Content uploaded by Veniz Maja Guzman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Veniz Maja Guzman on Feb 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
#Green Future: Harnessing Academe, Government and Industry Partnerships for a
Sustainable Earth
The Human Element: Transpersonal Ecology, Empathy Gap, and the
Environment
Veniz Maja V. Guzman
Philippine Christian University – Manila
veniz.guzman@gmail.com
Warwick Fox’s (1990) Transpersonal Ecology proposes that the Earth could
be saved by psychologizing the problem of ecophilosophy and recognizing the value of
transcendental self-expansion and identification with nature. It could help enlighten
human beings with regards to their position in the ecosphere, and it could help for a
holistic policy-making. Unfortunately, there is a phenomenon called the Empathy
Gap which is the reason why human beings find difficulty empathizing with people
they cannot relate to. This paper posits that one of the solutions to the viability of
Transpersonal Ecology is by recognizing and acting upon the problem of the Empathy
Gap. It should be discussed because of the persistent apathy of human beings when it
comes to environmental conservation and preservation efforts and how the
technological era has enabled the constant development of machines and such for the
convenience of human beings. Therefore, Transpersonal Ecology will be discussed,
then the criticisms of Chet Bowers (regarding how Fox did not take into account the
cultural influences to identity formation) and Stavely & McNamara (as to how Fox
put too much emphasis on identification and how his proposals do not translate to
the conservation of the Earth) will be given so as to be the backdrop of the Empathy
(as seen in Decety and Jackson’s 2004 paper) and the Empathy Gap (which was
discussed in Gutsell and Inzlicht’s 2012 research) discussion. This paper will also
assume that the Empathy Gap is applicable to non-relational beings as well, such as
the environment.
Transpersonal Ecology; Empathy Gap; Ecological Self; Environment
1. INTRODUCTION
Transpersonal Ecology is the
psychologically-based idea of transcendental self-
expansion to accommodate the ecosphere (Fox,
1990, p.59). To be able to better understand the
discussion, the popular tripartite conception of the
self will be given as an overview.
First of all is the
desiring-impulsive aspect
(Fox, p. 59) which is similar to Freud’s conception
of the
Id
. This is the kind of self that is more often
than not stressed when it comes to human relations
to the environment, because it is the aspect that is
concerned with exploitation and expansionism. It is
the aspect that is all about wanting something and
wanting it immediately, therefore it also deals with
the idea of domination in which human beings are
built to exercise mastery over nature. It functions
without regard for the welfare of others as it taps
2
#Green Future: Harnessing Academe, Government and Industry Partnerships for a
Sustainable Earth
into the most primitive side of the human being.
Second is the
rationalizing-deciding
aspect
(Fox,
p.61) which is similar to the idea of the
Ego
. This
aspect is in charge of the environmental
conservation and preservation efforts because it
sees itself as the control center with regards to the
three selves. The “rationalizing” part of this aspect
works in two ways: as a guardian of self-image, and
as a searcher of the most efficient solution to the
demands of reality and of the other two psyches
(Fox, p. 62). This is where the mini-max strategy
(Fox, p. 62) comes in. All disciplines concerned with
decision theory – and also the individual self –
adopt this strategy because it is considered to be
the most rational. The
rationalizing-deciding aspect
recognizes that it is in fact unrealistic to
acknowledge the 1) desire for maximum resource
exploitation, 2) existence of reality-imposed
constraints, and 3) certain moral demands (Fox, p.
63). The mini-max strategy then attempts to satisfy
the first demand while taking the other two factors
into account. The third and final side is the
normative-judgmental aspect
(Fox, p. 66) which is
likened to the
Superego
. The first two aspects posit
that the nonhuman world is meant for human
consumption, but the last aspect posits that the
environment has its own intrinsic value (Fox, p.
73). This means that doing right by the
environment should ultimately be imperative
regardless of how one feels. The final aspect then,
demands that the intrinsic values should override
all the other factors which are taken into account
when deciding what to do.
