portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

environment

The Psychology of Denial, and why activists must learn it

Hello, this article is something I am reading to write a separate book about why this society is both willing and complicit in trashing the earth's ecosystems, etc. "In his book, States of Denial, Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, Stanley Cohen argues that this capacity to deny a level of awareness is normal...for people in an information-saturated society.1 He argues that 'far from being pushed into accepting reality, people have to be dragged out of reality'.
Carbon output per household in PDX
Carbon output per household in PDX
Carbon output per household in one of the top 10 sprawl regions.
Carbon output per household in one of the top 10 sprawl regions.
******
Oh, note from the poster: Denial such as this doesn't just have to do with climate change. It has to do with EVERYTHING happening in our society right now. Understanding it is necessary, if in only anticipating what will happen. "Know your enemies mind."


 http://ecoglobe.ch/motivation/e/clim2922.htm
The Psychology of Denial:
our failure to act against climate change

Author: George Marshall
Date Published: 22/09/2001 - Source: The ecologist

My first real exposure to the issue of climate change was reading a newspaper article in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1988, by a leading Australian climatologist. Climate change, he said, had the potential to destroy our society and even threatened our continued survival as a species. I was deeply moved (it even spurred me to write my only ever letter of appreciation to a newspaper).

However, what really shocked me in the following days was finding that the article had created not the slightest ripple; not one opinion, editorial, or letter. It may as well have never been written. It seemed to me that something very strange had happened. A highly qualified scientist had calmly and credibly outlined a process which, were he to be believed, made all other news in the paper marginal if not irrelevant. Yet the story had sunk without a trace. I could see only two explanations; either it was a hoax, which seemed unlikely, or it was so conjectural that no-one could seriously accept it. Either way, my immediate instinctive drive to do something was squashed.

In the following years, as the articles and documentaries and news items continued to appear, I realised that there was a third explanation - that people can accept the truth of what is said without accepting the implications.

In his excellent book, States of Denial, Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, Stanley Cohen argues that this capacity to deny a level of awareness is the normal state of affairs for people in an information-saturated society.1 He argues that 'far from being pushed into accepting reality, people have to be dragged out of reality'. According to Cohen's definition, denial involves a fundamental paradox - that in order to deny something it is necessary at some level to recognise its existence and its moral implications. It is, he says, a state of simultaneous 'knowing and not-knowing'.

This description is well suited to the current social response to climate change. The 'knowledge' of the problem is remarkably well established at all levels of society; the general public (68 per cent of Americans call it a serious problem in polls); the scientists (repeated letters of concern from scientific institutions); corporations (strongly worded statements by the CEOs of oil companies); the financial sector (reports warning of escalating insurance claims); the many heads of government (regular pious speeches warning of imminent disaster).

Yet, at another level, we clearly refuse to recognise the implications of that knowledge. Bill Clinton called for urgent action whilst his negotiators worked tirelessly to gut and destroy an agreement that scarcely began to reflect his own warnings. Newspapers regularly carry dire climatic warnings in the same issue as articles that breathlessly promote weekend breaks in Rio. Individuals, including my friends and family, can express grave concern, and then just as quickly block it out, buy a new car, turn up the air conditioning, or fly across the world for a holiday.

Cohen's analysis of the social responses to human rights abuses finds that the mechanisms of denial are extremely complex and varied. The circumstances that create any historical event are unique and it is unwise to make direct comparisons. However, following Cohen we can draw out certain consistent psychological processes that are highly pertinent to climate change.

Firstly, we can expect widespread denial when the enormity and nature of the problem are so unprecedented that people have no cultural mechanisms for accepting them. In Beyond Judgement, Primo Levi, seeking to explain the refusal of many European Jews to recognise their impending extermination, quotes an old German adage: 'Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.'

In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity. Indeed, the most powerful evidence of our denial is the failure to even recognise that there is a moral dimension with identifiable perpetrators and victims. The language of 'climate change', 'global warming', 'human impacts', and 'adaptation' are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse; they are scientific euphemisms that suggest that climate change originates in immutable natural forces rather than in a direct causal relationship with moral implications for the perpetrator.

Secondly, we diffuse our responsibility. Cohen writes at length of the 'passive bystander effect' whereby violent crimes can be committed in a crowded street without anyone intervening. Individuals wait for someone else to act and subsume their personal responsibility in the collective responsibility of the group. One notable feature of the bystander effect is that the larger the number of actors the lower the likelihood that any individual person feels capable of taking unilateral action. In times of war and repression, entire communities can become incapacitated. In the case of climate change we are both bystanders and perpetrators, an internal conflict that can only intensify our denial.

Psychoanalytic theory contains valuable pointers to the ways that people may try to resolve these internal conflicts; angrily denying the problem outright (psychotic denial), seeking scapegoats (acting out), indulging in deliberately wasteful behaviour (reaction formation), projecting their anxiety onto some unrelated but containable problem (displacement), or trying to shut out all information (suppression). As the impacts of climate change intensify we can therefore anticipate that people will willingly collude in creating collective mechanisms of denial along these lines.

