Social Movements and the Environment

By Karen Sternheimer

Would you break the law to protect the environment? Tim DeChristopher, a 27-year-old college student did. He went to a Bureau of Land Management auction in Utah where public land was on the block. DeChristopher bid $1.79 million and effectively bought 22,000 acres of land. The problem: he didn’t have $1.79 million (not many college students do).

Supporters sent Tim donations, but he did not raise the $1.79 million. In the end that didn’t matter, since the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, decided to invalidate the results of the auction and effectively reclaim the public land for the public.

Sociologists study what makes people decide to get involved in social movements. Why, for instance, are some people willing to risk going to jail, as DeChristopher did, for a cause when others do not decide to take action? Sociologists also examine why certain movements gain traction at some times but not others. What has put the environmental cause on many Americans’ radar?

The environment was a significant point of debate within last year’s presidential race: global warming, clean energy, and our dependence on oil made their way from the margins to the center of discussion.

It certainly wasn’t always this way. Remember when the former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked in 2001 about whether Americans should change our lifestyles to conserve energy? He answered "That's a big no".

I can recall the last big energy crisis when I was a kid in the 1970s. In 1973 an oil crisis began when OPEC embargoed oil delivery to the United States. Gas prices spiked, and Congress enacted the National Maximum Speed Law (remember when highway speed limits were 55 mph?) in order to save gas. Conservation was a big deal, and public service announcements like these reminded us to focus on saving water. Restaurants would dim their lights and only serve water upon request.

Environmental disasters at places like the Three Mile Island nuclear facility and discovery of tons of toxic waste at Love Canal, New York also raised public awareness about protecting the environment.

Then the 1980s happened. Regulations thought to impede business were repealed, and Americans were encouraged to focus on individual success. When I was in high school during the mid 80s, anything that smacked of the 60s or 70s (read: any social cause) was considered lame. A faint mural of something called the ecology club was painted over, and membership dwindled to a few people before it too faded away.

Gas prices declined during this decade, SUVs were invented, and shows like Dallas and Dynasty (both about oil tycoons) celebrated extreme wealth, materialism, and individualism. Environmental disasters seemed a thing of the past (or of the far away--at Chernobyl all the way in the Soviet Union). The environment seemed like a quaint hippie topic, and derogatory terms like “tree hugger” and “eco-terrorist” derided people who sought to protect the environment.

So what factors have led to our contemporary concern about environmental issues? According to resource mobilization theory, social movements are most successful when they manage to garner sufficient resources like money, volunteers, media attention, and perhaps most centrally, legitimacy. Mobilizing other organized groups to collaborate with can also help build coalitions to maximize resources.

But a lot of environmental activists worked very hard before getting widespread recognition. For instance, scientists studied global warming for many years before large proportions of the population and government officials considered it to be an urgent problem. Former Vice President Al Gore gave many speeches on this issue before his documentary An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award. What turned the tide?

One of the best ways to gain widespread support for a social movement is to convince the general public that without change their lives will be impacted for the worse. For example, skyrocketing energy costs mobilized people who might not else be concerned about environmental issues. When our wallets are in danger, we can spring into action very quickly. Couple this tendency with a growing number of high-profile supporters across the ideological spectrum like T. Boone Pickens, who made a good deal of his fortune in oil, and it becomes easier to convince people that the problem is significant and something should be done.

The fact that protecting the environment is now a key political issue still does not explain why people might take significant personal risks to support of a cause. I might recycle, drive a fuel efficient car, and walk instead of drive in my neighborhood, but these actions don’t have a great personal cost. In fact, my city provides special recycling bins that they pick up with the trash, my fuel-efficient car was cheaper than others that get worse mileage, and I like to take walks. So these actions actually benefit me in many ways.

What sociological explanations might help us understand why Tim DeChristopher and others like him are willing to take personal risks to support a cause?

