diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'chapter3.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | chapter3.md | 20 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/chapter3.md b/chapter3.md index c5a9af6..82998d5 100644 --- a/chapter3.md +++ b/chapter3.md @@ -26,10 +26,22 @@ 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 in the previous chapter; and two, that catastrophe is the dominant effective symbol associated with apocalyptic -language. In what remains of this chapter, I will argue against both of these -premises, using the Apocalypse of St John as a model of apocalyptic language. - -What of the criticisms enumerated in the previous chapter, namely, that +language. + +In what remains of this chapter, I will argue that were these criticisms to be +levelled against the model of apocalyptic language in the West, +namely, the Apocalypse of St John, the Apocalypse would resist the force of +these criticisms. Reading from the perspective of John's original audiences, +the Apocalypse does not promote fatalism, conservatism or post-politics, but +works against these responses. Later in the chapter, I'll explore three +further key apocalyptic features of the Apocalypse which John uses towards +his rhetorical ends, demonstrating how apocalyptic rhetoric may have worked +effectively in probably the most influential representative of the genre. +Then, in chapter 4, I'll extend this argument to the case of contemporary +green rhetoric, and show how these features of John's ancient rhetoric could +be reproduced effectively in a contemporary context. + +So, what of the criticisms enumerated in the previous chapter, namely, that catastrophic language promotes fatalism, conservatism and post-politics? The first thing to observe here is that, whereas green rhetors typically position the catastrophe as an impending event over which the audience has some measure |