Transforming Culture: to what, why and how?
Background document and discussion following the presentation
Peter Tait
The Human Ecology Forum (HEF) is running Transforming Culture as one of its themes in 2014.
This project carries forward the CRES (now Fenner School for Environment and Society) Human
Ecology Group’s Fundamental Question program from the early 1990s which explored how to
achieve the cultural transformation, or ‘biorenaissance’, to an ecologically sustainable human
society. This proposal also sits beside and collaborates with the programs of the new Frank Fenner
Foundation, particularly the Biosensitive Futures Program.
The 2014 Transforming Culture theme seeks to address this core question: how might we bring
about the necessary cultural transformation to ensure the long term survival of the human
species? This is about societal change, that is the mix of individual and systems change needed to
transform culture. The focus is for a very practical set of steps and possibly even a group to carry
these forward.
Sub-questions might include: what will an ecologically sustainable society look like; what aspects of
culture need to change to allow that to emerge; how would such change be achieved; what are likely
barriers and how can they be circumvented? Input from a diverse set of disciplines have been sought
for each’s contribution to answering these questions.
For this current program we make the following assumptions:
1. Human activity, grounded in a socio-economic culture that ignores or disrespects the
fundamental processes of life and nature, is causing degradation to the natural environment
and that this is being detrimental to human prosperity, health and wellbeing.
2. Transformation of the current dominant world culture, including its worldview and practices,
is imperative to protect human civilisation.
3. This transformation will need to reassert the biophysical realities within which we live and
promote a culture which is sensitive to and respects nature and its limits.
4. While a rapid transformation is required to protect human civilisation, there is still time to
take effective action to minimise disruption to human society.
This series wants to elaborate the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of a program for
change. To this end, change theory (there are many formulations of this; for one method see
http://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/how-does-theory-of-change-work/#6 )
advises a sequence that answers these questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What do we want – what does it look like and how might it work?
Why do we want this?
What specifically needs to change in the current system to get us there?
How do we make those changes: at various levels?
What will help make those changes?
What blockages/ barriers are likely to emerge and how can we get around them.
This paper will explore these questions briefly to give some background to the seminar series.
So 1. What do we want? The purpose is to bring about a Biosensitive or Ecologically-Sustainable
society.
Stephen Boyden’s term biosensitivity (Boyden 2004) refers to an understanding of the place of
humans in the environment that is truly in tune with, sensitive to and respectful of the processes of
life; an understanding which can therefore bring clearer insights and strategic guidance to the urgent
local and global task of reversing humankind’s excessive pressures on nature’s systems.
Consequently a biosensitive society will result in healthy people in a healthy society taking care of a
healthy biosphere.
Ecological sustainability has these components (drawn from multiple sources):




It operates within the limitations of the Earth’s biophysical systems
It recognises and acknowledges the links between human societal behaviours and the
effects on the natural world
It recognises that the interests of non-human species and future generations need to be
taken into account in the present
It promotes the links between a just and equitable human society and respect for Earth’s
systems/ Nature.
Both terms are complementary, putting the focus on slightly different aspects, but united in their
view that humanity sits within a greater whole – the biophysical systems of planet Earth.
Biosensitivity focusses on how humans regard the living, biological systems of the planet while
ecological focuses on the interaction between living things and between them and the physical
world. As Tony McMichael puts it: biosensitivity is an input and an ecologically sustainable human
society is an output.
Project participants may seek to explore what a society operating within these sets of principles
might look like in more detail. Readers of the magazine Solutions would remember several articles
that explore this (http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/ ). But what are the social, political and
economic institutions and arrangements of such a society? What would it be like to live in? How
would it feel?
2. Why transform?
To ensure human health and wellbeing by conserving human civilisation in the immediate future,
and ultimately ensure the survival of the species Homo sapiens. The reasons for this are spelt out in
the assumptions listed above. Put the other way, the wellbeing (that is health and material
prosperity of humanity) is being threatened by the current disregard of the biophysical realities by
the practices of the dominant socioeconomic system. These practices are defined by culture.
3. Why culture?
By culture we mean the default operating system for human society. We refer to this as the
dominant culture, recognising that other non-dominant sub-cultures exist, that may or may not align
with this dominant cultural system.
Culture has two aspects: the behavioural which includes social practices, arrangements and
institutions, and the beliefs, assumptions or worldview that underlies or sit in parallel with
behaviour. These are in dynamic equilibrium with each influencing the other.
Therefore to change how humanity operates on the planet, we need to re-design the operating
system and reboot the system in that new mode. Both behaviours and beliefs need to change in
parallel.
Culture also operates at lesser scales within society; the individual institutions and organisations of
the several realms (to borrow Fotopoulos’ model (Fotopoulos 1997)). Realms include the political,
economic, ecological, social and personal. Social and personal realms overlap and encompass home
life, leisure, the workplace, and so forth. There are also cultural factors relating to societal sectors:
energy, habitation, transport, industry, agriculture, etc..
Presenters may want to elaborate on what particular aspects of culture need to be changed,
replaced or strengthened.
Answering the remaining three questions, specifically how to make change and how specifically to
bring about change in this culture, are the focus for this series. Questions at this level look at what
current arrangements particularly needs to change and how?
