In this brief contribution to the Forum on ‘new climate change activism’, I intend to point to some unexplored research fields and raise some potential questions for future research. My contribution has been inspired by teaching a Master’s (online) course this summer on environmental change from a political anthropology perspective and working on a research project on the ‘traditional impulse’. ‘Traditional’ (or ‘conservative’) impulse means a partly intuitive, partly conscious reaction to social change; it refers to attitudes and practices that are rooted in traditional patterns and is inspired by the desire to preserve what is there and/or to restore what has been lost (Marris 1986; Waldmann 2017). The starting point of the Master’s course was Thomas H. Eriksen’s (2016) book Overheating. An anthropology of accelerated change and my idea was to compare it with Arlie R. Hochschild’s (2016) study of environmental pollution and Tea Party supporters in Louisiana (USA). While (re‐)reading both books simultaneously and from the very stimulating discussions with the Master’s students, one question popped up and it continues to occupy me: why is environmental activism in general and climate activism in particular seemingly limited to the ‘political (liberal) left’?

In contrast to this widespread perception that environmental activism was and is exclusively a matter of the ‘(liberal) left’, the historical origins of environmentalism in Europe are ambiguous. As a reaction to industrialisation and urbanisation accompanied by environmental pollution, thinkers of the Romantic stressed the significance of nature and highlighted the relations between the natural environment and a particular people (Volk). In the late 19th century, the German Heimatschutz movement took up ideas of the Romantic and perceived the natural environment as ‘the fundament to the nation’ (Forchtner 2019: 7). That is, environmentalism as a main political preoccupation of the ‘(liberal) left’ is a relatively recent phenomenon (starting around the 1960s) and there is a re‐emerging interest in it on the ‘political right’ in the last few years. Therefore, social anthropological research on the linkages between environmental activism and the ‘political right’ could add important insights to the growing literature on environmental activism in general. Let me sketch two research questions in brief that are particularly relevant from my point of view.

First, why does environmental and climate change activism trigger a mostly sceptical or even resentful response among traditionalist actors? According to Lockwood (2018), the resentment derives from the fact that ‘climate change is the cosmopolitan issue par excellence’, but from my viewpoint the question becomes more intricate by closer inspection. For one, the neglect or rejection of environmental concerns contradicts what has been referred to as the traditional impulse above: the desire to preserve what is there (the original meaning of conservare). How do traditionalist actors reconcile these apparent contradictions when they are confronted with severe environmental change? Hochschild (2016) presents some answers to this question and demonstrates that while Tea Party supporters recognise and suffer from the severe environmental pollution in Louisiana, they insist on their autonomy and reject state intervention – and quite paradoxically, they blame the state (and not the chemical industry) for their toxic living conditions. Even more interesting for the purposes of this Forum, Hochschild illustrates the difficulties of a traditionalist environmental activist in convincing his fellow political Tea Party members of the need to preserve and protect the natural environment.

Which leads to a second question: is there any significant environmental activism on the ‘political right’ and if yes, what kind of activism exists and for what matters? There are some recent studies on environmentalism and the ‘far right’ (see, for example, Forchtner 2019). By referring to the Heimatschutz movement of the past, ‘far right’ German activists focus on national and local (rather than global) environmental concerns. Moreover, climate change denial seems to have receded in recent years and has been replaced by neo‐Malthusian ideas of overpopulation to explain the origins and effects of climate change. However, the spectrum of the ‘political right’ is wide and makes it necessary to distinguish between the ‘far right’ on the one hand and a ‘moderate traditionalism’ on the other – although both partly overlap and clear‐cut distinctions are not always possible and meaningful.

Therefore, social anthropologists could focus on ‘moderate ecological traditionalists’, thus complementing research on the ‘far right’. One example are the so‐called bioconservateurs discussed in Tournier (2018), who live in rural regions of France and supposedly reject the conventional left vs right divide (see, for example, https://revuelimite.fr/notre‐manifeste). According to Lilla (2018), the environmental activism of bioconservateurs is based on Christian social teaching (such as Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato si’ from 2015) and is rooted in traditionalist values. And in sharp contrast to the Tea Party supporters described by Hochschild, bioconservateurs criticise neoliberal economics and environmental degradation – and believe in the threat of climate change. What could be interesting to focus on in future research on ‘moderate ecological traditionalists’ are the related concepts of ‘nostalgia’ and ‘solastalgia’: whereas nostalgia refers to ‘a desire to hold onto an idealised past’ (Reed 2016: 99), solastalgia means ‘the distress that is produced by environmental change impacting on people while they are directly connected to their home environment’ (Albrecht et al. 2007: 95). Ethnographic research on these related concepts could provide a better understanding of what motivates these traditionalist actors to care for the environment and what distinguishes them from activists on the ‘(liberal) left’.

Last but not least, research on ‘moderate ecological traditionalists’ (but certainly not on the ‘far right’) could point out avenues of joint environmental activism across ideological divides – and thus contribute in limited but constructive ways to two controversial and pressing issues of our time: the conservation of the environment and the reconstruction of societal cohesion.

