the Future of Change

Is it time to consider the true cost of dedicating 3500 square miles of land in the United States to golf courses? The environmental harms, the loss of tax revenue, and the opportunity costs of dedicating so much land to a use that few will enjoy, and yet all pay for in countless ways, all counsel a different approach to golf courses, one that, at a minimum, requires those who benefit from them actually pay for the costs associated with golf courses. I explore some of these questions in a piece that is forthcoming in the Ohio State Law Journal: “Course Correction: Abolition, Grand Strategy, and the Case against Golf.” Here’s the abstract:

Historically, golf courses in the United States have been extractive institutions of exclusion—along racial, gender and class lines. Changing culturally, politically, economically, and socially embedded institutions demands more than a vague strategy or a loose and uncoordinated array of tactics. It requires what is often referred to in other contexts as grand strategy: the full alignment of values, tactics, and resources of those who wish to change that institution in the service of a long-term goal. Grand strategy with respect to institutions can take on different forms: resistance; the creation of parallel institutions; integration; reform; or abolition. This Article uses the case study of the problems posed by golf courses to explore questions of institutional change. My goal is to theorize the concept of grand strategy and embed it in our understanding of, research around, and theories of social change in ways not previously examined in this field of scholarship.

It is available for download here. It is still in draft form. Comments and feedback welcome.