Society 's Understanding Of The World Operates Around Them

Speaking for human others can often lead to misunderstanding and harmful results. This can happen even when one believes that they are justified in doing so or believe their intentions are noble. The same harms can occur when speaking for a speechless being or inanimate object such as nature. In Jeffry L. Ramsey’s paper Speaking for Nature?, the author extends the argument of speaking for others as proposed by Linda Alcoff in her work titled The Problem of Speaking for Others to include nature. In this essay, I will reconstruct and explain the problems with two arguments that Ramsey voices concerns about and in doing so demonstrate how these concerns contribute to the ongoing debates about the future of the environment. Also, I will argue and show that ultimately Ramsey’s advice is impractical and does not solve the problem of speaking for others because the problem lies not in how one goes about speaking for nature, but in the very act of speaking for nature.

In the book The Future of Life, author Edward O. Wilson highlights the ineffective nature of the debates between the two side of environmentalism. He achieves this by pointing out parallels and similarities of the language between two sides in the satirical piece.

If a writer would like to learn how to negate the positive effect useful information could have on an audience, reading Alex Shoumatoff’s article “An Eco-System of One’s Own” could help learn how to make valid arguments fall on deaf ears. This article was written to draw attention to or inform individuals in modern society that nearly every decision that is made -- from the time a person gets up until the time a person goes to bed -- is destroying the environment. Shoumatoff does this by organizing his essay following the unfolding of an imagined typical day, beginning with the “morning juice,” he continues with conceivable uses of energy and resources that one consumes before one even eats breakfast, the drive to work, lunch decisions, the drive home, and ends with the relaxation that should take place after a day’s work (269-276). The organization of this essay is very effective at showing how much destruction an individual may be doing to the environment in a typical day. However, the negative presentation of the material and barrage of sarcasm undercuts the applicable suggestions made to help resolve these issues.

Rhetoric becomes an essential component in establishing connections with others in order to cooperate and coexist in society. Many philosophers have studied rhetoric through very different lenses; some focusing on ethics, while others focused on the magic of words, and others sought the sublime. The most important form of rhetoric is viewing discourse as power. Rhetoric has the ability to move others in different ways, either through force, authority, and strength. Power carries such a negative connotation but it can be filled with many different ideas of rhetoric. In the following, I will demonstrate how power in rhetoric is used through its many forms.

Change remains a natural element of life and further, is frequently beyond human control. However, recipients of change may control how they react and interact with this shifting of power structures, whether they choose to resist it to maintain tradition or whether they promote it. Moreover, these two mentalities create a tension in literature and in the broader context of society which generate discussion and ultimately allow for social progression. Certainly, however, any changes in societal mentality or more significantly, in legislation due to this shift in opinion, will continue to be discussed, promoted, and contested. Furthermore, these conversations, both academic and personal, assist in forming and defining a nation’s identity. Many

Green living is one of the hottest topics in the 21h century since we are facing the shortage of resources and the degradation of the environment. Waste sorting, recycling, light saving and so forth, we regard them as basic steps of environment protection. However, in “As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial”, by Derrick Jensen, Stephanie McMillan, 2007, authors use visual arts illustrates this way of protection is not on the right track. They pointed out that the earth will burn out before we die out, and those simple steps we do to protect environment only reduce the urgency but do not solving the problems. In "The Politics of the Natural in U.S. History and Popular Culture”, by Noёl Sturgeon, 2009, the author discussed that advertising of popular culture would affect negatively on the environment in future concern. Both readings use visual rhetoric to demonstrate the current environment situation and its problem.

There is much more to language than one may initially consider. This may be an elementary concept, but it is imperative that sociology researchers recognize that texts are not neutral tools that are used in communication. Critical Discourse Analysis helps evaluate the social construction of the environmental movement in order to deconstruct it in a way that reveals the ideology and power relations that are deeply embedded within the pages of the Calgary Herald. I have chosen to use CDA as it affords both a theoretical and methodological approach to examining the environmental movement in hopes of improving it (Huckin (Year); Carvalho and Burgess, YEAR p.1460). It

Discourses are defined by the perceptions received through information given by various resources. To specify, the resources are the media, television, images, magazines or websites. There are many aspects of discourses, which inhibits a different outcome as according to context. Discourses are conversations between different types of people or social groups (Gee, 2015) For instance, identity can conform around the discourses that surround cultural and social influences. Whereas knowledge and power becomes interlinked, causing systems of hierarchy to occur. Discourses has occurred in both historical and political contexts through the media. This in turn, made the discourses more dominant and influential in society. Capital discourse are

In the previous chapters we discussed how perceiving the truth of a particular layer or belief makes it impossible to see that false view of reality again. While this is true in the majority of cases, you will find that there are some layers that have been so firmly entrenched in your psyche that they will continue to colour your view of reality, even after their truth has been seen.

According to Michel Faucault, discourse is “a form of power that circulates in the social field and can attach to strategies of domination as well as those of resistance”. More particularly, discourse are settings, context, actions, fundamental interaction and the significance that governs the way it works with one another. Discourses could also be seen as a process where specific values and structures that are forced to the actors to create a system of coercion.

In sociology there are three main sociological perspectives, these perspectives offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explains how society influences people and how people influence society. The three main perspectives are symbolic interactionist perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective. All three of these perspectives look at things differently with in society. I define myself as a structural functionalist. Structural functionalism is the theory that attempts to explain why society functions the way it does, it mostly focuses on social institutions and the relationship between them.

Our perceptions of society can be divided into two opposing frames of reference: subjective vs. objective. The primer viewpoint is the lens that we see the world. This is similar to our personal experiences, implicit learning and actions done under our control. The latter social attitude depicts the collective vision of people ranging from small families to extensive cities, institutions, etc. These groups create the backbone of society, distinguishing economics, politics, and other social divisions. Merging these two concepts of personal and social forces is the ability to use social imagination. Coined by sociologist C. Wright Mills, social imagination allows individuals to understand experiences and gauge their fate by becoming aware of their environment (Mills 2). It goes beyond a simple individualistic perspective to the viewpoints of history and other social disciplines. In class reading, The Promise by Wright Mills, it describes that social awareness can create an entrapped notion, limiting people’s ambitions by the threats that prevent people to transcend. Justification of this was captured in the film China Blue where as more Chinese laborers became more conscious of their perilous working conditions, the greater the sentiment of irritability and need for change. Through class readings and the film, we are able to gain a greater understanding of how social imagination deviates from common explanations by creating an awareness of underlying social structures that

The concept of sociological imaginations allows us to get out of one's own judgment zone with regards to how we think about social problems. C. Wright Mills argument is that we should develop a method or a way of looking at things in the society from the point of view of the person experiencing the sociological phenomenon. In essence, we cannot look at things from one's own moral point of view; we need to look at things from the point of view of the person experiencing it. Mills believes that cannot understand themselves as individuals; also they cannot understand their role and their perspectives as individuals in the society. We need to know the structure of the society, where one's current society stand in the development of human

The relationship between individuals and society has been a topic of debates for generations. In these debates, individuality has been given various definitions which can be grossly summarised as “The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/individuality). It has been also argued that “The irony of individuality is that sometimes it is a luxury that can only be achieved by contributing something special to the group. True individualists are often innovators.” (http://www.helium.com/items/1273481-thoughts-on-individuality). Interestingly, individuals may innovate by rebelling against societies, to the extent that the latter are a reflection of the

1. Pollution - of the air, the water, the soil. For Gadamer all of these problems are the consequence of the compartmentalized thinking of the modern era, along with the assumption that the earth is ours to exploit as we please without regard to for the future, for our children, for the earth itself. We must reassume our historical responsibility for our children’s future by protecting their heritage. The reckless anarchy of the exploitation of the earth must be replaced by responsible dialogue among the exploiters, and among the governments of the earth. At present, we have a gathering of the Big 7 or 8 on how to manage the world to their own advantage. Such a dialogue, however, brings up questions of justice and fairness in the