Why We're Doomed: Realist vs. Constructionist

The human race has always been perceived as notoriously "shifty" at best. There are the activists who condemn the human race for killing the Earth, the only planet within any traveling distance that humans are capable of living on. There are corporate bigwigs that make big money from polluting the ecosystem, as well as the average citizen who pollutes and either doesn't know any better, or just doesn't care. Overpopulation is an enormous problem and is only getting worse. The world is simultaneously drying up and filling up; we are losing clean, fresh water through careless overuse and keep finding that the ocean's water levels continue to rise, to a point where it's sometimes mixing with the fresh water and forcing some communities to relocate. The rising water levels can be traced to the polar ice caps melting, which can then be traced to global warming. Which we all know is our fault. I'm not exempt from the contribution-- I have a car that runs on gas and oil, similar to almost everyone else in the world. I have a fan that runs continuously day and night in my room, even when I'm not there. Sometimes I leave my light on when I leave. And I have a fridge and microwave that I keep plugged in even though I rarely use either of them. My decisions aren't doing anything to help the environmet, even if they don't sound that bad, besides my occasional recycling of water bottles. This perspective is known as the realist perspective. Basically, I'm describing how consumptiom , economy and technology effect the environment. As said by Michael Bell in his book "An Invitation To Environmental Sociology," "realists argue that environmental problems cannot be understood apart from the threats posed by the way we have organized our societies, including the organization of ecologic relations. They believe that we can ill afford to ignore the material truths of organizational problems and their ecological consequences" (4). I however, did not mention the sociological aspect of considering environmental issues. As Bell describes, bringing in a sociological argument to environmental issues is called a constructionist perspective. "Constructionists," Bell says, "do not necessarily disagree [with realists], but they emphasize the influence of social life on how we conceptualize those problems, or lack of these problems" (4). Environmental sociology considers the impact different societies have on the environment and why.

Bell's book (at least the first few chapters) practically explains why we, as a human race, are destined to extinction if we don't change our living habits soon. He explains that due to social inequality, we want what we can't have and destroy the environment in the process. Working to get that new gas-guzzling Range Rover or brand new house in a great rural neighborhood is not good for the rest of the world. However, since everyone wants to show off their wealth by buying unnecessary flashy items, change is unlikely. From a realist perspective, one would argue that this consumption is a major problem. From a constructionist perspective, one would argue that because social standards are so high, people feel forced into buying such items. While there are other aspects to consider, these perspectives allow you to see why there seems to be nothing done about the environment despite it being a huge problem. It's hard to fix social inequality, and it's not going to be fixed after some major re-evaluation of the individual impact to society and the environment and vice versa.