Research on worldviews in the contemporary West: The integrative worldview framework

Worldviews have been defined as “inescapable, overarching systems of meaning and meaning‐making that to a substantial extent inform how humans interpret, enact, and co‐create reality” (Hedlund‐de Witt , 156). They consist of foundational assumptions and perceptions “regarding the underlying nature of reality, ‘proper' social relations or guidelines for living, or the existence or non existence of important entities” (Koltko‐Rivera , 5). As several authors have argued, worldviews profoundly inform how environmental issues, such as climate change, are perceived, what are considered useful pathways toward solutions, and what is seen as the role and responsibility of the individual (Gifford ; Hedlund‐de Witt ; Hulme ; Nisbet ; O'Brien, St. Clair, and Kristoffersen ).

In my own research, based on quantitative and qualitative methods as well as literature reviews, I refer to the Integrative Worldview Framework (IWF). The IWF is an interdisciplinary framework that synthesizes original empirical research with research from a number of fields, notably developmental‐structural psychology and sociology, including the extensive, cross‐cultural, longitudinal database of the World Values Survey. The IWF operationalizes worldviews into five major aspects (ontology, epistemology, axiology, anthropology, and societal vision), and offers a synoptic overview of the major, ideal‐typical worldviews in the West, referred to as traditional, modern, postmodern, and integrative (De Witt and Hedlund in press; Hedlund‐de Witt , ). Earlier research using the IWF has demonstrated its usefulness for understanding the relationship between worldviews and the sustainability of individuals’ lifestyles, both conceptually (Hedlund‐de Witt ) and empirically (Hedlund‐de Witt, De Boer, and Boersema ). Moreover, a recent survey found consistent relationships between how traditionals, moderns, postmoderns, and integratives relate to climate, energy, and biotechnology (De Witt, De Boer, Osseweijer, Hedlund, forthcoming).

These four “families” or categories of worldviews are concisely described in Table . This overview is neither exhaustive nor definitive, emphasizing the dynamic character of worldviews and the difficulty of comprehensively and accurately describing them. Of course, understanding worldviews in terms of such a high‐level framework is necessarily based in a sweeping generalization of the complexities and ambiguities of reality. Moreover, these worldviews are of an ideal‐typical nature, meaning that they are rationally and logically constructed models that can help researchers analyze and examine the real world. That is, ideal types represent “ideal” or “pure” types, which are as such not expected to be found in social reality. Instead a combination of different ideal types will often be found (see, e.g., Campbell ).

Moreover, while the succession from traditional to modern to postmodern has been fairly consistently observed in the history of Western societies (e.g., Inglehart , ; Inglehart and Welzel ), the understanding of the integrative worldview is based on more limited (empirical) research and is therefore currently more hypothetical (e.g., Benedikter and Molz ; Gidley ; Hedlund‐de Witt ; Wilber ). Also, we do not know if other, non‐Western societies will follow a similar progression, and can therefore not make claims to the framework's cross‐cultural validity. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel () present evidence to suggest that the progression is apparent in non‐Western societies as well, even though cultural distinctiveness persists. That is, cultural traditions show a lasting imprint on, and thus interact with, the process of value change, rather than being immune to change or completely overtaken by it.

Worldviews and climate change

As argued in the introduction, different worldviews are associated with different responses to climate change. Although research has found that individuals inhabiting postmodern and integrative worldviews are generally more likely to be concerned about climate change than individuals ascribing to traditional and modern ones (De Witt et al. forthcoming), one can also observe different responses within these categories or “families” of worldviews. For example, a more traditional, Christian worldview can come to expression in a deeply felt “creation care,” or, on the other end of the spectrum, climate‐denying perspectives. These observations underscore the caution and nuance needed in this discussion of worldviews and their responses to climate change. Each of the worldviews appears to have potentials as well as pitfalls with respect to responding to the issue of climate change (see Table ).

Traditional worldviews tend to be characterized by social and communitarian values and mindsets, generally emphasizing the rights and responsibilities of family and community over those of the individual. Individuals endorsing traditional worldviews may therefore be more likely to make personal sacrifices for common causes, and in general may be more sensitive to arguments of a social nature (e.g., the effects of climate change on the poor, who will arguably be most powerfully effected by climate change, and the least able to adequately adapt to the changes). In certain contexts, they may display lifestyles that are less burdensome to the environment, due to values such as community, stability, conservation, moderation, humility, and reflection. These values may encourage behavioral choices with a relatively low impact on the environment, even though there often is no explicit commitment to green values (Vonk ). Simultaneously, individuals adhering to traditional worldviews may be more conservative in their outlook, and therefore critical of notions of development and change in general, as well as of scientific concepts that are viewed as contradictory to their faith and tradition. For example, recent research (Jones, Cox, and Navarro‐Rivera ) shows that nearly half of Americans (49%) say the recent natural disasters are evidence the United States is experiencing the “end times” as described in the Bible. Clearly, such beliefs are not supporting a widespread social and cultural commitment to mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, and may in fact undermine it.

When nature is understood to be given by God to humanity for its own purposes and benefits, this worldview may translate into a strong dualism between humanity and nature, as Lynn White argued in his famous though controversial thesis (1967). He called Western Christianity “the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen” (1205), ascribing the root cause of our ecological crisis to the medieval belief that God planned all of creation explicitly for man's benefit and rule. By desacralizing nature, Christianity encouraged the exploitation of nature for humanity's desires, in a mood of indifference to the feelings of other creatures and the value of natural entities. At the same time however, the traditional worldview may be translated in a deeply felt sense of “creation care” and stewardship, as well as a care and concern for the poor. For example, the Evangelical Climate Initiative (, 313) argues that, “love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reasons for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.” However, in general it is good to keep in mind that traditional worldviews are not necessarily of a Christian nature, even though many of them in (particularly) the West are. That is, there are, of course, also traditionalists with other religious origins. Moreover, not necessarily all Christians adhere to traditionalist worldviews. That is, religions, including Christianity, may come to expression in different ways, including potentially more traditional, modern, postmodern, and integrative ones (see also Fowler ).

In many ways, modern worldviews, as has been argued by numerous (environmental) philosophers (e.g., Plumwood ; Taylor ; Wilber ; Zweers ), extend and reinforce the desacralization, objectification, and exploitation of nature that White primarily made Christianity responsible for. That “moderns” tend to display a more “instrumental” way of relating to nature has been affirmed in empirical research, and this orientation was also associated with less sustainable lifestyles (Hedlund‐de Witt et al. 2014). Simultaneously, the likelihood of a “denial” of the phenomenon of (anthropogenic) climate change by individuals adhering to this worldview is much smaller, as the modern worldview is characterized by a strong belief in, and commitment to, the results of science—thus generally including the science on climate change. Moreover, because this worldview tends to emphasize rationality, the centrality of economic growth and material well‐being, and the importance of individual rights, these individuals may be sensitive to rational arguments about the economics of climate change, the necessity of sustaining a healthy environment as the basis of our productive means, and the ways climate change may impinge on human rights and basic human dignity.

On the other hand, the (in itself valuable) liberation and empowerment of the individual associated with this worldview may translate into a kind of “hubris,” an attitude of humans thinking they can control nature and can “do better” than nature (e.g., De Witt, Osseweijer, and Pierce ), which may turn out to be problematic vis‐à‐vis addressing climate change. Empirical research shows that modern worldviews emphasize technological solutions and the correcting role of markets for addressing our environmental issues (Hedlund‐de Witt et al. 2014). While this may translate into a rational emphasis on science and technology for addressing climate change, it may also result in a denial of individual responsibility by (entirely) relying on technology to solve these issues. Generally speaking, tendencies of individualism, economism, and technological optimism are associated with this worldview (see also Sneddon, Howarth, and Norgaard ). While its entrepreneurial spirit and creativity will likely be key to responding to climate change, at the same time, the rampant materialism and consumerism associated with this worldview is, of course, problematic in mitigating climate change, which will almost certainly demand profound changes in terms of our (Western) lifestyles and consumption patterns (e.g., World Watch Institute ).

Since postmodern worldviews are frequently the originators of the ecological critique of the modern West (such as its dominant ideas of progress, science and technology, capitalism), it naturally tends to espouse a commitment to green values. Generally speaking, postmodern concerns tend to be of a “post‐material” nature, representing a shift from a focus on wealth to a focus on well‐being, and from survival to self‐expression: their scope is beyond the material, and touches on a range of quality‐of‐life issues, including the health of the environment (Inglehart and Welzel ). Empirical research shows that individuals adhering to a postmodern worldview tend to feel more part of, and connected to nature (rather than relating to it in a more instrumental and controlling way), which also is found to be correlated with more sustainable lifestyles, including more sustainable diet and consumption patterns (Hedlund‐de Witt et al. 2014). With respect to addressing global environmental issues such as climate change, these individuals tend to emphasize different ways of relating to nature and underscore the role of individual behavioral change (Hedlund‐de Witt et al. ; Taylor ). In a general sense, postmodern worldviews tend to be associated with a more widespread commitment and willingness to address these issues, and environmental organizations can frequently be classified in this worldview category.

While individuals adhering to modern worldviews tend to regard both science and the state as their major sources of authority (Inglehart and Welzel ), postmoderns emphasize other ways of knowing (i.e., art, morals, philosophy, intuition) and are generally more cautious and critical of these “bastions” of the modern West—especially where they mingle with commercial interests and the forces of capitalism. This caution and criticism is both their greatest strength and greatest weakness. On the one hand, it allows these individuals to reflect on modern assumptions and models from outside of the paradigm, frequently resulting in a more bold, reflexive, and far‐reaching perspective on it. Most of the creative mobilization against vested interests and the deeply engrained power structures in our society (i.e., that of the fossil fuel industry) appear to (have) emerged from this worldview. Certain organizations have shown themselves to be highly effective in that respect. For example, in the domain of climate change, the organization 350.org excels in mass communication and mobilization, “speaking truth to power” while powerfully drawing on individuals’ emotional connection to nature and their fellow human beings, as well as on their often‐damaged sense of justice, to organize and mobilize them.

Thus, individuals or organizations adhering to a postmodern worldview have frequently shown a great commitment to inform and rally the public and stand up for marginalized voices and interests—including, for example, those of indigenous peoples and species threatened with extinction. Simultaneously, as they tend to be “fighting” the system and the status quo, they frequently create opposition and forego possibilities of cooperation. In this context the argument made by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus () is of interest—they accused the American environmental movement of conceptualizing environmental issues in such a (narrow) way that it necessarily results in a polarization of perspectives, thereby undermining alliance building and cooperation with other interests groups (e.g., industry, labor unions), and thus integration into larger society. The powerful and important criticism of postmoderns toward modern consumerism, the “dark sides” of technology, and materialism can turn into a negative attitude toward anything modern, making their perspectives “too radical” to constructively work with for many individuals and organizations in society. Also, as their “fight” frequently takes place in the political domain (e.g., Boutilier ), their focus may be less on their own embodiment—that is, the ways they are themselves participating in and profiting of the structures they are critiquing. Taking the case of 350.org as example, it is noteworthy that while this organization rallies people all over the world to speak up to their politicians and demand climate action in the public domain, hardly any of their countless initiatives focuses on addressing the private behavior and consumption patterns of their own adherents that are detrimental to the climate (e.g., eating factory‐farmed meat).

In contrast with, and perhaps in response to, postmodern answers to climate change, individuals adhering to integrative worldviews tend to underscore this need for self‐reflexive embodiment, the need “to be the change you wish to see” (referring to Mahatma Gandhi's often‐quoted statement). Political scientist Karen Litfin's study of eco‐villages worldwide (2009) offers a great example of how these communities tend to be guided by a shared worldview that could be called integrative (i.e., attempting to synthesize rationality and spirituality, economy and ecology, humanity and nature) and the ideal of locally actualizing and exemplifying the globally needed changes (see also Boutilier ). Such ideas and ideals tend to translate into a willingness to change lifestyle as well as to more sustainable lifestyles, both of which have been affirmed in empirical research. That is, a recent survey showed that integratives were the most concerned about climate change, the most willing to engage in energy‐saving measures, and actually consumed the least meat, which is one of the most high‐impact behaviors in terms of climate change (De Witt et al. forthcoming). These individuals often also emphasize the crucial importance of inner changes for addressing our outer crises, which is another way their self‐reflexive attitude comes to expression (Hedlund‐de Witt ). However, this focus on one's own embodiment may also result in underemphasizing the political reality of global issues and a lack of commitment to engaging in the political fight. Moreover, the question remains to what extent these individuals are also willing to make personal sacrifices as the significance of the individual is (further) elevated in this worldview, and green consumerism (rather than consuming less) tends to be one of their main way of responding to our global challenges. For example, integratives tend to display outspoken cosmopolitan, world‐traveling attitudes, which generally coincide with the generation of substantial amounts of greenhouse gases through air travel.

The holistic or integrative perspective of this worldview frequently leads to a profound sense of connection with nature, and an understanding of earthly life itself as imbued with a larger consciousness or “Spirit” (De Witt et al. forthcoming; Hedlund‐de Witt ), thereby potentially overcoming the objectifying, desacralizing, and exploitative attitude that has been qualified as root cause of our sustainability challenges by White and others. Indeed, as some have argued, the “cosmic piety” associated with this worldview may result in a profound sense of care for the health and flourishing of our planet as a whole (e.g., Giner and Tábara ; Hedlund‐de Witt ; Taylor ), and may therefore be essential in responding to climate change. Moreover, the universal, existential concerns that characterize this worldview tend to lead to a greater concern about, and commitment to, global issues like climate change, which tend to be interpreted in the context of grand notions such as the “future of humanity,” the “emergence of a planetary civilization,” and “the evolution of consciousness” (e.g., Benedikter and Molz ; Bhaskar ; Gidley ; Hedlund‐de Witt ; Kelly ; Morin and Kern ; Wilber , ).

Additionally, where the postmodern perspective frequently generates opposition, individuals adhering to integrative worldviews—particularly as a result of their desire to overcome duality and their innate self‐reflexivity—may be better able to bring together polarized perspectives and support the conditions for finding common ground and synergy. As Sean Esbjörn‐Hargens and Michael Zimmerman () argue, integratives (whom they call “eco‐holists” and “eco‐integralists”) tend to see the importance of various—even contradictory—perspectives, are often capable of holding conflicting truths, and use skillful means to meet people where they are. Precisely because of its attempt at integration, this cultural movement appears to be relatively compatible with other cultural currents in contemporary society. For example, environmentally engaged individuals with a more integrative worldview may not translate their idealism into working for environmental organizations, but would rather become social entrepreneurs instead, combining qualities of modernity (flourishing economies, capitalism) with qualities of the postmodern worldview (social goals, care for others and the environment) into approaches that they believe are more effective, are independent of (government) subsidies, and are compatible with the values of modern consumer society. This kind of “conscious capitalism” has become a social movement as well as a different approach to business that is informing the corporate sector at large (see, e.g., Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins ; Mackey and Sisodia ).

A contribution of this worldview may therefore be that it offers an integrative perspective and approach to addressing our urgent, planetary concerns that appeals to multiple worldviews and peoples. This could prove to be particularly significant in response to the current polarization and gridlock in the debate around climate change. However, some (mostly postmodern) critics have claimed the opposite, arguing that such perspectives are “not radical enough” and are in fact co‐opted or marginalized by capitalist forces in society. On the other hand, through these more integrative perspectives and approaches, this worldview may be able to offer a compelling vision of what a sustainable society could look like; a vision that is able to speak to, and perhaps even unite, multiple worldviews, rather than just engaging one's own (Hedlund‐de Witt ). Such a vision appears to be an essential part of the important task of public communication and large‐scale mobilization for sustainable, life‐enhancing solutions to our planetary issues (Moser ; Moser and Dilling ). Moreover, integratives tend to operate from a complex systems‐level perspective, potentially enabling them to choose creative and visionary strategies that shift larger systems dynamics toward positive change (Esbjörn‐Hargens and Zimmerman ). However, due to the many perspectives and multiple dimensions of reality that integratives attempt to honor and include, their visions and approaches may be at the same time marred by complexity, thereby losing their (communicative) power.