Lecture Notes, SOC 2020

This lecture deals with global unrest, war, terrorism, and the threats to our (and every other
society) as a result of global inequalities.
We have long studied the consequences of inequality within one countryfor example almost
everyone knows about Marie Antoinettes apparently callous response, when told there was not
enough affordable flour for bread in Paris, that perhaps the peasants should eat cake. Whether or
not this is true, one consequence of such drastic inequality in 18th century France was that the
monarchy was overthrown. The modern history of Europe and the US in the 19th and 20th
centuries is one of war and civil unrestbetween countries and within a countrymotivated in
large part because of either social inequality in a country or the desire to distract its own citizens
so the country goes to war with another.
What is war: organized armed conflict between nations or distinct political factions. This
definition broadens beyond the notion of war as being between two or more nations to include
undeclared wars, civil and guerilla wars, and some forms of terrorism. War involves violence, a
component of many other social problems, such as violent crime and domestic violence.
However, the latter forms of interpersonal violence typically involve a relatively small number
of people, although this social problem might be prevalent in society. Whereas war is a form of
collective violence that involves organized violence by people seeking to promote their cause or
resist policies or practices they consider oppressive (liberation struggles against colonialism in
Africa).
Nature of war has changed:
1) Proximity:
a) early in US history war fought at or close to home
b) 20th century, war on foreign soil,
2) From avoidance of civilians in WWI to total war civilians and population centers
targeted in WWII
a) British used air power against the Germans, US and allied forces bombed Dresden and other
German cities, killing hundreds and thousands of civilians; US dropped the atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 100,000 people, Germans and Japanese destroyed
cities and used defeated populations as slave labor
b) concentration camps millions died in German work and later death camps; 100,00
individuals of Japanese ancestry interned in the US after Pearl Harbor
3) changing technologies and philosophies
a) weapons of mass destruction
b) smart bombs, and technological warfare still civilians account for 75 to 90 percent of warrelated deaths during the 1990s, 1991 Gulf War (Desert Storm), demographer employed by the
US Census Bureau calculated 40,000 Iraqi soldiers killed and more than 80,000 civilians, mostly
women and children 13,000 as a direct result of air strikes and another 70,000 as a result of
disease associated with systematic destruction of water purification and sewage treatment
systems

b) psychological effects of war PTSD, especially prevalent among Vietnam vets, becoming a
pressing issues as more Iraqi troops return to combat for more than one tour of duty; collateral
damage of poverty (1.5 million vets under the poverty line) due to the inability to find and keep
a job, and homelessness (500,000)
Economics of militarism:
Cold-war Congress established defense spending as a national priority, military-industrial
complex a political alliance involving federal government (spending for R&D, weapons
systems), not only a matter of defense and national security, but also of profit and influence for
the power elite.
Economic costs: Diversion of funds from other social problems education, hunger and disease.
With the internationalization of instantaneous images and communication the worlds inequities
are now broadcast everywhere. Perhaps most of the world is now living the lives of the starving
peasants and workers in France, and some segment of US and European society represents that
hated aristocracy in France. Perhaps what we are seeing is the rising discontent caused by this
awareness of both the possible world you can have with resources, and just how miserable your
world is without.
Consider the file with the pictures of food eaten and the dollars spent to feed a family around the
world. Doesnt that create a sense of desire and denial in some quarters? Dont we understand
why a parent with a hungry child might wonder why families in some countries get to eat enough
to feed dozens, and perhaps throws away more than many get to eat in the first place? It is not so
far fetched. In this countryespecially in urban areasgroups form who go to restaurants and
fast food places and gather the unsold or in some cases when appropriate uneaten food that
would otherwise be thrown away to give to the homeless and the hungry. Or perhaps countries
striving to develop are now being told by the biggest polluters in the world that everyone has to
pollute less (but that means in less developed countries they have to produce less or use
technologies that are too expensive to acquire).
There is a crisis that has received less attention than the world financial crisis, recently
precipitating the rescue by the Federal Reserve. It is the food crisis, which as mentioned earlier,
can be the root cause of conflict from below. Food, hunger and inequality are connected to
conflict and wars in various ways. Let me discuss the example of the connection of various
social problems today. (taken from Paul Krugman, Grains Gone Wild, NYT, April 7, 2008:
A25).
Over the past few years the prices of wheat, corn, rice and other basic foodstuffs have doubled or
tripled, with much of the increase occurring in the early months of 2008. High food prices are
devastating in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a familys spending.
As a result, there have been food riots, and in some cases, the rise in the prices of food and oil,
have led to protests, including strikes (as in the case of Egypt, which I will return to in a
moment).

How did the food crisis happen: Krugman offers three main reasons: 1) long-term trends, 2) bad
luck, and 3) bad policy (the connection between economics and politics).
1) growing middle classes in countries, especially China, are eating more meat. It takes about
700 calories worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef. The change in diet
increases overall demand for grains.
2) price of oil. Modern farming is highly energy intensive (producing fertilizer, running tractors,
transporting farm products to consumers). Toward the first of the New Year in 2008, oil prices
persistently hovered above $100 per barrel, and spiked at $140 per barrel in July, energy costs
become a major factor driving up agricultural costs. While the current price has dipped to around
$50 per barrel, the price of oil will likely bubble up again.
High oil prices, in part, a function of the rapid industrialization by emerging economies. These
rising economic powers compete for scarce resource, driving up prices for raw materials of all
sorts, including and especially oil.
The invasion of Iraq had reduced oil supplies below what they would have been otherwise.
3) bad weather in key growing areas, in particular, Australia, second largest wheat exporter,
driven up prices. Bad weather probably is related to climate change. So, in this sense, politicians
and governments took little action to reduce greenhouse gases bear some responsibility for food
shortages.
4) bad policy clearest in the rise of ethanol and other biofuels. the US government subsidized
conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit
global warming. Producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon
contains. Even seemingly good biofuel policies, like Brazils use of ethanol from sugar cane,
accelerate the pace of climate change by fostering deforestation (see Time Magazine).
Meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel diverts the land available to grow food. So subsidies is a a
major factor in the food crisis
Environmentalists like to say that if we are not careful we will destroy the world. More correctly
we will destroy the planets ability to sustain human life (and perhaps many other forms of life).
The planet will survivewhether we kill off life with acid rain, destroy the ozone, choke off
living things with pollution, or end it all with nuclear war. What matters to us, then is what kind
of planet can and will survive. Do we have to become garrison societies ever at war with most of
humanity, or will we find a way to raise the standards of most people. We have about 6% of the
worlds population and we have about 20% of the worlds supply of land that can grow crops.
China has about 25% of the worlds population and only about 4 % of the lands that can grow
crops they just about feed themselves, though often fail. Yet with all the land we possess and
the entire surplus we produce there is still hunger in this country. Clearly if managed properly
the world has enough land to grow crops that no world hunger should exist.
But as long as there is hunger, as long as some people are looking into the palace grounds and
coveting what they see, that is how long we will live in a world that is dangerous and in

turmoil. Sadly, those technologies that bring us products from around the globe with ease, also
bring us social unrest and danger. It is no longer possible to live in a closed society, where we
believe the social problems elsewhere will not create social problems here. And the reason we
need to address the social problems at home is that the solutions we develop will also work, to
greater or lesser degree, on the social problems of the world at large.