The Dominant Social Paradigm, argued by Dunlap & Van Liere, is the notion that rigid ideals held by members of society at large are actually working to aggravate the causes of climate change. Attachments to individualism and materialism work against ecological worldviews because they promote increased consumption and non-equitable behavior. The 8 “critical factors” highlighted by Dunlap are beliefs representing major obstacles to mitigating the nation’s environmental problems. They include the championing of limited government, support for free enterprise, devotion to private property rights, emphasis upon individualism, fear of planning & support for the status quo, faith in the efficacy of science & technology, support for economic growth, and faith in future abundance. Each of these issues carries significant weight in the face of environmental development. The relationships between these views are not perfect, but they demonstrate definite constraint between those whose beliefs reflect the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) versus those who express concern for ecological issues, also known as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). The strong, conservative base of the DSP does not seem to sway much in their stances surrounding their core values, and they appear to be extremely inflexible and obtuse while supporting them in the face of dangers posed by the advance of unmitigated climate change.
Willett Kempton focuses on environmental values and how they are generated in society. He concludes that the three primary sources shaping these worldviews include religion, anthropocentric values, and biocentric values. While limited to these factors of influence, a wide range of views is still manifested. The religious viewpoints are very interesting to observe. Those who believed humans to be the work of God rather than a product of nature seemed to demonstrate a lack of regard or outright animosity toward the natural world. We should not expect that humans who believe themselves to be divine units of existence to conduct themselves with respect to nature, because why should they if are above it? Positive beliefs about the environment seemed to be standard among those whose religious feelings encompassed connectedness and oneness with the earth and world around them. (Kempton) Their beliefs come about as a result of recognizing that they have to operate within a realm of limited means with numerous other dependent variables to account for, such as the future, their health, their kids, resource availability, etc. These dichotomies in religious context were reflected in non-religious semantics through the biocentric and anthropocentric world views; biocentric reflecting the viewpoint that all life is inherently valuable, and anthropocentric indicating that the only consequential entities in the world are humans. The anthropocentric viewpoint alleges that everything in the natural world is available for our use and we can use the resources as we want. An adequate viewpoint of biocentrism is demonstrated by the quote “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, community, and beauty of the natural environment. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” (Kempton) Utilitarian arguments emerge from each side, with proponents of the anthropogenic viewpoint indicating that the fruits of the earth are entirely ours to consume and should be used effectively to our advantage. This is dismissed by the biocentric argument which alleges that our species holds no particular importance with regards to nature, and by damaging or exploiting nature, we can only be damaging ourselves. We need to work with nature and use the totality of it to our advantage in order to maintain and cultivate life.
Schafer focuses once again on the factor of the dominant social paradigm. He alleges that the idea of a DSP in creating and maintaining major social institutions is a type of hegemony which poses a direct threat to the health of the biosphere. Researcher Gramsci is cited in the Schafer reading, theorizing that “ruling elites of a society are often able to secure the voluntary compliance of the masses through the popularization and acceptance of a worldview that is consistent with their desired agenda. This dominant worldview or paradigm is diffused through the institutions of civil society, such as the media.” This is highlighted by discussion pertaining to the role of the DSP in garnering support for the interests of economic elites in society. The DSP maintains its strength due to strong belief in core values leading to a rigid rationale for the support of the status quo. This paradigm is not likely to shift until it is shown that it is no longer advantageous. When this might be demonstrated or what it will take to do so is an entirely different issue. With the heavy influence of industries which profit from ecological destruction in media and communications, it is not difficult to observe the heavy presence of anti-environmental/pro-laissez faire sentiment in entertainment and social spheres (Schafer). Dispensa and Brulle suggest that the power of the fossil fuel industry in the US has allowed for them to severely distort messages concerning the existence of global warming, as well as the causes and effects. It is further stated that citizens of the United States, while generally one of the more educated populaces in the world, are one of the most misinformed countries when it comes to recognizing the anthropogenic causes of global warming. “Such findings suggest that US Citizens, among the most educated in the world, have been exposed to systematically distorted communications designed to marginalize the severity of the threat posed by global warming and thereby minimize the threat that this issue poses to elite economic interest.” (Schafer) Hannigan states that there is a long and well-documented history of business elites working to take advantage of scientific uncertainty to contest claims from environmentalists and defend their own position. The DSP is fortified, even at the individual level, where Cotgrove demonstrates that socioeconomic beliefs and values are much better predictors for environmental support than demographic variables.
I find support for the DSP to be extremely short-sighted when it comes to thinking about prospects for the future and stubborn in its established attitudes about the status of equity in the world today. It seems like the dichotomy that exists between the two is more about attitudes of individualism vs. collectivism, wherein those who felt themselves to be here for only themselves demonstrated less concern for the environment around them. The strength of the paradigm is not surprising when looking at its extensive base of supporters, the immense amount of capital that goes into maintaining its stature as the right way to view things, and the propensity for those who believe themselves to be correct to avoid cross-examination of their beliefs. Contrary to the development of a sustainable planet, support for the dominant social paradigm sentiment wholly rejects any notion of alleviating issues leading to environmental degradation, because the status quo it underpins operates under a premise that return on investment is the highest end. Allowing this to occur under the guise of a “free market” enables the turning of blind eyes to the problems created.
Cited Works
Kempton, W., J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley. 1996. Chapter 5, “Environmental Values.” Pp. 87-115 in Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1984. "Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality." Social Science Quarterly 65: 1013-1028.
Shafer, William E. 2006. “Social Paradigms and Attitudes toward Environmental Accountability.” Journal of Business Ethics 65:121-147.
No comments:
Post a Comment