Golf is a major global industry. It is played by more than 60 million people worldwide, and there are more than 32 000 courses in 140 countries across the globe. Golf is a sport that has traditionally appealed to the wealthy and powerful in particular, though it attracts players and spectators from a wide range of demographics. Golf has also received criticism regarding its impact on the environment, particularly when it comes to the appropriation of land for golf course development and the use of water and pesticides in course management. The golf industry has, over time, responded to these and other concerns by stressing its capacity for recognizing and dealing with environmental problems. Yet there are reasons to be sceptical about the golf industry's environmental leadership – and, indeed, to be sceptical about corporate environmentalism in general. This book looks at the power relationships in and around golf, examining whether the industry has demonstrated such leadership on environmental matters that it should be trusted to make weighty decisions that have implications for public and environmental health. This is the first comprehensive study of the varying responses to golf-related environmental issues. It is based on extensive empirical work, including research into historical materials and interviews with stakeholders in golf such as course superintendents, protesters, and health professionals. The authors examine golf as a sport and as a global industry, drawing on and contributing to literatures pertaining to environmental sociology, global social movements, institutional change, corporate environmentalism and the sociology of sport.
Capitalism and Data Citizenship’ , Television
& New Media , 20 : 4 ,
412 – 19
J. ( 2004 ), ‘ Caring at a
Distance: Gift Theory, Aid Chains and SocialMovements’ , Social and Cultural
Geography , 5 ,
229 – 50 .
R. L. and
‘Loud and proud’: Politics and passion in the English Defence League is a study of grassroots activism in what is widely considered to be a violent Islamophobic and racist organisation. The book uses interviews, informal conversations and extended observation at EDL events to critically reflect on the gap between the movement’s public image and activists’ own understandings of it. It details how activists construct the EDL, and themselves, as ‘not racist, not violent, just no longer silent’ inter alia through the exclusion of Muslims as a possible object of racism on the grounds that they are a religiously not racially defined group. In contrast activists perceive themselves to be ‘second-class citizens’, disadvantaged and discriminated by a ‘two-tier’ justice system that privileges the rights of ‘others’. This failure to recognise themselves as a privileged white majority explains why ostensibly intimidating EDL street demonstrations marked by racist chanting and nationalistic flag waving are understood by activists as standing ‘loud and proud’; the only way of ‘being heard’ in a political system governed by a politics of silencing. Unlike most studies of ‘far right’ movements, this book focuses not on the EDL as an organisation – its origins, ideology, strategic repertoire and effectiveness – but on the individuals who constitute the movement. Its ethnographic approach challenges stereotypes and allows insight into the emotional as well as political dimension of activism. At the same time, the book recognises and discusses the complex political and ethical issues of conducting close-up social research with ‘distasteful’ groups.
sociologist trying to understand the
authoritarian and ecologically damaging premises behind sociological theory. He
argues the case for an anarchist sociology which pays much more attention to how
social experience is researched, theorised and represented. Like Morland, he finds
poststructuralist literature a potentially useful tool for understanding power, particularly when theorising contemporary socialmovements.
The difficulties of doing anarchist theory is not lost on any of these authors,
particularly when their starting points are sometimes challenging. The
anarchism is equivalent to constructing a future society without the State. (See, for example, the classic statement by
Malatesta from the 1890s (Malatesta, 1974).) In etymological terms, anarchy
refers to the absence of rule or government. Therefore, when we talk of anarchy
we generally talk of ‘a stateless society’ (Carter, 1993: 141).
This chapter is not an attempt to resolve or settle the difficulties associated
with defining anarchy or social anarchism. It will suggest that, when situated
alongside the practices of new socialmovements associated with the recent
contends that the influence and impact of urban socialmovements is
difficult to measure in terms of class conflict. Instead, these
movements were directed towards enacting a vision of the city that
challenged the types of municipal policies and the social norms of urban
lifestyles at the time. Mamadouh investigates how urban socialmovements
interpreted the city ideologically, their attempts to modify the built
environment, and how their methods and tactics compared with each
legality again highlighted the racialised nature of discourses around migration and the neoliberal imperatives placed on the use of public space (anon. 2017 a). As before, the city’s socialmovements sprang into gear in solidarity with the evicted vendors and, as before, the market was successfully reopened. Mayor de Magistris clarified, ‘We always help people who want to integrate themselves into our society and respect our laws’ (anon. 2017 b).
Whilst staying in Napoli in summer 2018, I walked through Piazza Garibaldi on my way to buy food for lunch. The new metro
that the rational and the emotional may be entwined in
social movement participation rather than constituting alternative explanations
of motivation to engage (Crossley, 2002: 50). Indeed, Jasper (1998: 398) argues
many aspects of collective action in socialmovements that have been viewed as
primarily cognitive in fact have emotional dimensions to them.
This chapter starts with a brief discussion of theoretical debates on emotion
and affect in relation to socialmovements and adopts the notion of ‘affective
practice’ (Wetherell, 2012: 4) as a means of understanding
concerns. To accomplish this
in a manner that is consistent with anarchist principles is therefore a significant
challenge. Nevertheless, the potential benefits that could emerge from such a
venture extend further than a hypothetical enclave of academic anarchists; there
are areas of mainstream and even progressive sociology that can be assisted to
resolve apparent contradictions within their own research. This is especially the
case within the fields of the study of socialmovements and theories of ‘reflexivity’, but more broadly into the study of organisations and the
narrative, self-representation, the construction
of “youth” and biography that I repeatedly revisit in this
Returning to social movement studies, an ambiguity exists
around the predominant participation of youth in “new socialmovements”. Melucci, in particular, attempts to consider the
appeal and the function of social movement subcultures for young people
and further interrogates the meaning of youth as a biological category
in “post-industrial societies” (Melucci 1989 , 1996 ). However, due to the lack