SCOPE: I want to examine the effects corporate, or “big,” money has on United States politics. Ever since the Citizens United Supreme Court case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on campaign contributions are unconstitutional, large corporations and political action committees (“PACs”) have had significant impacts on election cycles. The decision in that case set the precedent that “corporations are people” and that the more money someone has, the more say he or she has in politics. As a result, billionaires like the Koch brothers are able to donate millions to specific candidates and influence their views on certain political issues without restrictions. These unrestricted donations have caused fundraising competition among candidates during election season, with campaign costs increasing in recent years. In the preface of his book Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp – on the trail of the Ultra-Rich Hijacking American Politics, Kenneth Vogel includes a quote by Barack Obama during campaign season in 2012: “In this election, I will be able to hopefully match whatever check the Koch brothers want to write” (Vogel, viii). The Founding Fathers envisioned a governmental system in which the people are represented by politicians who share their concerns and are public servants, not one in which a select few had the most say about in which direction American politics goes. Those in support of big money’s influence on politics might claim that it demonstrates how the U.S. gives people the opportunity to influence politics, unlike in other countries. This belief, however, further supports the Supreme Court’s decision that money equals speech, a philosophy not concurrent with America’s political foundation. Others may argue that the United States political system has always included a significant influence from big money, but the problem arises when restrictions on this influence are cut off. The massive contributions from PACs and billionaires in today’s political scene will only increase. The question then becomes “How will this change the system in the future?” I will also examine statistics showing the rates at which money’s role in politics has increased and how those rates correlate with the public’s perception of politics. I will examine the idea that the more influence these extremely rich individuals and corporations have on politics, the more discouraged the general American electorate is about participating.

VALUE: The basis of American politics is democratic republicanism. The founders, having fresh memories of being ruled by a monarch, wanted a political society in which the people were fairly represented. Big money’s influence in politics today has been the subject of many grievances about United States politics, especially among the general public. People do not seem to think they have as much of a say in which legislation is passed or in who is elected, some even saying that their vote does not count. How, then, should the United States progress when a very small group of individuals with a lot of money are able to push and pull the political agenda as they please? Is the country’s structure really as it should be under the founders’ standards if the people do not want to participate in government as much anymore? Does big money have that much of an effect on politics at all? Are there ways to increase the electorate’s political efficacy? Would overturning Citizens United be a positive step towards reaching increased political efficacy or would it not change the United States’ political landscape at all? By learning more about big money’s influence in politics, the American electorate can more effectively demand change, a tactic the Nick Penniman writes in his article “Rotten to the core” is one of the only ways to change the system.

ORIGINALITY: Several political scientists have written books and articles discussing the role big money has in today’s political scene. For example, I found Kenneth Vogel’s book, which even in the preface addresses my topic extensively. Articles Nick Penniman’s “Rotten to the core: with political integrity drowning in big money, it’s too late for small tweaks. The whole system needs a reboot” discuss the problems associated with having big money in the American political system and its implications. Although there is plenty of research regarding the problem of big money in politics, I also want to bring in research from the other side that believes wealthier influences in politics are beneficial. Database articles like the one I found from CQ Researcher have opinions from both sides of the debate, which will add to my research even more. 

PRACTICALITY: There are multiple books, scholarly journal articles, periodical articles, and database articles covering my topic that go into extensive detail about it. I will use the book and articles I mentioned above as well as other articles I found online to prove my points. In addition to these secondary sources, I will try to find raw statistical data showing the rates at which corporate money’s influence has increased. I may also include information about Citizens United and why it is important to my topic. Unfortunately, I had to request some of the articles I found because they are not in the library and Vogel’s book is online only. I will try to find physical books that cover my topic to make it easier to do research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Borosage, Robert L. and Ruy Teixiera. “The Politics of Money.” Nation 263 no. 12 (1996): 21-23.

2. Demaris, Ovid, Dirty business; the corporate-political money-power game (New

York: Harper’s Magazine Press, 1974).

3. Jost, Kenneth. “Campaign Finance Debates: Should regulations be loosened further?” CQ Researcher, 20 no. 20. (2010): 457-480.

4. Penniman, Nick and Ken Davis. “Rotten to the core: with political integrity drowning

in money, it’s too late for small tweaks. The whole system needs a reboot.” Sojourners Magazine 41, no. 8 (2012): 16-20, 22.

5. Kenneth Vogel, Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp

– on the Trail of the Ultra-rich Hijacking American Politics (New York: PublicAffairs, 2014).

I want to research how alienation from the natural world contributes to the range of human action in response to anthropogenic climate change and environmental destruction. In most societies, people are physically, psychologically, and spiritually removed from the environment in which they live. This alienation makes people less likely to react to the increasing threat of climate change because they do not feel its effects as directly, and emotion is an important part of the process of converting moral thought to action. This is the most important issue of the twenty-first century because humans must act to mitigate climate change or the entire planet will be at risk.

Scope:

I want to research how alienation from the natural world contributes to the range of human action in response to anthropogenic climate change and environmental destruction. Many indigenous cultures are deeply attached to the specific environments in which they live. Religious and spiritual beliefs incorporate specific landmarks and parts of the environment as deities or significant places, and members of the culture utilize an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem in which they live in order to obtain resources for survival. Therefore, if a dramatic change occurs in the environment, this culture will notice it and have a vested interest in rectifying it. In contrast, a culture whose religious beliefs are not strongly identified with a physical area (such as Christianity or Hinduism, which are practiced around the world) may have less reason to notice or care when their surrounding environment is degraded.

Similarly, people who depend on specific environmental conditions for survival (farmers, hunters, craftsmen who rely on natural materials) and obtain resources directly from their surrounding environment will experience environmental change much more quickly than people who rely on wages and commerce in order to get the basic necessities of life.

Lastly, people who are physically removed from the natural world because they live in cities, climate-controlled housing, and/or environmentally degraded areas are less likely to notice changes in the environment because they are physically removed from it, and they are less likely to care as long as their quality of life is sustained.

In order to test this hypothesis I will look at case studies of indigenous cultures, their relation to their physical environment, and the effects climate change has had on them. I will look at the correlation between connection to the natural world and environmentalist action to determine what causes people to “speak up” on this issue. I will research the meaning of alienation from the natural world, and the implications of this. I will also look at psychological research to determine what causes people to react to certain issues in certain ways, and what personal damage comes from being alienated from the natural world.

Value:

The connection between alienation, human psychology, and environmental action is the greatest issue of the twenty-first century because the way humans handle climate change will define the future of the planet. We are on track to destroy our planet, but in the United States, more people consider cyberattacks and tensions with Russia to be the greatest threat facing our planet than consider climate change to be the greatest threat, according to a PEW Research poll. In 2011, the United States was the world’s second greatest contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. According to the same poll, African and Latin American countries are the most concerned about climate change.

Why are people in some countries more concerned about climate change than others? What factors influence individual perceptions of the dangers of climate change? What role does industrialization and alienation from the environment play in people’s perception of the dangers of climate change? How do individual perceptions of climate change affect a person’s likelihood to take action? It is possible that alienation from the natural world contributes to psychological issues, and changes the way that humans relate to each other or how they understand their place in the world. It is important that humans understand the possible effects of their continued separation from the natural world, especially in regards to anthropogenic climate change and environmental destruction.

Originality:

In my research I only found one article that specifically dealt with the effects of alienation on climate change. “‘Wellbeing’: A Collateral Casualty of Modernity?” by Sandra Carlisle, Gregor Henderson, and Phil W. Hanlon discusses how alienation from the environment as well as the self and society leads people to identify more with self-serving and materialistic values than moral values, which lead people to care less about climate change. There is a greater wealth of research on the connection between modernity and alienation in general. Some articles discuss this link in philosophical terms, such as “The Rift in the Modern Mind: Tocqueville and Percy on the Rise of the Cartesian Self,” by Matthew Sitman and Brian Smith. I found an introduction to a book discussing how many thinkers reject the idea of alienation for various reasons (the book itself supports the idea of alienation and I am going to try and find it).

I found a variety of articles with differing opinions on the psychology and sociology of environmental action, some of which support my hypothesis that alienation from the natural world plays an important part and some of which don’t. I will use both, because I want to make sure not to cherry-pick sources or oversimplify the issue.

Overall, not many people have dealt with spiritual alienation specifically, although many have dealt with surrounding issues, especially the connection between indigenous cultures and the environment. I would gain greater originality by focusing specifically on spiritual alienation, but it is difficult to draw the line between spiritual connection to the environment and other connections, since most cultures that rely on the environment directly for survival necessarily weave this importance into their religious beliefs. I have also struggled to find empirical research on spiritual connection to the environment, though there is available information on emotional and psychological connections. Therefore, I decided to focus on alienation as a whole. My research will be original because it will combine philosophical and psychological ways of thinking about alienation, and it will connect specifically to environmental action.

Practicality:

There is enough evidence to make my claims and answer my questions. I have already found several journal articles that are available through the Dickinson library that address the idea of alienation, and one that specifically addresses alienation and climate change. I know of at least one case study of an indigenous culture adapting to climate change. There is a wealth of existing data on the effects of climate change, and people’s reactions to climate change around the world. I can access enough articles and books through the Dickinson library to gather the information that I need.

Secondary Sources

Aswani, Shankar and Matthew Lauer. “Indigenous People’s Detection of Rapid Ecological Change.” Conservation Biology 28, no. 3 (2014), 820-828.

Bolin, Inge. “The Glaciers of the Andes are Melting: Indigenous and Anthropological Knowledge Merge in Restoring Water Resource.” In Classic Readings in Cultural Anthropology, edited by Gary Ferraro, 118-126. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2015.

This source discusses how effects of anthropogenic climate change put extreme pressure on an indigenous Mayan community by threatening their source of water. Glaciers provide this community with water and also serve an important religious purpose, and their disappearance has a huge impact on their survival and spiritual understanding of the world, motivating them to find new solutions and mitigate their own environmental impact. This source illustrates how a profound connection to the natural world influences people’s reactions to climate change and provides an example of a culture whose greater connection to the natural world creates a greater understanding of the importance of climate change.

Carle, Jill. “Climate Change Seen as Top Global Threat.” Pew Research Center,  14 July 2015, http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/14/climate-change-seen-as-top-global-threat/

Carlisle, Sandra, Gregor Henderson, and Phil W. Hanlon. “‘Wellbeing’: A Collateral Casualty of Modernity?” Social Science and Medicine 69, no. 10 (2009): 1556-1560.

Durkalec, Agata, Chris Furgal, Mark W. Skinner, and Tom Sheldon. “Climate Change Influences on Environment As a Determinant of Indigenous Health: Relationships to Place, Sea Ice, and Health in an Inuit Community.” Social Science and Medicine 136-137, (2015), 17-26

Kelly, Ryan P., Sarah R. Cooley, Terrie Klinger. “Narratives Can Motivate Environmental Action: The Whiskey Creek Ocean Acidification Story.” AMBIO – A Journal of the Human Environment 43, no. 5 (2014), 592-599.

Moskell, Christine and Shorna Allred. “Integrating Human and Natural Systems in Community Psychology: An Ecological Model of Stewardship Behavior.” American Journal of Community Psychology 51, no. 1 (2013), 1-14.

“Nomads of the Rainforest PBS NOVA 1984.” YouTube video, 1:00:42, posted by “The Documentary Network,” August 7, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8gk67s6YM

Sparks, Paul; Donna Jessop; James Chapman; and Katherine Holmes. “Pro-Environmental Actions, Climate Change, and Defensiveness: Do Self-Affirmations Make a Difference to People’s Motives and Beliefs About Making a Difference?” British Journal of Social Psychology 49, no. 3 (2010), 553-568.

Stokols, Daniel; Shalini Misra; Miryha Gould Runnerstrom; and Aaron J. Hipp. “Psychology in an Age of Ecological Crisis : From Personal Angst to Collective Action.” The American Psychologist 64, no. 3 (2009), 181-193.

Van den Noortgaete, Francis and Johan De Tavernier. “Affected by Nature: A Hermeneutical Transformation of Environmental Ethics.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 49, no. 3 (2014), 572-592.

This source discusses the gap between people’s moral positions on climate change and their action in response to it. One portion of its argument states that the transition from moral thought to action is facilitated by emotion, and that people do not act in situations where they do not feel an emotional connection to the issue at hand. Additionally, it shows that a majority of people who do take action against climate change are influenced by emotional factors such as a childhood connection to the natural world. This source shows how emotional and psychological connections to the environment that are lost through alienation are imperative in the mitigation of climate change.

Wright, Rachel and Hilary Schaffer Boudet. “To Act or Not to Act: Context, Capability, and Community Response to Environmental Risk.” American Journal of Sociology 118, no. 3 (2012), 728-777.