Q&A with researcher Dana R Fisher - Part 1
A conversation on mass mobilization, authoritarian threats and the importance of collective identity and support.
Welcome back to Climate Psyched, the newsletter where we explore all things psychological, behavioral and emotional related to the climate and ecosystem crises.
Checking in with an extra post this month to share this incredibly thoughtful conversation I had with researcher Dana R Fisher, author of the new book Saving Ourselves, a few weeks back. Answering questions we gathered from some of our followers, Dana touches on several aspects related to how to get more people to mobilize, how to push back against authoritarianism, why collective action matters and much more. This is the first part of the conversation, the second will come a few weeks after the regular monthly post which comes out at the end of the month.
It’s a bit of a long read, but it’s definitely worth your time!
FRIDA: On the back cover of your book Saving Ourselves, you write, “there's a realistic path forward for climate action, but only through mass mobilization that responds to the growing severity and frequency of disastrous events”. If this mobilization doesn't happen or is directed towards extreme authoritarian forces, for example fascism, how do we motivate the climate movement to keep fighting during the ongoing collapse?
DANA: Well, I mean, that is a really key question. First and foremost, I just thought we should start by talking about authoritarianism.I know for example Germany just indicted a bunch of planet activists using rules that are basically for organized like basically accusing them of being an organized criminal endeavor. And this is not the first place where these kinds of measures are being taken against activists. These kinds of efforts are taken to limit engagement and limit activism. Our indication is that authoritarianism is becoming more likely, right?
And I just recently finished a commentary for an article that came out about whether democracy can survive climate change. And in it, my colleagues talk about these two paths forward. One is a path forward towards democracy - and I guess my work really falls in that category - and the other one is for authoritarianism. Governments will just take over using authoritarian rule to fix the problem to try to keep us from killing ourselves basically.
And my response to that is that actually so far what we're seeing with trends and authoritarianism around the world is that usually authoritarianism is pushing back against climate action. It's pushing back and it's clearly pushing back against activism and civic engagement for our lead.
Most authoritarian efforts are trying to limit civil society and mobilization and social movements around the world. At the same time most of these groups have leaders that are embracing this kind of populist authoritarian perspective and are very much catering towards fossil fuel interests. So I don't know that what we see is this real choice between, you know, an eco authoritarian rule versus one that's done.
So I think that what that just suggests is the need for a democratic push. If we see the kind of authoritarian authoritarianism expanding like we see now, what I think is most likely is it will be the kind of authoritarianism that exacerbates the crisis.
So what I think is most likely then is that we need more mass mobilization to push against authoritarianism, which we've seen in the past and in the past, in most places, people have been successful. People power has won over and democracy at some level has prevailed.
And I believe that that's the case now. I think there is a small glimmer of a chance that will end up with an eco authoritarian rule in some places where a you know a non benevolent ruler comes in who is focused on addressing the climate crisis to sustain us. That will be very bad for democracy, but I don't see that as a trend right now, so I don't think that's a likely threat. I think what we really need to recognize is that as the crisis worsens and more and more people get engaged in pushing back for you know pushing back against the crisis pushing for systemic change.
Those in power gonna feel threatened and what happens when people in power feel threatened is they try to limit the rights and ability of the citizenry you engage. And that's when we see a shift towards authoritarianism. So that's what we're seeing right now. And I think the only way through that is, you know, for more people to mobilize and to push back.
Does that mean that more people may end up in prison or prosecuted for their activism, even if it's nonviolent? Yes. And you know, I think that's the unfortunate case of the climate crisis. And this is why I talk about myself as an apocalyptic optimist: that there are just a lot of bad things happening and it's not possible to imagine a future that doesn't involve addressing the bad things that are happening.
So yeah, that's super interesting. And just like bringing that back to the question of like, we need that mass mobilization and historically, you know, we've seen that. But you know, what if it doesn't happen? What I mean is that there's a window where citizen mobilization can matter. And then there's a point at which we hit these cascading thresholds where we may be at a point of no return for the climate crisis, which some scientists say is coming quite soon. If we do not get to that mass mobilization, I think that our only choices are either some sort of authoritarian rule that embraces substantial shifts in the way that we do everything to limit the climate crisis, but that will also mean that that will be past a crisis, right?
If we don't stop it soon the type of change that will happen will only come post talk, which means small island states will be flooded out, which means many areas of the world will be uninhabitable because of the shift in the warming and sea level rise, etc, and so forth.
So I think that authoritarianism will come after this moment where there's an opportunity for people power and for a mass If it doesn't succeed. We could have authoritarianism, but it's not going to save all of us. It's going to save a small and privileged part of us will survive. It's a terrible view. I mean, it's a terrible future pathway.
I just don't see that the climate crisis is going to destroy the whole planet. I mean, war could do that, sure and I've actually talked to some politicians in different parts of the world who say that they think we're closer to that than I ever want to imagine. But in terms of the climate crisis, it could substantially reduce the population on the planet and make it so that only certain parts of the world are habitable.
It's heavy for sure, and I think that, you know, this is something that a lot of people who are already active in the climate movement are struggling with.
And once again, like, the person posting this question I think is somehow perhaps asking for “how do I stay motivated or how do we stay motivated those of us who are already taking action but sort of feeling that there's still not enough of us who are already taking action”.
Well, so the way that I respond to that is to say that we absolutely are not there. Not enough people who are mobilized yet. I think of the people who are mobilized today as the vanguards. They're the critical vanguard and they can play a very important role in mobilizing the masses.
By shining a light on the connections to the climate crisis as we start to see the effects of climate change all around the world. There are opportunities to use knowledge and recognition of the climate crisis to mobilize people and to help to cultivate what I call resilience in the book, which is preparing us for the climate shocks that are coming.
But also preparing us in terms of socially preparing us and creating more connections in our communities. To take care of one another as the shocks happen and help to draw the lines, connect the dots between what's happening and how it’s climate related. And then talking about the kinds of actions that are needed. And I think that that's the job of the people who are already aware, activated and engaged.
And as I mean, it's unfortunate, the last line of the book is as unfair as it seems, the future is up to us and the future is even more up to those of us who recognize the problem now to help to enlighten people who haven't yet figured it out. But everybody's going to be affected and it will be an opportunity like a teaching moment.
And you know, those people who decide to hide their head in the sand are going to be sadly disappointed to find that in our kids and our children's children will not have a place, you know, they will not be able to live on the same kind of planet that we're living on now.
FRIDA: I really appreciated that perspective in your book. How we need to have that sort of resilience track parallel to everything that we're doing because regardless of what's happening, we do need to to nurture that resilience and we do need to prepare and I think that that can also act as a motivator, because the more you do that, the more prepared you are, you know.
DANA: Right, I mean, I think that it's those relational ties within our communities that connect one to another and create, you know, community, that will be so valuable for us. And it'll also mean that mobilizing will be easier and communicating about the crisis will be easier.
So I think that that helps to solve a lot of problems. I've been talking about social capital and of the strength of ties to people in our communities for all my work since I started doing this work in the 90’s. And the themes keep coming back because that's really where our political power comes from.
So whether I've been writing books about activism, about politics, or about climate, it's about harnessing our power to act and our power to communicate and connect to one another and with the climate crisis it’s a potentially existential crisis where we need to actually take advantage of all these things we know.
So that's, you know, that's where I, where I start. And I guess that's where I end too in terms of thinking about it. I mean, but again, we can't stop what's coming. We can, limit it. And we can start to move in terms of addressing the problem at this point so that we can start to, reduce the warming or limit the warming. But you know, we're living through global warming.
FRIDA: Yeah, for sure. Okay, so moving on to, the second question here, which sort of relates to the first one. What makes individuals start getting engaged instead of merely watching, and when does that fear of what might happen become smaller than the fear of what others - who are still watching but not action taking action - might think of me getting engaged?
DANA: I think that, there are two answers to that. I mean, my first answer is that you know, I've been studying the role that social ties and social networks play and getting people involved.
Well, one of the things that we know at this point is that everybody has so many different things that are demanding our time. So that we don't have, you know, this freedom to say, I want to! Tthere are so many more things you wanna do with your life than you actually have time to do.
And as a result, we tend to prioritize based on what we see as the most pressing issue at the moment. And in some cases it's making sure there's food on the table. In some cases, it's making sure that, your kids are growing up and getting experience with whatever is important to you, right? And what research shows us is that it's actually the experience and the threat and the feeling of risk associated with the climate crisis that is most likely to mobilize the masses rather than just this smaller vanguard that we see engaged now. And I have some research that's not included in the book because I did the research after the book was already press to indicate that.
So I did a study at the March to end fossil fuels in the United States that happened in New York in September where 75,000 people marched in the street. One of the things I asked all the people who were out the streets was what was motivating them, which I always do. And climate change was obviously the top issue. But I also added two new questions. So I had a bunch of things that we call climate shocks, but I didn't say that I said, have you experienced severe heating, wildfire smoke from wildfire, flooding, sea level rise, or other extreme weather events in the past few months? And 86% of the people in the crowd had experienced at least one of these, in fact most of them had experienced wildfire smoke but in the northeast of the United States last summer we all had wildfire smoke, and there were these pictures of the air being bright orange.
And they say that's coming again this year. So that's not surprising to me. What was more surprising to me is the amount of people who said that they had experienced severe heat, and flooding, which was over half. So there's no question that people who are experiencing the effects of climate change are actually motivating and mobilizing as a result of that.
