Presentation on March 11, 2023, at the Hellenic Organisation of Psychotherapy and Education in Group Analysis (Hope in GA). Athens, Greece.
Arnaoutoglou Maritina, Psychologist, Psychotherapist, Group Analyst
Kousouri Nikoletta, Psychologist, Psychotherapist, Group Analyst
To begin, it’s essential to introduce certain fundamental contemporary terms to enhance our comprehension of the topic. The term ‘eco-anxiety’ refers to the psychological distress related to the vulnerability of humanity’s existence and the ecosystem during the era of climate change. It encompasses both psychological distress and related symptoms arising from a sense of insecurity during this critical moment of humanity. Related terms found in international literature include eco-anxiety, ecological trauma, ecological grief, and solastalgia.
Interest in this topic has grown as research data link eco-anxiety to elevated levels of anxiety, thoughts, and concerns about the phenomenon of climate change among young individuals worldwide. An online survey conducted among mental health clinicians in the United States investigated the frequency of climate change discussions in therapy sessions. The results reveal that while climate change is not a common topic of discussion in therapy, it does come up and can trigger considerable anxiety in some patients. Additionally, the findings indicate that most therapists recognize the relevance of climate change to their work but feel ill-equipped to address it adequately. Meanwhile, therapists’ internal reactions to the topic of climate change may affect how they receive and respond to patients who discuss it in therapy.
The basic component of eco-anxiety is grief as the central emotion, loss through an existential lens, as a form of impending trauma. Psychoanalytic theory can offer various perspectives on the issue of climate change.
Freud’s proposition suggests that in Western civilization, culture serves as a protective barrier against nature, as well as a defense mechanism against both internal and external untamed aspects. However, as Rust (2008: 5) writes, “at this critical point in human history, we urgently need a myth to learn how to live with nature rather than fight against it.” Returning to Freud, though, there is another perspective to consider – a quiet recognition that the belief in cultural superiority can be a perilous delusion in many respects. Hidden beneath our desire for control, there exists a deep-seated fear and dread when confronted with the overwhelming might of Mother Nature, much like an vulnerable infant experiencing a mixture of awe and fear towards a formidable and frightening mother.
From a Freudian standpoint, our world is home to a species that systematically undermines its own environment. Despite regarding themselves as intelligent and rational beings guided by Eros, they are unwittingly harming themselves through excessive consumption and population growth. In their relentless pursuit of ever-increasing satisfaction, these creatures find themselves with progressively diminishing enjoyment. Infused with a sense of Thanatos, they unconsciously dismantle their surroundings while simultaneously developing weapons of mass destruction that pose a dire threat to their very existence (Winter & Koger, 2004).
Understanding the unconscious processes that can contribute to people resisting the environmental message and recognizing the challenges activists encounter are essential within psychoanalysis. Despite outward appearances, anxiety related to climate change and environmental harm is profound, yet primary defense mechanisms prevail on a collective level. A natural outcome of repressing the desire for consumption items is an inclination toward guilt, further amplified by the division between the remainder of the population and the environmental movement. Consequently, an assault takes place, giving rise to the stereotypical portrayals of environmentalists.
The theory of object relations offers various ways to understand the issue. One perspective is that of Mother Nature – Earth’s breast: Klein’s object relations theory could interpret this concept as a fantasy of Earth’s nurturing breast, offering boundless possibilities that we believe we are entitled to enjoy without restrictions. According to this perspective, our present challenges mirror the struggles of early infancy, as described by Melanie Klein in the context of the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions. Infants often do not readily accept weaning or explanations from their mothers but frequently react with emotions like anger, envy, hatred, and destructiveness.
“If the capacity for the endurance of frustration is adequate, the ‘not-breast’ inside becomes thought, and a mechanism for ‘thinking’ develops.” (Bion, 1962, p. 307).
Today, Earth’s “holding environment” is threatened, a colossal crisis that full recognition may lead to psychological collapse.
