My leadership and educational assumption presume from Mathew 20:28, which states that “I am here to serve and not to be served.” Accordingly, I believe that to be a good leader one must be a servant of the people. It is vital for a Christian leader to imitate Christ. Therefore, I believe that a leader must be humble, wise and a person of integrity. A leader should also be merciful and slow to anger. His actions should be above reproach and should be an example to the rest. They should recognize believers and other people as images of God and treat them with love. I believe in the axiological ideology of the respect to the authority of Christ. My belief is that God ultimately defines what is good and valuable and that He has the highest authority over all things. This belief is affirmed by the message in Colossians 1:17, which states that “He holds all things together.
“I believe that He is the creator and he formed everything in the very beginning. Everything that he does is motivated by His love and Grace. He is all-powerful, omnipotent and omniscient. Since He is all knowing, I consider it prudent to follow the virtues summarized by the commandments in the scripture. In matters where the commandments do not address all the possible ethical situations that exist, I believe that believers should reason according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. On matters to do with epistemology, I subscribe to Newman’s rejection of Evidentialism. As a believer, my understanding of faith as explained in Hebrews 11:1. Evidentialism explains that there is no religious belief that is justifiable unless there is conclusive evidence about it. This is an idea that I totally disagree with since it brings forward the sense of doubt in the scripture. Evidentialism is self-referentially incorrect. Its requirement for us to provide evidence to support what we believe in, raises doubts about the legitimacy of evidentialism itself. It would rather be illogical for one to change his ground based on a theory that is not justified itself. I believe that Christianity is a true faith, even though evidentialism refutes such a belief due to tangible lack of evidence. Believing in evidentialism is not justifiable either.
I believe that the laid down scripture outlines all that is necessary for one to base his belief in Christianity. I live by the understanding that faith is the conviction of that which is not seen, and it does not require evidence to justify it. On the topic of metaphysics, my assumptions are based on the understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which demonstrates that all Scripture is inspired by God. I believe that metaphysics is the soul and core of philosophy. It is a discipline that focuses on the nature of reality, both invisible and visible. The Christian tradition explains that God is the ultimate being and reality. The belief that the scripture is inspired by God means that the He is the source of the knowledge man has about Him. God reveals himself to humanity through the revelation via the scripture. The avenues of general revelation He uses include creation and its organization as explained in (Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:19-21). The Christian message and belief is based on the idea that God exists, and we as Christians get to know about Him through his scripture.
Democratic Socialism
The Political Ideology of Socialism
Danziger & Smith (2016) describe socialism’s “most important goal is to provide high-quality, relatively equal conditions of life for everyone, with an active state assisting in the achievement of this goal” (p. 35). Socialism is a normative political theory that promotes equality and fairness among individuals and society. Its belief system promotes individual equality within society and with government involvement. Democratic socialism is an ideology associated with socialism, but with an aspect of empirical political theory. Socialism’s goal is to provide society and individuals an equally high quality of life.
Individual
Socialism views that individuals are generally good and caring by nature, and with environmental factors affecting them (Danziger & Smith, 2016, p. 35). So, it’s critical to create an environment that motivates individuals to place society as a higher priority than self. Therefore individuals need to set aside their self interests for the best interest of their community.
Individual, State, and Society
Danziger & Smith (2016) states that socialism’s ideology is the distribution of someone’s efforts to divide within a community equally, and it’s the government’s responsibility enabling citizens access to education, jobs, healthcare, and financial stability (p. 35). Merriam-Webster (n.d) defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” A socialist government ensures equality among everyone in its society, especially economically.
Equality
Socialism defines equality that everyone is equal in all aspects, especially economically, and promotes equality through government programs and policies. Significant differences between Marxist-Leninist socialism and democratic socialism is Marxist-Leninist uses violent actions and oppression to overthrow the socio-economic hierarchy to establish total control to restructure the economy with an authoritarian leadership group (Danziger & Smith, 2016, p. 35). Dixon (2010), describes democratic socialism as “both individual freedom and equality…of the highest order” (p. 2). Democratic socialism is a variation of egalitarianism, and the belief of achieving equal rights and opportunities without “violence and repression” (Danziger & Smith, 2016, p. 36), separating democratic socialism from Marxist-Leninist socialism. Democratic socialism has a significant control of the economic system but doesn’t completely control it like Marxist-Leninist socialism.
Political Orientation: Democratic Socialism
Democratic socialism is an ideology associated with socialism, but with empirical political theory. In contrast, Marxist-Leninist socialism is the bases of normative political theory with little to no empirical political approach. “One final reason lies in the fact that Marx’s theory seems to be ‘refuted’ periodically by empirical observation.” (Henning & Henninger, 2014, p.73). However, unlike Marxist-Leninist socialism, democratic socialism is more of a normative political theory. Empirical theory affects normative theory in democratic socialism, as described by Pietrzyk-Reeves (2017, as cited Bauböck, 2008, p. 40), “Normative theory can guide empirical research while empirical research can have positive impact on normative theory”(182). Therefore, democratic socialism bases empirical political theory on normative political theory more than Marxist-Leninist socialism.
Belief Systems: Democratic Socialism
Belief systems that promote democratic socialism is that capitalism creates economic inequality, the need for a national healthcare system (NHS) or Medicare-for-all, free higher education, and climate change. There may be many differences between democratic socialism and Marxist-Leninist socialism, but one common core belief they share is anti-capitalism. On the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) (n.d.), their website states, “At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow,…..” Many factors contribute to the democratic socialist’s belief system, but the most critical profound belief is economic equality.
Political Culture Influence on Ideology And Behavior
The political culture of Hollywood can influence the ideology and behavior of independents and mild conservatives. An example is the movie The Big Short (McKay, 2015). that demonstrates how capitalism can destroy the economy without adequate government involvement and control. It also exposes the violation of shared core morals and values by corruption and greed. People may lose confidence in the government system when they watch movies like The Big Short (McKay, 2015) and might shift their political ideology due to Hollywood’s political culture influence. However, the audience can also affect political culture Hollywood by their demand for a particular movie. Thus, Hollywood’s political culture can influence other’s ideology and behavior
Conclusion
Socialism is a normative political theory more than an empirical approach. Socialism’s belief system promotes individual equality and fairness in society with government involvement. Democratic socialism is an ideology associated with socialism, but with an aspect of empirical political theory. Still, it’s a belief system is more of a normative political theory than Marxist-Leninist socialism. Therefore, socialism’s goal is that the government ensures individuals and society an equally high quality of life.
References
- Bauböck, R. (2008). “Normative Political Theory and Empirical Research.” In: D. della Porta, M. Keating (eds.). Approaches and Methodology in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist
- Perspective. Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press.Porta, M. Keating.
- Danziger, J.N. & Smith, C.A. (2016). Understanding the political world a comparative introduction to political science (12th ed). Pearson.
- Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). (n.d.). About Us. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/
- Dixon, K., (2010). Freedom and Equality: The Moral Basis of Democratic Socialism. Taylor & Francis Group.
- Gerring, J., Yesnowitz, J. (2006). “A Normative Turn in Political Science”. Polity, 38(1),pp. 101–133.
- Henning,C. & Henninger, M. (2014). Philosophy after Marx 100 Years of Misreadings and the Normative Turn in Political Philosophy. Brill.
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Socialism. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/braggadocio
- McKay, A. (Director). (2015). The Big Short. Paramount Pictures.
- Pietrzyk-Reeves, D. (2017). Normative Political Theory. teoria polityki,1,173-185. https://doi.org/10.4467/00000000TP.17.009.6588
The Role Of Psychology In The Climate Change Debate
The Climate Change Debate involves the rancour in the scientific community as to whether or not climate change is actually happening and as to whether or not its effects spell doom as conveyed. The more easily conveyed aspect of climate change is called the greenhouse effect. This effect involves explaining the energy balance on earth and how that the presence of greenhouse gases; would increase the atmosphere’s capacity to retain heat; leading to increase in temperature. A major greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a major by-product of exhaust emissions; and generally all fossil fuel power plants/generators emissions.
First of all, let us define the major terms involved in this discourse. Greenhouse gases include water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons; and carbon dioxide; and it is the increasing amounts of these gases that is resulting in global warming. The resultant quantum leap would be to scrap fossil fuels; but that would be too expensive because majority of the world’s energy supply is based on fossil fuels. I speculate that the reason for the debate is the attempt to protect the fossil fuel energy aspect of the economy in order for it not to crumble; because that quantum leap would paralyze trillion dollars of onshore and offshore investments in the oil and gas industry. In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization; and United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) established a panel to monitor climate change; and proffer credible advice to the world. In one of their reports, (IPCC, 2007); there was shown the need to start taking immediate steps in the direction of forestalling and progressively reversing climate change in an attempt to save the planet of gigantic losses that would be involved in the events that would unfold if there remains inaction. Diamond, (2004) explains the situation in Easter Island; whereby the result of human activities; deforestation in this case; kept decreasing the island’s sustainability for humans to continue to live there; the island collapsed because of the greed of the explorers.
Climate projections have it (Mann, 2015); that in the coming years; ice caps would have melted, the polar bears might become extinct, there would be overflowing of the ocean; and many coastal cities might be lost to this. This calls for the need for clear path for action in order to mitigate the factors mediating climate change. The role of psychology in the debate is to identify the biases in the opposing arguments; which is obviously group interests; but the role of psychology would be richer; now that the debate has a consensus; and psychology can play a role in fighting against climate change. The Role of Psychology Climate change is thus a phenomenon to be systematically tackled; since humans are at the heart of making these changes themselves. Climate change did not happen in one day; it happened over time and due to the build-up of environmentally unsustainable behaviour; resulting in what we have today. This shows that no matter the approach; the mitigation strategies are not going to work all of a sudden; it is a gradual process.
This gradual process starts with identifying the behavioural patterns that are necessary for both mitigating the impact of climate change; and reducing it to its barest minimum. Psychology being imbued with theoretical understanding of behaviour is very important; because there are a lot of psychological dimensions to climate change. For example; the ways that individuals will manage climate change personally; and their coping processes are psychological. Hence, whatever policies are going to be made has to properly consider all groups; and these psychological processes. Psychologists role is to engage the mitigation; and research on why certain policies might stir up certain reactions; why certain policies might be effective; why people have preference for certain messages; or whether it is purely group dynamics that will influence their attentiveness; and behaviour change (Spence, Pidgeon & Uzzell, 2009).
Part of the role of psychologists is to collaborate with other fields in addressing this phenomenon in context; including sociology, environmental science, geography and meteorology, to mention but a few. It is possible that via thorough investigation; the psychological basis for energy consumptive behaviours will be elucidated; and used in order to construct campaigns that will bring about people behaving in better and energy conserving environmentally friendly ways. Also, when the climate change itself begins to unravel in form of disasters; and unprecedented climatic events; it is psychologists that are better positioned with interventions to cushion the psychosocial effects of the changes associated with these events. The victims have to be counselled in order to forestall onset of post-traumatic stress disorder; and the community has to be managed with individual needs being assessed and understood. Carbon emissions remains a germane aspect of global warming; being involved in the greenhouse effect. This is a problem that is going to probably be the hardest to deal with and that is why psychologists need to be mobilized alongside professionals from other fields in order to solve this problem.
It is obvious that these emissions are the result of energy consumption and are from power plants; and cars. For example; are we supposed to say that people should stop using cars? If we are to reduce the amount of cars on the road in an attempt to mitigate climate change, how will the car manufacturers then respond? For many people using a car is not a matter of what they think of doing as right but it is ingrained into the lifestyle as a necessary utility for moving around privately. Even in the presence of underground trains and commercial buses; the need for privacy and territoriality is still going to influence the choice of many to still go for cars. In the case of cars, the main psychological view had being to provide incentives for using more energy efficient cars; for example, cars using nuclear reactors, hybrid engine, solar panels. While this might be effective, the opportunity cost has to be considered; because; if suddenly, those cars with alternative energy are heavily subsidized, everyone will buy them; and this will put a very magnanimous toll on the economy.
Looking at the example of cars; we should be able to notice that there is a back and forth in terms of gains to the environment and the economy; and that striking a balance has to be done with caution; and incentives cannot just be given anyhow; they have to be constructed in such a way that the adverse effects don’t end up defeating the purpose; e.g. people selecting the hybrid brands, only to drive more miles and end up using fuel and releasing emissions. According to Bierman et al, (2012); the costs of reducing carbon emission; even though reducing these emissions is bound to benefit the global public; will be borne individually; by each country attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emission; costing nations individually; and benefiting all humankind.
There is this diffusion of social responsibility that causes each nation to end up doing very little to combat climate change; and looking at other countries; expecting them to take the lead; and bear the economic losses. Most aspects of climate change are rather technical and they will require that certain messages be metered to the public. The public is never unipolar; and they might perceive one message in an endlessly diverse number of ways. So; psychology is still going to be involved in research not just for the psychological dimensions to be considered in terms of policies to be introduced and implemented in curbing climate change; but more importantly in terms of construction and research towards perception of civil messages that will facilitate the path to awareness; and a consciousness of environmental and economic effects of their behavioural tendencies.
Concluding Remarks I would like to conclude by saying that first of all; this consensus on climate change has to be appropriately publicised because different factions of people might be oblivious to the recent arrangements; and turn in the debate. The role of humans in both having caused the climate change and being able to reverse it cannot be overemphasized. Through encouraging replanting of trees that are felled, alternative energy research; gradually making people more comfortable with nuclear energy’s side effects; and things like that; through effective public messages, campaigns; and policies which are engineered to be psychologically holistic; climate change can be reversed. Sustainable behaviour analyses and change management is our role as psychologists in this debate (Spence, Pidgeon and Uzzell, 2009). .