Enrolling Winnie-the-Pooh’s Companions in Climate Change Discourse
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 3 Jun 2019
Key Roles in the Environmental Psychodrama of Hundred Acre Wood
29 May 2019 – Produced in commemoration of the recent destruction of the Hundred Acre Wood — and in anticipation of further environmental challenges.
Despite its widely acclaimed urgency, the debate on climate change could well be said to be a shambles. Different groups take radically opposed positions and advocate radically different agendas, with seemingly little prospect of fruitful reconciliation. Separately it is argued that those claiming the greatest expertise are effectively “in denial” — despite their claim that those failing to appreciate their insights are themselves “in denial” (Are Environmentalists and Climate Scientists in Denial? 2019). There it is suggested that there is a strong case for a psychosocial perspective to review the tendency to “care fatigue” in relation to environmental claims and the “psychic numbing” of associated humanitarian appeals.
The following exercise endeavours to draw upon widespread insights underlying popular enthusiasm for Winnie-the-Pooh and his familiar companions, as described in a series of books (A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926) and subsequently in a Disney film (Winnie-the-Pooh, 2011). This is consistent with an approach advocated by Volker Patent (Reading news about animals as modern-day fables alerts us to human beings’ vulnerability to climate change, The Open University, 18 February 2019). Patent argues for restorying news of animals in the context of climate change in order to derive moral lessons about sustainable futures. The exercise here builds on the argument initially developed by Nik Darlington (Winnie the Pooh can Teach the Government A Thing or Two About Environmental Planning, The Huffington Post, 14 July 2011).
A number of studies of relevance are reviewed in a later section in the light of a variety of efforts to elicit governance insights from animal fables. These include: insights from the Winnie-the-Pooh series in the management literature; comparisons with 9-fold team role characteristics; correspondences with the enneagram 9-fold pattern of roles; and analysis by neuropsychologists of the characters inhabiting the Hundred Acre Wood of the tales. The implications of the argument have also been considered with respect to the 9 political groups in the European Parliament, since they are faced with the need to address climate-related issues — in a political ecosystem, a “Hundred Acre Wood”, namely one subject to global warming metaphorically understood.
The question is whether the familiarity with Winnie-the-Pooh’s companions suggests that their traits may variously resonate with roles in the climate change and environmental debates at this time. Is it possible that they may offer a coherently memorable sense of a systemic perspective on the psychodrama in which people are variously embedded — a perspective which otherwise appears to be completely lacking?
Whilst speculatively playful, the following exploration is intended as a means of inviting reflection on how the different factions in the climate change debate play off against each other — each with their merits and limitations. No serious effort is made here to reconcile the nine characters with the Belbin team roles or the enneagram — however suggestive they may be. The proposal is that the characters in the series are indicative of dynamics in the environmental psychodrama — possibly meriting further reflection. Extensive description of each character is available from Wikipedia, where each is separately profiled.
The immediate purpose in what follows is to clarify in systemic terms the main roles (which are otherwise so widely appreciated), together with the psychological disorders from which they may variously suffer (if that is in any way relevant). Only a preliminary indication is given of the factions and exemplars of environmental discourse whom they may effectively caricature. A subsequent section considers how their dynamics in the Hundred Acre Wood may enlighten understanding of the responses to the issues of climate change.
The politics of climate change are one feature of the dynamics between political parties — readily described as dysfunctionally divisive and marked by mutual deprecation. Mutual accusations of stupidity, irresponsibility and irrelevance are matched by variously manifested expressions of dismissal even hatred and demonisation. Since Winnie-the-Pooh’s companions are widely recognized as functioning together reasonably amicably and symbiotically — even delightfully so — a larger purpose is to discover whether the typical array of political parties can be reframed in that light, beyond the specific focus on climate change.
Tags: Environment, Psychology
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article: