Slacktivism is the new black. As the neoliberal society turns evermore towards a knowledge economy, the coolest thing to be is informed. And, as Malcolm Gladwell phrases it, the only type of commitment this society craves is "the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgment and praise" (2010). There are immense benefits to having a society founded on the acquisition of knowledge, even if that knowledge is, for the most part, useless. It implies that people are curious, and, even if it is only to keep up with the masses, willing to participate in current events. However, as Gladwell explains, curiosity and willingness to participate do not necessarily equate to the type of activism required to create serious change, and to save the planet from the exponentially increasing threat of climate change, we need serious change.
I wonder, with tongue in cheek, whether people whose phones are attached to the palms of their hands would be more socially active if their desk chairs weren't so ergonomic. I wonder, also, whether the comfort arises not from expertly designed lumbar support, but the familiar homeostasis of the capitalist model, so deeply hegemonic that any subversive act is dispelled or reworked to reinforce its walls, rather than break them.
Unfortunately, these musings reach no conclusions if they are not accepted by a great enough population to incite the change we need for the magnitude of our problems. But it is not just numbers that matter, it is the type of change. Showing off to your 1,000 Facebook acquaintances that you care about animals by reposting a "Save The Great Barrier Reef" video does nothing to save the Great Barrier Reef, in fact just the opposite; as you sit in front of your un-recyclable computer, which sits on your clear-cut-tree-wood desk, while you sit on your perfectly ergonomic un-recycled fabrics chair, in your foreign-made clothing, you systematically contribute to the destruction of the very thing you have claimed to care about on a screen comprised of 0s and 1s. But at least if you're destroying the world, you look cool doing it?
I cannot discount social media entirely; in some regards it has created an efficient way to promote advocacy. But, as this post emphasizes, at a certain point advocacy must evolve into activism, and we must be willing to make that jump.
"Activism that challenges the status quo—that attacks deeply rooted problems—is not for the faint of heart" (Gladwell, 2010).
Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, October 4.
Thursday, 24 March 2016
13 going on 30
Today, kids are using social media, engaging in topics far beyond their years, and forming smart, valid opinions about a range of topics. For example, politics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTKaMcqCM
These children contest the values that Donald Trump displays with reasoning and counter arguments. While not the best example available, it is proof that children are active enough in society at a young age to be included in the debate about and the efforts towards reducing climate change.
As Kasser, Crompton, and Linn explain, children are evidently receptive to the messages they are shown, but what reaches them is often advertisements and commercials, increasing their likelihood to be consumers (which we've discussed is destructive for the environment) and taking away from the time that they could be delivered other, more pressing information. The idea of advocacy is particularly important within this demographic, because they may not have the autonomy or means to be overly active participants in the battle against climate change, but they are receptive and impressionable, and they have influence over their parents. So, rather than tying to convince their parents to buy them the new flat screen TV for their Barbie mansion, or the burger king meal with the G.I. Joe toy, children should, and could be convincing their parents to recycle, to compost, to buy local, etc.
Advocacy endeavours geared towards audiences that include children have already begun, such as the picture below, which is taken from the Ripley's aquarium in Toronto; a place where children go with their families to observe unique aspects of nature, and, in small ways, how to care for it. This is progress, but it must go further - ultimately to the television screen, where children are either not shown advertisements (like Quebec has already included in legislation) or are shown educational and informative "ads" about things they can be doing in their community or households to help combat climate change.
Kasser, T., Crompton, T., & Linn, S. (2010). Children, Commercialism and Environmental Sustainability. Solutions, March-April.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTKaMcqCM
These children contest the values that Donald Trump displays with reasoning and counter arguments. While not the best example available, it is proof that children are active enough in society at a young age to be included in the debate about and the efforts towards reducing climate change.
As Kasser, Crompton, and Linn explain, children are evidently receptive to the messages they are shown, but what reaches them is often advertisements and commercials, increasing their likelihood to be consumers (which we've discussed is destructive for the environment) and taking away from the time that they could be delivered other, more pressing information. The idea of advocacy is particularly important within this demographic, because they may not have the autonomy or means to be overly active participants in the battle against climate change, but they are receptive and impressionable, and they have influence over their parents. So, rather than tying to convince their parents to buy them the new flat screen TV for their Barbie mansion, or the burger king meal with the G.I. Joe toy, children should, and could be convincing their parents to recycle, to compost, to buy local, etc.
Advocacy endeavours geared towards audiences that include children have already begun, such as the picture below, which is taken from the Ripley's aquarium in Toronto; a place where children go with their families to observe unique aspects of nature, and, in small ways, how to care for it. This is progress, but it must go further - ultimately to the television screen, where children are either not shown advertisements (like Quebec has already included in legislation) or are shown educational and informative "ads" about things they can be doing in their community or households to help combat climate change.
Kasser, T., Crompton, T., & Linn, S. (2010). Children, Commercialism and Environmental Sustainability. Solutions, March-April.
Wednesday, 23 March 2016
Consumerism costs more than money
As I sat in the bathroom the other day, staring down at the clothing label innocuously staring back up at me, I realized that it was far more harmful than it seemed. I mean, how much threat can a 1-inch by 2-inch piece of pink, silky fabric really pose? Depending on what you think is being threatened, quite a big one, actually. The garment lists 7 different countries where some type of production happened, though since the majority of writing is in foreign languages, the actual process is hard to determine. Nevertheless, the smallest article of clothing on my body first had to visit the following 7 countries before reaching me: China, Turkey, Jakarta, Malaysia, Romania, Colombia, and Dubai. Not only am I jealous that my clothes have done more travelling than I have, I am also disconcerted by the amount of energy, fossil fuels, and precarious labour that have gone into making a piece of clothing that wouldn't even use a quarter of a yard of fabric.
The solution seems relatively easy: buy locally-made clothes or demand that larger companies be held to a higher standard of production and environmental awareness. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done, and the change must been seen on a far greater scale than a single clothing company. The biggest challenge is that the audience for these products just don't seem to care; they would rather read television guides than clothing labels, so this threat to our environment flies completely under the radar. This trend is a vicious cycle; as Jennifer Good points out, "there is a correlation between television viewing and a sense of apathy" (366) and "[r]ecent research has investigated the relationship between television viewing and materialism and found that heavier television viewers are more likely to be materialistic than lighter viewers" (366). So people would rather watch television than read about or research environmental impacts of consumerism, and watching television both lessens this desire to care, and increases the desire to consume. In and article by Neff, Steinberg & Zmuda, the consumer is blamed for not being active enough in the environmental choices that are available within the context of consumerism. Personally, I don't think they're off the mark. It takes two to tango, but ultimately the consumer decides which companies stay in business and which ones go bankrupt.
Good, J. (2007). Shop 'til We Drop? Television, Materialism and Attitudes About the Natural Environment. Mass Communication & Society, 10(3), 365-383.
The solution seems relatively easy: buy locally-made clothes or demand that larger companies be held to a higher standard of production and environmental awareness. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done, and the change must been seen on a far greater scale than a single clothing company. The biggest challenge is that the audience for these products just don't seem to care; they would rather read television guides than clothing labels, so this threat to our environment flies completely under the radar. This trend is a vicious cycle; as Jennifer Good points out, "there is a correlation between television viewing and a sense of apathy" (366) and "[r]ecent research has investigated the relationship between television viewing and materialism and found that heavier television viewers are more likely to be materialistic than lighter viewers" (366). So people would rather watch television than read about or research environmental impacts of consumerism, and watching television both lessens this desire to care, and increases the desire to consume. In and article by Neff, Steinberg & Zmuda, the consumer is blamed for not being active enough in the environmental choices that are available within the context of consumerism. Personally, I don't think they're off the mark. It takes two to tango, but ultimately the consumer decides which companies stay in business and which ones go bankrupt.
Good, J. (2007). Shop 'til We Drop? Television, Materialism and Attitudes About the Natural Environment. Mass Communication & Society, 10(3), 365-383.
Neff, J., Steinberg, B., & Zmuda, N. (2010). Marketers blame the consumer in new save-the-planet pitches. Advertising Age, 81(16), 1-94.
