No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 January 2025
The climate change crisis is a complex global challenge that has far- reaching implications for public health and well-being. Rising temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events are impacting physical health, mental well-being, and ecological balance. Vulnerable communities are disproportionately affected, especially in terms of food security. Furthermore, climate-related disasters have profound and lasting effects on mental health, leading to trauma responses and dissociation as coping mechanisms. This perspective delves into the concept of collective dissociation, a subconscious defense mechanism that hinders effective action in the face of the overwhelming climate crisis. Understanding and characterizing this phenomenon is essential to promote meaningful climate action. To combat collective dissociation and facilitate effective collective action, several strategies are proposed. Responsible information management for advocacy, local moral support, strategic policy development, and research on climate trauma processing are highlighted as vital approaches. By addressing the mental health implications of climate change, raising awareness, and prioritizing resilience and cooperation, societies can transcend collective dissociation and work together towards a more sustainable future for both the planet and its inhabitants. This call to action underscores the need for comprehensive and guided measures to safeguard planetary and population health in the face of this pressing crisis.
Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health
Prof Judy Bass
Dear Professor Judy Bass
Subject: Submission of Research Article - “Addressing Collective Dissociation: Empowering Climate Action for a Resilient Future”
I am writing to submit my research article titled “Addressing Collective Dissociation: Empowering Climate Action for a Resilient Future” for consideration in Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. I believe that our study provides valuable insights into the psychological defense mechanism of collective dissociation and its impact on climate change response, with significant implications for public health and global sustainability.
The climate change crisis is an urgent and complex issue that demands comprehensive understanding and effective action. In our research, we explored the concept of collective dissociation as a psychological barrier to addressing climate change effectively. Our study highlights the profound implications of climate change on physical health, mental well-being, and ecological balance. Moreover, we present strategies to combat collective dissociation, ranging from responsible information management to fostering local moral support and advocating for strategic policy development.
Our findings offer a fresh perspective on how individuals and societies respond to the existential threat of climate change. We believe that this research aligns closely with the mission of [Journal Name], as it contributes significantly to the understanding of the human dimensions of climate change and its implications for mental health and well-being. We are confident that the broader audience of the journal will find value in our research, and we hope that it will stimulate further discussions and actions to address the climate change crisis.
As the Corresponding Author, I confirm that this manuscript has been read and approved for submission and publication in the Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health in Open Access format by all named authors. We confirm that this manuscript has not been submitted or published elsewhere and all co-authors have consented to its submission. None of the authors has any conflicts of interest, and I also confirm the permission to reproduce the published material in the manuscript.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Deborah Shomuyiwa
Corresponding author
deborahshomuyiwa@gmail.com
Article title: Change Trauma and Collective Dissociation:
Unravelling the Impact on Mental Health and Advocating for
Collective Action
In general:
The article doesn’t say anything particularly new or unknown.
The concept of dissociation seems to be very limited, describing all mental states related to inertia towards climate change. It does not explain people’s general inertia towards climate change. This is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. People’s distance from the climate crisis is also the product of psychological phenomena (e.g. psychological distance), political interests, misinformation, fear, which are already well explained in the literature and are well known.
We suggest you read more than White, Benjamin. 2015. Otherwise the article seems rhetorical.
The topic chosen by the authors is admirable, but the issue is much more complex than described in the text of the article.
The authors have read little about why people do not respond to climate change.
Their bibliography is limited.
Specific:
Page 6 (31 - 33) "mindset inadvertently promotes climate change (White, 2015), leading to distinct local reactions, miscommunication, trends, and disconnection on a larger scale
Comment: There is no reason to call the many phenomena of inactive response to climate change “collective dissociation”. People go through different phenomena that explain their reactions; these phenomena are also cultural, social and therefore psychological.
I recommend reading (Cianconi, P.; Hanife, B.; Grillo, F.; Zhang, K.; Janiri, L. Human Responses and Adaptation in a Changing Climate: A Framework Integrating Biological, Psychological, and Behavioural Aspects. Life 2021, 11, 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11090895 )
Page 6 (38 - 40) This nonconscious and automatic response leads to social detachment and political apathy, hindering progress toward meaningful climate action.
Page 7 (23-27). Collective dissociation has been
observed to influence both directly impacted and climate-informed populations. Acknowledging that collective dissociation related to climate trauma is a significant psychological barrier to addressing the climate crisis is a crucial step.
Comment: Isn’t it better to write subconsciously rather than unconsciously?
There are also fully conscious phenomena that are active in dissociating themselves from the climate crisis and disinterested in it. Why aren’t they mentioned? There is a danger of oversimplification.
I recommend reading: (Moser, S.C. Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 31–53) - Moser, S.C. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 345–369.) - (Norgaard KM. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2011.), (McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J Environ Psychol 2016, 44:109–118)
(Milfont, T. L. (2010). Global warming, climate change and human psychology. Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and practice, 19, 42.) - (Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 2011, 66:290–302) and finally: (Pawlik K. (1991) The Psychology of Global Environmental Change: Some Basic Data and an Agenda for Cooperative International Research. International Journalof psychology 26, 547-563)
Let me preface my comments by saying that this a most welcome contribution to the field of climate psychology, one that has the potential to bridge the disconnect between public opinion and political action. I’m grateful to the authors for this insightful analysis, and look forward to its publication and broad dissemination.
