1. The Self,
Meaning &
Sustainability
“As the care of nature increasingly becomes an intellectual
concept severed from the joyful experience of the outdoors, you
have to wonder: where will future environmentalists come
from?” (Louv, p. 147)
Reid Smith
Social Sustainability 588
Portland State University
6/3/10
1
2. Introduction
In the emerging field of sustainability, many authors identify three “pillars,” or
components, which must be supported in order to achieve sustainable development. These
are the economy, ecology, and society and are referred to as the triple bottom line for
sustainability. Without all three components maintaining the ability of future generations
to access them, as it was defined in the Bruntland Report in 1987, sustainability cannot be
achieved. Just as the three pillars are needed to ensure sustainable development, I propose
that individuals too need to have all three of these aspects within their Selves in order to
feel whole. Only once a person has a whole Self can he or she begin to frame the world from
a different perspective and make more sustainable choices. Moreover, one’s personal
pursuit of wholeness, or happiness, has a ripple effect in society, which can either promote
or discourage sustainable behaviors from others. Despite the individualistic, consumer
society, it is possible for individuals to take control of their social, ecologic, and economic
Selves and have a positive effect on both sustainable development and personal happiness.
In a sustainable life, one’s personal sources of meaning come from more than just
individual desires and needs – the economic Self – and begins to derive meaning from
social and ecological Selves.
The Three Selves
In Western culture, the idea of the Self is narrow compared to the perspective from
many other human cultures around the world. According to Naess (1973), western
philosophers have described the Self as being composed of two different parts: the ego and
the social Self. The ego, or what I call the economic Self in this paper, supports an
2
3. individual’s selfish needs and desires. In highly individualized cultures like in the United
States, people tend to regard the economic Self as the whole Self, or at least the most
important part of the Self. The problem with the economic Self, is that it does not look out
for the needs of other people or the natural world. Ultimately, a life driven only by the
economic Self results in a natural and social environment that no longer supports the
economic Self.
What is frightening is that the individualistic model is quickly becoming adopted by
other parts of the world as the global economy expands. The model of a good life has
become skewed. According to Orr (1992), “We do not lack for bad role models: the
careerist, the itinerant professional vandal devoid of any sense of place, the yuppie, the
narrow specialist, the intellectual snob. In different ways, these all to common role models
of today lack the capacity to relate their autobiography to the unfolding history of their
time in a meaningful and positive way” (Orr, p.86). As society continues to put more value
on the economic Self and its endeavors, many are losing the ecological and social parts of
their Selves, which guide human values. Without the social and ecological self, where will
values be derived from? According to Alasdair MacIntyre (1981), “it is not possible to be
both modern and moral since the fully autonomous self knows no morality other than the
expression of its own desires and principles” (MacIntyre, p. 237). The economic Self that is
valued in western culture today is doing exactly that: acting in its own self interest at the
cost of other people and the planet.
The social Self, alternatively, is an individual’s role in society and is critical for
enhancing meaning and happiness in an individual’s life. We all interact with one another
in varying degrees and adhere to societal roles and obligations. People rely heavily on other
3
5. relationships with nature may provide some insight into the way people treat the
environment. That is, disconnection from the natural world may be contributing to our
planet’s destruction and many social problems.
Like the three components of sustainability, the Self is also comprised of economic,
social, and ecological components. Just as with sustainable development, an individual
must cultivate each of the three Selves in order to lead towards a Self‐sustainability, or as
O’Brian (2005) calls it, sustainable happiness. “Sustainable happiness is the pursuit of
meaning and happiness that does not have an adverse effect on other people, the natural
world, or the economy for future generations. Sustainable happiness represents another
paradigm shift. It suggests that the human pursuit of happiness has positive and adverse
impacts, locally, and globally—in the present and far into the future” (O’Brian, p. 1). The
challenge is for the human species to take responsibility for how it pursues happiness and
for individuals to recognize the far‐reaching impact of everyday decisions and actions.
Losing Touch with the Ecological Self
The problem with western culture is not the lack of knowledge about ecosystem
processes, but a lack of direct interaction with the natural world and a detachment from
the interdependence with it. According to Richard Louv (2005), “80% of Americans live in
metropolitan areas, and many of these areas are severely lacking in park space” (Louv,
p.116). For example, only 30% of Los Angeles residents live within walking distance of a
park, according to the Trust for Public Land. Without contact with natural landscapes
people increasingly have the ability to detach from the natural world and still function in
society via technological improvements such as the computer, TV, and cars. At no other
time in human history could people work entirely from home with a computer, live thirty
5
7. capacity to distinguish between health and disease in natural systems and their relation to
health and disease in human ones” (Orr, p. 86). If human mental capacities are hindered
because of a lack of understanding of natural processes, it is clear that humans need to
understand nature in order to understand themselves.
With so much more time being spent indoors and less time in nature, children in
most areas of the developed world and an increasing number in the developing world are
not establishing a relationship with the natural world at all and have no sense of place.
Their ecological Selves never form. Instead of developing a healthy reciprocal relationship
in which nature can offer children a sense of wonder, complexity, and humility, they learn
to fear nature as something that could harm them, detach from it in order to deal with the
immense scope of human damage, or see it as something that humans in the past had to
deal with and is no longer important. According to Orr, “the young of our advanced society
are increasingly shaped by the shopping mall, the freeway, the television, and the
computer. They regard nature, if they see it at all, as through a rearview mirror receding in
the haze. We should not be astonished, then, to discover rates of ecological literacy in
decline, at the very time that literacy is most needed” (Orr, p. 105). Orr uses the term,
ecological literacy, to mean someone who is in touch with their ecological Self and is
therefore able to see the value of the natural world and their relation to it. “Ultimately, it
[ecological literacy] is a tradition built on a view of ourselves as finite and fallible creature
living in a world limited by natural laws” (Orr, p. 95).
Loss of Ecological Self and Health
With both the ecological and social Selves on decline in the developing world,
society today has several direct problems as a result including climate change, huge global
7
9. (Louv, p.48). Increased time outdoors inevitably increases the amount of time kids are
swinging on trees, running through fields, or swimming in a lake, which lead to healthier
adults.
In addition to helping child obesity, nature is also shown to help children with some
mental diseases, such as anxiety, depression and ADHD. “New evidence suggests that the
need for medication is intensified by children’s disconnection from nature. Nature
experiences can relieve some of the everyday pressures that may lead to childhood
depression” (Louv, p. 50). If it is true that nature therapy reduces the symptoms of
depression and ADHD, then the converse may also be true: ADHD may be a set of
symptoms aggravated by lack of exposure to nature. Many children may benefit from
medication, but the real disorder is less in the child than it is in the artificial, man‐made
environment they grew up in. As Louv suggests, “to take nature and natural play away from
children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen” (Louv, p. 109). Clearly, children need
time for natural play and exploration in order to enhance their relationship with nature.
Nature and Meaning
In addition to childhood mental disorders, nature may also help adults with
debilitating lifestyle choices derived from a lack of meaning. Because the ecological Self is
an integral pillar to one’s whole Self, enhancing a personal connection with nature also
enhances a person’s whole Self. An individual who is whole is more capable of making
sustainable choices because he or she does not have to rely on any outside systems – which
could be unsustainable – to find meaning. For example, people cling to consumer culture
because it is a reliable source of meaning and happiness, despite its unsustainable social
and ecological implications. According to Juliet Schor, people get locked into a consumer
9
12. own desires to replace the lost intrinsic meaning that was once derived from close social
groups and nature. Maiteny (2002) suggests that modern humans appear to have a
predisposition towards consumerism that is deeply rooted in our psyches. Furthermore,
Maiteny suggests that the relentless pursuit of material wealth and goods may well be a
response to the anxiety often experienced in pursuit of well‐being, or happiness.
The Self and Panarchy
A useful tool for understanding how a limited scope of individual sources of
meaning is the cause for meaninglessness and unsustainability is through the concept of
panarchy. Just as cycles of collapse and regeneration occur in ecological and social systems,
the Self can also be understood in the panarchy model. According to C. S. Holling (2001),
“adequate performance of ecosystem function depends on having all the necessary
functional groups present. The persistence of ecosystem function over time (the resilience
of ecosystem function) depends on the diversity of species within the functional group”
(Holling, p.401). Applied to the Self, a variety of personal sources of meaning is more
resilient than an individual that relies on just one of the Selves for all of their meaning. For
example, in the recent economic downturn, an individual who knows how to derive
meaning from their economic, ecological, and social Selves is more able to maintain a
meaningful life than those individuals who relied entirely on their economic Selves and
now have lost all purpose and direction in life. People with strong ecological and social
Selves are less troubled by the downturn because economic troubles only cultivate one
aspect of their whole Self. In fact, the economic downturn has been a blessing for the
ecological and social Selves because now people have no choice but to use less and help
each other out more.
12
15. interconnectedness that demanded humans to be responsible for everything they are
connected to, including the natural world, and the generations that come before and after.
In keeping with the wisdom of many other human cultures, many deep ecologists
and other ecological and social philosophers are starting to integrate the idea that there is
no distinction between the Self and the rest of the natural world. According to Orr, “we can
make no absolute distinctions between the self and the world. Treating others as we would
have them treat us isn’t just good for them, it’s also in our own self‐interest. Goodness,
mercy, justice and ecological prudence have both survival value and spiritual rewards.”
(Orr, p. 38). The value of seeing the Self as part of everything is that it causes people to see
themselves as part of the web of life and not above it with the power to control it. This
humility is integral for development of the ecological Self and is integrated into many other
human cultures. For example, according to Malcome Margolin (2005),
Built into California Indians’ traditional teaching methods, and indeed their
overall philosophy, is something that I find heartbreakingly beautiful – a
sense of humility: a sense that the world is far bigger, more complex, and
more mysterious than the human mind can ever encompass, and that to be a
full human being you need to learn to live with ambiguity and tolerance for
the unknown. The alternative is to live with brittle delusions of certainty.
(Margolin, p. 75)
Nature opens the Self up to the vast complexities of the universe, which is both a humbling
and nurturing process at the same time. There is a system more powerful and complex than
any human can understand; but that this system takes care of us and we are a part.
The Ecological Self and the Impact on Sustainable Development
Given that nature provides humans with the ability to fulfill their whole Selves, it is
critically important for local and national developers to understand the value of nature in
planning. As more and more people move to cities, the development of sustainable cities is
15
16. central to moving humanity towards sustainability. Preserving islands of wild land – parks
and preserves – in urban areas is not enough. According to Louv,
A healthy urban environment requires natural corridors for movement and
genetic diversity. One can imagine such theory applied to entire urban
regions, with natural corridors for wildlife extending deep into urban
territory and the urban psyche, creating an entirely different environment in
which children would grow up and adults could grow old where the nature
deficit is replaced by natural abundance. (Louv, p. 247)
This type of development is possible if all members of society begin to see the value in first‐
hand interaction with nature once again.
In addition to enhancing only the ecological Self, parks and other urban green
spaces generally build social cohesion. According to The Trust for Public Land, “access to
public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reduction in crime and
in particular to reduced juvenile delinquency” (Louv, p. 179). Community gardeners also
routinely site that one of the major benefits of being a part of the garden is that it provides
social interaction, which is a key attribute in building or re‐building a community (Vogl,
2003). In a study that aimed to connect how close people are with nature with
environmental behavior found that “nature‐related (NR) people reported spending more
time outdoors and in the natural environment. Those higher in NR reported more
environmental concern and endorsement of pro‐environmental attitudes as well as more
self‐reported environmental behavior” (Nisbet, p.20). Therefore, higher levels of personal
contact with nature were predictive of ecological perspective, as well as strong views about
the seriousness of ecological problems and human treatment of the environment. If cities
and governments are serious about environmental concerns such as global warming and
species extinction, getting people in closer contact with nature could be the best way to
gain support.
16
17. If embracing the connection to nature makes an individual’s life richer and more
meaningful, becoming more in touch with the ecological Self may make humans happier. As
individuals become more related to nature, they may feel more positive emotions. This
sense of well‐being they experience could then result in more pro‐environmental
behaviors. Nisbet et al. argues, “if people feel good about their natural environment, value
and care about it, they might behave in ways that respect and protect it (Nisbet et al., p. 22).
If people fully understand their connection to nature they may develop more empathy for
all living creatures and the planet. As humans strive to find the solutions to environmental
problems, we may find that in healing the planet, we may also be able to restore or improve
human mental health and vice versa. According to Nisbet et al., “A self‐concept that includes
the natural world, a biospheric orientation, may provide a motivational force toward
nature protection and preservation.” (Nisbet et al., p. 23). Protection of nature protects the
valuable sources that humans rely on, which benefits all people and societies.
Conclusion
The ecological and social crises that plague the world today are in large part a
perceptual crisis. Ordinary human beings simply do not see that they are part of a delicate
web of life and that their own actions are destructive. According to Ophuls, “any viable
solution to this crisis will require them [humans] to see that they are part of the web of
life.” (Ophuls p. 222) Therefore, in order to achieve sustainability, humans will require a
psychological shift in thinking about one’s place on the earth. This will fundamentally
17