Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Frames about nature Nadine Andrews August 2012 MRes paper Highwire DTC Lancaster University
1. CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS The way we conceptualise nature matters. Thinking of nature as a resource to be harnessed, a victim to be saved or a mother that nurtures us shapes the way we behave towards nature. As Lakoff & Johnson (1980) say, we act according to how we perceive.
They explain that our conceptual systems influence our thoughts and structure how we perceive and think, what we do, and how we relate to others. These systems are largely metaphorical in nature, and we are always searching for appropriate metaphors that make sense of our lives. Through metaphor we can communicate and share experiences; the arts too play this role.
Conceptual metaphors are grounded in our everyday experience of interacting with the world. From interaction, understanding emerges. However, metaphors are incomplete representations: they privilege one way of seeing and obscure others, so there is always some other aspect of the experience that is being downplayed or hidden. This is important to be aware of because we live our lives on the basis of inferences we derive via metaphor.
According to Johnson (1987), the experience of physical containment, spatial boundedness and differentiation is one of the most pervasive features of human experience.
In experiencing ourselves as discrete entities separate from the rest of the world, when other things don’t have distinct boundaries, such as clouds or a clearing in the woods, we project our own physical in-‐out orientation on to them, conceptualising them as entities limited by boundaries. Defining a territory, Lakoff & Johnson say, is a basic human instinct (1980).
The schematic structure of in-‐out orientation that comes from the experience of containment implies:
• Protection from or resistance to external forces
• Forces within the container are limited or restricted
• The contained object get relatively fixed in its location, which can be accessible or inaccessible
• Transitivity of containment: if B is in A, then whatever is in B is also in A
As we shall see later in this paper, conceptualising nature as a container is extremely common, regardless of how interconnected with nature our self-‐identity may be.
The perception of separation from nature is so deep in our conceptual system, according to Lakoff (2010), that we cannot simply wipe it from our brains.
2
2. COGNTIVE FRAMES More specific than conceptual systems are cognitive frames. These are bundles of strongly linked concepts, emotions and values that are learnt through experience and association and stored in our memory. These structures serve as ‘frames of reference' for interpreting new information and experiences. The frame for ‘house, for example, includes information about structure, shape, functions of parts, and emotions about houses or ‘homes’.
Lakoff (2010) says that we cannot avoid framing. The question is which frames are being activated and hence strengthened when we use certain language, and what behaviours these frames then motivate. Language then, is constant kind of priming (Chilton 2012). Frames in environmental discourse
Analysing language, especially metaphor, can tell us a lot about what the frames and conceptual systems of a person, or indeed a society, are like.
Lakoff (2010) has researched frames in political discourse about the environment. He identifies two main contradictory moral systems in political discourse about the environment:
• Conservative, which has ideas that work against environmentalism (humans are above nature, nature is there purely for human use and exploitation, the market is the highest authority)
• Progressive, that has the values of empathy, personal and social responsibility, and wanting to make the world a better place (starting with yourself) at its heart.
The conservative moral system has an anthropocentric utilitarian ethic, whilst the progressive moral system is more likely to have an ecocentric ethic where human self-‐interests will sometimes lose out as we act in service to the broader ecological community (Curry 2011).
Dryzek (1997) has also analysed environmental discourses, broadly classifying the main discourses as follows:
REFORMIST RADICAL
PROSAIC Problem Solving Survivalism
IMAGINATIVE Sustainability Green Radicalism
These categories relate to the way in which discourses depart from dominant industrialism discourse of commitment to economic growth and material wellbeing – Lakoff’s conservative moral system.
Problem Solving is about maintaining the status quo with regard to industrialism, with some adjustments via public policy. It favours a technofix approach to solving environmental problems.
Survivalism is apocalyptic and focuses on limits. It is radical because it seeks wholesale redistribution of power within industrial political economy. It is playing the same industrial game but with new rules.
Sustainability attempts to dissolve conflicts between environmental and economic values. It is imaginative because it redefines concepts of growth and development.
3
Green Radicalism rejects the basic structure of industrial society and the way the environment is conceptualised. Gaia theory and deep ecology are examples of this type of discourse that seeks not just new rules but new games. It is only in this domain that we are likely to find ecocentric ethics.
Dryzek explores the content of each these categories in more detail, finding discourses within discourses, and certain key metaphors and rhetorical devices that are associated with them. He finds that although those who subscribe to one discourse may find it difficult to comprehend how another discourse views the world, complete discontinuity across discourses is rare and interchange across discourse boundary can occur. Dunlap (2008) thinks we are in the” midst of a paradigm war” (p.15).
According to Lakoff, a large proportion of the public is significantly bi-‐conceptual with versions of both conservative and progressive value-‐systems in their brains but applied to different issues. He argues that what needs to be done is to inhibit the conservative frames and activate the progressive frames on the environment through both language and through experiences of the natural world.
Repeated interaction with nature builds empathy, it leads us to see the inherent value in nature and creates a stronger relatedness to nature as in-‐group (Lakoff 2010). Self-‐transcendent values and a self-‐identity that sees itself as interconnected and interdependent with nature motivates pro-‐environmental concerns (Schultz 2007) and responsible consumption behaviour (Brown & Ryan 2003; Brown & Kasser 2005). Seeing nature as out-‐group, on the other hand, is a major factor affecting the emergence of such behaviour (Crompton & Kasser 2010). Feeling connected to nature also meets the intrinsic human psychological need for relatedness, triggering the reward response in the brain (Rock 2009). A considerable body of evidence has built up in recent years, linking connection to nature with wellbeing. Researching frames about human-‐nature relationship
Environmental discourse analysis helps us understand the different shared ways that the environment is apprehended, especially politically.
However, specific research on frames to do with human relationship with nature is a totally new field of work, but one that is extremely important and pressing given its link to pro-‐environmental behaviour and the scale of global ecological problems that we face.
As a starting point, I analysed written reflections of 14 participants of experiential nature workshops. I wanted to find out what frames and metaphors could be identified. If these people, who could be considered to be more likely than the general population to see themselves as connected to nature, shared certain similar frames, what might this mean for stimulating pro-‐environmental behaviour more widely?
This is very exploratory research, and limited in scope due to HighWire project timescales, but even these tentative early findings indicate this is a very rich area of study.
In doing this work I received invaluable advice and guidance in frames analysis from Paul Chilton, professor emeritus of cognitive linguistics at Lancaster University. It is our intention to build upon this early work and co-‐author a paper later this year.
4
3. FRAMES ABOUT HUMAN-‐NATURE RELATIONSHIP Below is a list of conceptual metaphors (in capitals) that I have identified, illustrated with example extracts from the corpus, with key words underlined. This list is followed by a commentary. The metaphors are indications of the frames in use. Each participant has been assigned a code. At the end of this section is a diagram of these and other frames identified from my review of literature over the summer.
There are three key semantic domains evident in the corpus: a spatial frame often involving movement, a time frame, and a sensory frame.
We can see how even in these short extracts there are two or more metaphors in use in the same sentence, highlighting how our conceptual systems are not consistent overall (Lakoff and Johnson 1980).
It is also worth noting that when people use the term ‘nature’, they may be referring to:
• Rural places, the countryside, wilderness areas
• Phenomena of the physical world: wildlife, habitats (e.g. mountain, sea, forest), weather, wind, sun, moon, stars, planets, day and night, the seasons etc.
• Underlying cosmic force bringing these phenomena into being (Nature; the laws of Nature)
• Basic or inherent features, innate or essential qualities of something
NATURE IS A CONTAINER / OBJECT
K2C: I think I could recall my sensibilities of me being a part of nature
K2D: Much of the time I don’t feel in direct contact with nature. I’m looking out of a window at ‘it’ (as though it is an ‘other’) rather than being in it (and part of it)
NC2A: Arrving in Glen Prosen I was looking forward to being in the outdoors
NC2A: Sitting here in this amazing scenery
NC2C: And so to the day out in the hills -‐ alone
NATURE IS A PLACE
K2B: I would spend hours outside in the garden, mountains or wherever
K2A: I feel I need to spend more time out there to experience myself and reflect more
K1D: I still wonder where I fit in.
NC2C: After a day’s reflections, Friday saw the weather decline still further but it didn’t hinder a glorious trek into the hills and glen.
NC2C: The afternoon saw us venture out on the hillside [NATURE IS A SURFACE] through bracken, burn and bush in the midst of a glorious tapestry of autumnal colour.
