withdrawal from encounters (Roth & Cohen 1986:813) is associated with maintaining security, regulated through judgements from dialectical place, for survival and to be able to pursue the promise of a flourishing meaningful life project. Much of what populates the security schema is constituted by individually and socially constructed symbolic meanings, these meanings developing from ones relation with the physical and social realms. As one acts, the interactive messaging from the eco-socio-cultural web of life conveys feelings of stability and security or instability and insecurity, which determine how the individual next acts to enhance, maintain or restore the security of dialectical place. With a physical place within space, people feel safe when they ‘know where they are’ and safe from exposure rather than ‘separate and alienated in some way’ (Relph 1976:49-51). One’s inner dialectical place involves the same sense of locatedness in a terrain of action, allowing the individual to feel sufficiently secure within it. Contrasting Lenka’s experience with Lisa illustrates these ideas further.
As mentioned, Lenka is actively involved in environmental movements, and supports environmental organisations – ‘the Bentley Effect’ (anti-fracking/Coal-Seam Gas), the Stop Adani movement, Greenpeace. With her husband she dedicates time and material resources to participate. At the start of the interview, Lenka is asked to discuss what she values broadly:
I value friendships. For me, personally, it's very important that I’m part of nature. When I’m in nature, I really feel happy without explanations why and without questions. Also, to have a sense of achievement and to try to do something to pursue your ideas and your intensions and this sense of achievement as well.
Lenka describes a childhood sense of well-being tied with her experiences with nature (the ocean, snow, forests), which always ‘just gives you a sense of happiness’ and changes you
227 through contact with it – ‘I love nature, very, very much’. We may say that the environment is part of her internal value system that renders a feeling of well-being and security. In terms of action on climate change, Lenka desires greater government action, though she puts no faith in the government due to negative past experiences when living under the Bulgarian Communist Party. Contrasting Lisa’s experience with Lenka we see that while Lisa strove to get engaged, she encountered antagonism, struggled to find predictable frames, and felt a gradual dissonance with her life-project, whereas Lenka feels the social bonds, and the action aligns with her overall values and life-project – not only her value of friendship, her connection with nature, but a projected future pathway for her children and the next generation, leaving a legacy as part of an individual project of meaning. In contrast to Lisa, note how Lenka discusses her engagement, both how it accords with her overall project of meaning, and how it nurtures her sense of security:
At least I try to do something. I see it (climate change) and if we lived our lives and will still, it's not going to affect us. But, the way it's going, I’m not sure if – before, we were talking about the grandkids and the generations, it's already coming to this generation. It's not a question of their future, it's a question of if they will have a future.
I could be more engaged. The first thing is that I love nature. We are part of nature and this motivates me. The other thing is the people who are involved in this, a very good part of them, are very intelligent, very interesting people, so, I can learn from them. You feel a good brotherhood. You feel the good energy. You think about your kids and you want them to enjoy nature, the contact with it, trying to preserve it.
Lenka’s action finds meaning within her security schema, the values that are part of her life project of survival and flourishing. Climate change symbolically threatens what she deeply values – it represents injustice against nature, and social and global intergenerational injustice. While Lisa appears to have similar values, her experience of threatened dialectical place dampened her engagement. Lenka’s activism is affirmed via her value of friendship and community, consequently her action aligns with her broader life project of meaning. However, Lenka’s sense of dialectical place is also nurtured; she finds safe ‘predictable frames’ that help her navigate and act, and has an adequately stable place from which to act, unlike Lisa whose platform felt destabilised. Because her ontological security needs are met, Lenka is able to exercise her desire for justice more outwardly. Her action aligns with her life project of meaning, and she is nurtured through ‘fibres’ of connectedness and interdependence – the mutual relations she has with nature and people.
228 Comparisons across the interview participants allow a contrast between a sense of place/security and a sense of destabilised place and increased anxiety, with corresponding effects on individual action. The contrast illustrates action in terms of avoidance or approach, disengagement or engagement. A destabilised dialectical place, as argued, requires a defensive, restabilising effort, which causes the individual to prioritise individual security, which may mean aligning with or complying with systemic demands. Or, when acting on climate change, one may need to alter or modify political engagement according to the material or symbolic effects the encounter represents for one’s security. For some, the symbolism of climate change may engender full engagement and alignment with a project of meaning – protecting and fulfilling one’s causa sui project by either acting to address climate change like Lenka, or acting against climate action, like Jerry.
The interviews illustrate that responses to climate change emerge from the individual’s symbolic interpretation of what climate change represents for the future, namely they are tied to one’s personal capacity to pursue the promise in a project of meaning. As considered in chapter five, Arendt describes promise-making as a means of dealing with the existential anxiety of vulnerability. Misztal (2011:86) continues the discussion on promise-making as a way of securing a future amid uncertainty, noting that shared expectations help lessen vulnerability by reducing unpredictability. Though involving social promise-making, my focus has been on the aspirations and hopes one carries, a form of promise to the self about future goals and pathways to achieve a meaningful flourishing life. Remembering the discussion on processes of constructing a stable world in chapter five, a few more connections can be made. Giddens (1991:42-46) and Berger (1967:19) describe the ontological security gained from predictable frames, and I have progressively described the crucial role a socio-cultural context plays in plotting individual trajectories in relation to survival. When these are connected to a ‘causa sui’ (Becker 1973:36) or life project, which the individual aligns with eco-socio-cultural frames of the outer world, we see that responses are part of a ‘future-oriented commitment’ (Misztal 2011:86) by the individual between the self and the web of life of which one is part, with the goal of plotting a safe trajectory (Benhabib 1992:5; Becker 1973:54; 1975:63) and essentially pursuing the promise.
Recall also Becker’s key idea, that from the first moment of life the individual strives for ‘some kind of indefinite duration’ and turns to culture for ‘the necessary immortality symbols or ideologies; societies can be seen as structures of immortality power’ (Becker 1975:63). Through these socio-cultural systems of morality and meaning the individual gains a buffer against the terror of existence, and the accompanying predictable frames of action. The socio-cultural system then becomes the thing depended upon for affirming and judging a successful life
229 project. With reduced anxiety through establishing meaning and belonging, a sense that one is valuable develops from early childhood into adulthood, in conjunction with society, which gives ‘structure to the formulas for heroic transcendence’, or a successful life project (Becker 1973:1, 11; 1975:154). The individual’s fear and primary concern of survival consequently require action according to what the dominant socio-cultural narrative outlines as a path to success, at least enough to have sufficient ‘stable features of everyday activities’ (Garfinkel 1967:36) to constitute security. On the whole, individual action is accordingly guided by the ostensibly stable, taken-for-granted features of modernity’s narrative infused within the social ‘apparatus’ or network of social arrangements organising life (Foucault 1980b:194-196).
We see the human animal establishing a trajectory based on mutually derived coordinates that interact within the self and are assessed to be life-sustaining due to the coordinates drawn from the outer world. Though there are multiple elements constituting the socio-cultural system the individual draws upon, I have considered that the dominant narrative and its flawed principles have a power to coerce action due to systemic dependence. Importantly, if the individual perceives that the best way to achieve flourishing is by aligning with the principles of a flawed narrative, the individual’s contribution to the dialectical human-to-rest-of-nature relation will match that life-denying narrative. Considering that on a global level, the pursuit of flourishing still relies on modernity’s flawed promise of security, which elevates the pursuit of profit, encourages limitless growth through exploitation, and disregards systemic limits and interdependencies, we may say that the impasse of widespread inaction on climate change stems from the very cause of climate change, namely a flawed understanding of the human-to-rest-of- nature relation upon which the dominant narrative is based, and through which it continues to lead action down a life-denying trajectory.
Though to varying degrees, a narrative of separation and exploitation based on a flawed understanding of the human-to-rest-of-nature relation maintains the individual within the life- denying agonistic relation. This is because any action that deviates from the frame becomes more immediately precarious for the individual’s security, and potentially challenges the individual’s pursuit of the promise. Whether an individual ‘buys’ modernity’s image of success or not (Horkheimer & Adorno 2002:106), the relation between the individual and the systemic parameters designed for the imagined liberal subject compels particular actions – if it is not a car or smartphone that must be bought, then it is packaged products at the supermarket, or a plane ticket, or a computer. These examples are clearly the luxuries of affluent societies, and not necessities per se, but pertain to the constant consumption that neglects interdependence. Key is that in light of pursuing a project of flourishing, doing without them in a system shaped around them can often disadvantage, or seem to disadvantage, a person in such contexts. Thus,
230 modernity’s hollow promise now in capitalism produces, inter alia, the life-denying effects of climate change.
Capitalism’s powerful capacity to shape the terrain of action consequently has implications for the vulnerable individual actor through its structural limiting of action and imagination, and how its destabilising effects resonate with existential fear. The predictable frames human seek for ontological security are destabilised and unpredictable, with a commensurate effect on action. To conclude this discussion and overview of key points, I ask if taking the individual’s need for security and stability of dialectical place and the individual’s pursuit of the promise into account contributes to social movement engagement and efficacy.
9.3 Pursuing the promise supported by fibres of interdependence
In raising the question of social movements, I am introducing a new topic, but an area I think can help yield insights in future research. The imagining of space dialectically opens a discussion regarding individual action as the defence of space, namely as a political act related to the human animal’s capacity to exert influence upon the web of life in life-denying or regenerative and life-sustaining ways. This would involve the ability to apply chosen principles (power) in a given space which can determine the outcomes for that space (Earth). The thesis discussion on dialectical place directly relates to the political aspect of human engagement with the outer world, namely the agonistic struggle over how to treat ‘the commons’. Being a dialectically shaped entity, the individual is part of the human-to-rest-of-nature dialectical relation, and one’s instinct for survival and pursuit of the promise are manifestations of fear and anxiety of uncertainty manifesting through action and affecting the web of life. Note Gramsci’s (1999:682) inclusion of the political aspect of the human animal in this combination, and its potential positive impact:
To transform the external world, the general system of relations, is to potentiate oneself and to develop oneself. That ethical “improvement” is purely individual is an illusion and an error: the synthesis of the elements constituting individuality is “individual”, but it cannot be realised and developed without an activity directed outward, modifying external relations both with nature and, in varying degrees, with other men, in the various social circles in which one lives, up to the greatest relationship of all, which embraces the whole human species. For this reason one can say that man is essentially “political” since it is through the activity of transforming and consciously directing other men that man realises his “humanity”, his “human nature”.
231 For Gramsci, then, a ‘political’ act brings about change by modifying external relations with the web of life. The focus here on the individual raises questions regarding what effect an individual, like Kolya or Peter, Lenka and Loral, has or can have on the web of life. I have already considered that each individual that has contact with the principles that separate what is interdependent contributes in a life-denying way, but of course there are multiple and continuous contributions with both life-sustaining and life-denying outcomes that make up the web of life. Understanding the fundamental presence of fear and anxiety, the individual pursuit of the promise, and the vulnerable individual’s need of secure frames of action and support from interdependent principles of mutuality are all insights that may help to corral individual action into mass action. How so?
The dominance of capitalist frames as the main path to pursue the promise, alongside the disruption of social interconnectedness through principles of atomisation and alienation makes action increasingly precarious, even frightening. Accordingly, even though group action arises, climate action thus far has struggled to coalesce into a force powerful enough to counter the present asymmetric concentration of power in capitalist ordering systems. In considering the Gramscian socialist vision and dedication to fighting oppression, Boggs (2002:78) identifies barriers inhibiting individual action from coalescing into broader societal action, saying:
in a social order where the symbols and images of a corporate-driven media culture permeate mass consciousness, the splintering of local identities coincides with the decline of political opposition. Corporate power winds up only feebly challenged by the scattering of movements which, in the absence of a cohesive social bloc, become easily assimilated into the all-powerful commodity.
This follows the Marxian tradition of highlighting the separating effects of capitalism, which erode individual and group capacities to act. So, while a capital-driven globalised culture of consumption has universal consequences, an issue like climate change remains ‘too remote from people’s daily lives (or at least will be perceived as such) to sustain the needed psychological and social immediacy’ needed to cohere individual into collective action (Boggs 2002:79-80). However, the power of capitalism’s separating principles might be overcome by changing principles of relation. What I am suggesting is a wholesale rejection, as far as possible and transitionally, of exchange processes based on separating principles that individualise and renounce responsibility through externalisation, and an elevation of principles of interdependence like mutuality and care, which can support the needs of individual security and developing interdependent and mutually affirming solidarity.
232 While I cannot thoroughly address social organisation in the form of social movements, the thesis consideration of individual security suggests things that can be considered regarding individual engagement. For instance, at a minimum, cooperation and strategising need to account for the fundamental mediating factors of fear, anxiety and pursuit of the promise, and operationalising principles of interdependence must be at the forefront so as to dull the effectiveness of any atomising principles that affect daily exchange. In a context of undermined interdependencies, for instance, social movements will be less effective if they do not address the condition of alienation (Swain 2012:69). To do this social movements can address the security schema needs of an individual by operationalising interdependent and mutually supportive relations that assure one of security, belonging, and a future pathway.
Below I suggest what could establish and maintain dialectical interdependence between the individual’s dialectical place and social movement contexts. I utilise the experiences of two activists and the social movements they are engaged with: Jean Hinchcliffe from School Strike for the Climate campaigns, and Elly Baxter, communications specialist from Extinction Rebellion, who participated in a panel discussion at The 2019 Nancy Hillier Memorial Lecture, entitled ‘Climate Justice - new community activism’(NHML 2019). Their experiences also reveal an exercise of dialectical place in guiding action, illustrating paths of intersection that can unite individual action to broader social engagement. I also consider the Via Campesina movement to understand strategies to build solidarity by de-coupling from capitalism and apply ‘fibres’ of interdependence within group movements.
9.3.1 Speak to the promise – School Strike for the Climate campaign
The School Strike for the Climate campaigns in the Australian context started small, but has become mainstream. On September 20, 2019, 80,000 people participated in a strike in Sydney, with estimates over 300,000 nation-wide. Its members, school students from cities and towns across Australia, found inspiration in the efforts of Greta Thunberg, and have established a movement to send a message to the nation’s politicians, namely ‘take our futures seriously and treat climate change for what it is – a crisis’ (School Strike 4 Climate 2019). What elements of the School Strike for the Climate campaigns illustrate an implicit or direct acknowledgement of the promise in one’s life? Do we see the operation of fibres of interdependence that provide the stabilising scaffolding the security schema needs to act? Jean Hinchcliffe, a leader of the School Strike for the Climate movement, gives insight into what bonds have established the movement’s strength. Jean (in NHML 2019) illustrates two themes of this thesis which have
233 generated the movement’s growth – felt anxiety regarding threats to the promise of flourishing, and the effects of a sense of injustice:
‘We’re changing the way climate change and the climate crisis is discussed, because for decades now it’s been an issue dominated by scientists, and you see all these reports, these studies and statistics and it doesn’t feel like a real-world issue... It’s really easy to disassociate yourself from it. But when you have young people being the main voices in this conversation, yes, we follow to the science, but what we’re doing is we’re changing it and we’re saying, this is how it is going to impact me…I think I’ll be 26 when the twelve years we had to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis will be over. And, at that point, I’m at the very beginning of my life still, I will be experiencing enormous droughts, bushfires bigger than what we’re seeing at the moment, we’ll be seeing flooding, will be seeing food shortages, all these major issues.
We’re able to frame it as this real-world human issue instead of being a graph, or instead of being this is how much sea levels will rise, or these are how many species will go extinct. Because that doesn’t feel urgent, it doesn’t feel pressing, we’re really relating to the emotional side, and I think it’s really helping a lot in increasing the urgency of this.
Jean speaks to the difficulty of communicating something as scientifically complex as climate change in a way that carries its importance directly into the personal space. By making it a tangible threat that affects people’s immediate security, the movement cuts through layers of obscurity and doubt. As Jean recounts how climate change threatens her expectation of flourishing at ‘the beginning of [her] life’, she sees the injustice it will bring. The issue is shifted from the distant scientific realm and brought into the immediate, personal realm. Recalling Indigenous notions of interconnectedness and interdependence discussed in chapter two, an ‘essential relationship’ (PTTIACHR 2005:18) between the environment and her own life is ‘felt’, linked to the emotion of fear, and associated emotions of loss, sadness, grief, and anger. These emotions destabilise her dialectical place. They emphasise urgency, directly touching a broader audience, who relate the threat to their own promise of a flourishing life, and feel the injustice it will bring.
When asked what it takes to get a ‘non-activist identified person’ to the point where they actually consistently engage in the social movement, Jean (in NHML 2019) outlines what had proven effective; the first is momentum that creates group belonging:
234 It’s a combination of things. Firstly, when you have things like the strikes. Because the first one was more like ‘kids who really care about climate change, and then from there it has become more and more mainstream, to the point where on September 20 we had 80,000 people in the Domain, …these aren’t people who are already activists, for so many people it was their first ever protest or their first ever march. And I think having these enormous mobilisations, having people come along firstly, I think that helps, because just sort of knowing, ok, this is what this world is, this is what I could potentially get involved in. And then, I think the organisations themselves have a bit of a duty for running educational sessions’.
School Strike held two-day training camps in collaboration with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) during summer holidays. Participants engaged in activities (e.g. clean-up drives at parks/beaches) via small groups, which was a fun and relaxed way to develop connections – Jean (in NHML 2019) says: ‘It is our job to help facilitate that, and find ways that people can really easily get involved, otherwise it always becomes this thing that is too daunting and is really difficult’. This describes a feeling of security and belonging that can arise when bonds of interdependence are nurtured. Seeing others engage assures the individual they will not be alone, that they can find connections within the movement. Training sessions equip individuals with practical skills that provide inner resources and resilience, and with networks where social bonds provide security of belonging and association. Allowing bonds to develop can overcome the anxiety of meeting an unknown ‘other’ (Bauman 1990:55). Group activities relieve anxiety not just through delineating boundaries, but by establishing parameters of security, clear scaffolding within which qualities of interdependence like mutuality, recognition, and dignity, can freely operate.
The example illustrates that by facilitating moments where people can ‘really easily get involved’ and can build common bonds, the barrier of anxiety about engagement is removed. It is an example of removing anxiety that comes from unclear pathways and a lack of ‘predictable frames’ of action, and instead externally bolstering the security of dialectical place. Principles of interdependence thus alleviate existential anxieties and create a pathway through predictable frames providing ontological security that supports action. Do we see similarities or differences in Extinction rebellion?
235 9.3.2 Speak to the individual – Extinction Rebellion (XR)
Extinction Rebellion (XR) originated in London in October 2018. It is ‘a politically non- partisan international movement that uses non-violent direct action to persuade governments to act justly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency’ (XR 2020). It has recently expanded to Australia after a successful London campaign in April 2019 elicited a bipartisan declaration of a Climate Emergency in the British parliament. XR bases their actions on research by Erica Chenoweth, (Stephan & Chenoweth 2008; Chenoweth & Stephan 2011; Chenoweth 2015) whose work, though focused on less than liberal democracies, found that when 3.5% of organised civilian populations are engaged in sustained civil disobedience they always succeeded. XR calls for immediate government action that recognises the climate emergency, and they seek to get decision-making processes out of government hands and into the hands of the people (XR 2019).
