Outer and inner worlds and human sustainability

According to Maiteny (1999), the dominant materialistic-consumerist mythology is seemingly inadequate in helping us achieve wellbeing and is also causing social and ecological disintegration, threatening our long-term survival as a species. He argues that, for human wellbeing and sustainability, we must learn about the relationship in our lives between the outer (ecological and social) worlds and our inner (personal and collective) worlds of motivation, meaning and value. He emphasises the need to seek alternative routes to wellbeing that are more exploratory of our inner worlds and identifies religion as a source worthy of consideration.

(The following write-up by Asitha Jayawardena is mainly based on Maiteny (1999). For enhanced readability, the main reference (i.e. Maiteny, 1999) is usually mentioned at the beginning of a section only. My position is clearly differentiated, usually by way of using ‘I’ or ‘my’.)

Modern society and human wellbeing

For healthy functioning of the human system, say Komiyama and Takeuchi (2006), what is required is experiencing a fulfilled life, not mere survival.

Does our modern society underpinned by materialism and consumerism help us achieve a fulfilled life?

Apparently no, according to several scholars.

Emerging are symptoms related to the ‘growing psychological stresses and strains of living in a complex consumerist society’ (Maiteny and Parker, 2002: 62), in which people seek in vain satisfactory meaning and value in their lives (Maiteny, 1999). And something is fundamentally wrong with the modern Western civilisation, and a range of related symptoms include negative feeling of life, moral confusion and failure, and a threat to life support systems that puts humanity’s existence in danger (Holtzman, 2003).

Today, the modern society is driven by the global maximum growth economy (Prugh et al, 2000).

Maiteny and Parker (2002) identify two cultural assumptions that, together with consumer demand, drive this global economy: (1) maximisation of consumption and wealth is the best route to human wellbeing, and (2) the planet is capable of sustaining ever-growing levels of consumption.

Maiteny and Parker (2002) show that the first assumption (of wellbeing) is gradually losing its base, mainly due to two reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence of a direct co-relation between increasing levels of wealth and consequent improvements in wellbeing. Secondly, economic growth at any cost entails significant ecological and social disintegration.

The second assumption, too, stands exposed as, according to Raven (2002), the ecological life support systems are deteriorating rapidly and visibly.

Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the global maximum growth economy is standing on wobbly ground today.

A biological drive undermining biological roots

Elaborating on the relationship of the materialistic-consumerist mythology (i.e., way of making sense) to human wellbeing and ecological health, Maiteny (1999) reveals in detail how Bruce Reed describes a related paradox, where a biologically-rooted drive is undermining our biological roots.

According to Reed, the incessant yearning for satisfaction in human beings is an experience of ‘in-needness’, a biologically rooted impulse we humans share with other animals. All animals, driven by their ‘instinctive’ desire for survival and reproduction, seek the essentials of life (e.g. food, water, shelter, relations with other of their kind).

When compared with animals, however, we have more options for satisfying our desires with. In fact it seems that biological, social or economic means alone cannot satisfy human in-needness. For example, when we try to find fulfilment – a sense of completeness or wholeness – through consuming goods and services, a lack of sense keeps coming back. However, the materialistic-consumerist mythology persuades us to seek fulfilment in consumption, threatening the balance in the biosphere.

Wrong is our belief that more and more elaborate products and services will eventually satisfy our desires once and for all. Marketers, however, know that no product will ever satisfy human in-needness and they even have a word for it! Goods satisfice, they never satisfy. Still the conviction that goods and services will satisfy human in-needness drives consumerism, and also an assault on our life support systems, including resource depletion, pollution and extinction. In the final analysis, it is our desires, not the objects created to ’satisfice’ them, that are undermining our ecological life support systems.

Thus Maiteny (1999) concludes that, paradoxically, something biological in us (i.e. our impulse for growth) is undermining us ecologically, and that sustainability depends on developing our cultural, psychological and spiritual capacities to override other damaging aspects of our nature.

It is therefore clear that the dominant materialistic-consumerist mythology, while being seemingly inadequate in helping us achieve wellbeing, is undermining our ecological life support systems, ultimately threatening our very existence. So we should explore alternative routes to satisfying the impulse of our in-needness in a more sustainable way.

Before exploring alternatives, however, let’s see what human wellbeing and existence depend on.

Outer (eco-social) worlds and inner (personal and collective) worlds

In the context of human wellbeing and existence, Maiteny (1999) discusses in length how we relate to our outer (eco-social) worlds and our inner (personal and collective) worlds of motivation, meaning and value.

