March 22, 2011: Discussion Questions: Energy, Carbon and the Debate about Climate Change
Emilie Dubois
Challenge to Ecological Modernization in the UK Climate-Change
Debate.”
unpublished paper, Boston College, Department of Sociology.
Seyfang, G. Lorenzoni, I. and Nye, M. (2007) Personal Carbon Trading:
notional concept or workable proposition? Exploring theoretical,
ideological
and practical underpinnings, CSERGE Working Paper, EDM 2007-03,
available here.
Pralle, Sarah. 2006. ‘‘‘I’m Changing the Climate, Ask Me How!’: The
Politics of the Anti-SUV Campaign.” Political Science Quarterly 121(3):
397-423.
Marius K. Luedicke, Craig Thompson and Markus Giesler, “Defying the
Jeremiad against Consumerism: How American Exceptionalism Provides a
Moral Justification for Resource-Intensive Consumption Practices,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 2010.
Reg Platt and Simon Retallack, 2009, Consumer Power: How the public
thinks lower-carbon behaviour could be made mainstream,” Report of
Institute for Public Policy Research:
http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=698
Tom Laidley
More than anything, these readings highlight for me just how saturated the discourse of climate change is with moralization, hypocrisy (both real and perceived), social tension, and deeply engrained cultural attitudes. Pralle’s work is an interesting dissection of the class antagonism surrounding light trucks in the U.S., but arguing that the anti-SUV discourse signifies an inversion of the normal class polarities in ‘Anti-___’ movements requires more empirical justification than is illustrated here. It seems most of the evidence supporting the notion that the real antagonism is aimed at the upper class is anecdotal, and to me, it rings somewhat hollow. Poor people don’t always react to pleas for ‘sufficiency’ (least of all having to do with transportation) as advocates or social reformers might expect; renouncing consumerism in this or any other field is usually easier to do when you have some economic capital as insulation. The Thompson paper (I couldn’t find this one, so I read the moral protagonism one instead, which I’m guessing makes many similar points) seems to me to be more important here, because it shows that consumption practices are interpreted in vastly different ways based on the people involved. Activists might wail against H2 drivers for being overfed or spoiled, but the drivers predictably see it more as indicative of their hard work and social mobility. We see many of the same things in Norgaard, as people perceive certain actions in different ways based on their cultural surroundings, and in a more economic/utilitarian sense, their own best interest. While this can be conceived of as collective denial, I would argue there is a germ of truth to some of the backlash; I’ve had people living in 4,000 square foot houses (and with more than two children, the ‘replacement rate’) roll their eyes at my car, which results in nothing but resentment. In many ways this is a vast collective action problem made worse by considerations of costs and benefits relative to one’s position in the socio-economic (and cultural) spectrum. Why should I front the costs of carbon emissions abatement when I have so little capital to bring to bear on it? In a similar vein, why would Norwegians give up a lucrative (and, it deserves to be said, considering it’s mostly natural gas, comparatively clean) market when Qatar or Russia are more than happy to meet demand? True, carbon allotments may help alleviate these structural problems, but they have issues of their own. On the one hand, the logistical difficulty of actually putting a system like that into practice (especially having to coordinate between public and private organizations in the process- one wild guess as to how the latter would react to a regulatory regime so all-encompassing); on the other, what basically amounts to indulgences. These considerations ultimately lead me to believe that while these approaches may not be bankrupt, they need to be complemented by a global political regulatory system which prevents some of the dilemmas outlined. Still, there will always be problems, and even though they are cultural, they are hardly all illusory constructions. Perhaps activists and advocates need to admit to themselves that reconciling climate mitigation with social equity is a more difficult proposition than it is portrayed as.
Gerone Lockhart
interesting. I enjoyed reading about strategies of denial and the
ways in which attention could be socially structured--shaping what I
see and don't see. Socially organized denial is denial that ensues
when information is too disturbing to be fully absorbed. This denial--
unlike purely psychological conceptions--is due to the influence of
social conditions, including media institutions, perceptions of the
past and future, perceptions of who is within my community (of concern
and responsibility), material conditions of one's prosperity and
(hopes of) pleasure. So even if the "information problem" is solved,
my level of affluence, my hopes of gaining from a system, or even my
desire to maintain a way of life could build resistance to both
perceiving (justice related, politically charged) information and
becoming fully aware of that information's implications for my way of
life.
