How to tackle climate change – the result

July 8, 2009 by matthewtaylor
Filed under: Uncategorized 

Time for me to update on the cultural theory survey I ran last week. In all – at the time of writing – seventy people participated. Thank you.

The survey was based on testing out ways of thinking about climate change using the four paradigms of cultural theory: the egalitarian, the hierarchical, the individualist and the fatalist.

I wanted to know whether people were willing to choose between the four, which was the most popular and whether there were any interesting correlations between people’s most favoured and least favoured way of thinking. I ended up doing two posts as I quickly realised that people would overwhelmingly choose the fatalist option as their least favourite. Fatalism is often how we behave, but Western culture tends to frown upon it as an attitude, especially on an issue we are all supposed to feel passionate about, like climate change.

So, this is what we found – with thanks to Barbara to doing the collation (hope I got it right – Barbara): only four people out of seventy plumped for the fatalist option, and this included a couple of people who don’t believe in anthropomorphic climate change. Of the other three, ‘active’ paradigms both option 1, the egalitarian, with 44% and option 3, the individualist, with 39% were reasonably popular. But, interestingly, option 2, the hierarchical managed only 11%.  

In relation to people’s least favoured option there was another noteworthy result. Among the two options most people backed, the egalitarians (‘we must change our lives and values to stop climate change’) were equally likely to reject the hierarchical or the individualist perspective. But individualists (‘with the right incentives human ingenuity can solve the problem’) were twice as likely to reject the hierarchical (‘it is up to government to sort the problem’) as the egalitarian perspective.

So what do I take from this, albeit on a small self selecting sample?  First that there is a discontinuity between what people think and what appears at the moment to be the reality. While readers rejected fatalism and hierarchy it could be argued that ‘do nothing and wait for the authorities to sort it out’ is the way society as a whole is behaving.

Second, it seems that those who believe human ingenuity can solve the problem are particularly unimpressed by the idea of relying on government, while those who emphasise the need to change the way we think are more open minded about the potential for state action. Does this in any way map onto a more traditional left-right axis I wonder?

Of course, it may be that the answers simply reflect the way I phrased the options. So the next test is when I try the game out next week on a group of local government officers. Presumably, they will be more inclined to think governments must take the lead.

It’s been an exhausting week – already – so I can’t quite think through where I want to take this next or what might be its implications. I’ll ask my cultural theorist friends what they think. One idea is to try out the options on a less emotive issue, but asking the same people to participate? But given that people seemed to enjoy playing the game, I’m open to other ideas.   

Thanks again to all those who took part.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. What kind of climate change thinker are you? (version 2) (This is a modified version of an earlier post. I...
  2. What kind of climate change thinker are you? OK folks, I need your help. For some time I...
  3. Suffolk against the state Suffolk County Council worked me hard last night. I wasn’t...
  4. Climate change – excuse my ignorance I have been getting so little response to my posts...
  5. Help me make a fool of myself Thanks to everyone who helped out on my cultural theory...

Tags: ,

Comments

14 Comments on How to tackle climate change – the result

  1. David Key on Thu, 9th Jul 2009 9:00 am

    2. As a psychologist something really jumps out at me from your results.

    The low score for the Fatalist option suggests to me that culturally we are in ‘denial’ about the scale and scope of climate change and that one of our current coping processes is to deny the ’shadow’ side of our predicament.

    Sounds a bit ‘Star Wars’ to those not familiar with psychology (apologies to those that are), but the basis is that the ‘whole’ always consists of light AND dark and that an imbalance in either direction is unhealthy. The optimum is where the light and dark / good and bad / positive and negative can sit together in balance.

    Your results suggest that we are focusing on the positive ‘we can do it!’ options, repressing the scary stuff and, therefore, not ‘integrating’ (psych. speak) the negative affectively.

    It would, in my opinion, be more collectively healthy to see more Fatalists! The fact that this statement alone might feel counter-intuitive as you read it, only adds to my point about our cultural tendency being to deny the negative! “Chin up!”

    Our inability, in industrial western cultures, to cope with negative stuff healthily (in an open and authentic way) is – I believe – a major cause of the anxiety and depression that one in four of us here in the UK suffer from! It’s just not ALL light. It might also be at the root of the phenomena that, while we all seem to understand the issues, we still appear unable to act on a scale or depth that will deal with them. We’re stuck.

    So more Fatalism please! We need, in my opinion, to start thinking in terms of palliative care for our species… while actively planning and hoping for a remission. Negative and positive in balance.

  2. Julian Dobson on Thu, 9th Jul 2009 11:09 am

    3. Fascinating. I’d be interested to see a further survey asking how (or whether) the individualists were actually using their human ingenuity to tackle the issue. But perhaps that might throw up another of those discontinuities. It might even show that more people act in accordance with the fatalist approach than any other.

    What you’d then do with that information, of course, is another matter.

  3. MIchael in UK on Thu, 9th Jul 2009 7:37 pm

    4. Very interesting, thank you for reporting back.
    I think that many blog readers would be interested to read two recent posts on the RSA Arts and Ecology thread, also on (or close to) the topic of climate change.
    And Mathew – are you able to share any reflections on your recent lunch with Tim Smit?

    http://artsandecology.rsablogs.org.uk/2009/07/06/tim-smit-explains-that-this-hippy-shit-moment/

  4. William Shaw on Thu, 9th Jul 2009 10:42 pm

    5. Thanks for plugging the RSA Arts & Ecology blog, Michael :-)

    I suspect Mattnew has spotted two key fault lines. The first:

    “First that there is a discontinuity between what people think and what appears at the moment to be the reality. While readers rejected fatalism and hierarchy it could be argued that ‘do nothing and wait for the authorities to sort it out’ is the way society as a whole is behaving.”

    … ispretty much what Antony Giddens is calling Giddens’ Paradox in the Politics of Climate Change.

    The second is more complex though:

    “Second, it seems that those who believe human ingenuity can solve the problem are particularly unimpressed by the idea of relying on government, while those who emphasise the need to change the way we think are more open minded about the potential for state action. Does this in any way map onto a more traditional left-right axis I wonder?”

    I’d expect that to be a more generational difference than a traditional left-right difference. In my experience of environmental politics, there is a generation who came of age in the 90s who benefited greatly from the technological revolution of that decade and whose faith in technology is much stronger than those who came of age earlier – and perhaps also later. How that correlates with faith in the state I’m not sure.

    Re: David Key’s comment above about how we’re “in denial”…

    Conventional political thinking is very at sea about how to deal with a looming crisis of this scale. The language of government employees like Lord Stern or former Chief Scientist Sir David King is pretty stark; however politicans themselves are timorous about using such direct language themselves.

    Maybe this is because of the behaviourist assumption that we should present a positive option in order to achieve positive action. This clearly works when you’re dealing with social behaviour whose benefits are immediately realisable – like, say, persuading people to stop smoking. “Stopping smoking makes you healthier” is a more effective message than saying “smoking will kill you.” But this tactic is clearly not working in relation to climate change when the benefits of action are mostly half a century or more away.

  5. Victoria Taylor on Fri, 10th Jul 2009 2:15 pm

    6. ‘So the next test is when I try the game out next week on a group of local government officers. Presumably, they will be more inclined to think governments must take the lead.’
    Please bear in mind that some enthusiastic local government officers may have been preparing for your talk next week by researching your work and reading your blog :)

  6. phil korbel on Sun, 12th Jul 2009 9:36 am

    7. An interestng mix of approaches just off the starting blocks here in Manchester – the ‘hierarchical’ [city council] inviting active involvement in writing the city’s climate change action plan that embraces shades of both the egalitarian and individualist . The Council have invited willing members of the voluntary, campaign, academic and private sectors to work with their lead officers to set the path for a 1 million tonne CO2 reduction [minimum] by 2020.

    Sat, as I am, in the thick of the process it feels exhilerating – with the potential for something quite brilliant or for utter disaster. Can we get these trends to work together to make something radical and acheivable in two and a half months? What we are sure of is that there is a real drive to make it work from all parties – and resources/politcal clout being brought to the table the Council too.

    Any tips Matthew and Fellows?

  7. matthewtaylor on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:31 am

    8. Thanks Phil. Sounds interesting. Keep me in the picture.

  8. matthewtaylor on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:32 am

    9. Ah, thanks for the warning Victoria. Is there a plot to make me fall flat on my face; maybe everyone will choose fatalism?

  9. matthewtaylor on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:34 am

    10. Thanks William interesting stuff. I know it;s only talks about talks but have you noticed how little coverage has been given to the very positive agreement at the G8 which looks like it will pave the way for something very significant at Copenhagen.

  10. matthewtaylor on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:35 am

    11. Hi Michael

    I haven’t managed to hook up with Tim yet. I’lll reprot back when i do.

  11. matthewtaylor on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:39 am

    12. Hi Julian

    A cultural theorist e-mailed me directly with the point that some of the ways we use ‘human ingenuity’ to tackle climate change are very hierarchical; that is to say they rely on massive schemes needing major state support – huge wind farms for example. I think I might refine my statements before I test them with a live audience tomorrow (especially as it turns out that the audience has been rehearsing – see below)

  12. William Shaw on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:42 am

    13. “I know it;s only talks about talks but have you noticed how little coverage has been given to the very positive agreement at the G8 which looks like it will pave the way for something very significant at Copenhagen.”

    Totally.

    Intersting new report by the WWF on identity theory in relation to climate change: doesn’t come up with much more than vague recommendations, but it’s good to see environmentalists finally tackling why they have so little traction with groups that might be labelled “individualist” and “fatalist”.

    http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/meeting_environmental_challenges___the_role_of_human_identity.pdf

  13. matthewtaylor on Mon, 13th Jul 2009 9:44 am

    14. Thanks David. Really interesting. I am a fan of fatalism too (and I get plenty of practice as a West Brom fan). Not only is fatalism arguably the most philosophically respectable position, any society or organisation or person needs some fatalism or they would be over come by hyper activity and conflict.

    One of the reasons the City fell into the madness that led to the credit crunch was not just the rampant individualism or lack of hierarchical oversight or egalitarian values but also the fact that everyone thought they could and should be a master of the universe on a six figure salary. There weren’t any fatalists who saw their work as just a decently paid job who might both have calmed things down and spotted the inevitability of eventual collapse.

  14. Suffolk against the state : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 5:12 pm

    15. [...] the cultural theory experiment I ran the same process I undertook last week on the blog. Of the four approaches to climate change fatalism and hierarchy continued to be virtually [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!