The actions conducted by XR are at a higher intensity of engagement, using civil disobedience to compel governments into acting on climate change before humans exceed safe operating parameters. One blockade in Melbourne in October 2019 caused CBD disruption and led to 59 arrests. However, of note are some of the organisational approaches that insert principles of interdependence into group operations. Elly’s (in NHML 2019) account of how she first joined XR illustrates the relation between security of dialectical place and engagement:
I joined the Facebook page; didn’t really know much about it, and then I sort of caught someone saying ‘hey, does anyone want to join the media and messaging group, and I was like ‘yeah, I work in media and messaging, I’ve been doing that for most of my career, I can do that’, so I think what’s great about XR is whatever your interest is, be it your professional interest or your hobby, there’s a place for you. If you want to join a choir, if you want to join the arts group, if you want to be in Re-Gen, if you want to be in Talks and Training, there’s so many different options. You can be in IT, you can be in finance… but there’s so many different ways in, and yeah, as I said it can be about your career, it can be about your hobby, it can just be about something you want to learn more about, and finding that way where it’s something you really want to be doing. We don’t want people there grudgingly, we want you to be there because you’re lit up by it and you’re doing something that you find really inspiring, and you’re learning something new, or developing your skills.’
236 XR’s arrangements for engagement allow individuals to pursue a personal project of meaning. This aligns people’s skills and interests with the idea of engagement. One engages through things that are within the scope of individual resources, but that also align with the person’s trajectory. People are consequently ‘lit up’ by engaging, and feel that ‘there’s a place’ for them. Such belonging and sense of meaning is empowering. However, Elly further notes that XR facilitates engagement by being ‘a decentralised self-organising system, which basically means, if you want something to happen you do it and you find other people to help you’, and as long as you abide by XR principles, ‘it’s extraordinarily open’. Engagement with XR is thus left to an individual’s primary motivation, and if one is motivated and their core values align, it is open for someone to engage and find a core group with whom to act. I do wonder if this individualised aspect would be strengthened by applying more principles of interdependence that would generate greater cohesion in each protest. However, XR does support protest actions with important scaffolding of interdependent care in the form of the ‘Regenerative Culture group’. This internal arrangement supports people who engage in individual actions that are taxing physically and emotionally (sit-ins, blockades, naked protests) through physical and emotional support, which is essentially interdependent mutual care. Members receive regular reassurance and solidarity, especially in moments of high stress, which helps the individual maintain a stable dialectical place of action.
Additionally, individuals see a pathway, a route for an individual to follow and fulfil an individual project of meaning, with a vision that replaces the hollow promise the current narrative offers. Elly talks about the core value of having a regenerative culture, which is about ‘creating a vision of the culture we want in the future, and how the climate movement can be part of creating what will be the new system, that grows out of whatever’s left of this system once we hopefully get through the crisis.’ This vital part of encouraging engagement provides a vision, a new narrative of a collective future. It is building a clear vision of transition and one can see the means they individually have to pursue the promise within it. Are there any other examples of how capitalism’s hollow version of the promise can be replaced right now? Consider the Via Campesina movement.
9.3.3 De-couple from capitalism and apply interdependence – Via
Campesina
The Via Campesina food sovereignty movement was founded by a group of farmers’ representatives – women and men – from four continents, in 1993, Mons, Belgium. It is ‘an autonomous, pluralist, multicultural movement, political in its demand for social justice while
237 being independent from any political party, economic or other type of affiliation’, and now comprises 182 local and national organisations in 81 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas’, representing about 200 million farmers fighting for the right to define their one agricultural and food policy (La Via Campesina 2020). It is a project fighting people’s rights that has bypassed some of the structural entanglements of capitalism. The movement appeared through self-directed rural organisations and peasantries organising themselves ‘in a sophisticated, transnational way to respond to the neoliberal phase of late capitalism’ (Martínez- Torres & Rosset 2010:149). Recalling the discussion in chapter two, its success comes from operationalising human rights ‘fibres’ of interdependence in its ‘struggle against capitalism and neoliberalism in agriculture’ (Claeys 2014:79). For example, the movement employs collective and rotating leadership, encourages representation of peasant voices, and provides training on how to utilise the available instruments of social mobilisation (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010:156-157).
Further, it practices an ethos of mutuality within its organisational structures, offering an ‘alternative paradigm to frame issues about food and agriculture’ by replacing a capitalist discourse with one of rights (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010:159-160). Fundamentally, the Via Campesina movement enacts an alternative socio-cultural set of ‘common understandings’ based on interdependent relation. By identifying mutually supportive principles within human rights discourses, it is able to integrate them within its communal approach, actively attempting ‘to incite context-specific transformation within a context of universal (and defensibly humanist) principles of dignity, individual and community sovereignty, and self-determination’ (Patel in Martínez-Torres & Rosset 2010:161).
In other words, the movement’s success comes, inter alia, by applying principles of interdependent mutuality rather than atomising principles of capitalism. These dialectical, communal forms of exchange are mutually supportive and provide the kind of socio-cultural signalling that indicates a place of safety and belonging. They remain ‘independent of governments, funders, political parties, NGOs, and non-peasant special interests’ (Martínez- Torres and Rosset 2010:171), which helps to avoid entanglement with the embedded separating principles and structures that can potentially disrupt effective operations. The Via Campesina movement illustrates a restabilising of stable bases of action through interdependence. It counters the neoliberal rollback of social supports and protections now eroding social contract supports in many Western and non-Western countries, thus countering the principles causing the vulnerability that places millions in a more constant condition of insecurity and social precarity that make engagement on issues like climate change challenging (Knight 2016:103- 104,108).
238
School Strikes for Climate, Extinction Rebellion and the Via Campesina movement each illustrate the importance of an individual’s dialectical place being able to link with a stable network with which to engage, one that provides predictable frames that can then dialectically support the ontological security needs of the individual. Security is a key asset, a condition within the dialectical relation that provides adequate grounding for one to navigate and move progressively forward toward the goal of a ‘good’ flourishing life (Standing 2011:10). While conditions of instability emerge from various sources, social movements can reject a narrative of separation and create conditions that provide ease of entry and security. To encourage engagement, groups must counter increasingly unstable conditions that are part of ‘the “negatively globalized” planet’ (Bauman 2006:98) dominated by capitalism. This brief survey of the above approaches illustrates how awareness of fear, the need for security and pursuit of the promise can manifest in operationalised forms of mutuality.
At present, the web-of-life dialectical relation continues to trend towards life-denying outcomes like climate change, and individual action is failing to coalesce into broader action despite a preponderant desire for change. The chapter illustrates why seeing the primary drives of the human animal and incorporating the needed stabilising elements to strengthen dialectical place, may assist the individual in joining broad-based collectives to induce change. In this way, the anxiety of the vulnerable subject is reduced, and alienation is alleviated by re-establishing bonds of interconnectedness that form predictable frames for action.
I suggest that a conceptual base acknowledging the complex security needs of individual life projects needs be part of the fibre of organising processes if democratic, deliberative exchanges are to have mutually life-sustaining standards of action (Benhabib 2007:31). Specifically, a foundation acknowledging that everyone pursues the promise of flourishing and meaningful life project, but also that everyone needs sufficient predictable frames and supportive ‘scaffolding’ to feel ontological security within dialectical place so that they can better engage and sustain that engagement. In the conclusion, I shall speculate on the dominant narrative being replaced with an alternate vision, the implications of the promise and dialectical place, and future areas of research that are implied from the ideas considered.
239 Conclusion Pursuing the promise with a new (though ancient) vision of security
In my introduction I hypothesised that the impasse of widespread inaction on climate change stems from the very cause of climate change, namely a flawed understanding of the human-to- rest-of-nature relation. Testing this hypothesis has involved three key ideas. First, that the flawed understanding that emerged from modernity and the enlightenment has destabilised living systems. The humans-over-nature narrative, explored in chapters three and four, was contrasted with the humans-in-nature narrative in chapter two. Modernity promises security and flourishing through human-centred principles of instrumental rationality, self-interest, and aggressive pursuit of profit through limitless growth, yet we see that modernity’s promise of security through control has, on the contrary, powerfully mediated exchanges in a way that has gradually destabilised web-of-life interdependencies and resiliencies to produce the crisis of climate change. Its promise contrasts with the humans-in-nature narrative, which involves principles of mutualistic interdependence and interconnectedness that fulfill the promise of security by consistently providing the relative stability humans need to flourish. The dominance of the humans-over-nature narrative, still thriving in capitalism and neoliberal governance, means that a narrative of security through principles of interdependence is inhibited from effectively reordering exchanges to address the predicament of climate change.
A second idea in testing the hypothesis involves considering motivations that emerge from human vulnerability to envision the human animal’s involvement in the dialectical exchanges constituting the web of life. Chapter five hence outlined the protagonist in focus, the vulnerable individual who must constantly manage existential fear and anxiety associated with the ever- present threat of death, while also pursuing aspirations of a flourishing and meaningful life- project, encapsulated in the idea of the promise. The individual’s vulnerability was explored in light of modernity’s promise to illustrate the tension that arises because of a relational dependence on the outer world for security. The individual seeks predictable frames to pursue a secure path that both ensures survival and provides a trajectory towards fulfilling an individual project, but does this in a compromised terrain where the humans-over-nature narrative promises security while its principles destabilise living and social systems. This situation makes general action more precarious, drains spatio-temporal resources so that the individual must
240 make every effort just to maintain a sufficient level of security for their own project.
This leads to the third idea in testing the hypothesis, namely considering why action on climate change has stalled even though it is clear that human behaviour is inducing it. Examples drawn from the Australian case study, and small but meaningful interview sample, illustrate that regardless of one’s position (acceptance or denial) on climate change, an encounter with it symbolically triggers the individual’s value judgments and security needs, and the encounter with climate change is measured in light of its symbolic meaning to the individual’s security, survival and pursuit of the promise. This implies that an encounter with the scientific reality of climate change will not necessarily equate with what those facts mean; it will equate, instead, with what the encounter symbolically means for the individual’s life project. If one’s security needs are threatened, one may reject facts, though not necessarily if its symbolism can be aligned with the individual’s project of meaning. In each scenario, however, the dependent relation with the outer world means the individual must ensure security to survive materially or symbolically. Accordingly, action bends to the dominant narrative’s demands, which structurally condition action for an imagined liberal subject, not a vulnerable one. Thus, human anxiety and fear, along with a pursuit of security and the promise of flourishing, can be seen as also mediating exchanges with the eco-socio-cultural outer world. That is, these human traits associated with ensuring survival mix with flawed principles, informing exchanges between the individual’s inner world, which seeks security, and the outer world that potentially offers it. Action is thus pushed in a life-denying trajectory, continuing to undermine the interrelated web of life in ‘an endless maze of relations and interactions’ (Ollman 1971:53).
In sum, I have set out evidence that the human animal’s effect on the agonistic web-of-life struggle comes from the need of security for material and symbolic self-preservation. The evidence has involved engaging with Marx’s insight regarding capitalism’s disruption of metabolic bonds of an organic whole and alienation through the individual’s loss of control over daily activities and bonds. Further, critical theory’s capitalist critique extends Marx’s observations, providing vital considerations of the historical, structural impositions and systemic pressures affecting the individual, which revolve around a human-centred and fundamentally separating, atomising and alienating system of exchange. I engaged with sociological thought for insights into socio-cultural influences on those exchanges, and the individual’s need for a predictable and ordered outer world to feel secure. Conversely social psychology provided insight into individual behaviours when confronting an issue like climate change, in terms of protecting immediate and broader security interests, though social psychology broadly eschews the outer-world influences on these decisions and behaviours. Building on these fields with key contributions from Ernest Becker, this thesis has presented a
241 preliminary model that puts them within the broader context of an individual life-project, and can integrate the outer and inner world approaches. The concept of the promise and the security schema of dialectical place as a centre of felt value help visualise a relational model that adds weight to the individual motivation. Putting these concepts in discussion with the flawed promise of modernity we see a relational struggle underway based on the fundamental need for security in the pursuit of material or symbolic survival. It explains how individual action, by being dependent on the outer world, has a direct hand in creating climate change, and the same dependence also helps explain why individual action labours to coalesce into group action.
These conclusions ought to be considered in light of the thesis limits. The introductory nature of the dialectical place model and the concept of the promise, and the scope of the fields they cover, has meant that I have often had to approach the complexities they imply on a general level. For instance, I could only investigate to a limited extent the variable scope of individual action, or how modernity’s promise and its principles play out in non-Western nations or nations where governance based on capitalist exchange follows less of a neoliberal path. Further, while climate change raises important questions around the idea of justice that find expression through the individual security schema, I was unable to extensively address justice in relation to the striving for security from dialectical place. If we assume ‘that the capacity for a sense of justice is possessed by the overwhelming majority of mankind’ (Mikhail 2011:297; Rawls 1971:180), then justice moves beyond narrow political domains. Justice is enacted individually, an exercise of one’s right to their place on Earth. How justice functions as part of dialectical place, namely the relation between the inner reflex for self-preservation and how it is enacted socially through paradigms of justice as an exercise of innate politics, is a promising area of research I intend to pursue.
Another related area I was unable to pursue in depth is the question of alienation that is strongly tied to disruption of social metabolism that Marx powerfully reveals. There are strong similarities between alienation and a sense of ‘placelessness’ (Relph 1976:21) that could reveal how not feeling located securely in the world stifles individual action until predictability, stability and belonging can be achieved . Related to feeling secure in the broader web of life are the effects of a contemporary media terrain on the individual’s inner world, which again my thesis was limited in its capacity to explore. The chaotic informational environment that the individual now confronts makes understanding issues like climate change, COVID-19, cyber privacy and security, just to name a few, increasingly complex. The relentless flow of information can make the vulnerable individual, who constantly pursues security due to existential anxiety, susceptible to manipulation or at least further burdened in knowing how to act decisively. I see the concept of the promise and the dialectical place model as powerful tools
242 to examine individual action on issues that evoke existential anxiety, namely as a broader common foundation that allows the analyst to treat the core issue that manifests in the symbolism of individual and group encounters. A mask to protect against COVID-19 is not a threat to security, but it does represent a threat to group belonging and meaningful worldviews that deliver security; a shift to renewable energy is equally not a threat, but represents an attack on near-sacred symbols of security like coal, and this appears as threat to security and the promise itself.
A persistent hurdle in changing the current life-denying relation producing climate change is the fracturing of energies that the contemporary capitalist system effectively sustains through its capacity to separate what is in relation. I thus adopted a dialectical and spatial view to initiate a new conversation around what it means to think differently about individual/social relation and exchange. Interdependence, which is now scientifically founded and demonstrably life- sustaining, is embodied within the understanding of a dialectical relation displaying broad evolutionary success in the struggle for life (Marx 1979:283; Foster, Clark & York 2010:75; Moore 2015:22,76). I thus deliberately considered a narrative of interdependence and mutuality to emphasise the alternate vision of exchange that ought to be elevated and dominate daily material, socio-cultural and ‘political’ orders. However, principles of interdependence are not at the forefront of exchange. An individual who wants to be able to realise the promise of flourishing is largely dependent on the embedded structures and hollow promise of success in the outer world they engage with dialectically. In this light, the dominant narrative hitherto discussed continues to determine action by constricting or directing it. The narrative frames action in a particular way, placing the contemporary individual in a conundrum until the entire value system or ‘narrative’ is changed.
Thus a further limitation of the thesis was to adequately think about how to operationalise principles of interdependence like mutuality, precaution, care, respect and dignity. While all these principles are operant in daily affairs, and indeed are the ‘glue’ that binds the eco-socio- cultural world, the humans-in-nature narrative fails to overcome the dominance of the humans- over-nature narrative, and because it is not coherently articulated it struggles to support and sustain counter-movements against the onslaught of capitalism’s atomising principles. Future research should extrapolate from already existing models of interdependent action, within for instance Indigenous forms of relation, which manifest a greater incorporation of interdependency principles in their relations with lived environments, and are guided by immediacy and responsiveness (Callison 2014:46). These non-Western ethical frames are instructive in understanding ways of exchange that adapt and change according to communal needs and thus through interdependent mutuality. Foster et al. (2010:399) suggest that
243 Indigenous notions can be part of a multifaceted approach to ‘new ways of building an economy and interacting with nature, based on socialist and Indigenous principles, in which we “accumulate no more,” while at the same time improving the human condition’.
Indeed, as illustrated in chapter two, Indigenous forms of relation are just one source of inspiration – in fact the power of interdependence is seen every day in those who fight for human rights, workers’ rights, and social justice, not to mention the academic fields dealing with social relations. These latent fibres must come to the fore. By considering knowledge that goes beyond ‘hard data’ we potentially capture the invisible nuance of interconnectedness, the threads that are joined and felt as a dynamic interplay occurs. If such research is linked to the individual dialectical place and understood in light of how it impacts the dialectical relation, it may be possible to shift human trajectories towards more life-sustaining outcomes.
My priority was to consider what affects individual action because I see the capacity to bring individual power into mass collective action on climate change as the sole means to force change. The thesis provides a foundation to understand the exercise of individual and group against hegemonic power in greater depth. It has the potential to find nuances regarding what political leadership choices individuals make, or the public failure to challenge corporate tyranny, for instance. In contexts of collective action, the thesis begins a discussion on what it means to provide the supportive scaffolding of material/literal and immaterial/felt bonds of interdependence – mutual mental, emotional, psychological support, belonging, recognition and dignity, or practical financial/material support, and so on. These need to be obvious, prominent, and easily accessible so that the outer world speaks to the inner individual dialectical place and says, ‘it is safe here, join us’. Indeed, principles of interdependence need to become dominant in every human exchange within the web of life, according to the dictates of a life-sustaining trajectory as far as humans can determine. How to develop an alternative narrative that is part of everyday parlance and exchange is an important area for future research, namely an operationalisation of interdependence that prioritises principles of mutuality and structurally embeds them to become the driving value system that can lead dialectical exchange back to a life-sustaining trajectory.
Until then and because of this lack, individual action remains within a humans-over-nature narrative and consequently has a cumulative effect as the individual diffuses capitalist principles globally, undermining the very fibres of interdependence that would otherwise provide the secure and stable living conditions needed for survival. To overcome the impending crisis of climate change, human practice must align with the reality of interdependence and reject the life-denying narrative that undermines it.
244 References
Aasen, M. (2015) ‘The polarization of public concern about climate change in Norway’, Climate Policy, online article, available at DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1094727
Abercrombie, N. Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2006) The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, 5th edn., Penguin Books
Aczel, M. & Makuch, K.E. (2017) ‘Environmental Impact Assessments and Hydraulic Fracturing: Lessons from Two U.S. States’, Case Studies in the Environment, pp.1-11
Adger, W.N. (2006) ‘Vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change, vol.16, pp.268-281
Adorno, T. (1967) ‘Sociology and Psychology Part I’, New Left Review vol.1, no.46, available at https://newleftreview.org/issues/I46/articles/theodor-adorno-sociology-and- psychology-part-i accessed 22/1/20
Aguiton, C. (2017) ‘The commons’ in Solón, P. (ed), Systemic Alternatives, Fundación Solón, France pp.77-100
Ahmed, S. (2003) ‘The politics of fear in the making of worlds’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol.16, no.3, pp.377-398
Ahmed, S. (2004) The cultural politics of emotion, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
Aikawa-Faure, N. (2009) ‘From the proclamation of masterpieces to the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage’ in Smith, L. & Akagawa, N. (eds) Intangible Heritage, Routledge, London/NY, pp.13-44
Akin, H. (2017) ‘Digital challenges to democracy: politics of automation, attention, and engagement’, Journal of International Affairs, vol.71, no.1, pp.127-146
Albert, S. et al. (2016) ‘Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands’, Environmental Research Letters, vol.11, 054011, available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011/pdf
Allard, D.W. (1996) ‘Schoolyard symbiosis’, Science Scope, vol.20, no.3, pp.42-44
Anaya Muñoz, A. (2017) ‘International human rights regimes, SUR 25, vol.14, no.25, pp.171-188, available at: https://sur.conectas.org/en/international-human-rights-regimes- matrix-analysis-classification/ accessed 26/3/19
Anderson, J. (2013) ‘Autonomy and vulnerability entwined’ in Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. & Dodds, S. ‘Introduction’, in Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. & Dodds, S. Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Andrews, S. et al. (2016), ‘Contingent academic employment in Australian universities’, LH Martin Institute, available at: https://melbourne- cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2564262/2016-contingent-academic- employment-in-australian-universities-updatedapr16.pdf accessed 2/6/2020
Angus, I. (2016) ‘In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic’,
245 Climate & Capitalism, available at: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in- defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ accessed 20/4/2020
Appadurai, A. (2004) ‘The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition’, in Rao, V. & Walton, M. (eds), Culture and public action, Stanford University Press, California
Aran-Ramspott, S. et al. (2018) ‘Youtubers' social functions and their influence on pre-adolescence’, Comunicar, Media Education Research Journal, vol.26, no.57, pp.71-79
Arendt, H. (1958) The human condition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998
Arendt, H. (2005) The Promise of Politics, Schocken, New York
Aristotle (1996) The Nicomachean Ethics, Griffith, T. (ed), Wordsworth Editions Limited, Hertfordshire
Armon-Jones, C. (1986) ‘The Social Functions of Emotions’ in The Social Construction of Emotions, Harré, R (ed), Basil Blackwell Ltd, UK
Ashton, T.S. (1960) The industrial revolution: 1760-1830, Oxford University Press, NY
Aubusson, A. & Gladstone, N. (2019) ‘NSW bushfires: 'Apocalyptic' health effects of Sydney's toxic air’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-bushfires-apocalyptic-health-effects-of- sydney-s-toxic-air-20191211-p53ixc.html accessed 14/12/19
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) (2019) ‘Adani gets final environmental approval for Carmichael mine’, ABC News, available at: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-06- 13/adani-carmichael-coal-mine-approved-water-management-galilee/11203208 accessed 21/10/2019
Australian Government (2016), 2016 Defence White Paper, Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia
Australian Government (2018) Long-term Reef Monitoring Program - Annual Summary Report on coral reef condition for 2017/18, Australian Institute of Marine Science, available at: https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2017-2018 accessed 5/6/2018
Ayers, C.J. (2012) ‘The international trade in conflict minerals: coltan’, Critical Perspectives On International Business, Position Paper, vol.8, no.2, pp.178-193
Bacon, F. (1620) Novum Organon, available at http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm accessed 26/1/2020
Baker, S.E. and Edwards, R. (2012) ‘How many qualitative interviews is enough?’, Discussion paper, NCRM, Southampton
Baldwin, G. (2001) ‘Individual and Self in the Late Renaissance’, The Historical Journal, vol.44, no.2, pp.341-364
Ball, K. (2016) ‘All-consuming surveillance: surveillance as marketplace icon’, Consumption Markets & Culture, vol.20, no.2, pp.95-100
246
Banerjee, S.B. (2012) ‘A climate for change? Critical reflections on the Durban United Nations Climate Change Conference’, Organization Studies, vol.33, no.12, pp.1761-1786
Banerji, A. (2019) ‘How Greta Thunberg mobilised millions to act on climate emergency in just a year’, Firstpost, available at: https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/how- greta-thunberg-mobilised-millions-to-act-on-climate-emergency-in-just-a-year- 7200831.html?fbclid=IwAR1G9B6srfg02zgm-tih1RHWZlIB1uBkk- tDTMQF9f_86uFZJ_z498rA84U accessed 23/8/19
Barbalet, J.M. (2001) Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Barrie, C. et al. (2015) ‘Be prepared: Climate change, security and Australia’s defence force’, Climate Council of Australia, Australia
Baum, F. et al. (2016) ‘Comprehensive primary health care under neo-liberalism in Australia’ Social Sciences & Medicine, vol.168, pp.43-52
Bauman, Z. (1991) Modernity and ambivalence, Polity Press, UK
Bauman, Z. (2006) Liquid Fear, Polity Press, UK
Bauman, Z. & May, T. (1990) Thinking Sociologically, Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Bawden, T. (2016) ‘COP21: Paris deal far too weak to prevent devastating climate change, academics warn’, Independent, available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cop21-paris- deal-far-too- weak-to-prevent-devastating-climate-change-academics-warn-a6803096.html accessed 8/1/2016
Beck, U. (1992) Risk society, Sage Publications, London
Beck, U. (2009) World at risk, Polity Press, UK
Becker, E. (1971) The birth and death of meaning, 2nd edn., The Free Press, NY
Becker, E. (1973) The denial of death, Reprint, Free Press Paperbacks, NY 1997
Becker, E. (1975) Escape from evil, The Free Press, NY
Beever, J. & Morar, N. (2017) ‘Interconnectedness and interdependence: Challenges for public health ethics’, The American Journal of Bioethics, vol.17, no.9, pp.19-21
Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self, Routledge, New York
Benhabib, S. (2007) 'Twilight of sovereignty or the emergence of cosmopolitan norms? Rethinking citizenship in volatile times', Citizenship Studies, vol.11, no.1, pp.19-36
Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things, Durham
Berger, P. (1967) The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociology of Religion, Doubleday & Company Inc., New York
Berger, L.P. & Luckmann, T. (1967) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
247 sociology of knowledge, Anchor books, NY
Berman, M. (1988) All that is solid melts into air: the experience of modernity, Penguin Books, New York
Bernstein, E. (1963) Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution, Schocken Books, NY
Block, F.L. (1990) Postindustrial possibilities: A critique of economic discourse, University of California Press, California
Boggs, C. (2002) ‘What Gramsci means today’ in Dowd, D. (ed), Understanding Capitalism: Critical Analysis from Karl Marx to Amartya Sen, Pluto Press, London pp.57-81
Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, È. (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism, Verso, London
Bornstein, J. (2018) ‘Fractured work’ in Stanford, J. et al. (eds.) The wages crisis in Australia, University Press of Adelaide, Adelaide, pp.159-172
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, London, 2012
Bourdieu, P. (2005) ‘Habitus’, in Hillier, J. & Rooksby, E. (eds), Habitus: A sense of place, Ashgate, UK
Bourne, G. et al. (2018) Australia’s Rising Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Council of Australia, Australia
Boussalis, C & Coan, T.G., 2016, ‘Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt’, Global Environmental Change, vol.36, pp.89-100
Boykoff, M.T. & Boykoff, J.M. (2004) ‘Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press’, Global Environmental Change, vol.14, pp.125-136
Boykoff, M.T. & Boykoff, J.M. (2007) ‘Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage, Geoforum, vol.38, no.6, pp.1190-1204
Boykoff, M.T. and Roberts, J.T. (2007) ‘Media coverage of climate change: Current trends, strengths, weaknesses’, United Nations Development Programme; Human Development Report 2007, Background Paper, pp.1-54
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol.3, no.2, pp.77-101
Braund, M. & Ashcroft, R. (2012) Four Horsemen: The Survival Manual – Understand How the World Really Works…, Motherlode, UK
Brisman, A. (2011) ‘Stockholm Conference, 1972’, in Chatterjee, D.K. (ed) Encyclopaedia of Global Justice, Springer, Dordrecht
Broadbent, L. (1993) ‘Backyard on the front page: The case of Nicaragua’, in Eldridge, J. (ed), Getting the Message: News, truth and power, Routledge, London, pp.145-180
Browne, C. (2017) Critical Social Theory, SAGE Publications, LA
Bruin, W.B. De & Morgan, M.G. (2019) ‘Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to
248 inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts’, PNAS, vol. 116, no.16, pp.7676–7683
Bruni, C.M. & Schultz, P.W. (2010) ‘Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol.30, pp.95-102
Burckhardt, J. (1878) The civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Middlemore, S.G.C. (trans.), Project Gutenberg, available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/
Burman, E. and Parker, I. (eds.) (1993) Discourse analytic research: repertoires and readings of texts in action, Routledge, UK
Burragubba, A. (2019) ‘We are not just on the frontline... we are the frontline’, Email correspondence, Wangan Jagalingou Council
Butler, J. (2004) Precarious Life: the Powers of Mourning and Violence, Verso, London
Cairnduff, A. et al. (2018) ‘Young Australians and the disrupted economy’ in Stanford, J. et al. (eds.) The wages crisis in Australia, University Press of Adelaide, Adelaide, pp.251-262
Cajete, G. (2000) Native Science: Natural laws of interdependence, Clear Light Publishers, Sante Fe, New Mexico
Callander et al. (2019) ‘Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure in Australia: trends, inequalities and the impact on household living standards in a high-income country with a universal health care system’, Health Economics Review, vol. 9, no.10, pp.1-8
Callison, C. (2014) How climate change comes to matter, Duke University Press, London
Cann, H.W. & Raymond, L. (2018) ‘Does climate denialism still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in opposition to climate policy’, Environmental Politics, vol.27, no.3, pp.433-454
Capra, F. (1983) The Turning Point, Flamingo, London
Capra, F. (1995) ‘Deep Ecology: A new paradigm’ in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Sessions, G (ed), Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston
Carnegie, A. (1920) Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, Van Dyke, J.C. (ed) Northeastern University Press, Boston: 1986
Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring, Penguin Books, England
Carter, N. (2014) ‘The politics of climate change in the UK’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol.5, no.3, pp.423–433
Carter, L. & Ross, A. (2018) ‘Revealed: BP and gambling interests fund secretive free market think tank’, Unearthed, available at: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/30/bp- funding-institute-of-economic-affairs-gambling/ accessed 22/10/2019
Carter, N. and Clements, B. (2015) ‘From “greenest government ever” to “get rid of all the green crap”: David Cameron, the Conservatives and the environment’, British Politics, vol.10, pp.204-225
249 Ceballos, G. et al. (2017) ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’, PNAS, pp.6089-6096
Chalari, A. (2017) The sociology of the individual, Sage, LA
Chan, G. (2019) ‘Shenhua coalmine planning works “could desecrate Indigenous sacred sites”’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/jan/27/shenhua-coalmine-planning-works-could-desecrate-indigenous- sacred- sites?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTAxMjc%3 D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics&CMP= aupolitics_email accessed 27/1/19
Charmaz, K. (2005) ‘Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice Studies’ in Denzin, N. & Lyncoln, Y. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn., Sage Publications, London, pp.507-538
Checks & Balances Project, (2012) ‘Media analysis of fossil fuel-funded organizations in major publications’, available at: https://checksandbalancesproject.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fossilfuelsonthefrontpag e1.pdf
Cheng, L. et al. (2020) ‘Record-setting ocean warmth continued in 2019’, Advances In Atmospheric Sciences, vol.37, pp.137-142
Chenoweth, E. (2015) ‘Political Mobilization and Institutions’ in Gandhi, J. & Ruiz-Rufino, R. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Comparative Political Institutions, Routledge, UK
Chenoweth, E., and Stephan, M. (2011) Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Columbia University Press, ProQuest Ebook Central, available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unsw/detail.action?docID=908815
Chomsky, N. (2017) Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power, Seven Stories Press, NY
Claeys, P. (2014) ‘Vía Campesina’s Struggle for the Right to Food Sovereignty: From Above or from Below?’ in Lambek, N. et al. (eds), Rethinking Food Systems, Springer, Dordrecht, pp.29–38
Clark, D. (2012) ‘Revealed: How fossil fuel reserves match UN climate negotiating positions’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/16/fossil-fuel-reserves-un- climate-negotiating?newsfeed=true accessed 25/2/19
Climate Action Tracker (2020) ‘Australia: Country Summary’, 2020 Climate Action Tracker, available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/ accessed 25/4/2020
Climate Transparency (2019) Brown to Green: The G20 transition towards a net-zero emissions economy, Climate Transparency, Germany
Cohen, F. & Solomon, S. (2011) ‘The Politics of Mortal Terror’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol.20, no.5, pp.316-320
Colebatch, T. (2017) ‘Old coal, no new gas: how to generate an electricity crisis’, Inside Story,
250 available at: http://insidestory.org.au/old-coal-no-new-gas-how-to-generate-an- electricity-crisis/ accessed 25/7/18
Cook, J. et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’, Environmental Research Letters, vol.8, pp.1-7
Cook, J. et al. (2016) ‘Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human- caused global warming’, Environmental Research Letters, vol.11, pp.1-7
Coole, D. & Frost, S. (2010) The New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics, Durham
Corbyn, J. et al. (2019) ‘Do UK politicians support the climate strike? Party leaders respond’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/uk-politicians-climate- change-party-youth-strikers accessed 15/3/19
Corner, A. et al. (2014) ‘Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values’, WIREs Climate Change, vol.4, pp.411-422
Cox, L. (2018) ‘'Australia doesn’t realise’: worsening drought pushes farmers to the brink, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/10/australia-doesnt-realise- worsening-drought-pushes-farmers-to-the-brink accessed 10/6/2018
Cox, L. & Remeikis, A. (2019) ‘Australia Fires: Heatwave forecast amid calls for emergency meeting’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/dec/08/australia-fires-heatwave-forecast-amid-calls-for-emergency- meeting?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTEyMD g%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics&C MP=aupolitics_email accessed 8/12/19
Cox, P.M. et al. (2018) ‘Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability’, Nature, vol.553, pp.319-327
Craw, V. (2020) ‘Trump’s swipe at “prophets of doom”’, News Limited, available at: news.com.au, accessed 24/1/2020
Cresswell, I.D. & Murhpy, H.T. (2017) Australia state of the environment 2016: biodiversity, independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra.
