Volunteers classify nearby catastrophic hazards as ‘not close to home’

Evidence

But when I asked Lisa and Carolyn whether they had ever thought about getting involved in doing something about the battleships or the oil spills, they both said, in separate interviews, that those issues were not close to home,'' and did not really touch” them personally. And they both said, in almost identical words, “and anyway, what would I do, bomb the place?” referring to the chemical plant and the weapons base. Carolyn said it twice. Instead they were both involved in the antidrugs group. — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 20

Categorization

• QUESTION: The empirical paradox worth chasing: nuclear battleships and oil literally lapping at Carolyn’s stilt-house are declared ‘not close to home’ while an antidrug group is. What makes an issue feel actionable versus overwhelming?
• XREF: connects to: Toxic sites sat in volunteers’ actual backyards yet were treated as distant — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 29; People prioritize problems physically close to their homes over even larger distant threats.

Related

• Toxic sites sat in volunteers’ actual backyards yet were treated as distant (similarity 0.89)
• Volunteers justify engagement by geographic proximity of a problem (similarity 0.83)
• Proximity to danger does not make people politically active. (similarity 0.82)
• Volunteers notice when their ‘close to home’ rationale fails to explain their own care (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Toxic sites sat in volunteers’ actual backyards yet were treated as distant #exemplifies (1.00) — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 29
• People prioritize problems physically close to their homes over even larger distant threats. #qualifies (0.80)