2. TRANSPERSONAL ECOLOGY
However, Transpersonal Ecology shows
itself to be different because it does not promote the
tripartite conception of the self. The proponents of
this idea believe that this conception is ultimately
narrow and atomistic, while the transpersonal self
is expansive and all-inclusive (Fox, p. 68). It sees
that the first and second aspect of the tripartite self
are simply two sides of the same coin, except the
rationalizing-deciding aspect
is simply better at
utilizing its self-serving tendencies. The
normative-
judgmental aspect
of the self seems like it is the
best when compared to the other two aspects,
however it is still simply a mere aspect of the self.
The moral demands of this last aspect may seem
useful especially for the issue of environmental
conservation, however the problem is what it
emphasizes is the idea that there is a self that is a
center of volitional activity. A transpersonal self
may show volitional activity but to force this sense
of self (Fox, p. 69) through moral demands is
counterproductive and frankly, ironic. The idea of a
transpersonal self is against the usual moral
“ought” that the field of Ethics imposes; it proposes
that if one already has achieved (or is on their way
to achieving) a wide, expansive sense of self, then
one will naturally protect the natural unfolding of
this expansive self in all its aspects (Fox, p. 70).
This means that the moral “ought” should be
unnecessary because the identification of oneself
with nature should be the one that will motivate
the human being to care for nature, not some order
imposed by Ethics. A violation of nature
should
hurt, in the same way that pain caused to a
person’s family hurts the person, therefore the
human being will take care of nature because
caring for nature
is
caring for the Self.
Transpersonal Ecology does not simply deal
with the usual moral demands; however, it does
deal with the holistic growth of a person (Fox, p.
77). Once a human being realizes that one does not
simply lock himself in himself and orders himself
around to keep up with his moral duties, but
instead strives to become the best version of
himself while stretching his own ego boundaries to
accommodate nature and in turn, identify himself
with it, he naturally grows to love and care for that
which is
he
, not
his
.
2.1. Identification
The important thing when it comes to
discussing Transpersonal Ecology is the idea of
identification. Identification here does not equate to
identity; it simply means having a sense of
commonality (Fox, 81). Just because one realizes
that one is in unity with the ecosphere, it does not
automatically mean that one is literally a tree.
What humans should realize is that their sense of
self could be expanded to include the ecosphere, but
they will only remain interlinked, not mashed into
a single homogenous substance. It goes against the
usual conception of the self that is opposed to
nature, a Man vs. Wild scenario. In fact, it is this
kind of thinking that ultimately damages nature,
3
#Green Future: Harnessing Academe, Government and Industry Partnerships for a
Sustainable Earth
which in turn damages ourselves. Identification
makes one realize that an all-encompassing sense
of unity is possible, provided that the human being
does not simply depend on the visual boundaries
that he has. Human beings are limited by their
bodies, but their experiences could help stretch
their sense of self to include someone else – and in
this case, to include the ecosphere (Fox, p. 86).
Boundaries are arbitrary, but that is exactly why
human beings are capable of transcending the
usual narrow sense of self; humans
are
capable of
love, and what is love but a deliberate extension of
one’s self-concept to include someone else (Peck,
1990)?
There are three bases of Identification
(Fox, 1991, p. 3) that is discussed in Transpersonal
Ecology. First is the Personal, in which experiences
of commonality with other entities are brought
about by personal involvement. In other words, the
identification happens through constant contact.