Crompton, T. (2010) Common Cause: The Case for Working with our Cultural Values’, WWF- UK, Godalming UK
Crutzen, P.J. & Stoermer, E. (2000) ‘The “Anthropocene”, IGBP Newsletter, no.41, pp.17-18
Crutzen, P. (2002) ‘Geology of mankind’, Nature, vol.415, pp.23,
Cseh, A. (2019) ‘Aligning climate action with the self-interest and short-term dominated priorities of decision-makers’, Climate Policy, vol.19, no.2, pp.139-146
CSIRO & The Bureau of Meteorology (2018) ‘The state of the climate 2018’, Commonwealth of Australia, available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/ accessed 3/3/2020
251 Çüçen, A.K. 1998, ‘Heidegger's reading of Descartes' dualism: The relation of subject and object, The Paideia Archive, Boston University, available at: https://www.bu.edu/wcp/MainCont.htm accessed 12/2/15
Cuomo, C. (1998) Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing, Routledge, London
Cushman Jr., J.H. (2018) ‘Shell knew fossil fuels created climate change risks back in 1980s, internal documents show’, Inside Climate News, accessed 5/4/18
Davies, K. et al. (2017) ‘The Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change: a new legal tool for global policy change’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol.8, no.2, pp.217-253
Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species, Appleton and Company, NY
Davis, L.D. et al. (2009) ‘Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol.29, pp.173-180
De Grauwe, P. (2017) The limits of the market: The pendulum between government and market, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Deloitte (2017) At what price? The economic, social and icon value of the Great Barrier Reef, Deloitte Access Economics, Brisbane
Del Vicario, M. et al. (2015) ‘The spreading of misinformation online’ PNAS Early Edition, pp.1-6
Deleuze, G. (1962) Nietzsche and Philosophy, Tomlinson, H. (trans.), Continuum, London, 2002
DeMelle, B. (2012) ‘Fossil-Fuel funded operatives litter the mainstream media, despite simple fix’, DeSmog, available at: https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/12/fossil-fuel- funded-operatives-litter-mainstream-media accessed 14/3/20
Department of Agriculture (2019) Australian Government Drought Response, Resilience and Preparedness Plan, Canberra
Descartes, R. (2006) A discourse on the method of correctly conducting one’s reason and seeking truth in the sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Descola, P. (2013) Beyond Nature and Culture, Lloyd, J. (trans), Chicago
Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003) ‘Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations’, Rationality and Society, vol.15, no.4, pp.441-472
Dietz, T. et al. (2003) ‘The struggle to govern the commons’, Science, vol.302, no.5652, pp.1907-1912
Dietz, T., Dan, A. & Shwom, R. (2007) ‘Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences’, Rural Sociology, vol.72, no.2,
252 pp.185-214
DiMaggio, P. (1997) ‘Culture and cognition’, The Annual Review of Sociology, vol.23, no.1, pp.263-287
Dobson, A. (1995) Green Political Thought, 2nd edn., Routledge, London & NY
Doherty, B. (2019) ‘Queensland extinguishes native title over Indigenous land to make way for Adani coalmine’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/31/queensland-extinguishes-native- title-over-indigenous-land-to-make-way-for-adani- coalmine?fbclid=IwAR251ypzi5f0qJw9JnCgYCS8nIXeqM5qs-DUGoDJKWtz- a8AaI0OmWqfO2s accessed 31/8/19
Donnelly, J. (2003) Universal human rights in theory and in practice, 2nd edn., Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY
Donnelly, K. (2019) ‘Our schookids are just doing as they’re told’, The Australian, available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/our-schoolkids-just-doing-as- theyre-told/news-story/8c9b7e13de10c6ca671ac33c56080cf7 accessed 12/3/19
Douglas, K.M. and Sutton, R.M. (2015) ‘Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol.71, no.2, pp.98-106
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger, Routledge, London 2002
Dowd, D. (ed) (2002), Understanding Capitalism: Critical Analysis from Karl Marx to Amartya Sen, Pluto Press, London
Dryzek, J.S., & Lo, A.Y. (2015) ‘Reason and Rhetoric in climate communication’, Environmental Politics, vol.24, no.1, pp.1-16
DuBois, R. (1968) So human an animal, Charles Scribner’s Sons, NY
Duckett, S. et al. (2020) ‘The health effects of the 2019-20 bushfires: Submission to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements’, The Grattan Institute, available at: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Grattan-Institute- submission-to-Royal-Commission.pdf accessed 10/8/2020
Duke, J. (2019) ‘Seven billionaire Kerry Stokes calls for climate calm amid bushfires’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/seven- billionaire-kerry-stokes-calls-for-climate-calm-amid-bushfires-20191113-p53a7v.html accessed 13/11/19
Dun, O. & Gemenne, F. (2008) ‘Defining “environmental migration”’, Forced Migration Review, vol.31, pp.10-11
Dunlap, R.E. and McCright, A.M. (2008) ‘A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, vol.50, no.5, pp.26-35
Durkheim, E. (1982) The rules of the sociological method, Lukes, S (ed.) The Macmillan Press, London
Durkheim, E. (2008) The elementary forms of the religious life, Cosman, C. (Trans), Oxford
253 University Press, Oxford
Dwyer, J. (2005) ‘Ethics and Economics: Bridging Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations’, Journal of British Studies, vol.44, no.4, pp.662-687
Dwyer, T. & Muller, D. (2016) ‘FactCheck: is Australia’s level of media ownership concentration one of the highest in the world?’, The Conversation, available at:
Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach, State University of New York Press, Albany
Eckersley, R. (2007) ‘Green Theory’, International Relations Theories, vol.1, pp.247-265
Edles, L.D. & Appelrouth, S. (2010), Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and readings, Pine Forge Press, LA
Emmett, R.S. & Nye, D.E., (2017) The environmental humanities: A critical introduction, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts
Engels, F. (1947) Anti-Dühring, Repreint, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977
Engels, F. (2010) Marx, K. & Engels, F. Collected works, vol.25 Engels, Lawrence & Wishart, Great Britain
Enkvist, P-A, & Klevnäs, P. (2018) ‘The circular economy: A powerful force for climate mitigation’, Material Economics, Sweden
Ewen, S. (1976) Captains of consciousness: Advertising and the social roots of the consumer culture, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, NY
Extinction Rebellion (XR) (2020) ‘Our Demands’, Extinction Rebellion, available at: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/ accessed 10/7/2020
Fagan, M. & Huang, C. (2019) ‘A look at how people around the world view climate change’, Pew Research Center, available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/
Fairlie, S. (2009) ‘A Short History of Enclosure in Britain’, The Land, vol.7, pp.16-31
Feygina, I. et al. (2010) ‘System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.36, pp.326-338
Fineman, M. (2004) The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency, The New Press, London/NY
Fineman, M. (2008) ‘The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition’, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, vol.20, no.1, pp.1-23
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F. & Pallua, I. (2014) ‘A sociometabolic reading of the anthropocene: Modes of subsistence, population size and human impact on Earth, The Anthropocene Review, vol.1, no.1, pp.8-33
Fisher, W.R. (1985) ‘The narrative paradigm: An elaboration’, Communications Monographs,
254 vo.52, no.4, pp.347-367,
Foddy, M., & Dawes, R. M. (2008), ‘Group-based trust in social dilemmas’, in Biel, A. et al. (eds.), New issues and paradigms in research in social dilemma, Springer, NY, pp.57-71
Foran, J., Gray, S. and Grosse, C. (2017) ‘“Not yet the end of the world”: Political cultures of opposition and creation in the Global youth climate justice movement’, Interface: a journal for and about social movements, vol.9, no.2, pp.353-379
Foresight: Migration and global environmental change (2011) Final Project Report, The Government Office for Science, London
Fortin, D. et al. (2005) ‘Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park’, Ecology, vol.86, no.5, pp.1320-1330
Fortune (2019) ‘Global 500’, Fortune, available at: https://fortune.com/global500/2019/ accessed 8/11/2019
Forum (2013) ‘Interdisciplinary Climate Change Collaborations Are Essential for Early-Career Scientists’, Eos, vol.94, no.16, p.151-152
Foster, J.B., Clark, B. & York, R. (2010) The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, Monthly Review Press, NY
Foucault, M. (1979) ‘Discipline: Docile bodies’ in Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Sheridan, A. (trans.) Vintage Books, NY
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977, Gordon, C. (ed), Pantheon Books, NY
Foucault, M. (2005) Order of things, Taylor & Francis Group, London
Franks, D.D. (2006) ‘The neuroscience of emotions’ in Stets, J.E. & Turner, J.H. (eds) Handbook of the sociology of emotions, Springer, USA, pp.611-635
Freud, S. (2010a) ‘Studies on hysteria’ in Complete works, Smith, I (ed) 2000, 2007, 2010, available at: https://www.valas.fr/IMG/pdf/Freud_Complete_Works.pdf Online resource, accessed 10/10/2014, pp.1-269
Freud, S. (2010b) ‘The interpretation of dreams’, in Complete works, Smith, I (ed) 2000, 2007, 2010, available at: https://www.valas.fr/IMG/pdf/Freud_Complete_Works.pdf Online resource, accessed 10/10/2014, pp.507-1048
Freud, S. (2010c) ‘Moses and monotheism’, in Complete works, Smith, I (ed) 2000, 2007, 2010, available at: https://www.valas.fr/IMG/pdf/Freud_Complete_Works.pdf Online resource, accessed 10/10/2014, pp.4836-4953
Freund, P. & Martin, G. (1996) ‘The commodity that is eating the world: The automobile, the environment, and capitalism’, Capitalism Nature Socialism, vol.7, no.4, pp.3-29
Freudenburg, W.R. et al. (2008) ‘Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): science and the politics of doubt’, Sociol. Inq. vol.78, pp.2-38
Fudge, J. & Owens, R. (eds.) (2006) Precarious work, women, and the new economy: The
255 challenge to legal norms, Hart Publishing, Oxford
Galbraith, J.K. (1972) (2nd edn.), The New Industrial State, Penguin, England
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge
Geertz, C. (1993) The Interpretation of Cultures, Fontana Press, Hammersmith
Giddens, A. (1972) Politics and Sociology in the thought of Max Weber, Macmillan, London
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity, Polity Press, Cambridge
Gifford, R. (2011) ‘The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation’, American Psychologist, vol.66, no.4, pp.290-302
Ginn, F. et al. (2014) ‘Flourishing with awkward creatures: togetherness, vulnerability, killing’, Environmental Humanities, vol.4, pp.113-123
Gladwin, T.N., Newburry, W.E., & Reiskin, E.D. (1997) ‘Why is the northern elite mind biased against community, the environment, and a sustainable future?’ in Bazerman, M.H. & Messick, D.M. (eds.) Environment, ethics, and behavior, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, pp.234-274
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago
Glencore plc, (2019) ‘Furthering our commitment to the transition to a low-carbon economy’, Baar, Switzerland, available at: https://www.glencore.com/dam/jcr:f6333427-2fe9- 4ea2-8c7c-69b25651ab5c/201902200800-Glencore-Climate-Change-Statement- FINAL.pdf accessed 12/9/19
Global Footprint Network (2020) ‘Ecological footprint’, 2003-2020 Global Footprint Network, available at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ accessed 17/6/2020
Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of the self in everyday life, Penguin Books, England, 1990
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis, Reprint, Penguin Books, 1975
Golder, B. & McLoughlin, D. (2017) ‘An introduction to the politics of legality in a neoliberal age’ in Golder, B. and McLoughlin, D. (eds) The Politics of Legality in a Neoliberal Age, Routledge, Abingdon, pp.1-15
Gottschall, J. (2012) The storytelling animal: how stories make us human, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston
Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N. (1977) ‘Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered’, Paleobiology, vol.3, no.2, pp.115-151
Gramsci, A. (1999) Selection from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Hoare, Q. & Nowell Smith, G. (eds.), ElecBook, London (Transcribed from the edition published by Lawrence & Wishart London)
256
Gramsci, A. (2000) The Gramsci Reader: Selected writings 1916-1935, Forgacs, D. (ed), New York University Press, NY
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2019), Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019: In Brief, GBRMPA, Townsville
Gredys Harris, G. (1989) ‘Concepts of individual, self, and person in description and analysis’, American Anthropologist, New Series, vol.91, no.3, pp.599-612
Green, K. & Ginn, F. (2014) ‘The smell of selfless love: Sharing vulnerability with bees in alternative apiculture’, Environmental Humanities, vol.4, pp.149-170
Greenberg, J. and Arndt, J. (2012) ‘Terror Management Theory’, in Van Lange, P.A.M, Kruglanski, A.W., Tory Higgins, E., Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Collection: Volumes 1 & 2, pp.398-415
Greenberg, J. et al.(2002) ‘A perilous leap from Becker’s theorizing to empirical science: Terror Management Theory and research’, in Liechty, D (ed), Death and Denial: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the legacy of Ernest Becker, Praeger, USA
Griffin, P. (2017) The Carbon Majors Database CDP Carbon Majors Report’, CDP, UK
Guardian staff and readers (2019) ‘'Never seen anything like this': Guardian Australia readers respond to bushfires’, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/nov/13/never-seen-anything-like-this-readers-respond-to- bushfires?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTExM TM%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics& CMP=aupolitics_email
Habermas, J. (1973) Legitimation Crisis, Heinemann, London 1992
Habermas J. (1984) The theory of communicative action Vol.1: Reason and the rationalization of society, Beacon Press, Boston
Habermas, J. (1987) The theory of communicative action Vol.2: Lifeworld and systems, Beacon Press, Boston
Habermas, J. (1996) ‘Three normative models of democracy’, in Democracy and Difference, Benhabib, S. (ed) Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.23-24
Habermas, J. (1997) ‘Modernity: An Unfinished project’ in Habermas and the unfinished project of modernity, Passerin d’Entrèves, M. and Benhabib, S., MIT Press, pp.38-55
Hagen, A. (1972) ‘Man and nature: Reflections on culture and ecology’, Norwegian Archaeological review, vol.5, no.1, pp.1-22
Haidt, J. (2012) The righteous mind, Penguin, England
Hall, E. (2015) ‘Australian farmers watch Paris talks from afar as conditions set to worsen’, The World Today with Eleanor Hall, ABC, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/australian-farmers-watch-paris- talks-from-afar-as/6986962
Hamilton, L.C. (2011) ‘Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for
257 interaction effects’, Climatic Change, vol.104, no.2, pp.231-242
Hannam, P. (2017) 'The great unknown': New climate change data lifts the sea-level threat’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate- change/the-great-unknown-new-climate-change-data-lifts-the-sealevel-threat- 20170522-gwa963.html accessed 23/5/17
Hannam, P. & Geraghty, K. (2020) ‘“Get Out Now”: Desperate Tales from Epicentre of an Unfolding Emergency’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/get-out-now-desperate-tales-from- epicentre-of-an-unfolding-emergency-20200102- p53ocz.html?promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=MjQxMjA1Nw&eid=email:nnn- 13omn655-ret_newsl-membereng:nnn-04%2F11%2F2013-news_pm-dom-news-nnn- smh- u&campaign_code=13INO009&et_bid=29215468&list_name=40_smh_newsalert&inst ance=2020-01-02--07-02--UTC accessed 2/1/2020
Hansen, J. (2018) ‘Thirty years later, what needs to change in our approach to climate change’, Boston Globe, available at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/26/thirty- years-later-what-needs-change-our-approach-climate- change/dUhizA5ubUSzJLJVZqv6GP/story.html accessed 27/6/18
Hansla, A. et al. (2008) ‘The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol.28, pp.1-9
Haraway, D. (1987) ‘A manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminisms in the 1980s’, Australian Feminist Studies, vol.2, no.4, pp.1-42
Haraway, D. (2008) When Species Meet, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Hardin, G. (1968) ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, vol.162, pp.1243-1248
Hardisty, D.J. et al. (2010) ‘A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory’, Psychological Science, vol.21, no.1, pp.86-92
Harman, G. (2015) ‘Agenda 21: a conspiracy theory puts sustainability in the crosshairs’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability accessed 25/6/15
Harrell, C. & Bosshard, P. (2017) ‘Insuring coal no more: An Insurance Scorecard on Coal and Climate Change’, 350.org, CIEL, ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth France, Greenpeace Switzerland, Market Forces, Rainforest Action Network, available at: https://unfriendcoal.com/scorecard/
Hartcher, P (2019) ‘Our leaders fiddle while the country burns’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at; https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/our-leaders-fiddle-while-the- country-burns-20191115-p53b3q.html accessed 16/11/2019
Harvey, D. (1993) ‘The Nature of Environment: Dialectics of Social and Environmental Change’, Socialist Register, vol.29, pp.1-51, available at: https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/issue/view/427 accessed 16/2/20
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Harvey, D. (2006a) Spaces of global capitalism: towards a theory of uneven geographical
258 development, Verso, London
Harvey, D. (2006b) ‘Space as a Keyword’ in David Harvey, A Critical Reader, Castree, N & Gregory, D (eds), Blackwell Publishing, pp.270-294
Harvey, F. (2017) ‘European countries spend billions a year on fossil fuel subsidies, survey shows’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/european-countries-spend- billions-a-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-survey-shows accessed 28/9/17
Hasham, N. (2018) ‘Architect of Paris climate accord says Morrison government's emissions stance is 'anti-science'’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/architect-of-paris-climate-accord-says- morrison-government-s-emissions-stance-is-anti-science-20181002-p507bb.html accessed 3/10/2018
Hasham, N. (2019) ‘Scientists warn ancient desert springs may dry up under Adani plan’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scientists-warn-ancient-desert-springs-may- dry-up-under-adani-plan-20190608-p51vqn.html accessed 9/6/19
Hatemi, P.K. et al. (2013) ‘Fear as a disposition and an emotional state: A genetic and environmental approach to out-group political preferences ’, American Journal of Political Science, vol.57, no.2, pp.279-293
Hawken, P. (2017) Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, New York
Hayek, F.A. (1978) New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Hayek, F.A. (2001), The road to serfdom, Routledge Classics, NY
Heath, Y. & Gifford, R. (2006) ‘Free-Market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change’, Environment and Behavior, vol.38, no.1, pp.48-71
Heede, R. (2014) ‘Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010’, Climatic Change, vol.122, pp.229-241
Hegel, G.W.F (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Heinberg, R. (2011) The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality, New Society Publishers, Canada
Heinze, EA. (2011) ‘Human Rights: Contested, Triumphant and Hegemonic’, International Studies Review, vo.13, pp.167-173
Held, D. (2004) Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Polity Press, UK
Held, D. et al. (eds) (2007) Cultural politics in a global age, One World, Oxford
Hepburn, S. (2020) ‘Rio Tinto just blasted away an ancient Aboriginal site. Here’s why that was allowed’, The Conversation, available at: https://theconversation.com/rio-tinto-just- blasted-away-an-ancient-aboriginal-site-heres-why-that-was-allowed-139466 accessed 27/5/2020
259
Herman, E.S. & Chomsky, N. (1994) Manufacturing Consent, Pantheon, NY
Herman, E.S. & McChesney, R. (1997) The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Global Capitalism, Cassell, London
Hertsgaard, M. (2019) ‘On March 15, the Climate Kids Are Coming’, The Nation, available at: https://www.thenation.com/article/greta-thunberg-climate-change-strike/ accessed 4/3/19
Hertz, N. (2002) The Silent Takeover, Arrow Books, UK
Heynen, N. & Robbins, P. (2005) ‘The neoliberalization of nature: governance, privatization, enclosure and valuation’, Capitalism Nature Socialism, vol.16, no.1, pp.5-8
Hobbes, T. (1985) Leviathan, MacPherson, C.B. (ed), Penguin Books, England
Hobden, S. & Jones, R.W. (2008) ‘Marxist theories of international relations’, in Bayliss, J., Smith, S., Owens, P. (eds.), The globalisation of world politics: an introduction to international relations, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.142-159
Hoffmann, A.A. et al. (2019) ‘Impacts of recent climate change on terrestrial flora and fauna: Some emerging Australian examples’, Austral Ecology, vol.44, pp.3-27
Hofstadter, R. (1944) Social Darwinism in American Thought, University of Pennsylvania Press, USA
Holden, E. (2019) ‘Carbon emissions up as Trump agenda rolls back climate change work’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/08/carbon- emissions-trump-agenda-climate- change?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0dyZWVuTGlnaHQtMTkwMTEx&utm_source =esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GreenLight&CMP=greenlight_email accessed 30/4/2019
Holm, P. et al. (2015) ‘Humanities for the environment: A manifesto for research and action’, Humanities, vol.4, no.4, pp.977–992
Honig, B. (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London
Honig, B. (2013) ‘The Politics Of Public Things: Neoliberalism And The Routine Of Privatisation’, Excerpt from ‘Thinking Out Loud’ lecture, University of Western Sydney, Australia, pp.59-75 available at: < http://www.helsinki.fi/nofo/NoFo10HONIG.pdf > accessed 8/5/16
Honig, B. (2017) Public things: Democracy in disrepair, Fordham University Press, NY
Hope, W. (2016) Time, Communication and Global Capitalism, Palgrave Macmillan, UK
Horkheimer, M. (1950) ‘The powerlessness of the working class’ in Held, D. (2004) Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Polity Press, UK pp.282-283
Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, TW. (2002) Dialectic of enlightenment, Stanford University Press, Stanford
260
Horney, K. (1991) Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization, W.W.Norton & Company, New York
Hornsey, M.J. et al. (2016) ‘Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change’, Nature climate change, vol.6, no.6, pp.622-626
Hsü, Kenneth. 1986. The Great Dying: Cosmic Catastrophe, Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich
Hubbard, P. et al. (eds) (2004) Key thinkers on space and place, Sage Publications, London
Hulme, M. (2009) Why we disagree about climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hunt, A. (1999) ‘Anxiety and Social Explanation: Some Anxieties about Anxiety’, Journal of Social History, vol.32, no.3, pp.509-528
Hunt, L. (2007) Inventing Human Rights: A History, W.W. Norton, NY
Huta, V. (2013) ‘Eudaimonia’ in Boniwell, I. et al. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Happiness, pp.201-213, Online publication August 2013, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0015
Ingold, T. (2002) The Perception of the Environment, Taylor and Francis e-Library, Routledge, London
International Social Science Council (ISSC) and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), (2013) World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, Paris
Ipsos (2019) ‘Earth Day 2019: How does the world perceive our changing environment?’ Ipsos Global Advisor, available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/climate-change-increases- importance-australia-and-world accessed 5/7/19
IRP (2019) Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want, Oberle, B. et al., A Report of the International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Joireman, J. et al. (2009), ‘The environmentalist who cried drought: Reactions to repeated warnings about depleting resources under conditions of uncertainty’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol.29, pp.181-192
Jotzo, F., Mazouz, S. & Wiseman, J. (2018) ‘Coal Transitions in Australia: Preparing for the looming domestic coal phase-out and falling export demand’, Australian National University, Climate Strategies, IDDRI, Canberra
Jung, J. et al. (2020) ‘When a Girl Awakened the World: A User and Social Message Analysis of Greta Thunberg’, Sustainability, vol.12, no.2707, pp.1-17
IPCC (2014b) ‘Summary for policymakers’ in: Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, pp.1-32
261 IPCC (2018) ‘Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty’ [Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.)]. In Press.
IPCC (2019) ‘Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’, Pörtner, H.O. et al. (eds.)]. In press.
