From ae8f1ac9ff67498aca5cfdefe22cafcdfd62d553 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Carstairs Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 17:03:19 +0100 Subject: chp3: tribulations, end-time speculation --- chapter3.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) (limited to 'chapter3.md') diff --git a/chapter3.md b/chapter3.md index d1d0473..7315f9c 100644 --- a/chapter3.md +++ b/chapter3.md @@ -163,3 +163,47 @@ they're going to have to fight the majority epistemology, held firmly in place by fossil interests. To do that, they'll need to exploit minority cognition, undermining the epistemologies that best serve fossil interests and finding alternatives that oppose them. + +The second feature of John's rhetoric I considered was the theme of +tribulations. Just as John's audience stood to lose out if they resisted the +imperial cult, UK citizens stand to lose out, in time, money, and friends, if +they take political action for a Green New Deal. If audiences are to understand +how such a sacrifice could be good for them, they will need to see that their +sacrifices are not meaningless, but part of a much larger context. + +\[EXAMPLES\] + +Finally, the third feature of John's rhetoric I examined was his end-time +speculation. This is already so much a part of green rhetoric that it has led +to considerable meta-discussion already, particularly on the relative merits of +utopian against dystopian schemas [@green-utopias; @forget-me-not, Epilogue]. I +have already examined one example from _The Future We Choose_ +[@future-we-choose]. Green rhetors seem to find it irresistible to speculate on +where this might all end, for good or ill. Even the Cold-War-inspired total +catastrophism is one perspective on the end times. + +St. John, like all biblical apocalypticists, affirms a utopian end-time. As I +discussed in the previous chapter, this is important to his rhetorical goals. +There is no use pointing to a dystopia, or (perhaps worse still) concluding +that we can't really be certain what the ultimate future holds. Such +conclusions would create doubt and fear amongst his audience, and suggest to +them that keeping your head down and submitting to the imperial ideology might +be a safer wager than risking everything on a God who might not be willing or +able to save those who love him. Instead, John, pointing to God's +all-encompassing sovereignty and justice, makes a redemptive end appear +irresistible, thus encouraging his audience to bet the house on Jesus. + +Green rhetors ought to take note of this. A few rhetors have expressed +pessimism about the end, but the dominant motif is uncertainty. _The Future We +Choose_ makes this clear from the very title. In _Forget Me Not_, Sophie +Pavelle insists that although she could conclude either with a dystopian vision +or a utopian vision, she refuses to do either, because the scientific evidence +does not warrant either conclusion [@forget-me-not, Epilogue]. + +This won't do, as should be obvious from the foregoing. If there are no +scientifically valid utopian visions for the future of planet Earth, then green +rhetors must have unscientific visions instead. John faced a similar challenge, +and likewise adopted a minority epistemology -- an eschatological vision -- in +order to convince his audience that the good fight was worth fighting. + +\[EXAMPLES\] -- cgit v1.2.3