Cultural Transformation
Stephen Boyden has written, in relation to the role of the newly established Frank Fenner
Foundation, that the Foundation will convene integrative transdisciplinary discussion and debate on:
(a) The changes in human activities that will be necessary to achieve the transition to an ecologically
sustainable and healthy society of the future (e.g. changes in energy use, transportation, food
production, forestry practices, manufacturing, consumer behaviour, lifestyles)
(b) the changes in societal arrangements that will be necessary to bring about the necessary
changes in human activities (e.g. changes in economic arrangements, the occupational structure of
the work force, urban design, government regulations, and educational programs).
This seminar series seeks to explore how this might be done. I am less confident that we can do this
but let’s give it a try.
History
Stephen outlined the history behind the current theme that arose from the Fundamental Questions
Group’s previous work. He outlined the cultural evolutions that have occurred over the history of
our species (Figure 1) that are reflected in the relationship humans have with the natural
environment – that is our ecological relationship with the biophysical world. This evolution in us
living in the fourth phase, the partially enlightened, urban – industrial, high productionconsumption, high energy phase.
It is the fifth cultural phase shift, the biorenaissance, which we currently need to achieve to preserve
human civilisation and perhaps the species itself. He contends that we need to improve the
understanding of those in power or influence, and therefore all citizens, of their place in the natural
world in order to achieve this transformation.
A fuller discussion, on which feedback is invited, is available at the Biosensitive Futures website
(insert url)
Figure 1.
WATERSHEDS IN CULTURAL EVOLUTION
Cultural watersheds
Followed by
and approximate starting date
Use and control of fire
200,000 BP ?
Ecological Phase 1
The hunter-gatherer phase
Farming
12,000 BP
Ecological Phase 2
The early farming phase
Urbanisation
8000 BP
Ecological Phase 3
The early urban phase
“Enlightenment” and
Industrial Revolution
Ecological Phase 4
The high-consumption phase
250 BP
or the Anthropocene
Unsustainable ecologically
Leading to the collapse of civilisation, with
great loss of life – Unless
? New Enlightenment ?
(Biorenaissance)
? Ecological Phase 5 ?
A new biosensitive phase
Based on understanding the human place in
nature
In tune with, sensitive to and respectful of
the processes of life
Processes of Cultural Transformation
Change requires a motivator: we have a motivator (see assumptions and aims above), but how to
communicate this to those in power and our fellow citizens effectively. We need to create concern
while simultaneously giving hope, so not to inhibit action.
Change come about because people come to believe that a different way of doing something will be
better than what happens at present AND that change is possible AND that the pain of change will
be worthwhile. There needs to be acknowledgement of the barriers and ideas for how to get around
these. So at a personal level, it is discomfort about the present + hope / vision + practical steps for
change.
So information is important for change; information both about what change is required, why and
how it can come about. Awareness and practical information is important. However information
about these three aspects is necessary but not of itself sufficient to engender change.
So change requires motivational and informational aspects. But the principal focus for change action
needs to be on changing behaviour. We know that when behaviour changes, people retrospectively
justify this change to themselves by changing their beliefs and attitudes. So while information and
knowledge may contribute to changing worldview, it is secondary to actions to change behaviours.
An excerpt from Reuben Anderson’s video The Top Ten Myths of Behaviour Change was shown (see
http://vimeo.com/26943709). The key points for successful behaviour change are:
•
Change the choice architecture; that is make the wanted option the default option – legislation
or regulation, and design standards, infrastructure developments, operate at this pre-cognitive
meta level; social structures work.
•
Create new habits – alert people to new habits, focus attention: regulations, incentives and costs
raise awareness; intrinsic rewards drive motivation; , prompts help practice new habits to re;
•
Work on emotions not intellect: use insightful storytelling to impart knowledge;
•
Renormalising; people do what their friends and neighbours do.
•
Social marketing – raises awareness and motivates for change in behaviour
•
Social proof – if everyone is doing it, it must be cool / OK
Design for people not jackasses: design systems according to how our brains and our limits to
cognitive capacity actually are.
Communicating
The importance of how messages are communicated was recognised but not discussed in any detail.
Discussion points emerging that need to be explored further
There are issues of scale. The presentation focussed on small scale individual and perhaps marginal
changes. The actual change that is required is at a much greater, global, whole of society, world view
scale. (Franzi Poldy, Barry Newell)
There are tensions and links between this small scale personal, individual and societal systemic scale
behaviour change. (Aileen Power)
The nature of the transformation processes that we are discussing is quite different than previous
cultural changes because they were evolutionary whereas we are talking about a designed
deliberative change. However aspects of the current market production-consumption culture have
been engineered if not designed (eg consumerism). But do we know enough to design a change?
What are the evolutionary pressures? How long will this evolution take? (Barry Newell, Franzi Poldy)
Justice needs to be a part of the package of a biosensitive or ecologically sustainable human society.
However this position was contested as being peripheral to the core problem. The role of justice in
the project is to be taken further. (Wendy Rainbird, Franzi Poldy)
Questions
How do individual changes translate up to societal change? Or can they?
Do we know how to carry out designed, deliberative societal changes across all sectors of society?
Quotables
The Phase Five Shift (is what we want)
That is so last phase! (referring to aspects of our current system)
The situation is hopeless; we must take the next step (Pablo Castals)
Boyden, S. (2004). The Biology of Civilisation: Understanding Human Culture as a Force in Nature.
Sydney, University of New South Wales Press.
Fotopoulos, T. (1997). Towards an inclusive democracy: The crisis of the growth economy and the
need for a new liberatory project. London, New York, Cassell.