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."

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.

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.