environmentalism’s social bases present

ch.2, ec-p.3 – segments of us society who consistently express greatest concern for environment still today…

“After nearly four decades, the most likely faces of environmental concern reflect the same segments of the population, though their numbers vary over the years. “Although the degree of concern Americans show for environmental issues has fluctuated significantly over the past three to four decades, generally majorities of the public have expressed concern about the quality of the environment and support for environmental protection efforts. What has varied is the size of the ‘pro-environment’ majority” (Gallup 2003). Cornerstones of environmental concern remain younger people, females, and the more educated and politically liberal (Nooney, Woodrum, Hoban, and Clifford 2003).”

 

The EPA was directed to set standards for radioactive materials under Reorganization Plan No. 3 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Conservatives should seize the environmental issue (thehill.com)
• Enviros Urged to Reckon with California Voter Demographics (newamericamedia.org)

environmentalism’s social bases past

ch2., ec-p.2 –  who was most likely to care most about environmental quality and greater protection of ecosystems through the 1970s and 1980s…

“Analysts described the social bases of US environmentalism by identifying social and demographic characteristics associated with various expressions of environmental concern about myriad environmental issues and ecological conditions (Dunlap and Jones 2002). As sociologists began exploring them systematically (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980), they found the social bases of environmental concern relatively stable (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). For almost two decades, “younger adults, the well-educated, political liberals, Democrats, those raised and currently living in urban areas…were found consistently more supportive of environmental protection than were their respective counterparts” (Jones and Dunlap 1992). Women were more concerned about risks associated with technology (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996), local pollution and toxic waste problems (Brown and Ferguson 1995, Krauss 1989), and “when significant gender differences emerge, women are found to be more environmentally concerned” (Jones and Dunlap 1992).”

 

English: 1908 US editorial cartoon on Theodore Roosevelt and conservation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Public Environmental Concern at ’20-Year Low’ (environmentalleader.com)
• The past & present of Indian environmentalism (thehindu.com)
• China’s Top 6 Environmental Concerns (huffingtonpost.com)
• IHT Rendezvous: Environmental Warning Fatigue Sets in (rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com)

Climate and Coffee: Very tough years ahead

Climate Adaptation Cafe

Coffee, like most crops, will suffer (and in fact has already suffered) greatly from climate change. Temperature changes, increasing or decreasing rain with sporadic downpours, varying lengths of seasons… Needless to say, high quality, highly vulnerable Arabica coffee will not simply grow effortlessly on the rolling hills of a finca.

Growing coffee today is harder than it has been for most of the recent past, yet it could be as easy as it will get if we think about the near future and the changing climate that comes with it. Rust can ruin an entire crop. Too much rain can cause devastating soil erosion. Shorter and longer seasons alter the essential processes that give us those complex, addicting flavor notes of a good cup of coffee. And how about the people who grow our coffee? Coffee farmers face shrinking incomes, which only diminishes their capacity to adapt.
It’s not all bad news, of…

View original post 284 more words

Fighting Climate Change

Fighting Climate Change.

cue environmental concern

ch.2, ec-p.1 – opening introductory paragraph for environmental concern section describing the beginning of sociological attention to public concern about ecosystems and support for greater protection of the environment…

“After the first Earth Day in 1970, US sociologists began intensively exploring which constituencies of the population were amenable to and supportive of the environmental movement’s goals (Buttel 1977, Heberlein and Black 1978, Van Liere and Dunlap 1981). This exploration included describing the strength of public concern about ecological conditions (Dunlap 1992), gauging support for environmental policies (Buttel and Flinn 1976), and associating support with social and demographic characteristics (Dunlap and Van Liere 1984). Analysts explored individuals’ perceptions about ecological conditions through original research surveys (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones 2000) and by using secondary data from opinion polling (Dunlap and Scarce 1991). Professional acceptance of environmental sociology as a sub-discipline accelerated studies of environmental concern (Catton and Dunlap 1980). More than a thousand assessments have been conducted since then, most relying on quantitative methodologies (Dunlap and Jones, 2002). Analysts take these views about environmental problems and the variability of expressed environmental concern to reflect the environmental movement’s “social bases” of public support (Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano 1998, Dunlap and Mertig 1992, Jones and Dunlap 1992, Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). These social bases reveal who is concerned about the biophysical world or practices pro-environmental behaviors.”

The Earth seen from Apollo 17. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• A failing environmental movement… (blogs.courier-journal.com)
• ‘Green’ Ads Rise Captalizing on Environmental Concerns (environmentalleader.com)
• Public Environmental Concern at ’20-Year Low’ (environmentalleader.com)

what stories show : ch.2, p.13

a short and sweet closing paragraph to the section on social construction. occasionally i write stuff that quickens my pulse because it feels inspiring and reminds me why sociology gives me hope. this is one them, maybe it is for you… 

“Social constructionists adopt the interpretive approach “as a counter to survey research, which…fails to understand the meanings people attach to their lives and actions.” In contrast to quantifying individuals’ discrete attitudes, hearing individuals’ own stories facilitates study of the interaction of structure and agency in meaning construction. Agger advocates the approach because individuals’ stories “can be read to reveal both the ways in which they have been socialized to accept ‘reality’ as defined for them by dominant ideologies and institutions, and the ways in which they creatively resist and transform these definitions” (2006:??).”

 

Orphanage Photographers – Visual Sociology (Photo credit: Paul Chenoweth)

Related articles

• Why Sociology? (everydaysociologyblog.com)
• Sociology (thebishopsjournal.wordpress.com)
• I am a Sociologist Because . . . (everydaysociologyblog.com)
• Sociology Department Rankings for 2013 (orgtheory.wordpress.com)

summing up : ch.2, p.12

beginning to close the section on sociological social construction approach to social problems, one more paragraph and then on to section two: environmental concern – with a summary of its social bases and my review of the research on religion’s role in it…

“Today’s proponents of the social construction approach to social problems continue urging analysts to follow a “middle road” (Weinberg 2009:1) between its principled, narrow version (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993) and other sociological traditions in which the objective conditions of social problems are assumed (Spector and Kitsuse 1977). They acknowledge a pragmatic and paradoxical challenge facing the social constructionist perspective is everyone’s inevitable embeddedness in the mundane social world. “Neither we as researchers nor those we study can ever intelligibly leave the domain of embodied, invested, and fully purposeful practical action” (Weinberg 2009#1). However, they contest the strict constructionist argument to ignore this (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993). “Agnosticism regarding the structural contexts of human action comes at the cost of rendering that action normatively unaccountable or, in other words, unintelligible. General social problems theory cannot succeed if it is confined to the comparative analysis of social problems discourse in vacuo” (Weinberg 2009#1). Calling for a contextual social constructionist approach to social problems reflects the value proponents place on holding onto this analytical tension and balance. It comes from the belief that this perspective offers sociologists a clearer, wider vision on how some conditions, but not others, become defined as problems and why people’s views about them vary.”

 

I am very concerned about environmental problems (Photo credit: Gauravonomics)

Related articles

• China’s Top 6 Environmental Concerns (huffingtonpost.com)

other social problems models : ch.2, p.11

identifying various other versions of theories for the emergence and decline of public interest in social problems…

“Conceptually compatible theoretical models developed simultaneously with Spector and Kitsuse’s social construction of social problems. Hilgartner and Bosk (1988) applied a ‘public arenas’ metaphor to emphasize the social contest between claims-makers and the process through which definitions of environmental and social conditions are ascribed their status as ‘problems’ in public discourse. Other analysts focused on variation over time in public attention to and concern about problematic conditions. Downs (1972) described waves of resurgent, then dissipating, interest in ecological issues as the inevitable result of the public’s “issue attention cycle.” Dunlap (1992) viewed the cycle as a consequence of their “natural decline.” Others emphasized the role of organized, sustained, collective action such as social movements in constructions of meaning of problematic conditions (Mauss 1975). Best notes that, despite some compatibility, this social movement approach substantially differs from the social construction approach: “Constructionist analyses have obvious parallels with studies of social movements but, constructionists remain the only sociologists committed to the cause of developing a theory of social problems” (Best 2002:??).”

 

Before the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, air pollution was not considered a national environmental problem. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• World Bank chief pledges more efforts to combat climate change (nzweek.com)
• Two reasons climate change is not like other environmental problems (grist.org)

contextual constructionists : ch.2, p.10

the broader version of the sociological social construction approach to social problems…

“Contextual constructionists counter that “the language of claims does not exist independently of the social world; it is a product of—and influence on—that world” (Best 1993:141). They argue that strict constructionism ignores the pragmatic realities of the “social problems work” that both researchers and actors perform. Contextual constructionists advocate a more ethnomethodologically sensitive approach that reflects concern for “the interpretative practices by which everyday realities are locally accomplished, managed, and sustained” (Holstein and Miller 1993:152). They recommend a broadened focus to constructionism that includes “practices that link public interpretative structures to aspects of everyday realities” (Holstein and Miller 1993:152). Miller and Fox (1999) grant strict constructionism value as a theoretical ideal, but declare it untenable in practical research and applied applications.”

 

 

strict constructionists : ch.2, p.9

brief mention of the narrow version of the sociological social construction approach to social problems…

“Analysts adopting a social construction approach to social problems in this era of the theory formed two camps, “strict” and “contextual” constructionists. Strict constructionists contended that analysts must confine themselves to focusing only on claims-making activities and their “symbol and language bound character” since “the strict constructionist never leaves language” (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993). In this formulation, analysts were urged to remember that “it is ‘they’ (as members of the settings we are studying) and not ‘us’ (as analysts) who do the work of realizing the characteristics of the worlds in which they live” (Weinberg 2009#1).”

 

 

Related articles

• ::: Summary: “The Promises of Constructivism” (Latour, 2000)::: (constanzasilva.com)