Irvali, N. et al. (2020) ‘A low climate threshold for south Greenland Ice Sheet demise during the Late Pleistocene’, PNAS, vol.117, no.1, pp.190-195
Jackman, S. et al. (2019) ‘Public Opinion in the Age of Trump: The United States and Australia Compared’, United States Studies Centre, Sydney
Jacques P.J., Dunlap R.E., & Freeman, M. (2008) ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism’, Environmental Politics, vol.17, no.3, pp.349-385
Jericho, G. (2020) ‘The climate crisis looms as the Coalition fiddles with fossil fuels’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/24/the- climate-crisis-looms-as-the-coalition-fiddles-with-fossil-fuels accessed 24/5/2020
Johnson, C. (2019) Social Democracy and the Crisis of Equality : Australian Social Democracy in a Changing World, Springer, Singapore
Jonas, H. (1984) The imperative of responsibility, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Jonas, H (2001) The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois
Jong, J. (2014) ‘Ernest Becker’s psychology of religion forty years on: A view from social cognitive psychology’, Zygon, vol.49, no.4, pp.875-889
Kahan, D.M. et al. (2007) ‘The Second National Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of - and Making Progress In - The American Culture War of Fact‘, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 370; Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 154; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 370; Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 08-26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1017189 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1017189
Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Kant, I. (2002) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Wood, A.W. (ed), Yale University Press, London
Kant, I. (2012) Critique of Practical Reason, McPherson Rudisill, P (trans) edited as of 9/10/2016, available at: https://kantwesley.com/Kant/CritiqueOfPracticalReason.pdf accessed 31/3/2020
Karp, P. (2019) ‘Scott Morrison threatens crackdown on protesters who would “deny liberty”’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/nov/01/scott-morrison-threatens-crackdown-on-secondary-boycotts-of- mining-companies accessed 1/11/19
262 Kasperson, R.E, and Kasperson, J.X. (1996) ‘The social amplification and attenuation of risk’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.545, pp.95-105
Kasser, T. (2011) ‘The Bellagio Initiative: The future of philanthropy and development in the pursuit of human wellbeing’, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), the Resource Alliance and the Rockefeller Foundation, available at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3721/Bellagio- Kasser.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y accessed 7/4/2020
Kenny, C. (2019) ‘Patriots can’t hate nation’s top export’, The Australian, available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/inquirer/patriots-cant-hate-nations-top-export- coal/news-story/875a10f924e9100f1e7ff5c1a7a21c7e accessed 15/10/2019
Khoday, K. (2007) ‘Climate change and the right to development. Himalayan glacial melting and the future of development on the Tibetan Plateau’, Human Development Report 2007/2008, Human Development Report Office, UNDP, OCCASIONAL PAPER 28
Kierkegaard, S. (2000) The Essential Kierkegaard, Hong, H.V. & Hong, E.H. (eds), Princeton University Press, New Jersey
Klein, S. (2003) ‘The natural roots of capitalism and its virtues and values’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.45, pp.387-401
Knaus, C. (2019) ‘Revealed: Glencore bankrolled covert campaign to prop up coal’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/07/revealed- glencore-bankrolled-covert-campaign-to-prop-up- coal?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTAzMDY% 3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics&CMP =aupolitics_email accessed 12/9/19
Knight, K. (2016) ‘Public awareness and perception of climate change: a quantitative cross-national study’, Environmental Sociology, vol.2, no.1, pp.101-113
Kolnai, A. (2004) On disgust, Smith, B. & Korsmeyer, C. (eds), Open Court, Chicago
Konzelmann, S. et al. (2010) ‘Governance, regulation and financial market instability: the implications for policy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol.34, pp.929–954
Kormondy, E.J. (2012), A brief introduction to the history of ecology’, The American Biology Teacher, vol.74, no.7, pp.441-443
Korten, D. (1995) When corporations rule the world, Earthscan, London
Kousser, T. & Tranter, B. (2018) ‘The influence of political leaders on climate change attitudes’, Global Environmental Change, vol.50, pp.100-109
Kotzé LJ. (2010) ‘Phiri, the Plight of the Poor and the Perils of Climate Change: Time to Rethink Environmental and Socio-economic Rights in South Africa?’ Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vo.1, no.2, pp.135-160
Kotzé, L.J. (ed), (2017) Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon
Kotzé, L.J. JHRE Editorial (2019) ‘Coloniality, neoliberalism and the Anthropocene’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol.10, no.1, pp.1-6
263
Kovacic-Fleischer, C. (2017) ‘Food stamps, unjust enrichment, and minimum wage’, Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, vol.35, no.1, p.1-22.
Kramnick, I. (1995) The portable enlightenment reader, Penguin Books, USA
Kreller, D.R. & Golley, F.B., ‘Introduction’ in The Philosophy of Ecology, Kreller & Golley (eds), (2000) University of Georgia Press, p.1-2
Kropotkin, P. (2017) Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Dover Publications, NY
La Via Campesina (2020) ‘The international peasant’s voice’, La Via Campesina International Peasant’s Movement, available at: https://viacampesina.org/en/food-sovereignty/ accessed 10/7/2020
Lakoff, G. (2009) The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to your Brain and its Politics, Penguin, London
Lam, S-P. (2014) ‘Predicting support of climate policies by using a protection motivation model, Climate Policy, vol.15, no.3, pp.321-338
Latour, B. (Johnson, J.]) (1988) ‘Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer’, Social Problems, vol.35, no.3, pp.298-310
Latour, B. (2004) Politics of Nature, Orient Longman, India
LeCain, T. (2013) ‘An Impure Nature: Memory, Geese, and Neo-Materialism at America’s Biggest Toxic Superfund Site’, Global Environment, vol.11, pp.16-41
LeCain, T. (2015) ‘Against the anthropocene: A neo-materialist perspective’, International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity, vol.3, no.1, pp.1-28
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford UK
Lehmann, E. (2018) ‘What mining means to Australians: a national survey’, CSIRO, available at: https://blog.csiro.au/what-mining-means-to-australians-a-national-survey/ accessed 13/3/18
Leiserowitz, A. et al. (2018), Climate change in the American mind: December 2018, Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven
Leonard, A. (2010) The Story of Stuff, Free Press, NY, London, Sydney
Le Quéré, C. et al. (2018) ‘Global Carbon Budget 2018’, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, vol.10, pp.2141–2194
Lenton, T.M, et al. (2019) ‘Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against’, Nature vol.575, pp.592-595
Lenzerini, F. (2011) ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples’, The European Journal of International Law, vol.22, no.1, pp.101–20
Leviston, Z. et al. (2014) ‘Imagining climate change: The role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol.44, pp.441–454
264
Leviston, Z. et al. (2015) Australians attitudes to climate change and adaptation: 2010-2014, CSIRO, Australia
Levitin, D.J. (2014) The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload, Penguin Group, USA
Levy, D. L., & Egan, D. (2003) ‘A neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations’, Journal of Management Studies, vol.40, no.4, pp.803-829
Lewandowsky, S et al. (2015) ‘Recurrent fury: Conspiratorial discourse in the blogosphere triggered by research on the role of conspiracist ideation in climate denial’, Journal of Social and Political Psychology, vol.3, no.1, pp.142-178
Lexico (2020a) ‘Agon’, Lexico Powered by Oxford, available at: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/agon accessed 12/1/2020
Lexico (2020b) ‘Principle’, Lexico Powered by Oxford, available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/principle accessed 20/4/2020
Lexico (2020c) ‘Struggle’, Lexico Powered by Oxford, available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/struggle accessed 20/4/2020
Loeb, N.G. et al. (2009) ‘Toward optimal closure of the Earth's top-of-atmosphere radiation budget’, Journal of Climate, vol.22, no.3, pp.748-766
Liechty, D. (1998), ‘Reaction to mortality: An interdisciplinary organizing principle for the human sciences’, Zygon, vol.33, no.1
Livio, O & Cohen, J. (2018) ‘Fool me once, shame on you’: Direct personal experience and media trust’, Journalism, vol.19, no.5, pp.684-698
Locke, J. (2005) Two Treatises of Government, Project Gutenberg eBook, available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/old/trgov10h.htm accessed 27/10/13
Löfquist, L. (2011) ‘Climate change, justice and the right to development’, Journal of Global Ethics, vol.7, no.3, pp.251–260
Lovelock, J (2000) Gaia: A new look at life on earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and Power, John Wiley & Sons, NY
Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems, Stanford University Press, California
Lukermann, F.E. (1964) ‘Geography as a formal intellectual discipline and the way in which it contributes to human knowledge’, Canadian Geographer, vol.8, no.4, pp.167-172
Lukes, S. (2005) Power: A Radical View, 2nd edn., Palgrave Macmillan, UK/US
Lyons, K. (2019a) ‘Australia removes climate 'crisis' from Pacific islands draft declaration’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/15/australia- removes-coal-and-climate-crisis-references-from-pacific-islands-declaration accessed 15/8/19
265
Lyons, K. (2019b) 'She seems very happy': Trump appears to mock Greta Thunberg's emotional speech’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2019/sep/24/she-seems-very-happy-trump-appears-to-mock-greta-thunbergs- emotional-speech accessed 25/9/19
Lyster, R. (2019) ‘The idea of (climate) justice, neoliberalism and the Talanoa Dialogue’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol.10, no.1, pp.35-61
Macionis, J & Plummer, K 2008, Sociology: a global introduction, 4th edn, Pearson Education Ltd, England
MacEwan, A. (1999) Neo-Liberalism or Democracy? Zed Books, London
Mackenzie, C. et al. (2013) ‘Introduction’, in Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. & Dodds, S. (eds.) Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford
MacLellan, M. (2015) ‘The tragedy of limitless growth: Re-interpreting the tragedy of the commons for a century of climate change’, Environmental Humanities, vol.7, pp.41-58
Macpherson, C.B. (1962) The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Oxford University Press, London
Madsen, P. (2020) ‘Deep Ecology’, 2020 Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/deep-ecology accessed 1/5/2020
Mani, M. et al. (2018) ‘South Asia’s Hotspots: The Impact of Temperature and Precipitation Changes on Living Standards’, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington
Mann, M. (2012) The Sources of Social Power Vol.2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Manne, R. (2016) ‘Diabolical: Why have we failed to address climate change?’, The Monthly, available at https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/december/1448888400/robert- manne/diabolical accessed 18/12/16
Manolas, E. (2016) ‘The Paris climate change agreement’, International Journal of Environmental Studies, vol.73, no.2, pp.167-169
Marcuse, H. (1968) One Dimensional Man: The Ideology of Industrial Society, Sphere Books, London
Marcuse, H. (1972) Counterrevolution and Revolt, Beacon Press, Boston
Marcuse, H. (1998) Technology War and Fascism, Routledge, London
Marris, E. (2019) ‘Why the world is watching young climate activists’, Nature, vol.573, pp.471-472
Martin, J. (2012) ‘Revisiting Ernest Becker’s Psychology of Human Striving’, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol.53, no.2, pp.131-152
Martin, J. (2016) ‘Ernest Becker And Stanley Milgram: Twentieth-Century Students of Evil’, History of Psychology, vol.19, no.1, pp.3-21
266
Martin, S (2020a) ‘Australia already “carrying its load” on emissions and must adapt to warmer climate, PM says’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/29/australia-already-carrying-its- load-on-emissions-and-must-adapt-to-warmer-climate-pm- says?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0yMDAxMjk% 3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=aupolitics_email&utm_campaign= AustralianPolitics, accessed 20/1/2020
Marglin, S.A. (2013) ‘Premises for a New Economy’, Development, vol.56, no.2, pp.149-154
Martínez-Torres, M.E. & Rosset, P.M. (2010) ‘La Vía Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol.37, no.1, pp.149-175
Marshall, M.N. (1996) 'Sampling for qualitative research', Family Practice, vol.13, no.6, pp.522-525
Marshall, G. (2015) Don’t Even Think About It, Bloomsbury, London
Marshall, N. et al. (2018) ‘Measuring what matters in the Great Barrier Reef’, Front Ecol Environ, vol.16, no.5, pp.271–277
Marsh, S. (2020) ‘Compromised: Genie Energy and the Murdoch Media’s climate denial’, Michael West Media, available at: https://www.michaelwest.com.au/compromised- genie-energy-and-the-murdoch-medias-climate-denial/ accessed 15/1/2020
Marx, K. (1964) Pre-capitalist economic formations, International Publishers, NY
Marx, K (1979) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, Penguin Books, UK
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1988) Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844, and The communist manifesto, Milligan, M. (trans.) Prometheus Books, NY
Marx, K. (1981) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume III, Penguin Books, London
Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and personality, Harper & Row, New York
Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender, Polity Press, UK
Mathews, F. (2001) ‘Deep Ecology’ in Jamieson, D (ed), A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.218-232
Mathiesen, T. (2004), Silently silenced: essays on the creation of acquiescence in modern society, Waterside Press, UK
Mattei, U. & Capra, F. (2015) The ecology of law: Toward a legal system in tune with nature and community, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland CA
Mauss, M. (1973) ‘Techniques of the body’, Economy and society, vol.2, no.1, pp.70-88
May, T. (2001) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process (3rd ed.), Open University Press, Buckingham
McAdam, J. (2017) ‘The High Price of Resettlement: the proposed environmental relocation of Nauru to Australia’, Australian Geographer, vol.48 no.1, pp.7-16
267
McAffee, N. (2008) Democracy and the Political Unconscious, Columbia University Press, NY
McAllister, L. (2013) ‘The Human and Environmental Effects of E-Waste’, Population Reference Bureau, available at: https://www.prb.org/e-waste/ accessed 19/4/2020
McCarthy, J. & Prudham, S. (2004) ‘Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism, Geoforum, vol.35, no.3, pp.275–283
McCright, A.M. & Dunlap R.E. 2011a, ‘The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol.52, pp.155-194
McCright, A.M. & Dunlap R.E. (2011b) ‘Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States’, Global Environmental Change, vol.21, pp.1163–1172
McCright, A.M. et al. (2016) ‘Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union’, Environmental Politics, vol.25, no.2, pp.338–358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1090371
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle, North Point Press, New York
McGregor, S.L.T. (2008) ‘Conceptualizing Immoral and Unethical Consumption Using Neutralization Theory’, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, vol.36, no.3, pp.261-276
McKenzie, N. et al. (2017) ‘The coal war: Inside the fight against Adani's plans to build Australia's biggest coal mine’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/the-coal-war-inside-the-fight- against-adanis-plans- to-build-australias-biggest-coal-mine-20170214-gubn21.html accessed 14/2/17
McKewon, E. (2018) ‘The Corporate Masters of Climate Denial’, Global Dialogue, vol.8, no.2, available at: http://globaldialogue.isa-sociology.org/the-corporate-masters-of-climate- denial/ accessed 4/5/2020
McKibben, B. (2016) ‘Why We Need to Keep 80% of Fossil Fuels in the Ground’, 350.org, available at: https://350.org/why-we-need-to-keep-80-percent-of-fossil-fuels-in-the- ground/ accessed 16/2/19
McKie, R. (2019) ‘Climate change deniers’ new battle front attacked’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/nov/09/doomism-new-tactic-fossil-fuel- lobby?fbclid=IwAR3QEijvbRqFcugkdzXctgWL01vtmtw2yLpWY9P8- sMiuDOWCSmav42vLk4 accessed 10/11/19
Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, self, and society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Meade, A. (2019) ‘Greta Thunberg hits back at Andrew Bolt for “deeply disturbing” column’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/02/greta-thunberg-hits-back-at- andrew-bolt-for-deeply-disturbing- column?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkwODAy &utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&CMP =GTAU_email accessed 2/8/19
268
Meadows, D.H. et al. (2004) The Limits to Growth: the 30-year Update, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vt
Merzian, R et al. (2019) ‘Climate of the Nation 2019’, The Australia Institute, Canberra
Mészáros, I. (1995) Beyond Capital, Merlin Press, London
Meyrowitz, J. (1985) No sense of Place: The impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Michalak, K. (2020) ‘Schema’, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/schema-cognitive accessed 8/3/2020
Mignolo, W.D. & Walsh, C.E. (2018) On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis, Duke University Press, London
Mikhail, J. (2011) Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls’ Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment, Cambridge University Press, NY
Mill, J.S. (1967) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume IV - Essays on Economics and Society Part I, Robson, J.M. (ed), University of Toronto Press, Toronto; Routledge and Kegan Paul, London available at: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/244 accessed 20/4/2020
Mill, J.S. (2001) On Liberty, Batoche Books, Kitchener
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn., SAGE, London
Miller, B. (2013) ‘When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge from Mere Agreement. Synthese, vol.190, no.7, pp.1293-1316
Mises, L. Von (1963) Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 4th Revised edn, Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco
Misztal, B.A. (2011) The challenges of vulnerability: In search of strategies for a less vulnerable social life, Palgrave MacMillan, England
Moffat, K. et al. (2017) ‘Australian attitudes toward mining: Citizen Survey – 2017 Results’, CSIRO, Australia
Montgomery, B.M. (1993) ‘Relationship maintenance versus relationship change – A dialectical dilemma’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol.10, pp.205-223
Moore, J.W. (2015) Capitalism in the Web of Life, Verso, London
Moore, J.W. (2017) ‘World accumulation and planetary life, or, why capitalism will not survive until the ‘last tree is cut’, IPPR Progressive Review, vol.24, no.3, pp.175-202
Morrison, M. et al. (2018) ‘Increasing belief but issue fatigue: Changes in Australian Household Climate Change Segments between 2011 and 2016’, PLoS ONE, vol.13, no.6, pp.1-18
269 Morton, A. (2019a) ‘Australian government seen globally as climate 'denialist', UN summit observers say’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/sep/25/australian-government-seen-globally-as-climate-denialist-un- summit-observers- say?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTA5MjQ%3 D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics&CMP= aupolitics_email accessed 25/9/19
Morton, A. (2019b) ‘Coal from six biggest miners in Australia produces more emissions than entire economy’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/nov/01/six-biggest-coalminers-in-australia-produce-more-emissions-than- entire-economy accessed 21/11/19
Morton, A. & Smee, B. (2019) ‘Great Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting science’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel- says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science accessed 28/8/19
Moss, J. and Fraser P. (2019) Australia’s Carbon Majors, Practical Justice Initiative, UNSW
Moyn, S. (2014) ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 in the History of Cosmopolitanism’, Critical Inquiry, vol.40, no.4, pp.365-384
Moyn, S. (2018) Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Murphy, K (2019a) 'Now' is the time for new coal plants, resources minister says’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/07/now- is-the-time-for-new-coal-plants-resources-minister- says?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTAzMDc% 3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics&CMP =aupolitics_email accessed 7/3/2020
Murphy, K. (2019b) ‘Morrison responds to Greta Thunberg by warning children against 'needless' climate anxiety’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/25/morrison-responds-to-greta- thunberg-speech-by-warning-children-against-needless-climate- anxiety?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkwOTI1& utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&CMP= GTAU_email accessed 26/9/19
Murphy, K. & Doherty, B. (2019) ‘Scott Morrison echoes Trump as he warns nations must avoid “negative globalism”’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/03/scott-morrison-echoes-trump- as-he-warns-nations-must-avoid-negative-globalism accessed 3/10/19
Naess, A. (1973) ‘The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary’, Inquiry, vol.16, no.1-4, pp.95-100
Naess, A. (1995) ‘The Deep Ecological Movement’ in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Sessions, G (ed), Shambhala Publications Inc., Boston
Nagel, T. (1972) ‘Aristotle on Eudaimonia’, Phronesis, vol.17, no.3, pp.252-259
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 2018, ‘Facts – Global Temperature’,
