Population Growth and Environment Social Problem Reflection Paper Requirements The Problem–After you read the chapter and any supplemental readings and vi

Population Growth and Environment Social Problem Reflection Paper Requirements
The Problem–After you read the chapter and any supplemental readings and view any videos, summarize the problem and how it affects society. Cite your sources in APA format. I suggest you download the APA chapter from Rules for Writers so that you have it handy for this class and any subsequent classes you have that use APA. This section should be at least 1/2 page and must include at least two sources. It should include the chapter under consideration, but also can include any other chapter, reading, or video from class. No outside sources are used. Do not quote from any source; paraphrase or summarize the information.
How this Problem has Affected You–Discuss how it has affected you. For example, I could discuss inequality in the workplace based on sex and talk about how I had a job were I started on the same day as a man and we did the same job, but he was paid more per hour than me. Or I could discuss alcohol abuse and talk about what affect my alcoholic aunt had on me growing up. This section should be at least 1/2 page; start this section right after your are done with section 1.
References–List all references cited in section 1 in APA format. You can start this section after you are done with section 2.

Check out the grading rubric in the assignment.

Papers will be graded out of 15 points on the content and also on grammar, mechanics, organization, and use of headings, correct APA citations and references (see the APA guide here), and length. I have highlighted the parts of the APA guide that are most commonly used. Papers that don’t cite properly will not be able to earn an A, so take a little bit of time to be sure you have cited properly. If you have any questions, ask me.

General Guidelines
Do not include a cover page, running head, or abstract; you don’t even need to put your name since Canvas knows who you are.
You do not need a separate introduction, just address each section. Each section should be a series of fully formed and cohesive sentences and paragraphs focused on the topic of that heading.
Use college-level English writing skills. Proofread your papers.
Recall that for APA, every citation must appear in the references and every reference must be cited.
APA does not use long signal phrases such as “John Smith (2012) says in his article The Sociology of TV in the Journal Sociology…” Instead APA format would state “According to Smith (2012)…” APA does not care about first names, and the publication and article titles are in the reference list so do NOT state them in the text. Do not do this to make your paper longer. I will notice and you will be marked off.
Plagiarism

I strongly suggest you submit your paper to the Drafts assignment in our course to check for plagiarism. Look at all matches and make appropriate changes, strive for a 0% match, but use reason when looking at the feedback. References will match of course if you have done them correctly, these matches are ok.

Submit your papers to the two reflection assignments before the date and time the module quiz is due. Find them in the Resources for this Week section of each module (2-8). You can do two in one module or spread them out, but I suggest you do those that are most interesting to you and those that you can relate to yourself. Chapter 16: War and Terrorism
“War Crimes Haunt Iraq Vet,” the headline said. In the early 2000s, John Milton, a pseudonym,
joined the Army and was sent to Iraq. There he served as a medic but was also armed. At age 21, he
and five other soldiers were driving one day back from a beer run when a small bomb hit their vehicles.
One of the soldiers died instantly, but the others survived and shot the bomber. As the bomber was
lying on the ground and needing medical attention, the soldiers began to punch and kick him. Instead
of tending to the bomber’s injuries, Milton fatally shot him in the head.
In the years since his military service ended, Milton’s war crime has haunted him. He continues to
have nightmares and cannot get rid of his guilt. He talked with a psychiatrist at a Veterans Administration
hospital, but that did not help because the psychiatrist “didn’t understand what [he] was talking
about.” Before he entered the Army, Milton said, he “used to love being around people, but no
more.” He was thinking of moving from his home in New Jersey to a quieter, emptier state like Montana
or Wyoming.
Milton also remembered being ordered to euthanize wounded but treatable Iraqi soldiers, yet
another war crime. After he did so several times, he decided he could no longer in good conscience
follow those orders. He recalled, “I can still see every one of their faces, individually, exactly what
they looked like that day.”
Source: Bykofsky, 2012
Great war novels like The Red Badge of Courage and War and Peace highlight the heroism and horror that both
occur on the battlefield. This news story likewise reminds us that war, however heroic, is also horrible. Atrocities
happen; soldiers are killed or wounded, physically and/or mentally; and civilians suffer and die. As Sydney H.
