Ecopsychology: The Last 21 Years 1
Ecopsychology: The Last 21 Years
A Literature Review of Humanities and Scientific Research
SUNY Empire State College
Rebecca Aviles-Andrews
October 15, 2013
Introduction
Defining Ecopsychology
This paper is being written in a lovely “office” space on backyard patio furniture overlooking gardens, hen-yard, and forest, serenaded by the song of a phoebe and the breezes rustling through the tree-tops. Theoretically, writing a paper in nature could have a significant effect upon the process. Researchers have discovered that time spent in nature reduces stress hormones and lowers heart rate (not that writing a paper is ever stressful), increases blood immune markers, increases attention and cognitive skills, and makes people happier (Ulrich, 1979 & 1986 & 1991; Park et al, 2007; Lohr, 2007; Cdervinka, et al, 2012). In short, nature is good for us, and what is good for us is, in turn, good for the earth. In the simplest of definitions, this is ecopsychology. More elaborately, ecopsychology has been defined as “an emerging field that is developing in recognition that human health, identity, and sanity are intimately linked to the health of the earth and must include sustainable and mutually enhancing relationships between humans and the nonhuman world” (Naropa, 2013). Drawing upon Jungian psychology, Roszak, who coined the term ecopsychology, notes that “ecopsychology proceeds from the assumption that at its deepest level the psyche remains sympathetically bonded to the Earth that mothered us into existence. Ecopsychology suggests that we can read our transactions with the natural environment – the way we use or abuse the planet – as projections of unconscious needs and desires…” (Roszak et al,1995, p. 5; Jung, 2002). Such a viewpoint draws upon the theory of Biophilia which states that human health is intimately connected to the natural environment in which we as humans spent the first five billion years of our evolutionary history – up until the last hundred or so years (Selhub & Logan, 2012). Similarly, the Gaia hypothesis views the earth and all living beings on it as one whole, living entity of interdependent parts (Selhub & Logan, 2012). It is the hope of ecopsychologists that if the concept of the self can be “expanded to include the natural world, behavior leading to destruction of this world will be experienced as self-destruction” (Roszak et al, 1995, p. 12). Furthermore, such concepts can then be used to influence public policy and individual lives in ways that facilitate broad personal and planetary healing.
Such ecopsychological ideas are not common here in the West where a paradigm of scientific reductionism and foundational values of individuality and independence predominate (Nagel, 2012; Pearson, 2010). In the predominant Western paradigm, nature, body, mind, and spirit are most often seen as separate and unrelated entities (Nagel, 2012). For example, here in the West healthcare professionals specialize, approaching health from a reductionist standpoint (Doherty, 2011). Psychologists handle mental issues and M.D.’s handle physical issues. Beyond this there are cardiologists to deal with issues of the heart and oncologists to specialize in cancers. In this reductionist paradigm, quick fixes are often sought, a bandaid for the immediate problem rather than healing of the whole system that is causing the illness. We “focus on liposuction rather than diet and nutrition; on heart transplants rather than lifestyle changes; on economic production, not ecological costs; and on behavior versus deep underlying causes” (Buzzell et al, 2009, p. 13). In contrast, ecopsychology recognizes mind, body, spirit, environment, and nature as not only interconnected but in fact as one whole entity.
The concept of the “holon” is important in understanding ecopsychology. A holon is a whole that is part of a larger whole and an idea related to system’s theory in psychology (Checkland, 1988; Doherty & McDaniel, 2009). Despite a cultural tendency toward reductionism, extensive scientific evidence supports the theory of interconnected holons (Khisty, 2006; Checkland, 1988; Hollick, 1996). Our mental processes are one whole, yet a part of the larger whole of our body and interconnected with its physiological processes. This individual and bodily whole is, in turn, part of a larger system or whole, the family unit. Families are part of social or community systems. Some aspects of systems theory, particularly related to family and social systems, are widely accepted in mental healthcare fields (Doherty & McDaniel, 2009; Ungar, 2002). “While standard concepts of developmental lines include our relation to work, to children, to parents, and to society, an expanded view of health would include a new developmental line: our relation to the more-than-human inclusive of places, species and the universe at large” (Spitzform, 2000, p. 19). Ecopsychology encompasses this expanded view by recognizing the greater whole of the natural world in which all of humanity is emplaced.
