1.1. The environmental crisis in society and culture
1.1. The environmental crisis in society and culture
Let us start from the big picture, i.e., the current state of the planet and the research concerning it. Climate change and biodiversity loss are the most severe threats to the well-being and future of human communities. At the same time, they also threaten the well-being of other species and ecosystems. The threats of climate change and biodiversity loss have thus far been viewed as separate issues, but the situation is changing. Knowledge to support climate policy is being produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Knowledge on biodiversity, on the other hand, is being compiled by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). In the summer of 2021, the panels published their first joint report (opens pdf) in which climate change and biodiversity loss were examined together.
Climate change and biodiversity loss are connected in many ways. Climate change accelerates biodiversity loss, which in turn affects climate change, among other ways, via the decline of emission sequestration. The root causes of both lie in the excessive use of natural resources and land. Because of this, both climate change and biodiversity loss can often be addressed via the same actions such as reducing the unnecessary use of natural resources or protecting ecosystems that also act as carbon sinks. There are also negative connections between the phenomena: some of the actions performed to control climate change may cause biodiversity loss or vice versa. For example, the planting of forests to control climate change may in some cases cause biodiversity loss. It can also negatively affect the livelihoods of local people. Therefore, IPCC and IPBES call for a systemic approach that considers the effects of policies and actions on climate, biodiversity and human communities.
Towards societal and cultural change
Controlling climate change and stopping biodiversity loss require actions performed at unprecedented speed, which in turn requires extensive worldwide operation and collaboration. The climate and biodiversity crises cannot be solved with technological solutions or political decisions only. According to IPCC and IPBES, the situation calls for in-depth changes that require the redefinition of “good life”. The conception of progress and well-being based on gross domestic product and economic growth has proven to be limited and even harmful. Therefore, we must figure out how consumption and production can operate in sustainable ways. Societal changes such as education and learning that promote sustainability, and reduce global injustice, are required to solve the sustainability crisis. Additionally, there is a need for national and international agreements on, for instance, actions regarding emission reductions and nature preservation as well as governmental action on directing consumption and production towards sustainability. IPCC in particular has emphasised in its most recent reports that social sustainability, i.e., justice and equality, is a necessary foundation for achieving sustainable societies.
Achieving sustainable societies, especially in rich western countries, also requires the re-evaluation of cultural and individual values and appreciation of nature as well as rearranging the relationship with nature. These matters are evaluated through the concept of cultural change. Cultural change means an extensive change in values, ways of life and beliefs, and in the habits and practices based on them. The system-level change depicted in the ‘Systems and Planetary Well-being’ course can also be considered to require an extensive cultural change, i.e., a change in values and ways of life that are the foundation for all human activity. As philosopher of education Veli-Matti Värri (2018, 14) writes:
“We may talk endlessly about sustainable development, recycle and develop nature-preserving innovations and other things that make the world a better place, but if our basic beliefs towards the world remain the same, our good deeds will be no more than cosmetic, or may in their naive optimism even actually uphold our destructive way of life.”
In the ‘Introduction to Planetary Well-being’ course, we learned that culture can be defined in many ways, for instance, in different cultural products such as works of art, literature and theatre plays, but it can also be understood more broadly. In this course, we will follow the broad definition: in addition to cultural products, we will also consider values, ways of life and beliefs as aspects of culture. Thus, culture can be understood as a part of society: as phenomena and actions, ways of living and being that are entwined in every sector of it (such as policy-making, economy and working life.) We also learned on the ‘Introduction to Planetary Well-being’ course that discussions on sustainable development sometimes include the aspect of cultural sustainability, which may also be highlighted as the fourth pillar for sustainable development along with ecological, economic and social sustainability. When understood broadly, cultural sustainability can even be seen as the most important dimension of sustainability, as a basis or background for all sustainability aims.
Some ideas about good life are established and shared within a culture, but often there is also conflict between different views and values. Broadly accepted ideas may also change, especially under societal or cultural pressure. This is called cultural change. For instance, Western food cultures are currently under great pressure to change: animal-based nutrition is no longer seen as a necessary or even preferable part of a diet. Plant-based diets are encouraged and promoted in many different ways. The change in food culture has sprung from the grass-root level, e.g., from the animal rights movement and health enthusiasts, but nowadays established institutions such as universities and municipalities also promote it. However, not everyone shares the view that western food culture should change. Cultural changes are not easy or simple.
Environmental problems often stem from societal and cultural reasons. Even though there are environmental catastrophes unrelated to humans, global environmental crises in particular are also societal crises resulting from the organised activities of humans. Therefore, it is important to critically review the values, habits and cultural practices shared by members of society and to find common values and practices that support sustainability objectives.
What do we mean, when we speak of "culture"?
Since culture is a multidimensional concept, it is useful to stop for a while to consider what the concept actually means. Culture can encompass everything from artistic and intellectual productions, such as Hollywood films, games, or high art, to shared habits, traditions, and lifestyles – thus, the concept can also be defined in multiple different ways. Cultural studies scholar Raymond Williams (1985, 64), has famously recognized three common usages for the concept ‘culture’: (1) “a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development;” (2) “a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general;” and (3) “the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity.”
