Hi everybody, welcome back once again to the blog.

Last week, Dr Coleman introduced  “The Theory of Reasoned Action” to me. How I understood it is that what we initial feel like doing may not be what we end up doing, because we essentially convince ourselves otherwise after some logical thinking.

For example, imagine being invited to have an expensive meal with friends. Certain neurological pathways are fired up, such as excitement to see friends, the craving for good food, etc. The initial response may be a straight “yes”. However, we typically consider much more than that before we decide. Some may realise this luxurious meal will break the bank and mean eating grass for the rest of the week and hence decline

Okay, that was a long analogy, but I hope it is relatable. Now, to put it into the environmental context, this is what many businesses consider too! We blame corporations for damaging the environment, but can we really put the blame on them? Berating them simply by judging their decided action is akin to being labelled as “not a real friend” in the above scenario, when you had a perfectly good reason to reject the invitation. Are we becoming too judgmental?

This is not a good approach, as those who feel like they are being unfairly accused become indignant. Eventually, this puts them on the defensive and can push them away from trying to reach out and reach compromises.

In the previous post, there was discussion regarding the term “environmentalist”, and I ponder about its use and significance.

As we will never get to know everybody within one social identity, we tend to generalise the whole group. The easiest way to do so? By looking at the more extreme ends which tend to get the most media attention.

I think we are all quite familiar with Greta Thunberg and her speech. Personally, I am not too sure I like her aggressive “how dare you” accusations. Some who are less inclined to environmentalism might see her as an example of what being an environmentalist means and become ambivalent about identifying as one. Having too strong a group identity can lead to exclusiveness; if they do not identify as an environmentalist, would this conversely mean that they identify as a non-environmentalist?

Are we creating a division, environmentalists against non-environmentalists?

When we consider the psychology of groups, this is a double-edged sword. It can create conformity, whereby an individual adjusts their behaviour to a more eco-friendly one in order to fit in with a “environmentalist community”. But in the reverse case, if the rest of the social circle hold stigma against environmentalism (because they equate it with extremism), then an individual will be less willing to be the odd one out.

But as we all have learnt in ENV1101, there are so many stakeholders. If we promote a “us versus them” mentality, how will we ever reach a unified response to our environmental crises? I urge us to re-evaluate how we want to promote pro-environmental behaviour. Do we want to advocate people to be “environmentalists” or to “help protect Earth”? Do you think there’s a difference?