Winnicott introduced the “environment” into psychoanalytic thought, but Searles went further in his book “The Nonhuman Environment” (1960), where he argued that we must expand our perception of transference beyond human object relationships to include the non-human world. He recognized the importance of these experiences for psychic health, psychosis, and a healthy connection with nature.
Why do we, as group analysts, engage with the ecological crisis? Why are we concerned with collective phenomena and defense mechanisms related to the climate crisis, given that we usually work in clinical settings with small therapy groups? Nitsun informs us that self-destructive phenomena, such as ecological destruction, already have a significant impact on the fabric of social life. Given the emphasis on group-analytic thinking in the “colossal” influence of the social, there are significant questions about how theory embraces these changes, considering that the fundamental principles of group analysis (such as communication and the group matrix) will take on different meanings in a world that is increasingly transforming. Among the various changes outlined by Nitsun, which pertain to the future and the adaptation of group analytic theory in the 21st century, climate change may be the greatest and most visible threat to survival.
Starting with Foulkes, we know that a healthy organism functions as a whole and can be described as a system in dynamic equilibrium. Dynamic means that it is never in a state of rest; it must actively adapt to continuously changing conditions, to the environment, to the conditions in which it lives. However, this adaptation does not occur mechanically, simply following natural or chemical principles. There is always a creative element present, even in the simplest forms of adaptation. Thus, shifting our thinking towards a direction that recognizes the non-human environment, the natural ecosystems, as part of a dynamic system that affects human existence, requires adaptation in a creative way.
Based on Bion, we ask: given the difficulty in the capacity for thought that follows trauma (or in the case of the climate crisis preceding trauma) and given the serious burden arising from the nature of large groups, what means can the group use to regain its work function? And above all, how can it do this in a stochastic, non-paranoid, non-schizoid manner, given the tremendous anxiety that surrounds it, and from the inherent nature of the group process itself?
Instead of the group contemplating the painful emotion of fear, it identifies with a hostile and distorted object in order to reverse the wound. In every large group, there will always be those who want to “attack,” alongside movements and campaigns aimed at overturning climate change, along with those who are unaware, those who are aware but still struggling with what to think or do.
DeMare talks about the “hysteria of the crowd,” where an emotion, especially fear, becomes self-perpetuating, exponentially increasing in intensity as it spreads within the group. It’s a mass resort to problematic identification by a large number of people. There may be an additional factor that exacerbates the problem: when the group is so large that no one knows the others by name, not even visually, the process can spread at a tremendous speed. If we consider this as an analogy for the mass fear of annihilation caused by climate change, then we realize that the spread of this fear is extremely rapid, and our inability to think about this issue is almost inevitable.
The size of societies is directly related to the phenomena we have already mentioned and the archaic defenses employed. Nitsun, after explaining the forces that initiate and target the dissolution of the group, comments on the destructive attacks that our collective container endures. These are self-destructive acts that directly threaten the survival of our species. The existence of anti-group phenomena is evident when humans constantly destroy the environment on which their survival depends. The problem of human destructiveness is now widely accepted, with prominent examples being the two World Wars, nuclear disasters, and, of course, the destruction of the ecological systems in which we live. The significant difference is that the enemy was, to a certain point in human history, external, clear-cut, and different from us. Today, the threat of ecological destruction seems to involve an internal enemy, ourselves, and our deep need for attack and dissolution.
An optimistic perspective offered by Nitsun is the first time people feel responsible and aware of their self-destructiveness. This can lead to change and repair.
The root of the anti-group on a collective level is related to the fear of inadequacy that leads to destructive greed and unbridled control, which paradoxically creates the conditions they fear: the loss of resources and provisions necessary for life. Nitsun attempts to connect the anxiety of annihilation on an individual level with the collective fears of annihilation that are reflected more broadly in the destruction of the environment and the fear of total annihilation.