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Ceci n'est pas une pipe
"The vision of sublime nature is tempered to a certain extent because it is a picture, the product of a technological process. The sublime experience has been captured by technology, reproducing a vicarious domesticated sublime" (DeLuca, 247). For the purpose of environmental communication, I think that this quote is important to look at in further detail. I titled this post "ceci n'est pas une pipe" after the Rene Magritte painting, because, like the pipe in the painting, the landscape we observe is not actually a landscape. It is mediately sublime, and what we need to know, for effective environmental communication is whether this is enough. Does a painting, a photograph, a song or film, convey the same awe and weight that observing a scene in real life evokes? Are we as moved to action through media as we are through experience?
My fear is that, in our hyper-voyeuristic culture, these stunning and often unfathomable images will be dismissed as "cool." I fear that they will be printed out by 19-year-olds with limited knowledge and passive interest, and collaged onto their walls with posters of bygone musicians and old vinyl sleeves. And perhaps this trend plants the seed of awareness, so that seven years later these teenagers remember the image they printed and choose to take up arms against it, but more likely is the over-exposure to the repeated image leading the teen to a desensitization of the phenomena the image depicts. DeLuca disagrees; he believes that the process of turning the physical sublime into a representation of it, it adds a second layer of meaning, and consequently, weight. DeLuca calls this the technological sublime, for its unique ability to create a view that no real experience could recreate. The "god's eye view" (248) in lieu of "bird's eye view" refers back to the sublime by tying it to religion and the intangible. It is this component, perhaps, that gives environmental art its place among environmental communication texts: the photograph, the painting, and the song, all have the capacity to present to the audience a perspective or feeling far greater than the one they may have experiencing it on their own. Through this sublime, albeit distanced, experience of the natural and the superimposed destruction, the artwork may in fact elicit stronger reactions from the audience than any other form of environmental communication.
DeLuca, K., & Demo, A. (2000). Imaging nature: Watkins, Yosemite, and the birth of environmentalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(3), 241-260.
My fear is that, in our hyper-voyeuristic culture, these stunning and often unfathomable images will be dismissed as "cool." I fear that they will be printed out by 19-year-olds with limited knowledge and passive interest, and collaged onto their walls with posters of bygone musicians and old vinyl sleeves. And perhaps this trend plants the seed of awareness, so that seven years later these teenagers remember the image they printed and choose to take up arms against it, but more likely is the over-exposure to the repeated image leading the teen to a desensitization of the phenomena the image depicts. DeLuca disagrees; he believes that the process of turning the physical sublime into a representation of it, it adds a second layer of meaning, and consequently, weight. DeLuca calls this the technological sublime, for its unique ability to create a view that no real experience could recreate. The "god's eye view" (248) in lieu of "bird's eye view" refers back to the sublime by tying it to religion and the intangible. It is this component, perhaps, that gives environmental art its place among environmental communication texts: the photograph, the painting, and the song, all have the capacity to present to the audience a perspective or feeling far greater than the one they may have experiencing it on their own. Through this sublime, albeit distanced, experience of the natural and the superimposed destruction, the artwork may in fact elicit stronger reactions from the audience than any other form of environmental communication.
DeLuca, K., & Demo, A. (2000). Imaging nature: Watkins, Yosemite, and the birth of environmentalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(3), 241-260.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
There's More Than Carbon In Our Footprint
While we were discussing ecotourism and deforestation in places like Costa Rica, my parents were actually in Costa Rica hiking through and photographing the scenes and phenomena we discussed in class. My dad came home with a camera full of pictures, and as is customary in my family, we all sat down at the computer and scrolled through the hundreds of shots together. Coinidentally, he had taken multiple pictures of the mountains and zoomed way out into the distance to try to capture a phenomenon he didn't understand: acres upon acres of barren terrain. Costa Rica boasts endless green foliage, but as my parents found out, they omit the clear cutting that has occurred to the beautiful forests there for farming, development, and multinationals exploiting the country for its resources. My dad was distraught, and rightly so, because in these pictures, it was obvious that the trees had been cut down many decades ago and yet even more than 50 years later, there had been no regrowth of the foliage. This, like carbon emissions, is something that we have done, and which may be impossible to reverse.
