chp2: signpost 3 problems and last para

1 files changed, 37 insertions, 40 deletions

diff --git a/chapter2.md b/chapter2.md
index 2968604..1847bdf 100644
--- a/chapter2.md
+++ b/chapter2.md
@@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ important features of apocalyptic language as exemplified by St John, but for
 now it is worth noting that some rhetors use allusions to the Apocalypse in order
 to function as a catastrophic symbol.
 
-Recently, academics examining green rhetoric have raised concerns with this
-catastrophism.
+Recently, academics examining green rhetoric have raised concerns with green
+catastrophism. The first issue I will examine here is fatalism.
 
 It has been claimed green catastrophism is fatalistic: that the catastrophe is
 implicitly inevitable, thus encouraging despair over hope and therefore mere
@@ -160,12 +160,19 @@ rhetoric as 'doom-mongering.' Closely related is the discourse of 'British comic
 nihilism,' or, as they put it, the discourse of 'bugger it and open another
 bottle!'
 
-Green catastrophism may have political implications, too. It has been argued
-that implicit in the catastrophist narrative is the assumption that everything
-was going well until the catastrophe loomed its ugly head. This suggests that
-'business as usual' is alright, and therefore obscures the need for a radical
-critique of the business-as-usual political get-up which produces massive
-destruction.
+So, because catastrophic language tends to encourage a fatalist outlook, it
+fails when it convinces -- since 'why bother trying when we're all stuffed
+anyway?' -- and it fails when it doesn't -- since 'why pay attention to such
+excitable nonsense?'
+
+A second problem with catastrophic language is that it is conservative. Often,
+catastrophist narratives tacitly assume that everything was going well until
+The Catastrophe loomed its ugly head. This suggests that 'business as usual' is
+alright, and that a solution to the problem, by definition, means a return to
+normal. But if, as many political analysts contend, green harms are in fact an
+inevitable consequence of business as usual, such narratives then obstruct the
+radical political critique which will be necessary for a lasting solution to
+green issues.
 
 Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac provided one demonstration of this
 mindset in _The Future We Choose_, which begins with an imaginative description
@@ -200,10 +207,21 @@ Eileen Crist, discussing Anthropocene discourse, puts it:
 > still contestable, partially reversible, and worthy of resistance and of
 > inspiring a different vision. [@poverty-nomenclature, p. 25]
 
-It gets worse for the catastrophist. Perhaps the most vicious criticism of green
-catastrophism is that by leaning on 'Anthropocene' discourses, green rhetors
-flatten out social relationships. This, say the critics, is the death of all
-genuine politics. \[EXAMPLES\]
+So catastrophic language, apart from its fatalist tendencies, can shut down
+radical political discourses and thus discredit the best solutions to green
+problems before they've even been proposed. But perhaps the most vicious
+criticism of green catastrophism is that since green catastrophism reverberates
+strongly with 'Anthropocene' discourses, such rhetoric flattens out power
+relationships. This, say the critics, is the death of all genuine politics.
+
+\[EXAMPLES\]
+
+In sum, green catastrophism is accused of encouraging a fatalist outlook,
+disarming radical discourses in favour of business as usual, and deeping harmful
+'post-politics' discourses by obscuring the importance of power relationships.
+In all these ways, catastrophic language in green rhetoric can work to actively
+de-motivate audiences to play their part in bringing about the green movement's
+desired outcomes.
 
 For Frances Flannery, Professor Emerita of Religion at James Madison University,
 the upshot of all this is that 'We Must Stop Saying "Climate Apocalypse"'
@@ -222,31 +240,10 @@ is irrelevant, or encourage audiences to put their hope in 'savior figures such
 as inventors, scientists, or governments who might rescue humanity in the nick
 of time.' [@flannery-2024, p. 210]
 
-Flannery also adds a couple further reasons why apocalypse in particular, apart
-from its connotations of catastrophe, might be an unhelpful symbol to apply to
-climate change. For one, if millenialist Christians, who are politically
-influential in places such as the United States and the Congo which are
-significant for the global climate, are persuaded that climate change is a 'sign
-of the times,' there's a risk that they will welcome climate change instead of
-fighting it.
-
-For another, she notes that in the Apocalypse of St John, the wicked are
-punished and the righteous vindicated. Meanwhile, in the climate case, it is
-people living in the Global South who are expected to suffer the most from
-climate change. Thus, telling a narrative of 'climate apocalypse' from the
-Global North suggests that people living in the Global North are the suffering
-righteous who will be vindicated, and those in the Global South the wicked who
-will be punished. But, in Flannery's view, this flips the script on the
-historical facts, which show that climate change is if anything a result of the
-'wickedness' of those living in the Global North.
-
-We are now beginning to expose five major criticisms of the use of apocalyptic
-language in green rhetoric:
-
-1. Apocalyptic language is catastrophic and thus fatalistic.
-2. Apocalyptic language is catastrophic and thus obstructs radical criticism of
-   business as usual.
-3. Apocalyptic language is catastrophic and thus flattens out power
-   relationships.
-4. Apocalyptic language is millenarian and thus promotes destruction.
-5. Apocalyptic language is violent and vindictive.
+Flannery's critique would imply that green rhetors ought to avoid apocalyptic
+language. This conclusion rests on two key premises: one, that apocalyptic
+language is catastrophic in the same way which leads to fatalism, conservatism
+and post-politics as described above; and two, that catastrophe is the dominant
+effective symbol associated with apocalyptic language. In the next chapter, I
+will argue against both of these premises, using the Apocalypse of St John as
+a model of apocalyptic language.