Another approach to conceptualizing culture is to consider it as twofold, in a narrow or a broad sense (see also Pirnes 2009; Dessein et al. 2015, 21). Most commonly, culture is understood in a narrow sense that resembles Williams’ third usage, as, for example, literature, music, films, theater performances, visual and fine arts, architecture, museum exhibitions, festivals, and concerts. Another common conception of culture is to see it more broadly as ways of life. In this sense, culture is part of the life of every human being. The broader understanding of culture as ways of life can also be seen as encompassing the narrower one – to put it simply, artistic activity is part of human ways of life.
As we learned in the first course on planetary wellbeing, Dessein et al. (2015) have defined cultural sustainability in terms of three different roles. The first one, (i) culture in sustainable development, defines culture as intrinsically valuable – meaning that it is valuable “as such.” This means that individual artworks, architecture, or heritage sites are worthy of protecting and preserving. The second one, (ii) culture for sustainable development, sees culture as a mediator of sustainable thinking. This denotes that cultural productions such as films and literary works communicate messages relevant to sustainability. In the third and the widest role, (iii) culture as sustainable development, culture is understood as a transformation towards sustainable lifestyles and worldviews.
The first two roles defined by Dessein et al. relate to the narrow understanding of culture as artistic and intellectual activities, and the third role refers to the broader definition of culture as ways of life. Dessein et al. (2015) even claim that culture, in its broadest sense, can even be considered as the most important dimension of sustainability that underlines all sustainable development goals. Understood broadly, culture can be seen as an important dimension for planetary well-being, as well: changes in ways of life are needed in order for well-being to flourish on a planetary scale. Aino-Kaisa Koistinen, Kaisa Kortekallio, Minna Santaoja, and Sanna Karkulehto have indeed claimed that culture can also be regarded as planetary well-being, meaning “a process in which culture shifts towards more sustainable practices and actions that enable well-being for humans and nonhumans alike” (forthcoming). Cultural transformation towards planetary well-being thus refers to a large-scale change that encompasses many aspects of human life, including lifestyles, traditions, beliefs, laws, values, and worldviews – and the ways in which these are practiced in everyday life.
What can the human sciences tell us about environmental crises and sustainability?
In this course, environmental crises and sustainability are approached from a multidisciplinary basis but particularly from the perspective of human sciences. Human sciences cover the humanities and the social sciences, e.g., philosophy and environmental politics as well as art and cultural studies. With the help of the perspectives of human sciences, we uncover reasons why the activities of human societies cause severe environmental crises. We also ask why those crises are so difficult to solve. The discussions around environmental crises and proposed solutions to them are often heated and divided into opposing views that are not easily bridged. Opposing views can be explained by different worldviews or conceptions of reality: what is deemed as right or wrong, important or unimportant. The development of these such conceptions can be illuminated through fields in the humanities such as the history of ideas, just to mention one. As environmental researcher Timo Järvilehto (1994, 15) notes:
“Even though in the grand scale of the world, and when compared to other animals, a human being is a fairly small creature, the results of their activities are so massive that understanding human activity has become a question of life and death. Not just for humans but for the entire planet.”
The perspective of human sciences also acts as a reminder that conceptions, e.g., on the intrinsic value of nature and the aims of sustainable development, are mutable and therefore we can also participate in shaping them. Humans build societies. On the other hand, it is possible to think that the activities of humans create natural environments: on a smaller scale it is possible to consider, for example, domesticated animals and commercial forests whose “nature” is a result that is based strongly on the choices of humans. On a larger scale, it is possible to consider the changes in the planet’s climate that are caused by human activity.
From a social scientific perspective, environmental research can therefore be roughly divided to realist and constructionist traditions: The idea of the realist tradition is that there is a nature that is independent from humans, whereas the constructionist tradition highlights that even natural environments are constructed through social, cultural and political activity; even nature is “constructed”. Usually, social scientific studies draw on both traditions. Research in the human sciences seldom has only one correct approach, and one or more approaches have to be utilised according to the situation at hand. The phenomena studied in the cooperation between humans and nature are often complicated and shifting from one perspective to another increases the understanding of the phenomenon.
Environmental policy researcher Outi Ratamäki has proposed that the relations between humans and other animals are constructed at the intersection of natural sciences, culture, and society.
Natural scientific knowledge informs the encounters we have with animals: e.g., we may have encountered a predatory animal that must be avoided. On the other hand, cultural-historical developments influence the roles and relationships a species has with humans, as well as the “image” of different animals (“noble lions” and “devious foxes”). Our understanding of animals is also informed by their physical, biological characteristics. For instance, the great size of an animal may cause fear in humans.
The societal side of the matter relates, e.g., to how animals are treated in legislation and if they are considered as domestic, farm or wild animals, which in turn affects the value that animals are given. For example, the fear of wolves is based both on the scientific status of wolves as predators as well as the cultural and societal conceptions of wolves as dangerous wild animals that are not regarded as highly as, say, domesticated animals. Wolves can even cause great fear in people that have never encountered one and probably never will. We will discuss the relations between humans and other animals particularly in chapters 2.4 History of human-animal relations and 4.3 Multi-species sustainability.
Improving the mutual well-being of humans and nature also requires new kinds of concepts with which to discuss human-nature relations. Concepts can help to give shape and meaning to the kinds of values that are needed to ensure conditions for well-being for both humans and nature alike. Next, we will examine the concepts of planetary well-being in relation to good life from the perspective of, e.g., values, norms and philosophical discussions as well as cultural practices such as activism and art. We will also learn about other essential concepts that have been utilised in building ecologically and socially sustainable futures.