One of the topics we brought up that I couldn't get off my mind was that of palm oil. The image of clear cut rainforests kept surfacing in my thoughts, no thanks to the image of a man biting into an orangutan finger I'm sure. But, although shocking, that was not the image that stayed with me. What affected me most severely was the image of desolate, decaying remnants of forests and the renewed realization that our ecological footprint is much worse than the widely disseminated "carbon footprint" the media is so fond of using. This, like global warming, is an incomplete definition of the changes occurring to our planet, and we must proceed with caution. The Adams article is clear that our fascination with aquariums and the fish within them is altering both the species in the tanks and the environment the tanks are modeled after, by way of people visiting and deteriorating the natural reefs and settings. Oil and pollution are not the only things destroying the planet's natural systems; our collective need to "have the authentic experience" and see animals in their natural habitat is damaging, too. As we saw last week with climate change, the understanding that the earth is not simply warming up has grown, coming to encompass extreme weather as well. This was a small but important distinction to make, and the next one should be the shift from widespread use of "carbon footprint" to "ecological footprint" so that our understanding of the impacts we're having can include all of the disruption we are causing to the planet.
Adams, T. (2013). A complicated reef: The relationship between the representation and the represented phenomenon. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture,7(3),427-433.
One of the topics we brought up that I couldn't get off my mind was that of palm oil. The image of clear cut rainforests kept surfacing in my thoughts, no thanks to the image of a man biting into an orangutan finger I'm sure. But, although shocking, that was not the image that stayed with me. What affected me most severely was the image of desolate, decaying remnants of forests and the renewed realization that our ecological footprint is much worse than the widely disseminated "carbon footprint" the media is so fond of using. This, like global warming, is an incomplete definition of the changes occurring to our planet, and we must proceed with caution. The Adams article is clear that our fascination with aquariums and the fish within them is altering both the species in the tanks and the environment the tanks are modeled after, by way of people visiting and deteriorating the natural reefs and settings. Oil and pollution are not the only things destroying the planet's natural systems; our collective need to "have the authentic experience" and see animals in their natural habitat is damaging, too. As we saw last week with climate change, the understanding that the earth is not simply warming up has grown, coming to encompass extreme weather as well. This was a small but important distinction to make, and the next one should be the shift from widespread use of "carbon footprint" to "ecological footprint" so that our understanding of the impacts we're having can include all of the disruption we are causing to the planet.
Adams, T. (2013). A complicated reef: The relationship between the representation and the represented phenomenon. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture,7(3),427-433.
Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Effective Communication
In my opinion, effective communication about contested topics involves a number of components: First, it must be supported by fact or evidence; second, it must be engaging and easy to follow; and finally, it must be delivered in a serious or carefully thought-out manner. To demonstrate this point, I am going to compare two of the videos we were assigned to watch to make up for the missed class on February 5th. The first video I'm going to look at is the Greg Craven video, "The Most Terrifying Video," and the second will be the Trisha Paytas video, "Global Warming is a Hoax."
Greg Craven's video starts with a front-facing view of himself, dressed casually but not distractingly so, and sitting in what appears to be a classroom. He addresses the audience professionally, albeit colloquially, and is not sidetracked or interrupted by things off-camera. With the viewers, he breaks down four realistic, and logical outcomes of climate change, weighing both the possibilities of climate change being real or not, and of us taking action or not. Acknowledging both sides to the argument lends credibility to his stance, and allows the viewers to draw their own (guided) conclusions, which is a principle method in rhetoric used to invoke a stronger alignment of the audience with the conclusion. Greg Crayven adds emotion and relatable examples to further strengthen his argument. So he incorporates all three of my components of effective communication, and appeals to the audience on multiple levels.
Trisha Paytas' video is much different; the camera is angled downwards into her cleavage, giving the audience a clear view of her hair, excessive makeup, plunging neckline, and pigsty of a bedroom. She begins her speech by admitting to audiences that she does not have all of her facts straight, discrediting her almost immediately. She proceeds with her argument, which has clearly been thought through, only to interrupt herself a minute in exclaiming "oh my gosh! I got a text message! *squeal*!" She proceeds to lose her train of thought, and keeps viewers waiting while she works out where she was taking her argument. What Trisha Paytas does very well is present arguments that resonate with viewers in a way that encourages them to feel as strongly as she does. One of her stronger points details how Al Gore - poster child for climate change - owns multiple mansions in locations that he has to fly to, and that his homes do not employ any of the renewable energy sources he preaches about. Trisha aptly states how unfair it is to expect something of society that you are not willing to do yourself. While her delivery is unprofessional and distracting, she does meet two of my three criteria for effective communication: her case is compelling due to the emotion she puts into it, it makes sense to audiences, and she supports her claims with evidence.
