Psychological Roots of the Climate Crisis: Neoliberal Exceptionalism and the Culture of Uncare (Psychoanalytic Horizons)

This is a well-written, well-argued, thoughtful and thought-provoking book, exploring in depth and detail some of the psychological states of mind that contribute to, and are a response to, the environmental crisis that affects the earth in multiple systemic ways. Sally Weintrobe employs her psychoanalytic understanding to explain how states of narcissistic entitlement and exceptionalism have led to a ruthless exploitation of the planet and its more vulnerable inhabitants. She calls this the culture of uncare, which she contrasts with other states of mind that express care. The culture and state of mind of uncare is promoted by the economic framework of neoliberalism.Weintrobe explains how the foundations for neoliberalism were laid down by the Bretton Woods agreement following WWII. This international agreement provided for loans to exhausted economies and gave rise to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Crucially, the agreement gave superior voting rights to the USA and based these organisations in Washington. This allowed American business models and culture to dominate and spread their influence. However, during the postwar years, right up to the 1970s, a consensus of relative ‘care for the many’ prevailed on both left and right. It was not until the 1980s that the economic philosophies of the more extreme neoliberals, such as Friedrich Hayek, James Buchanan, and Milton Friedman, began to take hold, although they had been tried out in South America during the 70s (with CIA assistance). When this was combined with globalisation and the rise of the multinational companies, this allowed for the worldwide export of American capitalism, often in its most ruthless form.The right wing free-market libertarians and their billionaire backers infiltrated universities and also formed ‘think tanks’ with impressive and reassuring titles. Business and politics became closely entwined at the higher levels, thus creating a covert system closely corresponding to a definition of fascism.The neoliberals promoted a philosophy of greatly limited government involvement in the markets and in people’s lives. This encouraged an attitude of individualism and discouraged dependence on the state. The strong would survive. In this way, what Weintrobe describes as the mental states of uncare began to prevail. Friedrich Hayek presented an economic model of human beings based only on competition and self-interest, without the capacity to care. In the 1980s, after Margaret Thatcher was elected in the UK, and Ronald Reagan in the US, a culture of ‘greed is good’ became increasingly dominant. Extraordinary levels of wealth were accumulated by a small number of people, and rampant consumerism was encouraged.Consumerism and associated manufacturing required ever-increasing use of energy created by burning fossil fuels. Weintrobe does not state this, but the start of Thatcher’s period of government coincided with the coming on stream of north sea oil – transforming Britain from a state of escalating economic decline to relative prosperity as an oil-producing nation. There is evidence that the fossil fuel companies knew that their industries generated CO2 but financed policy institutes that promoted scepticism concerning climate science. However, we should, in fairness, note that Thatcher was herself a scientist (unusually amongst British politicians) and she did take an interest in scientific data – and it was her government that highlighted depletion of the ozone layer.Weintrobe argues that we have collectively viewed the earth, in unconscious phantasy, as “a breast/toilet mother who endlessly provides, absorbs, and cleans up” (p 68, quoting John Keene). When faced with the evidence of climate change as a result of our destructive greed, we are inclined to react with denial and further expression of uncare, or with shame and guilt. The psychic impact of the shuddering realisation of imminent catastrophe for the future of humanity is one of trauma.I hope I have provided a reasonably accurate account of key themes in Weintrobe’s text. Next I will outline some areas where one might be in partial disagreement.Quite a lot can be summarised by saying this is clearly a book that will strongly appeal to readers of The Guardian – i.e., well-educated, middle class, left of centre people who place a priority on the role of the state as a provider of care. Those readers may give less weight than is due to the fact that Mrs Thatcher’s government was elected not through the influence of the Koch brothers or right wing policy institutes but because millions of people voted for them (I did not). At the time, it was not at all difficult to see why. The 1970s in the UK had been a period of relentless economic and social decline, industrial relations dominated by soviet-funded trades unions that expressed overtly Marxist intentions to “smash the system” and call a ‘general strike’. Rubbish had been piling high in the rat- infested streets, the trains were constantly disrupted, and we had power cuts. Prior to the socialist government of the mid-70s we had suffered the ‘three-day week’ and TV shutting down at 10.00pm because of strikes and energy shortages during Ted Heath’s Conservative government. Coal and the miners’ strikes dominated our news. No wonder that Thatcher, with her clear common-sense statements about personal responsibility, living within our means, and an economic perspective shaped by her childhood as the daughter of small shopkeeper, all greatly appealed to a wide cross-section of the British public. Thatcher moved to break the power of the unions, particularly the miners, by building up coal stocks at power stations and also shifting more to natural gas. This had a terrible effect on the mining communities of the north. I should perhaps add that I loathed Thatcherism, at the same time as understanding its appeal very well.Even without the influence of the neoliberal economic theorists, many ordinary people, whilst agreeing with the principle of a safety net for the vulnerable, the sick, and those who could not work, disliked excessive dominance of the trades unions and the assumption that the state should always provide for every need out of taxation - itself a dangerous phantasy of an ever bountiful state-mother. Thatcher appealed to many in skilled and semi-skilled ‘blue collar’ jobs who liked to think they worked hard for whatever modest income they could achieve.Although Weintrobe argues, in some ways persuasively, that states of mind of uncare have been facilitated by the culture and psychology of neoliberalism, these human tendencies are surely ubiquitous and ancient. Children often display unpleasant narcissistic states of arrogance and uncare; some are naturally caring and others less so. The bible is full of ancient stories of people abusing and exploiting one another and engaging in entirely monstrous acts of uncare. Notions of compassion and love extending beyond one's immediate family do not appear until the gospels of the New Testament. They require the work of empathy - and for this to be balanced against the demands of reality.Paradoxically, much of the climate activist culture seems to have arisen from conditions of affluence. This is apparent in the idea that we may feel guilty on realising the damage our greed has done to ‘mother earth’. During my own childhood, in a small Yorkshire town, a very long way from London, both geographically and culturally, I saw deprivation and poverty everywhere. There was no unnecessary consumerism. Food was routine and modest. Clothes were rarely bought and had to last a long time. Our house was cold - no central heating. We did not have a fridge or a washing machine. Travel was limited and local. We cycled or walked to school. Holidays were a British campsite. The NHS and the ‘welfare state’, introduced following the war, were regarded with gratitude – they were not taken for granted. My point here is that rampant consumerism and its state of mind of uncare is a relatively recent phenomenon – perhaps too recent to be linked so closely to climate change. This was also a time when there was no possible or even imaginable alternative to fossil fuels as a source of heat and energy. We lit our fires and fuelled our power stations with coal.The dread of loss of work and being 'put in the workhouse' haunted my parents' generation. No doubt this has contributed to my horror at actions that damage the economy and people's livelihoods. Back then, there was no feeling of invulnerability - a state of mind that Weintrobe links with denialism and uncare. We knew that poverty, disease, freezing temperatures, and the harsh environment could all kill - and, living just a few miles from Fylingdales '15 minute warning' station, we all feared 'the bomb', the ultimate anthropogenic extinction threat.The economic perspectives of climate activists worry me greatly, because they seem to lack in any grounding in reality. Weintrobe gives the example of the Dublin fire department which set out to establish more sustainable conditions at the station. For energy the team installed new thermodynamic collector panels, gas-condensing boilers, and LED light fittings. Systems were established to reduce water flow to urinals and shower heads, and treated waste-water was used to put our fires. Local carpenters were used to make airtight windows and doors from sustainably sourced wood. Gardens were established for biodiversity. Used cooking oil was incorporated into vehicle fuel. This team of firefighters worked hard to care for the environment and the public. Obviously this was all very good and an inspiring example. However, if it is intended as an indicator for the wider economy, it is surely misleading. The building materials and technology would all have been manufactured or modified by energy based on burning fossil fuels. The example is of an ecological oasis that is covertly dependent on the wider contextual economy and systems of manufacture and supply.This relates to a broader point, that once considered may seem completely obvious, but seems seldom grasped. We have collectively created, and live within, a completely artificial system, a societal machine, that we cannot easily escape. If we live in an urban environment and look around our homes or in the streets outside, we will probably be unable to see or touch a single thing that has not been manufactured or modified by the use of energy derived mostly from burning fossil fuels. This applies to everything, from the clothes wear, the food we eat, the roof over our