Psychology & Ecology:
reflecting on (lost) connections
by Bernardo Marçolla
Society versus Nature
We live in a moment of transition regarding the paradigms of science. This passage, however, does not happen abruptly, but through a long process that undermines our certainties and brings us to new questions.
Modern science was built from a model of rationality that was established after the scientific revolution of the 16th century, founded on a conception of the world as an order and constituted by mechanical laws, as well as the separation between matter and spirit. This view of the world and of life also leads to two basic distinctions: between scientific knowledge and common-sense knowledge, and between Nature and the human person.
From this perspective, Nature would be just extension and movement. It would be passive as well as eternal and reversible. It would be a mechanism whose elements could be dismantled and related in the form of laws. Such unveiling process would aim to know nature in order to dominate and control it. The knowledge that is based on the formulation of laws presupposes the idea of order and stability in the world. Mechanistic determinism takes place as a form of knowledge that is intended to be both utilitarian and functional, less concerned with a deep understanding of reality than with its capacity to dominate and transform it.
Even the social sciences use this model, being more subsidiary to the natural sciences model of rationality than it often seems. Such a link would occur because they share as a basic concept the distinction between Nature x human being, which is reproduced in another fundamental distinction: Nature x Culture.
When we enter into the constructions that aim to understand the man-nature relationship in Western societies a striking tendency is, therefore, one that concerns a dichotomy between these two instances. More clearly, we can speak of a tendency that would comprise society (and therefore the human) as opposed to Nature. Society would be seen from an evolutionary point of view, as an overcoming of the natural condition. Such instances would be conceived in a hierarchical way, where the production of culture and society would imply overcoming an inferior condition, which would be animal and natural.
Fortunately, today there are many researchers and scholars who question this position and already speak of the need for this dichotomy to be overcome, which would mean a kind of return: not exactly to Nature, but “inside” Nature.
Ecological Dichotomies
In the context of Western science, a great tendency that takes hold in attempts to read the phenomena involved in the man-nature relationship has its manifestation in Ecology, with the main objective being precisely to overcome or minimize the dichotomous tendency described above. Ecology would focus on the concrete and systemic relationships that characterize the human-nature relationship, at the same time as it would be a possibility to understand the interdependence between human beings and the environment in its broadest sense.
Thus, historically, since the 1970s, we have witnessed a significant increase in questions about the future of the planet, regarding the depletion of natural resources, the preservation of fauna and flora, atmospheric and climate changes, in short, the awareness of ecological awareness in general. As man becomes environmentally conscious, Ecology reveals itself as an important field of knowledge.
I believe that a good conception of Ecology would be one that considers it as the study of the complex interrelationships of a larger ecosystem, which would encompass man and Nature as a whole. So, at least in conceptual terms, Ecology would not make a split between man and Nature. Therefore, it would be a scientific and interdisciplinary approach that would conceive of a living, ecosystem and larger unit, of which man would be an integral part along with a series of other beings. However, as we take a closer look at the focus of studies and practices that are supposed to be “ecological”, this is not exactly what we often find...
A first possible approach to Ecology is through studies located in the biological sciences. In my expectation, I hoped that the human element would be considered relevantly in such studies, that is, that they aimed at understanding an ecosystem that is, at the same time, environmental and human, and that they deal with the complexity of the interactions that there would take place. But that's not exactly what I found. What I saw was an excessive emphasis on certain typically “biological” and localized elements, for example: studies that contemplate the cultivation of rhizomes, or the rearing of bees, or even the maintenance of water resources. Without disregarding the importance and relevance of each of these studies that I cite as examples, I am alarmed: wouldn't Ecology be concerned with the whole? And how does man fit in with such focus of study? Wouldn't there be the possibility that researches contemplate the complexity inherent in the relationship between typically “social” and typically “environmental” processes?
As an alternative, I searched within the field of human sciences for what was also called Ecology – but the so called Human Ecology. My expectation would be to find studies in which the human and social elements could be considered together with ecological issues in a broad way. However, I could see an opposite bias: given the presence of typically human and social elements, environmental issues and more specifically linked to biology are not usually properly considered. Even though they eventually have epistemological models derived from Biology (for example, the General Systems Theory), the actually ecological dimension of man is not taken as a legitimate object of study. They focus on family, group or social relationships – but Nature continues to be left out.
All of this leads me to believe that there is a tendency to split in what concerns both the object of study and the discourses related to Ecology. Thus, there would be an “Ecology” focused on natural systems and another “Ecology” focused on human systems, which would allow us to assume – ERRONEOUSLY – that environmental, biological, social and human sciences would have unlikely intersections between them.
We would arrive at a great paradox, where “Ecology” would end up reinforcing the barriers that would separate what would be human and what would be natural. When, for example, we consider that the ecological translates into the demarcation of parks where human presence is restricted, perhaps we are reproducing in our practice the belief that such categories would be enemies or exclusionary. In this sense, we could question to what extent the “Ecology” of our days is really being ecological.
Therefore, I believe that this way of approaching the man-Nature relationship must undergo a certain conceptual and practical refinement, so that it does not suffer from certain vices inherent to old ways of conceiving the world and also of doing science. Despite all this, I also believe in the constructive potential of Ecology, as it is refined from the new questions that are imposed on those who intend to do science or venture into the understanding of life. The first step is to look at ourselves.
The Denatured Man and the Postmodernity
In contemporary terms, we are referred to a wide range of phenomena that, in the absence of a common name, are often situated within what some call postmodernity. Given this context, it would be interesting to reflect on its possible connections with the question of Nature. Are there connections between the psychosocial phenomena we are currently dealing with and the ecological question?
Once we are located in the so-called late postmodernity, it would be important briefly situate the conditions that led to the emergence of the phenomena that characterize it, as well as its organization. The first, and more important, is what some authors call the process of "disenchantment of the world": if people used to understand themselves as an integral part of a cosmic order, the modern mentality begins to build itself precisely through the discredit of this dimension. It is understood today that the individual would have missed something very important from these broader horizons: there would be a loss of purpose linked to growing anguish as people lost a broader view while focusing on their individual life.
The phenomenon of individualism is highlighted by contemporary Social Psychology. From this, we could identify the strong narcissistic content of Western societies. While the individual turns to himself, he also does not know who he is, what he wants, what he came for. The individual becomes fragmented in the midst of a great crisis of meaning. Individualism strengthens in the same proportion as subjectivity becomes more and more fragile.
Charles Taylor speaks to us of the feeling of threefold divided men: within themselves, among themselves and in front of Nature. From his statements, we can see how the modern phenomenon of individualism seems to have its connections with the man-Nature theme.
Men Split in Themselves, Between Themselves and in Front of Nature
From my point of view, a possible split resulting from a position “outside” Nature would be the split of man in relation to his own corporeality. The body – our “natural” portion – would come to be treated as an object, a receptacle of a “humanity” that would differ from it in essence, a Cartesian heritage of modernity. We would have a human subject model where there would be an ideal image of a human thought that would be disconnected from our body, our dialogic situation and our emotions. Rationality becomes the preponderant value.
In this way we have a human being compartmentalized within himself. In this tangle of disconnected elements, a physical body, a rational mind, an emotional part would coexist. Faced with such diversity within itself, it is still up to human beings to choose one of these parts to identify as their “Self” – when, normally, such identification falls on the so-called “disengaged reason”. Then, everything seems to submit to the precepts of this form of rationality, which is profoundly instrumental. Thus, the body and feelings would be managed, aiming at the best ends at the lowest costs.
Entering a dimension that would also be hierarchically situated below reason, we would have sexuality that, in this context, would be experienced in a disintegrated way. Composed of sealed categories within themselves, human beings would not have the capacity to integrate sexuality with their affectivity and their reason. In this way, taken merely as a bodily dimension, sexuality starts to be experienced in a split, almost instrumental way. It can also become an instrument of power in relationships. All of this makes the integration between sex, conscience and affectivity unlikely. If the body is split from the spirit, the heart is also split from this set – man becomes fragmented. On top of all this, thick layers of narcissism keep us from seeing our own difficulties, camouflaging our confusions, splits and emptiness. I wonder if this could not be the root of many of the contemporary “psychopathological” phenomena with which we have lived.