270 Earth Science Communications Team at NASA’S Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology last updated 26 April 2018, accessed 27/4/18 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2020a), ‘Scientific consensus: Earth is warming’ Earth Science Communications Team at NASA’S Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology last updated 26 January 2016, available at https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ accessed 20/2/20, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2020b), ‘Graphic: Earth’s temperature record’ Earth Science Communications Team at NASA’S Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology last updated 31 March 2020, available at https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/9/graphic-earths-temperature-record/ accessed 3/4/20 Nature Editorial (2010) ‘Closing the Climategate’ Nature, vol.468, pp.345 Neukom, R. et al. (2019), ‘Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era’, Nature Geoscience, vol.12, pp.643-649 Newell, P. & Paterson, M. (1998) ‘A climate for business: Global warming, the state and capital’, Review of International Political Economy, vol.5, no.4, pp.679-703 Newman, M. (2019) ‘Climate Kids Mere Pawns In A Bid To Undermine Capitalism’, The Australian, available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/climate-kids-mere-pawns-in-a- bid-to-undermine-capitalism/news-story/8d256420e390aa04c99594c6b2d96cf8 accessed 14/3/19 Newman, N. et al. (2016) ‘Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016’, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, available at: http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf?x89475 Newton, I. (1846) The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Daniel Adee, NY Nietzsche, F. (1994) On the Genealogy of Morality, Ansell-Pearson, K (ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Nietzsche, F. (2006) The Nietzsche Reader, Pearson, K.A. and Large, D. (eds), Blackwell Publishing, USA, UK, Australia Nisbet, R.A. (1962) Community and Power, Oxford University Press, NY Norberg, J. (2001) In Defence of Global Capitalism, Timbro, Sweden Norgaard, K.M. (2006) ‘“We don’t really want to know”: Environmental justice and socially organized denial of global warming in Norway’, Organization & Environment, vol.19, pp.347–370 Norgaard, K.M. (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press, online access available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhfvf Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford 271 Nuccitelli, D. (2011) ‘The True Cost of Coal Power’, Skeptical Science, available at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html accessed 24/7/18 Nussbaum, M. (1986) The fragility of goodness: luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Nussbaum, M. (2001a) Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Nussbaum, M. (2001b) ‘The Enduring Significance of John Rawls’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol.47, no.45, pp.B7-B9 Nussbaum, M & Sen, A (eds) (1993) The Quality of Life, Oxford Scholarship Online, available at: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198287976.001.0001/acprof- 9780198287971 Obama, B.H. (2014) ‘Remarks by President Obama at the University of Queensland’, The Whitehouse President Obama, available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press- office/2014/11/15/remarks-president-obama-university-queensland accessed 2/8/2020 OECD (2018b), Opportunities for All: A Framework for Policy Action on Inclusive Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris Oelschlaeger, M. (1991) The Idea of Wilderness, Yale University Press, New Haven Oliver, A. (2018) Lowy Institute Poll 2018, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia Ollman, B. (1971) Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in a Capitalist Society, Reprint, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996 Ongondo, F.O. & Williams, I.D. (2011) ‘Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in the UK’, Waste Management, vol.31, pp.1307-1315 Oreskes, N. (2004) ‘The scientific consensus on climate change’, Science, vol.306 no.5702, pp.1686-1686 Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2012) Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury, London Ormiston, S. (2019) ‘'She's a phenomenon': Climate activist Greta Thunberg sailing into stiff winds in U.S.’, CBC News, available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/greta- thunberg-atlantic-voyage-united-states- 1.5249604?fbclid=IwAR0n91rfGfUodf38g5XeKvOrAIch5TWufNnLqINkIQ2RjC7Pi6 E0_T4aWhQ accessed 19/8/19 Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015) Oriel, J. (2020) ‘Greenies Surfing Over Fire Facts’, The Australian, available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/greenies-surfing-over-bushfire- facts/news-story/7d2c5209868003d59bcef6ade7d45804 accessed 14/1/2020 Paine, T. (1945) The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, Foner, P.S. (ed) Citadel Press, NY Parsons, T. (1951) Toward a General Theory of Action, Harper & Row, New York 272 Parsons, T. (1963) ‘On the Concept of Political Power’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol.107, no.3, pp.232-262 Parsons, T. and W. White (1964) ‘The link between character and society’ in Social Structure and Personality, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, pp.183-235 Pascoe, B. (2018) Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture, Magabala Books, Western Australia Payne, K. (2017) The Broken Ladder: How inequality affects the way we think, live, and die, Viking, NY Pegg, D. & Evans, R. (2019) ‘Revealed: top UK thinktank spent decades undermining climate science’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/thinktank-climate-science- institute-economic- affairs?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkxMDEx& utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&CMP= GTAU_email accessed 11/10/19 Pepper, D. (1986) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism, Routledge, NY Petition to the inter-American commission on human rights seeking relief from violations resulting from global warming caused by acts and omissions of the United States (PTTIACHR) (2005), Canada, available at: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us- case/petition-to-the-inter-american-commission-on-human-rights-seeking-relief-from- violations-resulting-from-global-warming-caused-by-acts-and-omissions-of-the-united- states/ Pew Research Centre (2009) ‘Economy, Jobs Trump All Other Policy Priorities In 2009’, Pew Research Centre: U.S. Politics and Policy, available at: https://www.people- press.org/2009/01/22/economy-jobs-trump-all-other-policy-priorities-in-2009/ accessed 25/4/2020 Phillips, T. (2019) ‘Amazon rainforest fires: Macron calls for 'international crisis' to lead G7 discussions’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/23/amazon-rainforest-fires-macron-calls- for-international-crisis-to-lead-g7- discussions?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkwO DIz&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&C MP=GTAU_email accessed 23/8/2019 Piketty, T. (2013) Capital in the twenty-first century, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts Pinker, S. (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature, Viking Penguin, NY Polanyi, K. (1957) ‘The economy as instituted process’, in Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M. & Pearson, H.W. (eds), Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, The Free Press, New York Polanyi, K. (2001) The great transformation, Beacon Press, Boston, available at: 273 http://www2.dse.unibo.it/ardeni/papers_development/KarlPolanyi_The-Great- Transformation_book.pdf Pooley, E. (2010) The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth, Library of Congress, US Porter, J.R. et al. (2014) ‘Food security and food production systems’, In Climate Change, 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp.485-533 Prendergast, J. & Lezhnev, S. (2009) ‘From Mine to Mobile Phone: The Conflict Minerals Supply Chain’, The Enough Project, DC, available at: https://enoughproject.org/reports/mine-mobile-phone Przeworski, A. (1985) Capitalism and Social Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Quiggin, J. (1999) ‘Globalisation, neoliberalism and inequality in Australia, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol.10, no.2, 240-259 Quillin, K. (2013) ‘The Human Animal’, Science, vol.340, no.6138, p.1288 Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999 Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Kelly, E. (ed), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Rawls, J. (2007) Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, (Freeman S., Ed.) Harvard University Press, online publication available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjnrtqz Readfearn, G. (2018) ‘Gina Rinehart company revealed as $4.5m donor to climate sceptic thinktank’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/21/gina-rinehart-company-revealed-as- 45m-donor-to-climate-sceptic- thinktank?fbclid=IwAR2H39GlCnMQ9GLuMOncExDN_Yjro370NFp- qcsF6mrf8MPpfHqgRiGD-sI accessed 21/7/18 Readfearn, G. (2019) ‘Q&A: Labor's Mark Butler says climate debate should be put aside amid bushfires’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/12/qa-labors-mark-butler-says- climate-debate-should-be-put-aside-amid- bushfires?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0F1c3RyYWxpYW5Qb2xpdGljcy0xOTExM TE%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=AustralianPolitics& CMP=aupolitics_email accessed 12/11/19 Redden, G. (2019) ‘John Howard’s Investor State: Neoliberalism and the Rise of Inequality in Australia’, Critical Sociology, vol.45, no.4-5, pp.713-728 Reich, R. ( 2012) ‘The rebirth of social Darwinism’, Huffington Post, available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-social- darwinism_b_1124379?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlL 274 mNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA20QKDhtxEaFm4FQrPjyvzp0EIT_PAcbn2gAU qMrDKsvCUjYttfA7lpkd5iR04yAhkOStqeRn2CRqIJTbj-syIKZZm7onCYMkAzdMPA- WTNdiYuZ2og- 79eJPOW42mq_79rV5HNrGiYygMeZVTiBga8OrVbmjhi9YbpZTvlsgDG accessed 21/6/2020 Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness, Pion Limited, London Revelle, R. & Suess, H.E. (1957) ‘Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades’, Tellus, vol.9, no.1), pp.18-27 Riessman, C.K. (1993) Qualitative research methods, vol.30, Narrative analysis, Sage Publications, Inc. Robeyns, I. (2016) "The Capability Approach", in Zalta, E.N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 4/9/18 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/ Rockström, et al. (2009) ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, vol.461, no.24, pp.472-475 Roden, D. (2014) ‘Rising tides, refugees: Pacific Needs Climate Justice, Green Left Weekly, no.1006, available at: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/pacific-islanders-call-climate-justice Rootes, C. (2014) ‘A referendum on the carbon tax? The 2013 Australian election, the Greens, and the environment’, Environmental Politics, vol.23, no.1, pp.166-173 Rose, D.B. et al. (2012) ‘Thinking Through the Environment, Unsettling the Humanities’, Environmental Humanities, vol.1, pp.1-5 Roser, D. et al. (2015) ‘Advancing the interdisciplinary dialogue on climate justice’, Climate Change, vol.133, pp.349-359 Roth, S. & Cohen, L.J. (1986) ‘Approach, avoidance and coping with stress’, American Psychologist, July, pp.813-819 Rothenberg, D. (1987) ‘A platform of Deep Ecology’, The Environmentalist, vol.7, no.3, pp.185-190 Rousseau J.J. (1761) The Social Contract and Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, translated with an Introduction by G.D. H. Cole (London and Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons), 2011, available at: http://oll- resources.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/638/Rousseau_0132_EBk_v6.0.pdf accessed 12/4/2019 Saddler, H. (2019) National Energy Emissions Audit Report June 2019, The Australia Institute, ACT, available at: https://www.tai.org.au/content/gas-coal-extraction-dominates- australia-s-rising-emissions Sagoff, M (2001) ‘Consumption’ in ‘A Companion to Environmental Philosophy’ Jamieson, D. (ed), Blackwell Publishers Ltd, UK, pp.473-485 Sandin, P.(1999) ‘Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 275 vol.5, no.5, pp.889-907 Sarath, P. et al. (2015) Mobile phone waste management and recycling: Views and trends’, Waste Management, vol.46, pp.536-545 Sayer, D. (1991) Capitalism and Modernity An excursus on Marx and Weber, Routledge, London/NY SBS (2018) ‘Students lead thousands in nationwide protests against Adani coal mine’, Special Broadcasting Service, available at: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/students-lead- thousands-in-nationwide-protests-against-adani-coal- mine?fbclid=IwAR0UOairhq8diXbauAYrxZs_AcLA3hHXwT96_skRBZ1LdYLHTOg qQ-gF-YQ accessed 8/12/2018 SBS News (2019) ‘'This government fundamentally doesn't like talking about climate change' – former fire chief’, Special Broadcasting Service, available at: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1RDxlNmEojoGL accessed 18/11/2019 Schmeichel, B.J. and Martens, A. (2005) ‘Self-affirmation and mortality salience: Affirming values reduces worldview defense and death-thought accessibility’, Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.31, no.5, pp.658-667 Schnaiberg, A. et al. (2002), ‘The treadmill of production and the environmental state’, Mol, A. & Buttel, F. (ed.) The Environmental State Under Pressure (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, vol.10, pp.15-32 Scholte, J. A. (2004), ‘Governing economic globalization: a response to Keith Griffin’, Development & Change, vol.35, no.5, pp.1049-1056 School Strike 4 Climate (2019) ‘About Us – Our Demands’, School Strike 4 Climate, available at: https://www.schoolstrike4climate.com/about accessed 24/11/2019 Schor, J.B. (1991) The Overworked American, Basic Books, New York Schultz, P.W. et al. (2004) ‘Implicit connections with nature’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol.24, no.1, pp.31-42 Schumacher, E.F. (1993), ‘Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people really mattered’, Vintage, London Schumpeter, J.A. (1994) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge, London Schutz, A. & Luckmann, T. (1974) The Structures of the Life-World, Zaner, R.M. & Tristram Engelhardt Jr. (trans), Heinemann, London Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ‘Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol.25, pp.1-65 Schwemmer, C. & Ziewieck, S. (2018) ‘Social Media Sellout: The Increasing Role of Product Promotion on YouTube’, Social Media + Society, pp.1-20 Scott, J. (2000) ‘Rational Choice Theory’ in Browning, G., Halcli, A. & Webster, F. (eds) Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present, Sage Publications, 276 London, pp.126-138 Scott, S.V. (2014) ‘Does the UNFCCC fulfil the functions required of a framework convention? Why abandoning the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change might constitute a long overdue step forward’, Journal of Environmental Law, vol.0, pp.1–21 Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice, Allen Lane, Penguin Books, London Senior, T. et al. (2014) ‘Gavin Mooney memorial essays: Climate change and equity’, The Gavin Mooney Memorial Prize Sydney School of Public Health University of Sydney NSW 2006, Sydney Sessions, G. (1974) ‘Anthropocentrism and the environmental crisis’, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, vol.2, no.1, pp.71-8 Sessions, G. (1995) ‘Ecocentrism and the Anthropocentric Detour’ paradigm’ in Sessions, G. (ed), Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston pp.156-184 Sessions, G. (ed) (1995) Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Shambhala Publications Inc., Boston Sedikides, C. et al. (2011) ‘Individual self, relational self, collective self: Hierarchical ordering of the tripartite self’, Psychological Studies, vol.56, no.1, pp.98-107 Shanahan, D. (2020) ‘Green “lawfare” a $65bn deal hit’, The Australian, available at: https://www.newscorpaustralia.com/brand/australian/ accessed 5/3/2020 Sharma, A. (2017) ‘Precaution and post-caution in the Paris Agreement: adaptation, loss and damage and finance’, Climate policy, vol.17, no.1, pp.33-47 Silliman, B. R. & Angelini, C. (2012) ‘Trophic Cascades Across Diverse Plant Ecosystems’, Nature Education Knowledge, vol.3, no.10, pp.44 available at: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/trophic-cascades-across-diverse- plant-ecosystems-80060347 Simmel, G. (1971) On individuality and social forms: selected writings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago Singh, D. et al. (2014) ‘Severe precipitation in northern India in June 2013: Causes, historical context, and changes in probability’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol.95, no.9, pp.S58-S61 Singh, M. et al. (2019) ‘Global climate strike: Greta Thunberg and school students lead climate crisis protest – as it happened’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2019/sep/20/climate-strike-global- change-protest-sydney-melbourne-london-new-york-nyc-school-student-protest-greta- thunberg-rally-live-news-latest- updates?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkwOTIw &utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&CMP =GTAU_email accessed 21/9/19 Sleeth-Keppler, D. et al. (2017) ‘It's a Matter of Trust: American Judgments of the Credibility of Informal Communicators on Solutions to Climate Change’, Environmental Communication, vol.11, no.1, p.17-40 277 Sloan, J. (2018) ‘If disaster is nigh, at least we’ll be spared this amateur-hour claptrap’, The Australian, available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_ GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fcommentary%2Fletters%2 Fipcc-report-has-potential-to-bankrupt-economy%2Fnews- story%2F2d23ab6a7ca77b3771e7147407e81273&memtype=anonymous&mode=premiu m accessed 9/10/18 Smee, B. (2020) ‘Australian banks “undermining Paris agreement” with $7bn in fossil fuel loans’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2020/jul/08/australian-banks-undermining-paris-agreement-with-7bn-in-fossil- fuel- loans?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMjAwNzA4&ut m_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTAU_email&utm_campaign=Guardian TodayAUS accessed 8/7/2020 Smith, A. (2007) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: Books I, II, III, IV and V, MetaLibri, Digital Edition Smith, A. & Crowe D. (2019) ‘Deputy Premier says climate change talk amid fire crisis a 'disgrace'’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/deputy-premier-says-climate-change-talk-amid- fire-crisis-a-disgrace-20191111- p539ig.html?list_name=40_smh_newsalert&promote_channel=edmail&utm_campaign =smh-am- newsletter&utm_content=TOP_STORIES&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newslett er&utm_term=2019-11-12&mbnr=MjQxMjA1Nw&instance=2019-11-12-07-21-AEDT accessed 11/11/19 Smith, E.R., & Henry, S. (1996) ‘An In-Group Becomes Part of the Self: Response Time Evidence’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.22, no.6, pp.635-642 Smith, J. et al. (2007) ‘Interdependence’, Geography Compass, vol.1, no.3, pp.340–359 Smith, J.B. et al. (2009), ‘Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons for concern’’’, PNAS, vol.106, no.11, pp.4133-4137 Smith, K. & Mayer, A. (2018) ‘A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries’, Global Environmental Change, vol.49, pp.140-153 Snow, N. (2003) Information War, Seven Stories Press, NY Solomon, S. et al. (1991) ‘A terror management theory of social behaviour: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews’ in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Zanna M.P. (ed), Academic Press Inc, San Diego, vol.24, pp.93-159 Solomon et al. (1998) ‘Tales from the crypt: On the role of death in life’, Zygon, vol.33, no.1, pp.9-43 Sousa Santos, B. de (2018) The End of the Cognitive Empire, Duke University Press, London Spencer, H. (1864) The principles of biology, Williams and Norgate, Edinburgh 278 Speth, J.G. (2008) The bridge at the edge of the world, Yale University Press, London Sprintzen, D. & Rosenberg, A. (1973) ‘The Poetics Of The Human Condition: A Critical Review Of The Work Of Ernest Becker’, Main Currents In Modern Thought, vol.29, pp.153-158 Sprintzen, D. (2009) Critique of Western Philosophy and Social Theory, Palgrave Macmillan, NY Standing, G. (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, Bloomsbury, UK Stanford, J. et al. (2018) The wages crisis in Australia, University Press of Adelaide, Adelaide Steffen, W. et al. (2015) ‘Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’, Science Express, vol.347, no.6223, pp.736-748 Steneck, R.S. (2012) ‘Apex predators and trophic cascades in large marine ecosystems: Learning from serendipity’, PNAS, vol.109, no.21, pp.7953-7954 Stephan, M.J. and Chenoweth, E. (2008) ‘Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict’, International Security, vol.33, no.1, pp.7-44 Stern, P.C. (2000) ‘Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior’, Journal of Social Issues, vol.56, no.3, pp.407-424 Stern, P.C. (2011) ‘Contributions of Psychology to Limiting Climate Change’, American Psychologist, vol.66, no.4, pp.303-314 Stern, P.C. et al. (1999) ‘A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism’, Human Ecology Review, vol.6, pp.81-97 Stevenson, N. (2010) ‘Cultural citizenship, education and democracy: redefining the good society’, Citizenship Studies, vol.14, no.3, pp.275‐291 Supran, G. and Oreskes, N. (2017) ‘Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014)’, Environmental Research Letters, vol.12, pp.1-18 Swain, D. (2012) Alienation: An Introduction to Marx’s Theory, Bookmarks Publications, London Swinburn, B.A. et al. (2019) ‘The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report’, The Lancet, vol.393, no.10173, pp.791-846 Taniguchi, H. & Aldikacti Marshall, G. (2018) ‘Trust, political orientation, and environmental behavior’, Environmental Politics, vol.27, no.3, pp.1-25 Taylor, M. (2014) Global warming and climate change, what Australia knew and buried, Australian National University Press, Canberra Taylor, L. (2017) ‘Hard facts unmask the fiction behind Coalition's 'coal comeback', The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/11/hard- facts-unmask-the-fiction-behind-coalitions-coal-comeback accessed 11/2/17 Taylor, M. & Watts, J. (2019) ‘Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions’, 279 The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon- emissions accessed 19/9/2019 The Australia Institute (2020) ‘Polling –January 2020 – Changing climate change concern and attitudes’, available at: https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/Polling%20- %20January%202020%20- %20Climate%20change%20concern%20and%20attitude%20%5BWeb%5D.pdf accessed 23/5/2020 The Guardian (2015) ‘Paris climate deal: reaction from the experts’, The Guardian, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-reaction- experts?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NE W+H&utm_term=143408&subid=1400895&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2 accessed 13/12/15 The Guardian (2019) ‘What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2019/nov/11/what-are-the-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-explainer accessed 12/11/19 The Guardian Staff and Agencies (2020) ‘Scott Morrison heckled after he tries to shake hands with bushfire victim in NSW town of Cobargo’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/02/scott-morrison-abused-by- bushfire-victims-in-nsw-town-of-cobargo accessed 2/2/2020 The 2019 Nancy Hillier Memorial Lecture (NHML) (2019) ‘Climate Justice - new community activism’, University of New South Wales Sustainability, available at: https://www.sustainability.unsw.edu.au/2019-nancy-hillier-memorial-lecture-climate- justice-new-community-activism accessed 12/11/2019 Thompson, E.P. (1967) ‘Time, Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism’, Past & Present, vol.38, pp.56-97 Thompson, E.P. (1991) The making of the English working class, Vintage Books, NY Thompson, E.P. (1993) Customs in Common, Penguin, England Thunberg, G. (2018) ‘The disarming case to act right now on climate change’, TED, , available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_c limate/up-next?language=en#t-625452 accessed 27/8/2019 Tollefson, J. (2019) ‘The hard truths of climate change — by the numbers’, Nature, available at: https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html accessed 1/12/19 Tranter, B. (2017) ‘It’s only natural: conservatives and climate change in Australia’, Environmental Sociology, vol.3, no.3, pp.1-12 Tranter, B. & Booth, K. (2015) ‘Scepticism in a changing climate: A cross-national study’, Global Environmental Change, vol.33, pp.154-164 Tuan, Y-F. (1971) ‘Geography, Phenomenology, and the Study of Human Nature’, Canadian Geographer, vol.xv, no.3, pp.181-192 280 Tuan, Y-F. (1977) Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, University of Minnesota Press, London UNCED (1992) Agenda 21 and the UNCED Proceedings, Oceana Publications, New York and London UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development PRESS RELEASE (2013), ‘80% of trade takes place in ‘value chains’ linked to transnational corporations, UNCTAD report says’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Switzerland, available at: https://unctad.org/en/pages/PressRelease.aspx?OriginalVersionID=113 accessed 20/11/19 United Nations (1972) ‘Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment’, Sustainable Development, available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/humanenvironment accessed 21/7/17 United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992), United Nations, New York, available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth (2010) World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, Cochabamba, Bolivia April 22, 2010 UNDP: United Nations Development Programme (2010) Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development, United Nations Development Programme, NY United Nations General Assembly (1986), Declaration on the Right to Development, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Article 6 (2), available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/rtd.pdf accessed 23/5/16 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2019) Intangible Cultural Heritage, available at: https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/01851-EN.pdf accessed 12/7/2019 United Nations (2019) ‘Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate’, United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, available at: https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gaef3516.doc.htm accessed 18/4/2020 Urban, M.C (2015) ‘Accelerating extinction risk from climate change’, Science, vol.348, no.6234, pp.571-573 Urry, J. (2011) Climate change and society, Polity Press, Cambridge Vanstone, A. (2019) ‘The Greta Thunberg circus has become a complete farce’, Sydney Morning Herald, available at: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-greta-thunberg-circus-has- become-a-complete-farce-20190926-p52v38.html accessed 26/9/19 Varoufakis, Y. (2017) Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: A Brief History Of Capitalism, Penguin, Random House, UK 281 Veblen, T. (1912) The Theory of the Leisure Class, , B.W. Huebsch, New York Venugopal, R. (2015) ‘Neoliberalism as Concept’, Economy and Society, vol.44, no.2, pp.165-187 Viken, A & Müller (eds) (2017) D.K. Tourism and Indigeneity in the Arctic, Channel View Publications, UK Vimalkumar, M. et al. (2020) ‘Exploring the Multi-Level Digital Divide in Mobile Phone Adoption: A Comparison of Developing Nations’, Inf Syst Front, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10032-5 Wall, J. & Slezak, M. (2016) ‘Coral bleaching 'has changed the Great Barrier Reef forever' – video’, The Guardian, 7 June, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2016/jun/07/coral-bleaching-has- changed-the-great-barrier-reef-forever-video accessed 26/11/2019 Wallerstein, I. (1979) The capitalist world-economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ward, P.R. et al. (2012) ‘How do South Australian consumers negotiate and respond to information in the media about food and nutrition?: The importance of risk, trust and uncertainty’, Journal of Sociology, vol.48, no.23 Waterson, J. (2020) ‘James Murdoch criticises father's news outlets for climate crisis denial’, The Guardian, 14 January, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/14/james-murdoch-criticises-fathers- news-outlets-for-climate-crisis- denial?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMjAwMTE1& utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTAU_email&utm_campaign=Guardia nTodayAUS accessed 15/1/2020 Watts, J. (2017) ‘Hansen calls for wave of climate lawsuits’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/17/we-should-be-on-the- offensive-james-hansen-calls-for-wave-of-climate-lawsuits accessed 28/2/19 Watts, J. (2019) ‘No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts’, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific- consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes- 99?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0dyZWVuTGlnaHQtMTkwNzI2&utm_source=esp& utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GreenLight&CMP=greenlight_email accessed 25/7/19 Weathers, C. (2015) ‘Why the Kochs and the Walmart clan are trying to stop you from putting solar panels on your roof’’, AlterNet, available at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/why-the-kochs-and-the-walmart-clan-are-trying- to-stop-you-from-putting-solar-panels-on-your-roof/ accessed 7/1/15 Webb, E. (1998) ‘Ernest Becker and the Psychology of Worldviews’, Zygon, vol.33, no.1, pp.71-86 Weber, M. (1946) in ‘The Social Psychology of the World Religions, Gerth, H.H. & Wright Mills, C. (eds) From Max Weber Essays in sociology, Oxford University Press, NY pp.267-302 Weber, M. (1947) The theory of social and economic organization, Henderson, A. & Parsons, 282 T. (eds), Oxford University Press, USA Weber, M. (1948), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Gerth, H.H. & Wright Mills, C. (eds, trans), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1982 Weber, M. (1976), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York Westervelt, (2018) ‘A How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable’, Washington Post, available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got- media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/?utm_term=.61a690182653 accessed 10/19 White, L. & Perelman, J. (2011) Stones of Hope: How African Activists Reclaim Human Rights to Challenge Global Poverty, Stanford University Press, Stanford Whitmarsh, L. (2011) ‘Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time’, Global Environmental Change, vol.21, pp.690-700 Wilderness Society (2019), ‘Abandoned: Australia’s forest wildlife in crisis’, The Wilderness Society, Surry Hills, Australia Wilhelm, M, et al. (2015) ‘An overview of social impacts and their corresponding improvement implications: a mobile phone case study’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.102, pp.302-315 Wilkin, P. (2020) ‘Fear of a yellow planet: The Gilets Jaunes and the end of the modern world-system’, Journal of World-Systems Research, vol.26, no.1, pp.70-101 Wilson, E.O. (2003) The future of life, Random House, NY Winnicott, D.W. (1986) Home is where we start from, Penguin Books, England World Meteorological Organisation (2020) ‘The WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019’, World Meteorological Organization, 2020, available at: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10211 accessed 26/6/2020 Wolff, R.D. & Resnick, S.A. (2012) Contending economic theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Wolff, R.D. (2016) Capitalism’s Crisis Deepens, Haymarket Books, Chicago Wong, D.B. (2011) ‘Agon and Hé: Contest and Harmony’ in Ethics in Early China: An Anthology, (1st edn), Fraser, C., Robins, D. and O'Leary, T. (eds), Hong Kong University Press, HKU Wright Mills, C. (1959) The sociological imagination, Penguin Books, England WEF, The Global Risks Report 2019 14th Edition, World Economic Forum, Switzerland WWF, Grooten, M. and Almond, R.E.A.(Eds) (2018) Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland. WWF (2020) ‘Australia’s 2019-2020 bushfires: the wildlife toll’, World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, available at: file:///Users/joealizzi/Documents/PhD/Environment/Underwater%20no%20one%20hea 283 r's%20you%20scream%20AKA%20Goodbye%20Barrier%20Reef/Australia%20in%20 general/Animals%20Impacted%20Interim%20Report%2024-07-2020%20final.pdf accessed 7/8/2020 Young, W.A. (2005) The World’s Religions, Pearson, Boston Young, N. and Coutinho, A. (2014) ‘Government, anti-reflexivity, and the construction of public ignorance about climate change: Australia and Canada compared’, Global Environmental Politics, vol.13, pp.89-108 Yukalov, V.I., Yukalova, E.P. and Sornette, D. (2014) ‘New Approach to Modeling Symbiosis in Biological and Social Systems’, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol.24, no.9, pp.1-29 284 Appendix i. Additional notes on the interview methodology The interviews aimed at being participant-guided as far as is possible. The aim was to let the individual respond the ‘encounter’ with climate change objects introduced into the interview space, and then simply follow the response to allow free talk around what is felt and understood within the encounter. The research looks for patterns between the individual’s life situation/experiences/needs/aspirations and so on, and observed responses to find connections with motivations and inhibitions. Questions regarding individual ‘actions’ that are generally associated with climate action, along with media (videos and/or photos and graphs) with which participants engaged, were used to generate ‘encounters’ with climate change, and to extend and isolate smaller actions. I sought to embody the approach of a ‘civic-minded qualitative researcher’ who ‘uses a set of material practices that bring the world into play’ (Denzin & Lyncoln 2005:1084). A researcher that adopts such an approach, according to Denzin & Lyncoln (2005:1084), is an active and engaged ‘bricoleur’, one that ‘thinks historically and interactionally’ and incorporates varied innovative methods and strategies to get a broader and deeper understanding of the issue being considered. The approach is thus informed by more current multimethod approaches that give researchers more flexibility in creating an effective research mix (Fontana & Frey 2005:722). Interviews were conducted in a semi structured way, inviting the participants to express their immediate feelings and thoughts to survey-type questions to quantify ‘action’ through practical measures, but also to engage with images to discuss symbols that arise in social discourse, and videos to explore notions of understanding, connection and trust. When detecting a sense of hopelessness, I explored any connection with personal resources and tested risk perception generally to see if/when participants feel a sense of control, or not, in the face of uncertainty (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006:84). The research uses a qualitative approach, combining methodological practices and empirical materials, seeking rigor through ‘triangulation’ within and through the interview to ‘attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question’ (Denzin & Lyncoln 2005:5). The project sought to capture a cohort as representative of the general population as possible. I looked for people in public settings (e.g. libraries, university) with more purposive recruitment (for example online ‘Meet-up’ special interest groups were targeted. These comprise of 285 specifically-themed collectives where I will seek access to cohorts who attend groups focusing on a broad range of specific interests e.g. Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom club (passionate Capitalists); Academy of Ideas and Thought; NSW Humanist meet-up and so on. Further, I gained a number of participants though ‘snowball sampling’ (referrals) to produce numbers by using those who had already participated to generate leads. For participant criteria my study focused on those of the population ‘who are in a position to act’, which meant any and all participants of a non-vulnerable nature (i.e. they act to the extent possible that is demonstrated by their circumstances). Clearly my interpretation of the interview material cannot completely reflect the participants’ full accounts within the interviews. My selections represent those comments that directly shed light and contribute to the goals of my research. I take full responsibility for any misrepresentations or misinterpretations. ii. The interview participants Here I want to briefly introduce the nineteen participants who kindly contributed their time to this investigation. The participants are assigned pseudonyms to ensure anonymity required under the UNSW ethics process. The interviews were conducted in Sydney, Australia and its environs. The cohort includes five female and fourteen male participants of varying ages from eighteen to seventy-two, and from the spectrum of political positioning as well as positioning on the issue of CC. Although I don’t feel the material presented is particularly gender biased, the low number of female participants ought to be generally borne in mind. The information given is based on the participants’ life situation and experience when the interviews were conducted between 2017 and 2019. Participants were asked at the beginning of the interview to fill a basic questionnaire regarding age, family status, housing, employment, ethic or cultural background, income bracket, context in which they grew up and present living setting. They were also asked to define what they imagine as ‘nature’ or ‘the environment’, their political positioning (if any) and to what extend they agree with the statement ‘I think climate change is happening and it is largely caused by humans’ (from completely agree to completely disagree). The demographic breakdown reflects the multiculturalism of Australian society, illustrative of varying educational and financial histories and situations. Essentially the participants cover a broad spectrum of people whose experiences in relation to climate change help illustrate how individuals translate their experience with climate change into ‘action on climate change’ or ‘resistance to action on climate change’ according to perceived positioning, social context, and 286 resources. The following precises of participant contributions give a background related to the place model in discussion. Frank (interviewed May 2017) is an Australian resident originally from Jakarta, Indonesia, a highly populated and polluted city. He contrasts his early growing experiences in a rural, undeveloped part of Indonesia to what he left behind – a polluted and crowded chaotic city. After moving from an urban context to coastal parts of Sydney, he has begun appreciating things about living in a ‘spacious’ ‘fresh’ environment that he hadn’t noticed earlier. Nonetheless Frank doesn’t feel very informed about climate change, considers himself as a centrist on the issue and basically follows what is presented on the news: ‘you just go through the motion of life…Yes, you educate yourself somehow, consciously, or deliberately or subconsciously, getting information, people talk about this, and you start feeling guilty using plastic stuff and there’s that awareness or more conscious about it I suppose, um, but yeah that’s like my understanding about the climate change’. Frank describes his level of trust of the information as ‘50/50’ – ‘I’m not sure how legit the argument is, or how strong is the correlation’. Frank is focussed on establishing a business in Australia, and contrasts the fantastic life in Australia to his country of origin, Indonesia. Bill (interviewed May 2017) is a climate scientist, working on the link between extreme temperatures and climate change in Australia. However, he became more involved in this area of research not as a response to the issue, but because he found the problems surrounding climate change fascinating and wanted to understand them. Bill describes a strong connection with the natural world, and the challenge of having a deep awareness of the future implications of climate change while pursuing a career and home life. Because of what he understands he oscillates from positions of deep hopelessness and cynicism to basic optimism and hope in humanity. His understanding shapes particular actions in his life, but he often makes ‘a cost/benefit analysis on individual cases’ in terms of his actions. Operating amongst a circle of financially well-off peers, Loral (interviewed May 2017) at times feels dissonance as someone who is ‘slightly left of, or a lot lefter than some of’ her friends. But Loral is conflicted when thinking and acting politically. She is disappointed at the difficulty of finding political parties that match both her conservative Christian values and her concern for the environment. She feels that her German husband’s cultural background has shaped their approach to consideration for the environment, and feels lucky to have the ‘luxury’ to be able to afford to ‘make a decision that we think is best’ by investing in environmentally responsible products and housing renovations. 287 Lisa (interviewed May 2017) is convinced about the issue of climate change, first having learnt indirectly about environmental issues at school, and later broadening her knowledge at university. While principally having grown up in an urban context, her family’s rural background meant that she was exposed to home life that had strong connection with a healthy vegetable garden and animals, which she associates in the discussion about the environment. Lisa was involved in organising a political initiative that was attempting to protect majestic fig trees that had been part of that community since the 1860s, and organised a march that coincided with COP21, the Paris climate conference in 2015. Her experiences in being politically active have brought about a conflicted position regarding any future action she might take in relation to climate change. As a climate scientist studying the impacts of climate change on oceans and polar ice caps, Katherine (interviewed June 2017) describes a strategy of compartmentalizing her knowledge and understanding of the frightening and depressing repercussions of climate change in order to just live from day to day. She has to compartmentalize her life in order to manage the real implications that she understands are associated with CC. Katherine is highly conscious of the connections between even her mundane actions and the issue of climate change, but seeks to balance her understanding and conviction regarding the issue of climate change with the limits of her daily familial needs. Though he ‘was never an environmentalist’ Richard (interviewed June 2017) works in the field of climate research, particularly in climate modelling. Richard was born in Singapore and spent the first years of his life in an ‘extremely rural’ context in the Solomon Islands, recounting formative years involving many outdoor, nature-related activities like spear fishing, diving and camping. But Richard doesn’t necessarily link this background with his attitude toward climate change, though it gives him an appreciation of the world which feeds into daily actions. Richard describes a need to ‘Zen things out a bit’ when describing the way he manages the anger, frustration and fear that arises when he sees global action regarding climate change failing; he conserves emotional energy when things are beyond his control. Thus Richard, in describing the US decision to pull out of the Paris agreement says ‘it doesn't affect me, like I imagine a stereotypical environment activist might be affected’. Mitchell (interviewed June 2017) is 19 years old and has some general awareness about the issue of climate change through what he learnt at school, and from what he sees as a human effect on the environment. He describes a level of discomfort when climate change comes up in conversation, particularly associated with a sense of responsibility for climate change, which may curb his discussions about it. Mitchell also expresses some discomfort in discussing 288 climate change when it is ‘politics related’ and ‘when money comes into it’. Mitchell also expresses some conflict in political engagement because though he might want to associate politically with a party interested in substantive action on climate change, his Christian beliefs at times clash with the entirety of policies that ‘the left’ might put forward. Mitchell’s experiences uncertainty regarding the information on CC, and a lack of clear authorities to trust, so hesitates to know what kind of action to take. Jonathan (interviewed June 2017) expresses a level of disempowerment and hopelessness in the face of the issue of climate change, saying he had stopped thinking about it because it wasn’t achieving anything other than making him feel depressed. He sees a common failure to adequately respond to the issue in the face of the clear scientific understanding, and feels frustrated and depressed that the issue is politicised and that people are ‘sticking their head in the sand’. He is quite sceptical individualist approaches to action that rely on market signals, arguing that while it gives a false sense of empowerment, it ‘falls far short’ of what is needed to address the issue. As a business owner, Rick (interviewed June 2017) is conscious of managing finances well. He has a small plot of land, in his spare time maintaining beehives, chickens and a vegetable patch. He’s highly conscious of waste and describes connection with nature, though he doesn’t experience it as an adequate connection. Upon further reflection Rick does begin to see that yes, he’s quite connected ‘probably compared to other people’. But then he clarifies his hesitation by comparing himself to an individual he knows who has created wetlands and developing a wildlife sanctuary. In other words, connectedness and action are relative, recalling the Aboriginal perspective of being that he describes as true, felt connection. Phillip (interviewed June 2017), who is in his mid 70s, expresses frustration and anxiety regarding the ‘short-termism of our thinking’ and expresses frustration at the business-as-usual approach despite the clear understanding of the situation humans face. Phillip takes many practical and political steps to act on climate change. Imagining the kind of future that awaits his grandchildren if things continue on the current trajectory motivates him to engage on whatever level that is open to him and that he has the energy and resources to dedicate to it. Talking to Joe (interviewed June 2017) one is struck with a particular word and perspective that repeats throughout the conversation related to climate change – ‘Everyone’s got an agenda’ says Joe. The notion of trust and its counterpart mistrust runs strongly in the theme of action on climate change, and Joe reflects the challenge of engaging with an issue in an inconsistent, unstable or contested, and thus untrustworthy, terrain. Joe identifies as right-leaning, seeks facts 289 to support any position he takes. While he accepts climate change as happening, he often expresses hesitation about how trustworthy authoritative sources are, and whether their agendas match what can and ought to be done regarding the issue. Paul (interviewed July 2017) describes himself as having a conservative outlook, regarding conservation as a key part of the human condition. He describes a passion for thinking about political and social issues, and a desire to tackle ‘vexed’ issues such as ‘euthanasia, abortion, changes to what we might call the traditional consideration of the institution of marriage, climate change of course, immigration, tolerance of other human societies, the nature of war’. It is a worldview that includes a vision of society with a ‘small nonintrusive government, bottom up kind of community attitude where communities take responsibility for their own relative wellbeing rather as distinct from having those kind of requirements imposed from authoritarian sources above’. His vision includes a strong sense of temporal responsibility, arguing that ‘we are temporary custodians of the future for the people who come after us and we have a responsibility for the people who have come before us’. Paul is concerned about the policies enacted to deal with climate change, and he connects the cost of electricity prices to faltering climate change policies that are placing elderly people at risk due to the cost of putting a heater on. The structural issues related to energy pricing and usage that immediately impact Paul in terms of the energy costs needed to sustain his business and livelihood speak to the complexities of transitioning from one system to another. Further, Paul feels that there are other agendas at work, that are enmeshed with the issue of climate change, expressing a difficulty of knowing who to trust. Jeff (interviewed August 2017) is a town planner, a role that has expanded in recent times to encompass the environment in its definition, which led Jeff to do further studies in environmental management and then a PhD in sustainable development. Though Jeff was born in a rural context and spent a lot of time in the natural, he doesn’t make any explicit links with these early experiences and his position on environmental questions like climate change. Instead, he recounts a ‘seminal moments’ during a period of major forest/anti-logging protests and after spending time in Central Australia camping and walking and being with aboriginal people as part of his studies. What struck him was the socio-economic implications for rural citizens, and found the Indigenous peoples’ ‘level of embeddedness’ awe-inspiring, though he doubts he could ever get to that level. His thinking again reveals an understanding of connectedness or ‘embeddedness’, but, though desired, a commensurate hesitation about how one’s present manner of living feels distanced from it. Jeff is orientated towards the idea of community but sees the global move towards individualism playing out politically Australia, a sense that ‘everyone's trying to grab what they can while they can’. 290 The issue of climate change is important for Kolya (interviewed August 2017), and he describes a carefully balanced path between balancing the things that are important and meaningful in his life and being able to advance within the current economic and social system with its vested interests that often conflicts with his values in regard to climate change and social connectedness. Kolya recounts the influence of his parent’s struggles and migration as refugees and his migration to Australia at the age of 9, something that he links not only with a capacity for empathy and understanding hardship, but also a necessary scepticism of media and the unsettled and polarised social terrain. When discussing climate change, a primary issue his personal research has led him to understand is the massive future displacement of populations and disruption it will cause. He is also, more generally, concerned about the social and environmental disconnectedness in the contemporary terrain. Lenka (interviewed August 2017) is originally from Eastern Europe and travels between Australia and Europe but has settled in Australia. She cites positive and negative changes after the Berlin wall fell, in part the effects of capitalism on a formerly communist system. The historical effects of communism have shaped her opportunities and trajectory. Lenka values many things – friendship; being part of nature – which allows her ‘to feel herself’ and ‘happy without explanations and without questions’; ‘to have a sense of achievement, to try to do something and to persuade (sic) your ideas and your intentions and this sense of achievement’ makes her happy. She is actively engaged in opposing the Adani coalmine but is optimistic that social movements will prevail. European-born George (interviewed February 2018) came with his family to Australia as a refugee from a very early age. He feels lucky to be in Australia, which he considers the best country in the world. His life experiences lead him to notice the problematic asymmetries in power that dictate human exchange and devalue human life, having the perspective that ‘the world has changed over the years, not just Australia. I mean it’s a whole new environment where we have money as the new god, and whatever it takes to make money is whatever we do, and that affects all aspects of our life.’ George describes a world that is increasingly in conflict over resources and that the economic system in his lifetime has increasingly emphasised a particular way of life out of balance with the available resources. Money, he argues, is at the base of most social, political and environmental problems and one can find the truth by following the money. George’s worldview has a strong influence over his actions; he says ‘I have a very simple value concept that personally, if I cannot add value to another person or if I cannot add value to an issue, or, if I cannot add value I do not get involved. Basically there’s no 291 point stressing about things that one cannot control. So if you can control or contribute to an outcome make it positive, if not stay away, don't get involved on the negative side.’ Jerry (interviewed March 2018) is the son of immigrant parents who had fled the Holocaust of WW2, where being Jewish had put their life at risk. He comes from an academically inclined family and describes a moment of waking up ‘on the global warming slash climate change rubbish’. He expresses deep suspicion of the United Nations, and feels that his science background has allowed him to unveil a plot related to funding and power. Jerry recounts his discovery in this way: ‘The UN was formed from the ashes of the League of Nations, which in turn was formed largely of the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society in turn was formed to continue the work of Karl Marx. If you look at the core values of the UN, those are the exact same core values as the Nazis.’ For Jerry climate change takes on strong representations associated with groups and ideas he strongly mistrusts – Marxism, Greenies, ‘Sustainable development’. These combine with his heritage and his experiences of having lived a threatened existence. ‘It’s like these are green Nazis and if you look at some of the solutions for climate change, global warming, they are so insanely green as to be completely insane. People haven’t realised it yet.’ Peter (interviewed February 2018) describes growing up in a country town and being influenced by his familial and social context, self-describing as quite ‘leftie’ in his early years. He recalls giving a speech in his youth on global warming, but how travelling and being exposed to different contexts proved to change his awareness and focus so that he shifted more ‘to the right’, with ‘less focus on the environment and more on people, and more attuned to waste that goes on and the inefficient things we do in our society’. Peter expresses frustration and a sense of being judged about having changed his worldview, saying ‘I felt like it was like coming out. Funnily enough, you hear gay people saying it was harder to come out as conservative than come out as gay. I felt like it was like coming out to my parents, that I no longer believed what I used to.’ Peter’s principle interests are about the causes of social problems and the inequities that come about through poor governmental management. As a ‘realist libertarian’, many of the policies implemented by the government are unjustified and impinge on his personal liberty, while also being inefficient and ineffective. Peter is concerned about what is happening to the planet through global warming, and regards it as a foregone conclusion, but feels that government solutions are inadequate. Doreen (interviewed August 2019) is a thirty-year-old international student from China. She has experienced the massive social shifts that accompany China’s opening up to foreign trade and investment and the commensurate changes involved in adapting a socialist ideologies with 292 free-market principles to create its unique form of state capitalism. Doreen recounts that as a child Doreen, all the children learnt to take care of the environment, not to waste and issues of pollution. She would criticise her father, who works as an industrial engineer in a steelworks, telling him the industrial waste was damaging the environment. Such a critique lasted until an intervention from her mother, who said that though she was right about pollution, their whole livelihood, not to mention millions of people in China, was dependent on such advances. This was the beginning of a realisation for her that the Chinese people had just as much a right to benefit from industrialisation that the West had enjoyed for so long. Thus Doreen is sensitive to Western critiques of China’s development, feeling they are not only hypocritical, but mis- informed about the lengths the Chinese government goes to towards reducing its emissions while also allowing its people to have a better standard of living and rise out of poverty. iii. Interview materials Participants engaged with a series of materials during the interview process. A demographic questionnaire was filled in prior to the interview, asking personal details about education, marital/family status, housing and employment, ethnic or cultural background, and income bracket. Some broader questions were asked about where the person grew up and their political positioning. One question was designed to gauge connectedness with the rest of nature, simply being ‘what do you imagine as ‘nature’ or ‘the environment’? This question was often a good broad starting point to gauge individual conceptualisations of the individuals’ imagining of themselves within nature, and while I was unable to consider the rich data from these moments, they too provide valuable insights into the relation between connectedness and awareness of being interdependent as opposed to that relation being distantiated and mediated by urbanisation and pressures of daily life. Finally, the questionnaire asked the participant to respond as to how much he/she agreed with the statement: ‘I think climate change is happening and it is largely caused by humans.’ This helped provide a starting foundation not only for me to check my own biases, but to be able to compare responses in light of the individual’s stated position and observe any revealing tensions therein. In line with this, after about five interviews I began asking the participant to comment in general terms with a few words to describe what they felt constitutes a ‘meaningful life’. This also provided important insights in terms of individual values and worldviews. Upon meeting the participant, if an initial discussion hadn’t emerged from the introductory process above and/or when it was time to move forward, the interview was able to proceed in up to three broad phrases depending on how the participant’s responses guided the discussion. I 293 had designed various pathways of encounter other than preliminary guide questions. Again, this was in one sense overambition on my part, trying to cover the multiple complexities that I saw with trying to explore the notion of encounter. Soon, however, I found this to be helpful in the participant-guided exchange because it provided multiple flow points for the interview to follow. By not being bound a strict agenda, multiple moments of engagement arose, which allowed the individual’s thoughts and actions in regard to a particular topic to emerge and be explored. The three broad phases, which I will detail with samples below, were: a. Interview guide questions and ‘actions’ list b. Audio-visual discussion prompts c. Pictorial climate symbolism task in association with emotion A – Interview guide questions and ‘actions’ list: This included a general discussion about the person and background, the things they valued, issues of importance to them. Participants were asked to comment on how often, if at all, they think about climate change and how this arose – in daily conversation, from the news and so on. This allowed the conversation to flow in various directions. It sometimes led to a discussion about trust – the science, sources of information, governmental authority and so on, or allowed the participant to discuss if climate change for them is a political, justice or survival issue, or combination of each. It also allowed discussion on how informed the individual was, and how that level of information made them feel. And it allowed discussion on how free the person was raising the issue and with whom, which helped reveal ‘zones of safety’. For example, Peter attended a Libertarian community discussion group where the issue would arise, Lenka and Kolya were engaged with environmental activist groups, Bill and Katherine were environmental scientists, while Frank, Loral and Jonathan had no specific context of engagement and talked about it with friends and family if at all. The ‘actions list involved levels of personal encounter and engagement with a variety of concerns and issues that are linked with climate change. The category of questions were broken up into a) informational engagement – how informed the person is/stays, where they get information from; b) energy efficiency efforts – covering various topics that are associated with being environmentally conscious and often joined to the issue of climate change, such as efforts to be more energy efficient via sources and use of electricity, forms of transportation, and broader contributions and personal efforts like eating less meat or planting a tree, and management of financial investments in respect to fossil fuels and renewables. The list also explored forms of political engagement through with environmental groups, or groups opposing 294 climate action, degree of support for government policies related to climate mitigation, and finally level of political empowerment and engagement with the broader community – from signing petitions to protest marches, and government – from meeting with local government representatives to voting in elections. A – Questions and prompts deployed during interview (sample) Interview guide questions: Tell me a bit about yourself, the things you value, which social issues do you think are important? What do you think has shaped your values? Do you think about climate change much? Does it come up in daily conversation and daily life? When? Where? Why? How much do you feel you know/understand about ‘climate change’? Who/what do you trust when it comes to the issue of climate change? Why? Individual Action choices: Practical With the interviewer the participant discusses each option according to personal circumstances and usual practices What does action on climate change mean to you? Following are some categories typically associated with climate action, please discuss how you engage with them and how you feel about them Section 1A: Informational engagement 1. How much do you do to stay informed on climate issues? Where do you get your information regarding climate change? Newspaper/media articles, read things online: Read information from pro Environmental organisations, think tanks that support climate change or think tanks that oppose climate change or favour different approaches to the issue (e.g. The Climate Council, The Australian Climate Council, The Heartland Institute) You do personal academic research to refute or confirm claims regarding climate change: Section 1B – Energy use The following are considered practical actions to save energy. Please indicate your level of engagement with them and/or your feelings about them Part 1 – General 295 1. You regulate temperature by not using/using less A/C, ventilation, using blankets/clothes instead of heaters where possible: 2. You switch off lights when not needed or use low-watt lighting 3. On what level do you access Renewable electricity: (Choose which if any) E.g. Solar hot water/Solar panels/portable solar panel for computer/wind/wave/biomass/geothermal) 4. You have Installed insulation in the home – Bulk insulation: batts, rolls, boards or Reflective insulation: aluminium foil laminated onto paper or plastic: Yes/No/ N/A 5. You are on green power electricity: (This is where households and businesses commit their GreenPower Providers to purchasing the equivalent amount of electricity from accredited renewable energy generators) Yes/No N/A Energy use part 2 – Transport 1. Walk or ride a bike (for transport e.g. to work/school/uni) 2. Take public transport 3. You avoid flying or reduce air travel Energy use Section 3 – Broader actions: 1. Climate-friendly eating e.g. eat less meat, eat more seasonal food 2. Recycling 3. Buying locally made products Financial investments 1. Divesting from fossil fuels in your portfolios 2. Investing in projects related to renewables or with other environmentally friendly focus 3. Investing in renewable energy in your home Degree you engage in any kind of activism for or against action on climate change 1. You have joined/are a member of an activist/environmental/political group (e.g. Friends of the Earth, 350.org) or anti Climate change movement/group 2. You volunteer your time and work with such groups 3. You donate to climate change/environmental groups or anti climate change groups/think tanks Degree you are supportive of the following policies if your government seeks to pursue them 1. Investment in renewable energy 2. Shutting down of coal mines or opening up more coal mines 3. Taxing high emitting industries 4. An ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) or Carbon Tax 296 Political engagement: Do you engage politically when it comes to the issue of climate change? If so, how? Please discuss if you have done or regularly practice any of the following: I. Voted in a government election on the basis of their stance on climate change II. Get involved with the debate online e.g. Facebook likes, posts, blogs, responses to articles III. Engage with or get involved with political representative: write to/meet with local MP to discuss concerns about policy, contact government member about climate change issues IV. Protest – march on a campaign day, go to a rally, picket If you believe climate change is real and caused by humans, do you feel you are doing enough on climate change? If you don’t believe climate change is real and caused by humans, do you feel you are doing enough on opposing action on climate change? B – Audio-visual discussion prompts: This included a series of video presentations with various authoritative figures, such as David Attenborough and organisations like National Geographic, discussing the issue of climate change – overall impacts like temperature rise causing glaciers to melt/sea levels to rise; or the US senate and climate expert James Hansen or climate scientist Stephen Schneider in discussion with a public forum of climate sceptics. Other videos were in relation to environmental connectedness and awareness – climate scientist discussing the Great Barrier Reef, the Saami people of Lapland and their relation with nature. B – Audio-visual Discussion prompts sample Participants are told what the video is about, are asked to watch it, and then respond to it. No specific question is posed to reflect an online ‘encounter’ one might have with climate change via dialectical exchanges with friends, media or other organisations. 297 Authoritative figures and organisations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 (David Attenborough speaking on ‘The truth about climate change’) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_mY1orxgHw (Interview with David Attenborough on the seriousness of the situation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4I8tYnxP4 (National Geographic, photo evidence of glacial melt and consequences) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjrS8QbHmY (Climate facts and impacts) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZQWBrHnk0 (James Hansen explaining climate science to US senator denying the science) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JmptSCkAgw (Climate sceptics in discussion with climate scientist Stephen Schneider) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EectB241kmY (US National security risk assessment) Connectedness/awareness Sample Video with reef specialist, scientist Terry Hughes https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid- bare) The Saami People (Laplanders) – https://vimeo.com/178088391 How do you respond to the comments brought up by the Saami? How would you compare your feelings to theirs? C – Pictorial climate symbolism task in association with emotion: This involved a series of images – people such as Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and prominent climate activist who produced the seminal film An Inconvenient truth, or Christopher Monkton, British public speaker, political advisor and prominent climate denial advocate, and things such as images of glacial melts, stranded polar bears, oil and coal mining, or front-page media headlines. These images linked to the issue of climate change were displayed and participants were asked to explain what emotion it evoked and then to speak to that emotion. Climate Change symbolism tasks Here are some images on topics and people linked to climate change – explain how they make you feel and why. 298 299 300 iv. What I was able to hear As mentioned, the above materials served as starting points; I never needed or was able to cover each section comprehensively, and indeed some interviews even remained within the first phase, though often it was a combination of open discussion with the interview guide questions/action list and a version of the audio-visual prompts. Each ‘encounter’ offered moments of expression that teased out the participant’s position and reaction on climate change. I was able to elicit multiple expressions regarding the three areas in my tripartite security schema of dialectical place, namely a) protection of materially constituted security, associated vulnerabilities, resources, present and future frames, threat/risk perception, and associated anxieties/fears, behaviours and investment; b) protection of social constituted security – ingroup belonging, worldviews, ideologies connected to particular worldviews, attachments, cultural action systems and belonging therein, and associated anxieties/fears; and c) protection of individually constituted security through self-image, fulfilment of cultural action systems providing self-esteem, meaning, and ‘heroism’, and associated anxieties/fears. However, many other things emerged, namely direct or indirect mentions of the taken-for- granted capitalist ethic and the rules therein that dictate or influence action, and associated anxieties/fears; the individual’s level of engagement or ‘action’ relative to positioning on the issue, and associated anxieties/fears; spatial awareness regarding what sources of information, time resources, historical artefacts, current material and conceptual artefacts etc. that occupy individual space; time spent in which other social or ecological ‘spaces’, sense of connectedness, sense of intrusion; sense of capacity to engage one’s ‘voice’, sense of platforms, amount of energy/resources required, relation to above issues, barriers and opportunities, sense of effectiveness, and associated anxieties/fears; discussions around ‘justice’, both personal and social, and ‘right/wrongness’ or fairness, and finally a sense of personal worldview, personal causa sui project and stories of ‘heroic’ action in relation one’s socio-cultural milieu. I feel many of these areas, which I could not cover within the scope of the thesis, offer rich pathways for future research regarding the individual’s action in the face of climate change. End 301 302