Pacific Seminar One Final Essay Assignment This holiday season, you are planning an unusual dinner party.

Your guests will include yourself and eight authors from the course reader (two from each chapter). For your final essay, you will primarily need to explain which authors you are choosing and why, providing specific quotations that illustrate what drew you to that author. You should also provide a seating chart for your dining table, indicating which authors you think would enjoy conversation together and which you might need to put some distance between. (If necessary, you might also invite your PACS professor and ask her to help "buffer" your potentially disparate guests.) Consider your goals for your dinner party. What kinds of things would characterize this as a "good" dinner party?

Consider your role as a "good" host. What will you need to do to make sure your guests enjoy themselves? o What topics of conversation will you raise? (What will you avoid?) o What food will you serve? o Etc.

Finally, conclude by drawing on your dinner party as a metaphor to extrapolate some ideas about a Good Society and your role as a "good citizen" in such a society. Due date: Friday, December 7th (last day of class).

Length: 5-6 pages (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font). There will be no in-class peer review, but I encourage you to get feedback from outside editors. P.S. The intention here is for you to have some FUN with your writing and explore the "voice" you have been developing this semester. Therefore, beyond the parameters laid out above, you have some creative latitude. For example, you could play around with point-of-view, time frame, or format. ENJOY!

Rachelle Kim Dr. Lessard PACS001 FINAL ESSAY ASSIGNMENT WORKING TITLE

Invited:
Chapter 1: [Michael Sandel (Doing the Right Thing)], Albert Bandura (Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency) Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (Questioning Authority), Chapter 2: Jean Kilbourne (Jesus is a Brand of Jeans), Jonathon Kozol (The Dream Deferred, Again, in San Antonio), Diane Sicotte (Dealing in Toxins on the Wrong Side of the Tracks: Lessons from a Hazardous Waste Controversy in Phoenix) Chapter 3: Michael Pollan (Power Steer), Wilkinson and Pickett (Spirit Level) Chapter 4: Carl Sarfina (Toward a Sea Ethic), Paul Wapner (Environmental Ethics and Governance: Engaging the International Liberal Tradition, [Charles Duhigg & David Barboza (The iEconomy: In China, Human Costs are Built into an iPad)],

MAIN THEMES: INEQUALITY AND OUR ENVIRONMENT

Reasons:
Albert Bandura: I found this article very interesting because as I was reading it, I could identify which mechanisms that I used to justify many of my decisions. Not only this, but after I read this and read later articles, I could see the relationship between some of the mechanisms and how not only people but corporations and even nations justify their actions. (eg. Imperialism (historical), outsourcing). I thought that it was really interesting how with so many of the different mechanisms, almost everyone could choose which one to engage and which ones to disengage to reach a decision in most moral dilemmas/situations. The most interesting part I found while connecting this article to latter ones was how each author talked about one or at least mentioned something along the lines of one of the mechanisms outlined in this essay by Bandura. For example, the most obvious ones would be euphemistic labeling, and the disregard or distortion of consequences, and dehumanization. In the case of euphemistic labeling, I thought of the article Globetrotting sneaker and also the In China, Human Costs are built into an iPad. In both of the articles one of the main supporting arguments for outsourcing of factories into other countries was that it was a positive impact on the people in those specific countries because they provided them with jobs that would otherwise not be available to them. Companies and corporations clearly stated that they provided opportunities to people who would otherwise be starving and looking for jobs instead of having a job. In Enloes article, The Globetrotting Sneaker, she quotes a Nike representative who said, quote . This quote clearly showed that through the

notion that companies were providing otherwise inaccessible jobs to the people rather than hard, unfair labor in horrible working conditions and awful pay, the companies justified their actions even though there were potential human rights violations for safety in the work zone and even ridiculous hours with no such thing as a minimum wage. Another mechanism that was

mentioned in latter articles was the disregard or distortion of consequences. I think that this mechanism is the same basic idea of what Sarfina was talking about as short-term thinking. Rather than acknowledging the consequences that ones decisions have on other people and other things, people are prone to ignore or downsize potential consequences making it possible for companies and people to justify their actions that would otherwise be considered wrong as it causes harm or risk to other people. I think that this was clealy mentioned in the Environmental Ethics and Global Governance reading in which Wapner emphasizes a need for humans to see their actions and decisions with humans on both sides, not only as a relationship between the environment and humans but also to see it as a three way relationship with the environment in the middle and humans on both ends. The dehumanization one can be directly linked to both Wapners and Duhiggs articles. They both emphasized the benefits that one side gains when work is outsourced or when problems are displaced. For example, Wapner talked about examples such as paying other countries to dump our waste somewhere in their country. This can be seen just as a relationship between the human and the environment, but that would be simplifying the problem and only looking at it from one side. Wapner argues that we should be aware that there are other humans being affected by our actions. In the case of the iPad and even the sneakers as Enloe talks about, human capital came into play in both cases. For the iPad and sneakers both, the companies were trying to calculate the best marginal profit that they could achieve through the cheap labor of other countries, with higher risks and lower pay for the workers in less developed countries. Rather than looking at the human workers as humans like one of us, the corporations took the humans and their time and work and plugged it into an equation, rather than humanizing it, the corporations took the humans and turned them into variables to calculate and analyze the best way to maximize profit. With this in mind, of course the company was

turned a blind eye to the treatment of the workers and the facilities in which they worked in. The dehumanization made it possible in the first place for the companies to justify their actions and to go along with it. Moral actions are the product of the reciprocal interplay of cognitive, affective and social influences (80). Moral sanctions do not function as fixed internal regulators of conduct. Self-regulatory mechanisms do not operate unless they are activated (80). Sheldon Rampton: I found it very relevant to the society we live in today when Rampton encourages individuals to stand up to authority and not to accept everything that they are told, by demanding accountability, delving into details them selves that companies and corporations much bigger than them may be potentially trying to hide. He urged readers to stand up for what they believe in and to promote for a cause, together other individuals and to become an active member by being aware of what is really going on in the surroundings not only at face value but everything that goes on behind too. He subtly criticizes ignorance that is becoming ever so present in our society today. Instead he says that we should face our problems and look for solutions that actually solve it, not only for us but also for the future generations. He quotes Swearington who states, We dont believe that technology will solve all of our problems. We know that we must get to the front end of the problems and that prevention is what is needed (33). Through this quote, Rampton tries to encourage and urge people to actually face the problems that they are presented with instead of trying to avoid it. He takes this notion a step even further and quotes Einstein, A clever person solves a problem; a wise person avoids it (33). Through this quote, I think he clearly makes his point basically that we as citizens of this

Earth should not wait until something becomes an even bigger problem but to actually prevent what is present from getting any bigger and more out of our hands. Looking through this article, the environmental readings that were in the last chapter really rang in my head. I think that Rampton would have much to say in accordance to the points that Wapner and Sarfina try to state. They talk about not only looking at what is in front of us but also what lies beyond the obvious. They encouraged readers to look further on, to see the other relations that take place between for their case the consumer and product, or the environment and the people. Its obvious that our environment is in grave danger if we continue to abuse the Earth as we are doing, and not only the Earth but also the people. Rather than waiting for the problems to get even more out of hand, for instance the peak of global warming, or violent riots or even wars between countries (esp. between the exploited developing countries) Rampton points out that it is important to see everything as much as you can. He states that what you are told isnt always the whole story, but rather it is our responsibility as citizens to take the initiative and find out what really is going on behind the scenes whether it be environmentally related or even political. His example of activists in Florida and the Citizens Against Toxic Exposure group was an example of active citizens who refused to accept what authority figures had brought upon them. An environmental issue was raised when toxic chemicals were released from the digging at a site with toxins in the earth. Many people were getting sick and affected by the toxins so a few individuals decided to stand up. They didnt succeed in getting the diggers to stop digging, but they were able to get recompensed by relocating 358 families (32). Jean Kilbourne: Kilbourne emphasizes the consumerism habits that many in the modern world have fallen into. She emphasizes the notion of consumption of items and products that seemingly make people feel better about themselves, which I was able to extrapolate and link and tie back

with the notion of conspicuous consumption, which is a term first coined by American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen to describe the spending of money on acquiring luxury goods to display socioeconomic power, and to attain or even maintain status in the social hierarchy (Modern History).