5
NC2D: …just hanging out in nature. Eventually settled on a spot [NATURE IS A SURFACE] and settled into the day [DAY IS A CONTAINER]
NATURE IS A PLACE THAT IS NOT A CITY or DAILY LIFE or THE WORLD
K1A: I find Manchester city centre a very noisy and busy place to live, and really feel the lack of nature, green, birds, etc in my life, so the retreat was for me a fantastic opportunity for space and silence and natural beauty
NC2A: Silence is so powerful and I think about all the unnecessary chat and noise that exists in my life and that of the society I inhabit
NC2C: It is difficult not to feel at peace. [RELATIONSHIP IS EMOTIONAL STATE] The old hymn from the early 1800s speaks through the landscape: “Drop Thy still dews of quietness, till all our strivings cease; take from our souls the strain and stress, and let our ordered lives confess the beauty of Thy peace.” [NATURE IS HEALER] The afternoon is in marked contrast to the daily business of modern life, however fulfilling in its own way it may be.
NC2A: And so the journey into nature and beauty began. Perhaps what completely surprised me was the feeling of being cut off from the world.
NC2B: This was about how, having been away from the world for a week, we would leave Knoydart and nature behind and enter the world of technology again.
NC2E: The journey home – travelling back to life away from the wilderness.
NATURE IS A CIRCLE THAT SURROUNDS
K2B: I love to suspend analytical and logical though (sic) and just experience what is around me. Nature.
NC2A: I want to move again and keep walking but decide to stay still and write and be nourished [NATURE IS HEALER] by the beauty [NATURE IS BEAUTIFUL] surrounding me
NC2B: Later, when I heard the hunting horn’s (sic) being blown and heard them echo around the hills of Knoydart and I heard the echo of laughter and German voices shouting I remembered the stag and I was surprised at how jarring it was against the beauty of the surrounding [NATURE IS BEAUTIFUL] and I was surprised that I was angry.
NATURE IS A SUBSTANCE
K2A: I must say I do see nature in all things.. even built things have their origins in nature
K1A: I really enjoyed the wilder parts of the countryside where we were, being immersed in a place with no signs of humans and just the sounds of birds and sheep
K1D: Merging into earth – I sleep
K2A: I do still wonder how much [SUBSTANCE HAS QUANTITY] I am nature, and how much I ‘build myself’? [SELF IS A CONTAINER FOR NATURE]
6
K1E: Unfortunately not much wilderness around [SUBSTANCE HAS QUANTITY]
NATURE IS A CONDUIT
K2D: I feel a connectedness to the world through nature.
NATURE IS SELF
K2A: I am nature
K2B: I am Nature
K2D: Nature is a very important part of my life spiritually.
NATURE IS A PERSON [THAT HAS AGENCY]
K2A: Nature has degrees of presence… it has a voice in some manmade environments.. and not in others
K2D: The retreat helped me to re-‐establish some of the connections that felt damaged. I felt more directly connected through my senses and found my place within that space [NATURE IS A CONTAINER]. I felt a huge sense of relief. I felt happy. Though this may sounds strange, it felt like making intimate friendships… The time enabled me to stop and really notice, really pay attention to the micro and macro in nature, and the intricate relationships and interconnectedness of things. I would compare it to relationships between people. If you don’t pay attention to the person you are in a relationship with, how they are, what’s going on for them, the quality of your relationship with them, things slide and the relationship can become less than it was, or even fall apart. I think my relationship with nature is the same. It needs attention, and care. [RELATIONSHIP IS ATTENTION]
K2A: I truly felt ‘nature calling’ me to listen to the river in the valley as well as the wind on the mountain
K1D: To commune with nature
NC2B: Does nature remind us our place? Our insignificance? Our responsibilities to something larger than the ‘self’?
NC2C: The weather was kindly – dull and overcast – one briefest of moments when it thought to drop a little moisture – the drops evaporating even before they hit.
NC2D: After passing a yappy dog I came across a baby deer (I’ll admit to first thinking it was a large dog-‐ I blame a cite-‐centre upbringing and the earlier yappy dog). We stopped and looked each other up and down. It didn’t care for what it saw and hot-‐tailed it to the forest.
NC2E: The solo day was overcast and so not much help from the sun.
NATURE IS A TEACHER
K2A: Nature has more to teach me
7
NATURE RELATIONSHIP IS TEMPORAL
K2A: I have very strong moments of connection.. I’d like to make these more constant
K2E: I get absorbed in the moment
K1A: Time kind of slowed down on the Saturday of the retreat, and I really valued every second somehow
K2D: Through the retreat I was able to be present and give the relationship attention
K2C: Being in nature [NATURE IS CONTAINER] for one day was very good experience for me…. especially spending time just on my own
NC2A: I have never stopped off long enough in nature to receive the sacredness within it [NATURE IS A PERSON WHO GIVES] I was too busy completing the walk or the task [RELATIONSHIP IS ATTENTION]
K2A: I would like to get an extra day or two to get in sync
K2D: As the time passed it felt like a merging or harmonising with nature
NATURE RELATIONSHIP IS EMOTIONAL STATE
K2B: I have always felt at ease with ‘nature’
NC2A: I know, in a new way, that living and being in the outdoors can transform and heal the self [NATURE IS A HEALER] and understand why so often, when living in the city. I have sought the hills or the coast to find an oasis for peace and reflection [NATURE IS A PLACE THAT IS NOT A CITY]
NC2A: This place feels so safe [NATURE IS CONTAINER], I am peaceful walking alone
NC2B: My overriding fear of Knoydart had been bugs and bodily crevices i.e. ticks and midges. [NATURE IS INVASIVE] I was constantly reassured that it was too cold for both and I would be fine so long as I stayed away from the long grass. So when I saw the sunshine I was both happy – it was beautiful and relaxing, and worried – did this mean ticks and midges? We assembled for our first foray into nature [RELATIONSHIP IS HOSTILE] and where did we go? Into the long grass!
NATURE RELATIONSHIP IS SENSORY [frame}
K2C: feeling the touch of the wind, smelling the green and seeing the landscape
K2E: I often find myself interested in contrasts, eg across colours, across scale, and in dissonance, eg. the harsh call of a songbird. The contrast between the grand, the backdrop of vast rolling fells and hard crags, against the infinite detail of numerous grasses
K2B: I find Kant’s description of the ‘Sublime’ very apt to describe the way I ‘feel’ the incredibly vast and the infinitely small of nature. I can’t comprehend it. I don’t even want to. I am just in shock and in owe (sic) that I am part of it. [NATURE IS MYSTERIOUS]
8
Commentary
I have not systematically quantified the occurrences of each metaphor, as that was outside the scope of this project but it should be the task of future research, in order to establish which are most commonly used.
However, it would seem at this stage of analysis that there are two overarching frames that recur frequently, which I will discuss. These are:
• NATURE IS A CONTAINER (OBJECT and SUBSTANCE) including NATURE IS A PLACE • NATURE IS A PERSON including NATURE IS SELF
Seeing nature as a contained place that you go to or from, into or out of, are within or without, implies there are places where you are and nature is not. It involves power relations – who determines who has access to what, and on what terms?
Furthermore, we can be physically ‘in’ a natural place and yet feel separate due to a lack of quality in the relationship. There is a degree of ‘attention density’ and mindful awareness needed to reach through the boundaries in our perception separating us as a discrete object from other objects. Otherwise we are, in the words of one of the experiential nature workshop participants, just “looking out of a window ‘at’ it”. This feeling of separation may be compounded if we have a conception of being on the surface of nature; the three dimensions of being in a place reduced to two.
NATURE IS A PLACE draws on the habitat definition of nature. It is relatively easy to feel connected to nature in a place with diverse species and little obvious evidence of human presence. But even in the most extreme built environments there is still nature. There are life forms everywhere though we may not see them with the naked eye. Every day for the whole of our lives we live in symbiosis (and competition) with trillions of bacteria, within and on the surface of our physical bodies. Are we aware of them as nature? We breathe air, feel the sun, the rain, the wind. Sometimes we might see a few stars, a bright planet or even a comet.
It is when we are mindfully aware of and feel connected to nature in urban contexts that we know there truly has been a shift in our conceptual systems away from physical containment, spatial boundedness and differentiation. I doubt this can happen if we only see nature as a place.
So could NATURE IS A PERSON be a more helpful metaphor? This draws on the physical phenomena definition of nature.
It may help us understand how giving attention to nature improves our relationship with it. Other metaphors such as NATURE IS A MENTOR, TEACHER or HEALER have the potential to be exploitative and one directional. Nature is a resource for human benefit, and we protect nature so it can continue to provide us with these useful services, rather than for its own sake. NATURE IS BEAUTIFUL is problematic because of its romanticism; it hides the creation-‐destruction cycle of natural processes.
Seeing nature as a person often assigns it agency, as we can see from the extracts. However, it could also conceptualise nature as a passive victim that needs our help to survive (‘save the planet’). Taking agency to its extreme, perceiving nature as a homeostatic organism that self-‐regulates, could lead us to deny human responsibility for ecological problems (it’ll sort itself out).
Ecopsychology sees its task as re-‐wilding the psyche: wilderness is a state of mind, a way of being. Nature is me and I am it. For sure, NATURE IS SELF seems to express the fundamental inseparable
9
integral reality of our relationship better than NATURE IS A PLACE, and avoids the exploitative pitfalls of NATURE IS A PERSON. It works so long as we have a healthy relationship with ourselves (‘love thy neighbour as thyself’).
Another helpful frame would be to conceive of nature as dynamic processes with energy constantly flowing between distinct (but not discrete) entities. This is perhaps harder to conceptualise in modern western culture, and there were no explicit examples in the corpus I studied. A metaphor might be NATURE IS ENERGY, which refers to the definition of nature as Nature: an underlying force. NATURE IS SELF could be used to refer to these meanings.
Lakoff (2010) calls ‘hypocognition’ the lack of ideas we need, and asserts that we are suffering from massive hypocognition in the case of the environment. Perhaps we just don’t have the language for it yet in English.
Lakoff says there are limited possibilities for changing frames through language:
“Introducing new language is not always possible. The new language must make sense in terms of the existing system of frames. It must work emotionally. And it must be introduced in a communication system that allows for sufficient spread over the population, sufficient repetition, and sufficient trust in the messengers.” (p. 72)
For new frames to take hold, they need to be institutionalised. If we do find new progressive frames about nature that work it will be because we’ve found powerful metaphors that resonate with people.
Such a progressive frame, whilst recognising the importance of restoring habitats for wildlife to flourish for its own sake, would go further than that in seeing ourselves as an integral part of nature, and perhaps further still, in understanding that natural entities are manifestations of an underlying dynamic web of relationships, of energy.
Other frames about nature
The frames discussed above are just some of those in use in our society. Reviewing literature as part of my summer project, I identified several other frames such as NATURE IS A USEFUL RESOURCE which is there to be exploited for human benefit. This frame is dominant in UK political discourse and in everyday language.
The following diagram begins to classify the various conceptual metaphors and frames. This is an early sketch, and will be developed further as part of my PhD.
10
Spatial FRAME
NATURE IS CONTAINER
NATURE IS SUBSTANCEthat surrounds us
it is everywhere
that we im
merse ourselves in
that we are w
ithin/without
NATURE IS OBJECT
NATURE IS USEFUL RESOURCE
to be exploited for human benefit
as provider of ecosystem services
to be marketised, quantified
as provider of experiencesto stim
ulate us
to be protected & conserved for human benefit
NATURE IS A HOM
EOSTATIC O
RGANISMto be left alone to self-regulate
NATURE IS PERSON
NATURE IS ADVERSARY
who is dangerous
to be controlled, subordinated
who w
e are in competition w
ith to be fought
NATURE IS FEMALE
who is m
ysteriousto be understood
to be reveredw
ho is nurturing
who is em
otionalto be suppressed
NATURE IS MENTO
Rto learn from
NATURE IS HEALERto heal us
NATURE IS VICTIMto be saved, rescued
NATURE IS SELF
who is part of m
e, and I am part of it
to be equal
who has agency
NATURE IS PLACENATURE IS A BUILD
ING
NATURE IS HOM
E
whose residents are fam
ily
that we go in/out of
that we are separate from
that we connect to
that we are part of
that we deepen connection w
ith
NATURE RELATIONSHIP IS
AN EMO
TIONAL STATE
calmpeaceful
energised
wild, untam
ed,
still
quiet
to be contrasted with URBAN LIFE IS NO
ISY, BUSY, FAST
LIFE IS A JOURNEY
JOURNEY HAS A PATH
with a surface
that we are on/off
with direction
that we are m
oving towards, aw
ay from
with a source or starting point,
and goal or end point
that we m
ove along at a tempo
slowness
with obstacles
with locations en route
Time FRAM
E0-
Sound FRAME
-
threatening
11
4. REPRESENTING HUMAN-‐NATURE CONNECTION THROUGH DIAGRAMS Schultz (2004) uses an amended Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) scale in his research:
The phrasing of the INS question reveals a framing of nature as an object and a place. Although the circles overlap, the use of solid lines suggests the boundaries for the self and for nature are not fluid. Raynor (2011) says these zones of overlap take a bite out of both ‘parents’ creating three mutually exclusive locations instead of two, and that without imaginative interpretation the dichotomy is not resolved.
Based on the metaphors identified in the corpus, I would represent the various possible relationships with nature differently, as shown below. The use of dotted lines conveys that the boundaries round the objects of self and nature are porous and not rigid. The entities are distinct but not discrete; they are, as Raynor would say, contiguous entities in common space.
Nature is part of me I am part of nature
A merging with nature (movement)
Nature Nature
Me
Me
Nature Me
12
Nature
Nature surrounds me (and is separate) Nature is separate from me
5. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FRAMES AND IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION WITH NATURE I was interested to find out if I could discern any clear correlations between frames and implicit association with nature (as measured by the online game version of Schultz’s Implicit Association Test-‐Nature) and self-‐identity with nature (as measured by Schultz’s Inclusion of Nature with Self scale).
Schultz (2007) explains that explicit measures of attitudes such as the INS scale assume that the attitudes exist, that they can be retrieved from memory, and that participants are willing to express them honestly. He proposes that whilst a person may not be consciously aware of a belief they hold about their relationship to the natural environment, it “nevertheless frames and guides the formation of other beliefs about nature, environmental programs and policies, and his or her concerns about environmental problems” (pp.1221-‐1222). The IAT-‐Nature test, on the other hand, measures implicit associations, which according to this line of reasoning should give this instrument an advantage. However, Schultz concludes that his findings indicate that the IAT-‐Nature does not provide a superior measure over existing explicit measures.
In my study, five participants of a nature experiential workshop completed a survey which included the IAT-‐Nature and INS scale, a question on frequency of time spent in nature or natural places, and an open question about their experience of being in or with nature.
The results based on this small sample are not conclusive, however those who spent time in nature every day had a much higher IAT-‐Nature score than the others who said once or twice a week. This finding echoes Schultz’s results that people with a greater implicit connection with nature spend more time in natural settings.
The participants in my study selected D, E or G as the pictures that best represented their relationship with natural environment. There was no particular pattern I could find between IAT score and INS picture. Schultz, however, finds a positive correlation between IAT-‐Nature scores and INS scale, indeed he says IAT-‐Nature results tend to parallel those of the INS scale.
I also couldn’t find any particular patterns between metaphors and frames and the INS scale or IAT-‐Nature results. This could just be because the sample was so small and comprised of people who
Me Nature Me
13
were more likely to associate closely with nature than average. However, I think that using my modified version of INS scale might yield clearer results.
Although the online game version of the IAT-‐Nature is fun to complete, my modified INS offers greater insight into the frames that research subjects may be using about nature, and is much quicker to complete. Furthermore, the IAT-‐Nature is object based, using words like ‘tree’, ‘flower’, and ‘boat’, which as we have discussed, is potentially problematic.
In conclusion, I would use my version of the INS survey in future research in preference to the IAT-‐Nature, in tandem with frames analysis for gaining insight into people’s perception of their ecological self-‐identity.
REFERENCES
Brown, K.W. & Kasser, Y. 2005. Are psychological and ecological well-‐being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research 74(2) 349-‐368
Brown K.W & Ryan, R.M. 2003. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-‐being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4) 822-‐848
Chilton, P. 2012. Values & Frames workshop, [workshop], Lancaster University, 13th June
Crompton, T. & Kasser, T. 2010. Human Identity: the missing link in environmental campaigning, environmentmagazine.org, 52(4) 23-‐33
Curry, P. 2011. Ecological Ethics, Cambridge: Polity Press
Dunlap, R.E. 2008. The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: from marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1) 3-‐18
Dryzek, J.S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: environmental discourses, Oxford University Press
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind, University of Chicago Press
Lakoff, G. 2010. Why it matter how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication: a journal of nature and culture, 4(1) 70-‐81
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press
Raynor, A.D. 2011. Space cannot be cut – why self-‐identity naturally includes neighbourhood, Integrative Psychology and Behavioural Science, 45 161-‐184
Rock, D. 2009. Managing with the Brain in Mind, Strategy + Business, 56
Schultz, P.W. et al 2004. Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 31-‐42
Schultz, P.W. & Tabanico. J. 2007. Self, Identity and the natural environment: exploring implicit connections with nature, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6) 1219-‐1247
