Paul F. Steinberg’s main argument in Who Rules the Earth? (2015) identifies social rules as the most effective and logical mechanism of change. He defines these social rules as “understood and followed” regulations that “shape interactions among people,” (Steinberg 2015, 26-27). These regulations define the roles, rights, and responsibilities of individuals, corporations, nations, etc. (Steinberg 2015, 27).
The deep integration of social rules in the fabric of humanity gives these principles widespread power and connectivity. Social rules “pattern this physical reality” with networks that are largely “invisible” to the public because of their commonality (Steinberg 2015, 19-21). In other words, we are so used to them we don’t notice their presence or influence. Steinberg points out the simple and seemingly most natural actions are managed by none other than these networks. A simple walk on the beach is present with social and governmental policies that regulate public access, clean air, water quality, racial freedoms, product embargos and so on (Steinberg 2015, 20-23). The social forces don’t only affect the public or institutional domain of “the commons”, but also have influence in individual sectors, such as private property (Steinberg 2015, 193, 66-67). Private property is regulated by “socially sanctioned” rules “backed by the force of law,” (Steinberg 2015, 66-67). The government always has a say.
Apart from their widespread authority, social rules have the ability to “institutionalize” and embed new changes into the governmental system, therefore making them “durable” for the future (Steinberg 2015, 29-30). Steinberg mentions the concept of “issue-attention cycles” of the general public originally established by Anthony Downs (quoted in Steinberg 2015, 30). This concept states that the public’s attention can only be mobilized around a specific issue for a short period of time. The fizzling of interest causes individual-scale action movements to be ineffective. However embracing institutional action, if the public’s interest is utilized to make a change of social rules in the short amount of time, then the development will outlast the interest (Steinberg 2015, 29-30).
According to Steinberg, the most important aspect of social rules is that “the rules we live by can be changed,” (2015, 26). One way being the utilization of public interest as mentioned above. It is seen throughout history that power or more the individuals in places of power have fragile foundations which keep breaking, rebuilding and changing. A single power is temporary. This fact gives hope and means to individuals looking to make a lasting difference. Steinberg supports Reinhold Niebuhr’s claim that “social progress…requires dislodging of power,” (Steinberg 2015, 52). By “dislodging power”, the “disproportionate influence” of the small authority groups will be displaced, therefore changing the social rules that were in place during their reign and embedding new practices into the system (Steinberg 2015, 52).
Even though Steinberg openly supports institutional action, he acknowledges that rulemaking functions on multiple levels: individual, local, institutional and global (Steinberg 2015, 163). Steinberg offers a new adage when talking about scale of action: “think vertically,” (2015, 163). This system promotes a connection between multiple levels and scales. Some environmental issues and their solutions require a “scaling up” approach where individuals, institutions and especially nations act collectively to solve a problem. Others require a “scaling down” approach where large institutions/nations disperse the power and responsibility of problem-solving to local governments/nations, and therefore indirectly individuals (Steinberg 2015, Ch. 7-8).
In my scholarly life, like the other texts we read, the ideas and concepts from WRE have influenced the way I view different aspects of life. Now, by recognizing the importance of social rules, I know to focus my attention on conditions that affect them, such as history and authority groups. For example, with many news headline issues, such as the Dakota Access Pipeline and Standing Rock, public interest spiked beyond compare for several weeks and then declined either because the issue looked to be pretty much solved or another form of news grasped the public’s attention. The Sioux tribe and other protestors and activists achieved through collective action a temporary halt on the DAPL, however, weeks after, Donald Trump was elected President. This striking and surprising news did not only move the public’s attention away from the Standing Rock protestors but also put their newly gained restriction on weak ground. With the dislodging of President Obama’s power, the newly established social regulations to divert the DAPL away from Lake Oahe were not institutionalized into the new Trump administration and therefore might not last (Healy and Fandos 2016).
In my personal life, Steinberg has taught me what it really means to “act institutionally,” (2015). One of the most popular ways of getting involved institutionally is to donate money to organizations that work to alter social rules. Since people are often too busy to devote all of their time to protests and political activism, donating a little bit of money seems reasonable. However, this feels very distant to me. You yourself are not doing anything to directly bring about the change you want to see. This bothers me. That’s why individual actions are such popular ideas, for they make people feel like they are truly and directly bringing about change while also being very doable and flexible. However, Steinberg from the very first chapter title, “Recycling is Not Enough,” disregards this type of action as “out of proportion” with the “enorm[ity]” of the environmental problems facing the world today (2015, 5). So until a more direct and reasonable form of institutional action is discovered, I guess I will continue to donate money to change the social rules and carry out my individual actions to feel involved.