Either run the entire marathon or don’t bother trying. Either get an A or you might as well just fail. Either eat a whole meal now or just wait until the next one. Either do, get, or achieve everything – or nothing at all. This “all or nothing” mindset has almost no real benefits – it’s illogical, shuts out all except for two of the infinite other possibilities of life, and can turn a person away from huge opportunities. And yet, so many people have it. But, being “all or nothing” is perhaps the most existentially harmful when it comes to the climate movement.
When it comes to climate change, I’ve observed two major “all or nothing” narratives: either we can fix it or can’t do anything about it, and either we face an apocalypse by climate or civil war. I will dissect these in turn and provide counternarratives.
(1) We’re Doomed!
One major dichotomy is the idea that either we can and probably will individually solve climate change by direct action or lobbying or there is nothing we can do about it and it’s not even worth trying because we’ll all die anyways. Often, those with this mindset soon realize that one person absolutely cannot stop global warming and that recycling and taking shorter showers cannot magically stop the climbing temperature of the Earth. Then, a feeling of despair takes over, and they cease to do anything at all. This falsely assumes that (1) those individual actions are useless and (2) that the burden is even on the individual to fix a globally-created problem. It’s true that a single person switching to reusable water bottles may not create a noticeable change in the data, but part of the power in these individual actions is that they are simple, accessible (or at least flexible to different living conditions), highly doable, and will make a difference in the numbers if enough people do them. Additionally, the burden is not on the individual; it’s on the masses, the collective, and the areas where power rests to create this change. It’s unreasonable to expect instant gratification for an action (or set of actions) that depends on numbers to make a difference. Neglecting these facts and, instead, opting for that “all or nothing” mindset causes failure to act because of idealism, what Sarah Jaquette Ray calls the first stage of the “affective arc” of climate change (13). Holding onto this idealist hope (that you can solve the climate change problem by acting individually) and then seeing it crushed leads to the next stages in Ray’s arc: lost innocence, guilt, and then nihilism. Nihilism is where we find the “we might as well do nothing” mindset. Though a natural stage to pass through, one needs to avoid sitting and rotting in it and actually pass through and on to self-care. Because, if everyone reaches nihilism and then sits down, then nothing really will change for the better. To fix this, Ray suggests “training an emotional lens on climate change debates” (13) by identifying and accepting climate anxiety as normal, focusing on controllable aspects of the problem (in particular, she notes that “you have more options than fight/flight/freeze. You can regulate your feelings” (50)), and then acting within your niche. It is by accepting the desolation and then leaning into actionable solutions that one can get out of this particular “all or nothing” mindset.
(2) Apocalypse!
The other problematic dichotomy, then, is the idea that some major, violent movement is the only way to global warming and everything else is fruitless. This is the camp I tend to fall into. The belief is that climate change is caused by factors so large, so rooted in societal structures, and so out of reach for the masses save for some popular uprising, that the only way to truly stop it is by subverting these structures with a violent uprising. It then seems that anything else, although it might be marginally helpful, isn’t going to solve the big-picture issue, so our hands are tied – we might as well trudge along with our heads down. However, again, there are several false assumptions: (1) this uprising must be violent and warlike, and (2) this is the absolute only way to go. Although it’s true that capitalist society is the primary cause for global warming reaching such accelerated rates, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a structural revolution is immediately necessary or the only possible way to affect climate change. It also doesn’t mean that individual actions are pointless. Once again, this mindset brings us to nihilism and we run the danger of getting stuck. Here, Ray’s idea of “Finding Your Climate ‘Thing’ and Doing it Well” (79) becomes especially relevant. She invites us to examine our “spheres of influence, sites of change, and leverage points”, “accept messiness”, and value “critical connection [over] critical mass” (79). It is only by thinking smaller, backing down to what an individual can reasonably do, and then connecting that to the hope for a larger movement, that effective action can be taken. Ray also describes the importance of “resilient action”, a “mutually reinforcing dynamic between the personal and the collective”. The collective action people with this particular mindset call for cannot be achieved without individual action, emotion, and motivation. So, the best way to achieve this is by learning to act individually without trying to negate that action simply based on numbers.
In either case, the “all or nothing” mindset can greatly hinder action and cause nihilism, numbness, and altogether avoidance of the problem because it forces one to think that, unless they are acting with the most effective solution they can think of, they might as well not act at all. This is what stunts climate action and this is the nihilism that needs to be combatted through Sarah Jacquette Ray’s strategies. It is only by cultivating a mindset that allows for grey areas, rejects false dichotomies, and explores infinite possibilities that we can effectively fight climate change and climate anxiety.
Shared by: Wendy Wei
Image Credit: http://www.bodydesignbybrit.com/blog/2016/12/8/my-3-ss-to-avoid-the-all-or-nothing-mindset-trap