Schanberg (2005, p. 1), a former New York Times reporter who covered the US wars in Vietnam and Cambodia, has
bluntly observed, “‘History,’ Hegel said, ‘is a slaughterhouse.’ And war is how the slaughter is carried out.”
For much of human history, people considered war a necessary evil that was often waged for noble reasons.
World War II, for example, was what we now call “the good war,” fought to end Hitler’s attempt to conquer much
of the world. Millions died on the battlefield, in cities bombed by planes, and in concentration camps before Hitler
and his allies were finally defeated.
About two decades after World War II ended, the United States began fighting another war meant to save the
world for democracy, but this war was very different from the one against Hitler. This war was fought in Vietnam,
and however a noble effort World War II might have been, the Vietnam War was just as ignoble to its critics. It
was a war, some said, not to save the world for democracy but to help extend America’s power where it did not
belong. The war’s severest critics called it an act of genocide against Asians. If the World War II generation grew
up with a patriotic love for their nation, the Vietnam War generation grew up with much more cynicism about their
government and about the military.
Ironically, that generation’s concern about the military was shared by none other than President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who warned about the dangers of what he called the military-industrial complex—the friendly interplay
of the military, the defense industry, and political leaders—in his farewell presidential address (Ledbetter, 2011).
Eisenhower himself had been a member of the military-industrial complex, having served as a five-star general and
supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II before becoming president. His military
experience made him no fan of warfare; as he once observed, “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only
as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.” He also feared that the military-industrial complex was
becoming too powerful and gaining “unwarranted influence” over American life as it acted for its own interests and
not necessarily for those of the nation as a whole. He warned that the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist” (Eisenhower, 1960).
President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about what he called the “unwarranted influence” of the militaryindustrial complex.
Wikimedia Commons – public domain.
Eisenhower’s fears about the military-industrial complex reflected his more general concern about militarism,
or an overemphasis on military policy and spending, which he thought was costing the nation far too much money.
In a remarkable and now famous statement made early in his presidency, Eisenhower (1960, p. A1) declared, “Every
gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who
hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It
is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at
all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
Eisenhower’s concerns are even more valid today. As the United States and other governments spend hundreds
of billions of dollars annually on their militaries, mass death and destruction from war beyond what Eisenhower
could have ever imagined are a major concern, and serious social needs go unmet. It is probably trite to say that
war profoundly affects societies, but that is precisely why war and the threat of war are considered perhaps the most
pressing social problem of our times and a threat to the entire planet.
Terrorism also profoundly affects societies. Yet most Americans probably did not consider terrorism a social
problem before September 11, 2001, when, as has often been said, the world changed. On that terrible day, terrorists
drove two passenger jets into the World Trade Center in New York and another into the Pentagon; a fourth plane
apparently headed for a Washington, DC, target crashed in central Pennsylvania when brave passengers fought back.
The shock of the 3,000 deaths that resulted continues to haunt us even as we have become accustomed to homeland
security measures in our airports and elsewhere that would have seemed inconceivable a generation ago.
Against this horrific backdrop of the modern era, this chapter examines war and terrorism as the final social
problems discussed in this book. As forms of armed conflict that aim to defeat an opponent, war and terrorism
have been part of the human experience for thousands of years. However, their manifestation in the contemporary
era is particularly frightening, thanks to ever more powerful weapons, such as nuclear arms, that threaten human
existence. We consider their causes, dynamics, and consequences before discussing certain actions and policies that
might conceivably reduce these threats to peaceful societies and human existence.
References
Bykofsky, S. (2012, February 10). War crimes haunt Iraq vet. Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved from
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120210_Stu_Bykofsky War_crimes_haunt_Iraq_vet.html.
Eisenhower, D. D. (1960). Farewell Speech. New York Times, A1.
Eisenhower, D. D. (1960). Public papers of the presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Ledbetter, J. (2011). Unwarranted influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the military-industrial complex. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Schanberg, S. H. (2005, May 10). Not a pretty picture. The Village Voice, p. 1.
16.1 Sociological Perspectives on War and Terrorism
1. Summarize the key assumptions and emphases of the functionalist, conflict, and
symbolic interactionist perspectives on war and terrorism.
The three major sociological perspectives offer some very different understandings of war and terrorism. You might
agree with some of their assumptions and disagree with other assumptions, but together they capture the major
dimensions of these two forms of armed conflict. Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes these assumptions.
Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot
Theoretica
l
perspective
Major assumptions
Functionalism
War and terrorism serve several important functions. For example, they increase social solidarity as a society
unites to defeat a perceived enemy. Some wars have also helped preserve freedom and democracy.
Conflic
t theory
War and militarism primarily advance the interests of the military-industrial complex and take billions of
dollars from unmet social needs.
Symbolic
interactionism
Symbols such as the flag play an important role in marshaling support for war. Definitions of several
concepts also play an important role in public opinion regarding war and terrorism.
Functionalism
Recall that functionalism emphasizes the usefulness of certain behaviors and social institutions for many aspects
of society. One of functionalism’s most important insights is that social problems might actually be useful in this
way, however many difficulties they might otherwise cause. To use an example from Chapter 1 “Understanding
Social Problems”, crime certainly causes many problems, but it also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in law
enforcement, courts and corrections, home security, and other sectors of the economy that deal with crime.
In this spirit, functionalism similarly emphasizes the ways in which war and terrorism are useful for society,
however horrible they are in so many other ways. Perhaps the first sociologist to make this point for war was
Robert E. Park, the 1925 president of the American Sociological Association (which was then called the American
Sociological Society—a name that was later changed because of its acronym!). In January 1941, less than a year
before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Park published an influential essay called “The Social Function of War:
Observations and Notes,” in a leading sociology journal (Park, 1941).
Park’s essay outlined several functions of war. First, war helps resolve international disputes over matters such
as territorial boundaries and religious and other ideologies. No matter what one might think of war, historically it
641
16.1 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WAR AND TERRORISM • 642
has resolved disputes between nations, with the winner of the war winning the dispute. Even though very few people
would say that war is a preferred method for resolving a dispute, it still has performed this function.
Second, war generates a stronger sense of social bonding and solidarity within the societies that are at war.
Having a common enemy, people within a society at war “come together” with a shared purpose and feel more
united and patriotic than before. This dynamic is called the external conflict/internal cohesion process (Markides &
Cohn, 1982). Although Park did not discuss terrorism, this form of armed conflict can also create social solidarity.
In the days and weeks after 9/11, Americans came together as one people, and the president of France famously
said, “We are all Americans.”
War generates a sense of social cohesion among the people in a society that is at war.
Glenn Harper – Flags – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Third, wars many centuries ago, such as those in which ancient Rome in essence formed and grew from
conquering various tribes, led to the development of the nation-state as a political institution. As these tribes came
under the rule of nation-states, their separate tribal identities weakened as they gradually identified themselves
as one people belonging to their nation-state; Park (p. 569) referred to this process as “the coming-together and
integration of races and peoples.” Moreover, the size and resources of these nation-states allowed them to generate
scientific, cultural, and political advances that played an important role in world history. War, then, indirectly
16.1 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WAR AND TERRORISM • 643
contributed to these advances. Although nation-states still might have eventually developed even without war, their
development was accelerated by war.
Other functions of war can also be cited. Some wars, including the American colonists’ war against England
and the Allies’ war against Hitler and Japan, have helped maintain and establish freedom and democracy. In
the past and also today, war and military service have also provided important opportunities for jobs and career
advancement for people of color and women. Related to this, the US military provides millions of jobs annually and
is a ready form of employment for people who only have a high school education. More generally, the military and
the defense industry are certainly important components of the US economy, and military spending in some eras
has helped stimulate the US economy. In perhaps the most notable example of this effect, spending for World War
II is commonly credited with helping to lift the United States out of the Great Depression (Shiller, 2012).
In a final function, weapons research and other types of military research have contributed to scientific and
technological development in general. For example, military research played a key role in the early development of
the Internet.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory’s perspective on war and the military is decidedly more negative than that of functionalism. There
are actually many different views within conflict theory about war and the military, but three related views stand
out. The first view echoes President Eisenhower’s concern over the power and influence of the military-industrial
complex. According to conflict theory, the United States spends so much on the military and even goes to war
because military officials, defense contractors, and political leaders work hand-in-hand in a rather cozy relationship.
Although they may profess that their actions are meant to keep the nation safe, their ultimate goal is to enhance their
political power and financial well-being.
The most famous critique of the military-industrial complex from a conflict theorist is undoubtedly that of
sociologist C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite (1956). According to Mills, the power elite is composed of
government, big business, and the military, which together constitute a ruling class that controls society and works
for its own interests, not for the interests of the citizenry. Members of the power elite, Mills said, see each other
socially and serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organizations, and other bodies.
When cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they often become corporate
executives; military officials in particular join defense contractors. Conversely, corporate executives often become
cabinet members and other key political appointees, and defense industry executives often end up in the Pentagon.
This circulation of the elites creates a rather cozy relationship that helps ensure their dominance over American life
and in particular ensures that the military-industrial complex has an untold influence over economic and foreign
policy.
A more recent critique of the military-industrial complex and foreign policy by sociologist Mark C. Worrell
(2011, p. 51) bluntly stresses the role played by the desire for corporate profits: “War is business and it is
profitable…What we learned in the aftermath of World War II is that mass destruction is great for corporate
profits…War is driven by corporate profits and corporations drive politics.” According to Worrell and other
contemporary critics of what they call the warfare state, the United States now has a permanent war economy. In
their view, the war on terrorism after 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “have only deepened the trend
toward ever more concentrated state, corporate, and military power in a society that ostensibly embraces democratic
values” (Boggs, 2011, p. ix).
The second view of conflict theory concerns imperialism, or the use of military power and other means to
extend a nation’s influence and control over other nations. This view, held by the more radical proponents of conflict
theory, argues that war and other military ventures by the United States are done for the sake of imperialism rather
than for noble goals such as the preservation and extension of democracy. In this view, the United States wages war
and engages in other military actions to gain access to oil and other resources of other societies, with the ultimate
aim of enriching multinational corporations and other parties. The characterization does not hold true for World War
16.1 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WAR AND TERRORISM • 644
II, conflict theorists concede, but they argue it holds true for many and perhaps most other US wars and military
actions, historically and today. In their view, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular were fought under false
pretenses to maintain adequate oil supply and more generally to extend America’s military and economic influence
around the world (Worrell, 2011).
A third view of conflict theory criticizes the size of the military budget and emphasizes the billions of
dollars it takes from social needs such as poverty and climate change. As sociologist Carl Boggs (2011, p. 17)
argues, “The war economy, for its part, devours roughly one trillion dollars in material, technological, and human
resources yearly…, ensuring a pattern of waste, destruction, uneven development, eroded public infrastructures, and
decimated social programs. Decaying American cities have become a supreme legacy of the warfare system.” We
return to this issue later in this chapter.
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionist writing on war features several emphases. One theme concerns the perceptions and
experiences of people involved in war: soldiers, civilians, and others. There are many moving accounts, for example,
both real and fictitious, of soldiers’ life on the battlefield and after they come home from war.
Figure 16.1 International Peace Symbol
Source: Clip art: http://www.homemade-preschool.com/image-files/peace-sign-black.png.
A second emphasis concerns the use of symbols to marshal support for war or protest against war. Symbols
such as the flag evoke feelings of patriotism, perhaps especially when a nation is at war. The president and other
politicians typically display a flag when they give major speeches, and it would be unthinkable for a flag not to be
showing when the speech is about war or the threat of war. During the Vietnam War, protesters sometimes flew the
16.1 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WAR AND TERRORISM • 645
US flag upside-down (the international symbol of distress) to show their hatred of the war, and some protesters also
burned the flag—an act that is almost guaranteed to provoke outrage and hostility from onlookers.
Other symbols can also be important. When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, millions of
Americans put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to show their support for the troops.
The largest manufacturer of the ribbons sold more than one million monthly a year after the war began. However,
sales slipped as support for the war declined, and four years after the war numbered only 4,000 monthly (Ward,
2007). Another ubiquitous symbol during the Vietnam War was the so-called international peace symbol (see
Figure 16.1 “International Peace Symbol”), originally designed in the late 1950s to symbolize concern over nuclear
weapons. Vietnam War protesters wore this symbol on their clothing, and many put peace symbol decals on their
motor vehicles, book bags, and other possessions.
A third emphasis of symbolic interactionism concerns how concepts related to war and terrorism come to be
defined in ways that advance the goals of va…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment