The Human Glance, the Experience of Environmental Distress and the “Affordance” of Nature: Toward a Phenomenology of the Ecological Crisis

Vincent Blok

doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9565-8

Abstract

The problem we face today is that there is a huge gap between our ethical judgments about the ecological crisis on the one hand and our ethical behavior according to these judgments on the other. In this article, we ask to what extent a phenomenology of the ecological crisis enables us to bridge this gap and display more ethical or pro-environmental behavior. To answer this question, our point of departure is the affordance theory of the American psychologist and founding father of ecological psychology, James Gibson. There are two reasons for taking this approach. First of all, an ontological reading of Gibson’s affordance theory provides a concept of nature which is non-dualistic, non-anthropocentric and eco-centric, but is not seen as an ‘intrinsic value’ or product of ‘human valuation’. Secondly, the affordance ontology provides us with a concept of nature which in itself calls for certain action and behavior. If we indeed face a gap between ethical judgment and ethical behavior with regard to the current ecological crisis, an affordance of nature could bridge this gap. Based on our ontological reading of Gibson’s affordance theory, we open a radically new perspective on the current ecological crisis and the responsibility of mankind with regard to this crisis.

Highlights

The main societal problem we face today is not that the necessity of a more sustainable economy is not recognized
As long as the human-as-apart-from-nature attitude is dominant in our society, the human glance of environmental distress is insufficient to bridge the gap between our ethical judgments about the ecological crisis and our ethical behavior according to these judgments
We are not or not primarily afforded to ‘alter the disturbed circumstance’ as Casey suggests, but to manage the human and natural resources of our planet. It is this affordance of nature to manage human and natural resources which explains the gap between our ethical judgments with regard to the ecological crisis and our ethical behavior according to these judgments

Summary

Introduction

The main societal problem we face today is not that the necessity of a more sustainable economy is not recognized. What this human-as-apart-from-nature attitude fails to see, according to Casey, is our lived connectedness with the world around us.3 Our ethical responsiveness toward the ecological crisis presupposes the human glance of the affordances in the environment and a conceptualizing of human existence as interconnected with the environment; a human-as-a-part-ofnature attitude which is characterized by non-dualism, non-anthropocentrism and eco-centrism.

Results

Conclusion