Do we have to choose?

What a fascinating topic for tonight's readings - behaviour change vs. social change, or "collective social action", as it was called by Kenis & Mathijs (2012).  It has never occurred to me to separate these things, or to think of there being two different "camps" in the environmental movement.  Now I need to assess whether or not it is my own ignorance that hasn't made this divide strikingly obvious to me, or if is the tendency to overanalyze and name things on the part of academia.  


Let me quickly fill you in on the debate that I just read and I'll go from there.  To really simplify it the debate was about whether collective social action, structural change or systems change was the method of social change that was needed, or if it was the ABC (Attitude. Behaviour. Choice) approach that focuses on behavioural change of individuals.  Shove (2011) who was arguing against ABC as an effective approach went so far as to say that there was no room for collaboration amongst the differing paradigms. She argues that "it is useful to be clear about the incommensurability of these contrasting paradigms, and hence about the impossibility of merger and incorporation. Whatever else it might be, a more holistic approach is not one in which letters like `S' for system, or `P' for practice are grafted on to the ABC." (Shove, 2010, p. 1279)

This notion that these paradigms were impossible to incorporate with each other made my blood boil a little bit.  I find her writing dense, so I am not sure if I am just missing a major point, or if she is actually posing a very convincing argument that I just don't understand, but as it stands right now, I just do not agree with that at all.  I find myself relaxing and feeling much more comfortable with the philosophy of Whitmarsh et al (2011) when they point out that "there are many examples of successful interdisciplinary working which bring together sociological, psychological, and other approaches (eg Darnton, 2010; Devine-Wright, 2010; Upham et al, 2009; Whitmarsh et al, in press), for example to elucidate energy consumption and the potential for a sustainability transition within energy systems (Nye et al, 2010)."

I particularly found myself agreeing with Whitmarsh et al (2011) when the express their disappointment and worry with this approach.  "It is disappointing, and frankly very worrying, if efforts such as these are dismissed because they include contributors from a range of backgrounds. We should be vigilant against claims that one particular perspective is the only, and correct, one particularly when this view is one in which society must change but sees no role for citizens in directing or enacting this change."

Shove does respond to Whitmarsh et al's concerns, but I am not left feeling convinced.  I fully believe that social change and behaviour change have to go hand in hand, and that there is room for many approaches and a diversity of tactics.  For example, at FUN Camps, we approach environmental education from both paradigms that are being presented here.  We educate about behaviours and lowering one's ecological footprint, but we also teach and share systems theory and the we delve into the root causes of issues.  We teach "action-oriented knowledge", which is defined in the article by Kenis & Mathijs (2012) to include (1) knowledge about the nature of the problem and its effects, (2) knowledge about root causes, (3) knowledge about strategies for change, and (4) knowledge about alternatives and visions.

  This could be an overview for how we approach environmental education at FUN Camps.  Kids as young as 6 are learning how to take action and be agents of change, and by take action I am not referring to just turning off the stupid light.  I am so sick of this debate to be honest.  No, of course it is not enough to just change a lightbulb, now can we move on? You would never catch me saying that behaviour change alone will be enough to solve these massive issues that we're facing, but I certainly see it as part of the picture.  To take all responsibility off of the individual seems hugely problematic to me.  Should we (especially those of us living these privileged lives) not have to accept that our lifestyles, greed and desires for more and more stuff might just have a tiny bit to do with what is going on?


I found it interesting to note that when Kenis & Mathijs (2012) were interviewing environmentally aware and engaged young people, all of the youth who said that they were involved in some sort of action for social change, also practiced behavioural change (or what I might just refer to as a healthier lifestyle).  They found that it didn't always work the other way.  That is, people who only changed their behaviours weren't always active on a more societal and structural level.  But the fact that people are simultaneously working to change themselves and the system proves that Shove is removed from reality on this one.  


I would go so far as to say that it is hypocritical to suggest systems change if we aren't willing to start by making changes in our own lives.  Why should we continue with our unsustainable lifestyles, sit back, blame the system and not have to step up to the plate in any way.

Perhaps she is suggesting that people change their behaviours in a different way - that they start being politically active, or educating themselves or others about root causes.  Those are behavioural changes as well, and I don't feel like the debate about whether writing letters to government or changing lightbulbs is the way forward on this one is worth anyone's time.  I think that people should be trying to live more healthily, more happily and more sustainably, and at the same time should be aware of the root causes (as much as we can possibly understand such complexity), and ideally should be active in some "social change" activities.  I fully agree with Shove (2010) on the need for a clear vision and alternatives.  I actually agree with quite a lot that she says.  But to suggest that these two paradigms can't cohesively come together is enough to make me need another glass of wine. 




Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.

Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, Saffron & Lorenzoni, Irene. (2011). Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst and beyond disciplines. Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 258-261.

Shove, E. (2011). On the difference between chalk and cheese: a response to Whitmarsh et al's comments on "Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change." Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 262-264.

Kenis, A. & Mathijs, E. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: the role of power, knowledge and strategy in tacking climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18 (1), 45-65.