“Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one’s beliefs.

Because it is uncomfortable, your brain will seek out ways to resolve the contradictions.

So if you think you’re a good and moral person, but you fudge a little on your taxes, you might justify this with an excuse like: “I’ve overpaid in previous years,” or “the government is using my money in an immoral way,” or “everyone else is doing it.”

New research shows that this is not some individual character flaw, but a strong and consistent human impulse. Brain scans show that the brain floods with pleasure when conflicting ideas are resolved.

I thought the segment went a long way toward explaining why skeptics on global warming still exist. When presented with conflicting views, such as “I am a good person” vs. “my lifestyle is destroying the planet,” the brain comes up with a way to resolve them, such as, “global warming is a conspiracy cooked up by celebrities and scientists.”

This really highlights why we need to emphasize solutions. If we give people ways to address the problem, they won’t need to deny [the problem]” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/7/214950/5506.

So, how do we do this? First, we examine the aspects and scope of the problem(s).

In this course we have been examining various social problems, and we are going to map their interconnections. If we can locate core factors that underlie and connect these problems, we can begin to locate sites for intervention. Then, we can consider far-reaching and/or multiple cumulative solutions.

Do any solutions exist already, or do we have to invent them?

The answer to that will depend on the core factors we identify. Are the core factors of problems inevitable, or are they social constructions? Since so many problems are quite new in the relative span of human life on earth, we already know there are other ways of living, but we’ve been taught to believe these ways of life are miserable, dangerous, or worse. We are taught to feel sorry for people, including ourselves, who don’t “have it all,” yet most of the world does not have what the US has, and as we saw, studies show what we have has not translated into happiness (Bill McKibben, Deep Economy). If the idea of what it takes to be happy was constructed then it can be deconstructed.

Is it really that simple?

No. First of all, as Lorraine Hansberry said in regard to race, one of the problematic constructions we’ve been discussing here, “It is pointless to pretend that it doesn’t exist — merely because it is a lie!” (Les Blancs). Though something may not be a natural reality, it may have become a social reality. For example, if Sut Jhally is right about how advertising determines our values and cultural norms, then if you show up with the wrong social markers for an interview, you won’t get the job (Advertising and the End of the World). While you may know you don’t need “all the toys” to be happy, if you don’t have an income you won’t eat and if you don’t eat you won’t be happy.

So what do we do?

We have to understand what is at stake for whom in dismantling social constructions. They were constructed for a reason and if we understand that we can strategize effective solutions. They may consist of pressure on those who benefit from and maintain destructive constructions. At the same time, if we want to bypass the cognitive dissonance that causes people to allow those constructions to continue, we have to offer solutions.

For example, if the US is the major contributor to climate change, and if cognitive dissonance means guilt won’t do it, then we can demonstrate how and why living in “green equity” is attractive and rewarding. Imagine a reality show about people having fun being green together, or addressing a community problem together. But even if we have ideas of like this of how to bypass cognitive dissonance there will be resistance.

If the current power structure benefits from inequity, how can we get media play to make solutions known?

Maybe we can’t, but we can try. Shows like Live Earth in which celebrities who have benefited from consumerism turn around and give back can be helpful if they encourage people to do what they can rather than becoming just more entertainment to consume. And since the majority of us on this Earth are not celebrities, grass roots, local, and community-based projects add up to more than anything that can be done top down, as long as we know how to form alliances between issues.

Imagine a reality in which people have fun being green together, or addressing a community problem together. Then try this at home.

I am very surprised and happy to learn how much of it is within our power to change. I had thought that luxury institutions like hotels use a lot of energy, and that manufacturing was also a major contributor. I’m also concerned with the effects of war on our climate. I heard that the manufacture and use of weapons, as well as the massive fires caused by bombing, are major polluters. Is this true?

Thank you for identifying 70% of the problem, and if it really is coming from our homes, offices, and cars, we can make a difference!

. . . I