The objective of Paul Steinberg’s book, ‘Who Rules The Earth?’ can be summarized in the following quotation: “All forms of social organization, from the European Court of Justice to your favorite restaurant, operate through that other mode of human connectedness: social rules.” (Steinberg 2015, 266). Steinberg has attempted to show the reader how to engage with social rules and to apply them effectively in not only our individual lives, but to the community, to the city, and, ultimately, to the country-wide scale. Steinberg proposes that by altering, adding, or removing social rules, we can solve the environmental issues of today.
Steinberg discusses how we can engage effectively with social rules through a variety of different ways. I will outline a few of his suggestions that apply specifically to me as an individual and scholar with a vested interest in solving global environmental issues. I will attempt to do this without compromising the edifice of his main argument.
Steinberg suggests that there will need to be coordination between layers of rulemaking to make an effective impact on social rules. For instance, he suggests that “If we pursue the goal of sustainability while ignoring its political dimensions, we will simply never get there.” (Steinberg 2015, 267). Steinberg, here, illustrates how cooperation and mutual respect between different segments of society is a salient aspect in any joint coalition looking to make significant changes in institutional-scale systems, such as social rules. As an individual with a desire to play a leadership role in the future, Steinberg’s’ suggestion has enforced my pre-existing beliefs that cooperation between groups of individuals are important to get any job done well. Steinberg states that “Cultivating these diverse perspectives also makes it more likely that the rules themselves will be well designed,” (Steinberg 2015, 271) which I think is applicable in any scenario involving the need for group decision-making. The best inventions, such as the iPhone, for example, were not created by a single person. Steve Jobs may have had a major role as CEO of the company in a lot of the product decision making; however, he would not have come as far as he had without operating with and listening to his counterparts from different disciplines within the assembly process.
Furthermore, Steinberg states, “To go the distance, new rules must have support from multiple political parties and diverse social groups.” (Steinberg 2015, 270). As a scholar, I am incredibly interested in the dynamic of group-oriented work, which is increasingly becoming more and more essential in the 21st century. (Not that it wasn’t important, to begin with!). Steinberg notices that the marginalization of certain groups has led to fractured relationships, which have resulted in disunity in collective efforts in trying to solve global obstacles, such as environmental issues. Take the rise of populism, for example. Steinberg suggests that the marginalization of environmental groups interested in decentralization has contributed to rising populist sentiment within the European Union, which is illustrative of growing discontent as a consequence of exclusion. (Steinberg 2015, 180).
Steinberg makes another suggestion that will positively impact social rules if managed correctly, and that is to “Bridge research and action.” (Steinberg 2015, 269). Steinberg asserts “we need more routine opportunities for meaningful collaboration between researchers and agents of change.” (Steinberg 2015, 270). “Scholars fear that their research reputation will be tarnished if they associate themselves too closely with efforts to change the world,” (Steinberg 2015, 16) and as a consequence of this belief, Steinberg asserts that normativity within academia has become the status quo. As a scholar, I had not paid as much heed as I maybe should have done to issues associated with normativity in academic writing. In fact, I had believed that normativity was important to prevent myself from becoming biased when writing any piece of academic work. However, I now accept that there are shortcomings to this belief because as Steinberg so clearly puts it “Engineering is taught is taught in universities because of an underlying normative belief that we should not live downstream from poorly designed dams.” (Steinberg 2015, 17). Of course, we should not live downstream from poorly designed dams! We should avoid them at all costs! A “freedom of inquiry,” (Steinberg 2015, 18) as Steinberg so eloquently puts, is essential to adopt in both our scholarly and individual lives to convey a sense of urgency for the things we care about most.
Another important aspect to consider, according to Steinberg, is thinking long-term. Steinberg states “For social rules to matter, they must endure long enough to make a difference.” (Steinberg 2015, 270). As an individual and scholar, I recognize how important long term goals are in achieving overall success in things that matter to me. For example, my renewable energy project that will be implemented this June is geared primarily to the long-term needs of the indigenous people who I am working with. Their village will be monitored for a year, and once I receive enough funds through sponsorship, I plan to install clean water in the very same village. When applied to environmental advocacy, Steinberg states “A spirit of volunteerism and overflowing with ideas… may amount to little down the road if you fail to institutionalize new practices and perspectives.” (Steinberg 2015, 268). When Steinberg makes reference to institutionalization of practices, he is referring to the long-term successes of small victories in the context of bigger achievements, which was practiced by Dr June Irwing. From her initial success in her hometown of Hudson, Dr Irwing brought the fight against pesticides to the Canadian supreme court, where she secured the long-term successes in her bid to limit pesticide use in Canada.
Steinberg discusses many more important attributes to securing the longevity and success of engaging with social rules in the context of large-scale changes in the global environment. However, from the list of suggestions, I have chosen the three that stood out as most salient to me and that I feel contribute greatly to his argument concerning social rulemaking. Cooperation between different areas of society when creating social rules, indulging a sense of activism within academia, and considering the long-term prospects and successes of social rules were points I could relate to most in my personal and scholarly life. (This is not to say, however, that the other recommendations Steinberg makes are not as equally as important as the ones that I have chosen). After finishing his book, I can only conclude that everyone has a part to play in ruling the earth, but the deciding factor is asking how and why we should, the answers for which can be found is some variation of how we should perceive and engage with social rules.
Works Cited
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.