And that's how we got to relate to each other. Alongside men split within themselves, we would therefore also have human beings split between themselves, with increasingly fluid identities and social roles that, under the superficial sensation of freedom, also reflect the dissolution of all references. We could ask ourselves: so far from himself, how could man truly approach the other? And, in a vicious cycle, if the way of approximation is not always the most legitimate – at least in terms of the feeling and the way in which it operates – wouldn't the man become increasingly “distrustful” or incredulous in relationships?
The humanity renounces love based on ideals of autonomy and independence. The paradox is that the other is seen only as someone capable (or not) of fulfilling my emotional needs. Relationships are similar to consumer goods, in which people are treated as objects. In order to defend against what contact with the other can evoke – contact with oneself and with all the confusion it brings – man has been armed with mechanisms of relationship. Seduction seems to be a means through which human beings have sought to build bonds with each other. The dimension of the real is transformed into false representation, as a strategy for contact and conquest. Relationships become intimate competitions. Popularity is what matters. Men and women compete with each other.
In a broader way, extrapolating the most intimate personal relationships, we arrive at another dimension of relational life: that of man in relation to the social, to the collective. Also in this aspect, the situation does not seem to be easy, even more when we consider the forms of sociability mediated by the internet and social networks, as it happens in the contemporary world. Faced with this subjective context, we are today witnessing of new relational forms that inaugurate new ways of sociability. This new context, which moves towards the global, emerges with the promise of breaking boundaries and facilitating contacts and relationships. However, in my point of view, these new relational forms are reflections of what we have discussed so far, bringing with them all the difficulties we have been dealing with and, at the same time, contributing to a certain extent for their maintenance.
Split in himself and in his own nature, human beings feel more alone than perhaps they really are. In competition with the world, unable to love, people would have difficulty seeing someone as themselves. Away from themselves and the other, it would be extremely difficult to feel part of Life, of the planet where we live, in connection with the processes that are around us. The cycle closes. The search for meaning becomes increasingly difficult. Some authors tell us about the feeling of search for survival that invades modern man. First of all, the world would be an extremely threatening place. We would have, for example, the sentiment expressed by Paul Zweig: “The earth moves, I cannot trust it”.
In view of all this, it is pertinent to at least consider what the possible implications would be that a return of man to the dimension of Nature could cause, in terms of an impact on the phenomena we have discussed.
Possibilities of Overcoming and New Directions
Scholars linked to the epistemology of science tell us that today there are strong signs that the model of scientific rationality I initially described is going through a deep crisis. This crisis would not only be profound but also irreversible, being the interactive result of both social and theoretical conditions. Such a scientific revolution would have started with Einstein and quantum mechanics and it is not yet known when it will end. It is assumed that, sooner or later, the basic distinctions on which the dominant scientific paradigm rests will collapse.
The complexity of the phenomena that are the object of science requires not only the breaking of the dichotomy in the way of conceiving them, but also (and strikingly) the breaking of the dichotomy in the way of approaching them, that is, a new way of doing science. Taking the advances in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, the idea that the world starts from a tangle of actions, relationships and interactions intersected by random phenomena that generate uncertainty and unpredictability has served to question old ways of conceiving and thinking about reality of the world.
The first complexity of the universe would be that nothing is really isolated, everything is in relationship. This complexity can be found both in the world of physics and in politics – what happens in one part of the planet has repercussions in other places. As Edgar Morin tells us, the notion that “everything is in everything and reciprocally” begins to be constructed.
Faced with this great transition phase in the sciences, we are relegated to our role in front of them. The problem we are faced with is that, until then, we have learned to think by separating. This would be a historical and cultural phenomenon deeply ingrained in each one of us. But this conception is incompatible with the very essence of the human being, of a multidimensional nature. Our challenge is to think, feel and do differently. Through us the Universe becomes aware of itself. Let us have eyes to see.
We live in a moment of transition regarding the paradigms of science. This passage, however, does not happen abruptly, but through a long process that undermines our certainties and brings us to new questions.
Modern science was built from a model of rationality that was established after the scientific revolution of the 16th century, founded on a conception of the world as an order and constituted by mechanical laws, as well as the separation between matter and spirit. This view of the world and of life also leads to two basic distinctions: between scientific knowledge and common-sense knowledge, and between Nature and the human person.
From this perspective, Nature would be just extension and movement. It would be passive as well as eternal and reversible. It would be a mechanism whose elements could be dismantled and related in the form of laws. Such unveiling process would aim to know nature in order to dominate and control it. The knowledge that is based on the formulation of laws presupposes the idea of order and stability in the world. Mechanistic determinism takes place as a form of knowledge that is intended to be both utilitarian and functional, less concerned with a deep understanding of reality than with its capacity to dominate and transform it.
Even the social sciences use this model, being more subsidiary to the natural sciences model of rationality than it often seems. Such a link would occur because they share as a basic concept the distinction between Nature x human being, which is reproduced in another fundamental distinction: Nature x Culture.
When we enter into the constructions that aim to understand the man-nature relationship in Western societies a striking tendency is, therefore, one that concerns a dichotomy between these two instances. More clearly, we can speak of a tendency that would comprise society (and therefore the human) as opposed to Nature. Society would be seen from an evolutionary point of view, as an overcoming of the natural condition. Such instances would be conceived in a hierarchical way, where the production of culture and society would imply overcoming an inferior condition, which would be animal and natural.
Fortunately, today there are many researchers and scholars who question this position and already speak of the need for this dichotomy to be overcome, which would mean a kind of return: not exactly to Nature, but “inside” Nature.
Ecological Dichotomies
In the context of Western science, a great tendency that takes hold in attempts to read the phenomena involved in the man-nature relationship has its manifestation in Ecology, with the main objective being precisely to overcome or minimize the dichotomous tendency described above. Ecology would focus on the concrete and systemic relationships that characterize the human-nature relationship, at the same time as it would be a possibility to understand the interdependence between human beings and the environment in its broadest sense.
Thus, historically, since the 1970s, we have witnessed a significant increase in questions about the future of the planet, regarding the depletion of natural resources, the preservation of fauna and flora, atmospheric and climate changes, in short, the awareness of ecological awareness in general. As man becomes environmentally conscious, Ecology reveals itself as an important field of knowledge.
I believe that a good conception of Ecology would be one that considers it as the study of the complex interrelationships of a larger ecosystem, which would encompass man and Nature as a whole. So, at least in conceptual terms, Ecology would not make a split between man and Nature. Therefore, it would be a scientific and interdisciplinary approach that would conceive of a living, ecosystem and larger unit, of which man would be an integral part along with a series of other beings. However, as we take a closer look at the focus of studies and practices that are supposed to be “ecological”, this is not exactly what we often find...
A first possible approach to Ecology is through studies located in the biological sciences. In my expectation, I hoped that the human element would be considered relevantly in such studies, that is, that they aimed at understanding an ecosystem that is, at the same time, environmental and human, and that they deal with the complexity of the interactions that there would take place. But that's not exactly what I found. What I saw was an excessive emphasis on certain typically “biological” and localized elements, for example: studies that contemplate the cultivation of rhizomes, or the rearing of bees, or even the maintenance of water resources. Without disregarding the importance and relevance of each of these studies that I cite as examples, I am alarmed: wouldn't Ecology be concerned with the whole? And how does man fit in with such focus of study? Wouldn't there be the possibility that researches contemplate the complexity inherent in the relationship between typically “social” and typically “environmental” processes?
As an alternative, I searched within the field of human sciences for what was also called Ecology – but the so called Human Ecology. My expectation would be to find studies in which the human and social elements could be considered together with ecological issues in a broad way. However, I could see an opposite bias: given the presence of typically human and social elements, environmental issues and more specifically linked to biology are not usually properly considered. Even though they eventually have epistemological models derived from Biology (for example, the General Systems Theory), the actually ecological dimension of man is not taken as a legitimate object of study. They focus on family, group or social relationships – but Nature continues to be left out.
