 |
 |
 |
|
|
        |
| |
|
|
|
Conservation to Conservatism
A close look at the psychology of conservatism reveals some surprising parallels with the ideology of radical environmentalists.
--------- On occasion, I have heard friends and family members with the love of nature in their hearts wonder plaintively aloud, "They're conservatives -- why don't they conserve?" Indeed, a close look at the psychology of conservatism reveals some surprising parallels with the ideology of radical environmentalists (you know, the type that insist on an inverse relationship between human existence and ecological well-being). The most astonishing idea here is not that conservatives ought to be drawn to the environmental movement, but that "progressive" environmentalists may have a lot more in common with conservatism than they might have previously realized.
(1) The pessimism, disgust and contempt bit is easy. Have you read the one about why the earth is dying? It's because humans are too stupid, greedy and lazy to control themselves. Jost mentions the oppositional worldviews of liberals and conservatives: Those who resonate with left-wing ideologies believe that people are basically good and that the purpose of society is to facilitate human growth and experience. By contrast, those who resonate with right-wing ideologies believe that people are essentially bad and that the function of society is to set rules and limits to prevent irresponsible behavior. This is interesting, because traditional environmentalists tend to view all nature as basically good and something that should be encouraged to flourish. When it comes to human society, however, the conservative conviction of essential "badness" dominates. Environmentalists may be liberal on the behalf of ecology, but this is a socially meaningless stance to take, and can best be characterized by the conservative aspect of their position. (2) Next up: loss prevention. The environmental movement was born out of the rising public concern that valuable natural resources were being lost, probably permanently. The result has been environmental legislation whose sole purpose is to "minimize the bad." Another interesting tidbit from Jost: To the extent that conservatives are especially sensitive to the possibilities of loss -- one reason why they wish to preserve the status quo -- it follows that they should be generally more motivated by negatively framed outcomes (potential losses) than by positively framed outcomes (potential gains). Can anyone say EPA? The strategies of cost-benefit and risk analysis used by environmental policymakers are motivated entirely by potential loss, where the highest achievement that can be attained is the complete elimination of risk (sounds kind of boring to me). This manifests itself in the "precautionary principle," an argument generally used to justify resistance to new technologies, such as GMOs and nuclear power. "We don't know the damage that this might cause, so we shouldn't do it at all." This is a rationale whose essence springs from a negatively framed outcome and smacks of conservativism. (3) Inherent in the very concept of environmental preservation are the notions of invariability and opposition to change. While it seems pretty unlikely that all environmentalists oppose all kinds of change in the nature they seek to preserve, the lesson that ecology is fundamentally evolving and transforming is one that doesn't seem to apply when it comes to society. This makes sense, in a way: in general, change means human progress, which means human growth, which means more natural resources lost (see #2). Yet such resistance is unequivocally a strategy of conservatism. (4) Environmentalists have long been willing to accept the status quo when it comes to social injustice, when correcting the injustice might have negative environmental impacts. Leaving aside for a moment the incomplete arguments of environmental justice advocates (i.e. landfills and dirty power plants are built in poor, black communities for the sole reason that corporations are racist participants in an oppressive conspiracy), it is clear that a politics that excludes humans (see point #1) has no problem with accepting or ignoring inequal or unfair human conditions. This, coupled with a romanticized notion of indigenous, pre-industrialized communities as living in minimal impact harmony with the earth, has served to justify this position. For example, many environmentalists resist the idea of industrialization as a mode to lift non-industrialized countries out of poverty. They argue simultaneously that industrialization will lead to environmental catastrophe, and that the people living in these countries are happy living agrarian, minimal lifestyles to which modernity will bring only heartache, homogenization, and greasy fast food. Jost explains that the conservative psyche is preoccupied with making its world more comprehensible, predictable, and safe. Ironically, conservatives create for themselves the fear and anxiety with which they seek to cope through political strategies: their predisposition to fearfulness and pessimism leads them to construct a narrative of the world as a dark and dangerous place. They scare themselves silly. For example, the "war on terrorism" is a typically conservative issue. Environmentalists would do well to first, look inward, and then examine their own stories. The terror of global warming, the constant assault of environmental dangers, the story of menacing Nature in mortal combat with irresponsible Humanity: these are tales which foster an environment of fear and uncertainty, a conservative approach which will only spawn more conservative thinking. And, quite honestly, we don't need any more pessimism or disgust. We don't need a politics centered on negatively framed outcomes. Resistance to change and the willingness to become a passive bystander in the face of injustice when it doesn't fit into some narrow, narrow agenda will not inspire the creation of an empowered, innovative society capable of confronting the real problems we face. We need a community of fearless thinkers. Because, whatever the answer is to our problems, it is not to curl up in the fetal position, terrified of loss and resistant to change. 2 COMMENTS:
Helen - fascinating piece. Thank you. Given your thesis that the conservative world view is focused on negativity, pessimism and disgust, how do you explain the research that shows conservatives to be generally happier than liberals? What do we do with the Iraq war -- what some would see as a product of the ultimate flowering of movement conservatism -- and the view that the invasion was based on a sort of updated Wilsonian optimism about the potential of democracy to overcome tyranny? Finally, isn't it possible to view environmentalism as an expression of the hope that we might hold on to aspects of our world that are of incalculable beauty and value?
Posted by: Peter Teague
at June 6, 2008 6:15 PM
Hi Peter -
I'm not sure why conservatives are so happy, given the evidence about their pessimistic and negative philosophical base. Perhaps an understanding of how the individual defines happiness is in order. I would suggest that a psychology rooted in fear seeks happiness by minimizing pain and maximizing a sense of control over that pain (the typical Freudian philosophy). It's possible that conservatives have found contemporary political strategies to be effective in controlling their fear, perhaps through withdrawal or denial. (Freud would call this “the happiness of quietness.”)
Your example of the optimistic story of the Iraq war is a perfect instance of reshaping a narrative, which I mention at the end of my piece. When we explain something, we prioritize some aspects of it, and deemphasize others. This does not necessarily distort the “truth” of it, but it does influence how the recipient of the story understands it. This can be done strategically. I don't mean to say that conservatives tell only negative tales; rather, I am more concerned that environmentalists have not told positive ones. To frame environmentalism through the lens of beauty and value, rather than destruction and doom, could be more effective. I am inclined to believe we should be telling a different story altogether.
Post a comment |
|
|
|||
Privacy : Contact : Site Map |
||||||||
