Olivia PercocoMarch 28, 2014Happiness

On Environmentalism and Happiness: The Causes of Environmental Despair and What This Means for Environmental Action

This paper aims to focus on the happiness of environmentalists, and more

specifically, whether or not acting out against the dominant culture serves to either

provide happiness to environmentalists (through feelings of solidarity, community,

understanding, etc.) or protect environmentalists from unhappiness due to the outcomes

of inaction. An environmentalist is defined as someone who is concerned with and

advocates for the protection of the environment. The definition of happiness in the

context of this paper has not been rigidly defined, considering participants were asked to

explain their answers. It also served to open the door for exploration of the wide range of

opinions environmentalists may feel towards a dominant culture that may threaten their

source of ontological security, and I didn’t want to limit explanation of emotions by

enforcing a definition of happiness that others might not understand or relate to. By

keeping the term happiness open to subjective interpretation, a definition formed

organically as survey participants were asked to reflect on what circumstances affected

their happiness; the constituents of this term is explored later in this paper.

Using a definition of happiness developed by the participants rather than the

researcher can also serve to broaden the conclusions of this paper, and leave room for

dialogue and further research into this subject area. Research in this area is important

because it addresses the rationale of environmental activists as well as the reason behind

inaction, which has implications for the quality of life of all organisms as our

1

environment faces increasing amounts of devastation. Also, understanding motivation of

one sub-culture can aid in understanding the behavior of members of other minority or

underserved groups. It is important to understand the emotional and behavioral response

certain individuals have to changes in our world in order to gauge whether society is on a

path that increases the welfare of the people. This is especially true today, when our

world is changing and expanding at a rate never before seen prior to the age of the

computer, and when it is especially easy to lose touch with other people’s emotions

behind a computer screen.

There are two major factions of environmentalists: those who act out because

environmental degradation and resource shortages pose an immediate threat to the well-

being and aesthetic value of the ecological community, and those who focus on the social

aspect of environmental preservation, which includes the protection of human rights, the

upholding of justice, and the defense of quality of life for future generations. The former

ideology calls for a change in perception of and behavior towards the natural world; the

latter demands systems change in the established social and/or economic system (Guha

and Martinez-Alier 33.) There are differences, also, in how environmentalists pursue

policy change. Whereas one group might lobby, petition, utilize extensive media

coverage and so forth in an organized fashion, with organization leaders and funds for

litigation change, another might opt for direct action, such as acts of civil disobedience

and self-inflicted harm (Guha and Martinez-Alier 17.) While direct action is a more

popular method for single-cause campaigns in which the need for action is urgent and is

more traditionally seen in places where funding and knowledge of social movement

2

organization is limited, this is becoming a more prevalent approach here in the United

States (Guha and Martinez-Alier 17.)

So then what is the cause for inaction, and where does happiness fit in to this

discussion? A common belief is that inaction is a result of ignorance, and educating the

population of the array of environmental issues that plague the natural world will get

people up and bullying their political representatives. However, the opposite has actually

been found to be the case; when people are introduced to the number and severity of

environmental crises, it is common for them to feel powerless and guilty and in turn

choose to block out the facts they have been presented with in favor of continuing with

their current lifestyles. This is because these environmental crises are a threat to a

person’s ontological security, their sense of the continuity of life (Norgaard, 174.) People

feel out of control of the situation because the environmental problems are often so large

that even governments can’t decide what to do about them.

The reason these troubling emotions make inaction a nationwide, and in fact,

global, phenomenon is because of emotional management-the act of suppressing or

changing emotions to fit societal standards (King and Auriffeille, 177.) Selective

attention is a strategy of emotional management that is often used to control helplessness

and fear, and it involves selecting what or what not to think about, meaning if a topic

causes one psychological distress, one will simply choose not to think about it (Norgaard,

178.) By not letting oneself think too far ahead or think too often about environmental

degradation, one insulates oneself from negative emotions and allows oneself to maintain

the societal status-quo of perpetual optimism while simultaneously letting the problem

worsen. A possible solution to this problem is shifting the culture’s expectations

3

surrounding emotions from that of suppression to that of healthy release, allowing the

management of negative emotions to help instead of hinder societal change.

