Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Article Reaction
I don't know how much I agree with the article we just read. The author holds strong convictions that pop culture encourages us to make small changes in our life in order to stop the ever growing problem of environmental destruction. He claims that we are merely slowing down Earth's destruction, rather than actually doing anything to fix the growing problem. He feels as though our minimal changes have no impact and slow the process rather than actually change what the problem is in the first place. While I do see his point and his strong beliefs on the issue, I strongly disagree with the point he is trying to get across. To say that it is pointless to make small changes and that the work of celebrities and other public individuals making service announcements in regards to the environment is worthless is simply a poor argument. Regardless of the small impact that these actions make, they are still making an impact. Even further, they will encourage others to take part in similar small actions, which will lead to greater results when more participants become engaged with the idea. Furthermore, taking small action promotes others to recognize the need to a response to environmental issues, and encourages other people to become active in doing what they can to be environmentally conscious. Thus, the author's argument is entirely invalid. Although he is right in saying that greater steps must be taken in order to stop destruction, small steps are the only way to begin the road to an even greater outcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Angela,
Thanks for your spirited response to my op-ed piece. Perhaps where we might agree is on this: the small changes we're asked to make don't make much of a difference when compared to the enormity of the task before us. If this is so -- if we share common ground on this (and the arithmetic is pretty compelling), then I'd ask you: Why are we told that if we do these small things, we will save the planet? This seems like a perfect prescription for (a) increasing peoples' cynicism (they think they're part of doing something really important, yet will soon discover that it was all trivial stuff), and (b) selling us stuff we don't really need.
I think we're capable of doing much more than we're currently asked to do -- at least enough of us to make a real difference.
Thanks again for your response to my piece.
Yours,
Michael Maniates
Oh, I should have added this too:
You say that:
"Even further, they will encourage others to take part in similar small actions, which will lead to greater results when more participants become engaged with the idea. Furthermore, taking small action promotes others to recognize the need to a response to environmental issues, and encourages other people to become active in doing what they can to be environmentally conscious."
My question: How do you know that the two claims you call out above are true? You do a splendid job of spelling out the contemporary case, but how do you know my recycling prompts others to recycle, or that my buying green alerts others to the need to buy green? Scholars have studied both of these questions, and what we've found is that the kind of behaviors you claim occur actually don't happen, or if they do they don't persist UNLESS we see fundamental structural change that cements these behaviors into place and requires them of others. The sort of "spread like a fad" social change that you imagine happening doesn't generally occur, and especially not for environmental issues.
I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all here! I'm actually a pretty pleasant guy. My research work these days centers on how it is that smart, compassionate people like you have come to accept a set of claims about social change as undeniable fact. I suspect that these claims have been slowly fed to us in order to declaw environmentalism -- and the extent to which they're so freely accepted shows how docile we've become.
Yours,
Michael Maniates
Post a Comment