diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | log.md | 66 |
1 files changed, 33 insertions, 33 deletions
@@ -23,40 +23,40 @@ Structure: 1. Introduction 2. Avoid exhorting the audience to avert the catastrophe - 1. The rhetorical strategy is... - 2. It moved from nuclear issues to green issues in the 1980s - 3. This rhetorical strategy can use core apocalyptic forms - 4. Using apocalyptic forms in this way has literary consequences - * The catastrophe is final, destroys everything worth living for - * The audience is blamed for the problem - * The audience is assumed to have power over the problem - 5. This strategy doesn't work and makes bad things happen - * The audience doesn't have power over green catastrophes, thus alienated - * Obscures green harms happening now, obstructing appropriate responses - * Blames the wrong people for green harms - * Justifies 'whatever it takes' -- authoritarianism, violence + 1. The rhetorical strategy is... + 2. It moved from nuclear issues to green issues in the 1980s + 3. This rhetorical strategy can use core apocalyptic forms + 4. Using apocalyptic forms in this way has literary consequences + * The catastrophe is final, destroys everything worth living for + * The audience is blamed for the problem + * The audience is assumed to have power over the problem + 5. This strategy doesn't work and makes bad things happen + * The audience doesn't have power over green catastrophes, thus alienated + * Obscures green harms happening now, obstructing appropriate responses + * Blames the wrong people for green harms + * Justifies 'whatever it takes' -- authoritarianism, violence 3. Exhort the audience to endure the catastrophe - 1. The rhetorical strategy is... - 2. St John (arguably) used core apocalyptic forms to this end - 3. Using apocalyptic forms in this way had literary consequences for St John - * The catastrophe is immanent, not future - * Deliverance is final, not the catastrophe (tribulation!) - * The audience are assumed to have no power over the outcome - * Acknowledges human agency and responsibility - * The audience are assumed to be able to resist Evil in some way - * Requires a resilient good -- best to use mythological language - * Must come from the margins, not the centre - 4. This strategy has been tried by green rhetors - 5. This strategy works and makes good things happen - * Doesn't ask the impossible - * Banishes panic - * Encourages local action - * Awakens the complacent - * Encourages resistance to dominant systems - 6. This strategy, as currently deployed, under-exploits apocalyptic forms - * Ultimate vindication - * Mythological language - * Subaltern sources of authority + 1. The rhetorical strategy is... + 2. St John (arguably) used core apocalyptic forms to this end + 3. Using apocalyptic forms in this way had literary consequences for St John + * The catastrophe is immanent, not future + * Deliverance is final, not the catastrophe (tribulation!) + * The audience are assumed to have no power over the outcome + * Acknowledges human agency and responsibility + * The audience are assumed to be able to resist Evil in some way + * Requires a resilient good -- best to use mythological language + * Must come from the margins, not the centre + 4. This strategy has been tried by green rhetors + 5. This strategy works and makes good things happen + * Doesn't ask the impossible + * Banishes panic + * Encourages local action + * Awakens the complacent + * Encourages resistance to dominant systems + 6. This strategy, as currently deployed, under-exploits apocalyptic forms + * Ultimate vindication + * Mythological language + * Subaltern sources of authority 4. Summary Now, what do I need in order to write this dissertation? |