Volunteers justify engagement by geographic proximity of a problem

Evidence

Another member soon summed up: “It has to do with something that’s close to you. See, the nuclear stu¡ is all around us but it’s not in our backyard, or across the street, whereas this is,” referring to the drug problem. — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 25

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s research on whether solidarity requires shared positive projects or is limited by threat-proximity logic; the ‘close to home’ framing shows volunteers default to spatial rather than moral proximity. — connects to: Volunteers notice when their ‘close to home’ rationale fails to explain their own care — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 26; Toxic sites sat in volunteers’ actual backyards yet were treated as distant — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 29; Local problems motivate environmental action more than abstract global harms — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2949 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Local problems motivate environmental action more than abstract global harms #corroborates (0.95) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2949
• Institutionalized space appropriation produces territorially bounded social solidarity #expands (0.80) — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, 1395