Parameters of this Literature Review
A literature review in a field such as ecopsychology, which recognizes the relatedness of multiple, interdisciplinary holons, could be unending. Roszak himself says “It is best approached as an open and developing field of inquiry where many ideas and techniques can flourish. What else would one expect of a study of the psyche that takes its cue from ecology, the science of inexhaustible diversity and unexpected connectedness” (Roszak et al, 1995, p 20)? The purpose of this review is to provide an historical overview highlighting some of the major voices shaping the field of ecopsychology over the last 21 years, while contrasting their primarily philosophical approach with the extensive, scientific evidence linking humans to nature that is coming out of diverse fields of study other than ecopsychology. To limit scope, authors of books which have inspired the field but who do not use the term ecopsychology or its synonyms green psychology or ecotherapy, such as but not limited to Louv and Lovelock, will not be included in book reviews or biographical information. Scientific research that supports ecopsychology but does not use these terms will, however, be included - since most of the scientific support thus far has come from other fields. The current discussion in the field of ecopsychology revolves around how to meld the humanities roots of the field with the scholarly scientific evidence that is needed for ecopsychology to gain credibility. Therefore this literature review will begin with philosophical writings, move on to science, and end with a brief discussion of the future. Such parameters are not designed to fail to give honor to the many other philosophers, poets, environmentalists, ecofeminists, and historical events that have contributed greatly to the developing field of ecopsychology. Rather the parameters are to provide an outline of the major historical voices of the last 21 years, thereby providing a foundational, ecopsychological framework of understanding from which vantage point one may delve more deeply into applied techniques in ecopsychology, such as but not limited to using art to connect with nature, and naturalist and wilderness mentorship.
Research Paradigm of this Literature Review
This literature review will be conducted primarily from a psychological research paradigm in which scientific evidence guides all inquiry but will also give attention to excellent qualitative studies. This differs from a humanities academic paradigm in which concepts such as logic, historical relevance, and philosophy might guide critical inquiry (Humanities Research Journal, 2013). Psychology students are taught to ask first and foremost, “Where’s the evidence?” with evidence equating to quantitative, statistical, scientific research (American Psychological Association, 2005). To most psychologists, the randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is seen as the superior model for scientific research, and qualitative research is considered valuable only so far as it informs previously conducted or future scientific – i.e. quantitative – research (Bryman, 1984).
A brief history of psychology is helpful in understanding both the critical approach of this review and the current field wide discussion in ecopsychology: Should the field remain in touch with more philosophical and indigenous roots, or should it leave its roots in favor of a more scientific approach? Psychology as an academic field was actually birthed in the humanities in university philosophy departments, but it underwent serious efforts in the early 20th century to establish laboratories in an attempt to validate itself as a scientific field (Garvey, 1929). Over time, psychology gained acceptance as a social science, and degree programs were no longer housed in the university philosophy department (Garvey, 1929). As a result, modern day psychologists are often suspicious of any philosophy masquerading as psychology. Because ecopsychological writings have been primarily philosophical and indigenous in nature thus far – despite the scientific roots of both fields - ecopsychology has not been taken seriously in the overall academic world of psychology.
Perhaps the best approach to ecopsychological research is not an either/or approach but a both/and approach. In short, it seems remiss to ignore relevant existing science. At the same time, when Western modes of knowing are considered superior to more intuitive and indigenous, local knowledge, issues of social justice and colonialism arise (Gone, 2007). Yet in order for ecopsychology to be accepted in the scientific, academic communities of either ecology or psychology, it is no doubt important that discussions move to include science when possible. Therefore, this review will give in depth coverage to two types of literature: first, writings that contain excellent qualitative information will be reviewed both for their qualitative expertise as well as with an eye to scientific critique; secondly articles that excel in their scientific research will receive more in depth coverage of research techniques and information.
Historical Overview
The Development of a New Field of Study
Throughout much of history, nature was viewed as a healing force and ecopsychology still gleans from the teachings of worldwide indigenous cultures which see humans as a part of nature (Garrett & Myers, 1996; Hoelterhoff, 2010). Well into the 20th century, nature was seen as a boon to medicine and healing, as evidenced by the prevalence of the sanatorium, a place where the ill could go for the healing benefits of nature and fresh air (Downing, 1907). Yet with the increasing dominance of the scientific paradigm as the only sure way of knowing, sanatoriums began to close down mid-century, replaced with pharmaceutical remedies created in laboratories (Sehlbub, 2013). It was not until several decades later, in the 1970’s, that Robert Uhlrich pioneered research on the human/nature connection at the University of Michigan (Uhlrich, 1979). And it was not until 1992 that Harvard graduate and California state history professor, Theodore Roszak, published a book in which he coined the term ecopsychology (Roszak, 1992). Roszak’s interest in the natural environment arose out of his experiences with the shamanic spiritualty of indigenous peoples whom he met in his worldwide travels. In 1992, the year of the Earth Summit in Rio, Roszak published The Voice of the Earth which he relates “offered the concept of ecopsychology as an appeal to environmentalists and psychologists for a meeting of minds that would enrich both fields and play a significant role in public policy. The catchphrase that encapsulated the proposal was ‘ecology needs psychology, psychology needs ecology’” (Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009, p. 34). Roszak’s proposal sounds quite logical; however, as explained above, the more scientific fields of ecology and psychology have been hesitant to allow their fields of study to be informed by philosophers and historians.
Books, Biographies and Journals: A Chronological Overview
Theodore Roszak. The Voice of the Earth. Theodore Roszaks’s book The Voice of the Earth birthed a new field of study with the introduction of the term “ecopsychology” (Roszak, 1992). Roszak philosophically argued that ecology and psychology, the health of the planet and the health of people, should no longer be viewed as separate and unrelated entities. He presented the revolutionary and counter cultural idea that people were part of nature, one whole along a continuum. He argued that human health was affected by time in nature and that our treatment of the natural world was in turn reflective of our own internal health. Throughout the book, Roszak drew upon his work as a historian, his interest in indigenous shamanism, concepts of counter culture, and the need for ecopsychology to therapeutically influence multiple fields of study in order to build a healthier and more sustainable future (Roszak, 1992).
In just over two decades following Roszak’s The Voice of the Earth, a number of additional books have been written on ecopsychology, variously known as eco-therapy and green psychology. Following in the footsteps of their predecessor, they continue to approach ecopsychology from a more historical and philosophical, humanities type perspective. Unfortunately, this means that not one of them has added anything of substantive value to the scientific fields of psychology and ecology. To their credit, none of these authors had a stated intent to write a scientific book, a point anyone in the humanities would be quick to point out. Yet, due to the lack of science, their influence has been limited to the therapist already versed in the science of the human/nature connection. These books provide varying degrees of qualitative value through the relating of inspiring stories, the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the field, and ideas for the practical application of ecopsychology in therapy.
Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. In 1995 Roszak published Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind as a follow up to The Voice of the Earth (Roszak et al, 1995). Ecopsychology was a collaborative book, edited by Roszak and by psychologists and ecopsychology professors, Mary E. Gomes, and Allen D. Kanner, with numerous other writers contributing chapters on diverse aspects of the field. A sampling of some of the Ecopsychology chapter titles is valuable in providing a window into the broader field of ecopsychology beyond the parameters of this review. For example, in section one of the book which deals with theoretical perspectives, chapters include “Where Psyche Meets Gaia” by Roszak; “Nature and Madness” by Paul Shepard; “The Ecopsychology of Child Development” by Anita Barrows; and “The Rape of the Well-Maidens: Feminist Psychology and the Environmental Crisis” by Mary E. Gomes and Allen D. Kanner (Roszak, 1995, pp.1-20; Shepard, 1995, pp. 21-40; Barrows, 1995, pp. 101-110; Gomes & Kanner, 1995, pp. 111-121) . Section two of this book pertains to ecopsychology in practice with some of the following chapter titles: “Shamanic Counseling and Ecopsychology” by Leslie Grey; “The Skill of Ecological Perception” by Laura Sewall; and “Restoring Habitats, Communities and Souls” by Elan Shapiro (Grey, 1995, pp. 172-182; Sewall, 1995, pp. 201-215; Shapiro, 1995, pp. 224-239). Lastly in the final section of Ecopsychology, dealing with cultural diversity and political engagement, topics include ideas such as “Ecopsychology and the Destruction of Whiteness” by Carl Anthony; “The Politics of Species Arrogance” by John E. Mack; and “The Spirit of the Goddess” by Betty Roszak (Anthony, 1995, pp. 263-278; Mack, 1995, pp.279-287; Roszak, B. 1995, pp. 288-300). Through the coverage of diverse topics such as but not limited to these just listed, Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind provides an in-depth understanding of the deeper issues underlying the history of ecopsychology in the last 21 years.
