New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Denial and the Process of Moral Exclusion in Environmental Conflict

Opotow, Susan; Weiss, Leah

doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00179

Cited by 180 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We have argued that an individual's belief about the extent to which s/he is part of the natural environment provides the foundation for the types of concerns a person develops, and the types of situations that will motivate them to act. At one extreme is the individual who believes that s/he is separate from nature-that people (and specifically, him or her) are exempt from the laws of nature and superior to plants and animals (see also Opotow, 1994;Opotow & Weiss, 2000). At the other end of the continuum is the individual who believes that s/he is just as much a part of nature as are other animals and (taken to the extreme) that the same rights that apply to humans should apply to plants and animals.…”

Section: Conceptualizing Environmental Concern-why Do People Care?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit connections with nature

Schultz

Shriver

Tabanico

et al. 2004

Journal of Environmental Psychology

865

604

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has suggested that attitudes about environmental issues are rooted in the degree to which people believe that they are part of the natural environment. Researchers have distinguished between egoistic concerns, which focus on self, and biospheric concerns, which focus on all living things. In the current paper, we argue that the type of concerns a person develops about environmental issues is associated with the extent to which the individual believes that s/he is part of nature. We argue that this connection is implicit, and exists outside of conscious awareness. Two studies are reported on the relationship between implicit connections with nature and explicit environmental concerns, and on the cognitive strategies associated with egoistic and biospheric attitudes. Study 1 reports the results from a modified Implicit Association Test (IAT) designed to measure the degree to which people associate themselves with nature. Results showed a moderate positive relationship between biospheric concerns and implicit connections with nature, and a negative relationship between implicit connections with nature and egoistic concerns. Study 2 replicated this basic effect, and also examined the test-retest (immediate, 1 week, and 4 weeks) reliability of the explicit and implicit measures. Results are interpreted within a broad model of environmental inclusion.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing Environmental Concern-why Do People Care?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit connections with nature

Schultz

Shriver

Tabanico

et al. 2004

Journal of Environmental Psychology

865

604

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This process of inclusion and exclusion has also been examined in the justice literature, primarily by Susan Opotow. She explores it in the context of environmental confl icts and has termed it the scope of justice (Opotow and Weiss 2000 ). The scope of justice, also known as the scope of moral exclusion, has been defi ned as the psychological boundary for fairness (Opotow and Weiss 2000 ) or the boundary within which justice is perceived to be relevant (Patrick et al 2014a ).…”

Section: Striving For Water Justice and Social Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scope of justice, also known as the scope of moral exclusion, has been defi ned as the psychological boundary for fairness (Opotow and Weiss 2000 ) or the boundary within which justice is perceived to be relevant (Patrick et al 2014a ). Principles of justice govern our conduct towards those within our scope of justice, while moral exclusion rationalises the denial of those outside our scope of justice (Opotow and Weiss 2000 ) and thus enables and justifi es the application of justice principles in an inconsistent or even in an unjust manner.…”

Section: Striving For Water Justice and Social Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusive Transboundary Water Governance

Earle

Neal

2016

Freshwater Governance for the 21st Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transboundary watercourses, including rivers, lakes and aquifers (confi ned and unconfi ned), shared between two or more countries, are home to over 70 % of the world's population and supply water for roughly 60 % of global food production. It is no surprise that the management of these watercourses has been entrusted to national states, which have the power to take sovereign decisions over their management, use and conservation. State sovereignty is mitigated through the existence of a global institutional framework comprised of customary international water law (the norms dictating how states behave), global and regional conventions, basin-level agreements and basin management organisations. The good news is that there is a large body of joint institutions between countries with transboundary watercourses, the UN estimating that around 3600 exist. This in part explains the relative lack of military interstate confl icts. Less good news is that despite the existence of international-and basin-level agreements and basin organisations, the benefi ts to be expected from international cooperation around transboundary watercourses have in most cases not materialised. Acute, persistent and seemingly intractable problems persist, with ecosystem degradation not being reversed, joint investments in water infrastructure not materialising and joint management organisations failing to attract signifi cant long-term support from the respective basin states. Despite at least two decades of concerted support by the international development community, the impacts of enhanced interstate cooperation are noticeable through their absence. This chapter investigates why this may be so and introduces a starting point which moves beyond the state-centric approach to transboundary water management. In doing so it does not challenge the sovereign right of states to manage their watercourses; instead it shows how a range of non-state actors do in fact infl uence state practice through a variety of mechanisms. As these mechanisms are frequently covert, it becomes diffi cult to assess the integrity of the relationships between actors, in turn making public engagement and participation diffi cult. Needed is a governance paradigm which opens the decision-making arena to non-state actors all in support of the national governments and their respective mandates. This chapter ends with an indication of what such a governance arrangement

show abstract

“…These conflicts are often marked by their complexity (e.g. Opotow andWeiss 2000, Putnam andWondolleck 2003). This intricacy has invariably developed as a result of the original issue becoming hidden amongst the differing perceptions and interpretations of the situation (Lange 1993, Lewicki et al 2003, Nie 2003, Wittmer et al 2006.…”

Section: Ethical Analysis (Ea) Paper IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating resolution of forest conflicts through understanding the complexity of the relationship between forest industry and environmental groups

Gritten¹

2009

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Denial and the Process of Moral Exclusion in Environmental Conflict

Cited by 180 publications

References 7 publications

Implicit connections with nature

Implicit connections with nature

Inclusive Transboundary Water Governance

Facilitating resolution of forest conflicts through understanding the complexity of the relationship between forest industry and environmental groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About