Season 1, Episode 6: Environmental Identity and “Climate Flow” with Guest Susan Clayton
image credit | Shane Rounce
Season 1, Episode 6 | Environmental Identity and “Climate Flow” with Guest Susan Clayton
In a conversation recorded during the recent COP 26 meeting, Susan Clayton, a colleague and noted social and conservation psychology researcher, joined Thomas and Panu. Together they discussed the important role that our environmental identity plays in helping us understand our values and desires about nature and addressing environmental issues. Susan talked about her role as a psychologist serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the positive emotions that arise engaging with a truly international group of gifted scientists. Thomas reflected on “climate flow” — a sense of flow and shared mission that emerges when we have the opportunity to collaborate on climate issues. Panu also recognized the “climate isolation” and “climate loneliness” that can take hold when we lack a support network for talking about climate emotions. Susan also spoke about her conservation psychology work with zoos and aquariums. This episode itself serves as an example of the flow that emerges from creative dialog with others who share our interests and values, even when talking about daunting issues. We hope you can join in.
Links
Clayton, Manning, Speiser & Hill (2021). Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Inequities, Responses. American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica.
The Psychological Impacts of Global Climate Change (2011) co-authored with Thomas Doherty
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - Originated the concept of flow in psychology
The Blind Men and the Elephant parable, expressed in poetic form by John Godfrey Saxe
Carol Saunders - Conservation Psychology Pioneer
Transcript
Season 1, Episode 6: Environmental Identity and “Climate Flow” with Guest Susan Clayton
[music: “CC&H theme music”]
Introduction voice: Welcome to Climate Change and Happiness (CC&H), an international podcast that explores the personal side of climate change. Your feelings, what the crisis means to you, and how to cope and thrive. And now, your hosts, Thomas Doherty and Panu Pihkala.
Thomas Doherty: Hello, I'm Thomas Doherty.
Panu Pihkala: And I am Panu Pihkala.
Thomas Doherty: And welcome to Climate Change and Happiness. Our podcast. This is a show for people around the globe who are feeling and thinking deeply about climate change. Particularly the personal side. How climate change affects them and their families and their communities and their emotional responses. And we have a guest today.
Susan Clayton : Hi, I'm Susan Clayton. Glad to be with you.
Doherty : And yes, we have a special guest. Susan Clayton is — some of you in the psychology world would know of Susan and the climate psychology world. But she's a big name in our worlds in terms of understanding people's connections with nature and the natural world. And Susan will talk about herself. We'll get into her work. But she's, you know, just a little preview. She comes in through this as a social psychologist. And I got the chance to meet Susan, some years ago when I was a newcomer clinician therapist trying to break into the environmental psychology group at the American Psych Association. And Susan was very kind to me, as were others to help me get into that group. And I got a chance to work with Susan directly on the taskforce that the American Psychological Association did. The first one they did around 10 or 11 years ago. And so I got a chance to work with Susan and learn from her. And I've since followed her work. And I know Panu, has more recently been spending a fair amount of at least virtual time with Susan.
Pihkala: Yeah, that is very, very correct. And warmly welcome, Susan also for, for my part. We are very, very glad to have you here. And, of course, I've been reading texts by both of you and also sometimes written together, like that one influential article. But then, during the last year, both Susan and I were taking part in this international research group about climate emotions, which produced a global survey research article about young people's emotions and beliefs about climate matters. And that's gotten us busy this Autumn 2021. But how are you, Susan, doing, in the midst of these strange times? That climate meeting is going on. And the climate crisis is proceeding. So how are you feeling?
Clayton: Well, it's — these are interesting times, as they say. There's always something that's going on that seems relevant to, to my research and professional interests. And, you know, so that interest is, is one way to keep a positive mindset, I think. And just before saying more, I want to acknowledge that both of you have really affected my thinking about climate change. Thomas over the years, and Panu more recently. Thomas, you were the first clinical psychologist I met who was interested in this. And so it really started me to get to start to think about how people were affected by their understanding of, you know, of what was happening to the environment. And then more recently, getting to know Panu, and just the nuance you bring to thinking about the different emotions we experience when we think about climate change. So kudos to both of you. And you really helped my thinking along the way.
Doherty: Thanks. Thanks.
Pihkala: Thank you Susan.
Doherty: Susan, well, you know, I'll have to get this and we can talk about a lot of things. But you know, environmental identity is, I think, a really big topic. I'm doing this training with mental health therapists now. And, and that's one of the big platforms of the work is helping them to understand their environmental identity and their thoughts and feelings and beliefs and values about nature. And we're using that as the basis to then put on top [of] the therapy skills, they already know. And the different therapy styles. So it's sort of like what I call an environmental identity based therapy. Or so you might say an environmental identity based cognitive therapy or whatever. So, where do you come at environmental identity these days? I mean, I know it's sort of a broad phrase, but, you know, what pieces of it are coming up for you lately?
Clayton: Yeah. So, you know, when I started thinking about environmental identity it was the idea of recognizing, based on conversations I had with people and things I heard people say, that nature was important to the way people thought about themselves. And it could really be a source of self knowledge as well as kind of self affirmation and strengths to think about how we're all part of the natural world. So I continue to think about how can we help people to have a strong environmental identity, especially as you know, we all are aware that we're in a world where it's increasingly difficult to have experiences in nature. People are more likely to live in urban areas. For one thing. Nature's becoming degraded for another thing. And, of course, most of us spend a vast amount of time with technology, which is also potentially interfering in the relationship with nature. So how in this kind of changing world, can we still find ways to, to form that connection with nature that can form a part of our environmental identity?
Pihkala: Yeah, that's most important. And we've noticed that you've been working in several parts of the world in relation to this. There's some recent research articles taking a look to the east, even further east than Finland to Russia and China. So any thoughts about that east direction.
Clayton: I have to admit that certainly, when I went when I was trained as a psychologist, it was still in the era, where we'd like to think that we were understanding general tendencies about people. And we didn't have to pay too much attention to the specifics. So I was not really very mindful about cultural differences. But the more I study, the more I realized, I don't know. And it's, it's become very clear to me that the ways in which we think about nature, as well as the ways in which we think about the relationship, our own relationships with nature, are very much culturally grounded. Probably even in a bigger differences. Thinking about a lot of indigenous peoples, and how they think about the relationship between humans and the natural world. But certainly, you know, Eastern cultures like China, and you know, slightly less far east. But still, I think, with elements of eastern, you know, Turkey or Russia. They also have different ways of thinking about nature. And it's just important in expanding my sense of what's possible, and what we take for granted.
Pihkala: Yeah, thanks for thanks for sharing that. And coming from Finland, it's, of course, very interesting, because we have such a long border with Russia and the Turkish people tend to see Finns as sort of distant relatives. So there's a special connection there. But also, even here, near the eastern edge of Europe, the social and cultural differences you mentioned, still play a role, even though there are some, some similarities. But you both come from North America. We've been talking with Thomas, about his history a bit, you know, doing river rafting, guiding and that sort of thing. But would you like Susan to share some of your own background? Did you have a strong connection to the natural world already when you were a child or young person?
Clayton: Yeah, I think I did. And not in maybe a dramatic way. I wasn't, you know, involved in environmental protests, except, you know, the kind of way an eight year old might come home and say, hey, we need to recycle. But I think perhaps what made a difference for me is that I was fortunate, even though I sort of grew up in the suburbs. Behind my home, there was a woods and a creek, and my bedroom window opened, facing the creek. So at night, I would hear the creek running, and I would hear the wind in the trees. And you know, maybe that had a powerful impact on me. I certainly spent a lot of time walking around the woods near my house. So even though I have to say my family didn't show any particular interest or connection to the environment, I think it may have become an implicit part of who I was. Those important kinds of sensory memories of nature.
Doherty: Yeah. Yeah, I think that implicit, explicit is a really good thing to think about. And listeners, you know, you all can think about that, too. There's certain things we just pick up from where we live, and we don't think about them. We just - they've become part of who we are. And then I think part of our process, even with this podcast, is making all this stuff more explicit. And of course, we're all, you know, Global North. White, light skinned people. So we have our own perspectives on this, but I want to make sure you know, listeners, you know, there's listeners around the world in this podcast, and they're all coming from different places. And I think every place has an indigenous root. An indigenous core. And no matter where you are in the world, I mean, indigenous cultures exist now, of course, it's not, they're not just an anachronism. And we have, you know, First Nations people listening to this now. And all of us can aspire to some sort of connection with place. And then there's a lot of problems and barriers too. So just to make sure that we're not missing that important point,
Clayton: I think one of the interesting things is, at least for me, it's the ways in which we think about nature. And the ways in which we think about our own relationship with nature can be so, so implicit, that we kind of don't realize that there are alternatives. And so encountering some of these alternative ways of thinking about that relationship can just be very real revealing in terms of shedding light on your own perspectives.
Doherty: Like [an] example? What are you thinking about, Susan, when you say that?
Clayton: Well, I think just thinking about the fact that it, for example, a lot of Westerners. A lot of people in the US and maybe Western European countries, tend to think of humans and nature as very separate. And if you ask them, you know, what, what is nature or what is wilderness especially, they'll define it as well, essentially a place where you don't find people and you don't find any evidence of people. And this is even embodied in the US Wilderness Act, for example. You know, there are many other cultures in which there may be no word for wilderness. You know, that nature is something to which people are related. They feel a sense of kinship with the natural world. And yeah, so just recognizing that the case makes me think, why do I think of nature as separate from human? It gives me more insight into the limits of my own perspective.
Pihkala: Yeah, thanks for sharing all that. And that resonates with my earlier history, also, researching Environmental Theology. And of course, the role of the Judeo-Christian worldview and religion in creating some possible hierarchies and or the mixed legacy. Of course, there were more ecological elements in that tradition, also. But my students, I still did some courses on environment and religion, they are always amazed to hear that in the ancient Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament, there is no word for nature. Literally. There are, of course, some words that are used for, for, you know, land and so on. But they didn't have a separate concept for nature. And of course, there's a profound difference already between the Greek vocabulary and worldview and the [more] ancient, a bit more hunter-gatherer-founded worldview.
Doherty: Yeah, yeah. And then we talk about Climate Cosmopolitanism. This concept of, you know, like, we got it, we have to sort of think about all these different views, even of climate change in, you know, approaches to climate change. And feelings about climate change. And strategies about it. And all that sort of stuff. So, yes, all the world. Yeah. And Susan, one of many things we could talk about is your work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We've got this Glasgow meeting going on. And, you know, the listeners don't get a chance often to hear from someone who's been on these kinds of committees and doing this kind of work. Do you have any anecdotes about your work? Some of these IPCC reports and things like that?
Clayton: Yeah well I -
Doherty: Or do you not want to not want to talk about that? It's up to you?
Clayton: No, it's fine. I'm sure you can definitely empathize with me when I say how gratifying it is that the people are starting to pay more attention to the impacts, the human impacts of climate change. Including the impacts on mental health. So that's just been really wonderful to see to the extent that that's happening. And I will say with regard to my participation with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there have been a couple of wonderful things about that. I mean, probably more than a couple but one is it is such an international. A very intentionally international group. Like probably both of you, I'm in a number of organizations that try to be international, but they're almost always primarily from North America and Western Europe. Whereas the IPCC really does get people from, you know, probably every country around the world. And it's a unique experience and a very valuable one to me.
And then the other thing is, you know, we were talking getting back to the idea of emotions. You know, people often think, how do you maintain optimism in the face of climate change? How do you keep from feeling anxiety and despair all the time? And the process of these hundreds of scientists who are volunteering their time to talk about climate change. And its mechanisms. And its effects. And how we can mitigate it. And how we can adapt to it. And they're cheerful. You know, back in the day when we were able to actually meet in person, people were friendly and happy. And I think the process of working with these people who are so committed to bringing their expertise to bear on this topic is a reminder of the possibility of finding, you know, meaning and purpose and just positive experiences in talking about climate change.
Doherty: Yeah.
Pihkala: Yeah, thanks, Susan for sharing that. That sounds like many empowering experiences together with these professionals from around the world. And sometimes in [the] media one might get, you get the image that climate scientists are only depressed these days. And, of course, it's very important that the difficult emotions of climate scientists and other researchers get enough attention. And I know that you've been involved in that, as I've been in Finland, but also to bring forth that there's much joy and laughter still among people who work passionately, for a better future. So thanks for lifting that up.
Doherty: Yeah. I think it's, you know, I've been playing around with some positive ideas. You know, I think there's a sense of momentum we get when we're actually working on a project. You know, we have a sense of movement. We're engaged in something. And that itself is really psychologically healthy. To have a sense of engagement in a project of any kind, whatever, whatever kind of project it is. And I think at these meetings, I mean, people don't realize you're around people that believe in what you believe. And validate what you feel and think. And that's so healthy, you know, to be around. It's so inspiring to be around a bunch of people. Especially really gifted people that really, you don't have to explain yourself. You're all on the same page. And I think that's huge. And something, I'm sorry. I mean, for the listeners that don't get that. And I know a lot of people in fact. Maybe most people don't get that in the world. I'm lucky enough to get pieces of that even just right now in our conversation.
So I think there's even a sense of like a flow, you know. There's this flow state, right? In psychology Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, unfortunately, just passed away. And we lost this researcher, who, you know, popularized flow. But you know, I think we can even. You know, again, this is provocative, but we can get into, like a climate flow. Where like, we're working on stuff. And we're in a flow. And we're getting feedback. And we're being supported. And so that's kind of a revolutionary idea. But I don't know, Susan, have you felt climate flow like in some of these meetings?
Clayton: Absolutely. I think, you know, the idea that we get caught up in doing something that we find meaningful. And that takes some effort, but not too much. I mean, I think that's kind of the definition of flow. That it requires your resources, but it doesn't require more from you than you can, than you have to give. So, yes, I definitely experience that. And I think recognizing the sources of satisfaction that come from, from good work, is kind of what it comes down to. I also want to, thanks, thank you, Thomas, for raising the issue of how the social context for thinking about climate change can affect our experiences of it. So as you say, a lot of people may feel that. I mean, not only do they have to deal with their own emotions, but they have to deal with maybe unsupportive friends or family members or coworkers who. Or even if they don't, they're not really unsupportive. Just the worry that they might be unsupportive, can shut down some conversations before they even get started. So the ability to talk about our worries is very important. Very satisfying
Pihkala: Yes, countering feelings of isolation and loneliness. So sort of climate isolation or climate loneliness are part of this affective spectrum very much, I think too. And you both sort of testify to the possibility of experiencing both difficult emotions and very positive empowering emotions. And I always find that very important to emphasize that both can exist. It doesn't need to be one sided. But it's for the full spectrum of different colors. But you, Susan, are known as one of the forerunners in research and thinking about eco-anxiety or climate anxiety. And I want to ask you, when did you get involved with that particular topic? Does it have a long history? Or?
Clayton: No, I think it's a fairly well, it may be as much as four or five years, but perhaps less and not more. I think it arose partly out of discussions with reporters with journalists. So I had been writing about the mental health effects of climate change. Starting with a paper with Thomas. And then other papers more recently. And people would ask me, well, is this, you know, is this mental health issue? If people are concerned about climate change, does this represent a threat to mental health? So I started to think, well, I don't know, does it? You know, let's look at it, let's do some of the research and try to find out how many people are experiencing some anxiety associated with climate change. And, what does that look like? And is it a threat to mental health? And just so I don't make that dangling, I'll maybe reassure the listeners that, no, it's not necessarily a threat. Or it's not - it doesn't indicate a problem with mental health, but it can certainly be a source of stress that does, you know, it can be one thing that impacts your mental health. Especially if you feel very strong anxiety and maybe don't have a supportive social network or a feeling of efficacy.
Pihkala: Yeah, that links in my mind to this 2011 theme number of the American Psychologist where you both wrote stuff. And the models are quite advanced, actually, I think. And Thomas has been telling that it was partly theoretical at that time, because there wasn't so much evidence about the indirect vicarious impacts of climate stress for example. But I think those have stood the test of time pretty well, many of those models. And what was then discussed, without a sort of pre-word, such [as], you know, mentioning anxiety and depression and stress [without an “eco-” or “climate” prefix]. So now, during the last five years, we've seen the development of many special terms. People putting eco or climate before these words. And that has communicated value, but, of course, it sometimes also makes things tricky. That how many phenomena we put inside this sort of general word.
Doherty: Yeah. Like, it's the, you know, they say, the blind men and the elephant parable. You know, everybody's all: “Eco-anxiety is: ______. It's this, or it's this. And, you know, we have the cultural critique of our system and our, you know, capitalism and you know, media. And then there's the personal confessions. So I think, yeah, the listeners and media is both our friend and also kind of confuses things, because they're picking out different pieces of the elephant and each article trumpets on one side or the other. So it leaves people confused sometimes.
Pihkala: How do you, Susan, see the research field about anxiety and ecological matters these days? I know you get a lot of messages from people who are interested [in] researching.
Clayton: Yes, I think the research is really exploding or about to explode. It's partly because, you know, other people. Mental health professionals, clinical psychologists and others, have recognized that this is a thing. So there's a whole group of people who had not previously been thinking about climate change, [but] are now beginning to think about it more. And so they're recognizing this as a topic they want to learn more about. And not even mental health professionals just sort of public health professionals, I think. It has grabbed people's attention, hopefully, for good reasons that. You know, somebody said, and I can't remember where I read this. So I apologize for not giving an attribution. But you know, sometimes it's hard to - you don't know what you're feeling until somebody gives you a word. And then you realize that's the word that describes what you're feeling. So I think a lot of people thought, yes, that's exactly it. Climate anxiety, or eco-anxiety. And they're not all necessarily meaning the same thing when they use that word, but they are recognizing that it means something to them.
Doherty: Mmhmm. Yeah, they're validated. They're being validated. Their being is being validated.
Pihkala: Yeah, that's happened a lot in Finland. Ympäristöahdistus, which is the Finnish equivalent: literally, environmental anxiety. So, of course, different languages play somewhat different[ly]. That's one topic in this podcast. And the very thing you mentioned, of exploring possible names for these emotions or groups of emotions. That's of course a big task for this very podcast.
Doherty: Yes. Yes. We've got a few more minutes. I feel moved to just mention some of the other work that I know Susan for and, you know, around with animals and with other species. And I know that's been a big strand in your work. And I know through like Carol Saunders. One of our colleagues who kind of helped found conservation psychology, you know. And, you know, so just to name that there are other species out there as well that we have relationships with. And I don't know if that's something you want to say anything about, Susan. But I know that's something I associated with you as well.
Clayton: Absolutely. And, again, it was the sort of happenstance that I started doing some work in zoos. Gosh, probably almost 15 years ago now. Partly inspired by Carol Saunders, who happened to come up to me at an APA conference and introduce herself. And the zoo was significant to me as a place where a lot of people encounter nature. So even people who live in very urban environments are able to encounter nature. And, of course, zoos are not - they're not wild. They're not wilderness. They're, you know, arguably, they're not natural. They're managed by humans. And yet, for a lot of people, it was an important place to encounter those other species and to think about the natural world. So I'm still fascinated by that idea that people and parents will deliberately take their children to the zoo in order to expose them to some of the natural world. So it's not something that's just happening accidentally. But it's a choice that parents are making to say that nature is important to me and I want my child to have some exposure to it.
So thinking more about how those encounters can happen, about how people are defining what is nature. What counts as nature. What should it look like. And how that might affect the ways in which we take care of natural landscapes. These are just, these are just fascinating questions to me that reflect on what it means to be human. Because we define ourselves as humans in part in terms of what we're not. So how does how we think about what it means to be human affect how we think about what it means to be natural?
Pihkala: Yeah, thanks a lot for sharing that. And this interface or boundaries. However porous they may be between humans and [the] more-than-human world. That's a very crucial topic. And the recent rise in post-humanistic research has brought many of these themes into the fore. Sometimes, you know, slightly difficult language, but the subject matter is very, very important. And I just noticed that you've been writing also about the psychology of rewilding. So that's one now on my reading list.
Clayton: Yeah, I have a lot more questions than answers about it at this point. But one of the things I find fascinating, and maybe Thomas this will have some meaning to you, is that I've heard people talk about rewilding. How we need to rewire ourselves in a sort of a psychodynamic kind of sense. So I think it's an interesting metaphor, to the extent it's a metaphor that people are using.
Doherty: Yeah, I think it depends on people's culture and what's meaningful for them. But you know, our feelings are wild. So we want to be open to all of them, the hard ones and the positive ones. And, yeah, we'll have to make a point of doing a talk on wilding and rewilding in one of our episodes. I think that's a really juicy topic for people. But just suffice to say, you know, that, you know, these zoos are conservation organizations. And they're linked back to actual environments in places where people are trying to save and preserve species in their natural habitats as well. So it's a whole system. That's one thing I learned from that work was that it isn't just a menagerie of animals. It's a whole worldwide system of conservation that these zoos are just, you know, piece of. But yeah, we're coming to the end of our time. This has been a really great chat. We could always go more. And, you know, as our adventures go on, Susan, maybe we can have you come back again some time. The story is not over yet. Obviously. With all the stuff that we're doing. So I want to thank you very much, Susan, for your time today.
Clayton: Yeah, it's a pleasure. Thanks for the conversation. It's always nice to touch base and to throw these ideas around with both of you.
Pihkala: Yeah, warm thanks from Helsinki also. I really admire the width of your interest and research. So this was very, very fascinating and all the best for these many fields.
Doherty: Well, thanks. On our website, we'll try to put some good links to Susan's work. And you all listening, take care of yourself. But we covered a lot of ground in our episode today about nature. And feelings. And our identities. And even this idea of support and flow. So hopefully this planted, we planted some seeds for you all. So you all take care.
