A recent article about business responses to global warming highlights the extent to which hierarchical thinking can respond adequately to rapid changes in the climate. 

And it neatly illustrates the preoccupations of a hierarchical world-view, as understood by grid-group cultural theory.

The article, written by Leon Gettler, centres on the increasing role of ‘Chief Carbon Officer’ in businesses. 

'The job of the future will be the chief carbon officer, or CCO. That's because global warming is no longer an environmental issue.'

According to grid-group cultural theory, first established by anthropologist Mary Douglas, and expanded by numerous writers in several different disciplines, there are four fundamental world-views, related to social group strength and rule maintenance. The hierarchist position is ‘strong grid, strong group’. In other words it is both highly group-orientated and highly regulated. For this way of thinking, the crisis (any crisis) is less about external factors and more about who is in charge, and how the social structure is to be maintained.

When new data becomes available it needs to be assimilated into the existing structure in such a way as to answer the question, who is responsible for this, and what is their position in the pecking order?

In government we have seen in recent years the creation of new climate change portfolios at a ministerial level. Where exactly these portfolios sit is highly revealing. For instance a solution to climate change from a hierarchist point of view is to create a minister and a department for climate change. But tellingly  this will usually be a fairly junior position, and the department thus created will not typically be at the heart of government. One example would be a ‘Department of Environment and Climate Change’. From a hierarchist perspective, once this  is established the crisis is over. We now know everything that really matters: who is responsible and how senior they are.

This may seem an extreme characterisation, but this approach is evident in the article:

There are two major drivers of the change: legislation, and market forces coming from customers, investors and reputation.

It’s very similar in business, as the article  demonstrates. The crisis of climate change is easily depicted primarily as a crisis of roles in the organisation. The proffered solution is a Chief Climate Officer. One can guess how senior such a role is likely to be, at least initially. When the job title is ‘Chief Finance and Carbon Officer’, there may be some leverage, but the hierarchical nature of the organisation will tend to minimise the possibility of this happening in order to maintain the existing hierarchy as far as possible.

Not the only game in town

But the article also shows that hierarchy isn’t the only prism through which to view climate change responses.  It cites a recent initiative of Wal-Mart to introduce an environmental ‘scorecard’ for its suppliers.

The scorecard has suppliers rating themselves on such areas as product/packaging ratio, greenhouse gas emissions, recycled content, transportation, renewable energy and innovation. From February, the world's biggest retailer started using the scorecard to grade suppliers and make buying decisions.

Grid-group theory is useful because it enables people to see a little bit further than their own world-view and recognise that there is more than one way of doing things. This can be uncomfortable since the four world-views described by the theory are mostly mutually exclusive; they tend to define themselves in terms of their antagonism to one another. But this discomfort may be considered worthwhile if it results in a broader vision and more wide-reaching action.

Company structures and career paths shift with global warming Leon Gettler

The Age August 20, 2008

British Journalist George Monbiot has been writing a number of pieces about a TV ‘documentary’ which supposedly tried to debunk climate change by doctoring statistics and misrepresenting interviewees. Certainly it was one of the most mendacious things I’ve seen on TV, right up there with ads for shampoo that cures dandruff. Monbiot seems to think this kind of thing plays well because, as he puts it,

"We want to be misled, we crave it; and we will bend our minds into whatever shape they need to take in order not to face our brutal truths".

[caption id="" align=“alignnone” width=“432” caption="  ‘The Age of Stupid’ director Franny Armstrong films a house wrecked by hurricane in New Orleans “][/caption]

According to grid-group cultural theory, developed by anthropologist Mary Douglas,  we humans have very different ways of seeing the world and they are in permanent conflict with one another. This is why we don’t and won’t see eye to eye. It has nothing to do with being stupid or willfully blind. We just have different strategies - heuristics - for making sense of the world and our place in it.

Climate change unbelievers such as the producer of the show, Martin Durkin, are Individualists who believe that there is no problem so difficult that human ingenuity can’t solve it. Besides, what seems a problem to one person is a wonderful business opportunity to another - and what was so good about the status quo anyway? Furthermore, and crucially, nature is endlessly bountiful and will always give plenty to people who apply effort and skill. Those who say otherwise are just whinging.

In contrast, people like George Monbiot are Egalitarians for whom a big looming disaster is a wonderful thing to talk up - it provides a threat against which the group can organise and in so doing become stronger. If it wasn’t global warming it would be something else, and you can just look down the list of George’s articles for a host of suitable candidates, from peak oil to genetic modification by way of nuclear power and economic conspiracies. Most importantly, nature is in a state of depletion and is on the brink, for which the only solution is for us to change our values, share more and become less profligate.

Monbiot seems at a partial loss to explain the actions of Channel Four in systematically presenting an anti-green message. He says:

"So why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? I am not sure, but it seems to me that much of its programming - whether it concerns property, celebrities or contestants seeking fame and money - is aspirational. Environmentalism is counter-aspirational. It suggests that the carefree world Channel 4 has created, the celebration of the self, cannot be sustained."

So who’s right about global warming? Grid-group theory helps us to take a step back and recognise that our interpretations of what’s going on are just that: interpretations. Environmentalists have traditionally been quite critical of Grid-group theory, especially when it has been used by people such as Aaron Wildavsky to ridicule their principled positions. In light of the mountian of  climate change evidence, much of it produced by people with little egalitarianism flowing through their veins, I think the egalitarian view has not been heard enough - not by a long shot. Seeing it as one of four opposing possibilities only clarifies the need for it to become a sharper and clearer, albeit more reflective voice.

What we argue about when we argue about global warming is not fundamentally the number of human-generated carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. Rather, we are arguing about our vision of society and of how it should be shaped. Grid-group theory reminds us of this, even when, as George might say, we just don’t want to know.

Is there a sense in the Vatican's reply to the rumours about the Pope's clothing choice that he shouldn't be wearing designer accessories? Why not? It is restated that he's a 'simple and sober' man, when in point of fact he isn't: he's the Pope. A simple man wouldn't wear all the outfits that popes traditionally wear, Prada or no Prada. The reason for the disclaimer is that the Catholic Church is the quintessential Hierarchical organisation, and as such the leadership must be seen to be institutionally splendid while also personally unremarkable. Opulent vestments are permissible but signs of individual ostentation, or indeed, individuality, are slightly distasteful and  off-message. This is in stark contrast to the way the mass media treats the Pope. With its Individualist orientation, the media obviously sees the Pope as a celebrity, and his shoes and shades are to be celebrated as making him more uniquely him. Anything the Pope does to subvert the uniform is great, and newsworthy - at least to Esquire Magazine, which made him 'accessorizer of the year' ('have a signature... make it your own').

This seems a fine line to tread. The trick seems to be to act like a star while denying you're one, and hope we won't notice the incongruity. How's he doing?