-
Foundation Two Discussion Cohort 22
-
31 Replies
-
testing
-
Ecopsychology and Coaching seemed the obvious blend for me, since Ecopsychology is concerned with the relationship between human and more-than-human, namely the idea that both come from the same ground of Being, and therefore are interconnected at all levels: body, mind and spirit. Unlike some of the authors in our required readings (part. Linda Buzzel-Saltzman and Craig Chalquist) I did not come to this work through a psychology or therapy background, but by realizing as a conservationist how ineffective public outreach and environmental education has been in stopping the destruction around us. Therefore while I see the potential in ecopsychology as a critical lens with which to approach and integrate issues that are seemingly disparate (social, political, psychological, environmental etc) – a transcontextual container if you will – I share the authors’ concern with using nature merely as a tool for human healing (p.20), which remains a dualistic and anthropocentric practice that defeats the purpose of the simultaneous healing of nature. For that reason I reject the term ”ecotherapy” as applied ecopsychology or as something I would personally practice, and prefer the term “guiding” for what I would like to do.
I am still exploring how coaching can help me facilitate that understanding of interconnectedness in my clients and facilitate the mutual healing of both humans and nature, and I think one has to be very careful in applying this work because if used to just enable individuals to function better in a consumerist, profit-driven society it cannot be called Nature-Connected. Ecopsychology can therefore provide the critical tools that question the fundamental assumptions of our modern societies, ways of life and being to a Nature-Connected Coaching practice, and inform the ways in which we are viewing our personal relationship with nature and also what kind of relationship we are facilitating for our clients. The ecopsychological theory is therefore useful if we do not want to perpetuate dualism, greenwashing and all the other -isms that stem from dualistic thinking (racism, sexism etc). There are however different branches of Ecopsychology from what I understand, and as with everything, some are less radical than others.
In terms of what ecopsychology means for how we approach our clients, by definition, an ecopsychological awareness of an ecological unconscious (Roszak) requires that we go beyond ego, something which Nature Connected Coaching tries to do with the presence of the vision council, the acknowledgment of the 50/50 dynamic of the coaching relationship (trusting nature to do a large part) and the ceremony framework. I think there are many creative ways this assumption of a greater ground of being can help the coaching process, and clients can explore their own connection, permeability and deeper states of mind (intuition, flow etc) in many ways from art to poetry/journaling, visualization, shamanic journeying and storytelling, depending on what skills and interests the coach also has. Funnily enough, sometimes I feel like ecopsychology is trying to re-invent the wheel, whereas it could enter into a discussion with indigenous ways of thinking and see how each person can find their way to their own ancestral memory and mind.
Lastly, as someone who dabbles in spiritual literature and practice, it was very interesting for me to read the article on Nonduality by Davis, and its critiques of an Ecopsychology that does not go far enough into the transpersonal. I don’t know about psychologists, but I agree with him in terms of environmental educators, who perpetuate the reductionistic mechanistic Newtonian models of the world, despite developments in ecological thinking such as the advancement of complexity and systems theory. I think the article might be slightly outdated in this regard, as in recent years Joana Macy’s work blending Buddhism and ecology has been quite popular, and I think other such efforts to blend ecology, psychology and spirituality are underway in the West. What I am taking from Davis is the suggestion that one has to be even more deliberate about the transpersonal process if one wants to truly be Nature-Connected, or rather to go beyond connection to becoming nature itself, through an awareness of a dimension of being that is beyond just intellectual understanding or an emotional bond. This requires a shift in ontology, and while I believe some of these deeper dimensions are not a difficult thing to recognize and experience with discipline and practice, they are quite a difficult thing to maintain, requiring a discipline that is perhaps beyond the scope of a Nature-Connected Coaching relationship. I would hesitate to call myself a spiritual teacher, though a connection with nature is inherently a spiritual thing, and I do not have enough experience in transpersonal practices to comfortably guide clients through these nondual dimensions, however I recognize the importance of continuing my own deepening awareness of Being, and understand this is a growing edge for me alongside gaining more traditional psychology-based coaching skills. I liked that he emphasized the integration of any shifts in being with everyday experience and action, as I think Nature-Connected Coaching is ideally situated at that intersection between inner transformation and action in the world. This groundedness is something I love about the coaching process as it is quite pragmatic. His examples of transpersonal practices really speak to the creativity of what we can apply as coaches, and I found it a very stimulating read which sparked my own imagination of what is possible within the Nature-Connected Coaching container.
-
Greetings Lilia! I really appreciated how you lasered in on the perpetuation of humans being as separate and more important than nature when one delineates using nature as merely a tool for human healing. It really called the reader to the depth of concept. I also feel that your points regarding ecopsychology opening communication with the indigenous ways of thinking, as well as integrating shifts of being into everyday life hit on the important point of normalizing nature connection. Your wording and points made me think of when Koszak noted, “Is there, indeed, any more urgent measure of our alienation then the fact that we must speak of our emotional continuity with that world as nor more than a “hypothesis.” The theme being that of course this has been thought of, of course this is a part of our everyday lives…how crazy is it that that is debatable.
