Topics
6 Comments
-
Re: Environmental stewardship influencing community?
2008-04-05 14:10:29 UTC
I posted the question on another listserv. Here is an answer: I'm not sure what the person means exactly by ecosystems, if he means a community garden, or a group that focuses on caring for the nature found in a community then that would seem to fall into the social cohesion model. So even if there hasn't been any direct work looking at the groups who focus on ecosystems he can still make the argument to the municipal authorities that more participation in community groups has been shown to be linked to greater social cohesion and greater collective efficacy which reduces crime levels (which conceivably includes graffiti). Jeffery Morenoff does a lot of work on this as well as Robert Sampson, although I'm not sure which of their work focuses on formal social groups. You'll have to check around. Below are some places to start if you want to follow this line of reasoning:
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. *Science* 277:918-24
Sampson Robert J. Jeffrey Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. "Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children." *American Sociological Review* 64: 633-660.
Morenoff, Jeffrey, Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen Raudenbush. 2001. "Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence." *Criminology* 39:517-560.
-- Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Sociology
The King's University College
Edmonton, AB, T6B 2H3
Canada 1-780-465-3500 ext8063
http://www.kingsu.net/page.aspx?ID=97746
-
Re: Conservation Culture
2008-04-05 14:09:36 UTC
Mao
You have hit on a hugely difficult question, but a very important one. Environmental scholars have debated this matter extensively. For example, environmental philosophers have often discussed that our "modern social paradigm" with its underlying assumptions (such as "nature as resources," "technological innovations will solve all problems" or "anthropocentrism") are at the root of environmental abuse. Therefore, cultural change is needed. Environmental anthropologists, however, show that it is not so simple and there is no such thing as the best "environmentally sensitive culture". All cultures have relationships, norms, practices, etc with the land or earth, and it really varies. Also, culture is not static, nor are the conditions that people find themselves in, so culture accommodates.. There's much more to say about this complicated and rather catch-all concept of "culture." However, I suspect you were thinking about culture at a much smaller scale, e.g., to encourage a conservation culture in a local place. Things like social norms, common understandings, and the resulting social practices of conservation, some of which you specifically named. I wonder if some of the reason no one responded (onlist at least) is because your question is about generating change by focusing on the collective (culture is a shared thing, that no matter how it is conceptualized, exists independent of individuals [but not of the group] but also dwells inside the people, e.g., socialisation). Our ways of thinking tend to focus on affecting individuals, and expect that that scales up to the collective. Much education and social marketing (not always, I know) tend to both focus on the individual. But individuals do not live outside their social contexts, and the existing social context puts pressure back on the individual NOT to change. A more sociologically robust approach to education is to work on both individuals and their social contexts simultaneously. This actually fits better with much learning theory (learning is socially situated.) I could go all theoretical here, because that is what my academic work is all about right now. I got into it as an environmental educator because of looking for ways to improve effectiveness of EE - much seemed to not work very well in terms of changing attitudes, behaviours, etc. The point is to work on both the social-structural conditions in which environmental behaviour will take place (including the norms, values, but also the effectiveness of transit, etc) AND on the behaviours and attitudes of the individual. That is why getting people active in changing those conditions is so effective; it begins to transform the existing habitus (the socialised understanding of the world, that generates the behavioural practices of acting in that understood world). Working to change the world also works to change our understanding of that world and then we change how we act in that world. (Was it Ghandi who said Be the change you want to see"? That's a more poetic way of describing this sociological theory. That is also why it works to get people engaged together in study or support for pro-environmental behaviour. Overall, the way I describe it is we can't be very ecological in an unecological society - it doesn't "fit". What doesn't "fit" pinches, and unless you are willing to live with the pinches, you probably change to get rid of the pinch, that is, become more like the dominant ways of society. So society is "conservative" that is, will tend to conserve its existing form. I have to go to class, but if interested, can talk/write further. It has practical implications, and doesn't need to be expressed so academically. I could also point out some research. For example, there is lots of environmental values (which is not the same as "attitudes" and is only a small part of culture). A key thing is that people do not (are not able to) think about everything they do, so act on the basis of their internalisations that generate behaviour. (This is NOT behaviourism!) But cognitive efforts will only go a small direction in changing things in a more positively environmental direction.
Randy HD
Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Sociology
The King's University College
Edmonton, AB, T6B 2H3
Canada 1-780-465-3500 ext8063
http://www.kingsu.net/page.aspx?ID=97746 -
Faith Communities and the Envt
2007-11-09 22:30:47 UTC
Folks may be interested in some sociological research on the topic. In the fall issue of Human Ecology Review (vol 15:1) (http://humanecologyreview.org/) is the following article. (It is not quite out yet).
Churches Engaging the Environment:
An Autoethnography of Obstacles and Opportunities
Drawing on two decades of personal involvement, this autoethnographic analysis highlights a number of obstacles and opportunities for engaging with environmental matters in church-based contexts. Obstacles are summarized in four clusters: paradigmatic (beliefs that disable environmental engagement), applicability (doubt about the appropriate amount of attention to give environmental concerns), critical (inadequate attention to social or cultural factors as they affect faith or environmental matters), and conviction (lifestyle and willingness to act). Opportunities fall into three categories: subcultural (social practices of faith communities that may lead to more effective learning), commitment (sense of responsibility, duty, and desire to follow through on religious commitment), and public theology (facets that aid constructive engagement with the public discourse). The study concludes that there is reason to believe that engagement of environmental topics in church-based contexts can be productive, particularly with attention to such obstacles and opportunities.
Also, see the article at http://csopconsulting.tripod.com/jee with was originally published in the Journal of Experiential Education (2000).
The 2006 issue of the Canadian Journal of Environmental Education was devoted to the topic of religion and environmental education.
There is a great deal of work being done on and in faith communities regarding the environment. I think of it this way - it's good to go where the people are, and 30% of them are in worship nearly every week in Canada (more in the US, and most of the non-European world). Also, it's a place where there is openness to personal development, consistent with a tradition.
Cheers,
Randy HD --
Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Sociology
The King's University College
Edmonton, AB, T6B 2H3
Canada 1-780-465-3500 ext8063
http://www.kingsu.net/page.aspx? -
Video on Greenconsumerism - Enjoy
2007-09-12 00:38:59 UTC
An interesting video, when we think about Green Consumerism (Cripes-what an oxymoron). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i79a1Sr73uw
-- Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Sociology
The King's University College
Edmonton, AB, T6B 2H3 Canada
1-780-465-3500 ext8063
http://www.kingsu.net/page.aspx?ID=97746
-
Social Psychology + Environment
2007-08-30 09:58:58 UTC
Howdy folks, some teaching help, I hope, from the collective wisdom here.
I am now tasked with teaching Social Psych this Fall term, and am belatedly beginning serious prep. I'm struck by how individualistic and anthropocentric is the text I am stuck with. Anyone got any good readings for second year undergrads on an eco-social psychology? Perhaps something on the constitutive effect of social relations in an ecological place? I don't necessarily want to get into ecopsychology (really getting far from my expertise as a sociologist), but any help would be appreciated.
Randy HD
-- Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Sociology
The King's University College
Edmonton, AB, T6B 2H3 Canada
1-780-465-3500 ext8063
http://www.kingsu.net/page.aspx?ID=97746
-
Re: CD ROM vs paper
2007-08-23 11:48:53 UTC
If you mean, giving a CD to audience members vs giving them paper versions: Paper is REALLY minimal resources, and there still are lots of trees. Seriously! Think of all the material components and the technology inherent in just a CD Rom. Then think of all the energy, water, etc used in production of simple paper and complex CDs. Then also consider the energy utilisation of production of the paper copies or CD copies (photocopy machine vs computer burning) That's a life cycle analysis. I don't want to be simplistic, but I'd have a hard time imagining that paper wouldn't beat a CD hands down. The trickier thing is to assess whether a paper copy would be cheaper than placing on a website for download. The analysis has to take into account the way a computer gets used. E.g., turning it on, electrical energy used in "surfing the web" to the site, then the likely patterns of looking around the site, getting sidetracked into other interesting but tangential pages or documents, etc. With paper, you target that and only that to the user, and the paper may be recyclable (depending on facilities). So altho it *feels like* a lot of waste, it may not be when all facets of production and use are taken into account.
Randy HD
0 Recommends
You haven't saved any recommendations.
Messaging 0 colleagues