It with pump and some sympathetic media that INPE, an institute National prevention and health education, is launching yet another advertising campaign cons drug . The theme of the year? "Against Drugs, everyone can act." Understood: if you do nothing, it's your fault. Understood as: one takes drugs because we are weak or that others are weak.
The campaign has become the zero degree of political activity, thus a look at clips from the new campaign: we meet Michael, a young man who, we are told, took cocaine.
Against Drugs, everyone can act - Cocaine
sent Inpes . - Current time on video.
But why Michael is there cocaine if we stick to that video? We do not know. In fact, it seems from the perspective of the designers of this campaign fairly irrelevant. What matters is that if "those who love him" had told him not to do so, he would not have done. Motivations of Michael when he took the drug for the first time, his motivation to continue, because a young schoolboy be able to procure or its economic, psychological or social, we will not know because it does not seem so effective. "When we want, we can" not to take drugs, it is an effort of will, if not his, at least that of his parents or his girlfriend.
In fact, it would not count if Michael was the only teen to take cocaine. We could then see this as a mere "personal ordeal." But when this practice is much more widespread in the population of young and old alike, it is difficult to keep thinking that there is a gap personnel: the drug becomes, this level, a "collective issue of social structure" in the words of Charles Wright Mills in this classic of classics what The sociological imagination :
The sociological imagination is precisely to be careful how biographies, individual histories, that of Michael which led to the drug, part of the collective issues in a broader history . This is the link constant, and various ways, what happens at an individual level, or microphone, and what happens at a collective level, or macro. In this tension constant lies precisely sociology. It is "the idea that the individual can think his own experience and take the measure of his destiny that lies in its period."
Some will probably try to think that there is only one way cheap to make excuses to people claiming to be the most liberal, they will say that this imagination denies the rationality of actors making them mere toys of social forces. They are wrong. If you look at the advertising above, we realize that the ethics that it proposes, this ethic of individual responsibility, the "when we want, we can", is also Economic rationality and the logic of individuals. Michael was there no "good reasons" to take drugs? His use of cocaine did not she something rational? Obviously, it is also irrelevant. We do not go to people's intelligence, but they are supposed weak-willed: the addict is necessarily lacking is not a strong individual. It's a shame because Michael is why drugs might help to understand why the recurrence of this type of campaign has never been acted on real ...
But this ethic of individual responsibility, which places the collective problems on a simple lack of will on the part of individuals, is powerful: its simplicity that it fits everywhere. It is found in the British advertising (reported at the time by Sociological Images , but I can not find the note) to fight against childhood obesity, where the responsibility of mothers just delete the whole social structure and provides requires children of fat and sugar:
Again, it says nothing about the motivation of parents (also brought by the mother alone, because as presumably, feed the kids, it's a trick chick ...), whose concern may be simply to please a child who calls what she be for him. Parents who coltinent between the contradictions inherent in the exercise of parental authority nonauthoritarian where we should love our children while denying them.
It reminds me of this conversation repeatedly in numerous theaters Teacher: How is it that students known that parents do not roll on gold are equipped with shiny cellphones and designer clothes at prices sometimes exorbitant? And each challenge the mismanagement of parents. What comes up most often, if we push the argument to end, to say that the poor are poor because they can not manage their money: an explanation explicitly in vogue in the United States, as evidenced by the debates recent the Montclair Socioblog. Who will say that when its economic situation is not brilliant, accept some sacrifices to give her child what he dreams - because as everyone is part of a society where the possession of these things is somehow enhanced. .. - Not so irrational? That's a way to show his children that we love them or prevent them from feeling too strong a stigma associated with poverty ... In short it's more because parents care about their children and meet the dominant standards because they can not manage their homes.
But the ethics of individual responsibility we cover it all. It makes us prefer the "when you want you can." The problem lies entirely in the famous remark of Maslow: If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all the problems seem to be nails. Similarly, if the only explanation you have is individual responsibility, then everything can be solved by the single sanction. And it drops all other forms of action, such as improving the situation of young people to have less temptation to take drugs. The sociological imagination could come to the aid of political imagination. It is not won.
The campaign has become the zero degree of political activity, thus a look at clips from the new campaign: we meet Michael, a young man who, we are told, took cocaine.