With this in mind, it is not a surprise that survey participants identified troubling

emotions (such as frustration, stress, anxiety, loneliness, etc.), as one of the circumstances

considered to lower happiness levels. This is congruous with other research, which

suggests that subjective wellbeing is affected by emotional state. However, life

satisfaction does not seem to be affected by any particular circumstance (Kahneman and

Krueger, 8-17.) Subjective wellbeing has been found to be between 40% and 80%

heritable, and other factors, such as personality, also affect one’s long-term happiness.

What this research means for the purposes of this study is that emotions such as anger,

fear, resentment, and even love, while affecting an individual’s current happiness level,

don’t seem to have an effect on an individual’s life satisfaction because despite

experiencing these unpleasant emotions, happiness levels tend to bounce back to a certain

set point. However, there is one exception: if a particular life event does not have a one-

time effect, but instead steadily worsens over time, this set-point hypothesis may not

apply (Jasper, 78.) Environmental catastrophes like the ones environmental activists

strive to prevent may very well fall into this category of inadaptable life events.

Another proven factor in subjective wellbeing is empowerment, which is defined

as the actual ability to control one’s environment as well as the feeling that one can do so

(Diener and Biswas-Diener, 125.) Empowerment does not exist unless both conditions

are met, and both conditions are necessary for action. Without feelings of competency

and self-efficacy, and with repeated failure at attaining goals, action is unlikely and

negative feelings towards oneself are common (135.) In the same vein, it has been found

4

that a high level of internal empowerment is likely to result in a high level of subjective

wellbeing. The implication of empowerment for societal change is that increased positive

emotions increase feelings of empowerment, and vice versa.

Although it is true that negative emotions often lead to inaction, it is also true that

in extreme cases the opposite can occur. Suicide is one example, and this pattern can be

applied to both environmentalists and dominant culture. Not surprisingly, the same

emotions that cause people to commit suicide cause people to take action for the

protection of the environment. These emotions include hopelessness, desperation,

anxiety, and rage ((Hendin, Maltsberger , Pollinger Haas , Szanto, and Rabinowicz 387,

389.) Suicidal patients have an intense fear of personal disintegration, just as

environmentalists have an intense fear of ecological disintegration (Hendin, Maltsberger ,

Pollinger Haas , Szanto, and Rabinowicz 391.). That’s not to say that environmentalists

are suicidal because of their environmentalism, but it does seem that desperation is an

intense affect that leads to action. Similarly, suicidal patients have a tendency to break

apart their body from their minds, mistakenly believing that their physical bodies are the

reason for their suffering and therefore easily subjecting their bodies to physical attack.

These transient episodes cause the suicidal person to feel paranoid about his or her

renounced flesh and therefore feel the need to destroy it (Maltsberger, 660.) A case could

be made that dominant U.S culture1 acts towards nature the way the suicidal person

1 The dominant culture is, for the purposes of this paper, the state-corporate capitalist system, defined as “a complex web of symbols, narratives, and rituals that embody and enshrine the spirit of acquisitiveness, which is manifested in the corporate aims of profit and market share expansion” (LaMoth 21.) This system increases anxiety because of the objectification and easy elimination of the individual due to the profit interests of the corporation; in this system, corporate loyalty only goes as far as one’s ability to increase productivity does. Anxiety from this model is coupled with financial and existential insecurity, which stems from the understanding that corporations do not stand for social welfare so long as social good inhibits the productivity and profit of the corporation.

5

behaves towards his or her own body. Separating ourselves from nature (through the

opinion of human exceptionalism) creates the desire to control, dominate, and annihilate

the environment, which we have mistakenly attributed the foundation of human suffering

to. The only result of this, however, is the subsequent destruction of ourselves. From this

deep ecological standpoint, the behavior of dominant culture mirrors that of a suicidal

person.

Methods

In order to verify the claims regarding the relationship between happiness and

empowerment, whilst putting happiness in the context of environmentalism, I conducted

a survey of UVM Honors College students, environmental Facebook group members

(Student Climate Culture, Paradigm Shift, Rutland Area Climate Coalition), and

Facebook friends.

The survey began by asking participants to rate their happiness on a scale of one

to ten (one being miserable and ten being completely satisfied.) Participants were then

asked to describe the circumstances that could currently be affecting their happiness.

Furthermore, the survey asked them to characterize current society, characterize their

ideal society, describe what they feel should be done to achieve their ideal society, and

rank on a scale of one to ten how empowered they feel to take those actions. All

participants were then asked to rate their happiness again, in order to gauge whether or

not participating in the survey and thinking about their emotions made them more or less

happy than how they felt at the start.

