Merge branch 'main' of https://git.joeac.net/joeac/msc-dissertation-aug-2026

1 files changed, 12 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index 29a5919..06c2e0d 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -390,9 +390,18 @@ powers and interests for such exhortations to be feasible.
 This begs the question: if green rhetoric is failing, how might it be fixed? In
 what follows, I will not be proposing a practical manifesto for transforming the
 green movement, but I will be engaging in blue-sky thinking, imagining what a
-more successful green rhetoric might look like. In the next chapter, I will
-examine the popular suggestion that a more successful green rhetoric would look
-less apocalyptic.
+more successful green rhetoric might look like.
+
+One common suggestion is that green rhetoric needs to be less catastrophic. Since
+apocalyptic language is often assumed to be more or less equivalent to catastrophic
+language, it is easy for commentators such as Frances Flannery to infer that
+successful green rhetoric should avoid apocalyptic language. In chapter 3, I'll
+argue that Flannery's argument ignores the possibilities of apocalyptic language,
+including, and going well beyond, its catastrophic aspects. Then, in chapter 4,
+I'll argue that green rhetors today must use John's rhetorical techniques in order
+to make change happen. But first, in the following chapter, I'll explore how
+catastrophism appears in contemporary green rhetoric, and why critics allege that
+catastrophic language is counter-productive in this context.
 
 ## TODO