Ecopsychology: An Introduction and Christian Critique

In the last three or four decades, environmentalists have made us aware of industrial civilization's often harmful impact on the natural world. However, these warnings have only rarely led to any really significant, pro-environmental changes that make a difference in how we treat the environment. Ecopsychology is a new area of psychological study and practice whose aim is to use established psychological principles to help us understand our tendency to destroy the environment, and to help us change our behavior in ways that allow us to live more responsibly, harmoniously, and sustainably in the world. This paper examines some of the more prominent ecopsychological perspectives and critiques them from a Christian point of view. A Christian ecopsychology that is in harmony with Christian theology is required. It has become common to attach the prefix "eco" or the word "environmental" to various descriptions of human activities. Thus we have eco-politics, environmental economics, eco-theology, eco-feminism, environmental ethics, and more recently, eco-terrorism. Each of these eco-activities suggests that there are important environmental issues that need to be resolved. In 1900, psychoanalyst Harold Searles noted that the non-human environment plays a significant role in human psychological life. He introduced the idea that, in understanding human behavior, psychology and ecology are linked in important ways. Theodore Roszak (1992) coined the term "ecopsychology" to describe this linkage. Environmentalist Paul Shepard (1973) suggested that "the environmental crisis signifies a crippled state of [human] consciousness as much as it does damaged habitat" (p. xvi) and he argued that we may need to start solving the environmental crisis by addressing first the psychological dimensions of the problem. Roszak (1992), a historian who has become a prominent spokesperson in the new field of ecopsychology, advanced Shepard's idea by modifying the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious. He described an "ecological unconscious" as "our inherited sense of loyalty to the planet" (pp.13-14) and our modern, environmentally destructive lifestyles as a "repression" that weighs heavily upon it. He goes on to argue that "believing that we have no ethical obligation to our planetary home [is] the epidemic psychosis of our time" (p. 14). In this article, I will first discuss two very different worldviews, one that has created and maintained the current environmental crisis and another that seeks to correct our destructive way of living in the world. An alternative, Christian ecological worldview will be proposed. I will then briefly describe the new field of ecopsychology by discussing Fisher's (2002) proposal concerning four tasks of ecopsychology. Some of the key contributions of the major approaches in psychology to an understanding of and/or a way to bring change to our destructive way of living in relation to nature are also provided. I will then offer a Christian critique of Fisher's and of psychology's (especially humanistic psychology's) perspectives. Environmental Worldviews In clinical psychology, before we plan and provide treatment for a client, we must determine if there is a legitimate psychological problem and provide a reasonable assessment of the nature and severity of the problem. This is no less the case with eco-psychology. The client here though is not an individual, couple, family, or therapy group. Rather, it is a whole culture. Although not unanimous, there is now general agreement that we as a Western culture do have an environmental problem, one that is rapidly becoming a global problem, but there is much disagreement concerning the etiology, symptoms, and prognosis of the problem. It has been argued that environmental activists tend to exaggerate the gloom and doom scenarios they present (Lomborg, 2001). Consequently, not all are in agreement that we are facing an environmental holocaust. …