Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who specializes in studying social activism and the environmental movement in particular, wrote a response to a post on Andy Revkin's Dot Earth site this past Sunday that has been widely admired. It's critical of the language climate preservationists use to describe the crisis, and points out a contrast to the visionary speech-making of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is that a fair comparison? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure "a rhetoric of salvation" is even possible with climate, given what the science is telling us about the warming in the pipeline. But is it true that climate preservationists have failed to inspire the public? With the possible exception of Al Gore — yes.
So it's worth thinking over what Brulle had to say. Take it away, Robert…
It seems to me that a discussion of tipping points is useful in terms
of discussing the science of nonlinear processes. But this is hardly
the type of language that will increase issue saliency in the public.
When you set a specific goal, or say if we go over some threshold the
risk will increase dramatically, you are then linking action to a
specific scientific claim that can be disputed. Since we aren’t yet
past the tipping points, or if we are past them, the evidence has not
emerged unambiguously from the background variance, it is difficult to
maintain the truth of dire predictions in the future.
Yet the environmental movement uses these thresholds as a rallying cry. Bill McKibben’s organization http://350.org
sets a specific ppm concentration as its goal and as its namesake. I am
in no position to dispute the validity of this specific CO2
concentration. But I see this type of language as lacking rhetorical
resonance with the public.
Social movement research over the
past 40 years has shown that an effective social movement will be based
on a rhetoric of salvation. It contains an analysis of how we entered
into our current problematic situation, and how evil it is. It then
projects how we can work to move ourselves out of this state and toward
a resolution of the current problems and into a beneficial situation.
Thus an effective rhetoric critiques the current situation and offers a
Utopian vision of where the society needs to go. It is this combination
of threats and opportunities, – nightmares combined with dreams – that
fuel social movement mobilization and social change.
The civil
rights movement provides an excellent example. In his “I Have a Dream”
speech, Martin Luther King combined both the nightmare of racial
injustice with the utopian dream of a just society into a seamless
narrative. This speech became an icon for the movement, defining a
sense of injustice (threat) and opportunities for effective action
(hope).
The use of specific empirical targets (350 ppm, or 2
degrees) ignores this rhetorical requirement. Instead we are presented
with a technocratic language that is not at all immediately apparent
what is being advocated. Additionally, it is a rhetoric without utopia,
but rather constraints. There is no positive vision of a future in
which we can realistically deal with global warming and have a positive
outcome. The chants of “green jobs” are hardly the type of rhetoric
that will motivate strong social movements. Think of how ridiculous it
would have been if Martin Luther King Jr. had stood up with graphs
about racial discrimination and set some sort of empirical goal.
Instead, he appealed to the sense of justice in the face of injustice,
and projected a vision of an alternative social order that motivated
scores of people to put their bodies and lives on the line to achieve
this goal.
The environmental movement used to understand and
utilize this type of language. The original Wilderness Act called for
the creation of places “where the Earth ant its community of life are
untrammeled by man.” The Clean Water Act set the goal of cleaning up
the waters so that we could fish and swim in our rivers. These are
easily visualized goals, and define a Utopian vision of a better life.
The
reliance on technocratic language, and the absence of a Utopian vision
of a sustainable social order, greatly inhibit the salience of global
warming issues in the general public.
Kit Stolz 
Sigh. The CAA, CWA and WA provided clear benefits with virtually no strings attached. A sustainable, non-GHG-polluting society is perfectly amenable to being painted in desirable terms, and that’s been done extensively, but as Maureen Dowd wrote today about a much more trivial problem:
“How do we come to terms with the gluttony that exploded our economy and still retain our reptilian American desire for living large? How do we make the pursuit of the American dream a satisfying quest rather than a selfish one?”
The problem is that for most Americans a life with less stuff is very much a Dystopia.
Another difficulty with Brulle’s analysis is that there really aren’t any historical parallels for the climate disruption problem. Many of us can imagine solving it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s possible for humanity to do so.
I tuly don’t see what value Andy saw in Brulle’s thesis, other than that it basically blames the environmentalists for the lack of progress. What this pointed up to me was the weird position Andy finds himself in, that of someone who understand the problem but whose role is such that he can’t express himself commensurately.
LikeLike
Better messaging is a goal to keep in mind at all times, and of course people are constantly worrying about it. My somewhat depressing view is that there probably isn’t any sort of magic rhetorical key that’s going to do the trick but, similar to that oil well blowout, instead we’ll need some abrupt and damaging events that are perceived to be unambigously connected to AGW.
Better unity of messaging, on the other hand, is of clear value, 350.org being an example. Scientists are also working hard to be more coherent, as can be seen in this week’s Science.
LikeLike