Hyemi
This week’s articles let me know how the diverse discourse regarding climate change has been framed in a social context. Before taking this class, I thought that global environmental problems such as climate change belonged only to the natural or physical environments, distant from the realm of sociology. From my previous perspective, an environmental problem had nothing to do with the main concepts of sociology — social values and cultural symbols, social class, power conflicts, social structure, or economic politics — and could not be understood or analyzed in terms of the lens of sociology. However, after reading this week’s articles, it especially struck me that my idea about the environmental problem had been completely wrong. The global environmental problem is strongly a social problem and should be considered in a social context.
In the article on the anti-SUV campaign, Pralle states that the campaign is a kind of rejection crusade of the automobile as a symbol of freedom and choices. He further states that the campaign is faced with ambiguity between pro-consumerism and anti-consumerism in socio-cultural and political-economic contexts. Also, this anti-SUV campaign has been understood within a history of moral reform movements. In light of the historical and contextual meaning, the anti-SUV campaign can distinguish itself from other moral reform movements because it targets the reversed class and status, namely the upper and middle classes. I like Parelle’s approach on the anti-SUV campaign from the perspective of social structure, but I think she could have strengthened her argument by emphasizing and providing more evidence on social structure, such as class and status, in relation to the anti-SUV movement. Even though Pralle tries to explain it, I still wonder that why the anti-SUV campaigners concentrated on SUVs. Pralle covered a lot of topics regarding reasons of the concentration on SUVs but did not elaborate on them enough to persuade the readers including me. I think it is possible jealousy had more impact on the movement than Pralle discussed, resulting in a movement resembling a witch-hunt.
On the other hand, Norgaard’s “We Don’t Really Want to Know” emphasizes that Norwegian’s collectively deny environmental issues because of its political and economic environment. Although Norwegians know the information and are well aware of the risks of the environmental problem, they do not respond because of their way of life and economic prosperity gained from the nation’s oil production. Here Norgaard indicates the social influence on the environmental problem. Curiosities arose as I was reading the article. Norgaard only addresses individuals and social structures and insufficiently covered the in-between, the media’s role. Also, I want to put more weight on Norgaard’s statement on each individual Norwegian lacking of understanding of how to apply environmental protection measures in everyday life. I think, after all, Norwegians do not have enough information on environmental issues.
Monique
supporting, reinforcing, and justifying consumer preferences. Both
Pralle and Hayden examine the challenges associated with framing
opposition to consumption practices that are rooted in dominant
ideologies that are officially sanctioned. In the SUV case, opponents
must contend with an advertising establishment that “has capitalized
on America’s love of liberty by promoting a connection between freedom
and consumer choice (p420)”. Since freedom and choice are so central
to dominant American political ideologies, Pralle highlights the ways
in which SUV opponents try to frame their calls to reduce SUV use as
something other than attacks on personal choice. In a similar way,
Hayden’s case study shows how proponents of sufficiency in the UK put
forth ways to reduce consumption without linking such practices to a
reduction in economic growth.
Critics of consumption practices have to be careful not to alienate
potential allies by the way that they frame their positions. What
opportunities exist for changing consumption practices or lifestyles
when activists must steer clear of direct challenges to the ideologies
that are helping to maintain the unsustainable practices?
Margaret Lister
depressing. The article just confirmed what I already know through
experience. Contemporary environmentalists and even environmental
sociologists affirm that we can fix this problem as long as we really
want to, and all that is missing in the formulation of this desire is
a bit of necessary information. Norgaard calls this into question in a
well-written and well-researched but, from an activist POV, highly
discouraging article. Her idea of the ranking system society imposes
on our knowledge would be a great conversation partner with social
network theory.
I also found the intersections of ideals, particularly those involving
freedom, very interesting throughout the readings this week. SUV
owners in Pralle's article felt they had the right to drive whichever
car they chose, including a Hummer or Suburban. This freedom,
detractors argue, impinges on their neighbors' freedom to lead long
and healthy lives. Where do we draw the line, and how do we balance
these factors? Life without stricter environmental regulations could
easily become "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" --
ironically, in Hobbes' view, the way that humans normally live among
nature.
L Carfagna
maria grinko
P.S. I've never thought of the "social organization of time" (Norgaard) before! I just thought I didn't think about the environment 24/7 because it's ALWAYS easier for EVERYONE to focus on the present and those issues. Apparently if I were a member of the Iroquois, I would be oriented differently. I totally took this for granted as some fixed thing in human nature. Oops.
Gemma
I was very interested in the Pralle article on the politics of the anti-SUV campaign, especially in its relation to personal freedom. According to Pralle, the consumer has become the new citizen in that consumers are “essential to a democracy” because of their purchasing power (415). Certain material goods, such as cars or specifically SUV’s, are so highly valued for their convenience and social prestige they become tied into the meaning of “individual freedom,” and then evolve into a perceived “right” (421). Comparing this idea the Thompson and Coskuner article from last week, CSA advocates see organic farming as true freedom. Farmers base their “sense of autonomy and personal sovereignty” on keeping their farms “free from corporate dependencies” (22). These two notions, that of SUV’s and organic farming, are startlingly different. Is there a way to reconcile the American notion of personal freedom within the new green movement? Is it possible to bring together the anti-SUV campaigners and organic foodies because they both feel passionately about protecting their individual freedoms, which can only be achieved through protecting the earth?
Shan
social denial, “We Don’t Really Want To Know: Environmental Justice
and Socially Organized Denial of Global Warming in Norway.” Part of
what interested me was her typology, which organizes the interpretive
and cultural aspects of denial that help Norwegians operate
effectively in the double reality of constructed collective normalcy
and troubling experience. As I read Norgaard, I heard strains of
philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer’s book, "Truth and Method," which owes
a great debt to the work of Husserl (phenomenology), Dilthey
(empirical hermeneutics, sociology), and Heidegger (existentialism,
phenomenology). Interestingly, Norgaard does not cite any of these
philosophers even though much of what she writes seems to owe a debt
to their thinking.
For example, Norgaard’s attention to the “cultural norms” of time and
space seemed to me to be linked to existential questions asked by
Heidegger and echoed in Gadamer’s tome, which suggests that our
consciousness and, thus, our interpretive ability are embedded in
historical time rather than being held captive by the author’s
original intent (Schliermacher and Dilthey). Further in Gadamer,
interpretive activity involves a fusion of horizons relating a
person’s own time in relation to texts and to the interpretive
tradition in which a person functions. Likewise, Norgaard says that
the “social organization of time” for the citizens of Bygdaby “was
marked by a pronounced sense of the past” involving “memory
markers” (items, practices, and institutions) that “each served to
orient the collective focus of the community backwards in time” (362).
Thus, the hermeneutic lens of the Norwegians she studied functioned
with a normative sense of time that divided their daily experience of
serious weather changes from their tradition-saturated and past-
focused expectations. Like Gadamer, Norgaard sees time, particularly
the past, as key in understanding how people frame current experience
and understanding. In my reading of Norgaard, a main difference
between her method and Gadamer’s is that he attended more narrowly on
written texts while she listened to narratives and citizens’ claims to
uncover the hidden reasons for people’s denial about climate change.
Because of this and other examples in Norgaard that were centered
around the issue of hermeneutics, I found myself wondering about the
connections between sociological theory and philosophy as I read this
essay. Gadamer makes it clear in the Introduction to "Truth and
Method" that neither is he “concerned with a method of understanding
by means of which texts are subjected to scientific investigation like
all other objects of experience,” nor is he “concerned primarily with
amassing verified knowledge, such as would satisfy the methodological
ideal off science” (xxi). However, despite his suspicion of scientific
methods, there seems to be close connections with Norgaard (and
perhaps her sociological interlocutors) that might be interesting to
explore.
John Petroff
growth fascinating. Similarly to Tim Jackson, Hayden challenges the
widely accepted macroeconomic model based on perpetual growth as well
as the idea that technological improvement within this model can solve
the current conflict between economic growth and environmental
prosperity. The argument rests on the idea that economic success does
not indicate prosperity and happiness as much as commonly perceived;
there is a limit to how much money makes us happy. I do not dispute
this idea at all, but I have a difficult time seeing the general
public accepting a statistic like Gross National Happiness to indicate
society's well-being. Western society, the U.S. especially, has an
obsession with measurements like SAT scores, GPA, income, and the
like. We compete over everything (there is a contest every year in New
Orleans that judges who can yell "Stella" from a 'Streetcar Named
Desire' the most accurately), and some argue that is a great part of
our culture. Rather than indices that measure happiness through
surveys or other seemingly abstract methods, I would like to see other
economic statistics developed that measure economic success that does
not interfere with environmental or social well-being. Such a
measurement would still be based on the total goods and services
produced but would negatively factor in consequences from
unsustainable growth such as damage from pollution and growth that
follows natural disasters. Hayden and Jackson may say that this line
of thought follows the traditional rhetoric of EM too closely, but I
am fairly dissuaded of a no growth economy due to the social
instability associated with it namely low employment and decreased
real wages. I still have to hear the arguments behind fewer hour work
weeks however.
