One thing I found particularly interesting this week was our discussion of Grid-Group cultural theory and the four different personalities and myths of nature of differing grid and group. It is easy to see this manifested in American culture especially with many examples of individualists and fatalists acting with respect to nature robust and nature capricious ideas. This relates to our discussion of environmental ethics as well by describing four different generic ethical viewpoints grounded in one’s culture. For example, biocentrism, the belief in intrinsic value of life, falls on the high group spectrum, in particular the egalitarian, while ecocentrism, the value of an ecological whole, is also high group, but I would argue leans toward the hierarchist. In contrast, anthropocentrism tends to lie towards the low group individual, and the fatalists’ environmental ethic is defined by uncaring for such issues.
This correlation of environmental ethics and Grid-Group Theory can also be seen through the myths of nature for each. The biocentric egalitarian sees ‘nature’ and life as of incredible importance, so it makes sense that they would act as nature fragile, afraid to take any risks. The anthropocentric individual believes in nature robust as they are concerned primarily with effects on humans without concern for environmental risks. The ecocentric hierarchist believes in the importance of the whole ecosystem, so risks may be taken that affect parts of an ecosystem as long as the ecosystem is still in tact. There is a limit to risks though, thus nature limited thinking. Finally, the apathetic fatalist sees no way to make a difference, leading to nature capricious thought. However, it is important to note that these are all generalizations and do not universally apply, and there are other environmental ethics that do not fit into this neat categorization.
With all of these contrasting view points, it makes institutions to govern the commons much more difficult to form. An institution would seemingly have to take one view point and force that upon everyone. Yet, maybe a pragmatic approach could find a common ground between these different ethics and be able to enforce world wide environmental practices. All four sides (expect perhaps the fatalist) have important points when considering risks institution would have to take. Depending on the situation, worrying more or less about risks is important. The ecocentric hierarchist finds a nice middle ground in nature limited approach where we must be concerned to a degree, but also not be afraid of change. Perhaps through ecocentrism institutions can find a way to enforce large scale restrictions and practices.