6

This survey, although taken by a number of individuals, was meant to target

environmentalists. Because of this, the survey was designed to create an environmentalist

sub-group by making the self-proclaimed environmentalists answer additional questions

that the other participants left blank. This group was asked to describe what motivates

their environmentalism, how they feel about the current state of the environment, whether

or not they have participated in any form of activism, and how activism makes them feel.

Next, environmentalists were asked what they think would happen if they ceased their

activism, and how this inaction would make them feel. Finally, environmentalists were

asked whether or not they consider themselves happier for their environmentalism. This

section of the survey was designed to determine whether the actions of environmentalists

were motivated by affective (love, solidarity, dread, moral outrage) or reactive (anger,

grief, shock) emotions, both outside and inside of movements (Jasper 406.)

Results

Reason for Happiness/Unhappiness # of Responses

Family/friends/social networks 28School/ school related work/lack of time 23

Physical state 17Expectations for future 4

Financial concerns/material possessions 3The environment/weather 3

Mental Disorder 3Feeling of purpose 2

7

For the circumstances that affect happiness levels, participants mentioned school

or work and family/friends/social networks, and physical state the most often, followed

by expectations for the future, financial concerns/material possession, mental disorders,

the environment/weather, mental disorders, and feeling of purpose.

None of the participants consider themselves non-environmentalists, with 56% of

respondents identifying themselves as environmentalists and 44% identifying as “latent”

environmentalists- those who are concerned about the protection of the environment but

don’t advocate for it. Of those who consider themselves environmentalists, 55% consider

the degradation of the environment a threat to their identity and 45% do not.

Discussion

Happiness

Figure 1: Response to "on a scale from one to ten, how happy are you right now?”

Figure 2: Response to "On a scale from 1-10, how close do you consider current society to your ideal society?"

Figure 3: Response to how empowered participants feel to pursue the actions they identified as necessary to obtain their ideal society, on a scale from 1-10.

8

Happiness, based on participant answers, is most affected by factors such as status

of relationships, physical and financial condition, and amount of work and work- related

stress. A number of participants expressed that at the moment, they “knocked off” a few

points because of a current difficulty, implying that their normal happiness level is even

higher. This reinforces the theory of a set-point happiness level that, regardless of

circumstance, people return to. Environmental degradation was not listed as a reason that

affected current happiness level, although environmentalists identified this as a reason

that affected happiness later on in the survey, which leads me to believe that whereas

concern for the environment doesn’t affect current happiness, it does have an effect on

longer-term happiness and life satisfaction.

Ideal society and empowerment

As far as respondents’ ideal societies, emphasis was put on peace (global and

domestic), equality, respect, selflessness, and the eradication of regional boundaries that

separate people by nationality, whereas current society was characterized as selfish,

corrupt, profit-driven, and “top heavy” in terms of concentration of power. Participants

expressed uncertainty about how exactly to attain their ideal society, with some

respondents claiming it is impossible. Of those who did not discount its possibility, many

said that by educating people, leading by example, and adopting a new system of

government, we could achieve ideal-society status. The spectrum of empowerment was

roughly equal, with about 50% of participants rating themselves between a 1 and 5, and

50% rating themselves between 6 and 10. Surprisingly, participants who rated themselves

the least empowered also gave themselves higher happiness rating (at or above 6.)

9

However, of the three participants who rated themselves at a ‘10’ for empowerment, one

rated himself or herself as an ‘8’, one a ‘9’, and one a ‘10’ for happiness.

Because of these incongruous survey results, it cannot be concluded that

empowerment to change current society has a direct effect on current happiness levels.

This could be due to the emotional management strategies discussed earlier in this paper,

in that while rating happiness, participants were not focusing on the big issues outside of

themselves because if they allowed those issues to consume their thoughts everyday, their

current happiness would in fact be affected.

The Environmentalists

The environmentalists, as with the rest of society, fall into two “camps”: those

who protect the environment for the good of people, and those who protect the

environment for the ecological services and beauty nature provides. A disproportionate

number of participants in this study claimed the wellbeing of nature and preservation of

beauty was their motivation versus societal benefits (2/3 responses.) Also, participants

were motivated to actually take action by affective emotions more often than responsive

emotions, reporting that certain individuals, as well as obligation to society as a whole,

lead them to action. Time pressures were the number one identified reason for

environmentalists to not take action. Unidentified lack of drive was also a duplicated

response.

