7.5.1
I conceptualise ER as analogous to the established notion of sociological reflexivity, only with a distinctive ecological focus. From a Bourdieuan perspective, a direct parallel can be drawn between Bourdieu’s habitus and reflexivity (Bourdieu, 1972, 1990a), and ecological habitus and ER. Accordingly, ER can most simply be defined as (1) the reflexive processes that constitute ecological habitus, and (2) a person’s awareness, reproduction, or (more or less critical) contestation of the same.
ER occurs with different degrees of intentionality and sophistication in the same way as sociological reflexivity. It can be routine, embodied, and subconscious, simply informing adaptation of ecological habitus in response to socio-ecological environments; or conscious (and potentially change-orientated) in a periodic or imposed way; and/or can be intentional, systematic, and critical, and even applied to ecological habitus of self, of other, or as a conceptual/analytical lens. Different degrees of these (and undoubtedly other) iterations of ER coexist within and across individuals, and ER is variable in quantity, configuration and deployment. The degree to which ER promotes awareness and conservation of ‘natural capital’ (i.e. all natural resources and the ecosystem services provided by the earth; see Costanza & Daly, 1992) also varies. I discuss a range of variant below.
Subconscious/routine forms of ecological reflexivity a)
This ‘subconscious’ reflexivity describes the end of the reflexivity spectrum where doxic, embodied and passive forms of reflexivity occur without conscious reasoning. Subconscious reflexivity is made up of subconscious reflection and recursion (Hibbert, et al., 2010; Platt, 1989), for example a passive awareness of the immediate outside world (reflection without conscious reasoning) and appropriate action in response to this world (passive recursion), using an instinctive and largely socialised ‘feel for the game’. This is a routine part of total habitus, operating with regards to many facets of everyday life, and can occur in combination with conscious and critical reflexivities (see below).
In the same way that everyone is socially reflexive (at least subconsciously and routinely) in response to various social fields, everyone possesses ER, as everyone interacts with natural capital and the ecological world. At this end of the scale, ER is a pervasive, embodied part of ecological habitus. Examples of this are breathing, eating, drinking, and sheltering, which involve direct interaction with ecosystems (the atmosphere, food systems, water sources, and natural resources such as construction materials and fuels), but routinely occur without conscious consideration or active intent. These demonstrate the effects (generally beneficial, but not always) of natural capital on people, but equally important are the ways that people effect natural capital, both negatively and positively.
Periodic/imposed conscious forms of ecological reflexivity b)
Alongside this, more conscious forms of ER also exist. Conscious ER occurs spasmodically as a normal response to ever-changing socio-ecological conditions. This can occur on a micro scale (e.g. unexpectedly getting rained on) or on a severe scale that ruptures socio-ecological doxa (e.g. natural disasters). Any changes to natural capital, socio-ecological capitals and practices, and/or social fields may spur conscious ER, and bring a new lens to elements of ecological habitus that have been taken for granted or routinised.
Additionally, ER can be spurred by something that feels subconsciously or consciously ‘wrong’, in a moral sense, in the same way that sociological reflexivity is often a moral modality (Sayer, 2005). Negative feelings (e.g. anxiety, fear, anger, etc.) can alert individuals to disruptions and contestations of otherwise subconscious ER, in turn provoking intentional conscious/critical ER. For example, confronted with a month’s worth of domestic waste in physical form80 would stimulate awareness of practices, at least, and at best might illuminate the moral undercurrents that permit these practices to be routinely reproduced, prompting conscious/critical ER, and even an intentional shift in practice.
Intentional critER c)
A more critical strain of conscious ER (critER) can also be cultivated intentionally, enhanced, and developed with recurrent practice, in the same ways as sociological reflexivity. CritER involves a more broad-scale and pervasive recognition of socio-ecological interconnection. This modality of ER is most commonly invoked within the literature, often with the implicit assumption that it is underpinned by a sense of moral responsibility to the natural world (e.g. Mellor, 2000; Plumwood, 1998). Analogies can be drawn with ‘ecological imagination’ (Thomashow, 1996; 2001), which describes imagination (i.e. conscious reflection) upon the ways that people shape the natural environment, and how this shapes people in return. This is a socio-ecological parallel to Mills’ (1959) ‘sociological imagination’, which considers how individuals shape society and society shapes individuals.
CritER, like any intentional change can become routinised and dispositional over time, especially when supported by the social fields one operates in. Routinisation of reflexivity as part of sustainable ecological habitus was noted by Haluza-DeLay as a potential benefit of environmental social movements (Haluza-DeLay, 2006b, 2008). This has been documented as a feature of environmental activism (Crossley, 2003; Kirby, 2017) and corresponds with Morita’s definition of ER, as a continual, in-the-moment process (Morita, 2010).
Cultivating critER d)
A person’s capacity for conscious/critical ER evolves over time, enlarging or conversely atrophying in passive, imposed and intentional ways. Here I focus on critER as the most intentional and methodologically useful variant, which can occur with more or less depth and complexity, depending on several factors including a person’s:
capacities for critical reflection (i.e. conscious questioning or conditions) in general; knowledge of relevant ecological systems (e.g. how hydrological cycles maintain water
quality) and how people’s day-to-day practices affect these directly (e.g. water conservation in the home);
understanding of sociological mechanisms (e.g. political economies);
recognition of how these factors are linked (e.g. how economic policy can impact water quality and conservation in the home);
capacity for translating these understandings into cycles of practical evolution and continuing intentional conscious/critical ER; and
the capacity to critically and rigorously question all of the above.
Intentional enhancement of critER can be achieved, for example, through critical practice (discussed below); learning about different facets of ecological habitus (e.g. reading about systems of food production); practical experience (e.g. volunteering at a community garden); and socially (e.g. children introducing ecological initiatives from school to their families). In this way, critER encompasses the idea of developing ecological literacy (Hester, 2006; Orr, 2004; Thomashow, 1996). Comparing one’s own ecological habitus to those of others (e.g. by immersion in a foreign social field) or spending time in a foreign ecological setting can also potentially expand one’s referential world, altering the capacities listed above and thereby prompting more in-depth critER of one’s accustomed practices and ecological habitus. These are analogous to ways that Bourdieu proposes to enhance reflexivity (Bourdieu, 1979). Finally, critER can be spurred by the intentional introduction of new practices, which necessitate conscious ER when first initiated, before becoming routinised and embodied over time.
Clearly critER can be conceptualised as a form of individual ecological (cultural) capital that contributes to individual habitus, in the same way that critical sociological reflexivity is a form of individual cultural capital within habitus. Additionally, just as an individual’s practice of critical sociological reflexivity directly contributes to societal pools of cultural capital and overall habitus, developing and practicing critER adds to society’s collective ecological capitals (i.e. the social and cultural variants) and ecological habitus. Similarly, actioning81 Bourdieu’s four capitals (with or without conscious or critical reflexivity) can change economic and other material capitals, and actioning ecological capitals (by definition) leads to increases or decreases in natural capital. Finally, just as the social field continually and reciprocally influences the individual, natural capital continually influences and is influenced by human practices (and human life itself) at varying scales (e.g. molecular, thermodynamic, or catastrophic).
Neutral critER as a conceptual tool e)
In the literature, critER is primarily discussed as a way to develop conscious or critical awareness of these interconnectivities between people and natural capital, and respond to these in ways that enhance natural capital and its capacity of be sustained by people or to be self-sustaining (Mellor,
2000; Morita, 2010). However, a value-neutral critER would provide a better conceptual tool for identifying, describing, and analysing potentialities for change across the spectrum of socio- ecological orientations (i.e. from the persistent unsustainable status quos to more sustainable82 variants). A Bourdieuan conceptualisation highlights the value of such critER as a research methodology (i.e. applied the same way that Bourdieu applied reflexivity), and this would respond to Kasper’s (2009a) proposal for ecological habitus. Of the existing ER literature, Manuel- Navarrete and Buzinde’s definition of ER (2010) most closely corresponds to this, but again does not take a Bourdieuan perspective to develop the concept.
Given the current state of the ecological challenges and impending crises faced by humankind, it seems imperative that individuals and collectives adopt and normalise critER interrogations to describe and analyse current habitus and identify points where change could be initiated within this in order to develop more sustainable alternatives. CritER highlights how ecologically sustainable habitus, dispositions, capitals, reflexivities, practices, and social fields are reproduced, what could be changed, and how change could become routinised and/or socially contagious. The challenge set by ecological habitus scholars, as discussed above, is for tools that foster such critER to be developed, and this corresponds with calls for innovative theoretical approaches and pragmatic critical reflexivity to be developed as contributions to the necessary sustainability revolution (Popa, et al., 2015).
Below I offer examples of how intentional critER might be engaged to such ends, firstly presenting a preliminary Bourdieuan logic of questioning that could be used to systematically examine a given ecological habitus and its sustainability using critER; and secondly exemplifying use of critER as an analytical lens for framing more abstract contemporary socio-ecological challenges of ecological habitus, and revealing potential and practical inroads towards their solution.