All of this leads me to believe that there is a tendency to split in what concerns both the object of study and the discourses related to Ecology. Thus, there would be an “Ecology” focused on natural systems and another “Ecology” focused on human systems, which would allow us to assume – ERRONEOUSLY – that environmental, biological, social and human sciences would have unlikely intersections between them.
We would arrive at a great paradox, where “Ecology” would end up reinforcing the barriers that would separate what would be human and what would be natural. When, for example, we consider that the ecological translates into the demarcation of parks where human presence is restricted, perhaps we are reproducing in our practice the belief that such categories would be enemies or exclusionary. In this sense, we could question to what extent the “Ecology” of our days is really being ecological.
Therefore, I believe that this way of approaching the man-Nature relationship must undergo a certain conceptual and practical refinement, so that it does not suffer from certain vices inherent to old ways of conceiving the world and also of doing science. Despite all this, I also believe in the constructive potential of Ecology, as it is refined from the new questions that are imposed on those who intend to do science or venture into the understanding of life. The first step is to look at ourselves.
The Denatured Man and the Postmodernity
In contemporary terms, we are referred to a wide range of phenomena that, in the absence of a common name, are often situated within what some call postmodernity. Given this context, it would be interesting to reflect on its possible connections with the question of Nature. Are there connections between the psychosocial phenomena we are currently dealing with and the ecological question?
Once we are located in the so-called late postmodernity, it would be important briefly situate the conditions that led to the emergence of the phenomena that characterize it, as well as its organization. The first, and more important, is what some authors call the process of "disenchantment of the world": if people used to understand themselves as an integral part of a cosmic order, the modern mentality begins to build itself precisely through the discredit of this dimension. It is understood today that the individual would have missed something very important from these broader horizons: there would be a loss of purpose linked to growing anguish as people lost a broader view while focusing on their individual life.
The phenomenon of individualism is highlighted by contemporary Social Psychology. From this, we could identify the strong narcissistic content of Western societies. While the individual turns to himself, he also does not know who he is, what he wants, what he came for. The individual becomes fragmented in the midst of a great crisis of meaning. Individualism strengthens in the same proportion as subjectivity becomes more and more fragile.
Charles Taylor speaks to us of the feeling of threefold divided men: within themselves, among themselves and in front of Nature. From his statements, we can see how the modern phenomenon of individualism seems to have its connections with the man-Nature theme.
Men Split in Themselves, Between Themselves and in Front of Nature
From my point of view, a possible split resulting from a position “outside” Nature would be the split of man in relation to his own corporeality. The body – our “natural” portion – would come to be treated as an object, a receptacle of a “humanity” that would differ from it in essence, a Cartesian heritage of modernity. We would have a human subject model where there would be an ideal image of a human thought that would be disconnected from our body, our dialogic situation and our emotions. Rationality becomes the preponderant value.
In this way we have a human being compartmentalized within himself. In this tangle of disconnected elements, a physical body, a rational mind, an emotional part would coexist. Faced with such diversity within itself, it is still up to human beings to choose one of these parts to identify as their “Self” – when, normally, such identification falls on the so-called “disengaged reason”. Then, everything seems to submit to the precepts of this form of rationality, which is profoundly instrumental. Thus, the body and feelings would be managed, aiming at the best ends at the lowest costs.
Entering a dimension that would also be hierarchically situated below reason, we would have sexuality that, in this context, would be experienced in a disintegrated way. Composed of sealed categories within themselves, human beings would not have the capacity to integrate sexuality with their affectivity and their reason. In this way, taken merely as a bodily dimension, sexuality starts to be experienced in a split, almost instrumental way. It can also become an instrument of power in relationships. All of this makes the integration between sex, conscience and affectivity unlikely. If the body is split from the spirit, the heart is also split from this set – man becomes fragmented. On top of all this, thick layers of narcissism keep us from seeing our own difficulties, camouflaging our confusions, splits and emptiness. I wonder if this could not be the root of many of the contemporary “psychopathological” phenomena with which we have lived.
And that's how we got to relate to each other. Alongside men split within themselves, we would therefore also have human beings split between themselves, with increasingly fluid identities and social roles that, under the superficial sensation of freedom, also reflect the dissolution of all references. We could ask ourselves: so far from himself, how could man truly approach the other? And, in a vicious cycle, if the way of approximation is not always the most legitimate – at least in terms of the feeling and the way in which it operates – wouldn't the man become increasingly “distrustful” or incredulous in relationships?
The humanity renounces love based on ideals of autonomy and independence. The paradox is that the other is seen only as someone capable (or not) of fulfilling my emotional needs. Relationships are similar to consumer goods, in which people are treated as objects. In order to defend against what contact with the other can evoke – contact with oneself and with all the confusion it brings – man has been armed with mechanisms of relationship. Seduction seems to be a means through which human beings have sought to build bonds with each other. The dimension of the real is transformed into false representation, as a strategy for contact and conquest. Relationships become intimate competitions. Popularity is what matters. Men and women compete with each other.
In a broader way, extrapolating the most intimate personal relationships, we arrive at another dimension of relational life: that of man in relation to the social, to the collective. Also in this aspect, the situation does not seem to be easy, even more when we consider the forms of sociability mediated by the internet and social networks, as it happens in the contemporary world. Faced with this subjective context, we are today witnessing of new relational forms that inaugurate new ways of sociability. This new context, which moves towards the global, emerges with the promise of breaking boundaries and facilitating contacts and relationships. However, in my point of view, these new relational forms are reflections of what we have discussed so far, bringing with them all the difficulties we have been dealing with and, at the same time, contributing to a certain extent for their maintenance.
Split in himself and in his own nature, human beings feel more alone than perhaps they really are. In competition with the world, unable to love, people would have difficulty seeing someone as themselves. Away from themselves and the other, it would be extremely difficult to feel part of Life, of the planet where we live, in connection with the processes that are around us. The cycle closes. The search for meaning becomes increasingly difficult. Some authors tell us about the feeling of search for survival that invades modern man. First of all, the world would be an extremely threatening place. We would have, for example, the sentiment expressed by Paul Zweig: “The earth moves, I cannot trust it”.
In view of all this, it is pertinent to at least consider what the possible implications would be that a return of man to the dimension of Nature could cause, in terms of an impact on the phenomena we have discussed.
Possibilities of Overcoming and New Directions
Scholars linked to the epistemology of science tell us that today there are strong signs that the model of scientific rationality I initially described is going through a deep crisis. This crisis would not only be profound but also irreversible, being the interactive result of both social and theoretical conditions. Such a scientific revolution would have started with Einstein and quantum mechanics and it is not yet known when it will end. It is assumed that, sooner or later, the basic distinctions on which the dominant scientific paradigm rests will collapse.
The complexity of the phenomena that are the object of science requires not only the breaking of the dichotomy in the way of conceiving them, but also (and strikingly) the breaking of the dichotomy in the way of approaching them, that is, a new way of doing science. Taking the advances in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, the idea that the world starts from a tangle of actions, relationships and interactions intersected by random phenomena that generate uncertainty and unpredictability has served to question old ways of conceiving and thinking about reality of the world.
The first complexity of the universe would be that nothing is really isolated, everything is in relationship. This complexity can be found both in the world of physics and in politics – what happens in one part of the planet has repercussions in other places. As Edgar Morin tells us, the notion that “everything is in everything and reciprocally” begins to be constructed.
Faced with this great transition phase in the sciences, we are relegated to our role in front of them. The problem we are faced with is that, until then, we have learned to think by separating. This would be a historical and cultural phenomenon deeply ingrained in each one of us. But this conception is incompatible with the very essence of the human being, of a multidimensional nature. Our challenge is to think, feel and do differently. Through us the Universe becomes aware of itself. Let us have eyes to see.
TO LEARN MORE: