Critical reflections from South Africa: Using the Power Threat Meaning Framework to place climate-related distress in its socio-political context

Power Threat Meaning Framework

The PTMF is a constructive alternative to functional diagnosis (Johnstone & Boyle, 2018). This alternative model focuses on how people respond and adapt to their social and relational contexts. Johnstone and Boyle (2018, p.8) explain: ‘Humans are fundamentally social beings whose experiences of distress and troubled or troubling behaviour are inseparable from their material, social, environmental, socio-economic, and cultural contexts.’ Thus, the PTMF permits the recognition of patterns that are derived from the analysis of how power operates in a person’s life, what kind of threats are posed by this relationship to power and threat, and how people make meaning of their circumstances (Johnstone & Boyle, 2018). This conceptual approach then allows for the exploration of psychological or social adaptations to power and threats. In this case study, the PTMF has been used to illustrate the constraints of the climate anxieties, demonstrating how historically power and threats are inextricably interconnected with interpretations of additional environmental distress, such as climate change. What will be demonstrated is that the psychological distress that arises from environmental degradation is not only about the changing climate, but the historical power relations in which this change is taking place. In discussing the nature of this socially-rooted distress, non-medical ways of addressing environmental distress can be identified. In doing so, the PTMF offers an adaptable alternative approach for practitioners as compared to more popularised terms for the climate anxieties, which themselves raise concerns that need to be examined.

Popularisation of climate anxieties

The importance of having an alternative conceptual framework can be shown by highlighting the limitations of narrow terms in specific contexts. Climate anxieties are popular terms, such as ‘eco-anxiety’ and ‘climate anxiety,’ that have recently been created to name the psychological distress people experience in relationship to the climate crisis (Bednarek, 2020). They have been useful ‘buzzwords’ to communicate specific distress related to climate change, Bednarek (2020) explains. However, they are hardly global. Google Trends is a useful tool to assess the popularity of search terms and analyse ‘human behavior toward health topics,’ (Mavragani et al., 2019). Google Trends has been used to illustrate the limited use of ‘climate anxiety’ in the Global South. The search term ‘climate anxiety’ was compared to the search term ‘climate change’ in Google Trends using filter ‘worldwide’ from January 2004 (the earliest date possible for the database) to 20 April 2020 to compare the global distribution of searched terms. Data presented reflects the location in which the terms were most popular during the specific time period. Darker regions represent where the term was popular while lighter areas represent countries in which the term was less popular. Countries or territories in grey indicates that there is not enough data from minimal searches (Google Trends, 2020). When ‘climate anxiety’ is searched we see its unequal geographic distribution compared to ‘climate change,’ which is more widely searched. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the search term ‘climate anxiety,’ while Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the search term ‘climate change.’

Figure 1:

Global Distribution of ‘Climate Anxiety.’ Data source: Google Trends (https://www.google.com/trends)

Figure 2:

Global Distribution of ‘Climate Change.’ Data source: Google Trends (https://www.google.com/trends)

‘Climate anxiety’ is predominantly searched in the United States of America, Canada, England and Australia compared to ‘Climate change,’ which is more widely distributed across the Global South, including Latin America, Africa, Asia, Oceana and Caribbean. Language is a variable, where non-English speaking countries would probably search terms in their own language. However, the distribution of ‘climate anxiety’ as a search term demonstrates its limited global reach. The restricted distribution of ‘climate anxiety’ as a search term raises multiple questions, including how well the phrase ‘climate anxiety’ accurately reflects the challenges and distress experienced in the Global South in relation to environmental justice issues. Johnstone and Boyle (2018, p.8) explain: ‘Patterns in emotional and behavioural difficulties will always reflect prevailing social and cultural discourses, norms and expectations, including accepted conceptualisations of personhood.’ This ambivalence is compounded by the individualised framing.

Climate anxieties’ problematic framing

Climate anxieties are also presented to the world from a particular cultural perspective. Psychologists from the Global South have questioned the biomedicalisation of social justice issues within the North American context (Martín-Baró, 1994). Their concerns are confirmed in the American Psychology Association’s (APA) (2017, p.68) creeping definition of climate anxieties as: ‘a chronic fear of the environmental doom,’ which has raised discontent from peers whose work centres around the psychology of the climate crisis (Bednarek, 2019; Buzzell et al., 2020). If climate anxiety becomes medicalised, we decontextualise psychological distress from social struggles. However, anecdotally, as a psychologist studying distress related to environmental degradation, APA’s definition of climate anxieties does not reflect those in the field who rather view this form of psychological distress as a rational response to an immediate threat.

Climate anxieties have also been framed as distress that arises from becoming more aware of the impending threat. This psychological process has been termed the ‘waking up syndrome,’ which the authors explain can lead to multiple presentations of psychological distress (Edwards & Buzzell, 2009). Edward and Buzzell (2009, p.125) explain: ‘The moment we realise, even briefly, that we’ve entered a dangerous new world that no longer agrees with what we’ve always believed, our genetic wiring kicks in, and our physiological and emotional threat responses can take many forms.’ Here, it is worth adding some nuance. Not everyone who experiences distress is necessarily awakening to environmental degradation, but climate crises rather compounds existing social and environmental psychological threats that have their roots in broader social injustices, e.g. racial segregation under the apartheid regime in South Africa for instance. Gross inequality along racial lines is a daily reminder that normality never existed. This statement does not suggest that people around the world are not becoming more aware of climate crisis, but rather that for some, the climate crises may be an additional threat to years of unavoidable psychological adversity. Thus, the ‘waking up syndrome’ is a powerful concept and addresses dominant issues that contribute to solving the climate crises, but more nuance is needed for countries such as South Africa. These two examples illustrate the importance of socio-political context in how climate-related distress is framed.

Case vignette

Psychological distress is inextricably interlinked to both social oppression and ecological distress (Fisher, 2013). A brief vignette from the platinum mining town of Rustenburg, South Africa has been offered to highlight the importance of an adaptable framework that acknowledges that role of power in relation to climate change-related distress. The case study examines the psychological distress associated with the climate change and the extractive industry in Rustenburg. Here, psychological distress is interconnected to oppressive characteristics within the environment, which creates challenges for communities facing environmental threats, such as climate change (Barnwell et al., 2020). Ten members (7 male, 3 female) of the community were interviewed as part of this case study, four of which also participated in a focus group. The average age of participants was 58. Semi-structured interviews were used. Nine participants’ home language was Setswana, while one was Sepedi speaking. The PTMF has been used in this case to highlight the complexity of climate-related distress. The main perceived environmental threats, examples of asymmetrical power dynamics and what bearing this has on psychological distress will be discussed.

Findings

Participants perceived climate change to be inextricably linked to a number of other environmental threats in Rustenburg. Figure 3 presents some of the environmental threats identified by participants.

Figure 3:

Examples of Environmental Threats

Several of the environmental threats were perceived by participants to be associated with the social ecological changes that have taken place since the proliferation of the platinum mining in the area. Today, climate change poses an additional threat in that it is expected to exacerbate these threats, e.g. water scarcity, for instance. In South Africa, climate change is creating drier conditions, more sporadic weather events, and water scarcity is a central issue (Niekerk et al., 2019). Concerns about water scarcity are coupled with participants’ appraisals of Rustenburg as having poor water infrastructure and suspected water contamination. The threat of climate change can therefore not be decoupled from other environmental threats, such as mining, which participants perceived to be in competition with the community over the use of water. As a trauma-informed framework, the PTMF is useful in describing the interrelationship between psychological threats, including environmental threats. Moreover, the PTMF is helpful in this context in that it can illustrate the sense of controllability of power relationships over psychological adversities (Johnstone & Boyle, 2018). Figure 4 provides examples of power relationships, which have an influence over the response to the threat.

Figure 4:

Examples of Asymmetrical Power

Participants described that power is largely unequal in Rustenburg. Authorities are perceived by participants to use asymmetrical power to ensure the continued accumulation of mineral wealth, which is not uncommon in extractive settings (Bookchin, 1971). Asymmetrical power relationships and dominant discourses interact with the developing climate crises. One particular discourse is that communities do not benefit from mining. For instance, one participant explained: ‘Every mine [has] a community cost. These costs are all the time carried by the community.’ This discourse is rooted in lived experiences of asymmetrical relationships that exist between participants and their environment. For instance, a lack of public participation and poor regulatory enforcement (e.g. mines not adhering to environmental obligations) are examples that reflects unequal legal power. This inequality in power is again found in participants’ perceptions of poor social service delivery – e.g. waste removal and access to water – this, they noted, was despite being surrounded by mineral wealth.

Some of these challenges are also perceived by participants to be rooted in racial environmental injustices, e.g. that industries mostly located in predominantly low-income black communities. A participant described how psychological distress is connected to today’s social system: ‘The mine is violent, the government is violent, the system is violent. You don’t have peace of mind in the commu-nity [if] you are continuously in a fight for survival, which doesn’t come easy.’ In this setting, psychological distress emerges from the interaction between environmental threats and power relations that are interpreted as being unequal and, as highlighted, violent. Climate change, therefore, is not a single event, but an additional event to a range of cumulative psychological adversities. Communities adapting to the climate crisis do so within existing relationships with state and corporate actors that are already saturated with feelings of mistrust. Through their socio-political analysis, communities have organised themselves to advocate for better enforcement of environmental standards, increase public participation and protest service delivery. These are all examples of social agency and adaptations to psychological threats. Through these adaptations, communities are addressing both power and discourses that pose challenges. Psychological distress in this setting is then a relational socio-political process rooted in a particular history.

