From c0bd49166ff53f06638c0e4aae214432c4b56468 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Carstairs Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2026 13:47:23 +0100 Subject: link chp1 and chp2 --- chapter5.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'chapter5.md') 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. -- cgit v1.2.3