head, and every single object we have in our home or in the street. The manufactured world is so completely pervasive that we may overlook its presence and our dependence on it. Climate activists will travel, use mobile phones, wear clothes, use glue, and communicate with computers and mobile phones that have all been manufactured. To try to dismantle without careful thought, a machine in which one lives and is completely dependent upon, seems potentially hazardous and foolish.For example, suppose we all bought electric cars tomorrow (assuming we could afford them). Where would they be charged, and how would all that extra electricity be generated, particularly in winter when there is little sun to power solar panels, or when there is no wind. If we all stop consuming, what happens to jobs and industries that depend on manufacturing, and selling goods and services? Jobs disappear, the economy shrinks, tax revenues fall – and a spiral of economic and social decline ensues. This is not entirely hypothetical since the lockdown shows us exactly what happens.The demands of climate activists do often seem dangerously unrealistic. Therefore it is disconcerting to read of Weintrobe’s sympathy for Extinction Rebellion, a group that engages in direct action to disrupt daily economic and societal activities, and was co-founded by a man who advocates (on his website) mass action to shut down the economy and provoke a violent revolution (although this man has been subsequently disavowed by XR).Weintrobe writes of the narcissistic features of entitlement, denial, and uncare that characterise creation and denial of the climate crisis. Paradoxically, I perceive precisely these states of mind in the actions and justifications of the militant climate activists. There is a formation of a group culture that facilitates a sense of entitlement to disrupt and endanger the lives of ordinary people, seemingly without empathy or regard for the situation of those so affected. The suffering of people trapped for hours in traffic jams, unable to get to important appointments, and without access to food or a lavatory, as well as disruption of emergency services, are all dismissed as a small current inconvenience in the service of a long-term ideal of saving the planet. As a result, the group superego now condones criminality and cruelty to members of the public struggling to go about their daily lives - another state of uncare. Moreover, the demands that are made again seem to lack any grounding in reality.The earth's climate has continually changed. Many argue that we have collectively contributed to current warming of the planet. Probably they are right, although climatic processes may be at least as complex as economics, and no-one seems able accurately to understand or predict the latter. Some may wonder whether the notion that we can, by intention, bring about certain results by our own efforts might itself be an omnipotent phantasy. Might we just have to do the best we can whilst endeavouring to adapt to the reality of change? Some of the frantic discourse of climate activists seems to have the quality of "Quick do something!", without a careful thinking through of the consequences and ramifications.It is not just billionaires and neoliberals and fossil fuel corporations who have reservations about climate change activists. It may include ordinary people like me, a man of modest means who spent 37 years working full time in the NHS.Despite my caveats, this is an excellent and consciousness-expanding book that I am pleased to have read.Phil Mollon

This is a fantastic book. The title may seem off putting. But the book is clearly written arguing that humanity is being led in directions which must change if humanity is to be protected. Our economic system must be made more caring

There is a lot of deep insight and clear seeing into our current psychological predicament in the book if you can get past the sometimes indiosyncratic use of language, the occasionally jarring terminology and the sometimes variable quality of the writing. Not a book for someone who is unwilling to confront deeper psychological and behavioral questions relating to climate change. I think it's fair to say that it does not tackle the roots at the deepest level but focuses on problems emerging since the advent of the consumer society and subsequent neoliberalism.

Found this book hit home truths. A good read for anybody.

Sally Weintrobe clearly and powerfully formulates a profound way of making sense of how the vast majority of the population of our western civilization is no longer capable of understanding nor acting in the interest of our own survival. She makes sense of the world around us that just doesn’t care.

I like how she breaks the issue down and brings examples from her personal life as well as from events and circumstances one can relate with. I like it how she shows that the individual level is connected with the system level (economy, culture, politics). I like it that she is ending on a positive note.I think in the end she falls in her own trap of technology myopia, when she writes that a conference about the possibility to switch to renewable energies with existing technologies gave her hope again. Technology will be part of the solution but a system change is required, as she points out throughout the book.