Against Drugs, everyone can act - Cocaine
sent Inpes . - Current time on video.
But why Michael is there cocaine if we stick to that video? We do not know. In fact, it seems from the perspective of the designers of this campaign fairly irrelevant. What matters is that if "those who love him" had told him not to do so, he would not have done. Motivations of Michael when he took the drug for the first time, his motivation to continue, because a young schoolboy be able to procure or its economic, psychological or social, we will not know because it does not seem so effective. "When we want, we can" not to take drugs, it is an effort of will, if not his, at least that of his parents or his girlfriend.
In fact, it would not count if Michael was the only teen to take cocaine. We could then see this as a mere "personal ordeal." But when this practice is much more widespread in the population of young and old alike, it is difficult to keep thinking that there is a gap personnel: the drug becomes, this level, a "collective issue of social structure" in the words of Charles Wright Mills in this classic of classics what The sociological imagination :
Think unemployed. That, in a city of 100,000 inhabitants, one man is unemployed, he crosses a personal trial; to relieve him, he must consider his character, he does do and opportunities which may arise . But when, in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million men are unemployed, we are dealing with an issue, and it is not coincidence that await a solution. The random structure is known destroyed. The correct statement the problem requires, as well as possible solutions, the screening of economic and political institutions of society, not only of situations and characters specific to a diaspora of people.
The sociological imagination is precisely to be careful how biographies, individual histories, that of Michael which led to the drug, part of the collective issues in a broader history . This is the link constant, and various ways, what happens at an individual level, or microphone, and what happens at a collective level, or macro. In this tension constant lies precisely sociology. It is "the idea that the individual can think his own experience and take the measure of his destiny that lies in its period."
Some will probably try to think that there is only one way cheap to make excuses to people claiming to be the most liberal, they will say that this imagination denies the rationality of actors making them mere toys of social forces. They are wrong. If you look at the advertising above, we realize that the ethics that it proposes, this ethic of individual responsibility, the "when we want, we can", is also Economic rationality and the logic of individuals. Michael was there no "good reasons" to take drugs? His use of cocaine did not she something rational? Obviously, it is also irrelevant. We do not go to people's intelligence, but they are supposed weak-willed: the addict is necessarily lacking is not a strong individual. It's a shame because Michael is why drugs might help to understand why the recurrence of this type of campaign has never been acted on real ...
But this ethic of individual responsibility, which places the collective problems on a simple lack of will on the part of individuals, is powerful: its simplicity that it fits everywhere. It is found in the British advertising (reported at the time by Sociological Images , but I can not find the note) to fight against childhood obesity, where the responsibility of mothers just delete the whole social structure and provides requires children of fat and sugar:
Again, it says nothing about the motivation of parents (also brought by the mother alone, because as presumably, feed the kids, it's a trick chick ...), whose concern may be simply to please a child who calls what she be for him. Parents who coltinent between the contradictions inherent in the exercise of parental authority nonauthoritarian where we should love our children while denying them.
It reminds me of this conversation repeatedly in numerous theaters Teacher: How is it that students known that parents do not roll on gold are equipped with shiny cellphones and designer clothes at prices sometimes exorbitant? And each challenge the mismanagement of parents. What comes up most often, if we push the argument to end, to say that the poor are poor because they can not manage their money: an explanation explicitly in vogue in the United States, as evidenced by the debates recent the Montclair Socioblog. Who will say that when its economic situation is not brilliant, accept some sacrifices to give her child what he dreams - because as everyone is part of a society where the possession of these things is somehow enhanced. .. - Not so irrational? That's a way to show his children that we love them or prevent them from feeling too strong a stigma associated with poverty ... In short it's more because parents care about their children and meet the dominant standards because they can not manage their homes.
But the ethics of individual responsibility we cover it all. It makes us prefer the "when you want you can." The problem lies entirely in the famous remark of Maslow: If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all the problems seem to be nails. Similarly, if the only explanation you have is individual responsibility, then everything can be solved by the single sanction. And it drops all other forms of action, such as improving the situation of young people to have less temptation to take drugs. The sociological imagination could come to the aid of political imagination. It is not won.
0 comments:
Post a Comment