Later, Nitsun refers to the ecological perspective of the anti-group, which is significant in terms of questions about the survival of the group and the complex interaction between group systems and subsystems. Does the world as we know it, the environment that sustains life in its existing forms, survive? This question, on a surface level, may not directly concern a psychotherapist, but it resonates on deeper levels with concerns about existential issues and the fear of annihilation.
Hopper reminds us that every loss should be mourned. Not only the dead. Not only the perfect breast. Not only the reasonably good mother. The loss of self-esteem, the “fantastic” power we have as a species on Earth, our dominance as a species, our overconsumption, must be recognized. Only then is it possible to develop a more or less realistic estimation of what has been lost.
Incohesion is a manifestation in the “external” world of the fear of annihilation, which, in turn, is the product of traumatic experience within trauma-generating processes, and vice versa.
The fear of annihilation is a reaction to the experience of deep powerlessness resulting from loss, abandonment, and harm within the context of a trauma-generating process that spans generations. It also includes the relationships between victims, perpetrators, and bystanders, as well as the patterns of reactions to the traumatized.
So, how can we incorporate natural disasters, extreme climate changes, not only those happening now but also those that have occurred in the past, into this framework? How can the collective psyche – the collective unconscious – not carry such memories?
Finally, let’s discuss interventions mentioned in the literature from three different schools of psychotherapy. Although there may not yet be comprehensive research on the epidemiology of eco-anxiety or evidence-based treatments, mental health professionals have a responsibility to respond to this anxiety in changing circumstances. Familiarity with these various programs is an important step toward the ability of mental health professionals/organizations to respond to the challenges of climate change.
Authors from the psychoanalytic school focus on three elements: ensuring that professionals have their own experience of climate change, are ready and able to discuss the broader social and systemic impacts of climate change, and can actively connect the personal history of the analyzed individual with their response to climate change.
Authors from the Jungian school recommend working with dreams as a tool for connecting personal mythology with the collective myth.
Eco-therapy interventions mainly focus on interactions with nature, outside of the therapeutic session, raising questions about the impact of nature on the lives of patients and on society as a whole.
Despite their differences, all three psychological schools agree on an important common theme: the value of group work as a supportive environment for processing emotions and connecting internal experiences of ecological anxiety with others, as well as with larger social issues (referencing task groups and climate organizations). Participation in groups is nearly universal in interventions for eco-anxiety for the following reason: groups can serve as strong containers for the deep existential distress that tends to accompany ecological anxiety.
References
Albrecht, G. (2006). Solastalgia: Environmental damage has made it possible to be
homesick without leaving home. Alternatives Journal, 32(4-5), 34-37.
Albrecht, G. (2020). Negating solastalgia: An emotional revolution from the
Anthropocene to the Symbiocene. American Imago
Aston, N. (2021). The experience of eco-anxiety of individuals who have been through anecopsychology support group for facing the climate crisis: a grounded theory inquiry. Thesis, University of East London School of Psychology.
Baker, J. (2013). What have we done to Mother Earth? Psychodynamic thinking applied to our current world crisis. Psychodyn. Pract; 19:55–67.
Baudon, P. & Jachens, L. (2021). A Scoping Review of Interventions for the Treatment of Eco-Anxiety. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18(18): 9636.
Bion, W. R. (1957). Differentiation of the psychotic from the non-psychotic
personalities. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 38, 266–275.
Bion, W. R. (1959). Attacks on linking. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 40,
308–315.
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in Groups And Other Papers. Tavistock.
Bion, W. R. (1962). The psycho–analytic study of thinking. International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis, 43, 306–310.
Bollas, C. (1987). Shadow of the object. New York: Columbia University Press.
De Mare, P., Thompson, S. & Piper, R.(1991). Koinonia – From Hate through Dialogue to Culture in the Larger Group. New York, London: Karnac Books.
Dodds, J. (2011). Psychoanalysis and Ecology at the Edge of Chaos: Complexity Theory, Deleuze, Guattari and Psychoanalysis for a Climate in Crisis. New York: Routledge.
Evans, G. W. (1984). Environmental stress. CUP Archive.