Howard Clinebell. Ecotherapy: Healing Ourselves, Healing the Earth, published in 1996, was written by pastoral counselor Howard Clinebell, Ph.D. (Clinebell, 1996). This book lies more in the realms of inspiration than anything remotely academic. Clinebell delves deeply into philosophy, religion, and ecofeminism, but fails to include any science. Furthermore, his assumption that worldwide spiritual illness is at the root of all disease, both human and ecological, leaves no room for mindful and ethical atheism (Clinebell, 1996). Once again, while the book’s title calls loudly to the field of ecopsychology, the content itself offers absolutely nothing to a scientific conversation.
Ralph Metzner. Green Psychology: Transforming Our Relationship to the Earth was published in 1999 by Harvard graduate Ralph Metzner Ph.D. (Metzner, 1999). In the opening chapters Metzner shares his experiences with indigenous shamanic cultures. He delves, quite inspirationally, into the history of native cultures, Eastern mysticism, and pagan gods and goddesses, thereby establishing an historical progression from earth honoring, polytheistic cultures with a more balanced masculine and feminine power structure, to our current Western state of affairs, a largely patriarchal and monotheistic culture that views the earth as primitive and wild, in need of taming (Metzner, 1999). As a source of historical information and an alert to issues of social justice and ecofeminism, Metzner’s book holds high value. But, again, it does nothing to bring ecopsychology into the ongoing scientific and academic conversation of either psychology or ecology.
Linda Buzzell and Craig Chalquist. Ecotherapy: Healing with Nature in Mind, edited by Linda Buzzell and Craig Chalquist, both licensed therapists, was published in 2009 (Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009). This book provides detailed coverage of a number of pertinent issues making it a valuable qualitative addition to the field of ecopsychology: issues such as the impact of the human/nature disconnection, how and why therapists turn to ecopsychology, how to conduct a client interview within an ecopsychological framework, and some of the various modalities used in applied ecopsychology (Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009). Over twenty different contributors authored the various chapters of this book providing a more detailed view of the field of ecopsychology than defined by the parameters of this literature review but nevertheless useful information to anyone wanting a more micro view of those working in the field. Were some statistics given in support of claims made in the book, it is likely that the book could have successfully garnered the attention of the academic community. As it stands, it seems most relevant to therapists already aware of the science and trying to integrate ecopsychology into an existing practice.
The impact of the human nature disconnection. In Ecotherapy, Larry Robinson, a psychotherapist in California, skillfully uses narrative psychology, the use of stories to speak to and re-author human experiences, to make an excellent case for the negative impact of the current human/nature dissasociation (Robinson, 2009, pp. 24-29; Dingfelder, 2011). Theodore Roszak then expounds upon this narrative with the idea of collective societal madness (Roszak, 2009, pp. 30-36). Robinson theorizes that people, treated as objects, tend to objectify the rest of the natural world, inflating human importance (Robinson, 2009, p.25-27). He relates a powerful Greek myth told by Ovid in Metamorphosis. In this story King Erysichthon wants to chop down a tree sacred to the goddess Demeter. He is stopped by his men who “recognized the tree for what it was and felt the proper awe. Erysichthon [on the other hand] saw only the potential for profit and ordered his men to fell the great tree” (Robinson, 2009, p 27). When they refused, he had no choice but to fell it himself. In punishment, Demeter placed a curse upon Erysichthon, causing whatever he ate to only increase his hunger. In the end, Erysichthon consumed everything, right down to his family and even himself! Robinson draws the parallel that Western culture is obsessed with profits, considering nothing in the natural world sacred when profits are at stake. In turn we in the West seem to be cursed with an insatiable appetite for consumption. “We have severed our connection to the very source of life, and as a result we are possessed by an ever-growing hunger that we try to fill by consuming more and more, in the process destroying the very fabric of life that sustains us” (Robinson, 2009, p. 27). Through the use of story, Robinson skillfully illustrates what happens when humans fail to recognize their interrelatedness with the earth. However, his logical conclusions might carry far more weight in psychological academia were a few statistics regarding the demise of our natural world and levels of human consumption inserted here.