“Climate change can have various mental health impacts...” This reinforces the split b/t humans and nature by not acknowledging the symbiosis of life on a living planet. What is “climate change” but a measurement of variations in temperature; i.e., a scientific term based on objectifying nature. What happens if, instead, you posit “Climate trauma can manifest in many ways on a living planet where everything is interconnected.” ? Here, the subject “climate trauma” refers not to some scientific measurements, but rather to the real problem - a living planet that is experiencing a potentially lethal assault on its life-support system. This is an e.g. of how we are trying to think our way out of a problem with the same thinking that got us into the problem, no? “Understanding the full spectrum of mental health responses and challenges to climate trauma is crucial.” See how differently that lands? Dissociation becomes a coping mechanism for overwhelm from collective, global trauma, rather than a response to a larger variation in scientific measurements, which is simply not what is happening here. Leave the science to the scientists! We don’t have to accept the scientific-materialist narrative that still largely denies Gaia theory, in spite of the fact that it is no longer a hypothesis. In reality, it is the scientific-materialist objectivity that has been disproven, and so it is a grave error to continue treating Gaia as a giant test tube, as well as using language that sees humans as separate from, and thus affected by, this larger living organism that is dying from the effects of our affliction.
w/re: reflective resistance, I think it is important to point out that social taboos also play an important role in reinforcing those psycho-defenses. There is still a pretty big taboo against speaking about trauma in social context, which often lacks the kind of safety people feel in more intimate settings where trauma is more likely to be acknowledged.
p. 6, line 47: global POLITICAL resistance. Don’t blame people for the sins of their representatives. In the U.S., well over 70% of the populace has for some time now supported more drastic actions on the climate then they are ever offered by the politicians running for or holding political office. I think it quite sloppy to conflate these two camps. It is in politics where the collective dissociation is most pronounced, not in the polity. My hope is that your paper ends up catalyzing a political intervention, but you need to be much more clear here in pointing out the disconnect b/t popular support for climate action and politicians who take large contributions from the fossil fuel industry. In truth, the politicians knowingly enable and reinforce the very collective dissociation you are targeting here.
This presumption that it is essential to avoid over-emphasizing individual responsibility misses the mark by a wide margin. Please consult Thompson, A. (2012) “The Virtue of Responsibility for the Global Climate” on this point. (I wrote about this topic, citing Prof. Thompson’s work, here: https://www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/what-if-we-are-all-we-ve-got) This is also relevant to the next paragraph at the top of p. 8. And on that point, it wouldn’t hurt to cite a couple of good e.g.’s, such as Joanna Macy’s “The Work that Reconnects” “The Good Grief Network” and “The Climate Psychology Alliance”
On the topic of local moral support, please consult the APA’s “Action Plan for Psychologists” (Feb. 2022), which speaks to the moral responsibility of mental health professionals to be more proactive in their communities. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf
Excellent work! Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to review this important paper.
Article title: Change Trauma and Collective Dissociation:
Unravelling the Impact on Mental Health and Advocating for
Collective Action
Revisor 1
In general: The article doesn’t say anything particularly new or unknown.
The concept of dissociation seems to be very limited, describing all mental states related to inertia towards climate change. It does not explain people’s general inertia towards climate change. This is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. People’s distance from the climate crisis is also the product of psychological phenomena (e.g. psychological distance), political interests, misinformation, fear, which are already well explained in the literature and are well known.
We suggest you read more than White, Benjamin. 2015. Otherwise the article seems rhetorical.
The topic chosen by the authors is admirable, but the issue is much more complex than described in the text of the article.
The authors have read little about why people do not respond to climate change.
Their bibliography is limited.
Specific:
Page 6 (31 - 33) "mindset inadvertently promotes climate change (White, 2015), leading to distinct local reactions, miscommunication, trends, and disconnection on a larger scale
Comment: There is no reason to call the many phenomena of inactive response to climate change “collective dissociation”. People go through different phenomena that explain their reactions; these phenomena are also cultural, social and therefore psychological.
I recommend reading (Cianconi, P.; Hanife, B.; Grillo, F.; Zhang, K.; Janiri, L. Human Responses and Adaptation in a Changing Climate: A Framework Integrating Biological, Psychological, and Behavioural Aspects. Life 2021, 11, 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11090895 )
Page 6 (38 - 40) This nonconscious and automatic response leads to social detachment and political apathy, hindering progress toward meaningful climate action.
Page 7 (23-27). Collective dissociation has been
observed to influence both directly impacted and climate-informed populations. Acknowledging that collective dissociation related to climate trauma is a significant psychological barrier to addressing the climate crisis is a crucial step.
Comment: Isn’t it better to write subconsciously rather than unconsciously?
There are also fully conscious phenomena that are active in dissociating themselves from the climate crisis and disinterested in it. Why aren’t they mentioned? There is a danger of oversimplification.
I recommend reading: (Moser, S.C. Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 31–53) - Moser, S.C. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 345–369.) - (Norgaard KM. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2011.), (McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J Environ Psychol 2016, 44:109–118)
(Milfont, T. L. (2010). Global warming, climate change and human psychology. Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and practice, 19, 42.) - (Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 2011, 66:290–302) and finally: (Pawlik K. (1991) The Psychology of Global Environmental Change: Some Basic Data and an Agenda for Cooperative International Research. International Journalof psychology 26, 547-563)
Revisor 2
Let me preface my comments by saying that this a most welcome contribution to the field of climate psychology, one that has the potential to bridge the disconnect between public opinion and political action. I’m grateful to the authors for this insightful analysis, and look forward to its publication and broad dissemination.