Jonathan Kozol: Coming from a more affluent neighborhood than many others, I have been able to look back on my life and see for myself what Kozol tries to point out about the inequality and unfairness that exists within the American public school system. He specifically emphasizes the widening gap in education between more affluent neighborhoods versus less privileged neighborhoods.

Michael Pollan:

Wilkinson and Pickett: Charles Duhigg: I found the notion of human costs being built into iPads an intriguing one. I had read articles about this before, so it was something that had already sparked my interest. I couldnt help but think what Duhigg was saying sounded very much like the notion oh human capital. The notion that companies and big corporations invest in human capital or human work looking at humans as variables in economic systems and formulas to gain the maximum profit margins. With this practice, comes the mistreatment of humans. Not necessarily other people in

our society but usually the exploitation of people in developed or poorer nations such as the likes of China, India, or Indonesia. With poorer countries always available and open to the so-called opportunities, companies are able to basically take advantage of the people. The people see it as an opportunity but really it serves risks that people in developed countries wouldnt be willing to face. He goes on to talk about whether it is morally right or wrong to do this. Is it okay to cause potential harm and risk to others as long as they are okay with it and since companies claim that they subject themselves to it? A lot of the companies that are outsourcing especially big corporations with factories and mass production facilities like Apple in this case, the same rights and safety laws that apply in the US to citizens is not applied and offered to those in the other countries, especially because most developing countries dont have as strict of a policy and law pertaining to workers rights and safety laws for regulation. Carl Sarfina: Although Sarfina concentrates mostly on the marine ecology and the policies set forth by governments on the issues of overfishing and over exploitation of marine species which effect the marine ecology adversely, his suggestion of trying to think in the long-term is applicable to more than just policies on the use of resources and fisheries around the world. In fact his suggestion can be applied to every other policy not only on the bigger level, but could also govern the way people think and thus effect their actions. According to Sarfina thinking everything through before acting can make a great difference, not only for us but also for the future generations to come. The kind of thinking that Sarfina talks about really reminded me of a cost benefit analysis which takes into account not only the present but the decision that gives out the most benefit, not only the one with the most immediate effect and instant gratification like results. Rather than just thinking about our generation, a long-term thinking mentality would urge us to think about the future generations not only in our own society but for the whole world

looking at all the nations as one big society. I thought this was a really interesting article as it put amplified for me what I had learned in my AP Environmental Science class. We learned about the steps that governments had been taking and the policies that had been implemented, and this article only further proved that if we keep using and utilizing our environment as we continue to do so, the world wont be the same in the future. Our decisions not only cause harm to the environment but in the end come back to slap us in the face. This article and many articles form this chapter kind of serve as a wake up call for a call to action and to spread awareness of the problems we face as a growing and developing society, This article subtly emphasizes the idea that our actions cause changes in the environment surrounding us and inevitably effect us in the end. Its like a cascade of consequences, one action leading to the next. Much like Newtons third law of motion, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, except in this case we can see it as for every action there is an opposite and even greater reaction if we continue to live with the same habits we do today. Paul Wapner: I found the topic of displacement and the question that he posed, whether or not it is moral/ethical to displace our own problems in other developing third world countries. He goes on to talk about how developed countries especially tend to take advantage as he sees it or in this case displace our own problems to other countries. For example, factories are made in other countries to benefit profit margins, but we also displace potential pollution and hazards that would otherwise be present in our direct environment rather than somewhere out of sight potentially on the other side of the world, which emphasizes the saying, out of sight is out of mind. I couldnt help but notice very similar points between what Wapner was saying and what Sarfina implies in his essay. Although not word for word, I could definitely see the resemblance in each of the authors logic. Sarfina emphasizes that thinking of short-term solutions and

executing them are not the best way for us to go about living. Instead, he suggests a more longterm thinking with cost-benefit analysis in mind. I thought that this was what Wapner was basically trying to saw in the end when he summed it up. Rather than sending our problems to the other side of the world or to other countries that are willing to get paid to deal with out problems such as the labor and mining of resources, he suggests that we find an actual solution instead of just pushing it back and procrastinating by finding short-term solutions that will eventually cause the very same problems in the future. This seems very analogous to what Sarfina defines as long-term thinking in which he encourages us to think about the future instead of only thinking of the present and to work things out by thinking of how our decisions would effect not only the environment but also the future generations and even just other people around the world.