Environmental Studies 160 has taught me that my perspective entering the class and the way I interpret material we learn in class is sometimes uniquely discrepant form others and that I am just one in the diverse pool of thought. It was the distribution in Ecotype beliefs that exposed this reality to me. The survey results precisely displayed the ways in which my ecological perspective while considering environmentalism is different from my peers. There were approximately 380 responses to the survey. Results are given on a spectrum of -100 to 100. According to the Digital Scholarship Multisite, ecotypes are “based on theoretical and empirical literature” which are then placed “into a set of axes, each defined by oppositional poles”(Proctor, 2017, Ecotypes Axes). Below is a brief summary of which ecotype I markedly had different results for compared to others. I displayed them so I could better explain the next lesson I learned.
Ecotypes results
44
Proctor states that the Institutional domain’s mantra as “small lifestyle choices actually do little more than make us feel good”. Institutionalist modality would “work together in civic, political, and other shared contexts to help change or enforce laws, (and) ensure optimal policies”(Proctor, 2017)
-63
Proctor states that the material domain refers to “what we do and not just what we think or feel”(Proctor, 2017). This mode of thinking predominantly focuses on “economics and political science” (Proctor, 2017)
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”(Marx, 1904, Preface)
50
According to Proctor the “conflict theory views society as a realm of contestation and power differentials, where prevalent social institutions, laws, and policies emerge not from the consensus of the many but the powerful interests of the few, or from the result of conflicts between social groups” (Proctor, 2017).
-20
“The hopeful ecotype generally looks at out ecological future as ‘much less gloomy than classic environmentalists feared” (Simon 1996; Lomborg 2001).
Moving across the country, essentially from one Portland to the other has widened my sphere of public perception, as I discussed above. But why has my moving and these survey results been the primary stimulant of new awareness? Moreover, why are my beliefs so indisputably different from my peers? Mike Hulme, in Why We Disagree About Climate Change taught me a second valuable lesson concerning why we are all different and why there are so many different perspectives out there. In the forward of Why We Disagree About Climate Change Hulme states, “our recognition of climate change as a threat to the ways of life to which we are accustomed and which we value depends on our views of Nature, our judgements about scientific analysis, our perceptions of risk, and our ideas about what is at stake”(,Hulme, 2009, Forward). 160 has taught me that place deeply impacts values, perceptions and interests regarding how we approach ecological scholarship. Proctor states that “place” is a gathering of processes and perspectives in one location”. We focused on three processes “nature, social relations, and meaning, broadly corresponding to natural science, social science, and humanities dimensions of reality”(Proctor, 2017, Situating Minerals).
Here’s some relativity to this statement. I grew up in a small town, where the rule of thumb is that we are about a 2 hours drive away from anything. Before coming here I had never resided in a city or even a suburban setting for more than a span of two weeks. The woods were my play ground and also my gym. That is where I was placed in an invisible, but none the less effective box of understanding. The mindset I cultivated around how to approach environmental issues is unique to my circumstances. Hulme’s book Why We Disagree About Climate Change further explains why circumstance created by place impacts perceptions and values in 7 ways. Two of the that affect me the most are as Hulme states, “our views of welfare and development and how we think about progress are powerful shapers of attitudes to climate change”(Hulme, 2009, preface) and “we receive multiple and conflicting messages about climate change and interpret them in different ways”(Hulme, 2009, preface).
With consideration to Hulme’s writing and to my Ecotypes we are led into a third lesson; I am hopeful about our ecological future. In Maine, a pathological history didn’t make me more aware of climate and changes to our normal weather pattern didn’t affect my welfare. Development wasn’t much of a consideration for me as I seldom saw it. I have simply grown up adoring everything out my backdoor, but what is out my back door is different from many students at Lewis and Clark ,who grew up in urban settings and this has affected how I interpret “conflicting messages”. Scare tactic rhetoric that has become an emblem of our apocalyptic ecological future for many, never truly reached me and my Ecotypes survey showed it. Of the rhetoric that I was exposed to, I never truly grasped it as I sat blissfully in the middle of nowhere. Now in Portland I am exposed to endless stimuli of consumerism, materialization and most importantly fear. None the less I am still hopeful that technological advancement will continue to reduce material consumption and lessen CO2 emission.
Citations
Simon, Julian Lincoln. 1996. The Ultimate Resource 2. Rev. ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl. 1904. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: The International Library PubCo.
Proctor, James. 2017. Ecotypes; Exploring Environmental Ideas. Digital Scholarship Multisite: Lewis & Clark College