“Climate change can have various mental health impacts...” This reinforces the split b/t humans and nature by not acknowledging the symbiosis of life on a living planet. What is “climate change” but a measurement of variations in temperature; i.e., a scientific term based on objectifying nature. What happens if, instead, you posit “Climate trauma can manifest in many ways on a living planet where everything is interconnected.” ? Here, the subject “climate trauma” refers not to some scientific measurements, but rather to the real problem - a living planet that is experiencing a potentially lethal assault on its life-support system. This is an e.g. of how we are trying to think our way out of a problem with the same thinking that got us into the problem, no? “Understanding the full spectrum of mental health responses and challenges to climate trauma is crucial.” See how differently that lands? Dissociation becomes a coping mechanism for overwhelm from collective, global trauma, rather than a response to a larger variation in scientific measurements, which is simply not what is happening here. Leave the science to the scientists! We don’t have to accept the scientific-materialist narrative that still largely denies Gaia theory, in spite of the fact that it is no longer a hypothesis. In reality, it is the scientific-materialist objectivity that has been disproven, and so it is a grave error to continue treating Gaia as a giant test tube, as well as using language that sees humans as separate from, and thus affected by, this larger living organism that is dying from the effects of our affliction.
w/re: reflective resistance, I think it is important to point out that social taboos also play an important role in reinforcing those psycho-defenses. There is still a pretty big taboo against speaking about trauma in social context, which often lacks the kind of safety people feel in more intimate settings where trauma is more likely to be acknowledged.
p. 6, line 47: global POLITICAL resistance. Don’t blame people for the sins of their representatives. In the U.S., well over 70% of the populace has for some time now supported more drastic actions on the climate then they are ever offered by the politicians running for or holding political office. I think it quite sloppy to conflate these two camps. It is in politics where the collective dissociation is most pronounced, not in the polity. My hope is that your paper ends up catalyzing a political intervention, but you need to be much more clear here in pointing out the disconnect b/t popular support for climate action and politicians who take large contributions from the fossil fuel industry. In truth, the politicians knowingly enable and reinforce the very collective dissociation you are targeting here.
This presumption that it is essential to avoid over-emphasizing individual responsibility misses the mark by a wide margin. Please consult Thompson, A. (2012) “The Virtue of Responsibility for the Global Climate” on this point. (I wrote about this topic, citing Prof. Thompson’s work, here: https://www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/what-if-we-are-all-we-ve-got) This is also relevant to the next paragraph at the top of p. 8. And on that point, it wouldn’t hurt to cite a couple of good e.g.’s, such as Joanna Macy’s “The Work that Reconnects” “The Good Grief Network” and “The Climate Psychology Alliance”
On the topic of local moral support, please consult the APA’s “Action Plan for Psychologists” (Feb. 2022), which speaks to the moral responsibility of mental health professionals to be more proactive in their communities. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf
Excellent work! Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to review this important paper.
No accompanying comment.
No accompanying comment.
This is amazing synthesis of the surveyed articles - THANK YOU! It’s a critical message that needs to be widely distributed, as it cuts right to the heart of our inaction in the face of an existential threat. I have only two constructive comments/suggestions:
1. While it is implicit throughout, I think it very important to make it clear up front that the climate crisis is a crisis of relationship, and thus the mental health professions not only have a duty to respond to the distress it causes, but also to address the relational aspects of the climate crisis. That kind of response has been sorely lacking from institutional arms of the psychology profession in particular, and so consistent with the theme of the paper, you may wish to acknowledge the institutional dissociation of the psychology profession itself (as opposed to, e.g., Climate Psychology Alliance of U.K. & N.A.)
2. Along those same lines, I believe this paper would benefit greatly from a citation to the 2nd Report of the APA Climate Task Force: Addressing the Climate Crisis
An Action Plan for Psychologists (https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf)
This article identifies ‘collective dissociation’ as one of the reasons why climate change is failing to achieve the outcome of bringing collective decisions together to create the right awareness and shared responsibility for effective collective action. They emphasise that understanding this dissociation is paramount to promoting meaningful climate action and breaking through inaction, denial and disconnection. The authors propose a number of strategies to promote global awareness of climate change, foster and develop resilience and cooperation, so that societies can overcome collective dissociation and work together towards a more sustainable future for the planet and its inhabitants.
The strategies were grouped into: responsible information management, local moral support, strategic policy development and research on climate trauma processing, empowering communities, policy makers and stakeholders to take decisive action, and promoting information and education.
The article is interesting and even original in some parts, but in others it can lapse into rhetorical discourse. The interesting part is the choice of the ‘collective dissociation’ mechanism. As explained in the article, there are some inaccuracies on this issue. The article introduces the concept of collective dissociation, but does not explain it correctly. Collective dissociation is certainly a new phenomenon reported in relation to climate change and needs to be studied further. However, in the past, similar phenomena have been part of ‘mass understanding and behaviour’ in the face of dark dangers, where choices are lost in creeping situations. Collective dissociation is not just an unconscious mecenism, but a set of psychological phenomena. It is a set of psychological phenomena that can be observed at the group and collective level, down to the population segment. We have published something about this in an article on human adaptation to climate change (Cianconi P, Hanife B, Grillo F, Zhang K, Janiri L. Human Responses and Adaptation in a Changing Climate: A Framework Integrating Biological, Psychological, and Behavioural Aspects. Life. 2021; 11(9):895. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11090895) Might be worth a look.
The result of such phenomena is the paralysis of people in fear of making decisions, total inertia, denial and other psychological, social, cultural dynamics. The authors rightly point out that there are other conditions attached to collective dissociation, including denial, fear and misinformation, which contribute to this inertia.
In “(policy development)” the article becomes rhetorical (like many other articles at this point). There is no mention of the real responsibilities for the climate situation: the resistance of the companies, the delaying tactics for the sake of continued profits, the paralysis of the states and the complicit governments, and all the social and global actors that increase climate change (bank and company investments in coal, unbridled consumerism, green washing, war economy, pollution, etc.). We cannot leave everything to the will of the citizens if this is not the case. Citizens are alienated because the danger they see and hear about does not match the actions of those in power. The danger does not receive the attention it deserves in the face of the interests of the elites, the financial sector, coal and oil companies, deforestation, etc. About this topic there are lot of research -
In ‘(Research)’ section, on the other hand, is interesting and fully supported. Research on climate trauma and collective dissociation is essential for understanding the sociological and psychological dimensions of climate change. To inform interventions to improve the mental health and well-being of affected populations, to explore the interrelationships between the different dimensions of psychological distance, to understand the dynamics and barriers, to design communication strategies. Finally, to explore the efficacy of therapeutic practices to alleviate climate anxiety and promote resilience, collaboration between disciplines, and research that contributes to a collective healing process that unites humanity in the face of the climate crisis.
Something about references is not written correctly:
It repeats: Cianconi, P., Betrò, S., & Janiri, L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers of Psychiatry, 11, 74.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074Cianconi, P., Betrò, S., & Janiri, L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers of Psychiatry,
11, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.0007.
Cited but not referenced: Dr Moser is cited but not included in the references (Moser, 2016).
Dear authors, thank you very much for submitting and responding to comments, it is a great improvement and the reviewers forward only minor comments to us for review.
Review 1:
This is amazing synthesis of the surveyed articles - THANK YOU! It’s a critical message that needs to be widely distributed, as it cuts right to the heart of our inaction in the face of an existential threat. I have only two constructive comments/suggestions:
1. While it is implicit throughout, I think it very important to make it clear up front that the climate crisis is a crisis of relationship, and thus the mental health professions not only have a duty to respond to the distress it causes, but also to address the relational aspects of the climate crisis. That kind of response has been sorely lacking from institutional arms of the psychology profession in particular, and so consistent with the theme of the paper, you may wish to acknowledge the institutional dissociation of the psychology profession itself (as opposed to, e.g., Climate Psychology Alliance of U.K. & N.A.)
2. Along those same lines, I believe this paper would benefit greatly from a citation to the 2nd Report of the APA Climate Task Force: Addressing the Climate Crisis
An Action Plan for Psychologists (https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf)
Review 2:
This article identifies ‘collective dissociation’ as one of the reasons why climate change is failing to achieve the outcome of bringing collective decisions together to create the right awareness and shared responsibility for effective collective action. They emphasise that understanding this dissociation is paramount to promoting meaningful climate action and breaking through inaction, denial and disconnection. The authors propose a number of strategies to promote global awareness of climate change, foster and develop resilience and cooperation, so that societies can overcome collective dissociation and work together towards a more sustainable future for the planet and its inhabitants.
The strategies were grouped into: responsible information management, local moral support, strategic policy development and research on climate trauma processing, empowering communities, policy makers and stakeholders to take decisive action, and promoting information and education.
The article is interesting and even original in some parts, but in others it can lapse into rhetorical discourse. The interesting part is the choice of the ‘collective dissociation’ mechanism. As explained in the article, there are some inaccuracies on this issue. The article introduces the concept of collective dissociation, but does not explain it correctly. Collective dissociation is certainly a new phenomenon reported in relation to climate change and needs to be studied further. However, in the past, similar phenomena have been part of ‘mass understanding and behaviour’ in the face of dark dangers, where choices are lost in creeping situations. Collective dissociation is not just an unconscious mecenism, but a set of psychological phenomena. It is a set of psychological phenomena that can be observed at the group and collective level, down to the population segment. We have published something about this in an article on human adaptation to climate change (Cianconi P, Hanife B, Grillo F, Zhang K, Janiri L. Human Responses and Adaptation in a Changing Climate: A Framework Integrating Biological, Psychological, and Behavioural Aspects. Life. 2021; 11(9):895. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11090895) Might be worth a look.
The result of such phenomena is the paralysis of people in fear of making decisions, total inertia, denial and other psychological, social, cultural dynamics. The authors rightly point out that there are other conditions attached to collective dissociation, including denial, fear and misinformation, which contribute to this inertia.
In “(policy development)” the article becomes rhetorical (like many other articles at this point). There is no mention of the real responsibilities for the climate situation: the resistance of the companies, the delaying tactics for the sake of continued profits, the paralysis of the states and the complicit governments, and all the social and global actors that increase climate change (bank and company investments in coal, unbridled consumerism, green washing, war economy, pollution, etc.). We cannot leave everything to the will of the citizens if this is not the case. Citizens are alienated because the danger they see and hear about does not match the actions of those in power. The danger does not receive the attention it deserves in the face of the interests of the elites, the financial sector, coal and oil companies, deforestation, etc. About this topic there are lot of research -
In ‘(Research)’ section, on the other hand, is interesting and fully supported. Research on climate trauma and collective dissociation is essential for understanding the sociological and psychological dimensions of climate change. To inform interventions to improve the mental health and well-being of affected populations, to explore the interrelationships between the different dimensions of psychological distance, to understand the dynamics and barriers, to design communication strategies. Finally, to explore the efficacy of therapeutic practices to alleviate climate anxiety and promote resilience, collaboration between disciplines, and research that contributes to a collective healing process that unites humanity in the face of the climate crisis.
Something about references is not written correctly:
It repeats: Cianconi, P., Betrò, S., & Janiri, L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers of Psychiatry, 11, 74.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074Cianconi, P., Betrò, S., & Janiri, L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers of Psychiatry,
11, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.0007.
Cited but not referenced: Dr Moser is cited but not included in the references (Moser, 2016).
No accompanying comment.
No accompanying comment.
Very interesting article indeed.
The subject focuses on a great dilemma of our time: paralisis in the face of the trend towards the collapse of societies.
No accompanying comment.
No accompanying comment.
You have
Access
Open access
Impact statement
This article explores the critical issue of collective dissociation in the context of climate change, highlighting how psychological and relational dynamics impede effective action. By identifying collective dissociation as a major barrier to addressing the climate crisis, the study underscores its impact on public health, mental well-being, and ecological stability. It proposes targeted interventions, including responsible information management, local moral support, and strategic policy development, to combat inaction and denial. The research emphasizes the need for integrating climate action into governance and resource allocation, aiming to foster global awareness, cooperation, and community empowerment. Its findings are poised to inform policy decisions and drive societal change, promoting a shift towards proactive and empathetic climate activism with lasting implications for health systems and policies.
Introduction
Climate change is a profound and multifaceted crisis that transcends being merely an environmental issue. It represents a complex phenomenon impacting the environment, health, human behavior, and the economy in interconnected ways (Cianconi et al., Reference Cianconi, Betrò and Janiri2020). Beyond its tangible environmental effects, climate change poses significant mental health challenges, presenting both immediate and long-term implications (Ramadan and Attallah, Reference Ramadan and Ataallah2021). Extreme weather events, exacerbated by global warming, can trigger a wide range of psychopathological responses, including mood disturbances, anxiety, and physical symptoms (Cianconi et al., Reference Cianconi, Betrò and Janiri2020). These events also contribute to lasting mental health issues such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased suicide rates, and substance abuse, particularly among vulnerable populations and those displaced by environmental factors (Cianconi et al., Reference Cianconi, Betrò and Janiri2020; Cruz et al., Reference Cruz, White, Bell and Coventry2020).
As the world grapples with the escalating impacts of climate change, a unique form of trauma, known as “climate change trauma,” is emerging (Bednarek, Reference Bednarek2021; Ramadan and Ataallah, Reference Ramadan and Ataallah2021; White, Reference White2015). Unlike traditional trauma, which is typically experienced at the individual level, climate change trauma permeates entire communities and societies. This phenomenon leads to what is termed Collective Dissociation (Bednarek, Reference Bednarek2021), a coping mechanism for the overwhelming global trauma inflicted by climate crisis-induced disasters (White, Reference White2015). Addressing the full spectrum of mental health responses to climate change requires a holistic approach that integrates biological, psychological, behavioral, and social dimensions (Bednarek, Reference Bednarek2021). This approach is essential for developing effective strategies for adaptation and resilience, as well as promoting collective action.
Moreover, the climate crisis fundamentally represents a crisis of relationships. The disruption of natural systems parallels the disruption of social and psychological systems, creating a profound relational crisis between humans and the planet, as well as within communities globally (APA, 2021). This relational dimension necessitates a response from mental health professions and the broader public health community, extending beyond merely addressing distress caused by climate change. Recognizing this, the perspective aims to highlight the significant mental health impacts of climate change, introducing the concept of climate change trauma and collective dissociation as societal responses to this crisis.
Climate change and mental health trauma
Climate change induces widespread psychological distress and trauma, impacting individuals, communities, and societies (Ramadan & Ataallah, Reference Ramadan and Ataallah2021; Woodbury, Reference Woodbury2019). Woodbury identifies climate trauma as a missing narrative linking global inaction to the climate crisis. Massaro et al. (Reference Massaro, Altavilla, Aceto, Pellicano, Lucarelli, Luciani and Lai2018) identify two reactions: reexperiencing and dissociation. Bednarek (Reference Bednarek2021) discusses collective trauma manifesting as fragmentation, polarization, and dissociation within cultures and societies. Dissociation, a natural psychological and neurobiological self-protection mechanism, varies in presentation based on the nature of the crisis (White, Reference White2015). When anxiety and distress translate into denial, especially ‘collective dissociation,’ it significantly affects the perception and conceptualization of the climate crisis.
