Reasons for socio-cultural transformation
The need for socio-cultural transformation arises from environmental and social conditions and developments. From an environmental perspective, the level of environmental awareness and support in societies is too low and weak to significantly reduce environmental problems, let alone eliminate their roots. From a social point of view, despite, or perhaps because of the high standard of living enjoyed by many people in “developed” and “developing” countries, modern societies suffer from rising problems associated with, among others, poverty and inequality, the erosion of communities, social fragmentation and isolation, alienation and the decline of shared values and norms, rising crime and drug abuse, and many other social ills. The degree of social disintegration in many societies has reached the point where people start wondering what holds their society (still) together. Not surprisingly, in reaction, we see a rise in the phenomenon of “identity politics” in various forms, including a revival of extreme nationalism.
Some of the reasons why countries and governments have not made much progress in tackling environmental issues effectively can be attributed to socio-cultural factors, including a poor understanding of the nature of the environmental challenge by many people in society (and in government) and/or the low level of priority that most people assign to environmental protection relative to other (day-to-day) concerns. Although environmental awareness and support for environmental protection have grown considerably in many countries, the environment is still often viewed and treated as a separate problem or issue that can be solved by technological and managerial means. While many people are willing to do their part for the environment (for instance, by participating in recycling), most remain stuck in dominant patterns of behaviour and practices (at work, while travelling, consuming, using energy, and engaging in recreation, among others) that contribute to environmental pressures and problems. In part, this is because they may have little or no choice (for instance, because of a lack of or poor public transport) or because “environmentally friendly” options (products and services) are in their infancy and/or too expensive. But it would also be fair to say that most people do not have a holistic view of nature or the environment, and that there is a disconnect between their environmental views and practices on the one side and how they (want to) live their lives on the other.
Bringing about a fundamental change in (environmental) worldviews, values, and attitudes is no small matter. As worldviews and values are often firmly held and socially entrenched, they may require considerable time, changing conditions, and/or life-changing experiences to change. Some argue that this is a long-term (inter-generational) affair that depends foremost on socio-economic developments that are beyond control.[1] However, societal views are also subject to consciously fought battles for the hearts and minds between rival groups and interests who wish to maintain or gain hegemony in the cognitive realm, deploying most forms of power (personal, cognitive, economic, social, political-institutional). The rise of neoliberalism during the 1980s, for instance, was not a matter of evolution or generational change but a case of purposeful political agency by powerful economic interests and their intellectual advocates, aided by economic stagnation (stagflation) during the 1970s.[2]
Who gains or maintains cognitive hegemony depends largely on who controls the systems that influence or shape people’s views – the culture shapers. The battle for hearts and minds takes place on several battlefields, including the education system, the media, and science and technology. However, these fields are far from level, and those who already control these systems have a significant advantage. Therefore, changing the dominant views is impossible without gaining control over one or more of these systems. The power of the state plays a crucial role in this front.
The education system
That education systems play a significant role in shaping the outlook of (young) people on many, if not all, facets of life and society is denied by hardly anyone. This does not just relate to the subject matter (curricula) but also to the kinds of values and norms that are instilled, both formally and informally, for instance, through the organisational culture of an institution and extracurricular (experiential) activities. Changes to the formal curriculum of schools will be essential for influencing the knowledge and values of students. To some extent, such reforms have already been implemented in many countries, which may help explain the growing environmental awareness and concern among the younger generation (“Z”). In many countries, universities now also offer a range of environmental programmes and degrees, preparing graduates for various careers in the environmental field.
But while important, these changes are predominantly apolitical and do not develop knowledge and awareness of the political-economic roots of the environmental crisis. Environmental education programmes walk a tightrope between those who accuse them of spreading particular (anti-capitalist) ideologies and not sticking to offering students the facts, and those who argue that they fail to bring about significant change in behaviour and practices.[3] To stay on the safe side, many such programmes encourage students to take personal responsibility for their environmental behaviour and practices, thereby individualising the environmental challenge (“everyone is responsible”). They are also likely to emphasise and propagate practical and technology-based solutions to environmental problems, such as renewable technology, recycling, and alternative modes of transport. This also applies to higher education and research in non-environmental fields, notably in agriculture, energy, and transportation. There is much merit in such programmes in terms of generally increasing environmental knowledge and awareness. Still, they do not make people aware of the systemic causes and sources of environmental pressures that lie beyond individual control. While science and technology play a crucial role in advancing towards sustainable systems (from the design stage), this is unlikely to occur until power and control over these systems are redistributed.
One area of education that plays a very significant role in influencing and shaping dominant views is economics. Neoliberal economists and ideologues have successfully captured the economics fraternity and the teaching of economics at universities. Bringing about paradigmatic change in this discipline will not be easy, given the dominance of economic interests and ideology in this field.[4]
The media system
The second system (or complex of systems) that is crucial in influencing and shaping cognitive frameworks is the media. There is no need here to elaborate on the importance of the media as strongholds of cognitive power, increasingly controlled by private corporations that are themselves key players in the global capitalist system, including the big tech companies (Google/Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, and Apple), with their growth and investment imperatives.[5] With the rise of neoliberalism, in many countries, governments have been instrumental in allowing the privatisation and commercialisation of the public media and their concentration in ever fewer hands, also across different types of media (radio, television, the—increasingly digitalised—printed media, the film and entertainment industry, and the social media).[6] This has raised much concern about the decline of quality journalism and reporting, the manipulation of the public for commercial and political purposes, the decline of (investigative) journalism as a pillar of democracy, and the spectre of totalitarian control in the hands of media magnates and/or governments.[7] Media content is primarily determined by the largest common denominator, especially in entertainment, where even news is often transformed into personality-driven shows to increase audience numbers and maximise advertising revenue. It distracts people from the critical issues and factors that influence and shape their lives and/or depoliticises them.[8] The media, particularly social media, have become platforms for sowing and cultivating social divisiveness, especially around identity issues (identity politics), thus diverting attention from the political-economic forces that manipulate people and their collective interests.[9]
While the media may give a lot of exposure to environmental issues, their portrayal tends towards the (dramatic) effects rather than to the underlying sources and causes, let alone those inherent to capitalism and industrialism.[10] Almost always playing the “we are all responsible” and the “technology will save us” cards, the courses of action and solutions held up by the media divert attention from the systemic nature of the environmental crisis. In contrast, those who demand radical or systemic change are depicted as extremists or even terrorists.[11] Even an independent newspaper like The Guardian, which has expressed a commitment to informing its readers about the seriousness of the climate emergency, and which reports extensively on environmental issues, appears to be constrained in its reporting on the systemic (political-economic; political-institutional; and socio-cultural) sources of the environmental crisis by commercial imperatives, notably dependence on advertising.[12]
Creating and maintaining opportunities for different, competing, alternative and radical views (narratives) to find expression in the media is an essential cornerstone of democracy (or of “democratic infrastructure” as McChesney and Nichols note).[13] Enabling citizens to dig deeper into the causes and sources of (environmental, economic, social justice, and other) issues, and to make up their minds about what needs to be done to protect the environment for its own sake as well as that of society and future generations, requires the democratisation of the media. Even the internet, and notably social media, which were regarded in their early days as platforms for enhancing democracy, have increasingly fallen victim to capitalist imperatives and manipulative strategies used for accumulation and profit maximisation purposes.[14] Its promise as a means for enhancing democracy is increasingly compromised by the use of the same manipulative tools for political purposes and government control.[15] These developments have made it increasingly difficult to achieve media reform before a fundamental shift in political-institutional power.
As long as the media remain under the control of vested political-economic interests, it will be difficult to escape their propaganda and manipulative practices. A first step towards reducing this grip could be the creation of a public service media organisation that upholds the highest journalistic and reporting standards and is responsible for providing in-depth coverage of genuine public concerns. Additionally, media platforms could be transformed into publicly owned assets, made available to and utilised by individuals and groups to disseminate their own content and express their views.[16] Such a system must be free from any commercial influence, and publicly funded and accountable.
The science and technology system
A third cognitive system in which change is required to move towards more sustainable societies is that of science and technology. Although science and technology are commonly seen as non-political or even value-free areas of activity not aimed at directly influencing or shaping people’s hearts and minds, behaviour, and worldviews, they arguably are the most insidious forces in these respects. Historically, science and technology have greatly influenced how people work, meet their needs, and generally live. Tools are not just means but also influence ends and values. Technology is no longer a set of tools serving human needs but has become a system that forces or persuades people to change and adapt their behaviour and practices, arguably turning people into slaves of technology.
Science and technology are sometimes said to be out of control.[17] However, this view is patently false. Science and technology (“technoscience”) are developed mainly under the control and in the service of the military and big corporations. As for the former, governments exercise influence or control over such developments because of their security function. Regarding the latter, science and technology are developed to serve corporate (foremost financial-economic) interests, often with direct or indirect government support in the name of the public good. However, the public has no say whatsoever in decisions on the development of science and technology by either governments or corporations. The existing political-economic and political-institutional power configurations steer research and technology mostly in directions considered essential to the economy and national security, with little regard for their broader and long-term political, social, and environmental implications.
To cure this blindness and to stop the maelstrom of unforeseen adverse social and environmental ills (because “we” have not been looking!), two things need to happen. First, like economic decision-making, decisions regarding the development of science and technology must be brought under democratic control. This could involve creating or strengthening a representative citizens’ organisation that sets priorities for research in the (long-term) public interest as a basis for allocating public research funding. Second, the development of science and technology would need to be made subject not just to an assessment of potential risks, but based on a framework of principles, criteria, and guidelines, rules (including limits), and goals within which future scientific and technological development must and/or should be undertaken. This could mean that technologies deemed socially, environmentally, and/or ethically harmful would be prohibited and phased out. In positive terms, science and technology would be steered toward what is desirable and/or required to create better societies and genuinely sustainable systems (production, energy, transport and others).
Also, the way science is approached and undertaken needs to be transformed. Since the Age of Enlightenment, scientific activity has been based on a mechanistic worldview that has positioned humans above nature and assumes they are entitled to alter and control nature at their will. The view of nature as a machine has led to the development of increasingly narrow fields of specialisation aimed at a deeper understanding of ever-smaller aspects of reality. The flip side of this development has been that scientific knowledge has become highly fragmented and that it is increasingly difficult for specialists to assess the (potential) effects and implications of their innovations, technologies, and interventions. This is reflected in the frequent (almost daily) manifestations of unforeseen and unexpected (side) effects of scientific applications, illustrated, for instance, by the adverse effects of the use of synthetic chemical compounds in agriculture (pesticides, fertiliser), new or composite materials (like plastics, CFCs), medicines, and other technologies. Such “unpleasant surprises” attest that science has become an increasingly unreliable basis for guiding individuals and societies towards what can be deemed a desirable or even acceptable future.
Although it is unrealistic to expect that the trend towards specialisation can be halted, let alone reversed, it is possible to instil greater awareness among scientists about the limits of science. For instance, all science can and should be taught within a holistic framework that emphasises the indivisibility of reality and the need for modesty and caution in making claims about being able to control (aspects of) nature and the (potential) effects of new technologies or materials. At the very least, all scientists should be exposed to the views and debates generated within the philosophy of science, and confronted with the ethical, social, environmental, and political issues and implications associated with (the frontiers of) science and technology, drawing also on the lessons that can be learned from the past.
Moreover, all scientific research and technological development (public and private) should be open to public scrutiny and input. This would force scientists and engineers to explain what they are doing and why, and to engage with the questions and concerns that citizens may have. In more positive terms, this would allow citizens to both learn about and have an input in the development of science and technology, making it more responsive to societal needs. The call for citizens to be involved in science and technology has been ongoing for some time, and several countries have taken small steps in this direction.[18] However, a good case exists for making citizens’ involvement a standard requirement for all organisations engaged in developing science and technology. This should be done on an ongoing basis, not just ad hoc.
Saving societies
The suggestions for socio-cultural transformation presented above are based on the view that societies remain important as units of social integration. In modern societies, the forces of social fragmentation (individualisation, atomisation) and disintegration (notably based on identity politics) have arguably become stronger than those that keep societies together, especially in the economic realm. Economic globalisation has steadily eroded the nation-state as an autonomous economic unit, undermining the material basis on which states have been built. Although some may see that as a reason for abolishing nation-states and even societies, it is far from clear that this would better meet the (material and social-psychological) needs of people and/or their potential to collectively and democratically steer themselves into a more sustainable and desirable direction. Instead, societies would disintegrate and fall victim to a Hobbesian “war of all against all”, albeit most likely between identity-based groups exploited and manipulated by warlords (“strong men”). Therefore, to keep societies together and make them more desirable and sustainable, socio-cultural transformation must strengthen social bonds and integration while accepting room for diversity. This is perhaps as important a reason for establishing Sovereign People’s Authorities (SPAs) as their environmental rationale. Based on a combination of (highly) representative and deliberative democracy, the key role of such bodies would be to collectively determine what is deemed most important for societies as a whole, including long-term, a process that would lead to the forging of an actual social contract between those who happen to live within existing (nation-) states, regardless of their degree of cultural homogeneity or diversity.
References
[1] Inglehart’s theory about societies’ change towards “post-material values” falls into that category. Similarly, arguments about the rising support for the environment among “Generation Z” can also be seen in this light. Inglehart, Ronald (1977), The Silent Revolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; Jones, Owen (2021), “Eat the Rich! Why Millennials and Generation Z Turned Their Backs on Capitalism”, The Guardian, Publication date: 20 September, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/eat-the-rich-why-millennials-and-generation-z-have-turned-their-backs-on-capitalism (Accessed: 21 September 2021).
[2] Mayer, Jane (2016), Dark Money. The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Doubleday; MacLean, Nancy (2017, e-book ed.), Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. Scribe Publications; Harvey, David (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
[3] For an expression of (right-wing) concerns about environmental education programmes in the American context, see Cushman Jr., John H. (1997), “Critics Rise up against Environmental Education”, New York Times, 22 April. For a rather meek critique, see Saylan, Charles and Daniel T. Blumstein (2011), The Failure of Environmental Education (and How We Can Fix It). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. For a more radical critique, see Gkiolmas, Aristotelis S. and Constantine D. Skordoulis (eds.) (2020), Towards Critical Environmental Education. Current and Future Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[4] Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House.
[5] Zuboff, Shoshana (2019), The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. London: Profile Books Ltd.
[6] For comprehensive data and information on the concentration of media ownership worldwide, see Noam, Eli M. and the International Media Concentration Collaboration, Who Owns the World’s Media? Media Concentration and Ownership around the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The author notes the high concentration of ownership in both content media and (network) platform media in all the countries surveyed, that media concentration is indeed taking place around the world – driven by economics (10), and that we must expect further market concentration, with the Internet “becoming part of the feared problem” (9). For a discussion of concerns about concentration in the European context, see White, Aidan (2005), Media Power in Europe: The Big Picture of Ownership. Brussels: European Federation of Journalists.
[7] Diglin, Greg (2014), “Living the Orwellian Nightmare: New Media and Digital Dystopia”, E-Learning and Digital Media, Vol.11, No.6, 608-618; Crouch, Colin (2016), “The March Towards Post-Democracy, Ten Years On”, The Political Quarterly, Vol.87, No.1, 71-75; Pilger, John (1999), Hidden Agendas. London: Vintage; McChesney, Robert W. (2003), “The Problem of Journalism: A Political Economic Contribution to an Explanation of the Crisis in Contemporary US Journalism”, Journalism Studies, Vol . 4, No.3, 299-329.
[8] Postman, Neil, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking.; Lewis, Paul (2017), “Everyone Is Distracted. All of the Time”, Guardian Weekly, Vol . 197, No.21, pp.26-31.
[9] Swyngedouw, Erik (2011), “Interrogating Post-Democratization: Reclaiming Egalitarian Political Spaces”, Political Geography, Vol. 30, No.7, pp.370-380.
[10] Luedecke, Gesa and Maxwell T. Boykoff (2017), “Environment and the Media”, in D. Richardson, et al. (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Geography. Wiley & Sons.
[11] Pedroni, Laurence (2017), Green Vs. White: An Examination of Media Portrayals of Radical Environmentalists and White Supremacists. Master of Arts. San Jose State University, Justice Studies.
[12] Edwards, David, and David Cromwell, Propaganda Blitz. How the Corporate Media Distort Reality. London: Pluto Press, notably Chapter 11.
[13] McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols, People Get Ready: The Fight against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy, New York: Nation Books; Pilger, John (ed.) (2004), Tell Me No Lies. Investigative Journalism and Its Triumphs. London: Jonathan Cape.
[14] Zuboff, Shoshana, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism; McChesney, Robert W. (2013), Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy. New York and London: New Press; Meikle, Graham (2002), Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet. Annandale, N.S.W.: Pluto Press.
[15] This is, not surprisingly, most advanced in authoritarian states such as China and Russia. Browne, Ryan (2017), Russia Follows China in Tightening Internet Restrictions, Raising Fresh Censorship Concerns. CNBC (Accessed: 28 November 2017); Kenyon, Flavia (2021), “China’s ‘Splinternet’ Will Create a State-Controlled Alternative Cyberspace”, The Guardian, 3 June; Solon, Olivia (2017), “China Cracks Down on VPNs, Making It Harder to Circumvent Great Firewall”, The Guardian, 23 January.
[16] For radio and television, broadcasting time could be proportionally allocated based on voluntary membership of media organisations, akin to the system used in the Netherlands. This system combines (originally full) public ownership with access by a wide diversity of groups, giving it a democratic quality. However, it has come under threat from budget cuts, privatisation, and commercialisation advocated by neoliberal forces. Wikipedia (2021), Dutch Public Broadcasting System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_system (Accessed: 29 August 2021).
[17] Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Rees notes that it is unfeasible to put the brakes on discoveries and inventions and that it is “rather likely” that “humankind will meet its end by its own doing before the end of the 21st century.” Rees, Martin J., Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind’s Future in This Century- on Earth and Beyond. New York: Basic Books, 24.
[18] Peters, Michael A. and Tina Besley (2019), “Citizen Science and Post-Normal Science in a Post-Truth Era: Democratising Knowledge; Socialising Responsibility”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol . 51, No.13, 1293-1303; Irwin, Alan (1995), Citizen Science. A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge; Jasanoff, Sheila (2003), “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science”, Minerva, Vol . 41, 223-244.