-
Hi Lilia,
Its hard to respond to such a detailed response! The science behind what we are doing is important to know, but like how you mentioned in the beginning, I did not come from a psychology or therapy background either. Educating someone and guiding someone can go hand in hand. But I wonder where do we draw the line? Where and how does one know where to start or end? These very detailed and philosophical responses can be overwhelming and I feel we need to make it less complicated for the client in order for them to understand. Because even I can get overwhelmed behind the science of it and being overwhelmed can at times make people uninterested. Must find that healthy balance! Great response and I’d be curious how you take nature, science, and personal journey and mold it together. 🙂
Greg
-
Lilia,
What I hear in your words beyond the definition and delineation of therapy vs coaching, is that, whatever the name, an emphasis of giving back to nature is of core importance, requiring a real paradigm change of not using nature as just another humanistic tool that meets our human need to heal, but true nature-connectedness and relationship where reciprocation occurs…Nature changes us and in turn we change our behavior towards our Earth. I could not agree more!!!!!
-
-
Ecopsychology seems to have a number of different paradigms, possibly due to the sheer scope of the approach and/or because of its relative newness (at least in modern terms). Nevertheless, Buzzell & Chalquist in Psyche and Nature in a Circle of Healing, defined Ecopsychology with efficiency and inclusiveness when they stated simply that ecopsychology is the “study of our psychological relations with the rest of nature.” In contrast, coaching seems to focus less on the study and psychology of this relationship, and more on the relationship itself. Similar to ecotherapy being the “applied ecopsychology”, coaching focuses on the action of encouraging the relationship between a person and nature. Coaching refrains from the theoretical, clinical, or scientific, application of this theory. Instead, coaching assumes the connection, honors the personal and infinite nature of that connection, and focuses on its reinforcement. Moreover, ecopsychology has the potential to still place the psychologist in a healers role, whereas coaching places nature in that role. This simplifies the coach’s role from dominate healer to knowledgeable facilitator. While ecopsychology and coaching seem to have similar premises, they differ in their application.
The blend of ecopsychology and Nature-connected coaching adds to the foundation of my interests as a coach because it allows me to draw inspiration and context from the massive work that is being done by ecopsychologists, but as a coach I remain free from the assignment of having all the answers and possibly narrowing my audience by purporting a particular framework. This allows me to avoid the many rabbit holes involved in outlining paradigms and having all the answers.
For instance, Roszak outlined in Ecopsychology – The Principles, that “important to ecopsychology is the re-evaluation of certain compulsively “masculine” character traits that permeate our structures of political power and which drive us to dominate nature…”. Case in point, this principle immediately invokes a critical and diverging thought process in me. For instance, I am sensitive to generdization, but particularly in this case. In my opinion, by defining masculine character traits as foundations for modern unrest, we alienate those who identify as men from a concept and we potentially sow the seeds of self-loathing (which would be ironic based on Roszak’s point stating our current relationship with nature is a mirror for our unconscious projection; like taking a person struggling with insecurity and putting them down for being insecure). There are of course ways around this, by possibly highlighting there are shadow/dark sides to the continuum of the archetypes but that has all the markers of yet another rabbit hole. And even if Roszak’s use of quotations around the word masculine qualified its use, my mind would continue down the rabbit hole questioning the use of the term domination. In my worldview, dominion seems a crucial step shy, a step short from understanding the “compulsive character…which drives us” to use our planet. Instead, for me the word ownership, which can be equally found in the shadow side of the male and female archetypes, lies at the foundation of our ecopsychological disfunction. The minute we begin to own something…a person, an animal, a thing, a space, a time, the boundaries between ourselves are blurred; and it is a slippery slope to terms like “mine,” “yours,” and “them,” and an increasingly difficult task to comprehend appreciation and connection.
Waking up from my trip to Wonderland, not once in this intellectual exercise have I thought or worked on my/our relationship with nature. This is one of the many reasons I look forward to coaching. NCC coaching is in the same family as ecopsychology, and I looking forward to learning more and more from it as a foundational piece in my coaching work. However, I am grateful to be exploring a field that allows me and my clients to focus on active connection (not hyper-intellectualization, couch-work, and internalization ), and empowerment (not assuming I have the answers, there are no answers, or others have answers). However, this approach to coaching will not meet everyone’s needs. For instance, it is not structured to directly cure deep psychological trauma, or addiction. Therefore, the skills required for responsible coaching would seem to be:
Connection between coach and client to ensure authentic awareness of what is going on for each party.
Communication between coach and client to ensure both parties are on the same page regarding expectations and actions.
Care between coach and client to ensure a sense of safety and regard for both parties regarding sessions, referrals, and general relations.
-
Hi Julie,
I really enjoyed how you breakdown the simlilarities between Ecopsychology and Nature coaching. Coaching is the action of Ecopsychology and this means they go hand in hand. Again, there is so much science proving these theories and how nature truly heals. But at the same time the science can makes things complicated for people who are trying to disconnect and reconnect with nature. I love learning the science behind nature connection and Ecopsychology, but at the same time I don’t want to overwhelm myself with the science. I’d be curious if there is such a thing as too much science haha. But I can see you can really distinguish between coaching and therapy. This is good to know and break down the difference. Because this is what were studying to be and not therapists. Great Read!
Greg
-
Summary Post:
In “final” reflection, the relationship between Ecopsychology and NCC seems interwoven. The efficacy of either seems to rest within each. Ecopsychology brings powerful practical awareness to NCC, that in a science driven world can provide great validity to “common-sense” claims. And NCC brings powerful practical application to Ecopsychology, that in an otherwise mentally taxed world can provide a hands-on outlet to unmet needs. The boundary of each can often become blurred, especially when we delve into the nuisances of different sub-paradigms within Ecopsychology. Nevertheless, they are different and those boundaries between the two are important. In Ecopsychology, clinical work and science based observations implies the domain of answer giving. While in NCC, creating opportunity and empowering relations implies the domain of answer generating. I look forward to learning more from each sister field, with the ultimate goal of healthy connection.
