Dawn Lee
Energy Law
Aesthetics, Human Behavior, and Energy Sufficiency
Abstract
This paper argues that in order to achieve goals of energy sufficiency, environmentalism needs to begin to incorporate more mainstream aesthetic values. Because reducing consumption through abstention and self-sacrifice is unrealistic, the most effective way to increase energy sufficiency is through skilled consumption. Therefore, while human beings still engage in consumption, their consumption patterns are less wasteful. Inducing such skilled consumption, however, requires certain motivating factors that can affect human behavior. Appeals to altruism that implicate sacrifice fail to motivate human behavior in the absence of immediate harm. Human beings are primarily motivated by the desire to live a better quality of life. Inherent in this quality of life are aesthetic values. The aesthetic imperative is universally innate in human beings. Human beings will generally be drawn to a more aesthetically pleasing form when given a modicum of function. Yet, form and function, rather than operating as two separate concepts, should in actuality be merged. Rather than forcing people to choose between either form or function, they should be presented with options that achieve both ideals without sacrificing the other.
I. Introduction
Aesthetics is an inherent component of human life. Rather than a mere superficial concept, aesthetics encompasses an entire array of human emotion that is integrally linked with beauty. As a philosophy, aesthetics oftentimes fails to garner the respect of other philosophical or scientific fields. A common idea is that although art[1] is admittedly important to humanity, it has little to do with crucialbranches of philosophy. Yet, aesthetics is part of value theory,[2] and as value is philosophically significant, aesthetics is thus philosophically important as well. Aesthetics simply cannot be discounted because of the enormous degree to which humanity values it. (Mary Devereaux, “The Philosophical Status of Aesthetics,”
Though skeptics question such value, it is an inevitable fact that artis an essential component of human societies. It is prevalent in all cultures and its existence dates back to the earliest human civilizations. (Lance Hosey, “The Shape of Green: Aesthetic Imperatives,” There is an innate need within humans for more than mere survival. It is this need that manifests itself as an appreciation and desire for beauty. Further, such aesthetic value is not wholly separate from other human values. Aesthetic and moral philosophers have rejected such separation and pursued questions such as the moral limits of aesthetic appreciation. (Devereaux).
Perhaps because of the reluctance to accept aesthetics as a genuine and significant field, the idea that aesthetics is a separate, fringe concept persists. While moral philosophy is respected and revered as essential in nearly any study of human life, aesthetics is oftentimes an afterthought. Therefore, in the study and execution of energy sufficiency,[3] while ethical considerations almost always play some sort of role, aesthetic considerations are rarely present. Yet, the relationship between aesthetics and human consumption has a significant impact on energy sufficiency. It is impossible to separate such consumption from what human beings value. Thus, it is becoming increasingly evident that the current approach to energy sufficiency is flawed.
Aesthetic appreciation has somehow become a disreputable concept in the world of green energy. There is a sort of sliding scale in which some amount of aesthetic consideration is acceptable, but too much of a focus on aesthetics will detract from energy sufficiency goals. It has become trendy to reject former aesthetic ideals, and focus on sustainability over beauty. However, it is this very trend that has stymied mass appeal and growth. Additionally, such an ideal fails to comprehend the philosophy of aesthetics. There is a reason why human nature persists in pursuing art. Rejecting aesthetic value is essentially rejecting an innate and universal human need for beauty. It is only when such a need is recognized and integrated into environmentalism that sustainability will succeed.
II. The Aesthetic Imperative
While it is evident that aesthetics is important to humanity, the degree of such value is difficult to measure and comprehend. Like questions of morality, aesthetic value is not easily definable. There is debate as to whether or not it is a necessary component of human survival. Hypothetically, human societies could subsist indefinitely, provided their physical needs were fulfilled. Yet, there is no evidence of any human society that has subsisted on such a meager fare. Even in the barest sort of life, there is some form of art present. Human beings thus far have refused to exist in a state of mere survival.
This leads to the problematic issue of defining essential needs. Is an essential need only the physical need for survival, or does it also encompass emotional and mental needs? Human beings are social creatures. Societies exist because human survival depends on the combined power of many. To say that only physical needs are essential ignores human nature. Human beings require the mental and emotional stimulation of human society. In these needs, the desire for aesthetics is present. Aesthetics is, at its core, a tangible expression of human nature. Its perpetual existence in human society is evidence that human beings cannot exist in the absolute absence of art.