At a first glance, many might be compelled to argue that Greg Crayven's video is the more effective communication for climate change. If we compare just the facts, that would be true: Greg's meets 3/3 criteria, whereas Trisha's meets only 2/3. But we must include one final factor, a less tangible or measurable component: impression. I did not find Trisha's delivery academic or professional in any way, but after watching a list of video after video on the same topic, hers was the first to come to mind as having had any impact on my views towards the issue. For this reason, I credit her video as having the most effective climate change communication, because above all else, for change to happen, we need people to be affected, and Trisha Paytas certainly accomplishes that.
Greg Craven's video starts with a front-facing view of himself, dressed casually but not distractingly so, and sitting in what appears to be a classroom. He addresses the audience professionally, albeit colloquially, and is not sidetracked or interrupted by things off-camera. With the viewers, he breaks down four realistic, and logical outcomes of climate change, weighing both the possibilities of climate change being real or not, and of us taking action or not. Acknowledging both sides to the argument lends credibility to his stance, and allows the viewers to draw their own (guided) conclusions, which is a principle method in rhetoric used to invoke a stronger alignment of the audience with the conclusion. Greg Crayven adds emotion and relatable examples to further strengthen his argument. So he incorporates all three of my components of effective communication, and appeals to the audience on multiple levels.
Trisha Paytas' video is much different; the camera is angled downwards into her cleavage, giving the audience a clear view of her hair, excessive makeup, plunging neckline, and pigsty of a bedroom. She begins her speech by admitting to audiences that she does not have all of her facts straight, discrediting her almost immediately. She proceeds with her argument, which has clearly been thought through, only to interrupt herself a minute in exclaiming "oh my gosh! I got a text message! *squeal*!" She proceeds to lose her train of thought, and keeps viewers waiting while she works out where she was taking her argument. What Trisha Paytas does very well is present arguments that resonate with viewers in a way that encourages them to feel as strongly as she does. One of her stronger points details how Al Gore - poster child for climate change - owns multiple mansions in locations that he has to fly to, and that his homes do not employ any of the renewable energy sources he preaches about. Trisha aptly states how unfair it is to expect something of society that you are not willing to do yourself. While her delivery is unprofessional and distracting, she does meet two of my three criteria for effective communication: her case is compelling due to the emotion she puts into it, it makes sense to audiences, and she supports her claims with evidence.
At a first glance, many might be compelled to argue that Greg Crayven's video is the more effective communication for climate change. If we compare just the facts, that would be true: Greg's meets 3/3 criteria, whereas Trisha's meets only 2/3. But we must include one final factor, a less tangible or measurable component: impression. I did not find Trisha's delivery academic or professional in any way, but after watching a list of video after video on the same topic, hers was the first to come to mind as having had any impact on my views towards the issue. For this reason, I credit her video as having the most effective climate change communication, because above all else, for change to happen, we need people to be affected, and Trisha Paytas certainly accomplishes that.
Fighting Back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/britain-flooding_us_5680752fe4b06fa68880627d?utm_hp_ref=extreme-weather
This article opens with a statement that reads as follows: "Hundreds of troops have been called in to help fight the floods as residents evacuate." What is particularly interesting about this sentence is that you could replace "floods" with any war-related noun, and the scene goes from one of climate change to one of war-torn Britain. "Hundreds of troops have been called in to help fight the rebels/enemy/Americans/attacks/battle as residents evacuate." This is not the only example of the military rhetoric employed by the article; it features a plethora of terms such as "protect," "protective systems," "contingency plans," "vulnerable," "fatalities," "threatened," the list goes on. The military rhetoric frames the problem as immediate, serious, and dangerous - all things the battle (appropriately named, considering the language of this article) over climate change only skims over in its focus on a yes/no debate.
A Carbon Brief article referred to by Climate Outreach's piece on whether people relate flooding to climate change states that "the research shows Brits who think climate change is a serious problem focus on the weather getting wetter in recent years, rather than hotter, as is the case in other countries." This is encouraging in the battle over climate change because, not only does it imply that people are starting to take climate change seriously, it tells us that 'climate change' is becoming better understood, and not dismissed in its 'global warming' form when we don't see a rise in temperatures.
This article opens with a statement that reads as follows: "Hundreds of troops have been called in to help fight the floods as residents evacuate." What is particularly interesting about this sentence is that you could replace "floods" with any war-related noun, and the scene goes from one of climate change to one of war-torn Britain. "Hundreds of troops have been called in to help fight the rebels/enemy/Americans/attacks/battle as residents evacuate." This is not the only example of the military rhetoric employed by the article; it features a plethora of terms such as "protect," "protective systems," "contingency plans," "vulnerable," "fatalities," "threatened," the list goes on. The military rhetoric frames the problem as immediate, serious, and dangerous - all things the battle (appropriately named, considering the language of this article) over climate change only skims over in its focus on a yes/no debate.
A Carbon Brief article referred to by Climate Outreach's piece on whether people relate flooding to climate change states that "the research shows Brits who think climate change is a serious problem focus on the weather getting wetter in recent years, rather than hotter, as is the case in other countries." This is encouraging in the battle over climate change because, not only does it imply that people are starting to take climate change seriously, it tells us that 'climate change' is becoming better understood, and not dismissed in its 'global warming' form when we don't see a rise in temperatures.
Thursday, 4 February 2016
"It's not just something I've made up!"
The title of this post is a direct quote from John Coleman during his interview with Megyn Kelly, regarding his position that climate change is a hoax. It occurred to me that this statement is something that Al Gore could have seamlessly slipped into his speech in "An Inconvenient Truth," and something that very well may have rolled off his tongue during his lengthy advocacy for climate change. What is interesting about the present moment is that it has provided a means for each of these directly opposing views to be thoroughly disseminated; John Coleman on television, Al Gore in films, and both of them on the internet! It is much easier now to rally supporters of a given movement than ever before, and perhaps this is why the debate about climate change is still unresolved.
John Coleman, for those who agree that climate change is upon us, comes across as radical. He talks over Megyn Kelly repeatedly, backs his position with "facts" ('scientists' have signed a petition trying to delist CO2 as a greenhouse gas), and ultimately supports a position that - as he himself points out - has become hard for many people to believe in, considering the mass perpetuation of climate change by the media. However, while the objective of having Mr.Coleman on this show may have been to disprove his position, simply acknowledging it and giving it a greater chance to be heard may not accomplish the intended goal. As we discussed previously, the mention of a concept, in any light, activates the framework of that concept rather than inducing critical thought or belief. It is my fear that having Mr.Coleman on this show activated a framework of doubt in some peoples' minds, doing nothing to help the movement to slow climate change.
Despite his radical position, John Coleman raises some convincing arguments against the pro-climate-change view. His target is, of course, American climate change spokesperson, Al Gore! While I have always been wary of Al Gore, due to his increased advocacy of climate change seeming to arise from his loss in the elections, the point John Coleman makes is undeniable even without my prior wariness. He states that "Roger Rivel taught it to [Al Gore]; he got a D, and yet he has made a billion dollars off of climate change." This makes me wonder if Al Gore isn't perpetuating climate change just because he's making a killing from it. Of course I also believe that we need to take far better care of our earth, one way or the other.
So, in my opinion, as long as there are media available for both sides to use to get their messages out, both sides will remain prevalent. However the good news is that as long as long as there are two sides to this story, it will continue to be discussed and hopefully lead to an increased awareness and activity among the citizens of the world.
"Life is good, Ms.Kelly, life is good!" -John Coleman.
John Coleman, for those who agree that climate change is upon us, comes across as radical. He talks over Megyn Kelly repeatedly, backs his position with "facts" ('scientists' have signed a petition trying to delist CO2 as a greenhouse gas), and ultimately supports a position that - as he himself points out - has become hard for many people to believe in, considering the mass perpetuation of climate change by the media. However, while the objective of having Mr.Coleman on this show may have been to disprove his position, simply acknowledging it and giving it a greater chance to be heard may not accomplish the intended goal. As we discussed previously, the mention of a concept, in any light, activates the framework of that concept rather than inducing critical thought or belief. It is my fear that having Mr.Coleman on this show activated a framework of doubt in some peoples' minds, doing nothing to help the movement to slow climate change.