For existence and wellbeing, we depend on relationships – with other people, the environment, the universe and so on – and on maps and symbols, myths and interpretive frameworks, languages and paradigms that our ancestors have developed. This is the collective inner world, the world of culture. Without them, we would not be able to make sense of anything and there will be no meaningful experience.

Problems arise, however, when we start believing that these frameworks are identical to what they represent. That is, when they become ’second nature’ – habits of thought. Our second nature representations may not be inclusive enough for the sustenance of the ecological first nature, on which we all depend for existence.
Summing up, Maiteny (1999), emphasises that, for human sustainability, wellbeing and development, we must therefore learn about the relationship in our lives between the outer (ecological and social) worlds and our inner (personal and collective) worlds of motivation, meaning and value. We depend on both – on the outer worlds, physically, and on the inner worlds, psychologically and spiritually.

I believe we should give much more attention to the fact of our dependence on both worlds for wellbeing and existence if we are serious about a sustainable future.

Several other scholars fall in line with Maiteny’s (1999) position.

According to Stephenson Bond (1993: 56), ‘we can meet the demands of outer necessity in an ideal way only if we are in a functional relationship (are adapted) to our inner world, that is, if we are in harmony with ourselves. Conversely, we can relate to the inner world and achieve harmony only when we are related to our outer conditions.’ Therefore, he highlights the need for a matching between the inner world of meaningfulness and the outer eco-social world.

Eckersley (2007) reveals that human health (and wellbeing) has multiple sources – material, social, cultural and spiritual. Holtzman (2003) emphasises the importance of both materialistic needs (e.g. food, water, shelter) and humanistic needs (e.g. love, self-respect, meaningful experiences, a supportive community) for human survival and flourishing. And Lazlo (1989) argues that happiness does not solely reside in material possessions but also in non-material factors, such as personal creativity, love and friendship, and harmonious living with nature.

Therefore, so far, two points are clear. Firstly, the materialistic-consumerist mythology is seemingly incapable in helping us achieve wellbeing and it is threatening our long term existence, too. Secondly, we depend on both outer and inner worlds and also on both materialistic and humanistic needs, for existence and wellbeing. Together, these points build up a strong case for exploring routes alternative to the dominant mythology, which excessively focuses on the outer worlds and materialistic needs.

Alternative routes more exploratory of inner worlds and humanistic needs

Maiteny (1999) proposes a desirable alternative, reminding us that the materialistic-consumerist mythology is just one out of many by which we humans can make sense of our world and our place in it, and seek to satisfy our in-needness. We should turn to routes that are more exploratory of our inner worlds, bringing the outer world to realisation in their own image. Thus, his position harmonises with Stephenson Bond’s (1993) emphasis on the need for a balance between inner and outer worlds.

Several other scholars resonate Maiteny’s (1999) stance. For example, following Conwey (1997), Raven (2002) states that the fundamental conditions for change towards a more sustainable world must come from within. Handy (1995), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), backs non- (or less-) material routes to wellbeing while Von Weizsacker, et al (1997), also in Maiteny and Parker (2002), promotes the concept of ‘non-material wealth’ as a route to wellbeing.

It is therefore clear that the alternative routes should be more exploratory of our inner worlds and more enthusiastic about our humanistic needs. And Maiteny (1999) points towards such a direction – religion. According to him, the ‘inner’ mystical teachings of all religious traditions describe the meaningfulness of something as abstract as experiencing connectedness and unity. When connectedness is experienced, he observes, what tends to follow is the understanding that individual survival is impossible without collective survival and ecological integrity.

Another scholar who considers religion as a source of wellbeing is Eckersley (2007), who claims that, although there are non-religious routes to wellbeing, religion is a ‘package’ that contains many ingredients of health and wellbeing.

However, Eckersley (2007) warns that religion is no panacea for improving health and wellbeing. For example, although the United States is strong in people’s religious belief and practice when compared with other industrialised countries, it is weak in many social indicators (Boarini et al, 2006, in Eckersley, 2007). Religion has been and is party to conflicts, both social and military (Finke, 2008) and among religion’s numerous dark shadows are between-group conflicts and repressive social control mechanisms for ensuring conformity within their respective groups (Wilson, 2008). So they all recommend caution in considering religion as an absolute source of health and wellbeing.

Still, besides being a source of non-material wealth (Eckersley, 2007), religion tends to help towards creating a society that is better able to achieve wellbeing without adversely affecting the ecological or social integrity because, as Wilson (2008) highlights, a spiritual (religious) person tends to think and act towards making the world a better place for many people far into the future.

As Eckersley (2007) says, religion is a ‘package’ of human health and wellbeing and therefore total neglect of this wellbeing-rich source is not a wise move. Therefore, while being alert on the possible dark sides of religion, we should identify wellbeing and sustainability potentials of different religions and use such perspectives and knowledge in order to map alternative routes to wellbeing that are conducive towards ecological and social integrity.

Although sustainability is primarily a scientific concept, science on its own cannot ensure sustainability; both scientific and cultural thinking are required (Maiteny and Parker, 2002). The significance of religion in the context of human wellbeing and sustainability is that, as Maiteny and Parker (2002: 66) says, many religions view humans as ‘participants in all-encompassing web of dependent interrelationships’ requiring respect and humility and emphasise on finding oneself ‘a meaningful role within the context as a more effective route to wellbeing and development.’ Therefore, I believe that science-religion collaboration is desirable for mapping alternative routes to more effective human wellbeing without threatening our long-term survival.

Some hope that needs nurturing

As Maiteny and Parker (2002: 19) reveal, gradually rising is the level of scepticism about the validity of the dominant materialistic-consumerist mythology and ‘a cultural shift or rethink in norms and values seems to be taking place.’

Therefore, I think that the future is not entirely dark and there’s room for some hope, especially for the generations to come. However, in order to nurture these green shoots of hope, we should, as Maiteny (1999) proposes, actively seek alternative routes to wellbeing that are more exploratory of our inner worlds of motivation, meaning and value and therefore less destructive of our (ecological and social) outer worlds.

References

BOARINI, R., JOHANSSON, A., D’ERCOLE, M.M. (2006) Alternative measures of wellbeing. Economics Department Working Papers No. 476. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (In Eckersley, 2007).

CONWEY, G. (1997) The double green revolution: Food for all in the 21st century. London: Penguin. (In Raven, 2002). (In Raven, 2002).

ECKERSLEY, R.M. (2007) Culture, spirituality, religion and health: looking at the big picture. Medical Journal of Australia, 186(10), 21 May, pp. S54-S56. [Online] Available from: https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_10_210507/eck11061_fm.pdf [Accessed 7 February 2009].

FINKE, R. (2008) Is the ‘clash of civilizations’ really true? The ‘religious economy’ is a better explanation. Science & Spirit, 19(1), Jan-Feb 2008, p. 45. [Online] Available from: Academic OneFile. Gale. London South Bank University http://0-find.galegroup.com.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk:80/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE [Accessed 27 January 2009].

HANDY, C. (1995) Beyond certainty: the changing worlds of organisations. London: Hutchinson. (In Maiteny and Parker, 2002).

HOLTZMAN, S. (2003) Science and religion: The categorial conflict. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 54(2), October, pp. 77-99. [Online] Available from: Springerlink http://0-www.springerlink.com.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk/content/w150v6476t23822p/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2009].

KOMIYAMA, H., and TAKEUCHI, K. (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. [Online] Available from: http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files%5C6063%5Carticles%5C15092%5Cart13.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2008].

LASZLO, E. (1989) The inner limits of mankind. Oxford: Oneworld In: MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

MAITENY, P. (1999) Balance in the ecosphere: a perspective. European Judaism, 32(2), issue 63, pp. 131-138 In:

MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (2002) Unit 6 Study guide: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

PRUGH, T., CONSTANZA, R., and DALY, H. (2000) Minimum technical requirements for sustainable development. Chapter 2 in: The local politics in global sustainability. Washington: Island Press In: CLARKE-PATEL, A. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2001) Unit 4 Reader: Local and global. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

RAVEN, P.H. (2002) Presidential address: Science, sustainability and the human prospect. Science, 297(55-83), pp. 954-958. [Online] Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5583/954 [Accessed 6 November 2008].

STEPHENSON BOND, S. (1993) The religious function of myth In: Living myth: personal meaning as a way of life, pp. 46-57. Boston and London: Shambala Publications In: MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

VON WEIZSACKER, E., LOVINGS, A.B., and HUNTER, L.L., (1997) Factor four: doubling wealth, having resource use. The new report to the Club of Rome. London: Earthscan In: MAITENY, P. and WADE, R. (2003) Unit 5 Study guide: Theories and perspectives in environment and development. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University. (In Maiteny and Parker, 2002).

WILSON, D.S. (2008) Our Superorganism: Evolutionary Biology Gazes on Religion and Spirituality In: The science of religion: the new quest to solve a ‘genuine scientific puzzle’. Science & Spirit, 19(1), Jan-Feb 2008, pp. 38-42. [Online] Available from: Academic OneFile. Gale. London South Bank University http://0-find.galegroup.com.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk:80/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE [Accessed 27 January 2009].