There are several theories regarding the prevalence of aesthetic appreciation in different societies. While its presence is universal, some argue that only when society exists in a state which is not purely survival, can aesthetic appreciation thrive. J.S. Mill argues that such aesthetic appreciation, called the art of living, is much more likely when human minds have “ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on.” (J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy (7th Ed.)). Further, a stationary condition of capital and population does not imply that there is a stationary state of human improvement. Improving mental culture, and moral and social progress are in fact, more likely when society has reached such a stationary condition. Improving the art of living is a perpetual human need that is heightened primarily when human society moves past basic survival.
Other theorists offer an alternative, though perhaps not entirely opposing, view to Mill’s art of living. Virginia Postrel emphasizes that aesthetics, as an inherent part of human culture, is ever present in all stages of development. She argues that “[h]uman beings do not wait for aesthetics until they have full stomachs and a roof that doesn’t leak… They do not pursue aesthetic needs ‘only when basic needs have been satisfied’… Aesthetics is not a luxury, but a universal human desire. (Virginia Postrel, The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce). Postrel recognizes the need for aesthetics in human nature. It is ever present in all stages of human society. Human beings universally seek to fulfill this innate desire, regardless of their stage of development. However, such a theory is not necessarily contradictory of Mill’s art of living. Mill does not argue that aesthetics are only a luxury, but rather, that the aesthetic imperative increases as society’s focus on mere survival decreases.
Thus, as modern society moves rapidly beyond this state of mere survival, the aesthetic imperative is growing exponentially. While this desire is always present in human societies, the aesthetic value of individual objects is increasingly important in modern, developed societies. When functionality has been mastered, human beings seek to distinguish objects in ways that can only be described as aesthetic. As Postrel points out, “[w]e want our vacuum cleaners and mobile phones to sparkle, our bathroom faucets and desk accessories to express our personalities.” (Virginia Postrel, “The Aesthetic Imperative”). However, there is a seeming disconnect between form and function. Beautiful form and idealistic function are seen as mutually exclusive. At best, most seem to think, either form or function will sacrifice just enough to achieve an acceptable balance.
However, this is an inherently flawed approach. As the aesthetic imperative grows in human societies, so does the value of aesthetics in everyday life. In the absence of mere survival, human beings increasingly value beauty in previously mundane objects. Assuming that such objects generally perform adequately, it is inevitable that other considerations will be the driving force behind human choice. Of these other considerations, aesthetic value is one of the most important. In a society where there exists a modicum of functionality, human beings will generallyemphasize aesthetic value. It is no longer an issue of whether or not an object will adequately accomplish its task, but rather, which object of the many that can accomplish this task do individual human beings like best.
Emphasizing the either/or dynamic of form and function only reinforces the idea that people must choose between the two. There is a myth that persists that an object is either breathtakingly beautiful or a functional marvel. The idea is that while it is possible to adequately balance the two, it is impossible to achieve the ideal form or function without sacrificing the other in some way. Because of what is seen as a difficult balancing act, there is little overlap between pure art and fervent green energy advocates. Yet, despite paradoxical implications, it is only when the two ideals are merged that there can be any success in the green energy movement.
Rather than choosing between form and function, objects should ideally merge the two in such a way as to achieve the best of both. Thus, technological innovations should simultaneously consider artistic values and vice versa. This is certainly a foreign concept. Yet, appealing to the innate aesthetic imperative is necessary in order to achieve mass appeal. This is in part why the green energy movement has failed to achieve this sort of large-scale success. Continuous appeals to altruism and even emphasizing future repercussions fail because such considerations generally have less impact on individual human beings than aesthetic desire. It is not that human beings consciously choose aesthetics over these other considerations, but rather, that this universal aesthetic desire is very strong in humans. To deny this desire would be to deny essential human nature.
The goal of energy sufficiency is ultimately to preserve energy on a massive scale. The sometimes snide attitude with which green energy advocates perceive aesthetic desire undermines such a goal. This sort of attitude is similar to the skepticism with which most people approach aesthetic philosophy in general. It is not simply about what is pretty, but recognizing the value of aesthetics in human society. Aesthetic consideration is not just important in achieving energy efficient goals, but a necessity in achieving those goals. It is imperative that society begins to regard energy sufficiency not as a sacrifice but as an appealing choice.
Green energy goals are achieved primarily through behavioral changes in human beings. The existence of better energy efficient methods is inconsequential without implementation into society. Such implementation needs to occur on a massive scale in order to have a real impact on these goals. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on changing the behavior of the general population as a whole. Appeals to adopt austere lifestyles on environmental or moral grounds are much less likely to change behavior than the alternative of a higher quality of life. (Juliet B. Schor, “Prices and quantities: Unsustainable consumption and the Global Economy,” Entwined in a higher quality of life is the satisfaction of aesthetic desire. Aesthetically pleasing alternatives are more than just pretty- they are positive reinforcers in human choice. This positive incentive can be manipulated in such a way as to influence human behavior to achieve green energy goals.
III. Skilled Consumption
Human consumption is inevitable and ongoing. Despite efforts to decrease this consumption, as the human population grows, so does consumption. Thus, the goal should not be how to halt consumption, but rather, how to consume in the best manner. The problem of material overconsumption is not the consumption itself, but the lack of skilled consumption. Without the acquisition of consumption skills, human beings fall into a pattern of engaging in resource-intensive work to consume resource intensive material goods. (T. Scitovsky, The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of Human Satisfaction). At the heart of skilled consumption is the idea that potential solutions do not have to be based on abstention and self-denial. (Lyle K. Grant, “Sustainability: From Excess to Aesthetics,”
2576). Further, focusing on when harmful predictions of environmental damage may occur detracts from the more important issue of how to improve sustainability in a way that will succeed whether such damage is imminent or in the distant future.
A consequence of improved living is the habituation of certain purchased goods or income. As such things become more prevalent in society, designations of necessities and luxuries expand. These patterns are evident in surveys in which people rated whether certain goods were luxuries, necessities, or as part of “the good life.” In 1973, a second car was a “necessity” for only 20% of Americans, but by 1996, this value had nearly doubled. Similarly, the number of people who rated a vacation home, pool, and international travel as part of “the good life” increased significantly over the decades. (Schor). These designations have fluctuated due to the economic shifts, but the overall trend suggests that what constitutes a necessity and the good life is rapidly expanding.
It would be wrong, though, to criticize human beings for this expansive view of necessity. The pattern of human development is, after all, a perpetual desire to improve the quality of life. Demanding that society shun its expanding desire for improvement will have little impact on overall behavioral trends. In the absence of an impending and immediate threat to survival, it is in human nature to seek the best sort of life available. This is both inevitable and desirable in human societies. It is in this constant push for improved life that innovations flourish.
Many green energy advocates fail to recognize that it is not a choice between saving the environment and indulging in the good life. Abstention of the good life is not the solution for energy sufficiency. Further, the stereotype of modern America as a soulless, luxury driven society must be banished. Modern America is no different than any other human civilization in that it continually seeks to improve life. The aesthetic imperative is so strong in modern American society because in this developed civilization, mere survival has been eclipsed by the art of living. The dynamic of good environmentalists versus bad American consumers only recognizes the good intent of the environmentalists, without embracing the universal human desire for a better life. Additionally, this ideal alienates the vast majority of human beings who are made to feel guilty about their inevitable desire for the best life available.
Skilled consumption is vital for energy sufficiency because it recognizes that denial is not a realistic solution. In the inevitable process of human consumption, skilled consumption emphasizes that certain consumption choices can help achieve energy sufficiency. The primary concern for environmentalists should be how to make these choices appealing. More specifically, what sorts of motivating operations are most likely to succeed in that endeavor? (Scitovsky). Ultimately, at the core of human motivation is the individual desire for a better life. In such a desire is the aesthetic imperative. Thus, the most successful motivating operations will be those that integrate this desire as a positive reinforcer. Human beings will choose energy efficient methods because such methods offer the most superior merger of form and function. Only when energy efficient methods are no longer viewed as a sacrifice can environmental goals be achieved.
IV. Form and Function
In the disconnect between form and function, there are two distinct and separate parties. There are those who champion form over function and vice versa. Particularly when this is narrowed to an environmental aspect does this disconnect between evident. The chasm between environmentalists and designers continues to grow. Both sides take great pride in emphasizing the follies of the other. Further, this disdain and scorn has become a sort of badge of honor. Thus, it is only when a person so wholly rejects the other side that he can manage to earn the respect of his own side. The world that is fostered by such a dynamic is one in which people must choose either ideal form or function.
While green energy values have increased recently, such beliefs have failed to be widely accepted. Further, many green energy advocates take pride in this separation. They flaunt the uniqueness of their values and more importantly, emphasize the superiority of their choices. In their environmentalism there is an undercurrent of moral superiority. They reason that they are making their choices based on altruism and not personal desire. Such an attitude only serves, however, to alienate the general population and punish those people who genuinely have little knowledge regarding the choices available.