So, that was that. And the other question I had added was about the emotions people were feeling about the climate crisis. And this kind of responds to that second part of the question. And there I had a list of all the emotions that the people over at Yale Climate Communication have described. So I just adapted their question and asked them what emotions people were feeling about climate change. And I'm not sure really what I expected, but I wanted to be able to answer this question because there's so much discussion about planet doom, on climate anxiety etcetera
The people who are engaged were most likely to say they were feeling sadness and anger. And I think that that's really viable here because as we're trying to think about number one, what will get enough people in the streets, I think that unfortunately it's going to be experiencing climate change themselves.
You know, when I started studying Climate change, we were talking about the polar bears and that's why people should do something because we might have to worry about the polar bears.
Those days are long gone and now we have to worry about the people in our communities and our own families and the more people feel that, the more likely it is that people will start to think that it's time to prioritize action around climate change.
And then what they really need to do is embrace the anger. I mean, there's lots of reasons to be angry right now, but we do know that anger is a really great emotion to help people mobilize and get involved in movements and there's nothing wrong with anger. In fact, it's very liberating and it also is very empowering to feel angry, so I think people should lean into that.
FRIDA: Yes! I'm thinking if there's also, perhaps a cultural difference, because in my work here in Sweden, where I sometimes see people in a clinical setting for therapy and sometimes we're just out doing workshops and meeting people in all different sorts of contexts, I think that the most recurring theme that people bring up in terms of their own engagement and hesitancy towards getting more involved circles back to how difficult it is to be socially awkward and how difficult it is to be that breaker of the norms. To be the party pooper or the person who just constantly brings up climate. And I think that that social awkwardness is so incredibly difficult for people, at least over here, to deal with. But I'm also thinking that it's very sort of in line with the Swedish way of being, and the importance of social conformity. I'm not sure if you experience the same in the American context?
DANA: Well, I think, I mean. That's a really good question. Culturally, there's no question that in America there is this kind of underlying theme of individualism, right?
And our country was founded on these individualistic ideals. So there is less of this expectation that people are going to fit into, you know, the collective world. And that being said, obviously people always have these concerns about standing out too much. But it's not as culturally embedded in us. I mean, but I do think that as somebody who studied social movements and collective identity formation internationally, I would just say that.
Part of the answer to that is collective identity formation and it is true that it’s difficult to be the person who is the bummer who says, oh, you know “let's talk about why we need to limit our travel”, and expect that people are not going to like it. The response I would just say to that is, that I know that it's hard to do that and the best thing that we can do is provide a sense of collective and create a community amongst the people who are pushing for climate action.
My last book is called American resistance and I actually studied the mobilization against the Trump administration's policies.So it was not about climate change, but climate was part of it. And that was actually one of the things that motivated me to think about in this new book was the degree to which climate was becoming a really common and large theme. For many activists.
But when I was doing work for American resistance, one of the things that I noted was the role that these large scale mobilizations, these moments of peaceful protest played a role for people to get this sense of collective identity so that they felt like they were not alone and it was almost therapeutic in some cases. This was very much the case for the women's march in the 1st women's march. And I was out in the street in Washington DC. I had colleagues who were out in other streets around the United States and I know that there were women's marches around the world. Many of the people who came out explained to me that they were there because they just felt like they had to do something and they didn't want to feel so alone after watching Donald Trump become president of the United States. And there's very much a consistent theme there, and an important role for protest.
And I know that there's been a lot of focus on civil disobedience more recently to try to push the people in power to understand the systemic changes that are needed. And I think that that's a valuable component of or tool in the toolbox of an activist. But that doesn't serve the same purpose as these large scale events where everybody can come out and feel like they're together in the streets. In fact, after the women's march in the United States, there actually were many different groups of women who said that on their transportation home from these different events all over the country, they created hubs of groups that were either focused on women's issues or focused on politics around pushing back against specific issues in the Trump administration.
They all came, found people and then went back into their communities and built more. And I think that that's a really good way of thinking about creating a collective sense so you don't have to feel so lonely.
Even though I mean it's always hard to be the one who reminds people of the bad implications of our actions. That's never fun.
FRIDA: Yeah, I absolutely agree. So we do a lot of work on climate emotions and how to deal with with climate and eco emotions and I think one of the key things for people who are struggling with whatever wide range of different emotions that we can have is to find social support and community, but also learn how to take collective action. You know, and with an emphasis on the action being collective because in terms of regulating one's emotions, it does make a difference if you're acting alone or if you're acting together with other people.
DANA: Absolutely. I mean, and the other thing I would just say is that in addition to that, it's a wonderful way to create kind of innovative ideas when you can build off of the ideas of one another, right? And we need as much innovation as we can come up with in terms of solving the climate crisis. Talking with friends, neighbors, other people who are part of a movement. Who are connected with you about the best tactics to take given the moment, given the opportunities that exist.
But yeah, working collectively rather than individually is really valuable. It's not a one plus one situation, it's like one plus one equals, you know, twenty. And it's all about amplifying the effects.