diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'chapter1.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter1.md | 17 |
1 files changed, 14 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md index 86d3b63..0cb1ee1 100644 --- a/chapter1.md +++ b/chapter1.md @@ -390,6 +390,17 @@ 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. + + |