Those we experience – such as our families or our
countries – become a part of our identity. However,
Personally-based Identification – as the name
suggests – is less transpersonal than personal. The
second one is the Ontological, which refers to
experiences of commonality with all that
is
through
the deep-seated realization of the fact that things
are
. The Ontologically-based Identification is about
the depth of impression that an entity’s existence
leaves on the human being, which happens when
the human realizes that the Earth does not exist
for a self-serving purpose or for anyone at all,
except for its own existence, which is how humans
are as well. Third is the Cosmological, which refers
to experiences of commonality with all that
is
,
brought about by the deep-seated realization that
all entities including ourselves are aspects of a
single, unfolding reality. There are quite a couple of
cosmological narratives (Fox, p. 4), one of which is
Science. One of its studies is about the human place
in the universe, and not only that but it also
studies the universe itself and its own processes
and development, which in turn gives people the
motivation to look at this process as a single,
unfolding reality (Fox, p. 4).
It is humbling to
realize that human beings are not at the apex of
anything, but rather all entities coexist and are
parts of each other, and in a sense –
are
each other.
3. CRITICISMS
3.1. On Culture and Identity
What Chet Bowers wanted to ask in his
critique of Transpersonal Ecology is this: is it truly
so viable that it would transcend traditions and
change cultural patterns? (Bowers, 1993, p. 3)
From his standpoint, it seems as if Fox never
addressed the question of the theory’s practical
application on the numerous cultures that the
world holds. He mentions that Fox’s readers seem
to be those who could simply break away from their
culture, or those whose cultures are on a fast-track
to modern thinking. But the thing is not all nations
work that way, and not all nations employ the
Western notion of culture liberation.
There are three aspects of culture that
Bowers discussed in his critique: 1) cultural
storage, 2) ideology, and 3) semiotics.
Cultural storage is in a sense, tradition.
Tradition has been there since even before the
individual comes into the picture; she is born into
it,
it
referring to mental and cultural processes
which have been developed and passed down for
generations before she is even conceived. This
tradition then serves as the foundation of one’s
viewpoint regarding the world – one’s lens if you
will. One can only answer the question of one’s duty
when one already has a sense of one’s narrative,
which is the collective narrative that one is born
into. Fox’s idea of self-identity does not take this
into account; not everyone has the agency and
freedom to be able to do what he wants with
disregard for one’s culture. Even Fox’s use of words
are Westernized, which is problematic considering
how all cultures may have their own
interpretations of both the problem and the
solution that he proposed.
The ideological aspect of culture is the
schema that is refined through discourse and social
practice, which in turn brings out the political
aspects of each symbol system in a given culture
(Bowers, p. 8). What this spells out for Fox, again,
is a misunderstanding of his problems and
proposed solutions when seen through specific
ideologies – which all cultures have. There will be
set beliefs and core assumptions which will have to
be abandoned in favor of a new cultural backdrop if
one is to live the lifestyle that is being proposed.
Bowers believes that the acknowledgment of the
different cultures and ideologies is necessary for
the entire system to work – in other words, the
solution is to contextualize.
4
#Green Future: Harnessing Academe, Government and Industry Partnerships for a
Sustainable Earth
The semiotic aspect deals with the person’s
reality and identity as a social construct created by
language and communication. It is important to
note that the second a human being is born, there
are already ideas that shape that person’s reality
through communicative outlets such as TV
commercials, the language in the area, the color
scheme in the house, common expressions, and so
on. Therefore, the problem of Transpersonal
Ecology is far more complex than Fox makes it
seem.
3.2. On Identification and Viability
Stavely & McNamara’s issue with Fox’s
Transpersonal Ecology is his reliance on the
different processes of Identification to create his
solution instead of focusing on the non-volitional
aspects of the self (Stavely & McNamara, 1992, p.
204).
They critiqued Fox’s Identification by
saying that many, if not most, transpersonal events
are in actuality opposite to identification (Stavely &
McNamara, p. 207). They happen to be outside of
the control of the self – from mystical and religious
experiences to even that of dreams. But Fox’s
argument seems to stem from the idea that it is the
human’s job to identify himself with the ecosphere,
instead of letting the transpersonal event transpire
effortlessly. Stavely & McNamara argue that it
seems to be anthropomorphic since the most
important events all transpire within the
individual. They propose that instead of focusing on
the individual, the focus must be on nature itself –
that it is not simply waiting on the human being’s
sudden wake-up call to a transpersonal
identification with it, but that it is alive, active, and
out of the human being’s control.
Another critique of the pair is the effect of
the so-called “steadfast friendliness” that Fox
thinks will be promoted by Transpersonal Ecology.
They argue that being enlightened has never been,
in any way, a guarantee of social change. Even
when enlightenment is a central cultural value, it
is still not a guarantee as to the overall behavior of
the population (Stavely & McNamara, p. 209). Only
a select few will truly choose and power through to
attain the idea of transpersonal sense of Self that
lives in harmony with all entities. Also, it would be
unfair to not recognize that the self is not just an
individual’s conception but also a social construct.
If Transpersonal Ecology were to succeed, the
culture of the group must be taken into account.
4. PROPOSED SOLUTION
4.1. On Empathy
Empathy is the sense of similarity of the
feelings one experiences and those that are
expressed by others, without losing sight of whose
feelings belong to whom. (Decety & Jackson, 2004,
p.71). Empathic concern is often associated with
those who are either genetically hardwired to care
for their blood, such as their offspring. Empathy
functions as a chief enabling process to altruism,
which is the practice of selfless action for the well-
being of others. But even though there are certain
benefits to acting on one’s empathic tendencies,
there are obvious costs to this extended self-concept
such as having anxieties due to unpleasant
situations happening to other people, and the thing
is unpleasant situations happen countless times
over the course of one’s life.
Empathy has three main components: 1)
the affective aspect, 2) the cognitive aspect, and 3)
the regulatory mechanisms to keep track of the
origin of the feelings (Decety & Jackson, p. 73).
Although there are quite few evidences of the
neurophysiological processes involved when it
comes to measuring the more complex emotions,
psychotherapeutic schools saw that it was in fact
important to put oneself in another’s shoes. Decety
& Jackson quoted Theodor Reik in the rundown of
the processes involved in empathy: 1)
Identification, 2) Incorporation, 3) Reverberation,
and 4) Detachment. Identification speaks of the
complete engrossment of one towards another,
while incorporation is about the internalization of
another’s experiences. Reverberation is about
experiencing the other’s experience while minding
own’s own thoughts and feelings towards the
situation, and detachment is the final necessary
5
#Green Future: Harnessing Academe, Government and Industry Partnerships for a
Sustainable Earth
step; it is the recognition of separation of one
person from another so as to be able to give the
proper response to the “shared” experience.
4.2 The Empathy Gap
Empathy Gap is the idea that this
intuitive mechanism is limited only to those we like
(Gutsell & Inzlicht, 2012, p. 596). As seen in
modern societies, prejudices and violent acts still
abound – which would not be possible if human
beings were perfectly capable of tapping into their
natural instinct to connect with and share the
emotions of other people. This, then, gave rise to
the idea of the
outgroup
.
According to the perception-action model of
empathy, empathy is based on neural simulation
(Gutsell & Inzlicht, p. 596). Seeing another person
express their emotion is bound to trigger similar
neural networks which would help the observer
share the other person’s emotional state. However,
studies show that this is (although not strictly)
limited to those in the
ingroup
. An FMRI study has
shown that neural activations are more prominent
when members of the ingroup are hurt, but they
are barely firing when the members of the outgoup
are experiencing the same thing (Gutsell &
Inzlicht, p. 597).
However, instead of reading these as a
reflection of preference, some researchers viewed
them as culturally learned prejudices (Gutsell &
Inzlicht, p. 597). Participants who had high social
dominance traits showed a profound empathy gap
when seeing other people subjected to pain. The
gap was severe, however, towards culturally
disliked outgroups, suggesting that the empathy
gap was more of a product or function of culture
than preference. But although that is the case,
those who seem to have high empathy were capable
of empathizing with
both
the ingroup members and
the outgroup members. This shows that there
are
people who were able to somehow, transcend the
empathy gap (Gutsell & Inzlicht, p. 601).
These studies have shown that there is in
fact, a bias against outgroups – human beings are
culturally conditioned to empathize less (if at all)
with those that are outside of their own groups,
unless if they were able to reach empathy
maturation. If this is the case, then what about the
environment? What about the non-relational being
that is the Earth?
5. CONCLUSIONS
Seeing as how both criticisms against
Transpersonal Ecology mentioned the problem of
culture, the issue of the empathy gap could be
seen as a potential solution to the two problems.
What humans tend to forget is that even before
they were culturally segregated, they already had
their own neurological processes. Gutsell and
Inzlicht’s study showed that it
is
in fact, possible
to transcend one’s cultural prejudices through the
development of one’s empathy. This may be done
through constant interaction and the formation of
emotional bonds. It is understandable that this
would be difficult, considering how trees and other
non-relational aspects of nature do not have the
ability to share their own emotional experiences
with the human beings, but if one would simply
find the time to listen to what the Earth is trying
to say, then perhaps humans would be able to
foster a feeling of connectedness with nature,
which in turn will fire a neurological response
whenever nature is being misused and harmed.
The study of the empathy gap proves that apathy,
in fact, is not innate and permanent – only
learned. And if it is learned, then humans are
certainly capable of learning its opposite.
Another objection is Stavely &
McNamara’s statement of Transpersonal Ecology
being anthropocentric, but this was already
discussed in Fox’s earlier paper. Although
Transpersonal Ecology deals with the human
element, it still promotes the idea that the
ecosphere, whether showing human-like
characteristics or not, should be treated as one
with the Self (Fox, 1990, p.89). It is all-inclusive;
not biased towards relational beings. Therefore, it
should be understood that although the human
element is the one that is discussed, it would be
quite difficult to simply be passive when it comes
to transpersonal identification. Transpersonal
Ecology acknowledges that nature is alive and
that it is valuable on its own, but the popular
tripartite conception of the self does not
necessarily see it that way, and that is why one
6
#Green Future: Harnessing Academe, Government and Industry Partnerships for a
Sustainable Earth
should spend time outdoors and actually
experience nature in all its glory so as to realize
that we are in fact, a mere aspect of a wondrous
whole. Human beings
are
capable of transcending
themselves and their cultures, and if they could
transcend the empathy gap towards a human
outgroup who are capable of showing and acting
on their prejudices against another group, then it
is certainly viable to be able to transcend an
empathy gap towards the environment in which
all human beings reside. Transpersonal Ecology is
an acknowledgment of the fact that human beings
are made of the same component as stars; it is the
idea that although humans are vastly different
from one another, and definitely more different
from the ecosphere, they are still – in a way –
invariably linked together.
6. REFERENCES
Bowers, C. A. (1993). Some Questions About
The Theoretical Foundations of W. Fox's
Transpersonal Ecology and Arne Naess'
Ecosophy T.
Trumpeter
,
10
(3).
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The
functional architecture of human
empathy.
Behavioral and cognitive
neuroscience reviews
,
3
(2), 71-100.
Fox, W. (1991). 15 Transpersonal ecology and
the varieties of identification.
Environmental ethics: An introduction
with readings
.
Fox, W. (1990). Transpersonal ecology:"
psychologizing" ecophilosophy.
The
Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology
,
22
(1), 59.
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Intergroup
differences in the sharing of emotive
states: neural evidence of an empathy
gap.
Social cognitive and affective
neuroscience
,
7
(5), 596-603.
Peck, M. (1990).
Road Less Travelled: A New
Psychology of Love, Traditional Values,
and Spiritual Growth
. London: Arrow.
Stavely, H., & McNamara, P. (1992). Warwick
Fox's" transpersonal ecology": A critique
and alternative approach.
The Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology
,
24
(2), 201.