It seems likely, however, that suppression will dominate. In South Africa, many white bystanders who intellectually opposed apartheid adopted a passive opposition. They retreated into private life, cut themselves off from the news media, refused to talk politics with friends, and adopted an intense immersion in private diversions such as sport, holidays and families. In Brazil in the 1970s a special term, 'innerism', was coined for the disavowal of the political.

We can also draw on historical experience to anticipate which defenses we will adopt when, as will surely happen, we are confronted by our grandchildren demanding to know why we did so little when we knew so much. We can expect to see denial of knowledge ('I didn't know'), denial of our agency ('I didn't do it'), denial of personal power ('I couldn't do anything', 'no one else did anything'), and blaming of others ('it was the people with the big cars, the Americans, the corporations'). For activists everywhere, it would appear crucial that an understanding of denial informs campaign strategy. As Cohen says, 'the distinctions [between different forms of denial] may be irrelevant to the hapless victim, but they do make a difference to educational or political attempts to overcome bystander passivity'.

One conclusion is that denial cannot simply be countered with information. Indeed, there is plentiful historical evidence that increased information may even intensify the denial. The significance of this cannot be over emphasised. Environmental campaign organisations are living relics of Enlightenment faith in the power of knowledge: 'If only people knew, they would act.' To this end they dedicate most of their resources to the production of reports or the placement of articles and opinions in the media. As a strategy it is not working. Opinion polls reveal a high level of awareness with virtually no signs of any change in behaviour. Indeed there are plentiful signs of reactive denial in the demands for cheaper fuel and more energy.

A second conclusion is that the lack of visible public response is part of the self-justifying loop that creates the passive bystander effect. 'Surely', people reason, 'if it really is that serious, someone would be doing something.' The Herald article failed to inspire me to activity because I saw no evidence that anyone in wider society was paying any attention. Thirteen years later, we have vastly greater information with scarcely any more public action. The bystander loop has only tightened.

People will never spontaneously take action themselves unless they receive social support and the validation of others. Governments in turn will continue to procrastinate until sufficient numbers of people demand a response. To avert further climate change will require a degree of social consensus and collective determination normally only seen in war time, and that will require mobilisation across all classes and sectors of society.

For all these reasons, the creation of a large and vocal movement against climate change must be an immediate and overarching campaign objective. People will not accept the reality of the problem unless they see that others are engaging in activities that reflect its seriousness. This means they need to be confronted by emotionally charged activities; debate, protest, and meaningful, visible alternatives. Simply asking people to change their lightbulbs, plant a tree, or send in a donation, however desirable in themselves, will not build a social movement. These activities alone, although valuable, will persuade few.

Anyone concerned about this issue faces a unique historical opportunity to break the cycle of denial, and join the handful of people who have already decided to stop being passive bystanders. The last century was marked by self-deception and mass denial. There is no need for the 21st Century to follow suit.

George Marshall works with Risingtide, a recently formed network encouraging local action against climate change.
For more information on Rising Tide visit www.risingtide.org.uk, call +44(0)1865 241 097 or email:  weathersave@netscapeonline.co.uk.

Climate change and CO2 25.Jul.2009 16:02

reader

Again with this "climate change" ( remember 'global warming' with the now record lows being recorded?) to bolster the tax on human energy to be paid to the international banks as "carbon offsets" when we are, in fact, now going into global cooling as the solar activity goes into a cooling phase.
Why don't we ever hear about the real problems of pollution?
This is just a scam to use carbon credits to play stock market ponzi schemes with while finishing off the industrial sector to make America a 3rd world nation governed over by the IMF.

EXHIBIT A 25.Jul.2009 20:15

op

^^^^^^Look at above comment.

Normally, non-denial based argumentation will involve serious analysis of the said issue. Arguments based in denial tend to be repetitive iterations of the same facts over and over again. Watch, this article will get a few more posters saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS. A person interested in the truth will hear all arguments, and above all, respond to the actual statements made. He/she will not repeat the same idea or source over and over, regardless of what is being discussed. This is because her/his argument is too tenuous because it lacks sufficient sources and diverse sources.

raw food can be carbon nuetral 25.Jul.2009 22:19

veganerd

rawveg.info

If local gardens supply nutrients without burning any stored carbon then only flatulence is a greenhouse offender in our consumptive lives.

(:D)

saying "THE EXACT SAME THINGS" 26.Jul.2009 03:45

reader

Do you mean the same 'climate change' ( replacing the defunct "global warming" as the solar activity declines ) bull crap meaning a new tax on all processes humans use to live?
How is it that "op" cannot address any of MY points? Guilt by innuendo?
The CO2 boogy man is another scam for the IMF and their bankster cronies. Are you going top fall for it?
Wanking about carbon offsets and credits ( offering a new credit bubble to speculate in ) while they never doing a damn thing about the real horrors of industrial pollution.

it is too 29.Jul.2009 22:47

hot

I'm tired of the endless regurgitation of the same 'there is no climate change' schtick. 2007 was the lowest amount of arctic sea ice. 2008 was slightly more and 2009 is closer to 2007. All 3 years there is significantly less ice than the 30 year norm. That does not indicate cooling.

Oh and btw, the term climate change has been around for a long time and has always been considered a more accurate and nuanced term that global warming. It is not a recent replacement as you falsely suggest.