April 10, 2022
The role of self-interest as an incentive for undertaking climate action is problematic, even if at its core it contains the fact that if we do not address climate change we will all be harmed. Culturally, motivation is a complex issue and when combined with the uncertainties of climate change the rational notion that we primarily make decisions based on self-interest quickly unravels.
Our cultural perspectives, how we view the world and our place in it, influence how we conceive self-interest. Western and Indigenous cultural perspectives differ significantly and are shaped by different knowledge systems built over millennia. Western worldviews have roots in both religion and philosophy, each of which imparts a cultural perspective of humanity as separate from nature. One argument for the genesis of the Western worldview of humanity as separate from and superior over nature can be seen in Lynn White, Jr.’s seminal article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”. White (1967) writes: “Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man’s benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes” (p. 5-6). This stands in stark contrast to Indigenous spirituality in which nature and humanity are inseparable.
In Western philosophical thought logic/reason was first articulated by the ancient Greeks. Within this philosophical tradition, humanity is seen as separate from the natural world. In The Logic of the Gift: Reclaiming Indigenous Peoples’ Philosophies Rauna Kuokkanen (2006) analyzes and compares our Westerns philosophical attitudes towards our environment with Indigenous worldviews. She characterizes the Western perspective as remote or removed from nature creating a separation between humanity and nature. This resulting duality establishes a realm of nature and a realm of people/culture. She writes: “The hierarchical dualism and control of reason over nature have also contributed to the creation of the fault-line between the West (the sphere of reason) and indigenous [sic] peoples (the sphere of nature)” (p. 251). Western worldviews conceive of the natural world as separate, and because of this they have difficulties in viscerally understanding that protecting nature is integral to wellbeing and self-interest.
In contrast Kuokkanen (2006) describes Indigenous philosophies as holistic and relationship based. Indigenous philosophies “are particularly concerned of the human relationship with the world” (p. 255). Kuokkanen expands drawing on the writing of Tim Ingold: “the world is not an external domain of objects that I look at, or do things to, but is rather going on, or undergoing continuous generation, with me and around me” (Ingold, 2000, as cited in Kuokkanen, 2006, p. 255). The contrast in Indigenous and Western philosophical underpinnings is perhaps most clearly demonstrated through the Indigenous practices of gifts, where gifts are given to “acknowledge and renew a sense of kinship and coexistence” (p. 256) with the natural world. In contrast, Western practices view nature through a one-way lens, one of commodification in which ‘natural resources’ exist to support the economic ‘needs’ of people. In these contrasting worldviews we can glint why Western cultural perceptions are predisposed to disregard climate action as being in their self-interest. Western perceptions do not see that we are interdependent with the natural world, but believe that human ingenuity will mold the natural world to meet our needs and overcome the climate crisis.
While Western worldviews prioritize rational thinking, our actions are not as rational as we like to believe. Self-interest or doing what is best for oneself is a primal and instinctual behavior. Our bodies react in protective ways when in danger, for example, shutting our eyes when something gets too near or our instinctual ‘fight or flight’ response in the face of physical or psychological danger. The notion of ‘homo economicus’ who consistently approaches problems through the rational lens of self-interest is an illusion. Empirical evidence suggests that humans are not strictly rational creatures. If we were truly rational and motivated only by economic self-interest there would be no need for advertising firms that appeal to emotion and sex appeal to sell us different brands of vehicles. We would simply review the product data and purchase the best performing vehicle, we might even choose alternative transportation options as there is rarely a return on investment in buying a car. But that is not how we work. We have multiple motivations for the choices we make at individual and societal levels.
In her chapter essay “Climate Change and Economic Self-Interest”, Julie A. Nelson (2019) confronts the question of what motivates climate action. Her article challenges COP21 director Christiana Figueres’ statement that “this summit [COP21] would reach an agreement because nations are now recognizing that it is in their national self-interest—and, more precisely, in their national economic self-interest—to reach a pact” (Nelson, 2019, p. 112). Nelson critiques this assumption based on both theory and social science research, which contradicts the assertion that “self-interest is the strongest motivator” (p. 113). Drawing of the fields of social psychology and cognitive neuroscience, Nelson highlights the large body of evidence on the “complexity and sociality of human motivations” (p. 116). She identifies several ethical and moral motivators for national actions such as ethical sensibilities, sanctity, responsibility, ‘doing the right thing’, Defense of Freedom, or National Honor. She adds “some actions may be motivated by the desire to preserve one’s identity—one’s sense of who one is in the world-even when this is economically costly” (p. 117).
Considering the role of self-interest as an incentive for climate action raises many questions, incongruences, and complexities. Our cultural perspectives, how we view the world and our place in it, shape our decision-making and influence how we conceive self-interest. Self-interest and self-preservation are a powerful instinctual motivator of action and urgency. If Western cultures can recognize humanities interdependence with nature and its dependence on a stable climate system we can unlock the ambition and innovation necessary for the change we need. Hope also lies in the research and empirical evidence that affirms ethical and moral foundations are powerful and often used motivators in decision making.
References
Kuokkanen, R. (2006). The logic of the gift: Reclaiming Indigenous peoples’ philosophies. In Botz-Bornstein, T., & Hengelbrock, J. (Eds.). Re-ethnicizing the minds? Cultural revival in contemporary thought. Brill Rodopi. https://rauna.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/s21_sip_17_rauna-kuokkanen.pdf
Nelson, J.A. (2019). Chapter 6: Climate change and economic self-interest. In Kanbur, R., & Shue, H. (Eds.). Climate justice: Integrating economics and philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/pluginfile.php/957059/mod_book/chapter/220197/Nelson%20%282019%29%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Economic%20Self-Interest.pdf
White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science. New Series, Vol.155, No.3767 (Mar. 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120?seq=1