445 lines
14 KiB
HTML
445 lines
14 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
||
<html>
|
||
<head>
|
||
<title>"Mobilising the Churches Around the Environment"</title>
|
||
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
||
<style>
|
||
@import url(https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Yanone+Kaffeesatz);
|
||
@import url(https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Droid+Serif:400,700,400italic);
|
||
@import url(https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Ubuntu+Mono:400,700,400italic);
|
||
|
||
body { font-family: 'Droid Serif'; }
|
||
h1, h2, h3 {
|
||
font-family: 'Yanone Kaffeesatz';
|
||
font-weight: normal;
|
||
}
|
||
.remark-code, .remark-inline-code { font-family: 'Ubuntu Mono'; }
|
||
.xxlargetext {font-size: xx-large;}
|
||
.xlargetext {font-size: x-large;}
|
||
.largetext {font-size: large;}
|
||
.mediumtext {font-size: medium;}
|
||
.smalltext {font-size: small;}
|
||
.footnote {
|
||
position: absolute;
|
||
bottom: 3em;
|
||
font-size: small;
|
||
}
|
||
.red { color: #fa0000; }
|
||
.background_image {
|
||
opacity: 0.2;
|
||
filter: alpha(opacity=20)
|
||
}
|
||
.strikethrough {
|
||
text-decoration: line-through;
|
||
}
|
||
.fill {
|
||
max-height: 90%;
|
||
max-width: 90%;
|
||
}
|
||
/* Two-column layout */
|
||
.left-column {
|
||
width: 50%;
|
||
float: left;
|
||
}
|
||
.right-column {
|
||
width: 49%;
|
||
float: right;
|
||
padding-top: 0em;
|
||
margin-top: 0em;
|
||
text-align: left;
|
||
}
|
||
</style>
|
||
</head>
|
||
<body>
|
||
<textarea id="source">
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
text-shadow: 2px 2px #ff0000
|
||
background-image: url(images/dots_transparent.png)
|
||
|
||
.xxlargetext[Mobilising the Churches on the Environment:]
|
||
.xlargetext[A Summary of the Research]
|
||
|
||
.mediumtext[002019 Feb 25]
|
||
|
||
.largetext[Jeremy Kidwell]
|
||
.mediumtext[University of Birmingham]
|
||
.mediumtext[*School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion*]
|
||
|
||
.smalltext[*Note: this presentation is a website, you can view it here: http://bit.ly/mobilising_churches19*]
|
||
|
||
.footnote[Email: [j.kidwell@bham.ac.uk](mailto:j.kidwell@bham.ac.uk) • Twitter [@kidwellj](https://twitter.com/kidwellj)]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
## What does successful mobilisation look like?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
## My definition:
|
||
|
||
- Improved public visibility on issues of concern
|
||
- Enhanced engagement with poliymakers
|
||
- Impact! ... responsive action on both household and public policy levels
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
In practice: marches, demonstations, "buzz", large crowds, energy, surprises...
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
## "Mobilisation" Caveat #1:
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
Not just *action* but **quality of** action
|
||
|
||
- Implies a better understanding of the underpinning issues (do we understand what is at stake in mobilisation on climate change, or do we just "feel" it?)
|
||
- Involves reflection on effective forms it might take
|
||
- May generate less visible forms of enhanced relationality: new alliances and an improved basis for future political action.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
## "Mobilisation" Caveat #2:
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
We (Christians) have some specific barriers
|
||
1. **Policymakers** do not understand how Christians are engaging with environmental issues
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
We (Christians) have some specific barriers
|
||
1. Policymakers do not understand how Christians are engaging with environmental issues
|
||
2. **Scholars** do not understand how Christians are engaging with environmental issues
|
||
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
We (Christians) have some specific barriers
|
||
1. Policymakers do not understand how Christians are engaging with environmental issues
|
||
2. Scholars do not understand how Christians are engaging with environmental issues
|
||
3. **Christians** do not understand how Christians are engaging with environmental issues
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
## Other barriers:
|
||
|
||
1. Maturing new groups beyond initial enthusiasm for issues
|
||
2. Connecting up calls for individual action with areas where National level policy is required
|
||
3. Making the "long game" - sustaining action past the 2-3 year mark towards 10/20/30 year-long campaigns
|
||
4. Forming and naming secular partnerships
|
||
5. Opposition from within (deniers!)
|
||
6. Demographics / denominations with lack of engagement
|
||
7. Cross-pressuring effects (other strategic foci, pressure from gassroots vs. denomination, other similar overlapping efforts)
|
||
8. Gap between the top and bottom, tendency towards centralised top-down models
|
||
9. Focus on building fabric, metrics, carbon management
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
My solution: establish an **integrative scholarly field** in engagement with policymakers, scholars, and churches.
|
||
|
||
- Eco-theology has struggled to engage with mainstream Christian scholarly reflection
|
||
- Executives can tend to privilege social psychology and economics over anthropology (e.g. "bar charts" over "books"!)
|
||
- Social scientists have reinforced rather than questioned stereotypes about Christainity
|
||
- Political leadership lacks literacy about religion in Britain
|
||
|
||
|
||
.footnote[.red[*] Note: secular policymakers and scholars are waking up to the significance of religion and spiritual values. For more on this, see my [Cambridge presentation](https://jeremykidwell.info/files/presentations/presentation_20180130_cambridge_energy.html) and read our paper on "Religion and social values for sustainability" in [Sustainability Science](https://jeremykidwell.info/publications/2019_religion_social_values/) just out this year.]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
## My work involves:
|
||
|
||
- Working with theological reflection, ethnography of religious environmentalism and data science.
|
||
- This is *theologically* informed study of Christian environmentalists flowing into a conversation with geographers, policical scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, economists.
|
||
- Communicate this research to public policy audience, third sector, and Christian communities.
|
||
|
||
Note: *readable executive summary of my research can be found here*:
|
||
|
||
http://bit.ly/eco-research-summary
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Projects:
|
||
|
||
- 4 year study of Eco-Congregation Scotland (2013-2016) with interdisciplinary team
|
||
- Theology & Extinction (2017-2019) research network
|
||
- Spiritual Landscapes (fieldwork: 2019-2023)
|
||
- Mapping Environmental Action (2013-)
|
||
- On-going research collaborations with: A'Rocha, Eco-Congregation Scotland, RSPB, Development Trust Assoc. Scotland, Transition Network, Ecolise.eu, Permaculture Association, C of E, Methodist church, Earth Ministry (USA), and a few more.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Eco-Congregation Study:
|
||
|
||
- Key question: Do Christians frame climate change differently from secular env. groups?
|
||
- 44 eco-Congregations (over 50 interviews)
|
||
- Comparator interviews with Transition Scotland groups
|
||
- Analysis of 200+ applications to ECS (2005-2014)
|
||
- Worked as an ECS award assessor
|
||
- Participant observation in network events, analysis of websites, social networks
|
||
- Board member of Stop Climate Chaos (2015-2017), interviews with elite NGO actors
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
## So what have we learned so far?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
### There are **four different types** of *community environmental group* at the grassroots:
|
||
|
||
- The **.red[lone voices]**: a single person working in the midst of either indifference or hostility in the wider community.
|
||
- The **.red[local heroes]**: as above but with sanction and/or indirect support by the wider community.
|
||
- **.red[Small but active]**: a small and generally self-contained group of 3-12 persons.
|
||
- Large with differential involvements (**.red[LDI]**): many people with varying levels of participation.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
### We need to find ways to engage and support all four types.
|
||
|
||
Take-away: Green groups are diverse in structure & motivation. It is not safe to assume your church is a template.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Denominations?
|
||
|
||
We found that denominations are not always the most meaningful divisions.
|
||
|
||
*At the level of .red[community and region], orientations towards environmental action may coalesce around local community concerns and/or .red[denominational structure].*
|
||
|
||
Put another way, we may find that Christian Eco-Groups cluster in two genres:
|
||
|
||
- Cluster 1: churches which are hierarchical/bureaucratic
|
||
(CofE, CofS, RC, Methodist, etc.)
|
||
|
||
- Cluster 2: churches which lack formal meta-organisationsal structure
|
||
(Quaker, evangelical, baptist, etc.)
|
||
|
||
- Networks (ECS, Green Christian, etc.) tend to neglect cluster 2
|
||
|
||
- Hebridean example
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
## How do Christians mobilise?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
### Key context 1.
|
||
|
||
## Christians are modest about their achievements
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
### Possible consequences:
|
||
|
||
- Possibly lower ambition re: grants and projects
|
||
- Hidden achievements
|
||
- Self-description (and public opinion) is dampened
|
||
- Comparison to other groups is often negative
|
||
- Work by Christians working in other contexts (FOE, Green Peace, community agriculture, etc.) may be ascribed to other secular groups
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
### Key context 2.
|
||
|
||
## Christian eco-groups focus on local community
|
||
|
||
e.g. Churches are good at forming and running committees, and sub-committees...
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
### Possible consequences:
|
||
|
||
- Default .red[focus on building fabric] as site for eco-interventions (solar panels, boiler replacement, windows, lighting, etc.) and .red[church-yard] (if not managed by council)
|
||
- "Slow" pace of work (which can impact planning and funding horizons)
|
||
|
||
#### *Note: these are not bad things!*
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: middle
|
||
|
||
## Take-away 1: issues are not the driver
|
||
|
||
Whereas for national networks and campaigning organisations, "action" and "issues" can often serve as the main driver.
|
||
|
||
In contrast, with community groups, the opposite is often the case.
|
||
|
||
Groups are driven by community formation and support, and issues come afterwards..red[*]
|
||
|
||
.footnote[.red[*] For more on this, check out ["Christian climate care: Slow change, modesty, and eco-theo-citizenship"](https://jeremykidwell.info/publications/2018_geo/) - hot off the press in 2018.]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Take-away 2. churches are a place for niche & experimentation
|
||
|
||
.right-column[Specific policy interventions can be helped by a "proof of concept"
|
||
|
||
Smaller community groups can help to form a "niche" which can serve as laboratories for testing out new ideas.red[*]]
|
||
|
||
.footnote[.red[*] For more on this, check out: René Kemp, Johan Schot & Remco Hoogma, 1998. "[Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09537329808524310)." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 175–198. For an overview of research into sustainability transitions see: Jochen Markard, Rob Raven & Bernhard Truffer, 2012. ["Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects"](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873331200056X). Res. Policy 41 (6), 955–967.]
|
||
|
||
.left-column[<img style="width:70%;margin-top:-1em;" src="https://www.artsfwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IMG_2188-1-427x640.jpg">]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
# Tactics and Tools for Mobilisation
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
## Strategy 1: Target engagement
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
The majority of Eco-groups involve a small unfunded group of volunteers.
|
||
|
||
They work really hard but **their work can be precarious**. Small resources / encouragement can provide an outsize effect. Similarly, for setbacks.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
Community groups and churches can have tremendous **impact within a small space** and have **access to social networks** which are unknown and inaccessible to NGOs and National leadership.
|
||
|
||
We're often used to the "direct" approach to the public, but might we find ways to treat community groups as intermediaries?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
Practical suggestion 1: *Alongside mass campaigns, and broad denomination-level outreach, .red[consider sub-setting groups] for targetted outreach and engagement.
|
||
|
||
Practical suggestion 2: Support community anchors as "beacon" projects; invest in established projects to leverage as support agents for new projects
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Strategy 2: Reach the spectrum
|
||
|
||
An outsize amount of resource goes to London and the Central Belt in Scotland.
|
||
|
||
Some areas are "sleeping" and others are "soldiering"
|
||
|
||
We need to wake up the sleepers and support the soldiers.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Strategy 3: Focus on development
|
||
|
||
NGOs have limited resources and need quick campaign "wins"
|
||
|
||
Yet most campaigning in the UK and attention in Christian media focusses on Climate Change
|
||
|
||
We need to broaden our portfolio of issues.
|
||
|
||
In some cases, this will require development and education. In others, we may be surprised by the energy around issues like extinction and land use.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Action %
|
||
- Energy efficiency 79%
|
||
- Waste or litter management or recycling 78%
|
||
- Links made with development NGO (SCIAF, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Fair Trade) 69%
|
||
- Gardening project 42%
|
||
- Sought funding or audit for external funding for energy efficiency/renewable energy project (e.g. Climate Challenge Fund, European grant) 33%
|
||
- Engaged in some form of direct political action (mailing, contacted MSP/MP etc.) 30%
|
||
- Activity focus on animals or wilderness 29%
|
||
- Practical action for “neighbour care” (free meals, outreach, etc.) 28%
|
||
- Links made with secular environmental NGOs (e.g. Friends of the Earth) 26%
|
||
- Food production, growing, or ethical sourcing 8%
|
||
- Solar or wind energy project 6%
|
||
|
||
.footnote[See Geo, p.9 for more]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
class: center, middle
|
||
|
||
I can help!
|
||
|
||
[http://mapping.community](http://mapping.community)
|
||
|
||
- [Nature conservation](https://carto.mapping.community/user/mapcomm-admin/builder/59e018af-dd26-4c1d-89ae-3b4cfddb5ced/embed)
|
||
- [Special places map](https://carto.mapping.community/user/mapcomm-admin/builder/3c583d77-02f7-4eb0-a746-54632caacb82/embed)
|
||
- [Partners Map](https://carto.mapping.community/user/mapcomm-admin/builder/6bffc6e5-e8a4-415e-b7f9-f2bfdaca0052/embed)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### High Stakes Map
|
||
|
||
<iframe width="100%" height="520" frameborder="0" src="https://carto.mapping.community/user/mapcomm-admin/builder/f07eefd1-2117-49c4-ba82-d54f99e3403a/embed" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Conservation Areas
|
||
|
||
<iframe width="100%" height="520" frameborder="0" src="https://carto.mapping.community/user/mapcomm-admin/builder/59e018af-dd26-4c1d-89ae-3b4cfddb5ced/embed" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Any questions?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
</textarea>
|
||
<script src="https://remarkjs.com/downloads/remark-latest.min.js">
|
||
</script>
|
||
<script>
|
||
var slideshow = remark.create();
|
||
</script>
|
||
</body>
|
||
</html>
|