Discussion

South Africa is a specific example and its dramatic political history and protracted inequality is not comparable to most countries. Furthermore, Rustenburg’s mining context is unique. Moreover, the sample size (N = 10) from which the vignette originates is small and therefore not generalisable. However, the socio-political complexity of mining and other extractive contexts highlight limitations to popularised terms, such as climate anxieties that medicalises, depoliticises and dehistoricises psychological distress. In contrast, the PTMF shows potential to be used to understand some of these underlying mechanisms such as asymmetrical power relationships that are central to psychological distress associated with climate change in many Global South communities.

As a trauma-informed approach, the PTMF may assist in developing psychology’s knowledge of climate-related distress, complementing ongoing processes of conceptualisation, such as the more recent traumatic-focused theorising (Woodbury, 2019). Woodbury (2019) theorises that climate change not only has the potential of creating trauma, but is a traumatic process in itself, which can trigger past traumas, i.e. personal, collective and intergenerational. Applying the PTMF to this work acknowledges narratives of power and dominant discourses, which has been illustrated to be important for contextualising climate-related psychological distress. As has been explained, environmental threats are interconnected to these relationships to power and their discourses. Climate change does not stand as an isolated threat but is experienced in relationship to other socio-political processes. In the vignette of Rustenburg, climate change is an additional threat that compounds cumulative stressors, such as continued racial inequality, environmental degradation and participatory injustices. Trauma is not hierarchical, and it is difficult to uncouple the threat of climate change from other cumulative threats. Therefore, in framing climate-related distress, the socio-political reality should be emphasised as a contributing factor. Applying the phrase ‘climate anxiety’ to this context would de-politicise the nature of distress that is rooted in asymmetrical power dynamics. At the extreme, applying climate anxiety to socio-political issues may be negligent as it under-appreciates the social struggles that psychological distress is rooted in, absolving states and corporate actors of responsibility and at worst, gaslighting community struggles, i.e. the manipulation of outcomes by making individuals question their own sanity, with the possibilities of deferring urgent action. This being said, Johnson and Boyle (2018, p.8) explain, ‘Theories and judgements about identifying, explaining and intervening in mental distress and troubling behaviour are not interest – or value-free.’ Interestingly, the APA (2017) does not recommend any environmental justice action for those who experience climate anxieties, which is in stark contrast to well-established non-clinical group interventions, such as the Work That Reconnects, a group methodology that works through climate-related distress and promotes activism (Macy & Brown, 1998). Craps (2013, p.28) explains: ‘by narrowly focusing on the level of the individual psyche, one tends to leave unquestioned the conditions that enabled the traumatic abuse, such a political oppression, radical oppression or economic domination.’ Macy and Brown (1998) rather see opportunities in empowering people through group processes that support community actions on climate change. Communities around the world are directly confronting extractive industries, governments and politicians to address the determinants of environmental injustices. In Kenya, for instance, campaigns call for ‘deCOALinisation’ drawing a direct link to colonial extractive histories (De-COALanize, 2017), while in South Africa, communities such as Xolobeni in the Eastern Cape have litigated against the extractive industry winning the right for communities to say no to new mining operations (High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, 2018). This paper suggests that the PTMF may be adaptable to such political arenas.

Conclusion

The paper has drawn attention to the limitations of fixed and popular terms, i.e climate anxieties, in contextually and accurately describing climate-related psychological distress. The PTMF has been applied to a case study on climate-related distress in Rustenburg, South Africa. In doing so, the vignette highlights the importance of power relationships to environmental distress, of which climate change has been shown to be an additional threat to multiple other stressors. Communities’ adaptations to these threats, including the climate crisis, involve addressing unequal socio-political relationships. The PTMF therefore assists practitioners in moving beyond an individualistic or medicalised conceptualisation of climate-related distress to one that is social ecological. Further research on the application of the PTMF in diverse settings is recommended. Lastly, climate-related psychological distress appears to be interconnected with unequal relationships to power, particularly socio-political, suggesting potential areas for intervention to support those who experience multiple and historical environmental and social injustices.

Author contributions

The first author led the data collection, conducted the analysis and finalised the draft. The co-authors provided supervision and editorial support.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank everyone who engaged in this study, specifically those who provided in-depth interviews. A special thanks to Joseph Magobe who at the time of conducted interviews assisted with field research logistics and cultural interpretation. Thank you also to Laura López González for her invaluable copyediting.

Funding

The work reported herein was made possible through funding by the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) through its Division of Research Capacity Development under the National Health Scholarship Programme from funding received from the Public Health Enhancement Fund/South African National Department of Health. The content hereof is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the SAMRC.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.