Creating Long-Term, Meaningful, and Sustainable Change Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
Jenny Freedman
Sociological Imaginations
April 24, 2020
With preexisting barriers between political parties in the United States, the current COVID-19 pandemic during Donald Trump’s presidency even further reveals the heightened tensions between liberals and conservatives. In general, the right points to the naivety of the left and the left emphasizes the illogicality of the right. Rather than attaining a mutual understanding, people become further cemented in their beliefs without viewing the full picture of social, emotional, and cultural influences. During such a great period of change and unrest, most of the world is forced to face uncertainty and their own mortality. Scarcity in any form causes a person’s mental bandwidth to lessen, and nowadays nearly everyone is facing scarcity in mental and emotional capacity, physical resources, and more. Many are affected by the lack of jobs, lack of human interaction, lack of income, lack of compassion, and, most of all, the lack of normalcy. While this is undeniably a difficult period for the majority of Americans, I think it is also an opportunity to act more sustainably.
This period of disruption can strengthen us to come back together stronger if we allow it to do so. Determining one’s needs versus wants can be altered depending on circumstance. Fear and anxiety that comes with large changes can often allow for the loss of basic values and practices. As Emile Durkheim suggests in Suicide: A Study in Sociology, changes in reality that are disproportionate to one’s expectations have a large mental impact and require a recalibration in beliefs (Durkheim 1897:377). Understandably, we forget what we need to upkeep our mental and emotional practices, as physical health is the most significant concern right now. Our priorities are shuffled. We are left disorganized and distressed. However, a period of dysfunction can allow individuals to take a step back and realign their values. In the end, unity on an individual level has the power to create widespread change and social movements. I argue that, while we all have beliefs becoming increasingly reinforced and it is important to advocate for those, it is most important to empathize first.
A spectrum between intense groupness and intense individuality has always existed, but this distinction is only heightened through current physical quarantining. For the most part, we are all isolated right now. As Durkheim highlights, the disturbance of a normative structure forces us to experience anomie, or a disconnection from the group, and, in the current pandemic, to face our own mortality. Durkheim utilized the results of his empirical study on suicide to determine that humans are dependent on amount of integration and regulation. Integration in society is defined by one’s placement on the spectrum of dependence and egoism, or self-interest (Durkheim 1897:216). This governs each individual’s amount of agency. Durkheim suggests that individuals should not be completely dependent on others, but still accept trust and support from them. A balance between the individual and the collective mind is required. Regulation refers to an overarching body of rules and standards and its’ interference in an individual’s life. Constraints give individuals meaning on an institutional level (Durkheim 1897:15). The striking truth is that harmony and order require an acceptance of social roles and absence of challenges to the hierarchy. This also allows for rampant oppression and exclusion to occur on a large scale and discourages individual voices and inferences. Like most life questions, it comes down to finding a balance between reliance on others and self-sufficiency.
Within this period of isolation, many people are relying on the internet to stay connected. Milgram famously examined the impact of proxemics, or space between humans, as he varied the distance between the subject and victim. Increased physical distance from brutal acts results in decreased responsibility perceived by the individual and, therefore, deceased strain, or the participant’s experience of tension. Distance acts as a buffer to reduce strain, which is magnified by the usage of a switch, as the ease of the action does not align with the extremely painful consequences (Milgram 1974:157). Additionally, I often see people invalidate others’ points of view, or even the credibility of their entire life experience, due to one point of disagreement. To an extent, the alienation of those that possess opposing beliefs or different appearances is inevitable; humans find a sense of belonging and comfort within what they view as normal. Durkheim implies that each individual requires boundaries to provide clarity, purpose, and unity – key characteristics of a functional society (Durkheim 1897:251). This concept is defined by the term stigma, which Erving Goffman examined, and can be found within and supported by modern cancel culture.
Piping hot tea, collecting receipts, and exposing sketchy pasts; these are the main ingredients to “canceling”, or discrediting and damaging, an individual’s image for the public eye. Cancel culture is outlined by the idea that one mistake can and should lead to years of shame and intolerance. This concept is most prevalent on YouTube and other forms of social media but can be seen in any large controversy. On YouTube specifically, there are hundreds of channels run by individuals dedicated to “exposing” people and their personal drama. This extreme form of accountability is fueled by the same intrigue that lures masses of people to flip through “juicy gossip” sections in celebrity-focused magazines. Gossip is dependent on a neglect of empathy and support of mass dehumanization. On the other hand, these negative consequences and behaviors are only the results of cancel culture; the concept was originally developed with respectable intentions. Questioning racist and homophobic remarks that have gone under the radar upholds individuals in the spotlight to take their influence seriously and educate themselves. It is highly imperative to receive constructive criticism and pushback in order to grow as a person. The issue arises when people believe they retain a moral high ground and form a hierarchy of beliefs. I believe that everyone should take responsibility for their actions and recognize if they made a mistake. However, this does not justify the unfaltering persecution of individuals with no regard to their deep stories.
When under intense pressure, one’s morals and beliefs often do not coincide with one’s actual behavior and actions. The key argument that Milgram constructs explains how “moral factors can be shunted aside with relative ease by a calculated restructuring of the informal and social field”; this means that obedience is situational and often determined by outside forces rather than individual autonomy (Milgram 1974:7). Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is at the top of everyone’s mind at the moment. One week after my state, Maryland, officially announced the stay at home order, I found myself needing to go to the grocery store. Walking through the sparse parking lot to the front of the grocery store brought a sudden burst of many emotions that I did not realize were there. Almost everyone, including myself, was wearing a mask and gloves, shoppers were lined up outside (of course standing six feet apart) due to the store limit of 85 people at a time, and I walk past a woman yelling at the teenage store clerk that is in charge of allowing customers to enter. The woman insists that she needs to skip the line because she is entering the store to quickly use the bathroom instead of to shop. The stark difference between my typical grocery store experience and what I witnessed and felt just standing outside the store one week into the pandemic. I was in shock.
One result of the pandemic that allows for dysfunction, but has the potential to be a source of unity, is that the same question hangs over everyone’s heads right now -- How does or should one handle large changes? Everyone is coping with a variety of issues in their own ways, but the cause of widespread instability and disruptions to norms is what we all have in common. Facing highs and lows is a natural and important part of life. I always remind myself that one cannot appreciate or even recognize the good times without having the bad to compare it to. It is dangerous to hold strong expectations, as this allows them to maintain the potential of coming crashing down when circumstances shift.
It is important to recognize that the world is the most interconnected and globalized that it has ever been. We cannot act as if social forces do not affect us; no one acts solely for themselves, as the majority of our behaviors are culturally influenced and learned. We must accept that we are not in control. Although I identify as agnostic, I find that theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Serenity Prayer” embodies this concept extremely effectively. In 1944, Niebuhr published his Serenity Prayer in his work A Book of Prayers and Services for the Armed Forces. It read:
Sociological Imaginations
April 24, 2020
With preexisting barriers between political parties in the United States, the current COVID-19 pandemic during Donald Trump’s presidency even further reveals the heightened tensions between liberals and conservatives. In general, the right points to the naivety of the left and the left emphasizes the illogicality of the right. Rather than attaining a mutual understanding, people become further cemented in their beliefs without viewing the full picture of social, emotional, and cultural influences. During such a great period of change and unrest, most of the world is forced to face uncertainty and their own mortality. Scarcity in any form causes a person’s mental bandwidth to lessen, and nowadays nearly everyone is facing scarcity in mental and emotional capacity, physical resources, and more. Many are affected by the lack of jobs, lack of human interaction, lack of income, lack of compassion, and, most of all, the lack of normalcy. While this is undeniably a difficult period for the majority of Americans, I think it is also an opportunity to act more sustainably.
This period of disruption can strengthen us to come back together stronger if we allow it to do so. Determining one’s needs versus wants can be altered depending on circumstance. Fear and anxiety that comes with large changes can often allow for the loss of basic values and practices. As Emile Durkheim suggests in Suicide: A Study in Sociology, changes in reality that are disproportionate to one’s expectations have a large mental impact and require a recalibration in beliefs (Durkheim 1897:377). Understandably, we forget what we need to upkeep our mental and emotional practices, as physical health is the most significant concern right now. Our priorities are shuffled. We are left disorganized and distressed. However, a period of dysfunction can allow individuals to take a step back and realign their values. In the end, unity on an individual level has the power to create widespread change and social movements. I argue that, while we all have beliefs becoming increasingly reinforced and it is important to advocate for those, it is most important to empathize first.
