Ideological Dilemmas Actualised by the Idea of Living Environmentally Childfree
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21252295 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Erik Nakkerud (0000-0001-6132-8622, University of Oslo, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 886-910 |
| Publication date | 2023-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Arenas (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2522-5790 • E-ISSN: 2522-5804 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s42087-021-00255-6 |
| OpenAlex | W3201788520 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 31 |
Over the past decade, the choice of living childfree has increasingly been viewed as a pro-environmental behaviour. Recent research has investigated statistical relations between environmental concern and reproductive attitudes, as well as exploring the processes around actually deciding to live environmentally childfree. Based on increased public attention about the phenomenon, this article employs Michael Billig’s notion of ideological dilemmas to analyse the media coverage of choosing to live environmentally childfree, attempting to answer how these dilemmas influence whether living childfree is perceived as a relevant pro-environmental behaviour. Thirty-one news items were analysed using a synthesis of critical discursive psychology and thematic analysis. The analysis identified five ideological concepts: liberalism, sustainable development, globalism, biologism and humanism. Each of these concepts contains positions supporting and opposing the idea of living environmentally childfree in Norway. These ideological dilemmas seem to weaken the perceived relevance of living environmentally childfree, as the topic is easily dismissed or framed as irrelevant. I therefore conclude that the discourse of living environmentally childfree is analogous to how society generally relates to solutions to the environmental crises
Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Ideology · Mainstream · Political science · Politics · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Sustainability · Sustainable Living · Thematic analysis · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Education and Sustainability · Environmental Philosophy and Ethics · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Ecology
Reproductive hesitation in the Norwegian petrostate
Moralizing reproduction in a warming world
Tourism mobilities and climate crisis dilemmas
Pushing too far? Negotiations of non‐compliance and resistance to the Covid‐19 cabin ban in Norway
Choosing to live environmentally childfree
Mind the gaps
Negotiating Good Parenthood in Swedish Climate Change Fiction
The repro-paradox of sustainable reproduction—debating demographic anxieties in the Danish media (2010–2022)
Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits
Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100
Offentlige samtaler om fruktbarhet i dagens Norge
New partnerships, new perspectives
There Are Many People Like Me, Who Feel They Want to Do Something Bigger”
The Problem of Overpopulation
The climate mitigation gap
Rethinking “Greening of Hate”
User Skills for Qualitative Analysis
Snowball sampling
Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions
Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals
Learning by Failing
No future, no kids–no kids, no future
Optimum human population size
Environmental concern and fertility intentions among Canadian university students
Beyond the Economic Gaze
Nordic welfare states—still standing or changed by the Covid ‐19 crisis
A Human Rights Approach to Planning Families
Notes towards a description of Social Representations
National identities, international roles, and the legitimation of climate leadership
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Discursive Psychology
A feminist exploration of 'populationism
Self-Construal in Chile and Norway
| Citations per year | 2.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |