Solving Environmental Problems is Changing Cultural Perception toward Environment.

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD.

Divine Word College of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

College of Business.

Abstract:

This paper argues that solving environmental problems is complex because it is not a matter of introducing strict laws on environment. Laws will be always considered as an external burden to be followed. Awareness has to be awaken because the problem is coming from the mind which has been shaped by the culture. Therefore it is not a matter of laws but it is more than laws, it is about culture that has influenced the attitude and behavior of people toward environment. Changing cultural perceptions is one basic fundamental option in solving the environmental problems.

Key Words: Culture, attitude, human behavior, environmental disaster, instrumental value, intrinsic value, anthropocentricism.

Introduction

Environmental problems have become a serious concern for all human being on the planet. Why is it becoming serious concern? People have seen the connection between the environmental disaster and quality of human life. Climate change is one of the effects environmental disasters. Climate change is not a small issue but  a serious issue that threatens human life.    

Many activities or programs are initiated or introduced by the government and non-government agencies in order to address the climate change, to prevent further deterioration of climate. Projects on tree planting, waste management, recycling and solar power have been introduced. However, these activities are not common yet, in the sense that not all people are planting trees, implementing proper waste management, recycling and having a solar energy, but they are using ordinary fossil oil, and people in other parts of the world are still cutting trees and mining. Sources of water become scarce because of logging and mining. Thus climate change is still the main concern up to this moment.

Activities and programs related to environmental protections have been done, however many of those activities are curative but not preventive. Preventive measures must be done but those measures are not only limited to environmental laws and projects but there must be environmental education. The focus of environmental education should emphasize the balance concept of nature which is rooted in the culture and hopefully such education will lead to the change of perception toward the environment and change of behavior toward the environment. 

The concern for the environment and concern for quality of life is the main factor why the researcher takes his time to write this paper. The paper would like to prove that cultural perception matters to environmental problems.

 

Cultural Perception and Human Behaviors

The behavior of a person can tell many hidden things because through his/her behavior people can see or tell what his culture is. The behavior is a manifestation of culture. Therefore what I mean with the culture is the way he/she thinks, looks, beliefs or perceives about things. Thus, culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior. What he/she believes, thinks or perceives, naturally it becomes his/her attitude toward the world or things or environment. Thus attitude and behavior do not operate independently but it is formed and influenced by the existing culture.

 Robert. W. Amstrong (1996) in his examination of the cultural variables suggests that there is a relationship between cultural dimensions such as Uncertainty Avoidance and Individualism as prescribed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and ethical perceptions. This finding supports the hypothetical linkage between the cultural environment perception and the perceived ethical problem variables posited in Hunt and Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics (1986). Such study only to prove that there is relationship between culture and attitude and behavior of a person toward anything. Culture affects the way people behave ethically.

         The influence of culture is not only limited to individual behavior but also organizational behavior or society. In functionalist thinking, culture is considered a component of an integrated social system which promotes the effectiveness of the organization and the well-being of all its stakeholders. Culture refers to the assumptions, beliefs, goals, knowledge and values that are shared by members of the society. British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1874) attempted to define culture as inclusively as possible. Tylor in 1874 described culture in the following way: "Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Culture represents the high-information “ideal factors” in a system that exerts significant and partly independent influence on human events or human behaviors. When an individual is faced with an ethical dilemma, his or her value system will color the perception of the ethical ramifications of the situation (Racelis, 2009). Such argument strengthens the position of culture to influence the behavior of a person toward other people, things or environment. In this case, culture matter much on the way how human behaves.   

Another important factor of human behavior is their “core faith”. This faith can be through religion, philosophy and culture or personal belief and often affects the way a person can behave. Many people belief some sort of belief in a higher power, which makes religion a large importance in society (Nones, 2012). It is only natural for something that plays such a large role in society to have an effect on human behavior (Spilka, 1996) Morals are another factor of core faith that affects the way a person behaves. Emotions connected to morals including shame, pride, and discomfort and these can change the way a person acts. Most importantly, shame and guilt have a large impact on behavior (Tangney, 2007). Lastly, culture highly affects human behavior. The beliefs of certain cultures are taught to children from such a young age that they are greatly affected as they grow up. These beliefs are taken into consideration throughout daily life, which leads to people from different cultures acting differently. These differences are able to alter the way different cultures and areas of the world interact and act (Triandis, 1994).

Culture does not only affect the belief and values of people but it also affects their attitude. It appears to be seen as the culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior of a person.   An attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person, place, thing, or event (Wyer, 1965).  In this case, attitude does not only affect the behavior of a person to another person but it can also affect his/her behavior toward things or environment.  The interesting thing about an attitude and human beings is that it alters between each individual. Everyone has a different attitude towards different things. A main factor that determines attitude is likes and dislikes. The more one likes something or someone the more one is willing to open up and accept what they have to offer. When one doesn’t like something, one is more likely to get defensive and shut down. An example of how one's attitude affects one's human behavior could be as simple as taking a child to the park or to the doctor. Children know they have fun at the park so their attitude becomes willing and positive, but when a doctor is mentioned, they shut down and become upset with the thought of pain. Attitudes can sculpt personalities and the way people view who we are. People with similar attitudes tend to stick together as interests and hobbies are common. This does not mean that people with attitudes do not interact, because they do. What it means is that specific attitudes can bring people together (e.g., religious groups). Attitudes have a lot to do with the mind which highly relates to Human behavior. The way a human will behave depends a lot on how they look at the situation and what they expect to gain from it.( Kecmanovic, 1969).  Positive attitudes are better than negative ones as negativity can bring on negative emotions that most of the time can be avoided. It is up to humans to make sure their attitudes positively reflect the behaviors they want to show. This can be done by assessing their attitudes and properly presenting them in society.

Definitely, attitude and behaviors are parts of culture. Change in attitude and behavior or belief or values require change in culture. Culture change is difficult. Culture change requires people to change their attitude and behaviors. It is often difficult for people to unlearn their old way of doing things, and to start performing the new behaviors consistently. However, it does not mean to say that culture cannot be changed; it can be changed if members of society are willing to change their attitude and behaviors, belief and values. A closer look at instinct driven behavior might help us understand this viewpoint better. For this, we can look at animal behavior, which is mostly controlled by instinct. In the case of humans, they can choose to ignore even such basic instincts, and put more thought and analysis in their behavior. They can also choose to do things in radically different ways. In this understanding, culture can be changed if people want to.

In relation to environmental problems, environmental problem is seen as behavioral problem because it is caused by human behavior. Thus, it is a cultural problem. Since problem is rooted in the culture that affects the attitude and behavior, then solving environmental problem requires changing of culture. Changing culture means changing the way how we view, value, perceive environment or nature. Negative culture toward environment must be changed into positive culture toward environment. Definitely it is an ethical issue. 

Solving Environmental Problems is A Cultural Perception Change.  

As I have mentioned earlier that environmental problems is caused by human behavior. Such human behavior is influenced by the culture which in turn affects the attitude of man on how they view environment and finally such view affects their behavior toward environment. Definitely the solution to the environmental problems must be radical change in cultural perceptions on the environment. Old ways of perceiving environment as merely instruments to human welfare must be revisited or changed. Without changing cultural perceptions, then no amount of laws that prohibits behavior, definitely environmental problems will continue.   

The researcher proposes the following recommendation on how to solve environmental problems:

1.      New way of interpreting the bible, Genesis, 1:27-31.    

It is time to say “mea culpa”. I say “mea culpa” directly means that I acknowledge I have done wrong and I have to confess that is my sin. My sins are that I have seen nature in its instrumental values, not in its intrinsic value. I have taken the genesis message as dominion, not as a steward.         

It has been the argument used by the Capitalists to justify their manipulation to the environment and it is originated from the Bible, particularly in the book of Genesis. Some philosopher’s views were also originated from bible. For example, Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) maintains that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man” and that the value of nonhuman things in nature is merely instrumental. Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what is wrong with the cruel treatment of nonhuman animals, except to the extent that such treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Immanuel Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards nonhuman animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable environment ( Passmore 1974, Bookchin 1990, Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, and Maple (eds.) 1995).

 The destruction of environment would tell us that human beings have taken Gen 1; 27-31 as an instruction of an absolute power to use and misuse or to exploit when God tells us to have dominion over the animals and to fill the earth and subdue it. Such situation has been lamented by Pope Benedict XVI when he said that God’s original command to have dominion over the earth has been sorely corrupted. He further said that the task of “subduing” was never intended as an order to enslave it but rather as a task of being guardians of Creation and developing its gifts, of actively collaborating in God’s work ourselves (Benedict, 2008).

Previous Pope, John Paul in his Sollicitudo Rei Socialis reminds us about our understanding of the dominion granted by God. The dominion granted to man by God is not an absolute power or a complete freedom to use and misuse or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator expressed symbolically by the prohibition “not to eat the fruit of the tree, for the day you eat of it, you will die (Gen. 2:17).

John Paul II (2001) continued to emphasize that our respect for creation stem from respect for human life and dignity. Thus all human beings should realize their specific responsibility to care for the nature. Each person should recognize that the world is created by God and we are steward of the nature. We must be responsible stewards of God’s creation. Humans are to use the earth, not to abuse it and in doing so become co-creators with God in the process of the formation of a new heaven and new earth. In Gen, 2: 15, it says, “Yahweh God took man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to till it and take care of it”. Such instruction indicates that dominion of human being over the earth is not absolute but co creator and stewards. 

2.      Adopting Eastern Views on Man and Nature.

Eastern philosophy of man views man not in isolation. Man is part of the greater reality. If the western look at man as individual who is independent from society or separate individual while the Eastern look at man as part of something greater.  He is a part of a bigger part. Living wisely means an individual finds his true place in that greater reality and conforms to it. He lives in harmonious relationship with the greater part or reality. The greater reality is not only referring to society or environment but the divine reality. He seeks to lose himself in that greater reality and such reality is divine reality which is called Brahman. Brahman is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.  Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. Brahman is the only thing which is truly real and everything else is only real to the extent that is part of Brahman.  Brahman is just like a great sea and other being in the world are just a drop of water into that sea. Such drops do not have distinct individual existence but exist as drops of water in a great sea. They are elements of something greater.  It is the reality of all realities, the soul of all souls, one without a second, the constant witness of the changing phenomena of the universe. (Swami Adiswarananda, 2012.)

Such view refers reality as God/ Brahman. This view found its partner in western view through Baruch Spinoza (Bento Spinoza, Baruch/Benedict Spinoza). He considered universe, nature as God. God is nature and nature is God.  Spinoza claims that the things that make up the universe, including human beings, are God's "modes". This means that we and everything else are, in some sense, dependent upon God and everything else are equal. All are coming from the same source and one is not better than the other. They all are good in themselves. As Spinoza puts it that  everything that happens follows from the nature of God, just like how it follows from the nature of a triangle that its angles are equal to two right angles. Since God had to exist with the nature he happens to have, nothing that has happened could have been avoided, and if a particular fate for a particular mode is fixed by God, there is no escaping it, (Geoff Pynn, 2012). 

 

Adopting such view on man and nature, it definitely tells us that man is not a subject and the world is object to be used but both subject. The relationship between man and nature must be between subject and subject. Nature and man are one. Man and nature are the modes of God's presence, and are dependent on God. Both are part of the greater reality which is Brahman. Both are part of God. In this case, man and nature are divine in nature because both are part of such greater reality which is Brahman. Man gets its meaning by living in harmony with such greater reality.  

3.      New Way of Building a Relationship with the Nature.

We might be familiar with the idea of Martin Buber. Martin Buber argued that all real living is meeting. In the meeting, there is always a relation and this relation is not only man to man but man to the world and to God.  How we can open ourselves to the world, to others and to God. Therefore he proposed a kind relationship which is I-You and I-It relationship. But one kind of these relationships is not really intended for one or the other. It depends on how we relate ourselves to others, to the world and to God.

I-You (Thou) or Ich-Du relationship. I - You (Thou) relationship is a relationship between man and man or subject to subject (Buber, 1965). This is a genuine relationship because the objective of such relationship is not for the advantage of one party but it is mutual. We deal with the other as a subject or a person who is distinctive.  Therefore, according to him, we take stand either to relate or not relate ourselves. We can take our place against whatever confronts us and address it as you or we can take ourselves apart from it and view it as an object (it). In this case, there is possibility that relationship (I-You)  which is supposed to be a genuine relationship and only between subject to subject or man to man can turn into a manipulative relationship which is I-It relationship. In this case the purpose of going into building relationship or dialogue is only for self interest.

While I-It relationships is a relationship between subject and object. But this relationship can be used in human relationship. In the I-It relationship, the subject is in the position to use, manipulate, and control the other. The other is used as an object. In this case one is being used by the other for his self-interest. There is no mutual benefit in this kind of relationship. In terms of relationship of man nature, it simply people accept that it is I-It relationship. Man is simply using the nature as object of manipulation for his self interest.  

New way of building relationship with nature must be a relationship of I-You. Nature must be seen as subject, as an independent and distinctive from human. Thus the relationship between man and nature must be a relation of subject to subject, both are equal. Not only that nature and man are both the creation of God but both relationships benefit each other. Nature benefits from man and man benefit from nature.  Therefore relationship with the nature must be mutual relationship. Man takes care of the nature as mandated by God and nature gives life to man. Man has to respect nature because the natural environment and/or its various contents have certain values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected in any case. The manipulative relationship which only benefits one side can produce disaster on the part of human being.

4.      Nature should not be viewed as instrument or pure object.

 

Western philosophers have seen nature or environment as a separate entity from man. Unlike the Eastern philosophers view nature and human being as one. Both are pare part of greater reality. As a consequence of that concept, people maintain harmony and respect toward the environment. In this case, it emphasizes more on intrinsic value than instrumental value. People respect nature because they have their own value in themselves regardless of whether they are useful or not to other ends. Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it ( O'Neil 1992 and Jameson 2002 for detailed accounts of intrinsic value).

 As a consequence of Western views are looking at environment as an object to be used, to be manipulated for human interest.   The reflection of Western view of environment can be found in their literature on environmental ethics in which they emphasize the instrumental value of nature. Instrumental value of environment is the value of things as means to further some other ends. For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends in themselves (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). Another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an aesthetic object for human observers. Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any nonhuman things such that the protection or promotion of human interests or well-being at the expense of nonhuman things turns out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense) (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2008)

 

5. Consumerism.

The question is what is wrong with consumerism? Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts. In economics consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice what is produced and how. In many critical contexts, consumerism is used to describe the tendency of people to identify strongly with products or services they consume, especially those with commercial brand names and perceived status-symbolism appeal, e.g. luxury car designer clothing or expensive jewelry. Consumerism can take extreme forms such that consumers sacrifice significant time and income not only to purchase but also to actively support a certain firm or brand (Eisingerich, et.al, 2010). Definitely consumerism is good for the economy because economy is also depending on the consumption. The more people consume, the better the economy is. However, even though consumerism is not all bad but the effect of consumerism is great.  Consumerism can have a great impact to the environment. All raw materials are taken from the environment and all the waste of unused materials are going back to the    environment. The environment has to be destroyed in order to get the materials      through mining activities or logging activities and waste will be thrown back to the   environment. The immediate consequence is climate change. The ozone layer protects    day-by-day due to pollution like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, particular matter and carbon monoxide. Apart from the depletion of ozone layer, these emissions    of gases also cause several health problems. Keeping a check on these emissions is the solution to protect the ozone layer (Raham Gafar, 2012). Definitely, to solve environmental problem is to change lifestyle which is part of culture.      

Conclusion

Environmental problem is actually a behavioral problem which is influenced by the existing culture. Definitely environmental problem is a cultural problem. Solving environmental disaster is not just a matter of introducing new laws on protecting environment but it is a change of culture which affects belief, attitude, values and behaviors of people. This is an area which environmentalists have not taken into consideration in their efforts to prevent environmental disasters. Thus, it is time to revisit the existing culture and old views on how people view environment or nature must be renewed or changed.      

References

Amstrong, W. Robert. The Relationship between Culture and Perception of Ethical Problems in International Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics (1996)

Volume: 15, Issue: 11, Pages: 1199-1208

Adiswarananda, Swami. 2012. HINDUISM: THE ULTIMATE REALITY. Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York.

Aristotle. 1948. Politics, trans. E. Barker, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Benedict XVI. 2008. Message of His Holiness to the Beloved People of Australia and to the Young Pilgrims Taking Part in World Youth Day. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/message/pont-messages/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20080704_australia_en.html.

Bookchin, M., 1980. Toward an Ecological Society, Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Buber, Martin. 1965. Daniel: Dialogues on Realization. London: Mcdonald. Ed. Nahum Glatzer. 

Eisingerich, Andreas B.; Bhardwaj, Gunjan; Miyamoto, Yoshio (April 2010). "Behold the Extreme Consumers and Learn to Embrace Them". Harvard Business Review 88

Ghaffa, Raham.. 2012. Environmental Problems and Solutions. http://envirocivil.com/environment/environmental-problems-and-solutions.

Geoff Pynn, 2012. Introduction to Pinoza's Ethics , Northern Illinois University. USA.

 

  Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D. N. (1996). The psychology of religion. Westview Press.

John Paul II. 2001. General Audience. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010117_en.html.

Hunt, D. Shelly and. Vitell, J. Scott. 1986. The General Theory of Marketing Ethics:

A Revision and Three Questions.  http://sdh.ba.ttu.edu/JMacro06%20-%20A%20general%20theory%20of%20marketing%20ethics-A%20revision%20and%20three%20questions--PAGE%20PROOFS.pdf

 

Jamieson, D. 2002.  Morality's Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kant, Immanuel. 1963. “Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Louis Infield trans., Lectures on Ethics, New York: Harper and Row.

KECMANOVIC, D. (1969). The paranoid attitude as the common form of social behavior. Sociologija, 11(4), 573-585. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/60877639?accountid=12347 (registration required)

"'Nones' on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation". Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012. Retrieved December 20, 2012. http://www.pewforum.com

Norton, B., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. and Maple, T. L. (eds), 1995. Ethics on the Ark, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

O'Neill, J., 1992. “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value”, Monist 75: 119-137

Passmore, J., 1974. Man's Responsibility for Nature, London: Duckworth, 2nd ed., 1980.

Racelis, A. Racelis. 2009. Relationship between Employee Perceptions of Corporate Ethics and Organizational Culture: An Exploratory Study. College of Business Administration, University of the Philippines, Philippines. http://apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw/comm/updown/DW1006213442.pdf

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Environmental Ethics.  First published Mon Jun 3, 2002; substantive revision Thu Jan 3, 2008

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. McGraw-Hill Book Company

WYER, R. S. J. 1965 . Effect of Child-Rearing Attitudes and Behavior on Children’s  responses to Hypothetical Social Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 480-486.

Tylor, E.B. 1874. Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

 

Geoff Pynn, 2012. Introduction to Pinoza's Ethics , Northern Illinois University. USA.