A spectrum between intense groupness and intense individuality has always existed, but this distinction is only heightened through current physical quarantining. For the most part, we are all isolated right now. As Durkheim highlights, the disturbance of a normative structure forces us to experience anomie, or a disconnection from the group, and, in the current pandemic, to face our own mortality. Durkheim utilized the results of his empirical study on suicide to determine that humans are dependent on amount of integration and regulation. Integration in society is defined by one’s placement on the spectrum of dependence and egoism, or self-interest (Durkheim 1897:216). This governs each individual’s amount of agency. Durkheim suggests that individuals should not be completely dependent on others, but still accept trust and support from them. A balance between the individual and the collective mind is required. Regulation refers to an overarching body of rules and standards and its’ interference in an individual’s life. Constraints give individuals meaning on an institutional level (Durkheim 1897:15). The striking truth is that harmony and order require an acceptance of social roles and absence of challenges to the hierarchy. This also allows for rampant oppression and exclusion to occur on a large scale and discourages individual voices and inferences. Like most life questions, it comes down to finding a balance between reliance on others and self-sufficiency.
Within this period of isolation, many people are relying on the internet to stay connected. Milgram famously examined the impact of proxemics, or space between humans, as he varied the distance between the subject and victim. Increased physical distance from brutal acts results in decreased responsibility perceived by the individual and, therefore, deceased strain, or the participant’s experience of tension. Distance acts as a buffer to reduce strain, which is magnified by the usage of a switch, as the ease of the action does not align with the extremely painful consequences (Milgram 1974:157). Additionally, I often see people invalidate others’ points of view, or even the credibility of their entire life experience, due to one point of disagreement. To an extent, the alienation of those that possess opposing beliefs or different appearances is inevitable; humans find a sense of belonging and comfort within what they view as normal. Durkheim implies that each individual requires boundaries to provide clarity, purpose, and unity – key characteristics of a functional society (Durkheim 1897:251). This concept is defined by the term stigma, which Erving Goffman examined, and can be found within and supported by modern cancel culture.
Piping hot tea, collecting receipts, and exposing sketchy pasts; these are the main ingredients to “canceling”, or discrediting and damaging, an individual’s image for the public eye. Cancel culture is outlined by the idea that one mistake can and should lead to years of shame and intolerance. This concept is most prevalent on YouTube and other forms of social media but can be seen in any large controversy. On YouTube specifically, there are hundreds of channels run by individuals dedicated to “exposing” people and their personal drama. This extreme form of accountability is fueled by the same intrigue that lures masses of people to flip through “juicy gossip” sections in celebrity-focused magazines. Gossip is dependent on a neglect of empathy and support of mass dehumanization. On the other hand, these negative consequences and behaviors are only the results of cancel culture; the concept was originally developed with respectable intentions. Questioning racist and homophobic remarks that have gone under the radar upholds individuals in the spotlight to take their influence seriously and educate themselves. It is highly imperative to receive constructive criticism and pushback in order to grow as a person. The issue arises when people believe they retain a moral high ground and form a hierarchy of beliefs. I believe that everyone should take responsibility for their actions and recognize if they made a mistake. However, this does not justify the unfaltering persecution of individuals with no regard to their deep stories.
When under intense pressure, one’s morals and beliefs often do not coincide with one’s actual behavior and actions. The key argument that Milgram constructs explains how “moral factors can be shunted aside with relative ease by a calculated restructuring of the informal and social field”; this means that obedience is situational and often determined by outside forces rather than individual autonomy (Milgram 1974:7). Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is at the top of everyone’s mind at the moment. One week after my state, Maryland, officially announced the stay at home order, I found myself needing to go to the grocery store. Walking through the sparse parking lot to the front of the grocery store brought a sudden burst of many emotions that I did not realize were there. Almost everyone, including myself, was wearing a mask and gloves, shoppers were lined up outside (of course standing six feet apart) due to the store limit of 85 people at a time, and I walk past a woman yelling at the teenage store clerk that is in charge of allowing customers to enter. The woman insists that she needs to skip the line because she is entering the store to quickly use the bathroom instead of to shop. The stark difference between my typical grocery store experience and what I witnessed and felt just standing outside the store one week into the pandemic. I was in shock.