The existential threat posed by climate change to global biodiversity and shared identity deeply impacts human minds (Li et al., Reference Li, Lawrance, Morgan, Brown, Greaves, Krzanowski, Samuel, Guinto and Belkin2022). As members of the biosphere, humans experience overwhelming stress from the perceived lack of protection against environmental assaults (Woodbury, Reference Woodbury2019). Climate trauma can trigger past personal, cultural, and intergenerational traumas, leading to psychosocial defense mechanisms that cause populations to recoil from the climate crisis implications. Real-time climate trauma’s impact on social structures becomes evident when its environmental marks surface (Woodbury, Reference Woodbury2019). This growing awareness of global interconnectedness and victims’ mentality induces a departure from mental reality (Massazza, Ardino, & Fioravanzo, Reference Massazza, Ardino and Fioravanzo2022). The effects often manifest as acute stress, leading to long-term anxiety and depression, sometimes necessitating professional intervention (Li et al., Reference Li, Lawrance, Morgan, Brown, Greaves, Krzanowski, Samuel, Guinto and Belkin2022).
Climate change has been recognized as a stressor exacerbating PTSD and other mental health conditions (Massazza, Ardino, & Fioravanzo, Reference Massazza, Ardino and Fioravanzo2022). Direct consequences, such as extreme heat and weather events, worsen pre-existing mental health conditions (Charlson et al., Reference Charlson, Ali, Benmarhnia, Pearl, Massazza, Augustinavicius and Scott2021). Feelings of distress, powerlessness, and hopelessness are grand-scale trauma responses (White, Reference White2015). Heightened awareness and concern about the climate crisis correlate with increased stress and poorer mental health (Woodbury, Reference Woodbury2019). Climate change is marked by critical thresholds or tipping points, leading to significant, often irreversible climate system changes once crossed. Mitigating tipping point risks is crucial for effective climate policy (Cianconi et al., Reference Cianconi, Betrò and Janiri2020). Recognition of the crisis’s effects on victims of climate-induced trauma is growing, but the human mind tends to dismiss thoughts of trauma. Psychological defenses create aversion to trauma itself and its cumulative impacts, termed ‘reflexive resistance,’ diminishing acknowledgment of climate change and its importance.
Concerns about climate change mitigation and adaptation risks evoke various emotions, including anxiety, stress, and psychological discomfort. These feelings link to perceived risks—functional, physical, financial, social, or psychological—associated with climate change (Gifford, Reference Gifford and Nilsson2014; Gifford, Reference Gifford2011). These perceived risks contribute to climate trauma, intensifying future uncertainty and insecurity. McDonald et al.’s (Reference McDonald, Chai and Newell2016) review highlights the impact of personal experiences, such as extreme weather events or witnessing climate pattern changes, on shaping beliefs, concerns, and motivation for climate action. However, the relationship between personal experience and climate change beliefs is complex, moderated by factors like worldviews, political ideology, and cultural values (McDonald, Reference McDonald, Chai and Newell2016).
Collective dissociation and health systems
Collective dissociation, a form of trauma processing, threatens the cooperation needed to tackle climate change (White, Reference White2015). When societies cannot process the enormity of this threat, rational aspects may continue to function while emotional complexities become fragmented (Bednarek, Reference Bednarek2021). This fragmentation hampers integrated, adaptive responses to climate change, reinforcing isolation and preventing an objective assessment of its destructive reality. Consequently, human nature remains entrenched in harmful environmental practices, undermining planetary health even when climate action is critical (Lengieza, Aviste, & Richardson, Reference Lengieza, Aviste and Richardson2023). Collective dissociation affects all levels of society, leading to social detachment and political apathy, which hinders meaningful climate action (Hornung, Reference Hornung2022). Vulnerable populations are particularly impacted, making it crucial for health systems to address this form of trauma to protect planetary health.
The psychological impact of climate change extends beyond being a mere victim of environmental shifts. It serves as a significant impediment to proactive climate action. The overwhelming scale and complexity of the issue often leave individuals feeling powerless, leading to a sense of futility in their ability to effect meaningful change (Wamsler & Bristow, Reference Wamsler and Bristow2022). This helplessness can manifest as sleep disturbances and heightened anxiety, exacerbating the mental toll of climate change (Dodds, Reference Dodds2021). Discussions about climate change often evoke existential fears, triggering defense mechanisms like denial to cope with anxiety (Dodds, Reference Dodds2021; Davy, Reference Davy2021). Terror management theory explains that reminders of mortality cause individuals to use psychological defenses to manage existential anxiety (Davy, Reference Davy2021; Myers, Reference Myers2014). In the context of climate change, this leads to defensive strategies that hinder environmentalism (Myers, Reference Myers2014). People might distance themselves from the reality of environmental degradation, preventing meaningful action.
However, the concept of collective dissociation is just one aspect of a complex phenomenon - the relationship between the mind and climate change is not linear. People’s inertia towards climate action is influenced by psychological, social, cultural, and political dynamics (Brulle & Norgaard, Reference Brulle and Norgaard2019). Dissociation is only one of many psychological responses, including denial, fear, and misinformation, that contribute to this inertia (Moser, Reference Moser2016). These responses are shaped by broader systemic issues, such as the influence of fossil fuel industries on political decision-making (Munck af Rosenschöld, Reference Munck af Rosenschöld, Rozema and Frye-Levine2014; Gifford, Reference Gifford and Nilsson2014) Phenomena like tokenism and rebound effects can undermine individual actions aimed at mitigating climate change (Bednarek, Reference Bednarek2021). When efforts are perceived as superficial or ineffective, individuals may experience frustration or disillusionment, contributing to a sense of collective dissociation or powerlessness in addressing the issue (McDonald, Chai, & Newell, Reference McDonald, Chai and Newell2016; Gifford, Reference Gifford and Nilsson2014). Addressing these psychological and systemic barriers is crucial for fostering effective climate action and protecting mental health.
Acting for collective action
Protecting population health is essential to breaking the cycle of climate trauma. An integrated approach is needed to address global collective dissociation.
Characterizing collective dissociation
Closing the gap of climate crisis-mediated collective inaction necessitates a thorough characterization of the varied responses to the climate crisis. Collective dissociation has been observed to influence both directly impacted and climate-informed populations. Acknowledging that collective dissociation related to climate trauma is a significant psychological barrier to addressing the climate crisis is a crucial step. Inaction and lack of engagement with the collective predicament of the climate crisis should also be recognized as important responses. Promoting healing while coordinating change, self-care, responsibility, and transformation in social structures for planetary health requires individual and social awareness of this concept. By viewing the climate crisis through the lens of trauma, we can shift climate change activism towards a more functional expression and reaction, fostering a steady but conscious awakening to empathy and collective healing. This perspective helps to humanize the issue, making it more relatable and actionable for individuals and communities. By fostering a sense of shared responsibility, ethical awareness, and community engagement, individuals and societies can move towards more effective and emotionally sustainable approaches to the climate crisis. Emphasizing the power of collective action can help mitigate the feelings of isolation and fragmentation that often accompany collective dissociation. This collective approach provides emotional support and solidarity, essential for coping with climate trauma and driving sustainable action.
Information management for advocacy
Effective information management for advocacy is crucial for raising climate change awareness and fostering participation across global health systems. Advocacy narratives must balance individual responsibility with the roles of corporations, industries, and political structures. While individual actions matter, focusing solely on personal responsibility can lead to high emotions, overwhelming experiences, paralysis, and inaction (Li et al., Reference Li, Lawrance, Morgan, Brown, Greaves, Krzanowski, Samuel, Guinto and Belkin2022). Overemphasis on personal responsibility obscures broader systemic issues and the significant impact of corporate and political actions. Advocacy should highlight the importance of systemic change and stress the accountability of larger entities like governments and corporations. This approach prevents exonerating powerful actors and ensures they are held accountable for their substantial contributions to climate change.
Supporting vulnerable populations in addressing climate change is critical. This includes ensuring access to essential survival amenities and addressing the mental health impacts of climate change. Advocacy should promote messages of courage and proactiveness, avoiding fearmongering that can lead to survivor dissociation (Woodbury, Reference Woodbury2019). A realistic view of the climate crisis empowers communities to take action, fostering resilience and adaptation. Emphasizing collective action and community engagement is vital. Highlighting successful examples of community-based renewable energy projects or local climate resilience initiatives can inspire broader participation and demonstrate the tangible impacts of collective action. Encouraging individuals to join forces with their communities creates a sense of solidarity and shared purpose, essential for sustaining long-term engagement. Tailoring advocacy messages to align with the dominant moral concerns of different ideological groups is necessary for garnering bipartisan support. Understanding how values, beliefs, and group norms influence climate change concern and action can inform effective communication strategies. By resonating with diverse audiences, advocacy efforts can bridge divides and foster a more inclusive approach to climate action.
Creating consciousness-raising safe public spaces is essential for affirming climate truth and promoting “respond-ability.” These spaces can serve as forums for discussion, education, and support, helping individuals process their emotions and experiences related to climate change. The health community can play a significant role by advocating for mental health protection and providing resources to support emotional well-being. Education and awareness-raising are critical to ensuring that current and future generations recognize and address environmental degradation. Advocacy should include educational initiatives that highlight historical environmental conditions and the changes over time, fostering a deeper understanding of what has been lost and what can be regained. Advocacy messages should promote resilience and positive adaptation strategies. Highlighting stories of adaptation and innovation can inspire hope and action. Encouraging communities to see themselves as capable of effecting change empowers them to take proactive steps in addressing climate challenges. By focusing on collective action, tailored messaging, and education, advocacy can drive meaningful climate action and foster resilience across communities.
Local moral support
Local moral support is vital for fostering sustainable adaptation strategies and community resilience to climate change. Encouraging community awareness and participation at the local level enhances capacity and mental preparedness for climate action. Building capacity within local communities involves organizing vulnerability assessments and developing tailored action plans. These plans should include measures for improving infrastructure, enhancing social cohesion, and providing mental health support, reducing vulnerability to climate-related stresses. Community engagement is key to effective local adaptation. Encouraging participation in climate action initiatives empowers individuals and fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility. Educational programs, workshops, and public forums promote climate awareness and action, emphasizing the interconnectedness of local actions and global outcomes.
Social structures play a vital role in addressing collective dissociation and promoting recovery. Empowerment and reconnection are central to this process. Local initiatives that focus on building social ties and fostering a sense of community can help mitigate the feelings of isolation and fragmentation often associated with climate trauma. Community gardens, renewable energy projects, and climate action groups provide practical ways for individuals to engage and support each other. Shared awareness is a powerful tool for reconciliation with the current narrative of protecting humanity and planetary health. Creating safe public spaces for discussing climate issues and sharing experiences is important. These spaces serve as hubs for education, support, and action, promoting a collective response to climate challenges. Support groups and networks offer vital emotional and psychological support, aiding individuals in navigating their climate-related anxieties and traumas. Fostering shared responsibility and collective action mitigates collective dissociation. Emphasizing community engagement reduces despair, providing essential solidarity for coping with climate trauma. Local leadership should support community-based climate action by providing resources and frameworks, facilitating engagement, and ensuring mental health support is accessible.
