Why Psychology Is Mute about the Environmental Crisis

Environmental Ethics 16 (4):359-376 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Psychology, often defined as the science of human behavior, has so far had little to say about the environmental destruction which is currently occurring as the result of human behavior. I consider the reasons why it has not and suggest that the ideological preconceptions that underpin the discipline are similar to those of the technological-economic system that is largely responsible for degradation ofthe environment. Psychology, by normalizing the behavioral, life-style, and personality configurations associated with environmental destruction, and lacking a historical perspective on changes in consciousness and technology, is unable to contribute effectively to the ecological debate. I conclude that the discipline needs to locate itself historically and ideologically before it can offer an adequate analysis of environmental destruction.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,475

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why Psychology Is Mute about the Environmental Crisis.David W. Kidner - 1994 - Environmental Ethics 16 (4):359-376.
A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Biocentrism.Richard A. Watson - 1983 - Environmental Ethics 5 (3):245-256.
A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Biocentrism.Richard A. Watson - 1983 - Environmental Ethics 5 (3):245-256.
Environmental ethics: Should we preserve the red Herring and flounder? [REVIEW]James B. Gerrie - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (1):63-76.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-17

Downloads
14 (#981,381)

6 months
1 (#1,479,630)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references