Category: Blog ENG110 (Page 1 of 2)

Q: Can moral obligation alone be the sole motivator in pushing people to fight against and care about climate change?

A: Climate change is real and it’s happening right now, and its effects reach everyone’s lives whether they choose to believe it or not. Moore discusses how “Moral arguments appeal to what is hopeful and good in the human spirit… [they] speak to all people” (9). She’s stating that people cannot ignore moral arguments. She brings into discussion right and wrong and the way our world has normalized destroying the Earth we live on is indisputably wrong. The problem with morals is that everyone holds different ones to different degrees of importance in their lives. Moore provides the example of running shoes, saying that we know we’re destroying the Earth and contributing to climate change when we chose to buy the shoes our materialistic society attempts to shove down our throat, even though we know that it’s wrong and we care about the environment (6). So clearly people can ignore moral arguments, this alone isn’t enough motivation to get people to actually change the way they live. While this might appeal to some people, it’s not enough to get everyone on board. Other people might be more receptive to seeing the facts broken down in a way they can easily comprehend them; because the numbers alone can be daunting. McKibben states “…we’re going to have an ecologically sustainable economy for everybody or, ultimately, we won’t have one for anybody” (12). This kind of almost scare tactic can jolt people and wake them up to the realities of climate change and the impact it has on our Earth and in our lives. Cold hard facts and a harsh reality along with a moral obligation to save our Earth should be motivation enough for people to wake up and really do something to change their lives for the better and push to fight against climate change.

The best formula for social change when it comes to climate change is a combination of both having strong and weak relationships and changing the ethic and culture of society while prioritizing political activism. In his article Duhigg states, “Strong ties, or close relationships, combined with weak ties, or distant connections, have the power to mobilize large groups toward a singular goal” (85). This is an important part to mobilize the climate change movement because without mutual acquaintances that extend throughout various societal groups there are no ties in society and people won’t be moved to do anything. This strategy won’t work alone though. In the article “If Your House is on Fire” Moore states, “If the culture forces us to live in ways we don’t believe in, then we have to change the culture.” Changing the culture is important to change what society sees as norms. Having both weak and strong ties and changing the culture is the best formula for societal change regarding climate change.

Naysayer:

Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that this approach is too simple or that these strategies have been being used and nothing about climate change has shifted. While it is true that climate change has been a battle that society has been taking stabs at for a while, society hasn’t been doing this aggressively enough. Moore states,

“We haven’t tried massive protests and civil disobedience. We haven’t tried boycotts. We haven’t harnessed the power of global religions. Somewhere near half of us don’t even vote. Here and there, sure, we’ve tried nonviolence, but not on the scale we need. Let’s give it a go.”

Although I grant that we have tried fighting against climate change I still maintain that we haven’t tried hard enough.

In “If Your House is on Fire” by Kathleen Moore she introduces a new method for social change. Moore suggests that if we can articulate a new ethic and change our culture this will change our society and the way we live/think. Moore states that, “If the culture forces us to live in ways we don’t believe in, then we have to change the culture.” She’s suggesting that nothing is being done about climate change because the culture we live in has normalized treating the Earth poorly and depleting fossil fuels and other things contributing to the downfall of our world. If we were to change our culture and find a new ethics, then all of this would change, and better practices would be normalized. Moore also states, “Every act of refusal is also an act of assent. Every time we say no to consumer culture, we say yes to something more beautiful and sustaining.” By standing up for what is right and healthy for our world and our bodies we’re creating a new culture and ethic that is positive and doesn’t have adverse effects on the Earth. Moore also discusses how we’re so wrapped up in material wealth and selfishness that we need to shy away from that and think about our children’s future and make political activism a priority. She calls to be civilly disobedient in large numbers and have protests because America really hasn’t done any non-violent stances against climate change at all really and that’s why it’s not working.

McKibben’s “Do the Math” movies’ strategy for social change it very interesting and he makes a lot of good points. He starts out the film by noting that when climate change is broken down into a very simple 3-part formula its more palatable and people will be more attentive to it because it’s easy to understand.  He discusses climate change in the sense that if there’s a clear enemy in the situation and if we know what to do to put down that enemy, we have a moral obligation to do so. Climate change is only getting worse and McKibben suggest that the way we stop it is by encouraging everyone to full their stock and sell them from big oil companies. He suggests that these big competitors choke out smaller, clean-energy companies so that they don’t even have a chance. As students we can stand up to these big companies by encouraging our schools to sell any stocks, they have in these big oil companies. This will choke them of their money and force them to switch to renewable energy or to go bankrupt and let the smaller, renewable energy companies have a chance. McKibben suggests that people don’t naturally have the urge to go out and try to help the world for the better, especially if it’s not affecting them directly. So, it’s important to grasp the simple equation and really understand what it means for our world. This strategy is different from Duhigg’s because it suggests that social change will come from people congregating from complete strangers. McKibben started 350 with a few undergrads and it spread globally to people they didn’t even know. Duhigg suggests that social change comes from more specified strong and weak relationships forming and can only really occur if these relationships exist. McKibben doesn’t specify these connections being needed and more so suggests that social change can occur from groups of people pushing for it. The similarities between these two strategies for social change is that they both only work if a lot of people care and push for what needs to be changed. People taking real action.

Duhigg’s assertion that strong and weak relationships have the power to motivate groups towards a single mutual goal doesn’t totally align with what I think (85). I think this can hold true in some instances. My view, however, contrary to what Duhigg has argued, is that for big social movements to occur you need more strong ties than weak ones. By attaining this you automatically gain more mutual acquaintances and therefore more people who will call in favors for you. The evidence shows that this is what occurred with the civil rights movement and Rosa Parks. Anyone familiar with the Civil Rights movement should agree that what happened with Rosa Parks and not giving up her seat on the bus was pivotal for this movement. Because she had strong and weak ties that went across social groups people were motivated to end segregation. I agree with what Duhigg calls, creating a fresh sense of identity (87). In my opinion, this motivates people even further to work towards that mutual goal that needs to be strived for.

I think that Duhigg has some really good points and after reading this excerpt it makes me want to read his book on the power of habit. I do agree with him when he states that weak-tie acquaintances can be more important than strong-tie friends because of the access it gives us to various social circles that we wouldn’t normally be exposed to. This is especially important while networking socially when trying to get a job. The more connections you have the easier it will be for you to get a job because if you reach out to people, they’ll be more apt to help you. Or they might even reach out to you. I also really liked the example he provided about Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. It was interesting how he tied social habits and the need for distant and close relationships within the church. This is something I’ve personally had experience with and having smaller groups that meet outside of church definitely gets people more involved and forms stronger relationships with God and the church. If people don’t feel like they belong somewhere, or something isn’t applicable to them they’re more likely to give up on it. Like Duhigg says, “new habits create a fresh sense of identity” (87). This holds true within the Civil Rights Movement and the creation of Saddleback Church. People begin to feel like they belong and they’re motivated to care about things more if they’re acquainted to the people an issue is surrounding.

-sickening silence

-windows cracked

-her sweaty palms grip mine

-tear soaked faces

-gut wrenching sobs

-relief or grief? Maybe both

-what is there to do

-would anything even make a difference

-quiet car

-heavy air

-the big target sign lights up the parking lot

-people walk by

When someone close to you experiences sexual assault it’s very upsetting and really makes you think about rape in our society today and the politics and culture surrounding it. There’s a lot of talk of a “rape culture” in America but when I think of a rape culture it’s not just cat calling and crude jokes. America has preventative laws and legislation in place to protect women, which a lot of countries can’t say they have. Rape that isn’t being fought against in countries where there aren’t laws that specifically tackle it, child brides and arranged marriages where women physically can’t get help out of fear of being rejected from their community/religion. This is where there’s really a rape culture. I’d never thought about this much until my friend shared her story with me. Speaking up about issues like this isn’t easy to do, especially with all the tumultuous conversation around rape culture and sexual assault and how to quell these issues. That’s why this story is important.

Notes:

-bullying very common

-pain and triumphs within life

-isolated for being different

-LGBTQ teens are having different experiences from “regular” teens

-suicide=feeling different/being outcast

-group w highest rate of suicide

-public health emergency

-loss of friends

-no support

Audio plays a big role in the way this story is told because you can’t read peoples body language or facial expressions or anything that would be physical indicators of what they’re feeling. In a way having Hallward give facts and explain scenarios and then victims of the bullying they’ve experienced speaking along with LGBTQ teens sharing their stories via podcast is almost more intimate. Again, you can’t see them so we’re more in tune to the tone in their voices and whether they’re crying or not etc. You can tell a lot by listening to someone’s voice.

The parts of the podcast that are particularly effective are when the real-life stories are being told by LGBTQ teens who are going through these experiences. This is so effective because kids who are being bullied or losing friends because people in their life have decided they’re lesser than can hear about kids’ experiences who are similar to theirs and maybe not feel so alone.

This compares to the more visual story we got from Martha Halls books because both Martha and Safe Space radio are appealing to similar emotion, but in very different ways. Martha attempts to share the same message Safe Space does, that people can be brought together and don’t have to suffer alone if we share our painful stories, but she does it in a way that isn’t blatant. Martha uses extensive metaphor and imagery in her books, she appeals to our visual senses and what she’s conveying isn’t in black and white. Safe Space, on the other hand, just comes out and says their stories and they do it in a way where we don’t have to read much into it, it’s pretty black and white the message they’re conveying

Martha Hall’s books encompass so much more than just words and pictures. There’s depth and elaborate metaphor to her writing that extends way beyond anything she could convey on paper. As I looked at her pieces they were ripped and burnt and stapled and sewn together. There were some books with beautiful handwriting and illustrations and colorful paper and others that were all black and scarce of words. The externalization of Martha’s internal consciousness, emotion and feeling were overwhelming. Her life, good and bad is poured out into her pieces.

A few books filled with poems and writing could never fully illustrate what it’s like to go through 16 years of cancer treatment and looking through her works evoked a sense of morbidity and embarrassment of our society. Doctors who don’t care about their patients and only want to diagnose and treat them and send them on their way shouldn’t be the norm.

A larger cultural change that could occur through sharing Martha’s story and books and works is the way doctors treat their patients. Medical School doesn’t teach doctors how to be personable and empathetic. It teaches them how to care for the patient physically, and the mental and emotional toll of whatever treatments the doctors are providing to the patient aren’t anything of importance. I don’t think it’s the doctor’s job to be their therapist, but when someone who is giving them potentially life changing news about their physical state can empathize and listen to them and their feelings, it can really alleviate some of the hardships the patient is experiencing. Changing the ways doctors interact with their patients on a personal level is a positive cultural shift that would benefit our society.