One result of the pandemic that allows for dysfunction, but has the potential to be a source of unity, is that the same question hangs over everyone’s heads right now -- How does or should one handle large changes? Everyone is coping with a variety of issues in their own ways, but the cause of widespread instability and disruptions to norms is what we all have in common. Facing highs and lows is a natural and important part of life. I always remind myself that one cannot appreciate or even recognize the good times without having the bad to compare it to. It is dangerous to hold strong expectations, as this allows them to maintain the potential of coming crashing down when circumstances shift.
It is important to recognize that the world is the most interconnected and globalized that it has ever been. We cannot act as if social forces do not affect us; no one acts solely for themselves, as the majority of our behaviors are culturally influenced and learned. We must accept that we are not in control. Although I identify as agnostic, I find that theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Serenity Prayer” embodies this concept extremely effectively. In 1944, Niebuhr published his Serenity Prayer in his work A Book of Prayers and Services for the Armed Forces. It read:
“God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace…”
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace…”
We are defined by our environments and surrounded by the culture of our specific milieu. What we can control is what we decide to devote our lives through obtaining capital, or wealth, in specific fields. Wealth is typically thought of in monetary contexts, but it can also be expressed by an individual’s knowledge and resources. Moral capital is obtained through experience, ethical discernment, and wisdom. Time capital is obtained through the freedom from excessive physical and mental strains. Emotional capital is obtained through phycological nourishment. We all make choices that prioritize certain types of capitals, and they often influence and interact with each other.
Juliet Schor successfully defines the connections between various forms of wealth and capital in her book True Wealth. She highlights the economic effects of current society’s priorities and norms. Instead of maintaining and nurturing the current market, or business-as usual (BAU) activity, Schor asserts that the American way of life must undergo a complete reconstruction focused on sustainability, innovation, and individual well-being. She titles this refocusing of values “plenitude” (Schor 2011:13). Instead of masking our BAU economy with a more ecologically friendly appearance, plenitude is a transition period before reaching “true wealth” that requires trust in individuals, local businesses, a new allocation of time, and dedication to sustainability. Commitment on an individual level is required to produce widespread change. If individuals create and grow resources on their own, less is required of them to buy and less pressure is put on the individual to earn money (Schor 2011:13). The issue is that many factors of our society and culture deter individuals from wholly committing to plentitude.
It is easier for people to follow the crowd and stick to what they know, even if the benefits of change are potentially abundant. Additionally, the lack of universal health care in the U.S. prevents the plenitude lifestyle from being more accessible. People dedicate a large amount of time to their work-life to ensure that they receive benefits and construct a secure safety net. Consequently, a common scarcity mentality produces a widespread mindset that we do not have time to relax, as too much off-work time is wasteful and unproductive. Many Americans are not given the privilege of not being wholly focused on wealth and consumption of goods; however, even the people that are financially stable are often resistant to major lifestyle changes.
Overlooking privilege only heightens the extent of damage to our climate and natural resources. The materiality paradox that Schor examines is a major component in the destructive cycle of excessive waste. This paradox states that the prices of most goods do not factor in the damage to the ecosystem; this allows for cheaper goods, more products sold, and more waste. The demand for products at very low prices sets a new standard of what consumers expect and diminishes the significance of ecological production costs (Schor 2011:40). Schor outlines the less visible and more complex reasoning behind committing to plenitude, as the wealth she is referring to is not monetary and consumption-based, but rather seen in the restoration of our planet’s beauty along with our souls and individual fulfillment. Changes to the structure of our routines seem highly daunting, but the fear is often heightened by a reluctance to accept change and adapt. What may appear to be large lifestyle shifts are relatively small prices to pay in order to support sustainable goals that provide long-term solutions. I took my first step by prioritizing small, local businesses and abandoning fast fashion, as there are numerous benefits to thrifting, consignment stores, and ethically made clothes. One dividing factor that provides a rift in the achievement of widespread sustainable practices is political agendas.
