Reword #`
I was super interested in the lecture on intersections with race and class, mostly because I had just wrote about it in my essay this week. I felt that there are a lot of complexities that come when understanding how Bourdieu’s insights change when the element of race is added into the social space and group formations. We learned in past lectures that minorities are given a disadvantage due to historical events of oppression that have affected their lives today. This is where I find the complexity in adding this to Bourdieu’s analysis. Although minorities can be higher on the social hierarchy or in the social space diagram that Bourdieu had created, they can still be seen as pretentious or as lower to white people in the high class. It’s a given disadvantage to them from the historical oppression, which thus reflects onto how people can react to their success in life. Though racial equality is being fought to be better, some people don’t change and this issue still occurs, which makes the addition of intersectionality of race and class so complex for Bourdieu’s analysis of the social space and the social clusters within.
Reword #2
Up until I signed up for this class, I also fed into the notion that success was a product of one’s hard work. Though I did consider greater access to resources a factor in one’s success, I was taught that merit could make or break an individual’s life. Around the time we began discussing social class and economic differences, however, I found my perspective changing quickly. I previously discussed how my high school fit students into two different groups: the “AP” kids and the “CP” kids, but I never understood that these labels also implied differences in these groups’ economic statuses. After today’s lecture about the Myth of Meritocracy, I realized that “merit” was a double edged sword. Moving up in society is made easier by better quality education. Obtaining this education can be costly, but you’d need to have a stable job to afford it. Without the necessary education, you can’t afford it. The cycle continues like this, and people find themselves stuck trying to exercise social mobility.
Reword and rewrite # 3
The “smoking gun” model of social change looks at the short-term and assumes that the enacted policy has a direct effect on the intended outcome. This approach is understandably pessimistic because there is an overwhelming amount of policy passed that fails to reach the intended outcome.
The countermodel of the “smoking gun” model is the “bee swarm” model of social change. This model suggests that institutional structures are associated with long-term improvement, but it is not necessarily because it has a direct effect on social change, but a lot of environmental laws, policies, institutions, have an indirect effect on social change. Institutional structures appear ineffectual when looking at the immediate consequences (short-term), but looking from the macro perspective (long-term) shows that change does occur; it attributes this change not to just one policy, but to multiple policies. The bee swarm model says that you start with a global environmental culture which then leads to several things (e.g., environmental policies, social movement groups, IGOs, treaties, shifting public opinion, etc.) that culminate to cause social change. Looking at something like the shifting of public opinion on environmental matters alone may not result in social change, but together with other components like governmental policies, the formation of green parties and treaties, social change becomes more apparent.
The first policy is good at identifying the direct, short-term effects of policy. This is helpful when observing the immediate consequences, but lacks the ability to understand long-term effects of policy in creating social change. Because of this, it is has a negative outlook and assumes that most policies fail to accomplish their goals.
The second policy is preferable because it looks at the long-term effects of policy and believes that the effect toward social change indirect instead of direct. Because of this, it depends on the conception of a global environmental culture to determine if social change occurs and why.
Reword and rewrite #4
The enforcement perspective describes that states could pass environmental legislation but may not be effective. These treaties or laws are not effective because they are not taken seriously or they’re not enforced by the states/country. The lectures stated that these regulatory structures are more symbolic rather than effective because it’s going to bring the conflict to economic interests, therefore, there won’t be as much effect on the environment. There is a sense of lack of political will since applying these environmental laws is just for the “positive” image that states are looking into environmental issues, but there is no action. The managerial model shows that states/countries would like to follow/adhere to the policies but do not have enough resources to be able to do it. Resources can include shortages of trained personnel, effective procedures, economic resources, or bureaucratic capacity. This becomes an issue in less developed countries since they lack many resources, therefore, those policies are not a priority to them, and they will focus on other concerns. I think each perspective depends on each country since some may have issues on one thing and another has issues on the other. For example, the enforcement perspective can be used for the US to explain the ineffectiveness of institutions since many sub-state actors will disobey the state laws for their benefit. Using the managerial perspective in low developed countries, people may shift their concerns on local issues rather than focusing on the environmental policies due to the lack of resources. Overall, both perspectives bring questions on the participation of environmental policies and the action taken to address these environmental issues.
0 comments