ourselves from disturbing information in order to 1) avoid emotions of fear, guilt and helplessness, 2) follow
cultural norms and 3) maintain positive conceptions of individual and national identity.
The people I interviewed described fears about the severity of climate change, of not knowing what to
do, fears that their way of life was in question, and concern that the government would not adequately handle
the problem. They described feelings of guilt for their own actions, and the difficulty of discussing the issue of
climate change with their children. In some sense, not wanting to know was connected to not knowing how to
know. Talking about global warming went against cultural norms of conversation. It wasn’t a topic that people
were able to speak about with ease - rather, overall it was an area of confusion and uncertainty. Yet feeling this
confusion and uncertainty went against emotional norms of toughness and maintaining control. Furthermore,
thinking about climate change threatens our sense of individual identity and our trust in our government’s ability
to respond. At the deepest level, large scale environmental problems such as global warming threaten people’s
sense of the continuity of life - what sociologist Anthony Giddens calls ontological security.
Ignoring the obvious can however be a lot of work. Both the reasons for and process of denial are
socially organized. Denial is socially organized because societies develop and reinforce a whole repertoire of
techniques or “tools” for ignoring disturbing problems. In the community where I did my research, collectively
holding information about global warming at arm’s length took place by participating in cultural norms of
attention, emotion, and conversation, and by using a series of cultural narratives to deflect disturbing information
and normalize a particular version of reality in which “everything is fine.” For example, emotions of fear and
helplessness can be managed through the use of selective attention; controlling one’s exposure to information, not
thinking too far into the future and focusing on something that could be done.
As a result of this kind of denial, people I have interviewed described a sense of knowing and not
knowing, of having information but not thinking about it in their everyday lives. Overall this situation can be
described as a “double life.” Information from climate science is known in the abstract, but disconnected from,
and invisible within political, social or private life.
Given what we know about both the severity of climate change and the need for immediate action, I
propose that we as sociologists focus our attention on 1) understanding the complexity of human social response
to disturbing information, especially the conditions under which this denial breaks down, and 2) the identification
of leverage points for engendering response to climate science on the individual, community, statewide and
national levels.
Attention to the Sociology of Denial We ought to devote resources to better understanding the public reaction
to climate science, including especially the role of culture, talk, and emotion in the avoidance of information.
Although there may be both social incentives and social resources for distancing oneself from and collectively
ignoring disturbing information, denial does break down. 1) Under what circumstances does this occur? 2) To
what extent are there cultural variations of denial of climate change (what is different between California and
Texas, India and China), why is there less denial in Europe than in the U.S., 3) Are some aspects of climate
change / ecosystem change not denied? 4) To what extent has new information affected how climate change
is received and not? Methodologies that may be particularly useful here include extensive in-depth interviews
together with content analyses and survey questionnaires.
Identification of Leverage Points Given existing knowledge of response barriers and new knowledge to be
developed about the circumstances under which denial and reaction are most likely to occur, sociologists can
focus our attention on the identification of leverage points for social response. For example: