|
When an attempt is made to impart the values, norms, beliefs, and taboos onto the public to make them environmental stewards, they fall into the categories within the normal distribution in the following manner:
a. Those who do not learn the values, norms, beliefs, and taboos. These are the unfortunate outcasts in the environmentalists mainstream
b. Those who learn, but do not accept. These are deviants who destroy the environment in deliberation.
c. Those who learn and accept. These are environmental stewards in theory. The majority of us are in this group
d. Those who learn, accept, and internalise the values, norms, beliefs, and taboos. These believe and practise environmental stewardship. They are ideal products of environmental stewardism.
Unfortunately, most of the people who are conscious of environmental issues are in the third category. Thee is no hope with categories 1 and 2. The efforts of the 4th group is like a drop in the ocean, and are overwhelmed by the irresponsibility of many.
There have been many efforts to make people good environmental stewards. They have had differentiated achievements in different places in countries. They have some things in common, to make the people pay for their negative impact on the environment, or to make them think and reason in favour of the environment. But more people are willing to impart the negative impacts and pay. Others simply do not reason. Many people cannot think as pro-environmentalists would do, or if they do, they do not act. since making them think as environmental stewards do, the option is to make them DO as the stewards THINK. The entry point are the figures that people of all statures would adhere to, at least in the African context: religious authorities.
These are the influential people whose influences have been underutilised if utilised at all. People do as these figures say. The issues is to make connections between religious beliefs, which basicaly dictate what people should do. I made a promise in one workshop to influence the preacher in my church to preach about environmental issues. I said the commandment 'Love thy neighbour' can be extended to take into consideration environmental issues. Loving the neighbour means not commiting anything that would jeopardise the neighbour's health and well-being. Degrading the environment degrades the health and well-being of others. In addition, Jesus himself was an environmentalist. He ordered proper disposal of waste after he fed 5000 people, right? The preacher was suprised to note the connection between fundamental religious beliefs and environmental stewardism and promised to preach the message. As an incentive, it is good to remind people that God punishes those who threaten the health and well-being of others.
The involvement of religious figures and authorities will no doubt influence the people in the right direction even if they have not internalised the values, belifs, norms, and taboos of environmental socialisation. |
I agree with much of Harun's article - but doubt that effective mainstream
environmental change or stewardship will come through religion.....it has
apparently not helped with so many other social evils.....especially in
SA....
I firmly believe that people's inherent greed and their inability to give it
up will doom them and the environment....there is no effective groundswell
moving towards a mass change in mindset....people are trapped in traditional
mindests of comfort, possessions, greed, status....and individual
non-responsibility.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harun Makandi" <hmakandi@yahoo.com>
To: "General Discussion" <discuss@dlist-benguela.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: [DLIST Discuss] Twisting Arms in Favour of Environmental
Socialisation
>
> When an attempt is made to impart the values, norms, beliefs, and taboos
> onto the public to make them environmental stewards, they fall into the
> categories within the normal distribution in the following manner:
>
> a. Those who do not learn the values, norms, beliefs, and taboos. These
> are the unfortunate outcasts in the environmentalists mainstream
>
> b. Those who learn, but do not accept. These are deviants who destroy the
> environment in deliberation.
>
> c. Those who learn and accept. These are environmental stewards in theory.
> The majority of us are in this group
>
> d. Those who learn, accept, and internalise the values, norms, beliefs,
> and taboos. These believe and practise environmental stewardship. They are
> ideal products of environmental stewardism.
>
> Unfortunately, most of the people who are conscious of environmental
> issues are in the third category. Thee is no hope with categories 1 and 2.
> The efforts of the 4th group is like a drop in the ocean, and are
> overwhelmed by the irresponsibility of many.
>
> There have been many efforts to make people good environmental stewards.
> They have had differentiated achievements in different places in
> countries. They have some things in common, to make the people pay for
> their negative impact on the environment, or to make them think and reason
> in favour of the environment. But more people are willing to impart the
> negative impacts and pay. Others simply do not reason. Many people cannot
> think as pro-environmentalists would do, or if they do, they do not act.
> since making them think as environmental stewards do, the option is to
> make them DO as the stewards THINK. The entry point are the figures that
> people of all statures would adhere to, at least in the African context:
> religious authorities.
>
> These are the influential people whose influences have been underutilised
> if utilised at all. People do as these figures say. The issues is to make
> connections between religious beliefs, which basicaly dictate what people
> should do. I made a promise in one workshop to influence the preacher in
> my church to preach about environmental issues. I said the commandment
> 'Love thy neighbour' can be extended to take into consideration
> environmental issues. Loving the neighbour means not commiting anything
> that would jeopardise the neighbour's health and well-being. Degrading the
> environment degrades the health and well-being of others. In addition,
> Jesus himself was an environmentalist. He ordered proper disposal of waste
> after he fed 5000 people, right? The preacher was suprised to note the
> connection between fundamental religious beliefs and environmental
> stewardism and promised to preach the message. As an incentive, it is good
> to remind people that God punishes those who threaten the health and
> well-being of others.
>
> The involvement of religious figures and authorities will no doubt
> influence the people in the right direction even if they have not
> internalised the values, belifs, norms, and taboos of environmental
> socialisation.
|
Influential figures in all religions, like in any other field, could certainly help by spreading the message of environmental stewardship. Caring for the earth is, after all, an ethical activity of the best kind.
It might be more effective, though, to promote a message of "love thy nature", which might be a more positive reinforcement, as oppose to a message of damnation if you don't - which could be seen as using fear to promote conservation.
Every bit helps and influential religious leaders and religious institutions throwing in their weight with the fight for promoting conservation, can only help to tip the scales favourably. It would be good to hear how those leaders and institutes might feel about this. |
|
|
|