Despite his radical position, John Coleman raises some convincing arguments against the pro-climate-change view. His target is, of course, American climate change spokesperson, Al Gore! While I have always been wary of Al Gore, due to his increased advocacy of climate change seeming to arise from his loss in the elections, the point John Coleman makes is undeniable even without my prior wariness. He states that "Roger Rivel taught it to [Al Gore]; he got a D, and yet he has made a billion dollars off of climate change." This makes me wonder if Al Gore isn't perpetuating climate change just because he's making a killing from it. Of course I also believe that we need to take far better care of our earth, one way or the other.
So, in my opinion, as long as there are media available for both sides to use to get their messages out, both sides will remain prevalent. However the good news is that as long as long as there are two sides to this story, it will continue to be discussed and hopefully lead to an increased awareness and activity among the citizens of the world.
"Life is good, Ms.Kelly, life is good!" -John Coleman.
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Framing
Of the readings from last week, what stood out to me especially vividly was George Lakoff's article on why framing matters. Whether because I am particularly interested in the use of language, or because it compliments material from other classes, it came back up in my thoughts over the course of the week.
Lakoff states that "[i]n order to communicate a complex fact or a complex truth, one must choose one’s words carefully to activate the right frames so that the truth can be understood" (73). This is a simple principle of language and rhetoric, but encompasses many specific modes of communication that often go overlooked. "Frames" I took to mean many different things while reading Lakoff's article; discourse, and binaries, for example. Discourse, because we look at and engage with everything around us through them, and binaries, because we categorize and identify objects and texts through them. As he stated, frames can also "include semantic roles, relations between roles, and relations to other frames" (71).
When this became particularly clear to me in relation to environmental communication was standing in line at the Glendale Starbucks. The compartmentalized trash bin, with openings uncannily resembling a children's game, was distinctly labeled with two words - the text's colours corresponding to the hole through which that type of waste should go. The words? Recycle and Landfill. Not only were they framing the choice as "so simple that a child could do it," they are also forcing a binary between recycling and garbage that weighs one option with guilt and responsibility, and the other with superiority and morality. This framing falls under Lakoff's classification of "relations to other frames" of course, by contrasting (and thus linking) recycling with landfills.
Using dichotomy or binary as framing is immensely effective, as the associations are often intrinsically linked to our conceptions of "good" and "bad."
Lakoff states that "[i]n order to communicate a complex fact or a complex truth, one must choose one’s words carefully to activate the right frames so that the truth can be understood" (73). This is a simple principle of language and rhetoric, but encompasses many specific modes of communication that often go overlooked. "Frames" I took to mean many different things while reading Lakoff's article; discourse, and binaries, for example. Discourse, because we look at and engage with everything around us through them, and binaries, because we categorize and identify objects and texts through them. As he stated, frames can also "include semantic roles, relations between roles, and relations to other frames" (71).
When this became particularly clear to me in relation to environmental communication was standing in line at the Glendale Starbucks. The compartmentalized trash bin, with openings uncannily resembling a children's game, was distinctly labeled with two words - the text's colours corresponding to the hole through which that type of waste should go. The words? Recycle and Landfill. Not only were they framing the choice as "so simple that a child could do it," they are also forcing a binary between recycling and garbage that weighs one option with guilt and responsibility, and the other with superiority and morality. This framing falls under Lakoff's classification of "relations to other frames" of course, by contrasting (and thus linking) recycling with landfills.
Using dichotomy or binary as framing is immensely effective, as the associations are often intrinsically linked to our conceptions of "good" and "bad."
Thursday, 21 January 2016
Recycling Language
https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostCanadaLiving/videos/959229547446442/
The above video advertises an innovative shower head that alerts users to how much water they are consuming per time spent in the shower. The shower head conveniently syncs to the user's phone, to control colours and settings, and to allow for interactivity. The ad is intended to encourage individuals to purchase this device, but the underlying message is that we are wasteful with water and must be more diligent in our day to day uses of this resource.
Breaking down the communicative aspects of this ad, we can see that they are appealing to audiences in three ways:
First, the colours selected as warnings for the shower head in the ad are the commonly associated colours for "go" and "stop," green and red. Visually, these send cues to the viewer's brain that are so closely tied to an everyday, universal symbol that they are difficult to deny. Thus, prompting the belief that there is an allotted amount water we should be using, and a point at which we should cease.
