Human-to-nature relationship is psychology

[braden99z8]

The one discipline that, sad to say, has hitherto remained virtually untouched by any concern for the environment or the human-to-nature relationship is psychology. You will search in vain in the texts and journals of any of the major schools of psychology—clinical, behaviorist, cognitive, physiological, humanistic or transpersonal—for any theory or research concerning the most basic fact of human existence: the fact of our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part.

Any thoughts on whether your relationship with nature is or should be a genuine concern?

[Gypsy Cake]

If you mean human's respect or lack of, then yes.

 

I don't think as a whole we do care for nature? We are more overwhelmed by our self-presservation. Our sudden interest for global warming has been propelled by the discovery it may result in our eventual extinction. Not by our thoughts towards our effect on the environment.

 

I'm very much for having little effect on our environment though I'm sure someone will have ago at me; saying we should be for human progression above all else.

[Glider]

The one discipline that, sad to say, has hitherto remained virtually untouched by any concern for the environment or the human-to-nature relationship is psychology.

On the contrary, the relationship between humans and their environment pervades many areas of Psychology. In perception and cognition they talk of perception in terms of 'the carpentered environment'; the effects that a geometrically structured environment has on human perception. In Health Psychology we talk of reciprocal determinism, the bi-directional influence between people and their environment. It is a keystone of the biopsychosocial model. The same can been found in many areas of Psychology.

 

You will search in vain in the texts and journals of any of the major schools of psychology—clinical, behaviorist, cognitive, physiological, humanistic or transpersonal—for any theory or research concerning the most basic fact of human existence: the fact of our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part.

This is very vague. "Our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part" is an extremely broad statement and it doesn't really define any terms. 'Our releationship with nature' in terms of what? Our effect on it? It's effect on us? Environmental concerns? Attitudes towards recycling? Spiritual connectedness? What specifically are you looking for?

[lrokwild]

What about Pavlov and conditioning? Terms like latent learning revolve around interaction with outside stimuli. Our environment and the way our personalities develop is greatly researched by many psychologists. Think how many times are we compared to animals in the wild? I know you are probably talking more about tree hugging nature, but still, like it was said already, nature and human nurture prevails in many areas of psychology.

 

To answer your question, Yes, I believe our connection with nature should be main concern. After all, if you believe in some quantum mechanics than you would believe that we are all connected on a quantum level - That we all share the same energy. Also, we can better understand how other animals behave, evolve and interact with one each other as well as their surroundings. Therefore if we understand our surroundings in nature we could better understand ourselves.

[ofgreenstar]

I think that we cannot escape nature and everything we do is within the parameters of nature. We think we have escaped nature or beaten it, but the simple fact is there is going to be a point when humans hit a carrying capacity and have to level off like every other animal. Every animal has specialized abilities. Our is the neocortex. We came from nature and we will return to nature. When the neocortex is no longer a favorable trait, we will die and something will replace us.

[coberst]

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

 

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

 

Many weeks ago a forum member suggested that I might be interested in the author Ernest Becker and I was given the following web site.

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/hidden/solomonsound.htm This is a great one hour audio about Becker’s ideas given by a very good lecturer.

 

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do.

 

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

 

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

 

The only disagreement I have with Becker’s tapestry is in this solution he offers. I am convinced that he has failed to elaborate on an important step that is implied in his work but not given sufficient emphasis. That step is one wherein the general adult population takes up the responsibility that citizens of a democracy must take on; adults must develop a hobby “get a life—get an intellectual life”. In other words, it will be necessary that a significant share of the general population first comprehend these matters sufficiently to recognize the need for the proposed changes to our colleges and universities.

 

 

.