-
Whoa, Julie, I love your rabbit holes so much! Your post helped me to discover a new layer to my own excitement around NCC. I totally agree that considering NCC to belong under the umbrella of applied ecopsychology provides a structure and context for the work as well as a freedom from having all the answers. This is so well expressed when you say “ecopsychology has the potential to still place the psychologist in a healers role, whereas coaching places nature in that role. This simplifies the coach’s role from dominate healer to knowledgeable facilitator.”
I’m absolutely fascinated by your discussion of generalizations around gendered character traits. I have a similar response to seeing domination gendered as masculine. Although I tend to believe that historically it has been that way, it doesn’t seem to me to be fair, useful, or correct to generalize from this. As you so eloquently point out, it only serves to alienate swathes of people which is totally counter to the goal of connection and relationship.
Though, as you say, this is a rabbit hole, I still find it an incredibly useful one. Unpicking these setbacks in the theory of ecopsychology helps me to finetune my language and orientation as a coach, which ultimately will help me better facilitate that connection and relationship for my clients.
Just as a final thought about your discussion of ownership… in Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer talks about how in the Potawatomi language, words that are nouns in English like “bay” or “river” or “mountain” are, brain-bendingly, verbs. She says this encodes the worldview of animacy in the Potawatomi culture. What follows from this is that unlike in English (or German or whatever), an it when you talk about land and nature just doesn’t exist; it’s impossible to own a verb! So I wonder how much of our “domination over nature” thing is actually encoded in our language, rather than in anything as loose as character traits and gender… Just some food for thought 🙂
-
-
Finally got ahold of how this new EBI website works. Im a little late!!
When talking about Ecopsychology and coaching, I feel its basically definitions overlapping each other. Ecopyschology is like the science between nature and human connection. The science proves there is strong connection between nature and humans and were slowly losing that connection I Feel. The coaching part comes into play to bring that connection back that we are losing. As a coach you are kinda like teaching ecopyschology to your clients.
The blend is essential to being a nature connected coach. How does one teach nature connection if they don’t at least have some form of grasp between the science on the health benefits. Like most things, people like facts and studies show nature is healthy for people. Nature connected coaches bring that healthy state of thinking back to the table. I personally enjoy knowing more of the science behind nature and its health benefits. In the coaching skills book on page 28 it says “What the neuroscientific research shows without any shadow of a doubt is that it is emotions that drive human behavior”. This is really interesting and makes total sense. Without the research and science proving this, how would one ever learn that emotions drive our behaviors and we must control our emotions to connect with nature. Because emotions is key between coach and client.
I also like in the coaching skills book they mention that advice giving is so counterproductive. This is important for us to know, because many times we naturally want to give our own personal advice and it might not be the correct advice, just what you want to say. This could be driven from personal experiences and its not productive at all because the client may shut down because they feel you aren’t listening. Without understating the science behind what you are doing, you are neglecting important information that has been proven right after many studies. Science is suppose to make our lives easier, but sometimes it can make things more complicated. We tend to over think things and sometimes science will clutter a simple answer and bring doubt into ourselves and this alone could encourage us to come up short.
The answer is fairly fluid I believe. But I do like how they explained it on page 95 for questions before answers in the coyote guide. States: “try to lead the answer out of people, guide them along from one logical question to the next”. We must let the client find the answers themselves. This will help solidify there thought and it won’t feel like you are giving them advice.
-
Greg,
I was giggling to myself as I was reading this because of the internal struggle between the philosophy of science…and science. I can relate as a biology major. I love how the Coyote guide encourages us to become the scientist, studying nature and applying our own findings to our world-view and personal psyche. The beauty of it and freedom inherent in coaching is that the board of scientists and psychological gurus that approve such matters are unnecessary as the nature-connection in coaching is personal and not subjected to the scientific scrutiny of that meaning.
-
Thank you Greg! Great insights. I really connect with your points about how the science helps people understand and get behind a concept, but that it can complicate things as well. And how Ecopsychology and NNC really go hand in hand, energizing one another. Your point about advice giving is very timely as well. I find myself drawn into this temptation often, especially when I am impassioned about something. The caution away from doing this really resonates with me, as you state…”it might not be the correct advice…they might shut down…we must let the client find the answers themselves.” Very useful boundaries and sign-posts!
-
-
Overall,
Ecopsychology and Nature connection go hand in hand. We must learn the psychology behind nature connection and why it works. Nature truly has the answers to everything because in essence we ourselves have the answers were looking for. We just need to slow down our lives to see the answer. Nature helps us slow down and really take a second to listen to what we are seeking. Thats why I enjoy nature and connected with nature. But this is also why I’m studying to be a nature connected coach because we are guiding people to there own answers and nature is being used to slow down their lives to find that answer!
Greg
-
Hi Greg and Julie,
thanks for reading my post and commenting 🙂 I think the philosophical response can be overwhelming when presented on a discussion board such as this, indeed, but as you both mention in your posts, it’s all about showing, doing and above all, being, which by the way could have been the nutshell of everything I wrote above haha. It’s something Daniel keeps drawing my attention towards also, “how do you want to be with your clients?”. The philosophy and science behind it is just a preparation in my mind for what happens in the field, and it is important to know ourselves in order to understand what exactly it is we are working towards, what tools are we working with and what is our vision of who we are becoming as people and who we are being as guides with our clients. Having said that, Greg, I really appreciated your question and it’s a million dollar question for me: How do we mold all those elements without overwhelming the client? So I will try to answer in terms of being, reiterating some qualities Simka mentioned in her last post: As a nature connected coach and person I want to show up in humility, vulnerability, reciprocity, attentiveness, presence, curiosity, trustworthiness, courage, integrity and also openness to what’s happening around me.
-
Ecopsychology, I have come to understand based off of the readings assigned and being strongly influenced by the chapter from Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind (Roszak, T., Gomes, M.E., Kanner, A.D. (1995). Sierra Club Books.), is an evolution of modern psychology which attempts to account for the Natural world in human construct. Freudian thought arose during a time of shifting human behavior and thought from a god-centered consciousness to a human-centric and science/evidence based consciousness. Appropriately, Freud grappled with the removal of an external being that gave eternal hope and the human race a chance for redemption meant for the human psyche. The premise of religious belief is the assumption that humans are inherently evil at the core of their being without an external form of “enlightenment” to escape eternal death. Freud in exploration of finding a solution to this way of thinking, replaced the sin nature with the ego and exploration of the unconscious to find connection and love. But at the core of this thinking is the belief that “within me there is something evil” and Ecopsychology continues this trend, extrapolating unconsciousness to stretch beyond the human psyche and into relationship with Earth, that evil residual in the human must be explored and brought to enlightenment for us to be in connection and harmony with our natural surroundings. The beginning and center is the human that seeks to escape entropy and disaster.
Nature-Connected Coaching, in contrast, begins with Earth at the center and human consciousness becoming aligned with and connecting with a Natural world that holds the answers because humans are Nature and belong here. It assumes that within the unconscious is a loving-all knowing consciousness that seeks harmony, balance, rebirth where entropy is not the end but the start of a new birth. Human consciousness feels to me like it loses the polarity of good versus evil in Nature-Connectedness (afterall, it is difficult to see the majestic eagle as a “bad guy” when that cute little bunny becomes lunch knowing that too many fluffy bunnies means environmental devastation on a local scale).
In short, the main difference I see between the two is the core of the belief system. Ecopsychology attempts to “fix” what disconnect is inevitable and holds polarity of consciousness; Nature-Connection assumes connection is inherent in human consciousness because of same-ness and looks at what IS and taking responsibility for changing consciousness to come into alignment with what one wills themselves to be.
-
Hi Erin,
I really enjoyed the most how you connected human consciousness and nature. I feel this is the bread and butter of what were trying to do. The human consciousness is where the deep seeded desires we have and this is where real change will occur. Perhaps to tap that consciousness, nature is the only way to really open the door. The science behind all of this will be very important to know. But applying it will be one of the biggest challenges in my opinion. Or perhaps it will be the easiest from some. Great answer!
Greg
-
Hi Erin,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts and it gave me a different perspective on Ecopsychology and Nature Connection. To be fair to the Ecopsychologists, they are not a uniform bunch. Some of them see the human unconscious not extrapolated outside but as sourced from the same “place” as the source of the Earth and the world itself, but I agree with you that this notion of fixing a relationship is perpetuating a dualism in itself, whereas the viewpoint of Nature Connection you describe has the potential to align to something already there, a sort of drawing of one’s attention to what’s already present, our reality as being Nature ourselves if you will. Your succinct description of this helped my own thinking along so thanks!
-
Hi Lilia, I agree, I am generalizing to a large degree the trends and history of psychology. I do not think that all ecopsychologists come from this place but we were asked to come up with a difference and I allowed my biases to go free here (haha). This is why I did not become a psychologist though, as my perception of everything I learned is coming from this place of something broken in the human psyche. And as long as it is seen as broken it stays broken, but what if nothing is broken and just needs aligning and direction with a powerful intention??? Everything to me is neutral and it is what I do with it that gives it a positive or negative spin. A paradigm shift is required and to me that paradigm shift is nature-connectedness. Again, this is a highly personal opinionated answer and not meant to be a guiding statement though.
-
Hi Erin 🙂 I totally hear you on the change of paradigm. “What if nothing is broken and just needs aligning and direction with a powerful intention?” LOVE THIS!
-
-
I do agree, I created a polarity of thought in my post that intensified the focal point of difference between the worlds of ecopsychology and nature-connected coaching, mostly on purpose. I agree, not all ecopsychologists think the same way or come from a dualistic way of thinking. And we need people doing the ecopsychology work from a new paradigm in order for change to occur! I am generalizing about the historical and traditional mode of psychological thinking that in my mind makes ecopsychology and nature-connected coaching different.
-
-
Hi Erin,
It was really interesting to read your post and I totally agree when you say “human consciousness loses the polarity of good versus evil in Nature-Connectedness” — your example of the “badness” of the eagle being irrelevant in the greater ecological context feels so right!
That said, I had a really different interpretation of the conception of the psyche in ecopsychology. I also found the discussion of Freudian psychology really interesting, but I understand ecopsychology and fundamentally rejecting that idea. From that same chapter “Where Psyche Meets Gaia,” I understood that modern psychiatric theory is based on a scientific worldview that positions the psyche as distinct and removed from the world around, but still at the mercy of the second law of thermodynamics. However, to me, the ecopsychologists seem to pretty clearly reject that view. Roszak quotes Paul Shepard about the psyche and self in ecopsychology: “the self with a permeable boundary…constantly drawing on and influencing its surroundings, whose skin and behavior are soft zones contacting the world instead of excluding it…. Ecological thinking registers a kind of vision across boundaries” (p.13). So in this way I don’t see the divide between Ecopychology and Nature Connection that you describe — to me, the polarity of good versus evil is just as absent in Ecopsychology as it is in Nature Connection.
So I’m fascinated that we had such a different interpretation!! I’m really curious about this sentence in your post: “That evil residual in the human must be explored and brought to enlightenment for us to be in connection and harmony with our natural surroundings.” Would you say a little more about this and how you see that playing out in ecopyschology? I would love to understand better the limits you see there!
-
I re-read the book excerpt to find out why I formed my initial opinion. I point to page 5 paragraph 2 where the author lays out the definition of ecopsychology. “Biophilia” is to me a form of nature-connection and presented as merely a hypothesis, whereas ecopsychology is the study of applying this hypothesis and must adhere to the scientific accepted “truths” of what the subconscious is and what human nature is as discovered and agreed upon by the scientific community. At the core of ecopsychology are the original founding beliefs and “proven” supported knowledge, as it must be because it is science. Which is why I am not a psychologist or even an ecopsychologist because I do not want to or need to have an opinion that must be scientifically backed by tangled webs of studies based on a Freudian core. I am a proud biophiliast, which means I live my nature-connection and don’t give a damn if it is supported. It is true for me and that is enough, and if my clients find a way for it to be true for them fabulous…otherwise I am happy being a lonely biophiliast, an interesting specimen for others to study (lol).
-
I love that, Erin! I’m feeling you on the not wanting or needing to always have scientific backing — so long as it works for you and it feels good, then screw the reductionism of scientific studies! I value science deeply for how far it has brought us in terms of rigour of thinking and depth of understanding, and insofar as it is a product of curiosity and connection — but as soon as it becomes colonial, telling us how we should or must think or behave, it’s time to put it behind us. Go you for living for you <3
-
-
-
-
In a recent collaborative workshop between the Berlin collectives Frauenzentrum and Black Earth Kollektiv, two activists outlined a nuanced and critical distinction between the environmental and climate justice movements which, though I had not heard it explicitly articulated before, felt deeply resonant. The environmental movement, they argued, is top-down, led mostly by white folks in the Global North, and focuses on industrial and governmental solutions to the climate crisis. The climate justice movement, on the other hand, is bottom-up, led mostly by BIPOC people and people in the Global South, and focuses on addressing community needs. This workshop taught that although well-intentioned, actions within the environmental movement often do more harm than good because they ignore the relationship between colonialism and the climate crisis, so they end up upholding power structures that erase the experiences of BIPOC folks.
Environmentalism’s future seems pretty bleak. Not only is it ideologically problematic, but economic sanctions and political campaigns have also proved themselves ineffectual; as Theodore Roszak points out in Where Psyche Meets Gaia, the boundaries of nation-states, free trade agreements, military alliances, and multinational corporations are far too rigid to incorporate the scale of change needed. No one’s healing can happen while we all live in what Buzzell and Chalquist describe as “an overbuilt industrialized civilization saturated by intrusive advertising and media, unregulated toxic chemicals, unhealthy food, parasitic business practices, time-stressed living, and… a heart-warping culture of perpetual war and relentlessly mindless political propaganda” (19).
So this distinction between environmentalism and the Climate Justice movement seems immensely important to me. Based in grassroots principles and without reductivist reliance on legislation, the climate justice movement positions relationships as paramount to ecological as well as intra- and interpersonal healing. It is also intersectional and centers BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and women’s stories and experiences.
Yet as people in the Global North grow aware of the climate crisis and there is an increasing pressure to Do Something, the Climate Justice movement isn’t always a clear alternative to environmentalism. As a white-positioned person from the Global North, my experience is that it can be challenging to connect to the climate justice movement. I recognize this partially as a product of privilege and white fragility; it takes work and commitment to search out and participate in community organizing, and that work is often too easy to not do, especially when I know my experience won’t be centered and there’s bound to be deep emotional challenges and self-reckoning involved. But it’s also a practical question of accessibility: I want to support and raise up BIPOC communities, and that has to be part of the work — but how do I engage my own community? How do I get others on board, especially those who are not as deeply engaged with racial, social, and climate justice issues?
I think this is where ecopsychology can be a powerful ally. As a framework, it is the lovechild of the environmental movement and psychology, which are both dominantly white, rationalist frameworks on their own. Yet in recognizing the history and shortcomings of its parents, ecopsychology applies an approach akin to critical theory, rejecting logic and rationality as the ways to solve either our psychological or our ecological ailments. Instead, as Roszak puts it, “ecopsychology as a field of inquiry commits itself to understanding people as actors on a planetary stage who shape and are shaped by the biospheric system.” Like the Climate Justice movement, it centers relationships, yet it speaks a powerful academic language that is positioned as white and western. From that comes a potential to reach folks who as it stands don’t have access to communities where this is taken as given.
Yet I believe this must be approached with massive attention to colonial history and power dynamics. It is crucial to recognize that a) ecopsychologists did not invent this idea and b) ecopsychologists are not the only ones working from this perspective. It might be revolutionary in white Western rationalist spaces, but interconnectedness of people and planet is an understanding that has never stopped being carried and tended by BIPOC communities worldwide, in spite of colonial attempts to destroy that knowledge. The grassroots Climate Justice movement is an example of the output of such communities — as are traditional practices of nature connection (which all too often get appropriated by white western culture).
This danger of appropriating and erasing seems to be something ecopsychologists are aware of: Roszak states that “ecopsychologists are acutely cognizant of how difficult it will be to bridge the gap between the dominant society and the surviving, often fragile and marginal primary cultures of the world” (Where Psyche Meets Gaia, 6). Yet it’s so easy for the idea of ecopsychology to get warped into something marketable. This is why we see “smudge kits”, western yoga practices, forest bathing, natural healing (and, perhaps, even nature-connected coaching) cropping up everywhere. As practices with hefty price tags in the West, they are all examples of BIPOC knowledge and practices are converted into something that is widely marketable to white, wealthy Americans and Europeans. It’s a form of modern-day colonialism which can strip those customs of their meaning and potential to benefit the already-disenfranchised communities where they originate.
So in working ecopsychology into my coaching practice, this is something that needs to be at the forefront of my mind. As Buzzell and Chalquist point out, “ecotherapeutic practices cannot be used to lasting effect from within the old colonial-consumerist mind-set…. Using nature as a mere tool for human healing perpetuates the very self-world splits responsible for both our ecologically resonant maladies and a deterioriating biosphere” (20). For me, this means I need to continue learning and working on dismantling white supremacy and decolonizing both in my personal life and in my offerings as a coach, for example paying close attention to accessibility for my services. It also means I want to give the utmost attention and intentionality to my language, such as on my website and in courses, and hold myself and my colleagues accountable for creating alternatives to appropriative practices within the wellness industry.
None of these musings particularly answers the kick-off question of where ecopsychology and coaching come together, it must be said. But that’s easy. For me, they’re the same. Is coaching is built on the framework of ecopsychology, then folks have a chance at making a difference both in their own lives and in the world around them. Coaching, then, becomes a practice of guiding people to explore their relationships with the planet. This point of relationship is what we explored in our last forum posts – that nature connection amounts to relationship and reciprocity.
I think the reason for all the politicized musings above is that the consequences of this in terms of social change are enormous. We’re all hurting. Though that hurting has different forms and different histories, we need communal ways of healing and restructuring that create a livable world for all beings. Ecopsychology offers an interdisciplinary approach to creating that communal, interconnected healing that is in some way harmonious with existing institutions and dominant communities in the Global North. If approached responsibly and conscientiously, ecopsychology can lend a Western-condoned psychological framework and vocabulary to guide folks in my own community towards sustainably transforming not only our unhealthy power dynamics we have with the earth, but also those we have between humans. That’s huge.
-
Hi Simka,
thanks so much for this well researched and nuanced post, I really enjoyed reading it, though I naturally felt some resistance when you mentioned yoga, forest bathing and nature connected coaching, as all those are things I practice. You could add mindfulness to that list, which drives me crazy these days when everyone and their grandma is advocating for it regardless of context and stripped of its spiritual potency and culture (I practice mindfulness too).
I hear loud and clear what you say about colonialism and white supremacy and wanted to ask: who do you envision will be reching out for your services as a NCC, and how do you view your practice as an opportunity for an intervention?
You said: “Coaching, then, becomes a practice of guiding people to explore their relationships with the planet. This point of relationship is what we explored in our last forum posts – that nature connection amounts to relationship and reciprocity.” I thought this was beautifully expressed, and I have been thinking very deeply along these lines for a long time myself. What I have come to realise is that beyond the cultural practices, indigenous ways of thinking are a method or a process, and these methods and processes can help us change our perception of reality itself, towards a more aligned way of being on this planet. Isn’t that sort of what we are learning to do here at EBI, reframe our perceptions, learn a method of transformation that helps us keep growing, not in material ways but in fulfillment? The question for me then becomes, in what ways can those assumptions of fulfillment and success that exist in the current Western paradigm be questioned and reframed within a nature-connected coaching relationship? If deeper needs are what we are looking at, without having evidence to back me up, I would say most peoples’ needs are along similar lines: connection, love, freedom, community, validation etc. Are these really found in the surface level things that we usually think about and are sold on such as soul-draining careers that harm the Earth and ourselves, material things, status etc? or are they found within structures of society that are more ecological and compassionate to people and planet? Furthermore, if Nature is seen as a collaborator, co-creator, container and source of deeper knowledge as part of the paradigm of NCC, is that not challenging to the western idea of the solid, fixed individual (and therefore the perception of fixity of others which causes us to objectify them) Is Nature Connected Coaching then a secular yet “sustainable” practice? I suspect it might be if the client is able to grasp those things i.e the assumptions behind the modality. Furthermore, I think people who are fulfilled, nature-connected and taking responsibility for their lives don’t go around behaving like addicts or adolescents hurting others in the process, but become of service to the greater scheme of life. However, I do believe like you said that the coach still needs to have all these things clearly thought out and to be aware and questioning of their own privileges and blind spots, to be able to draw attention to these insights as they arise, and maybe to frame them in a greater scheme of the collective for the client too. What are your thoughts?
-
Lilia,
Thank you deeply for such a nuanced, thoughtful, and challenging response. I wanted to really think about these questions for a while before responding. As with the last forum discussion, I can feel myself being deeply stretched, and I’m so grateful to you for that!