Foulkes, S.H. and Antony, E.J.(1984). Group Psychotherapy: The Psychoanalytic Approach, H.Kamac(Books)Ltd. London
Freud, S. (1911). Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning. Standard
Edition (Vol. 12, pp. 213–226). Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. SE VIII (pp. 1–247).
Freud, S. (1910). The antithetical meaning of primal words. Standard Edition, Vol.
11, (pp.153–162). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1927). The Future of an Illusion. SE XXI (pp. 1–56).
Gomes & A. Kanner (1995). The all consuming self. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes & A. Kanner, Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. Sierra Club Books. (pp. 77–91).
Haseley, D. (2016). Climate change: Clinical considerations. Int. J. Appl. Psychoanal. Stud., 16:109–115.
Hopper, E. and Pines,M. (2003).The Social Unconscious Selected Papers, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London and Philadelphia.
Hopper,E. and Pines,M. (2003). Traumatic Experience in the Unconscious Life of Groups The Fourth Basic Assumption: Incohesion: Aggregation/Massification or (ba) I:A/M. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London and New York
Kassouf, S. (2021). A new thing under the sun. ROOM: A sketchbook for analytic action.
http://www.analytic-room.com/essays/a-new-thing-under-the-sun-by-susan-kassouf/
Kassouf, S. (2022). Thinking Catastrophic Thoughts: A traumatised sensibility on a hotter planet. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2022, 82, (60–79)
Kelly, B. J., Lewin, T. J., Stain, H. J., Coleman, C., Fitzgerald, M., Perkins, D., Carr,
V.J., Fragar, L., Fuller, J., Lyle, D., Beard, J. R. (2011). Determinants of mental health and well-being within rural and remote communities. Social psychiatry and
psychiatric epidemiology, 46(12), 1331-1342.
Klein, M. (1987). The Selected Melanie Klein. (J. Mitchell, Ed.). Free Press. Klein, M., Heimann, P. & Money-Kyrle (eds) (1955). New Directions in Psycho-Analysis: The Significance of Infant Conflict in the Pattern of Adult Behaviour. Maresfield.
Lewis, J. (2018). In the room with climate anxiety: Part 1. Psychiatric Times, 35:1–2.
Lewis, J. (2019). In the room with climate anxiety: Part 2. Psychiatric Times, 36:23–24.
Mark, B. & Lewis, J. (2020). Group Interventions for Climate Change Distress, Psychiatric Times.
Nicholsen, S. (2003). The Love of Nature and the End of the World: The Unspoken Dimensions of Environmental Concern. MIT Press.
Randall, R. (2005). A new climate for psychotherapy? Psychother. Pol. Int.,3:165–179.
Nitsun, M. (2014) Beyond the Anti-Group_ Survival and transformation. Routledge.
Nitsun, M. (1996). The Anti-Group. Routledge.
Randall, R. (2009). Loss and climate change: The cost of parallel narratives. Ecopsychology, 1:118–129.
Rehling, J. (2022). Conceptualising eco-anxiety using an existential framework. South African Journal of Psychology, vol. 52: 4.
Rust, M. J. (2008). Climate on the couch: Unconscious processes in relation to our environmental crisis. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 6(3), 157–170. Also available from: http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2912-Climate-on-the-couch-2-
Seaman, Ε. Β. (2016). Climate change on the therapist’s couch : how mental health clinicians receive and respond to indirect psychological impacts of climate change in the therapeutic setting. Masters Thesis, Smith College, Northampton, MA
Searles, H. (1960). The Nonhuman Environment in Normal Development and in Schizophrenia. International Universities Press.
Wessinger, K.A. (2019). Eco-Anxiety in the Age of Climate Change: An Adlerian Approach. Master of Arts in Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy. Master’s Thesis, The Adler Graduate School, Richfield, MN, USA.
WHO. (2014). Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on
selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2017). Depression and other common mental disorders:
global health estimates.
Winter, D. & Koger, S. (2004). The Psychology of Environmental Problems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.