Abstract
The deep-seated psychological roots of denial reveal how early childhood experiences of shame and humiliation influence adult responses to existential threats such as climate change. This study explores common explanations for climate denial, including economic, political, psychological, and social factors. It emphasizes that denial is not simply a cognitive failure but functions as a defense mechanism against intense emotional discomfort. Drawing from a Jungian perspective, it examines how collective shame and guilt shape societal reactions to environmental challenges, with denial acting as a shield against these painful emotions. Practical recommendations include fostering emotional resilience through eco-spiritual practices, promoting climate education, and encouraging community-based environmental actions. The study highlights the importance of recognizing and verbalizing these hidden aspects of oneself, seeing them not as negative traits to be eradicated but as integral elements to be embraced. Healing the inner humiliated child can transform denial into proactive engagement, paving the way for a more sustainable and psychologically healthy relationship with the environment.
Introduction
Climate change poses an existential threat to our planet, impacting ecosystems, weather patterns, and human livelihoods globally. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and sea-level rise are just a few manifestations of this urgent crisis. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the urgency of addressing climate change is often undermined by widespread denial and inaction.
Climate denialism is a significant barrier to environmental action. If people do not acknowledge the reality of climate change, efforts to mitigate its effects are fundamentally compromised. Denialism is not merely a lack of information but is deeply rooted in various psychological, social, and cultural factors. Denialism manifests in various forms, from outright rejection of scientific evidence to more subtle forms of minimization and misrepresentation. Some individuals deny the existence of climate change altogether, while others acknowledge it but deny human responsibility. Others might accept the science but argue that the consequences are exaggerated or that it is too late to take action. Understanding why people deny climate change is critical for developing effective strategies to counteract this phenomenon.
This article seeks to delve into the reasons behind climate denialism and offers a comprehensive analysis from both conventional and psychological perspectives. In Section 1, I provide an overview of common explanations for climate denial, including economic, political, psychological, and cultural factors. These include the impact of entrenched economic interests, political ideologies, cognitive biases, and social identity dynamics. Section 2 provides a Jungian analysis, exploring the concept of the “humiliated inner child” and how collective shame and guilt influence societal reactions to environmental challenges. This section highlights how early experiences of shame and humiliation shape adult responses to climate change denial and presents the main thesis of this article. Finally, in Section 3, I offer practical recommendations for addressing climate denialism. These recommendations emphasize the importance of recognizing and healing the humiliated inner child, fostering emotional resilience through eco-spiritual practices, promoting climate education, and encouraging community-based environmental actions. By understanding and addressing the psychological roots of denial, we, as a society, can transform it into proactive engagement, contributing to a more sustainable and psychologically healthy relationship with the environment.
Section 1: Common Explanations for Climate Denial
Economic and political influences on climate change perception
Economic and political factors significantly shape public perception of climate change. Industries reliant on fossil fuels have vested interests in maintaining the status quo and often fund campaigns that promote climate denial (Brulle, 2014). These campaigns can include funding think tanks that produce misleading reports, lobbying politicians to oppose climate legislation, and creating astroturf organizations that appear to be grassroots movements but are actually funded by industry.
Certain political ideologies prioritize economic growth and individual freedoms over environmental regulations, which leads to climate skepticism (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Conservative and libertarian ideologies, which emphasize free-market principles and minimal government intervention, often reject climate science because it implies the need for regulations that could disrupt the market. This ideological stance is reinforced by media outlets that align with these political views, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates denial. Media coverage often presents climate change as a debatable topic rather than a scientific consensus, leading to public confusion and skepticism. Furthermore, social media platforms can amplify misinformation and allow it to spread rapidly, reaching a wide audience (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). Digital platforms such as YouTube exacerbate this by spreading misinformation and labeling climate scientists as alarmists. For instance, recent developments on digital platforms, such as YouTube, show a resurgence of climate denial under new guises. An article published by T-HQ2 highlights that “YouTube profits from climate denial—still,” indicating “how climate stupidity and venality grow under new labels.” This new approach to climate denial circumvents bans on traditional forms by labeling climate scientists as alarmists. A study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate used an artificial intelligence model trained on climate denial narratives to analyze over 12,000 climate-related video transcriptions since 2018, revealing persistent misinformation themes (Center for Countering Digital Hate, 2023).
Surveys and studies reflect varied public perceptions regarding climate change. A 2019 Pew study indicated that only 30% of American adults believe that humans play a significant role in climate change (Pew Research Center, 2019). Conversely, a survey by the OFS from January 2024 reported that nearly 90% of the Swiss population recognizes changes in climate, suggesting significant geographical and cultural differences in climate change perception Office fédéral de la statistique (OFS, 2024). The demographics of climate skepticism reveal interesting sociopolitical trends. According to the ObsCOP 2022 study by Ipsos and EDF, one in four French individuals displayed climate skepticism or denial, predominantly among younger people, right-wing and far-right voters, the working class, those less affected by climate change, and the less educated (Ipsos & EDF, 2022).
Understanding the interplay between these economic and political factors is crucial for comprehending the persistence of climate denial and its impact on efforts to address climate change. By examining these influences, we can develop more effective strategies to counteract misinformation and foster a more informed and proactive public response to climate change.
Psychological and social factors
Psychological and social factors underpin climate denial, shaping individuals’ responses to climate change. Cognitive dissonance occurs when people encounter information that challenges their existing beliefs or behaviors, leading to denial as a way to maintain personal coherence (Festinger, 1957). This psychological tension compels individuals to avoid or dismiss conflicting information to preserve their mental comfort. Confirmation bias further exacerbates this tendency, as climate skeptics selectively favor information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs, reinforcing their denial (Nickerson, 1998).
Group identity plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward climate change. According to social identity theory, individuals adopt stances that align with their social groups to maintain a sense of belonging and identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This dynamic is particularly evident in politically polarized contexts, where climate change can become a marker of group allegiance, making it difficult for individuals to accept evidence that contradicts their group’s stance.
Risk perception also influences climate denial. Some individuals underestimate the personal risk posed by climate change due to unrealistic optimism, believing that adverse effects will impact others but not themselves (Weinstein, 1980). This sense of invulnerability fosters indifference and inaction, as people feel less urgency to address the issue.
A sense of powerlessness against the vastness of climate change further contributes to denial. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) describe how individuals may use denial as a defense mechanism to cope with stressors they perceive as uncontrollable. The enormity and complexity of climate change can overwhelm individuals, leading them to deny its existence or downplay its significance to reduce feelings of helplessness.
Emotional factors such as fear, anger, or grief also play a significant role in climate denial. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (1969) identified denial as a common initial reaction to grief. Similarly, the emotional burden of acknowledging the severe implications of climate change can lead individuals to employ denial as a coping strategy. Fear of an uncertain future, anger over perceived loss of control, and grief for a changing planet can all drive individuals to deny the reality of climate change as a way to manage their emotional distress.
Cultural factors also play a significant role in climate change denial. In some cultures, there is a strong emphasis on individualism and economic growth, which can conflict with the collective action needed to address climate change. This cultural emphasis can lead to skepticism about climate science, which is perceived as a threat to personal freedoms and economic prosperity (Hoffman, 2011).
Motivated reasoning and redefining identity
Motivated reasoning helps justify behavior. For example, someone who takes several vacations a year might excuse themselves by thinking that the plane would take off anyway without them or that one flight will not make a difference. Some individuals partly define themselves by denying climate change, using this stance to distinguish themselves from other political groups, which leads to disregarding scientific evidence (Stoetzer & Zimmermann, 2023).
Motivated reasoning allows individuals to process information in a way that aligns with their desires and interests. This cognitive process helps people rationalize behaviors that they might otherwise find problematic. For instance, individuals who consume high-carbon activities, such as frequent flying or driving large vehicles, might downplay the impact of these activities to avoid guilt (Kunda, 1990).
This reasoning can also extend to one’s identity. In some cases, denying climate change becomes a part of an individual’s self-concept. This denial can serve as a form of identity signaling, where rejecting climate science distinguishes the individual from other groups, particularly those perceived as liberal or progressive. This phenomenon is reinforced by social interactions and media consumption patterns that favor likeminded individuals and sources (Kahan, 2012).
Coping mechanisms and defense mechanisms
Individuals use coping and defense mechanisms to manage the cognitive dissonance and emotional distress from climate change. Defense mechanisms are psychological strategies used to protect oneself from anxiety and discomfort. In the context of climate change, these mechanisms can manifest in various ways.
Denial is a primary defense mechanism where individuals refuse to accept the reality of climate change to avoid the emotional turmoil associated with it (Freud, 1915). Willful blindness is a coping strategy where individuals intentionally ignore information about climate change (Heffernan, 2011). This avoidance allows them to continue their current lifestyle without confronting the need for change. This mechanism is particularly prevalent in individuals whose identities or livelihoods are closely tied to activities that contribute to climate change (Heffernan, 2011). Anger and blame are also common reactions. When confronted with the reality of climate change, individuals may become defensive and lash out at those presenting the information. This reaction is often a way to deflect feelings of guilt and responsibility. By blaming others, individuals can absolve themselves of the need to act (Lewis, 1971). Shame often fuels these defenses (Lewis, 1971).
Section 2: The “Humiliated Inner Child” Explanation for Climate Denialism
After examining common explanations for climate denial, this section introduces a Jungian approach that offers a fresh psychological perspective. This view centers on how formative emotional events, particularly those marked by shame and guilt, shape adult behavior and attitudes. By understanding these psychological scars, we can better comprehend why some individuals resist engaging with or accepting complex issues like climate change. Collective shame and guilt further amplify these responses, creating emotional obstacles that inhibit society’s ability to address environmental crises effectively.
The concept of the “interior humiliated child” addresses how early emotional experiences shape adult responses to complex issues such as climate change. These experiences create deep psychological wounds influencing behavior and emotional responses throughout life.
Psychoanalytical and psychodynamic perspective
In psychoanalysis, early childhood experiences play a crucial role in the development of the psyche. Freud emphasized that experiences of humiliation or rejection during childhood can lead to feelings of shame and unworthiness, which are often too overwhelming for a child to process fully (Freud, 1915). To protect themselves from these painful feelings, children develop defense mechanisms. Denial is one such mechanism where the child, and later the adult, refuses to acknowledge their painful emotions or experiences. Freud (1926) noted that other mechanisms, such as repression and projection, also play roles in managing these overwhelming emotions. Over time, these unresolved emotions and experiences become internalized, forming a part of the individual’s personality known as the “inner child.” Miller (1987) described this inner child as carrying the wounds of early humiliation and shame, influencing how the individual responds to similar situations in adulthood.
Jungian perspective
Jungian psychology offers a deeper understanding of these early dynamics, emphasizing the role of archetypes and the collective unconscious in shaping individual and collective behaviors. Jung introduced the concept of archetypes as universal, primordial symbols or patterns of behavior that are part of the collective unconscious and manifest in individuals across cultures and historical periods (Jung, 1969). The interior humiliated child is one such archetype, representing the emotional residues from childhood experiences of humiliation, inferiority, or dismissal that persist into adulthood.
In Jungian psychology, these early experiences contribute to the formation of psychological complexes. Jung (1960) explained that a complex is an emotionally charged group of related thoughts, feelings, and memories. As Jung stated, “Everyone knows nowadays that people ‘have complexes.’ What is not so well known, though far more important theoretically, is that complexes can have us.” The humiliated inner child can be seen as a complex constellated around the archetypal core and activated by certain triggers in adulthood, bringing associated feelings of shame and fear to the forefront.
Experiencing being a witness of one’s own humiliation often compounds these feelings, adding layers of confusion about one’s value, role, and worth. When a person is humiliated, particularly in their formative years, the presence of a witness can exacerbate the sense of shame. This external validation of one’s perceived inadequacies not only intensifies the internalization of these negative emotions but also creates a complex interplay between self-perception and external judgment. As Sanford (1977) noted, “It is as if the whole world were not a stage, as Shakespeare said, but an audience to one’s shame, a ‘witness’ to one’s deeply felt inadequacies and insecurities.”
The shame that emerges from such experiences can be profound and pervasive, influencing many aspects of a person’s life. Jungian analyst Hollis (2008) aptly described shame as “a soul-eating emotion.” This shame often manifests as an internalized voice that continually undermines self-esteem and self-worth. The anger felt in these situations is twofold as follows: it is directed both toward the self for feeling powerless and toward the external world for creating the circumstances of humiliation. As Glick and Roose (1993) explain, “Anger is a defense against the feeling of shame, a way of diverting the attention from one’s own vulnerability.” To cope with these overwhelming emotions, individuals may adopt various strategies. One common approach is to pretend that everything is fine, to create a facade of normalcy and strength. This pretense is a protective mechanism, designed to shield oneself from further scrutiny and humiliation. However, maintaining this facade requires significant emotional energy and can lead to a disconnection from one’s true feelings and needs. Poet Dunbar (1896) poignantly stated, “We wear the mask that grins and lies, it hides our cheeks and shades our eyes.”
Symbolically, there may be an attempt to “kill” the witness of the humiliation, an effort to erase the memory and the impact of the experience. This can manifest in various ways, such as avoiding people or situations that remind one of the humiliation, or in more extreme cases, developing a sense of hostility or indifference toward those who were present during the humiliating event.
Ultimately, the goal becomes avoiding anything that might trigger the pain associated with the complex. This avoidance, however, can limit personal growth and the ability to engage fully with life. Overcoming such a complex often requires deep introspection and, sometimes, therapeutic intervention to reframe these early experiences, integrate the emotions associated with them, and develop a more compassionate and empowered self-narrative. Jung (1945) states, “To confront a person with his shadow is to show him his own light,” emphasizing the importance of integrating the hidden aspects of ourselves. Bradshaw (1988) suggests that healing begins when a person moves out of the isolation of shame and into a shared sense of humanity and compassion, highlighting the journey toward wholeness.
Jung (1959) posits that the psyche contains archetypal elements, such as the shadow, which represents the parts of ourselves we reject or deny. The humiliated inner child can also be seen as part of the shadow or as nourished by the shadow, embodying the shameful and fearful aspects of our personality that we try to hide.
When situations arise that resemble the initial experiences of humiliation, this complex is reactivated. Jung (1964) notes that individuals might then project these feelings onto others, perceiving threats and humiliation even when they are not present, as a defense mechanism to avoid facing painful feelings within themselves. In both psychoanalytical and Jungian frameworks, the narcissistic urge to protect oneself is a response to the vulnerability felt by the inner child. Kohut (1971) describes narcissistic defenses as strategies used to shield oneself from feelings of inadequacy and shame, manifesting as denial, grandiosity, or an inflated sense of self-importance. Denial becomes a primary tool in protecting the self from the painful reality of these deep-seated feelings. By denying the existence of these feelings or the situations that trigger them, the individual maintains a sense of control and self-coherence (Klein, 1946).
The dynamics described in Jungian psychology, particularly those surrounding the humiliated inner child and psychological complexes, offer profound insights into the phenomenon of climate denialism. Just as individuals may adopt defensive mechanisms to shield themselves from painful childhood experiences, society at large can exhibit similar behaviors in the face of overwhelming and threatening realities, such as climate change. The archetype of the humiliated inner child parallels the collective behavior of climate denialism, where the deep-seated shame and fear associated with ecological destruction and environmental neglect are too painful to confront directly. This results in a collective complex where the reality of climate change triggers defensive responses designed to protect the societal psyche from confronting the harsh truth.
Moreover, the concept of projecting feelings onto others, as described by Jung, can be seen in how climate denialists often perceive environmental advocates and scientists as threats to their worldview. This projection is a defense mechanism to avoid facing the internalized guilt and fear about the planet’s deteriorating state. Denial and grandiosity, akin to the narcissistic defenses mentioned by Kohut (1971), manifest as attempts to maintain a facade of normalcy and control. Denying the reality of climate change, dismissing scientific evidence, or exaggerating the capacity of technology to fix the problem without fundamental changes are ways of avoiding the painful acknowledgment of the crisis. This societal denialism, much like individual psychological defenses, can prevent meaningful action and impede progress in addressing the urgent issue of climate change.