I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to my concerns when you said “everyone and their grandma is advocating for it regardless of context and stripped of its spiritual potency and culture.” I think the thing I want to keep in mind at all times is that the wellness industry is now literally bigger than the global pharmaceutical industry (globally it’s worth something like $4.5 TRILLION!! absolutely mental…) The vast, vast majority of it is dedicated entirely to extraction of capital – and I think what is particularly sick about that is that it comes with a label of healing. It preys on the people who are looking for meaning in life, and corners them in a spandex-clad, green-smoothie-drinking, designer-yoga-mat-using parasitic relationship.
And yet the world isn’t black and white, so even when we’re clear that this is not the kind of wellness industry we want to participate in or perpetuate, it can oftentimes be hard to see below the surface at what we’re accidentally perpetuating. People’s intentions can be really, really good and they can still do a lot of harm. So that’s where I’m working – how can I see below the surface and make sure my practice is actively doing good, not just for myself and my clients but in service of something greater?
Something I’ve been thinking and learning about recently is that one thing the wellness industry and capitalism generally tricks us into believing is that our happiness, healing, and wellbeing are fully and completely our own responsibility. It feels really important to name that trauma is something we collectively experience (this podcast episode blew my mind around this: https://www.robhopkins.net/2021/02/15/from-what-if-to-what-next-episode-20/). So healing must be as well.
So to answer your first question – who will be reaching my services, and how can my coaching practice be an intervention – I’m still figuring this one out, but my vision is to tailor my services to folks who want to create new ways of existing and healing, especially activists, artists, and likeminded healers. I want to be in a community of folks who are doing things differently, challenging themselves and one another with radical kindness, and creating something better together. Money can still be involved – we need it to survive in the current context – but I want to be integrally a part of something different than what we’ve been told is the only option.
I love your exploration of how all of this fits with Nature-Connected Coaching. I’d tentatively agree with what you said about indigenous ways of thinking being a methodology — I’m not indigenous myself, so I don’t get to own that truth. But what I have heard talked about recently is indigenous ways of being coming down to being in relationship — something that, even if not a methodology, has the emergent outcome of an aligned way of being on this planet, just as you say. I definitely agree that that’s a large part of what we’re learning to do here at EBI. I guess I wish the glorification or romanticization of indigeneity was left out of it; can’t we just learn to be in relationship in our own contexts? (That sparks a bit of a rabbit hole in my thinking – I wonder if owning our own relationships instead of borrowing from indigenous relationships would force us (by ‘us’ I’m talking from my perspective as a white person from the US, so I don’t mean to speak for you) to confront all of our colonial and oppressive history and internalized generational trauma. It’s much more comfortable to just borrow from the folks who got it right, without doing the deep work of understanding ourselves and why we don’t have these relationships. I don’t mean this as a critique of what you’re saying, but rather a reflection on institutionalized, unconscious avoidance of the hard shit. But like I said, a rabbit hole…)
But all of that aside for a moment, I particularly love what you say about the western idea of the solid, fixed individual; that feels really important. I feel like that might relate to what I was musing about in terms of the collectivity inherent in the coaching/healing world I want to participate in. Individuals are then neither fixed in terms of their lives, nor in terms of their boundaries with other beings, human or otherwise.
But I think I have a bit more of a pessimistic view on this than you, or at least I’m skeptical about whether this can arise simply from awareness and nature connection. The boundaries between participating in dominant culture and being in service to the greater scheme of life are fuzzy at best. I feel like it takes a lot – a LOT – of work, listening, intentionality, and willingness to be wrong and be uncomfortable to get to a place of truly living responsibly.
And yet… none of us are perfect, and it is totally counter to the entire goal if I try to hold on to some ideal endpoint of perfection and freedom from mistakes. It’s a constant process and there’s no right answers. So I guess I feel like so long as we’re willing to do the work, we’ll be okay.
Okay, that was a long one. Would love to hear thoughts of yours if they come up, but I’m sure this is something we’ll keep exploring together as the year progresses.
-
Hi Simka,
I admire so much how deeply and compassionately you think about these things.
I absolutely agree that it is not enough to stop at personal responsibility, and personal trauma/wellbeing. Spot on. I think if you’re doing it right, inevitably you hit that part that’s collective….but the main critique of ecopsychology is that, that pscyhotherapy didn’t go deep or wide enough to include society and nature. Similarly, all these wellbeing practices that address the individual are not radical enough, and they perpetuate the problem. That alone is a great starting point I think: Knowing this, how do we coach?
You said you want to be part of a community of people who do things differently…right on. I’m still exploring this question myself about the community where I find myself in. I can’t wait to see where this exploration takes us both.
You mentioned glorification or romanticization of indigeneity. On the one hand there’s that (the “noble savage” image), but on the other hand there’s its complete opposite (the “primitive” who gets in the way of progress, and “look how much better we are now than 300 years ago”) and indigenous people the world over are still facing genocide and erasure. I hear you totally on the deep listening required. Incidentally, I didn’t mean borrow indigenous people’s thinking or practices, but to understand ways of thinking and relating. I think our western societies have educated those ways out of us, and it is important to study and take seriously these alternative epistemologies in their own right. The practices in themselves are not just “woo woo” or superstition, but most of the time (though not always) hide behind them a logic we just don’t understand. If you’ve ever been in any western institution you might have noticed the resistance by the establishment to even entertain these different ways of being and thinking. There are literally no spaces for us to engage in serious study and exploration, except in our own private rooms and chat rooms, often without rigor, just shooting in the dark for some understanding. At least this is how I’m experiencing my own exploration, and inevitably I come across some total spiritual nonsense on the way, but I appreciate the freedom not being a part of an institution offers me to engage in free thinking and experimentation.