Policy development
Policy development is pivotal in tackling the intricate challenges of climate change and its associated traumas. Effective policies drive collective action, foster cooperation, and bolster resilience across society. Policymakers must frame climate change as a global crisis, prioritizing the mental health impacts of trauma induced by climate stressors. Adopting a comprehensive, strategic approach is imperative. This involves integrating climate action across all sectors, allocating sufficient financial resources, and making mental health resilience a cornerstone of climate strategies (Brulle & Norgaard, Reference Brulle and Norgaard2019). For example, the Drought Resistance Alliance, launched at COP27, can serve as a model by prioritizing mental health resilience and providing participatory support for affected communities.
However, to make meaningful progress, it is crucial to move beyond rhetorical calls for citizen action and directly confront the systemic forces that perpetuate the crisis. Corporate resistance, government paralysis, and the prioritization of profits over environmental sustainability are key drivers of inaction. The financial sector’s continued investment in coal and oil, alongside unchecked consumerism, greenwashing, and the war economy, contribute significantly to the climate emergency. These dynamics alienate citizens, creating a disconnect between the visible dangers of climate change and the lack of meaningful action by those in power (Wamsler & Bristlow, Reference Wamsler and Bristow2022). Policy development must therefore prioritize accountability for corporations and governments, recognizing that citizen-driven initiatives alone will not suffice in the face of such powerful opposition (Wamsler & Bristlow, Reference Wamsler and Bristow2022). Understanding the socio-political drivers of climate inaction, including the influence of political contributions from the fossil fuel industry, is crucial. Policymakers must strive for greater transparency and accountability in political funding to align actions with public support for effective climate measures.
Policies should also emphasize education and public awareness campaigns to raise consciousness about the mental health consequences of climate change. By fostering a deeper understanding of climate trauma, these campaigns can mobilize public support for climate action and promote collective healing and resilience. Education initiatives should focus on overcoming environmental generational amnesia, where successive generations accept degraded environmental conditions as normal. This can be achieved through curriculum development, community programs, and media outreach. A long-term vision is crucial for the success of climate policies. Policymakers should prioritize sustainable practices, accountability, monitoring progress rigorously, and remaining adaptable to research and technological advancements. By continuously evolving and adapting policies, governments can ensure they are effectively addressing both the immediate and long-term impacts of climate change. Policies should prioritize the needs of vulnerable populations and aim to build inclusive, resilient communities.
Education and public awareness campaigns must spotlight the mental health repercussions of climate change. By enhancing understanding of climate trauma, these campaigns can mobilize public support for climate action and promote collective healing and resilience. Initiatives should tackle environmental generational amnesia, where degraded conditions are normalized over generations. Effective policies should prioritize sustainability, accountability, and adaptability to research and technological advancements. The continuous evolution of policies is necessary to address both immediate and long-term climate impacts, ensuring that the needs of vulnerable populations are prioritized and resilient, inclusive communities are built.
Research
The growing field of research on climate trauma and collective dissociation provides a crucial foundation for understanding the sociological and psychological dimensions of climate change. This research not only informs interventions to improve mental health and well-being in affected populations but also explores the interrelationships between psychological distance, denial, and resilience. Comprehensive studies are needed to explore these dynamics and their effects on climate behaviors, aiding in the design of communication strategies that resonate with diverse audiences and bolster public engagement and action.
Research should also investigate the moderating effects of ideology on responses to climate change. Understanding how different ideological perspectives influence perceptions and reactions can inform message tailoring for bipartisan support, bridging political and social divides. Collaboration among psychologists, therapists, scientists, ecologists, and activists is vital for developing interventions that address mental health impacts and broader social implications. Interdisciplinary research can explore the effectiveness of therapeutic practices in alleviating climate anxiety and promoting resilience.
Examining historical responses to climate change offers valuable lessons for contemporary efforts. By learning from past successes and failures, researchers can identify effective strategies for adaptation and resilience. Prioritizing the mental health implications of climate change is crucial. Studies should focus on the psychological effects of climate-related stressors and how collective dissociation hinders action. Understanding these barriers can guide the development of interventions that promote mental well-being and engagement with climate issues.
Cross-disciplinary collaboration will be key to advancing therapeutic practices that alleviate climate anxiety and foster a collective healing process. These efforts will contribute to uniting humanity in the face of the climate crisis, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach that integrates mental health, environmental sustainability, and social justice. Bringing together experts from various fields can lead to a more integrated understanding of climate trauma and dissociation, driving the creation of comprehensive policies and interventions that address the multifaceted nature of climate change impacts.
Conclusion
Collective dissociation hinders effective climate action. To create a safer climate environment, we must address the mental health impacts of climate change and understand the collective trauma response. A shared lack of awareness diminishes the transformative power of collective action, posing a dangerous threat to climate initiatives. This is a compelling call to action to proactively address these mental health implications. By leveraging research, advocacy, policy development, and collaboration, we can mitigate the impact of collective dissociation on health systems and strive for a more resilient and sustainable future.
Open peer review
To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.119.
Data availability statement
Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Acknowledgements
Not Applicable.
Author contribution
Deborah Oluwaseun Shomuyiwa: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing; Don Eliseo Lucero-Prisno III: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.