Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior

Journal of Social Issues, Fall, 2000 by Stephen Kaplan

This "dour environmentalist" stereotype to which the altruism concept unintentionally contributes is far from helpful. The hope for a better future is a characteristic of the human makeup that has been found across a wide range of cultures (Cantril, 1966). Casting a negative pall on this hope is unlikely to be an effective motivational strategy. In addition to this unfortunate side effect, the focus on sacrifice embodies a key assumption that may not be well grounded. It assumes that we know what has to be given up. This creates an image of future deprivation that may be unnecessary and inaccurate. Asking people how willing they are to give up x implies that x will be one of the activities that will no longer fit in an environmentally correct future. The impression created is particularly negative because the "giving up" is not placed in the context of environmentally preferable alternatives.

Thus the focus on altruism brings with it the implicit message that living with less will result in an impoverished and joyless future. Ironically, this perspective buys into the establishment view that the way we do things now is the most satisfying, that there is a positive relationship between resource use and happiness, and that materialism and waste are more fun. Perhaps not surprisingly, this presumed linkage between consumption and happiness does not stand up to a careful psychological analysis (Myers & Diener, 1995).

Not only does the dour, negative view of the future put the worst possible face on appeals for ERB, it also undermines potentially powerful linkages with critiques of materialism as unhealthy and unsatisfying as well as environmentally unsustainable. These critiques offer the opportunity to reverse the "sacrifice" perspective, thus making ERB not a regressive activity, but a possible route to a better life. There are some potentially exciting alliances here. Miller's (1995) How to Want What You Have is a thoughtful psychological analysis, blending an Eastern perspective with the rich experience of an insightful clinical psychologist. The "use less stuff" approach to happiness is powerfully presented in Dominguez and Robin's (1992) Your Money or Your Life. And the general issue of lifestyles that are at the same time less destructive and more satisfying is addressed in Johnson's (1985) The Future Is Not What It Used to Be.

Motivational reality. Are appeals to sacrifice, to behaving counter to one's self-interest, a realistic approach to motivating behavior? Is such purity an appropriate characterization of people deeply committed to ERB? Mansbridge (1990, p. 133) puts the issue succinctly: "We normally see self-interest and altruism as being at opposite poles. Indeed, conceptually we know what we mean by altruism only by contrasting it with self-interest. In practice, however, altruism must coincide with self-interest sufficiently to prevent the extinction of either the altruistic motivation or the altruist."

But is such a dichotomy necessary? Does it, in fact, characterize committed environmentalists, past and present? Henry David Thoreau is regarded by many as one of the great environmentalists of all time. However, he fails the test of altruism: He obtained great satisfaction from nature and did not wish to see his country adopt materialism, for his own sake as well as theirs. Most environmentalists of my acquaintance are no different. They love nature and they treasure the benefits they experience from it. They fear the impact its destruction would have, for their own lives and the lives of their descendants, as well as for humanity as a whole.