In a representative democracy, policy makers ostensibly use the
regulatory process to implement regulations designed to make life easier and
safer—their choices supposedly guided by the will of the people. As Wedel,
Shore, Feldman and Lathrop (2005) noted, though, the policy crafting process is
more than establishing “guidelines” or “legal frameworks,” which are neutral
sounding euphemisms for ideologically based assumptions about how individuals should function; it is about imposing a standardized version of this
behavior and positing that deviance is unacceptable. While there are
circumstances within which this is appropriate—such as those laws regulating
driving on public highways, or respecting property and personal rights,
other social engineering approaches to policy writing are more harmful than
helpful. A good case in point is the current debate about women’s reproductive
rights.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, states have passed a record
number of bills in 2011 designed to restrict women’s access to abortion and certain
types of reproductive health care ("States
Enact," 2011). These laws are based upon definitional finesses about
when life begins, and reflect the personal ideologies of state legislators.
Wedel et al.(2005) noted that it is important to understand not only the way
policy restricts behaviors, but also how it is used to impose concepts about
what it “means to be human” (p. 37). In this context, legally restricting a
woman’s right to access certain types of health care, is using policy to define
not only what “life” consists of, but also the adulthood and freedom of women.
Another –and very contrasting--way in which policy is used to
establish “normalcy,” is the manner in which the Department of Fish and
Wildlife is “managing” wildlife. In Idaho, the DFW is using
aerial hunting to drastically reduce the wolf population in the Lolo National
Forest, allegedly to raise the number of elk in the area ("Potential," 2011-12).
As citizens of the United States, we all own these wolves, yet we are not
consulted in any way about how these animal populations are “managed.” The
rancher and hunter lobbies are very powerful in western states, and the DFW
profits from selling hunting licenses (Iverson-Long, 2010), while some communities
benefit financially from hosting hunters. This type of “wildlife management,” it
seems, is not based upon what is best for the wolf, the elk, the forest, or the
citizens of the United States, but what profits a limited number of individuals.
Opposition is “muted” by these groups and supportive policymakers by using
arguments that Wedel et al. (2005) have characterized as designed to “mobilize
the language of science, reason, and “common sense” (p. 37). Those who prefer
to save the wolves and allow nature to establish ecological balance are “tree
huggers,” or “kooks,”, while ranchers and hunters are conserving what should be
considered “normal,” and traditional.
These examples serve as reminders that policy reflects the
paradigms and worldview of the authors, but not necessarily that of their
constituents. The trend we are seeing now where ideologically rigid, hyper
conservative individuals use public policy to push their personal worldviews and
agendas is a serious threat to democracy. Wedel et al.(2005)
pointed out that the rhetoric accompanying public policy is rarely examined,
nor is it understood as a reflection of personal biases and paradigms, whether
shared by a group or not. As such, it can be benign or malevolent, equitable or
grossly unjust. Public policy should never be used for social engineering, and
should be much easier to dismantle if found to be erroneous or damaging.
References
Iverson-Long, B. (2010).
Successful wolf hunt may not be profitable. Retrieved from
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/successful-wolf-hunt-may-not-be-profitable/
Potential Wolf ControlActions
in Lolo Zone. (2011-12). Retrieved from
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/actionLoloZone.pdf
States Enact Record Number of
Abortion Restrictions in First Half of 2011. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/07/13/index.html
Wedel, J., Shore, C., Feldman,
G., & Lathrop, S. (2005, June 10). Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy.
ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 600,
30-51. doi:10.1177/0002716205276734
No comments:
Post a Comment