the self will not achieve the level of change required. Considering downward contextual


forces, individual changes like the global population turning to a plant-based diet seem unlikely to occur in cultural systems where eating meat is equated with wealth and success and is often at the centre of religious celebrations. On the other hand, considering upward implicative forces, consumer demand for vegan food, green energy, sustainably-sourced palm oil and generally more ethical produce is creating a shift in focus from big businesses. When all is said and done, in a capitalist world, where is more power held by us (the meagre individual citizen) than in the choice we make about how to spend that pound in our pocket? Similarly, when individuals come together to demand change and join up collectively to hold governments and big businesses to account, how long can those systems resist? Shifting direction now to the level of


family and relationships, our bread and butter, what might the climate crisis mean for us professionally? Hickman and Staunton (2019) point out that parents say their children are full of rage and despair and grief. Young people are angry because their parents don’t feel the same way. Young women are questioning whether it is ethical to bring children into this world. There is a huge generational divide. There is confl ict between generations


where parents are seen as handing the next generation a trashed planet, as well as between nations where the ‘developed’ world is viewed as being hypocritical in criticising ‘developing’ nations for their treatment of nature (Coward, 2019). Net migration will rise to levels not seen before, and the consequences for families, for generations and for societies already struggling to tolerate immigration is set to be immense. So, does this concern about the environment have a place in therapy? Does systemic therapy have something to off er a global problem? And are we as therapists equipped to cope with the issue? At the level of our profession, eco-


psychologists are calling for a move “from ego to eco” (Hickman & Staunton, 2019) with the hope that this way of thinking and of connecting will not just occur in the way we work with clients, but how we all operate at the level of society. Those practicing eco-psychology are not just relocating from the clinic to woodland for their sessions.


Context 170, August 2020


Global economic systems Capitalism. Consumerism. Corruption.


Migration, tensions between nations, developing and ‘developed’ world


Cultural systems money/consumerism equates to ‘success’ Meat and dairy integral to success and celebration


Family systems Generational differences Fear to procreate


‘Me’ the professional Eco-psychology. Ego to Eco.


Eco-anxiety ‘out there’, not ‘in here’


‘Me’ the person


Own relationship with eco-anxiety and the climate crisis Individual actions both contextual and implicative


Figure 1


They view the climate crisis as the result of a dysfunctional relationship between humans and the earth, and eco-anxiety as a healthy breakthrough from a disassociation with nature. Through this lens, our anguish can be viewed as a warning sign, and a new relationship between humans and the earth as a healing process; a healing process for us, as well as for the planet (Jayne-Rust, 2019; Coward, 2019). Back at the level of the individual, eco-


anxiety has been described as “a fairly recent psychological disorder affl icting an increasing number of individuals who worry about the environmental crisis” (Castelloe, 2018). However, speakers from all disciplines at the conference were keen to defi ne it as “a perfectly reasonable and rational response to the science”. Something that is not ‘in here’, but is ‘out there’. Something we are all already experiencing or are likely to experience. Bendell (2019) argues that unless we have given ourselves the opportunity to process our own eco-


anxiety, we will struggle to assist others in processing theirs.


Problems, possibilities, resources and restraints


Turning now to Burnham’s (2017)


problems, possibilities, resources and restraints framework, we can zoom into the aforementioned idea a little more. If we are to process our own feelings about the climate crisis fi rst before we can help others to process theirs, what feelings are we likely to come across and what journey may these feelings take us on? Considering hope and despair specifi cally, the societal default position is likely to consider hope as possibility inspiring/resourceful (necessary, even) and despair as problematic/ restraining. I have been intrigued by ideas considering the opposite (See fi gure 2). Bendell’s (2019) concept of “deep


adaptation”, at its most intense, argues that the planet’s liveability is already compromised; that if we accept the


15


Exploring human and societal connection to the climate crisis through the lens of systemic theory


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68