diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter0.md | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter1.md | 23 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter2.md | 48 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter3.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter5.md | 5 |
5 files changed, 47 insertions, 37 deletions
diff --git a/chapter0.md b/chapter0.md index 1f37888..6439865 100644 --- a/chapter0.md +++ b/chapter0.md @@ -77,9 +77,9 @@ This is where green rhetoric stands today. In recent decades, many of the most important political demands of the green movement have not been realised. Green rhetoric is not delivering change. -In the chapters which follow, I will first explore why it might be that green -rhetoric is failing to deliver political change, before exploring in more detail -one particular allegation: green rhetoric is too catastrophic, or, in the terms +In the chapters which follow, I will first explore how green rhetors often get +the fundamentals of successful rhetoric wrong, before exploring in more detail +one proposed explanation for this: green rhetoric is too catastrophic, or, in the terms of some critics, 'apocalyptic.' In contrast, I will argue not only that green rhetors must continue to use catastrophic language, but they must also draw deeper on other aspects of apocalyptic language as modelled by John of the diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md index 305a921..ea6f2e7 100644 --- a/chapter1.md +++ b/chapter1.md @@ -23,11 +23,12 @@ the sense of crisis faced with the devastating effects of climate change feeding passivity — or even the rush to preserve past privileges — rather than mobilization?' [@stetler-2025] -In order to solve a problem, a rhetor must persuade their audience that taking -action is good for them. For that action to solve the problem, the rhetor must -address an appropriate audience. Furthermore, they must present a credible -solution, and if the solution is to be credible, the rhetor ought to have -accurately identified the root causes of the problem. +For a rhetor -- any rhetor -- to be successful, they must get the fundamentals right: + +- The rhetor must address an appropriate audience -- that is, one with the + means, motive, and opportunity to make a difference. +- The rhetor must persuade their audience that the solutions they propose are credible. +- The rhetor must accurately diagnose the root causes of the salient problems. There are problems with mainstream green rhetoric from beginning to end of this process: rhetors mis-diagnose the root causes of the problem, propose incredible @@ -393,8 +394,8 @@ by Thunberg: > all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. > How dare you! [@no-one-is-too-small, p. 127] -In summary, green rhetoric is not working. I've explored some reasons why this -is so. Green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the root causes of the relevant problems by +In summary, much mainstream green rhetoric is not getting the fundamentals right. +Green rhetors mis-diagnose the root causes of the relevant problems by putting harms down to individual consumption choices and science denial, whereas in fact, these factors play a relatively small role in explaining ecological harm, and other factors, such as industrial production decisions shaped by @@ -408,8 +409,8 @@ gas emissions. But in fact, green rhetors do not address that imaginary 'we,' but rather the Western middle classes, who may not have the right powers and interests for such exhortations to be feasible. -This begs the question: if green rhetoric is failing, how might it be fixed? One -common suggestion is that green rhetoric needs to be less catastrophic. Since +This begs the question: why are green rhetors getting the fundamentals wrong? One +common suggestion is that catastrophic language drives rhetors in all the wrong directions. Since apocalyptic language is often reduced to a catastrophic symbol, it is easy to infer that successful green rhetoric should avoid apocalyptic language. In chapter 3, I'll argue that such a conclusion ignores the possibilities of @@ -417,5 +418,5 @@ 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 apocalyptic 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. +green rhetoric, and why critics allege that catastrophic language contributes +to green rhetors getting the fundamentals wrong. diff --git a/chapter2.md b/chapter2.md index 213a66f..7f6c82b 100644 --- a/chapter2.md +++ b/chapter2.md @@ -2,13 +2,15 @@ Among the numerous complaints commentators have expressed about catastrophic green rhetoric, I will examine three in particular. First, it is alleged that -catastrophic language encourages a fatalistic outlook and therefore -discourages effective political action. Second, catastrophe is supposed to -promote business as usual and shut down radical discourses. Third, critics -argue that catastrophic thinking flattens out power relationships and thus -contributes to the 'death of politics.' I will examine each of these -complaints in turn, but first I will explore where catastrophic language comes -from and how it ends up featuring in contemporary green rhetoric. +catastrophic language encourages a fatalistic outlook and therefore persuades +audiences that no proposed solution can be credible. Second, catastrophe is +supposed to promote business as usual and shut down radical discourses, +preventing rhetors from proposing truly credible solutions. Third, critics argue +that catastrophic thinking flattens out power relationships and thus contributes +to the 'death of politics,' driving rhetors to use the universal 'we' instead of +identifying an appropriate audience. I will examine each of these complaints in +turn, but first I will explore where catastrophic language comes from and how it +ends up featuring in contemporary green rhetoric. The word 'catastrophe' first entered English through early modern translations of Greek plays, meaning the denouement of a plot. Through association with @@ -87,13 +89,9 @@ important features of apocalyptic language as exemplified by 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 green -catastrophism: namely, that it encourages fatalism, conservatism, and -contributes to the 'death of politics.' - It has been claimed green catastrophism is fatalistic: that the catastrophe is -implicitly inevitable, thus encouraging despair over hope and therefore mere -ritual over action. To be sure, most green rhetors do not explicitly say this; +implicitly inevitable, and therefore no solution a rhetor might propose can ever +be worth pursuing. To be sure, most green rhetors do not explicitly say this; rather, they tend to say the very opposite, that it is not too late to avert the catastrophe: that's why we have to act now! The problem is not that green rhetors _assert_ that the catastrophe is inevitable, but that inevitability is @@ -169,15 +167,17 @@ certain pre-millenialist beliefs [@unveiling-empire, p. 5]) might be a minority pursuit, but it is a response to the same apocalyptic storytelling which is a widespread phenomenon in mainstream American media. This media landscape neutralises what might have been active concern and transforms it into apathetic -fatalism [@american-apocalyptic, p. 60]. +fatalism [@american-apocalyptic, p. 60]. Good rhetoric must persuade its +audience that the proposed solutions are feasible: fatalism persuades the +audience that no solution is feasible at all. A second problem with catastrophic language is that it is conservative. For some rhetors, the urgency of the crisis means that established power structures must be supported to work at full throttle, and we -certainly haven't got time to replace or radically transform them. But if, as +certainly haven't got time to replace or transform them. But if, as many political analysts contend, green harms are an inevitable consequence of business as usual, then such narratives obstruct the radical -political critique which will be necessary for a lasting solution to green +political critique needed to propose a truly credible solution to green issues. For example, the International Monetary Fund recently reported: > Aligning capital flows on a low-carbon trajectory has become a critical policy @@ -190,7 +190,10 @@ sector, ignoring the fact that historical economic transformations have been driven by command-and-control. Tacitly, the IMF assumes that the neoliberal order, in which governments are held hostage by markets, is permanent and inevitable. The figure of climate catastrophe functions here to attempt to -foreclose radical imagination. +foreclose radical imagination. This contributes to the tendency of green rhetors +to propose incredible solutions, such as voluntary austerity, impossible global +agreements, or 'smart' market fixes isolated from a sustainable political +programme. But perhaps the most vicious criticism of green catastrophism is that since green catastrophism reverberates strongly with 'Anthropocene' discourses, such @@ -212,9 +215,14 @@ the biological species, such as greed or the ability to make fire. In reality, the climate catastrophe is not the result of a biological trait, but an historical process, and therefore an economic structure. +Green catastrophism, because of its Anthropocene tendencies, blinds rhetors to +social differentiation. Rhetors are therefore driven to use the imaginary +universal human 'we' and ignore social stratifiers such as class, preventing +them from identifying an appropriate audience, a fundamental of successful +rhetoric. + In sum, green catastrophism is accused of encouraging a fatalist outlook, disarming radical discourses in favour of business as usual, and deepening the 'death of politics' 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. +In all these ways, catastrophic language in green rhetoric can help explain +why green rhetors are getting the fundamentals of successful rhetoric wrong. diff --git a/chapter3.md b/chapter3.md index 8a81e2d..c6cbb9f 100644 --- a/chapter3.md +++ b/chapter3.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ In the previous chapter, I explored how contemporary green rhetors use catastrophic language, and three reasons why some commentators believe -that this is counter-productive. Given the close relationship between +that this causes rhetors to get the fundamentals of successful rhetoric wrong. Given the close relationship between catastrophe and apocalypse in the imaginations of many people in the West, this begs the question of whether green rhetors ought also to avoid apocalyptic language. Frances Flannery, Professor Emerita of Religion at James Madison diff --git a/chapter5.md b/chapter5.md index cae25a4..26d28ba 100644 --- a/chapter5.md +++ b/chapter5.md @@ -11,10 +11,11 @@ doesn't match the interests and powers of their real audiences, namely, the Western middle classes. As a result, they end up proposing solutions that aren't feasible. -How could green rhetors be more effective? One common suggestion, explored in +Why are green rhetors failing on the fundamentals? One common suggestion, explored in chapter 2, is that green rhetors should avoid the motif of catastrophe, or, in a certain sense, 'apocalypse.' Catastrophic rhetoric has been accused of creating -resignation, despair, apathy, and dismissal, and of killing genuine politics. +resignation, despair, apathy, and dismissal, and of killing genuine politics, +driving the fundamental problems discussed in chapter 1. This line of thought, together with the fact that 'apocalypse' is treated as a catastrophic symbol in popular culture, leads Frances Flannery to suggest that green rhetors should avoid evoking apocalyptic associations. |