diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'log.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | log.md | 164 |
1 files changed, 164 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -4,6 +4,170 @@ title: Dissertation log author: Joe Carstairs --- +## 2026-05-11 + +I have a new argument. + +Big idea: green rhetoric is going wrong. Some folk think this is because it is +too apocalyptic. They're dead wrong. Part of the problem is, it's not +apocalyptic enough. + +Structure: + +1. Contemporary green rhetoric (R) is a failure +2. R mis-diagnoses the problem +3. R fails to identify credible routes to credible solutions +4. R fails to identify an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference +5. The material results of R have been dismal +6. The effect on R's audience now is a spiralling cycle of despair +7. This has led some critics to blame apocalypticism for the failure of R +8. This is a traditional criticism of apocalypticism 'from above' +9. Apocalypse 'from below' has often worked very differently +10. This difference is due to the different interests of the readers +11. John's rhetoric exhorts his audience to a martyrdom ethic +12. R needs to exhort their audiences to a martyrdom ethic +13. Socialist rhetoric in the past has used apocalypticism for this very purpose +14. Once rhetors addressing the PMC have fixed all the other problems with R, + they'll need this apocalyptic hope, too + +What follows is the structure explored in more detail. + +Good rhetoric does four things: + +1. Accurately diagnoses the root causes of a serious problem +2. Presents a credible route to a credible solution +3. Addresses an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference +4. Proves to this audience that taking action is good for them + +Contemporary green rhetoric too often fails, and it's usually down to the first +three points. + +First, green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the problem. Rhetors imply that the root +cause of green evils is the combined consumption choices of all the world's +individuals. But in fact, most of the world's consumption isn't driven by +choice. + +This then leads green rhetors to propose incredible solutions. The worst is +simply to cut consumption. Most of the world's people can't afford to cut back. +A little better is proposing market-based policies like carbon taxes. But there +is no credible route to implementing and sustaining an effective carbon tax, +because it is against the interests of almost everyone. The route green rhetors +almost universally promote is: listen to the science, then act rationally. This +denies the evident fact that society is driven by the private interests of those +who have power, not collective interests; and this is also true of science +itself, which, as we have proven time and time again, is up for sale to the +highest bidder. The spectre of the 'science denier' or 'science fraudster' as +the bogeyman behind all resistance to the collective interest serves only to +hide the real enemy: the powerful private interests that pay him. + +Then, the rhetoric fails to properly identify an audience that can make a +difference. In line with its scientistic ideology, it pretends to speak to the +universal human citizen, as if we all have shared interests. But in fact, it +speaks only to the professional-managerial class (PMC). The whole point of the +rhetoric is to fight the interests of capitalists, so of course it doesn't speak +to them. Nor does the condemnation of indulgent over-consumption and the demand +for cutbacks have any way of resonating with the working class. + +Yet this rhetoric doesn't even work for the PMC, because it has already failed +to identify a credible route change. The exhortations are addressed to the +universal human collective, or nebulous imaginary entities like 'countries': cut +carbon emissions! Give 'developing countries' money to stop chopping down +rainforests! Fund research! But these recommendations don't come with a credible +route to making them happen. It fails to diagnose why these things are hard to +do, i.e. identify the vested interests that are preventing change, and show how +to fight these vested interests and win. + +The action that PMC people have taken so far (alternative consumption, political +protests, banning plastic straws, holding COPs, setting targets) have not been +effective. The result is that PMC people feel powerless. + +Since the rhetoric doesn't work, the rhetors think they need to increase the +temperature, and drive towards increasingly dire warnings of impending +catastrophe, thinking that people just need more of a shove. They call on the +familiar symbolic language of nuclear winter. The interests of mass media also +favours sensationalist language. This only leads feelings of powerlessness to +degenerate into despair. + +This has led many people to think that the end-of-the-world sensationalism is +the root cause of the problem. Some have even labelled this trope +'apocalypticism' and thus blamed the apocalyptic imagination, accusing +apocalypse as being life-denying, pessimistic, quietist, destructive, and +hopeless. + +This follows a long tradition of authority distrust of apocalyptic imagination, +and the Apocalypse of St John in particular. Authorities tend to see it as +exhorting quietist expectation for a supernatural deliverance over taking +effective action for change, or exhorting sadistic pleasure in witnessing +vindictive violence, if not participating in such violence oneself. Meanwhile, +those who have read apocalypse 'from below' tend to emphasise how it has a +visionary interpretation of the tribulations of this world, and a visionary +expectation of this world being transformed, and use this vision to motivate +movements for transformational social change. + +This difference in interpretation can be explained by the different readers' +situation. + +The Apocalypse of St John is written from below and primarily written to readers +reading from below. He places their struggles in a larger context: of a cosmic +battle between Jesus Christ and legions of demonic powers, a battle which will +be ultimately won by Jesus, delivering a world free from all evil, oppressive, +life-denying powers. He thus exhorts his audience to keep resisting the powers +of evil which oppress them. + +How does this rhetoric work for John's subaltern audience? Large parts of this +are impossible now to reconstruct. John probably wanted his audience to stop +eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. What serious problem was this +supposed to solve? How was it supposed to solve it? We can't know for sure. What +we do know is that his audience were capable of following his exhortation. Thus, +if the rest of John's analysis, which is lost to us now, stacked up, he would +have identified an audience that could credibly make a difference. The question +that remains is: why would it be good for his audience to act in this way? + +John's vision serves to answer that question. He does it by nesting their small, +local, temporary action in a much larger cosmic and eschatological context. +While he doesn't deny that their action cannot bring about large-scale social +change -- in fact, he emphasises their relative powerlessness -- he shows how +their acts of resistance meaningfully participate in a much bigger social +transformation. By resisting the temptation of the Beast, they are anticipating +and securing their privileged place in a future where the Beast is destroyed, +and in its place is its mirror image, the New Jerusalem. In contrast, those who +submit to the Beast and take on her mark are only participating in her +destructive, suicidal death-drive. + +This is in fact just what green rhetoric needs. + +First rhetors need to fix all the first three points. They need to correctly +diagnose the problem, identify a credible route to a credible solution, and +address an audience that can make a difference. This can be done in the way the +@{climate-change-class-war} does it, by exhorting workers in strategic sectors +to force change by threatening industrial action. But Huber is too pessimistic +about the power of the PMC: they can also bring about social-scale change +through their power over the state via the political parties and the civil +service. + +The question that remains in both cases is: why is it good for me to take part? +Just because collective action is good for me doesn't mean that my individual +participation is, too. Most collective action suffers from the prisoner's +dilemma. It follows that what we need is a martyrdom ethic: I am prepared to +sacrifice myself for the greater good. How can martyrdom be good for me? + +Apocalyptic rhetoric provides the solution by revealing how individual actions +participate in cosmic battles and eschatological futures. + +Socialist rhetoric is often excellent at doing this: joining a union becomes +part of a cosmic battle between the proletariat and capital, and participates in +an eschatological future where the rule of capital is broken and the means of +production are socialised, and are thus all the wonders of scientific technology +are harnessed to the interests of everyone instead of the few. + +It may be that there are theological implications for this kind of rhetoric. +Perhaps it implies that there is some kind of mystical relationship -- +'participation' -- between the individual here and now and the cosmic or +eschatological context. Perhaps this is essentially the Christian idea of 'union +with Christ'. Perhaps it requires that the audience knows that there is a +concrete eschatological future coming in real time. Perhaps not. I think such +theological speculation is simply too much to fit in my dissertation, sadly. + ## 2026-05-07 ### @{climate-change-class-war} |