Upon enrolling to Introduction to Environmental Studies (ENVS-160), I expected myself to learn more about straightforward facts and ideologies of the environmental sphere. But instead I was introduced to a web of interconnecting thoughts and concepts in that tie into the field of environmental studies. Amongst many, the three key lessons that I have learned so far are: the depth of interdisciplinary in environmental studies, cultural grid-group theory, and individualization of responsibility on take environmental initiative.
Interdisciplinary
Through the semester, I was intrigued by the importance of understanding environmental studies through an interdisciplinary mindset. Environmental studies is not just the constant focus of saving the planet and taking on new way to ‘save the earth’ but instead we have to look at it with a broader and more inclusive lens. With a more open-minded understanding of environmental change, we learn to include the different factors that come together to form change and cause impact. The idea of an interdisciplinary education on environmental studies ties to the approach of understanding and learning more about environmental studies or science by coming at it through different lens that can broaden and serve as eye-openers for you to understand different concepts from different perspectives. For example, using the idea of mining, we cannot just focus on the fact that mining is bad but also thinks about it at social and economic level, how does it impact individuals that depend on it and have made this their lives.
Cultural Grid-Group Theory
While engaging in the idea of interdisciplinary thought, reading Why We Disagree About Climate Change, brought to light many different reasons and factors that come into play when individuals think about climate change (Hulme 2015). Hulme introduced the cultural grid-group theory amongst the culture of risk assessment in reference to climate change. Created by Douglas and Wildavsky, the classification of grid-group draws upon the fundamental ideology that people are group-oriented or individual-oriented. Divided into four different categories, it also offers insight into how and why different people in different cultures perceive risk in different ways. Grid-group theory is divided into four categories, each categories evaluates the way risks are perceived and prioritized as a function of how individuals see themselves reacting to risk in relation to other in society.
-Fatalists, the common shared characteristics are individuals that believe nature is a lottery and capricious, limiting outcomes as a function of change. They are often found with a low degree of social contact and high degree of social regulation.
-Hierarchists, find nature to be tolerant if treated with care, outcomes can be managed to sustainable. Found in high degree of social regulation and high degree of social contact.
-Individualists, share the understand of nature as benign, where outcomes are a personal responsibility. Believing in low degree of social contact and low degree of social regulation.
-Egalitarians, understand nature as ephemeral, outcomes will require altruism and common effort. Shared by a low degree of social regulation and high degree of social contact.
Figure 1. Cultural Grid-Group Theory
Individualization of Responsibility
Growing up in middle and high school, I was always known amongst many for being the most environmentally conscious. However as I grew older and became more knowledgable, I worried that my individual action of recycling, not littering, or using less plastic, was not making a difference. Coming into ENVS-160, brought back the question that always lingered around and I wasn’t able to answer— was individual scale action enough? Upon learning about the Scale, Ecotypes axis, I learned that I individually identify more with institutional action in comparison to individual as I grew older. But what was this constant notion that America and environmentalists always find themselves linked to?
Michael Maniates, a famous environmental scholar introduced the term individualization of responsibility in his paper, Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics. He goes on to explain the term by stating:
When responsibility for environmental problems is individualized, there is little room to ponder institutions, the nature and exercise of political power, or ways of collectively changing the distribution of power and influence in society—to, in other words, “think institutionally” (p. 33).
While we constantly advocate for individual action, it interesting to introduce a new contemporary thought. “Think institutionally”, goes on to help bring perspective that while advocating for individual change we can join efforts to make it possible with the help of institutions (Maniates 2001). Institution can offer political power that can collectively change and influence more power compared to just individual action. Instead of just focusing and narrowing down individuals to believe that their individual action will build to a movement, we should advocate for the power that can come from individuals and institutions working together.
Conclusion
While introduction to environmental studies has been a growing web of knowledge, I have learned not just new ideologies and theories but have learned to take on new perspectives to the changing field of environmental studies. Amongst my web, I have learned about the interdisciplinary of the field and how it allows for the introduction of new lens to concepts that may be old or new. How cultural grid-group theory serves as a standing theory used to measure how individuals can have on societal and political situations can come to understanding, communicating, and mitigating risks in relation to nature. Lastly, I learned to understand the emergence of Individualization of Responsibility, how it establishes a constant focal point for individuals to become more conscious of their actions and it’s impact on the ecosystems that surround them. Taking these three key points will serve as a starting basis for the web that will build as I explore the Environmental Studies Program at Lewis & Clark College.
Citations
Ecotypes. 2017. “Scale.” Accessed March 24. https://ds.lclark.edu/ecotypes/ecotypes-axis/scale/
Hulme, Mike. 2015. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 31–52.