Human Interaction with the Natural Environment: The POETICAS Model as a Framework for Understanding and Praxis in Late Modernity

Abstract

Using the acronym POETICAS, we explore eight major facets of humankind’s relationship with the natural environment. We make the case that, while they are not mutually exclusive, they are nonetheless analytically distinct. We explore the roles of: 1) Population & demography; 2) Organizations & institutions; 3) Ecology; 4) Technology; 5) Illness & health; 6) Culture; 7) Affluence & inequality; and 8) Scale & time. We examine each of these facets in turn, looking not only at their main effects, but also considering many of the interactions among these factors in a broader ecological context. Building on earlier models, we make a case that this broader and more robust model can offer a framework for civic discourse about the human-environment interface that is useable to a wide array of audiences, including students and researchers as well as policy makers, members of social movement organizations, and engaged citizens seeking an overarching framework that can help make sense of a variety of otherwise disparate findings.

Religion, Polity, and the Natural Environment in the Anthropocene Age

“…The impact of religion is mediated by cultural values, knowledge, and ideology. Thus, the effect of religion should be considered in a conjunction with other social institutions (Bhuian et al 2018;Burns et al 2018;Burns 2009;Gifford and Nilsson 2014;Hitzhusen 2007;Shaiko 1987;Woodrum and Wolkomir 1997;Wolkomir et al 1997;Guth et al 1995).…”

“…Several scholars have investigated the relationship between the polity, as a social institution, and the natural environment at different levels of analysis (Burns et al 2018;Dunlap et al 2001;Dunlap and McCright 2015). At the macro-level, several studies have pointed out the importance of nation-states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) in environmental protection.…”

“…At the meso-level, scholars have contended that despite their rapid growing, both in numbers and in terms of financial turnover, and despite their success in changing citizens' attitudes towards the world of nature, social movements in the form of environmental social organizations (ESMOs) have failed in changing people's behaviors towards the environment to the anticipated extent (Gould et al 1999;Brulle 2000;Commoner 1991;Burns and LeMoyne 2001;Brulle 2000). This, for the most part, is due to environmental movements' failure in prioritizing the environment in political debates (Burns and LeMoyne 2001), and to the emergence of powerful counter-movements in the polity, denying the existence, or the gravity of anthropogenic environmental problems such as climate change (Burns et al 2018;Aldy 2017;Rosner 2017;Dunlap and McCright 2015).…”

“…Several scholars have highlighted negative ways in which social organizations can impact the environment; for the most part through routinizing humans' environmentally destructive beliefs and activities (Bazerman & Hoffman 2000;Hoffman & Ventresca 2002). Religion and the polity are among the oldest, and the most powerful social institutions that can decisively affect the world of nature (Burns et al 2018). Yet, these institutions are deeply embedded in human culture, a foundation on which the whole human society is built, thus, they should be studied in a collaboration (Burns 2009).…”

Right-Wing Stewards: The Promoting Effect of Religiosity on Environmental Concern Among Political Conservatives in A Global Context

“…We are living in a global era marked by fundamental and ever-exacerbating changes to the natural environment that are primarily caused by human activities (Steffen et al 2015;Crutzen 2002Crutzen , 2006. Previous research suggests that cultural and social institutions, through shaping humans' attitudes towards the environment, and routinizing environmental beliefs and practices, decisively influence the world of nature (Bazerman & Hoffman 2000;Hoffman & Ventresca 2002;Burns et al 2018). The environmental effects of institutions such as the economy (e.g., King and Stewart 1996;Foster et al 1999;Moore 2000;Castree 2003;Liverman 2004; Kopnina 2017), education (e.g., Chawla and Cushing 2007;Hungerford and Volk 1990;Tilbury 1995;Otto and Pensini 2017;Evans et al 2018), and social movements (Snow and Benford 1988;Caniglia et al 2015 This paper, however, focuses on religion and the polity as two of the most powerful social institutions capable of influencing the natural environment through several possible mechanisms (Burns et al 2018).…”