In response to how ceasing to advocate for the environment would make the

activists feel, participants claimed they would feel “empty,” “out of touch with reality,”

“sad,” “defeated,” “without purpose,” “like I’m giving up,” “like I’m contributing to the

10

death of what I love,” etc. When asked about their feelings about the state of the

environment, most respondents said “sad,” “furious,” “pessimistic,” “fearful,” or

“worried,” while others said “optimistic” or “all right.” The ratio of positive comments to

negative comments was 1:6. For the environmental subgroup these results seem to

indicate a positive correlation between taking action and happiness with oneself, and

suggests that the motivation for activism is indeed due to the desire to keep oneself from

experiencing troubling emotions. However, the motivation behind environmentalism

itself, “latent” or otherwise, seems to be due to the positive emotions nature provides for

environmentalists. The distinction here is that people care for and want to protect the

environment due to its intrinsic value, while the fear of losing oneself or experiencing

negative feelings acts as an extrinsic motivator to take action to protect the environment.

In other words, environmentalists are extrinsically motivated to protect what intrinsically

makes them happy.

Drawbacks of this study

While there seems to be a correlation between ceasing to take action and

unhappiness with oneself for the environmentalists, this doesn’t answer the question of

whether or not environmentalism affects happiness. Some people said that they are happy

with themselves because they are environmentally friendly, others said that being an

environmentalist exposes them to issues that make them upset. In fact, 8 out of 14

respondents said that they consider themselves happier (or at least satisfied with their

efforts) because of their environmentalism, whereas only 4 expressed unhappiness, which

they attributed to a feeling of powerlessness and “people shitting on my beliefs.”2

2 2 of the 14 results were inconclusive. 3 of the 8 respondents who mentioned happiness overlapped with those who also mentioned unhappiness.

11

Because of the limits of time and sample size for this study, I don’t consider this

sufficient evidence to suggest a correlation between happiness and environmentalism.

However, as stated above, there does seems to be a relationship between the motivation

for environmental action and preserving happiness.

The survey also failed to differentiate between internal and external

empowerment and have participants analyze why they do or do not feel empowered. This

information would have been useful in confirming Diener and Biswas-Diener’s model of

empowerment and action (psychological and external empowerment leads to action.)

Conclusion

There is a wide range of circumstances that affect an individual’s happiness level,

from social relationships to physical health to the weather. Environmentalists, while

faced with severe threats to their identity and source of pleasure at the hands of dominant

culture, don’t altogether seem unhappier because of this. On the contrary, their love of

the environment seems to strengthen them and help them cope with other issues they

face. Many claim their consciences guide their environmental behavior, while others are

fueled by anger and fear. Overall, it seems that motivation for environmental behavior

and action has more to do with individual disposition rather than collective desperation.

One commonality exists, however, and that is that environmentalists, regardless of

temperament, respect the environment for its intrinsic value and act on its behalf in order

to protect its immeasurable worth.

12

References

Guha, Ramachandra; Martinez-Alier, Juan. Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd., 1997. Print.

Norgaard, Kari. "People Want to Protect Themselves a Little Bit." Environmental Sociology: From Analysis to Action . . 3rd ed. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2014. 177-183. Print.

Jasper, James. "The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements." Sociological Forum. 13.3 (1998): 397-424. Web. 20 Mar. 2014

Lucas, Richard. "Adaptation and the Set-Point Model of Subjective Well-Being: Does Happiness Change After Major Life Events?." Current Directions in Psychological Science. 16.75 (2007): n. page. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

Diener, Ed, and Robert Biswas-Diener. "Psychological Empowerment and Subjective Well-Being." Trans. Array Measuring Empowerment: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives . Washington DC: World Bank, 2005. 125-139. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

Maltsberger, John. "The descent into suicide." International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies. 85. (2004): 653–668. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.

LaMothe, Ryan. "State-Corporate Capitalism, Political Polarization, and a Culture of Unquiet Desperation: A Pastoral Analysis and Responses." Pastoral Psychology . 61. (2-12): 15–29. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

Hendin, Herbert, John Maltsberger , Ann Pollinger Haas , Katalin Szanto, and Heather Rabinowicz. "Desperation and Other Affective States in Suicidal Patients." Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 34.4 (2004): 386-393. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

13