Comments

[basi;]

hey plse share ur valuable information through your blog....im a phd student in inida doing phd work in mahatma gandhi university , in social movements

[Mary G]

I think the resource mobilization theory is the best explanation for why some people chose to support a cause. Everyone is familiar with the pink ribbon for the National Breast Cancer Association. This is because they have so much media attention with commercials, promotional products, even a month devoted to Breast Cancer Awareness. Also with money, it's not just what is coming out of our pocket that makes us want to support causes it's what's coming out of the causes pocket too. The National Breast Cancer Foundation puts tons of money into campaigning it's cause, with the pink promotional ribbon staining store shelves and tv screens all over the world it's no wonder so many people chose to support it...it's everywhere.

[maridith zalba]

I think the explanation that some people are willing to act on supporting a cause and others are not is explained in the value-added theory. It has six conditions that must exist in order for social movements to occur. We do not have all these conditions so the movements are not occurring. The first is structural conduciveness, where the environment must be social movement friendly. The second is structural strains, where there must be some form on conflict to be able to change. Third is generalized beliefs, where the people agree that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. Fourth is precipitating factors, where events must occur so the people know about the cause and know that they should support it. Fifth is mobilization of participants for action, where we actually get the people moving. Finally, the sixth is social control, where actions of the media, police, courts, community leaders, and political officials can lead to the success or failure of a social movement. If we can do these six conditions, then we can get people to support a cause for a social movement.

[Shelby Osborne]

This blog is very interesting, and I am definently curious as to why someone like Tim would do such a thing. It is good to know that some people take action for what they believe in though.

[Luinda]

Even though the environment effects us all and may come to be a huge problem in the lives of generations to come, most people still will only participate in helping because it will directly benefit them, not because it will directly benefit the environment.
I like this blog entry because I think that the environmental problem directly affects myself and the ones that I love. More attention should be paid to solving the problem instead of just doing little things that are not difficult for us to do. I think that just because something doesn’t directly benefit or lead to some sort of wealth, doesn’t mean that it wont eventually lead to happiness and a better world for the future. I am happy that the environment has become a large topic of debate and things are being done to help it, but at the same time, I think to myself: why hasn’t this happened sooner? Why with all of these resources and knowledge at our fingertips is still so litter being done? I may never learn the answer to that question. But this blog on social movements helped me gain awareness on what might be the actual reason why social trends catch on. Money seems to be the basis for everything.

[*lola]

The environmental social movement is a good one. I know people may just be in a craze from the global warming scare, but it's sad that we didn't recognize the trend earlier. There are so many ways that we can improve for the environment's sake and still we aren't doing enough. I don't agree with erratic actions in a movement, but everyone should be getting involved in some way in this movement.

[NFL Jerseys]

I think the explanation that some people are willing to act on supporting a cause and others are not is explained in the value-added theory.

[youth nfl jerseys]

This blog is very interesting, and I am definently curious as to why someone like Tim would do such a thing. It is good to know that some people take action for what they believe in though

[Jared]

One could see it as a rational social choice. Tim may actually perceive the preservation of the public land as a real benefit to him and those with whom he associates. It could also be likely Tim is betting this improves his standing among those friends and acquaintances.

Or one could say Tim was subject to powerful normative forces. Perhaps he grew up with radical parents and took a class in social movements his sophomore year. And when Tim noticed the auction, the examples provided by his family and personal heroes spurred him to action.

[Perry]

Social movements on the environment are usually garnering the most attention when someone with notoriety help convey the message. In demonstrations the best songs, our pitch gets more attention, the fnvironment effects us all, protesting and publicity by groups bring awareness to the public.

[chrisitian louboutin]

I think the explanation that some people are willing to act on supporting a cause and others are not is explained in the value-added theory.

[jeremy scott wings]

I have get a very troubled insomnia after I am entered in the high school. I don’t know why, just cannot sleep and keep thinking. Then I see the advertisement of js wings 2.0 and I with a trial shot to buy jeremy scott wings 2.0. First time, I can only walk with that scott wings just for steps, while, after times of training and exercising, I can walk quite long and the most importantly, I am sleep quite sweet in the night. So, just take some time and relax yourself with adidas with wings, you will really beneficially.

[Zach Johnson]

I think that those who are willing to put their personal reputations on the line for a cause greater than themselves are a bit more enlightened than the rest of us. Sure, we can all rally behind something when our money or possessions are on the line, but that is a rather superficial support. Those who go out of their way to do good deserve the real credit. Those people seem to get a higher sense of accomplishment from things than the rest.