Most individuals like to believe that their values and morals are correct. This issue is that is viewpoint invalidates the perspectives that arise from divergent experiences and circumstances. In her book, Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Russell Hochshild uncovers this structure of refutation by deeply immersing herself into rural Louisiana culture and befriending the people without the confines of their political beliefs. One factor that Hochschild observes is that, even though alt right republican representatives typically work to heighten the domination of big businesses and the destruction of the environment, the majority of small-town Southerners will continuously vote for them because they represent the social values that make up their culture. Social debates like eliminating abortions, maintaining gun rights, and decreasing governmental power (Hochschild 2016:21). Hochschild discovered that many conservatives feel offended and ostracized by the left, which only adds fuel to the fire that burns any bridges between political parties. There are always two sides of the story, but it just takes one to recognize this phenomenon.
There is no distinct line between good and bad beliefs, as is the same with human beings. The empathy wall that the left and right have crafted is more of a historical and psychological one; this perception is fueled by an “us versus them mentality” based on alienation and the segregation of beliefs. In American politics, I feel as if any association with republicans from the view of the many people on the left comes across with a sense of superiority and distaste. I feel as if this could be viewed as underhandedly labeling and associating each person’s political identity with their moral compass and core beliefs. The intentions of the right often do not align with the disgust and alienation from the left. Many of them value the environment, kindness, and respect; however, the issue lies in the methods of achieving those goals, which often comes down to the question of governmental involvement. I find it important, especially as a liberal myself, to identify that we all have our prejudices correlated to our political viewpoints.
All debates and issues in general should be approached with empathy; otherwise, meaningful solutions are much harder to come by. Considering the expanding wall that is growing between political parties, everyone must make an effort to listen to others’ perspectives. It can be hard to do so because empathy is a two-way street, so people tend to respond to brashness with more anger and opposition. America must rely on individuals to adjust their mindset and recognize that empathy is for the greater good; it is not necessarily for immediate defeats, but rather for mutual compromises and improved communication. The issue is that most humans are not able to trust without conditions, including myself.
Humans desire clarity, logic, and action that matches with their own experiences and learned culture; however, this can never be the case of every individual. Rather, I suggest we embrace diversity and use it to learn from and challenge each other rather than push others away. Donald Trump’s presidency and what many would consider the absurd events that followed has allowed millions to be dictated by fear, brashness, and hostility. I believe this is such an important sentiment that isn’t expressed and enacted nearly enough. It is necessary for each person to find a balance between rationality and emotionality. No belief is purely logical, as we all have preexisting biases, learned norms, and cultural influences. All humans have been raised with different backgrounds and surrounded by various environments that mold their identity. This is why it is so troubling to practice empathy with those that are seemingly the opposite of oneself. Empathy is often troubling, but it is our responsibility as humans to practice it.
Juliet Schor successfully defines the connections between various forms of wealth and capital in her book True Wealth. She highlights the economic effects of current society’s priorities and norms. Instead of maintaining and nurturing the current market, or business-as usual (BAU) activity, Schor asserts that the American way of life must undergo a complete reconstruction focused on sustainability, innovation, and individual well-being. She titles this refocusing of values “plenitude” (Schor 2011:13). Instead of masking our BAU economy with a more ecologically friendly appearance, plenitude is a transition period before reaching “true wealth” that requires trust in individuals, local businesses, a new allocation of time, and dedication to sustainability. Commitment on an individual level is required to produce widespread change. If individuals create and grow resources on their own, less is required of them to buy and less pressure is put on the individual to earn money (Schor 2011:13). The issue is that many factors of our society and culture deter individuals from wholly committing to plentitude.
It is easier for people to follow the crowd and stick to what they know, even if the benefits of change are potentially abundant. Additionally, the lack of universal health care in the U.S. prevents the plenitude lifestyle from being more accessible. People dedicate a large amount of time to their work-life to ensure that they receive benefits and construct a secure safety net. Consequently, a common scarcity mentality produces a widespread mindset that we do not have time to relax, as too much off-work time is wasteful and unproductive. Many Americans are not given the privilege of not being wholly focused on wealth and consumption of goods; however, even the people that are financially stable are often resistant to major lifestyle changes.