Secondly, by detailing how the device connects to the user's smartphone, it appeals to our desire to be technologically advanced and proficient, as well as being autonomous. Individuals prefer to feel in control, so highlighting the app in this ad gives viewers the sense that they would be being actively productive in their environmentalism, instead of forced into it.
Finally, the ad recycles some colloquial phrases to appeal to a broader audience, and communicate a serious message in an informal, and thus easily digestible, manner. Terms such as "water hogs" and "shower shaming" are repurposed from demeaning social movements, like "fat shaming," to invoke feelings of gluttony and excess in the viewers.
Aided by a concise bout of statistics, this ad effectively reaches audiences with its message on environmentalism, in an engaging, casual, and informative way.
The above video advertises an innovative shower head that alerts users to how much water they are consuming per time spent in the shower. The shower head conveniently syncs to the user's phone, to control colours and settings, and to allow for interactivity. The ad is intended to encourage individuals to purchase this device, but the underlying message is that we are wasteful with water and must be more diligent in our day to day uses of this resource.
Breaking down the communicative aspects of this ad, we can see that they are appealing to audiences in three ways:
First, the colours selected as warnings for the shower head in the ad are the commonly associated colours for "go" and "stop," green and red. Visually, these send cues to the viewer's brain that are so closely tied to an everyday, universal symbol that they are difficult to deny. Thus, prompting the belief that there is an allotted amount water we should be using, and a point at which we should cease.
Secondly, by detailing how the device connects to the user's smartphone, it appeals to our desire to be technologically advanced and proficient, as well as being autonomous. Individuals prefer to feel in control, so highlighting the app in this ad gives viewers the sense that they would be being actively productive in their environmentalism, instead of forced into it.
Finally, the ad recycles some colloquial phrases to appeal to a broader audience, and communicate a serious message in an informal, and thus easily digestible, manner. Terms such as "water hogs" and "shower shaming" are repurposed from demeaning social movements, like "fat shaming," to invoke feelings of gluttony and excess in the viewers.
Aided by a concise bout of statistics, this ad effectively reaches audiences with its message on environmentalism, in an engaging, casual, and informative way.
Thursday, 14 January 2016
A Brief History
I have titled this page "Environmental Meta-Communication" because that is what I/we will be doing within it; talking about how the environment is talked about. In other words, this is a site dedicated to the discussion and analysis of environmental media.
Before discussing the nuances of environmental media, it is important to have some understanding of the background of the environmentalism movement. While the first hints of awareness of the negative impacts humans have on the environment can be dated back to the industrial revolution, for the purposes of this blog, I will use the post-WWII movement as a true starting point for today's environmentalist forces.
After the Second World War, people worldwide were wary of the effects of nuclear fallout; a comparison that Rachel Carson drew in order to drive home the severity of the impact that chemicals have on the natural environment. Carson's book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, is largely credited as inciting contemporary environmentalism; it scared citizens, it infuriated corporations, and ultimately, it served its purpose. The book and its contents functioned as a mediator between the masses, the concerns they were facing in the environment, and the rapid expansion of technology after the war. It created a space which allowed people to voice their concerns, and demanded responsibility be taken by the corporations which had caused them. Rachel Carson's work was jarring and novel for its time, but most importantly, it set the stage for environmental media of all types to come.
Before discussing the nuances of environmental media, it is important to have some understanding of the background of the environmentalism movement. While the first hints of awareness of the negative impacts humans have on the environment can be dated back to the industrial revolution, for the purposes of this blog, I will use the post-WWII movement as a true starting point for today's environmentalist forces.
After the Second World War, people worldwide were wary of the effects of nuclear fallout; a comparison that Rachel Carson drew in order to drive home the severity of the impact that chemicals have on the natural environment. Carson's book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, is largely credited as inciting contemporary environmentalism; it scared citizens, it infuriated corporations, and ultimately, it served its purpose. The book and its contents functioned as a mediator between the masses, the concerns they were facing in the environment, and the rapid expansion of technology after the war. It created a space which allowed people to voice their concerns, and demanded responsibility be taken by the corporations which had caused them. Rachel Carson's work was jarring and novel for its time, but most importantly, it set the stage for environmental media of all types to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)