Adding a scientific theory to a public discourse contributes a whole new layer of complication to the agency of those receiving the message. Think Galileo-- he was ostracized for proving, and then advocating for, the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun. Eventually though, science prevailed and the world came around (in it’s opinion, not another orbit around the sun). Although it takes time, science can be supported and proven by other scientists, who then have an obligation to persuade the people through the spread of information. The challenge throughout history has been integrating science into the general public discourse by breaking it down into layman’s terms. Why then, despite the widely dispersed evidence that the Earth is going through climate change and the way humans are consuming resources is unsustainable, is climate change still rejected by large portions of the American population?
I don’t think I have the qualifications or scope to delve into why climate change became politicized in the first place. I will postulate though, that climate change advocates for a certain amount of change contrary to America’s capitalistic values, giving certain sects of the state a vested interest in its failure to disseminate throughout the population. According to Habermas, anything having to do with the state doesn’t fall under the realm of public discourse. In fact, Palczenwski says “ideally, discourse in the public sphere can critique and challenge state actions” (p. 240). However the discussion about climate change doesn’t fall under the traditional ‘public versus state.’ If the beliefs about climate change stem in part from the government, does that mean it falls outside the definition of “public discourse” that we’ve discussed in class?
Yes and no. Rhetoric in Civic Life defines a hybrid public as “publics that do not choose between civic identity and deliberative politics, but instead recognize that both can exist in a mutually reinforcing relationship” (p. 242). That definition doesn’t totally satisfy me, but I can’t think of the public discussion surrounding climate change as anything except a hybrid public, seeing as state policy is so intrinsic to the exchange. In “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming,” researchers found a correlation between political party and beliefs about climate change. Their conclusion was something I think we’ve all realized: conservatives/Republicans are more sceptical of climate change than liberals/Democrats.
America’s beliefs on climate change became so polarized because of the “mutually reinforcing relationship” (to be fair, I don’t think I’m connoting what the author intended for that phrase, but it fits perfectly so I’m using it) that comes from strong political party affiliation. News sources such as FOX recruit rogue scientists to reaffirm their already existing belief that climate change is a hoax. “Conservative think tanks and their allied climate change contrarians successfully exploited American news media norms—especially the “balancing norm,” or the equation of “objectivity” with presenting “both sides of the story”—to achieve a level of media visibility incommensurate with the limited scientific credibility of their claims” (McCright). As talked about in Rhetoric of Civil Life, news and social media have made it easier to stay in a bubble of opinions they already agree with, making a positive feedback loop of ignorance.
Feel free to disagree with me, but I don’t think climate change should be a debate in the first place. Whether it’s happening at the rate scientists claim, or even if it isn’t happening at all, the effects of our consumption is observable and largely negative. We have a responsibility as inhabitants of the Earth to protect it. There I go, joining the public discourse and preaching rather than being an objective essay-ist.
I have a million and one trains of thought started on a Google Doc right now, and a ton of other quotes picked out, but I wasn’t able to make connections to my main point to my satisfaction. They’re half baked, and I’m hoping that with your feedback, I’ll get the inspiration to make them full-baked. I’m having trouble not being terribly biased in all this, and figuring out what I’m actually trying to say. Let me know if I’m on the right track!
excellent draft! in the group I mentioned how the big lumber guys created the sustainable forestry initiative to spite the US green building councils LEED certification, which excluded their products for unsustainable sourcing. The SFI facaded the big lumber guys and made them look environmentally friendly, while pushing their profit-hungry agenda on capital hill. This is an interesting example of one public taking advantage of misinformation to affect policy change in their favor.
ReplyDeletealso here is a link to a youtube vid of a 15y/o kid addressing the UN on their failed attempts at climate change discourse over the last 2 decades. This kid rocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27gtZ1oV4kw
I really like the paper so far! I would expand on a few of your ideas though. I like the mutually reinforcing relationship reference while talking about politics. Also, you can reference the AIDS crisis, and how activist called for fewer experts testifying. This could be interesting since climate change could use more experts, and less politicians.
ReplyDeleteI really like the paper so far! I would expand on a few of your ideas though. I like the mutually reinforcing relationship reference while talking about politics. Also, you can reference the AIDS crisis, and how activist called for fewer experts testifying. This could be interesting since climate change could use more experts, and less politicians.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Emily
ReplyDeleteI think a major challenge you need consider, and you touched on this yourself, is remaining impartial in all this. It’s important to be careful to make this an essay on rhetoric, not on climate change. To that end, I think your musings on a couple things could be particularly fruitful.
First, your discussion of media feedback loops that reinforce particular positions is very important for today’s public rhetoric. I think these feedback loops are major problem in that they polarize different points of view instead of finding common ground and compromise. Climate change is definitely a good angle to use in investigating these feedback loops. How can climate change rhetoric help us understand the way feedback loops function in our overall discourse, and how can that understanding help us navigate the convoluted nature of modern media discourse?
Second, your thoughts on the difficult way climate change fits into civic/state discourse feel to me like pretty hard-core rhetoric. That classification is a really tough one, and finding a better way to understand it than a “hybrid public” could be a really productive inquiry. Perhaps you could propose a new term for topics like climate change that fall on the line between state/civic life and use climate change as an example to explain and defend the necessity of your new term.
Finally, as a bit of a side note, when you write, “The challenge throughout history has been integrating science into the general public discourse by breaking it down into layman’s terms,” I immediately thought of scientists like Carl Sagan or Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson who make important contributions to science through their public rhetoric. Perhaps a simple rhetorical analysis of these kinds of rhetorical actors can yield important insights into how science makes its way into the public discourse. What are these rhetorical actors doing that works so well? What isn’t working? The Bill Nye—Ken Ham debate (If you haven’t seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI) could be a good “body of text” for you to analyze. While it’s more about creationism vs. evolution, it displays the way the best scientific communicators work. It makes me wonder, if Galileo had had Neil DeGrasse Tyson, how would his theories have been received differently? How would Tyson have presented them to make them more acceptable for the era? What rhetorical decisions could have been made to make a heliocentric universe jive with the bible? Likewise, what rhetorical decisions can be made to present the threat of climate change as something that can help empower capitalism? Perhaps, claiming that investing into alternative energy sources is a tremendous job creator could help persuade non-environmentally conscious individuals to think of climate change in a new light.
I think you’re hovering around a really fascinating topic with lots of avenues to explore. As I’m sure you know, you just need to pick one and vigorously pursue it. I hope some of these ideas helped in getting you to hone in on what is most meaningful to you. I’m very excited to see what you come up with; I think you’ll have some fascinating insights on the nature of public rhetoric.
Good luck,
Abe