Why do some people, but not others, participate in environmental activism? This article considers a potentially powerful yet underresearched explanation: variation in moral schemas. Drawing on Durkheim’s theory about the role of sacredness in moral decision making, the article classifies respondents into three mutually exclusive groups: unenchanted, who do not believe nature is sacred; intrinsic, who believe that nature is sacred in itself; and creational, who believe nature is sacred because it is a divine creation. Group membership predicts environmental activism using the 2000 General Social Survey. Individuals holding an intrinsic schema are more likely than other groups to sign an environmental petition and participate in an environmental group. Individuals holding an intrinsic or creational schema are more likely to donate money to environmental causes, relative to the unenchanted. Findings are robust, controlling for religious tradition, education, and various predictors of biographical availability. Both sacredness and its source matter for proenvironmental behavior.
AllisonP. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS.
2.
BarkanS. E.CohnS. F.WhitakerW. H. (1995). Beyond recruitment: Predictors of differential participation in a national anti-hunger organization. Sociological Forum, 10, 113-134.
3.
BerenguerJ. (2010). The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning. Environment and Behavior, 42, 110-134.
4.
BeyerleinK.HippJ. R. (2006). A two-stage model for a two-stage process: How biographical availability matters for social movement mobilization. Mobilization, 11, 219-240.
5.
BlockerT. J.EckbergD. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 General Social Survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 841-858.
6.
BrechinS. R.KemptonW. (1994). Global environmentalism—A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 245-269.
7.
BullardR. D. (2000). Dumping in dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
8.
DietzT.SternP. C.GuagnanoG. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450-471.
9.
DowneyL. (2003). Spatial measurement, geography, and urban racial inequality. Social Forces, 81, 937-952.
10.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D. (1978). A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results: The “new environmental paradigm.”Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
11.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
12.
DurkheimE. (2001). The elementary forms of religious life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
HaidtJ. (2002). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In KeyesC. L.HaidtJ. (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275-289). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
HarrisF. C. (1999). Something within: Religion in African-American political activism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
HitlinS.StephenV. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of the sociology of morality. Springer.
16.
IgnatowG. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society. Environment and Behavior, 38, 444-445.
17.
IgnatowG. (2007a). Theories of embodied knowledge: New directions for cultural and cognitive sociology?Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37, 115-135.
18.
IgnatowG. (2007b). Transnational identity politics and the environment. Lanham, MA: Lexington Books.
19.
IgnatowG. (2009). Culture and Embodied Cognition: Moral Discourses in Internet Support Groups for Overeaters. Social Forces, 88, 643-669.
20.
JasperJ. M. (1999). The art of moral protest: Culture, biography, and creativity in social movements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
JasperJ. M.PoulsenJ. D. (1995). Recruiting strangers and friends: Moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests. Social Problems, 42, 493-512.
22.
JonesR. E.DunlapR. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time?Rural Sociology, 57, 28-47.
23.
KemptonW.BosterJ. S.HartleyJ. A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24.
KlandermansB. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
25.
MarxK. (1964). Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right: Introduction. Early Writings, 43-59.
26.
MaurerD. (2002). Vegetarianism: Movement or moment?Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
27.
McAdamD. (1996). Political process and the development of Black insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
McAdamD.PaulsenR. (1993). Black environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 744-765.
29.
McAdamD.PaulsenR. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 640-667.
30.
MikaM. (2006). Framing the Issue: Religion, Secular Ethics, and the Case of the Animal Rights Mobilization. Social Forces, 85, 915-941.
31.
NepstadS. E. (2004). Convictions of the soul. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
NepstadS. E. (2008). Religion and war resistance in the plowshares movement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
NepstadS. E.SmithC. (2001). The social structure of moral outrage in recruitment to the U.S. Central America Peace Movement. In GoodwinJ.JasperJ. M.PollettaF. (Eds.), Passionate politics (pp. 158-174). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
SherkatD. E.EllisonC. G. (1997). The cognitive structure of a moral crusade: Conservative Protestantism and opposition to pornography. Social Forces, 75, 957-980.
35.
SherkatD. E.EllisonC. G. (2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 71-85.
36.
SmithC. (1996). Disruptive religion: The force of faith in social-movement activism. New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
SmithC. (2003). Moral, believing animals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
SnowD. A.BenfordR. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
39.
SteenslandB.ParkJ. Z.RegnerusM. D.RobinsonL. D.WilcoxW. B.WoodberryR. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291-318.
40.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723.
41.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
42.
VaiseyS. (2007). Structure, culture, and community: The search for belonging in 50 urban communes. American Sociological Review, 72, 851-873.
43.
VaiseyS. (2008). Socrates, Skinner, and Aristotle: Three ways of thinking about culture in action. Sociological Forum, 23, 603-613.
44.
VaiseyS. (2009). Motivation and justification: Toward a dual-process theory of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1675-1715.
45.
Van LiereK. D.DunlapR. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181.
46.
ViternaJ. S. (2006). Pulled, pushed, and persuaded: Explaining women’s mobilization into the Salvadoran guerrilla army. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1-45.
47.
WhiteL. (1967). The historical roots of our environmental crisis. Science, 155, 1203-1207.