在对“新气候变化行动主义”论坛的简短贡献中，我打算指出一些尚未探索的研究领域，并对未来的研究提出一些潜在的问题。今年夏天，我从政治人类学的角度讲授了有关环境变化的硕士（在线）课程，并致力于“传统冲动”的研究项目，从而激发了我的贡献。“传统”（或“保守”）冲动意味着对社会变革的部分直观，有意识的反应；它指的是根植于传统模式的态度和实践，其灵感来自于对保存其中的东西和/或恢复已经失去的东西的渴望（Marris 1986； Waldmann 2017）。硕士课程的起点是托马斯·H·埃里克森（Thomas H.Eriksen）（2016）预订过热。关于加速变化的人类学，我的想法是将其与Arlie R. Hochschild（2016年）对美国路易斯安那州的环境污染和茶党支持者的研究进行比较。在同时（重新）阅读这两本书以及与硕士生进行的非常刺激的讨论时，出现了一个问题，并且这个问题继续困扰着我：为什么一般的环境激进主义和特别是气候激进主义似乎仅限于“政治（自由主义） ） 剩下'？

与人们普遍认为环境行动主义过去是而且仅是“（自由）左派”的问题形成鲜明对比的是，欧洲环保主义的历史起源是模棱两可的。浪漫主义思想家对工业化和城市化伴随环境污染的反应，强调自然的重要性，并强调了自然环境与特定人之间的关系（Volk）。19世纪末，德国Heimatschutz运动采纳了浪漫主义的观念，并将自然环境视为``国家的根本''（Forchtner 2019：7）。也就是说，环保主义是“（自由）左派”的主要政治关注，是一种相对较新的现象（始于1960年代左右），并且在最近几年中人们对“政治右派”重新产生了兴趣。因此，关于环境行动主义与“政治权利”之间联系的社会人类学研究可以为越来越多的有关环境行动主义的文献提供重要的见识。让我简要概述两个研究问题，这些问题在我看来特别重要。

首先，为什么环境和气候变化激进主义在传统主义者之间引发了大多数怀疑甚至是反感的反应？根据洛克伍德（Lockwood，2018）的说法，这种怨恨源于``气候变化是卓越的国际化问题''这一事实，但是从我的观点来看，通过仔细检查，这个问题变得更加复杂。一方面，对环境问题的忽视或拒绝与上述传统冲动相矛盾：保护在那里存在的愿望（自然保护的初衷）。当传统的行为者面临严峻的环境变化时，它们如何调和这些明显的矛盾呢？霍奇希尔德（2016）提出了该问题的一些答案，并证明，尽管茶党的支持者认识到路易斯安那州遭受严重的环境污染并遭受其打击，但他们坚持自己的自治权并拒绝国家干预-颇为反常的是，他们责怪国家（而不是化学工业）他们有毒的生活条件。对于本次论坛而言，更为有趣的是，霍奇希尔德（Hochschild）说明了一位传统主义环保主义者在说服其政治同胞茶党成员需要维护和保护自然环境方面的困难。

这就引出了第二个问题：在“政治权利”上是否存在任何重大的环境行动主义？如果是，那么存在哪种行动主义，以及什么才是最重要的？最近有一些关于环保主义和``最右边''的研究（例如，参见Forchtner 2019）。通过参考Heimatschutz在过去的运动中，“极右派”德国激进分子关注国家和地方（而非全球）环境问题。此外，近年来对气候变化的否定似乎已经消退，并被新马尔萨斯主义的人口过剩概念所取代，以解释气候变化的根源和影响。但是，“政治权利”的范围很广，因此有必要区分一方面的“极权”和另一方面的“温和的传统主义”，尽管部分重叠和明确的区分并不总是如此可能和有意义的。

因此，社会人类学家可以专注于“温和的生态传统主义者”，从而补充“极权”的研究。一个例子是在Tournier（2018）中讨论的所谓生物保护主义者，他们生活在法国的农村地区，据说拒绝了传统的左与右鸿沟（例如，参见https://revuelimite.fr/notre-manifeste）。根据里拉（Lilla，2018）的说法，生物保护主义者的环境行动主义是基于基督教的社会教义（例如教皇方济各（Pope Francis ）于2015年发表的百科全书Laudato si），并植根于传统主义价值观中。与生物保护主义者Hochschild所描述的茶党支持者形成鲜明对比的是批评新自由主义经济学和环境恶化，并相信气候变化的威胁。在有关“温和生态传统主义者”的未来研究中，有趣的是“怀旧”和“孤寂”的相关概念：而怀旧是指“希望保持理想化的过去”（Reed 2016：99）， solastalgia的意思是“环境变化所产生的痛苦影响着人们，而人们直接与家庭环境息息相关”（Albrecht等，2007：95）。关于这些相关概念的人种学研究可以使人们更好地理解是什么促使这些传统主义者行动起来关心环境，以及它们与“（自由）左派”活动家之间的区别。

最后但并非最不重要的是，对“中等生态传统主义者”（但肯定不是“极右派”）的研究可以指出跨越意识形态鸿沟的联合环境行动主义的途径，从而以有限但建设性的方式为两个有争议的紧迫问题做出了贡献。我们的时代：保护环境和重建社会凝聚力。