As far as pessimism goes, I think for a long time in my life I was really in a dark place about the state of society and the planet, but I realised that being in the system is inevitable. Even the people who think they’ve escaped by living in some alternative community away from mainstream society are participating in it in other ways, or have been afforded the privilege of “escape” through having the means to go out and escape. “Sustainability” comes with a price tag, and working “sustainable” jobs similarly comes with privilege. Guilt is not very conducive to change, meaning is a better compass, at least from personal observation. As you said, we are part of a collective, and it will take generations to transition. I have realised for myself that the best thing I can do is create those relationships and opportunities for something new to arise, like you said, so that perhaps a little shift in being can bring about a new configuration in my descendants, and the transition will be helped along. Not sure if this sounds really vague, but basically allowing myself to enter the compost of my community where all our ideas are mushed together, and offering ideas which are a little more aligned, a little more harmonious with the land and living from those ideas as much as possible in a system which requires conformity and stamps out all the little seedlings of difference. It’s a very small thing and yes it requires a lot of inner and outer reckoning and healing, but we have literally no idea at this point what can bring about the change without perpetuating the thinking that got us into this mess.
Being willing to do the work requires the skills of humility, courage and transformation (I call them skills because they are not easy and take practice), and this is where my faith in nature connection and coaching comes in, cause I feel like coaching is meant to take you to uncomfortable places and push your growing edges in order to bring more awareness and change in your life. So, while not enough in itself, I think NCC is a good first step towards a life of adaptation, uncertainty and opportunity, as we are increasingly being faced with. We need mature, self-actualized human beings if we are to tackle the crises that are facing us, and this includes being able to see all the ways of being that are not conducive to what we want and shifting to better ways without meltdowns, fragility, deflection and victim mentality. It’s hard work but it pays off in the long term.
-
Also, I know for sure that you are right about confronting oppression and the history of colonization. I think that’s part of the personal process which then gets translated into real actions on the collective level. Blind spots are a real thing, and really frustrating. Personally, for me, this looks like owning my voice more and speaking out, but I acknowledge also the difficulty of walking that fine line between honouring my truth and alienating myself from the collective which shuns the “whistleblowers”, and also being compassionate with the people who are ignorant of the power dynamics they are perpetuating. Perhaps the people who would most be helped by coaching are the people least likely to pursue it, unless they hit rock bottom in relationships and life….now that’s something for me to mull over. How to let people know the importance of coaching, and market it to people who might need it the most?
-
-
-
Simka,
I appreciate the global views presented here. This is my first exposure to the idea of Global North versus the Climate Justice movement and will be doing some curiosity-based discovery of the positions of both. I agree that environmentalism’s future seems pretty bleak on a global level, which is probably why I am such an individualist (see comment to your comment above ;^), I focus on the microcosm versus the macrocosm and what I can DO right now, right here knowing each heart change at the individual level eventually reaches the global level if there are enough of us.
-
I really appreciate this ‘microcosm’ approach Erin! I wouldn’t call myself an individualist in any way, but I think I’m coming much closer to that place of focusing on ‘what I can DO right now, right here’ (see my comment below in response to Lilia!). It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the macro/top-down approach is important for context and understanding, but doesn’t itself change anything. The process has to be iterative: start with the individual, make the change on the level of the body, allow that change to trickle through to your behavior, and then step back to see how your world-view changes as a result. Then start all over with the body and repeat. On a collective level, this seems like it holds real power for change, just like you say.
-
-
-
Oooof, Lilia, this phrase “allowing myself to enter the compost of my community” GOT me. Like full-body tingles. Yes, yes, yes. You’re so right: it’s going to take generations, and it can’t be forced or escaped. It’s utterly pointless and hugely painful to boot to take on the responsibility to change the entire system at once, though that certainly is something I tend towards if I’m not careful.
Something I’ve heard Tada Hozumi talk about recently is this idea in the somatics of ‘animist-indigenous’ cultures (he’s talking especially about Asian animist indigeneity) where first the embodiment changes, and only then does the worldview change — not through explicit teaching but in an emergent way from the somatic change. Hearing this was so deeply relieving for me; it allows me to take a deep breath, somehow, and focus on the ‘compost’ instead of thinkingthinkingthinking about the systems and ideologies and blablabla.
But it also gives me a way to walk that important line you mention, a way into deeper compassion for those folks who are perpetuating power dynamics out of ignorance, without compromising my own truth: if I practice my own embodiment and connection, and teach others embodiment and connection, then it’s kind of irrelevant what any of us believe; coming back to this bottom-up approach allows me to trust that as we fall into an embodied way of being, our worldviews and power dynamics will heal too.
This seems to tie in to exactly what you’re talking about. It’s like you say, the ideological issues kind of fall away and the question turns into how we reach our clients — especially the ones who would most benefit (and society would therefore most benefit) from these embodied changes! It comes back to that ‘creating a need’ sweet spot that Michael talked about in the ‘Who Is Coachable?’ webinar, doesn’t it? Although, I have to wonder… is this also in some way an emergent process…?