Ecological and psychological implications
To fully grasp the roots of climate denial and skepticism, it is essential to understand not only the psychological defenses at play but also the broader ecological context that shapes human behavior. Recognizing the relationship between human beings and the natural environment reveals deeper cultural and psychological factors contributing to this denial.
Defining humans in ecological terms
Connecting the story of climate denial and skepticism to the ecological perspective involves understanding the profound disconnect between humans and nature that fuels such denial. By defining humans in ecological terms and recognizing our intrinsic connection to the natural world, we can better comprehend the psychological and cultural factors contributing to climate denial and skepticism. Humans, in ecological terms, are an integral part of the natural world, deeply interconnected with the environment and other living beings.
The concept of biophilia, popularized by Edward O. Wilson, provides a framework for understanding this relationship. Biophilia posits that humans have an inherent affinity for nature. According to Wilson (1984), “the natural world is the refuge of the spirit, remote, static, richer even than human imagination,” (p.84) suggesting that our connection to nature is not just beneficial but essential for our psychological and physical well-being. Studies have shown that exposure to natural environments can reduce stress, improve mood, and enhance cognitive function (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1984). Despite this deep connection, climate denial represents a significant disruption of this relationship.
This disruption can be understood through the lens of the humiliated inner child, a psychological complex where past humiliations create profound insecurity, defensiveness, and lack of trust in the bonding with the Other (in this case with nature). When faced with the reality of environmental degradation, this humiliated inner child is activated, fearing exposure and striving to preserve the “secret” of its shame and profound loneliness. The resultant denial is thus not merely a refusal to acknowledge facts but a complex psychological defense against the existential threat to our self-identity and our perceived competence as stewards of the planet. The Jungian Shadow aspect fuels this denial and perpetuates a cycle of emotional repression and projection.
Similar to biophilia, ecopsychology explores the relationship between humans and the natural world through ecological and psychological principles. Ecopsychologist Roszak (1992) states, “The needs of the planet are the needs of the person. The rights of the person are the rights of the planet.” This perspective underscores the interconnection between human health and planetary health. Climate denial can thus be interpreted as a psychological defense mechanism to cope with the dissonance between our inherent biophilic tendencies and the reality of environmental degradation. This absence of a secure foundation and core identity amplifies feelings of inadequacy and humiliation.
According to ecopsychologist Fisher (2002), “Our disconnection from the natural world is a reflection of our disconnection from parts of ourselves.” By recognizing and integrating the Shadow, particularly the shame and fear of worthlessness of the humiliated inner child, individuals and societies can move beyond denial and begin to address the underlying emotional wounds. This process involves confronting the fear of exposure, acknowledging the pain of past humiliations, and understanding the resultant anger.
Ecopsychology not only highlights the interconnection between human health and planetary health but also underscores the importance of addressing the psychological barriers that hinder people’s ability to respond effectively to environmental challenges. By doing so, we can dismantle defensive mechanisms and engage more honestly and effectively with pressing global issues, such as climate change, fostering both environmental sustainability and psychological well-being.
Deep ecology, a philosophy introduced by Arne Naess, advocates for a profound shift in human consciousness. Naess argues for an ecological self, where individuals see themselves as part of the larger web of life. He writes, “The essence of deep ecology is to ask deeper questions. We ask which society, which education, which form of religion is beneficial for all life on the planet as a whole” (Naess). This approach calls for a fundamental change in how humans view their role in the ecosystem, promoting a sense of responsibility and stewardship. Climate denial, in this context, is a refusal to acknowledge this interconnectedness and responsibility. For individuals who deeply fear their capacity for connection, these values are intimidating, as they expose their own inadequacies, making them visible to others.
Naess’ deep ecology philosophy calls for integrating these shadow aspects to foster a more holistic and responsible relationship with the environment. As ecopsychologist Macy claims, “The heart that breaks open can contain the whole universe” (Macy, 1991). This implies that by confronting and integrating the shame and worthlessness of the humiliated inner child, individuals can transcend denial and embrace their ecological self. The humiliated inner child should be addressed, heard, understood, and, most importantly, adequately nurtured.
By recognizing and integrating the shadow, particularly the activated humiliated inner child complex, individuals and societies can move beyond denial and start to address the deeper psychological wounds that hinder our response to environmental challenges. This process involves confronting the fear of exposure, acknowledging the pain of past humiliations, individual, familial, transgenerational, and collective, and understanding the resultant anger and defensiveness. Embracing the principles of deep ecology, along with this psychological integration, can lead to a profound transformation in how we perceive and fulfill our roles as stewards of the planet, fostering both environmental sustainability and psychological well-being.
The Gaia hypothesis, formulated by James Lovelock, presents the Earth as a self-regulating system where living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings to maintain conditions conducive to life. Lovelock (1979) asserts, “We are part of the system and, as the system changes, so do we. This means we must work in partnership with Gaia, maintaining and enhancing the conditions for life.” To genuinely collaborate with Gaia, as Lovelock advocates, it is essential to address and integrate these shadow aspects, transforming them into sources of strength and resilience. This necessitates prioritizing the nurturing process, cultivating trust in it, and developing the capacity to both receive and provide it. The concept of belonging to Gaia may regress us to a childlike state, potentially reactivating past traumas.
Practices such as ecotherapy, where individuals engage with nature to heal psychological wounds, can help integrate these shadow aspects. Macy’s (2007) The Work That Reconnects offers methods to process ecological grief and empower action. Community-based environmental projects that involve restoration and stewardship can foster a sense of connection and responsibility, addressing both ecological and psychological health.
Terrapsychology, a field that examines the dynamic relationship between the psyche and the landscape, offers a unique lens through which to address the issues of climate denial, particularly from the perspective of the humiliated inner child and its coping mechanisms. This approach suggests that by recognizing how environmental degradation mirrors our inner wounds, we can begin to address these issues more holistically. Terrapsychology emphasizes active engagement with the natural world as a means of healing, involving developing a reciprocal relationship with the land, where caring for the environment also nurtures psychological well-being. Incorporating terrapsychological principles into education and therapy can help individuals understand the deep connection between their inner states and the environment, motivating more sustainable behaviors and a commitment to environmental stewardship. Furthermore, incorporating terrapsychological principles into education and therapy can promote both environmental sustainability and psychological well-being, equipping individuals to face the challenges of climate change with resilience and compassion.
It is crucial to remain attentive throughout this process, particularly to the vulnerabilities inherent in our relationships with others. Each of us may harbor a humiliated inner child that can be reactivated in challenging relationships. To promote personal and collective transformation, Danon (2019) highlights the importance of shifting from an egocentric to an ecocentric perspective. This shift encourages greater environmental responsibility and empathy, allowing individuals to see themselves as integral parts of a larger ecosystem. By fostering a sense of interconnectedness and accountability, this ecocentric viewpoint aims to enhance environmental awareness and actions.
However, making this shift is not always straightforward, especially for those who struggle with underlying emotional vulnerabilities. One significant emotional challenge that can hinder this transformation is the feeling of shame. For many individuals, particularly those dealing with the humiliated inner child complex, the process of acknowledging their role in environmental degradation can trigger deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and guilt. These feelings of shame can make it difficult to embrace an ecocentric perspective, as they intensify the internal conflict and fear of judgment.
Collective shame and climate denial
Shame is a profoundly personal and intimate emotion. However, paradoxically, a powerful and palpable sense of collective shame also exists. This type of shame extends beyond personal feelings, encompassing a shared sense of dishonor or disgrace among group members when they recognize that they have failed to uphold their own ethical standards, norms, or ideals (Scheff, 2000). Research indicates that group-based shame arises where there is a shared social identity, because morality is a key aspect of social identity. When individuals self-categorize as members of a group held responsible for a harmful event, they experience negative collective emotions, such as shame, and feel that their social identity is threatened (Lickel, Schmader, Curtis, Scarnier, & Ames, 2005). In response to these insecurities, feelings of loneliness and a tendency to substitute with the least confronting available model may arise.
Approaching climate denial from the perspective of collective shame and guilt involves recognizing the shared responsibility and moral failing inherent in people’s collective actions. By fostering a sense of collective accountability, groups can be motivated to confront their role in climate change and take meaningful action. Strategies such as collective action can be particularly effective if implemented carefully, striking a balance akin to “good enough” mothering—neither overprotective nor characterized by insecure or disorganized attachment. Such approaches emphasize shared responsibility and the importance of group efforts in addressing the climate crisis. Encouraging public dialog and reflection on our collective impact can also help transform feelings of shame into constructive action, promoting a more sustainable and ethically conscious approach to our relationship with the environment.
However, it is crucial to address the risk of activating the humiliated inner child on both individual and collective levels. When confronted with collective shame and guilt, individuals may experience a resurgence of these painful emotions, leading to defensive reactions, such as denial, anger, or withdrawal. On a collective level, this dynamic can manifest as societal resistance to acknowledging environmental responsibilities, further entrenching climate denial.
To mitigate the risks associated with collective shame, it is essential to approach this emotion with sensitivity and support. Providing safe spaces for individuals to express and process their feelings can help prevent defensive reactions and facilitate healing. By fostering empathy and understanding within communities, a more compassionate response to collective shame can be promoted. This approach helps shift the perspective on climate action from a source of guilt to an empowering endeavor, encouraging constructive engagement.
When navigating the emotional responses to the environmental crisis, it becomes crucial to address the collective shadow—the darker, often repressed aspects of a society’s psyche. Recognizing and integrating the collective shadow is vital for holistic healing and transformation. This journey reveals pervasive feelings of anxiety and grief tied to environmental degradation.
Coping with ecological grief
Acknowledging ecoanxiety or claiming it necessitates mourning a certain vision of the future and the hopes once held for it. Ecoanxiety is a profound emotional response to the ongoing and potential future impacts of climate change. This type of anxiety is not just about immediate personal fear but encompasses a broader concern for the planet’s well-being and future generations. It involves coming to terms with the reality that the world may not be able to sustain life as we know it, leading to a sense of loss and grief for the future we once envisioned.
Ecological grief arises from witnessing environmental degradation, whether through media or indirect experiences. This grief is a natural response to the destruction of ecosystems, the extinction of species, and the disruption of natural processes that we hold dear. It is closely related to solastalgia—a term coined by philosopher Albrecht (2005)—which describes the nostalgic pain felt by those who witness rapid changes to their familiar environments and experience a resulting loss of belonging. Solastalgia encapsulates the emotional distress people experience when their home environment is altered in ways that negatively impact their sense of place and identity. This feeling can intertwine with the activated humiliated inner child, as grief is difficult to process without a sense of belonging. The absence of attachment, or inadequate attachment for those who have it, can lead to further isolation.
Furthermore, as witnesses to these environmental changes, we are at risk of engendering a collective sense of humiliation. This collective humiliation can stem from the realization that humanity has failed to protect the planet and uphold its ethical and environmental responsibilities. When we acknowledge ecoanxiety and ecological grief, we are also confronting our collective shortcomings and the part we have played in the degradation of the environment. This recognition can activate deep-seated feelings of shame and guilt, reminiscent of the humiliated inner child who feels inadequate and responsible for the failures observed. This cycle of humiliation and shame can be perpetuated if not properly addressed. Individuals and groups may become defensive, resorting to denial or blame-shifting to avoid the painful emotions associated with ecological grief. This defensiveness can hinder meaningful climate action and prevent people from moving forward constructively. To break this cycle, it is essential to approach these emotions with empathy and support, allowing space for mourning and processing the loss of the envisioned future.
Promoting open and compassionate dialog about ecoanxiety and ecological grief can help individuals and communities navigate these complex emotions. Encouraging collective mourning for the lost future can foster a sense of solidarity and shared purpose. It is also vital to provide a space for those who cannot mourn, are not in touch with their mourning, or cannot recognize their mourning, thus giving them a place within the collective process. Doing this can help us transform feelings of shame into a commitment to positive action, by acknowledging our collective responsibility and working together to address the environmental crisis.
Unacknowledged mourning may manifest as anxiety, rooted in a pervasive sense of uncertainty. When individuals and communities fail to process their grief over environmental degradation and the loss of a hoped-for future, this unresolved mourning can transform into a chronic state of anxiety. This anxiety is not only about the fear of tangible, immediate threats but also about a deeper, existential uncertainty regarding the stability and predictability of the world around us.
In the context of climate change, this anxiety is exacerbated by exaggerated scientific uncertainties and social uncertainties regarding norms and practical choices. Scientific uncertainties pertain to the exact outcomes and timelines of climate impacts, which, while often rooted in complex modeling and predictions, are sometimes misrepresented or misunderstood, leading to heightened fear and confusion. Social uncertainties involve a lack of clear consistent guidelines and societal hesitation to fully commit to sustainable practices, causing individuals to feel unsure about what actions are appropriate or effective. Additionally, the rise of the antiscience movement poses a risk, as it provides a false sense of belonging and certainty through its attacks.
Being uncertain augments humiliation in several ways. When individuals feel uncertain about the future and their role in addressing climate change, it undermines their sense of competence and agency. This perceived incompetence can trigger feelings of inadequacy and shame, as people struggle with the notion that they are not doing enough or are not capable of making a meaningful difference. The awareness of being part of a society that is failing to decisively address climate change can also contribute to a collective sense of disgrace and dishonor. Moreover, this uncertainty can reopen and perpetuate the cycle of humiliation. When individuals and communities are uncertain about the norms and actions required to mitigate climate change, they are more likely to experience repeated feelings of failure and inadequacy each time new information emerges or when they realize that past efforts were insufficient. This ongoing cycle of hope and disappointment can deepen the sense of collective humiliation, making it more difficult to mobilize effective climate action.
Section 3: Practical Approaches to Healing the Inner Humiliated Child
Addressing these emotional wounds that hinder our response to climate action requires a multifaceted approach. These barriers, rooted in deep-seated feelings of helplessness, shame, and grief, can obstruct proactive engagement with the environmental crisis. Confronting these psychological obstacles, we unlock the potential for both personal and collective transformation. Below, we explore several practical strategies that can nurture the healing journey and build a more resilient and ecologically conscious society.
Individual level
Naming emotions
Individuals should be encouraged to identify and articulate their emotions related to climate change. This process can help alleviate feelings of helplessness and humiliation that stem from childhood experiences. Creating safe spaces for people to express and process these emotions can prevent defensive reactions. It is important to be patient and take all the time needed, avoiding the push for the “right” emotion (such as connection with or belonging to nature) if it is premature for the individual. Support groups and therapy sessions focused on climate grief can facilitate this healing process. By acknowledging these emotions, individuals can begin to transform their psychological responses into proactive behaviors.
Mourning and healing
It is important to create spaces for individuals to mourn the losses associated with climate change, both personal and environmental. This mourning process is essential for psychological healing and can rejuvenate one’s energy to engage in climate action. Support groups and therapy sessions focused on climate grief can facilitate this healing process. According to Macy (2007), “Grieving is a process of acknowledging the loss, which allows the psyche to heal and find renewed purpose.” Additionally, do not assume that everyone mourns in the same way.
Eco-spiritual practices
Promoting eco-spiritual practices that connect individuals with nature on a deeper, more spiritual level is essential for healing the humiliated inner child, and fostering a sense of belonging and purpose within the natural world can transform one’s relationship with both the self and the environment. Eco-spirituality, which integrates principles of ecology and spirituality, emphasizes the interconnectedness of all life and the sacredness of the Earth. Prominent figures such as Thomas Berry and Joanna Macy, as well as various religious communities and environmental organizations, advocate for this holistic perspective. Practices such as nature walks, meditation, and rituals that honor the Earth can help individuals process their feelings in a supportive and meaningful context. Jung’s insight, “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious,” underscores the importance of confronting and integrating feelings of shame and inadequacy, naming and encountering the shadow. By engaging in these practices, individuals can transform their ecological grief and anxiety into constructive action, thereby healing their inner wounds and contributing to a more sustainable future.
Empowerment through education
Providing education that empowers individuals to take informed actions against climate change is the essential step in collective healing. Knowledge about practical steps, such as reducing carbon footprints, participating in community initiatives, and advocating for policy changes, can alleviate feelings of powerlessness. As Freire (1970) emphasizes, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher—student contradiction, so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.” A good teacher will nurture the humiliated inner child, transforming the negative consequences of its activation into opportunities for growth and empowerment.
Collective level
Community resilience building
Community programs that focus on building resilience to climate impacts can be developed. These programs can include emergency preparedness workshops, local environmental projects, and community gardens. Engaging in collective action helps address the collective aspect of the humiliated inner child, fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual support. Korten (2015) argues, “Communities that organize themselves around shared values and mutual support are better equipped to handle crises.” However, it can sometimes be challenging to experience feelings that are in opposition to those of the surrounding community, and addressing this difficulty requires fostering open dialog and promoting emotional resilience.
Inclusive dialog
Facilitating inclusive dialog on climate change that considers diverse perspectives and experiences is essential. It creates platforms where marginalized voices, including those from vulnerable communities and younger generations, can be heard. This approach helps address the collective shame and denial associated with the humiliated inner child by cultivating a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. According to hooks (2003), “True dialogue requires that we recognize the humanity of the other.”
Policy advocacy and support
Policies that support mental health in the context of climate change should be advocated. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that climate policies include provisions for mental health support, recognizing the psychological toll of climate impacts. Increased funding for mental health services and the integration of mental health support into disaster preparedness plans should also be lobbied for. The American Psychological Association (2017) notes that “policymakers should consider the psychological impacts of climate change in their policy development.” Addressing the collective shame associated with climate change, akin to nurturing the humiliated inner child, requires a compassionate approach.
Cultural transformation
It can be achieved through the following: (a) promoting a cultural shift toward recognizing and valuing ecological and spiritual well-being; (b) encouraging media, education systems, and public discourse to emphasize the importance of living in harmony with the environment; and (c) promoting openness in media and society about naming and addressing collective challenges and cultural complexities related to environmental sustainability. This cultural transformation supports the inner transition from a humiliated child to a mature, responsible steward of the Earth. Berry (1999) highlights: “The Great Work is moving the human community from its present situation as a destructive presence on the planet to a benign or mutually enhancing presence.”
By integrating these practical recommendations into both individual and collective efforts, we can address the deep-seated psychological barriers to climate action and foster a more resilient and ecologically conscious society. The two approaches are both oriented toward the greater good. However, in parallel, a third way can emerge from the tension between the “Greater Good” and the forces that sabotage or obstruct it. This third path, inspired by Jungian concepts such as the transcendental function and the conjunction oppositorum (the union of opposites), offers a transformative approach. This path embraces the integration of opposing forces within the psyche, leading to profound personal and collective transformation.
Jung states, “The greater the contrast, the greater the potential. Great energy only comes from a correspondingly great tension of opposites.” This concept is applicable to the climate crisis, where it emphasizes the need to reconcile our inner conflicts and contradictions about environmental responsibility. By acknowledging and integrating both our destructive impulses and our desire for harmony with nature, we can transcend mere pragmatic solutions and achieve a deeper, more holistic transformation. This approach involves practices such as deep ecological reflection, shadow work to confront and integrate our environmental guilt and denial, and fostering a sense of sacred interconnectedness with all life forms.
The transformative power of the transcendental function can catalyze a shift from a fragmented, dualistic mindset to a unified, integrated consciousness that aligns personal values with collective ecological imperatives. By embracing this inner transformation, individuals and communities can cultivate a more profound and sustainable commitment to environmental stewardship, transcending superficial solutions and addressing the root causes of ecological degradation. This holistic integration of inner and outer worlds can lead to a more profound and enduring shift toward a sustainable future.
Naming all emotions related to climate change, even those we prefer to avoid, helps individuals move toward this third state. By acknowledging feelings of helplessness, fear, and shame, individuals can begin to integrate these emotions into their conscious experience, transforming them into sources of strength and motivation for action. For something new to emerge, we need to trust it and provide enough space for it to come to us. This requires the ability to transgress boundaries without force, avoiding premature and excessive pushing.
Embracing liminality: Navigating transitional times
Liminality, the psychological process of transitioning across boundaries and limits, provides the space needed for profound change. This period of chaos and disorientation, akin to a creature in a cocoon, allows for the necessary time to settle into a new reality. Kirst (2023) describes it as encompassing all the sensations of our experience and acknowledging the time it takes to adapt. This concept of liminality is critical for understanding how individuals and societies can navigate the profound transitions required to address climate change, in adapting to new realities, encompassing the full spectrum of human experience, and the time it takes to settle into new patterns. This aligns with the broader concept of the “Inner Transition” paradigm, which emphasizes the psychological and spiritual dimensions of societal change. The Inner Transition paradigm (Baker, 2016; O’Brian & Sugna, 2021; Pargman & Eriksson, 2023) is a guiding principle for societal change, emphasizing eco-spirituality—a blend of ecological awareness and spiritual practice. This worldview encourages a shift from seeing Earth as a utilitarian resource to recognizing it as a dynamic, living system. This transformation is multidimensional, involving well-being culture, supportive networks, conflict resolution, and resilient practices. As Macy (1991), an influential figure in eco-spirituality, notes:
The most remarkable feature of this historical moment on Earth is not that we are on the way to destroying the world … it is that we are beginning to wake up, as from a millennia-long sleep, to a whole new relationship to our world, to ourselves and each other.
Effective conflict resolution and building resilient practices are integral to the Inner Transition paradigm. The ability to navigate and resolve conflicts within communities and between individuals is essential for fostering a cooperative and sustainable approach to climate action. This is supported by the work of Ostrom (1990), who demonstrated that communities can successfully manage common resources through collective action and cooperative governance.
The climate crisis presents an opportunity for transformative change. Beck (2015) argues that severe crises can drive us to transcend nationalistic limitations and embrace a cosmopolitan approach to problem-solving. This perspective suggests that the climate emergency, while severe, can catalyze positive change and foster a more collaborative global community.
Healing, nurturing, and mothering the humiliated inner child
The humiliated inner child represents the collective psychological barriers to ecological and spiritual maturity. By addressing these emotional wounds, societal progression toward sustainability and spiritual well-being is enabled. Healing the inner child unlocks the capacity for a future where ecological sustainability and spiritual well-being are integrated, fostering a compassionate and cooperative society. Emphasizing practical, actionable steps that individuals and communities can take to address climate change helps bridge the gap between denial and despair. This middle ground, or “third principle,” focuses on proactive engagement and resilience building. Support groups, both in-person and online, provide a platform for individuals to share their experiences and emotions related to climate change. These groups can offer validation and support, helping members feel less isolated in their grief. Additionally, mental health professionals can play a crucial role in guiding individuals through the process of naming and processing their emotions. Therapy sessions that focus on climate grief and ecological anxiety can help individuals develop coping strategies and resilience. By providing a safe and supportive environment, these sessions can facilitate emotional healing and empower individuals to act. Therapist and ecopsychologist Buzzell (2010) advocates for the use of “support circles,” where individuals can express their ecological grief in a safe, nonjudgmental environment. She notes, “Expressing our grief for the Earth in a supportive community can help us move through the pain and into a place of strength and renewed commitment.” Ultimately, what is needed is the nurturing of the humiliated inner child and the subsequent creation and promotion of an inner adequate nurturing Mother.
Alternative thought instead of conclusion
What if we, as eco-practitioners, are not merely palliative caregivers of the dying world but rather stewards of a civilization in crisis, guiding it toward resilience and transformation? This journey reflects a new cycle in samsara, the endless wheel of birth, death, and rebirth, where each turn presents new challenges and opportunities for growth. In alchemical terms, our role might be akin to adding colors to the nigredo, the phase of darkness and decomposition, infusing life and transformation into the depths of despair. Our efforts could be seen not as waiting for a miracle but as fostering the emergence of the tertio, the third principle, from the conjunction oppositorum, the union of opposites. This synthesis hints at reconciling the conflict between human desires and ecological limitations.
While our path may appear to some as de-evolution—a paradoxical dance that blurs progress with regression—it is within this complex and often contradictory process that we find the essence of trust. Each step, no matter how convoluted, holds significance, and every effort contributes to a larger unfolding. The concept of the humiliated inner child comes into play here, as each individual confronts their own vulnerabilities and, at their own pace, survives this confrontation. This process of inner reckoning is essential for developing a deeper understanding of our interconnectedness with all life and the urgent need for change. However, it is not the Earth or entire humanity in its final stages but our materialistic, consumerist civilization facing a crisis. The planet has endured worse disasters and possesses an incredible ability to adapt. The real issue lies with us. From this perspective, the climate emergency could serve as a catalyst for transformation. Beck (2015), in his essay “How Climate Change Could Save the World,” posits that severe crises such as climate change present opportunities for profound transformation. He emphasizes that while the severity of the situation is undeniable, there is significant potential for positive change. This crisis could be the impetus needed to fundamentally reshape our societal structures, fostering global cooperation and innovative solutions that prioritize ecological sustainability.
In this context, community involvement, activism, and informed risk awareness are crucial. Yousafzai’s (2013) words resonate powerfully: “When the whole world is silent, even one voice becomes powerful … Denial may seem like a temporary escape, but it only fuels the flames of repressed truth.” Denial, in this context, is not merely the refusal to face ecological realities but a broader resistance to the transformative potential within ourselves and our societies. Yousafzai’s observation beckons us to acknowledge the deeper truths we hold within—truths about our interconnectedness with all life, the urgent need for change, and the inherent power we possess to enact that change. In embracing these truths, we move beyond denial and ignite the possibility of genuine transformation, both individually and collectively.
Thus, while our journey may seem fraught with challenges, it is through movement, trust, nurturing, activism, and a deep understanding of the risks involved that we can navigate this crisis. We are active participants in a global movement toward a more sustainable and equitable future. The concept of the tertium non datur—the third way that emerges from the union of opposites—prepares us to move out of the ecological crisis. By addressing the humiliated inner child, we cultivate the resilience necessary to face our vulnerabilities and transform them into strengths. This inner work is critical for humanity and society to make their way through the crisis, ultimately leading to a more profound and enduring ecological harmony.
Finally, as we look to the future, let us be guided by the words of Maathai: “It’s the little things citizens do. That’s what will make the difference. My little thing is planting trees.” Each action, no matter how small, contributes to a larger movement. By coming together and acting collectively, we can create a more prosperous and sustainable world for future generations.
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
The author declares no conflicts of interest related to this work.
Funding Information
No funding was received for this work.