Overlooking privilege only heightens the extent of damage to our climate and natural resources. The materiality paradox that Schor examines is a major component in the destructive cycle of excessive waste. This paradox states that the prices of most goods do not factor in the damage to the ecosystem; this allows for cheaper goods, more products sold, and more waste. The demand for products at very low prices sets a new standard of what consumers expect and diminishes the significance of ecological production costs (Schor 2011:40). Schor outlines the less visible and more complex reasoning behind committing to plenitude, as the wealth she is referring to is not monetary and consumption-based, but rather seen in the restoration of our planet’s beauty along with our souls and individual fulfillment. Changes to the structure of our routines seem highly daunting, but the fear is often heightened by a reluctance to accept change and adapt. What may appear to be large lifestyle shifts are relatively small prices to pay in order to support sustainable goals that provide long-term solutions. I took my first step by prioritizing small, local businesses and abandoning fast fashion, as there are numerous benefits to thrifting, consignment stores, and ethically made clothes. One dividing factor that provides a rift in the achievement of widespread sustainable practices is political agendas.
Most individuals like to believe that their values and morals are correct. This issue is that is viewpoint invalidates the perspectives that arise from divergent experiences and circumstances. In her book, Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Russell Hochshild uncovers this structure of refutation by deeply immersing herself into rural Louisiana culture and befriending the people without the confines of their political beliefs. One factor that Hochschild observes is that, even though alt right republican representatives typically work to heighten the domination of big businesses and the destruction of the environment, the majority of small-town Southerners will continuously vote for them because they represent the social values that make up their culture. Social debates like eliminating abortions, maintaining gun rights, and decreasing governmental power (Hochschild 2016:21). Hochschild discovered that many conservatives feel offended and ostracized by the left, which only adds fuel to the fire that burns any bridges between political parties. There are always two sides of the story, but it just takes one to recognize this phenomenon.
There is no distinct line between good and bad beliefs, as is the same with human beings. The empathy wall that the left and right have crafted is more of a historical and psychological one; this perception is fueled by an “us versus them mentality” based on alienation and the segregation of beliefs. In American politics, I feel as if any association with republicans from the view of the many people on the left comes across with a sense of superiority and distaste. I feel as if this could be viewed as underhandedly labeling and associating each person’s political identity with their moral compass and core beliefs. The intentions of the right often do not align with the disgust and alienation from the left. Many of them value the environment, kindness, and respect; however, the issue lies in the methods of achieving those goals, which often comes down to the question of governmental involvement. I find it important, especially as a liberal myself, to identify that we all have our prejudices correlated to our political viewpoints.
All debates and issues in general should be approached with empathy; otherwise, meaningful solutions are much harder to come by. Considering the expanding wall that is growing between political parties, everyone must make an effort to listen to others’ perspectives. It can be hard to do so because empathy is a two-way street, so people tend to respond to brashness with more anger and opposition. America must rely on individuals to adjust their mindset and recognize that empathy is for the greater good; it is not necessarily for immediate defeats, but rather for mutual compromises and improved communication. The issue is that most humans are not able to trust without conditions, including myself.
Humans desire clarity, logic, and action that matches with their own experiences and learned culture; however, this can never be the case of every individual. Rather, I suggest we embrace diversity and use it to learn from and challenge each other rather than push others away. Donald Trump’s presidency and what many would consider the absurd events that followed has allowed millions to be dictated by fear, brashness, and hostility. I believe this is such an important sentiment that isn’t expressed and enacted nearly enough. It is necessary for each person to find a balance between rationality and emotionality. No belief is purely logical, as we all have preexisting biases, learned norms, and cultural influences. All humans have been raised with different backgrounds and surrounded by various environments that mold their identity. This is why it is so troubling to practice empathy with those that are seemingly the opposite of oneself. Empathy is often troubling, but it is our responsibility as humans to practice it.
Works Cited
Durkheim, Émile. 1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2016. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York, NY: The New Press.
Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Schor, Juliet. 2011. True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time-Rich, Ecologically Light, Small-Scale, High-Satisfaction Economy. London, England: Penguin Books.