Lecture 10 Flashcards
Climate (in)action and (dis)engagement
inaction - Carvalho
§ Environmental inaction is a
function of depoliticization
§ Depoliticized environmental
communication positions people
as incapable of actively
contributing to the making of
environmental politics
§ Depoliticized environmental
communication positions people
as passive targets of
communication
§ When people are positioned this
way, they check out and disengage
Function 1 of language - Carvalho
Function one: ideational
* Language represents objects, phenomena, concepts
Function 2 of language - Carvalho
Function two: interactional
* Language constructs the roles of and relations between people
* E.g., McAdam vs. Felli on “climate migrant” vs. “climate refugee”
* Language does more than signify who someone, or what something, is
* It also constructs the “statuses of and relations between people”
* Language paradigms or discourses construct subjectivity (i.e., form and position people as people or subjects)
* Discourses give people a) different roles to play b) different capacities to act
* Discursive subject formation not just something that happens to people
* People also use language to try to form and position themselves
Crisis of political subjectivity - Carvalho
Depoliticization corrodes political subjectivity
§ Depoliticization shuts down political contestation by universalizing a particular position or set of positions
as the only reasonable one
§ When the politics is taken out of politics, people “don’t know…how to act politically” and may not even
appreciate “why acting politically is important”
§ In a depoliticized context, people aren’t positioned or constituted as political actors with political agency
§ Environmental political discourse is depoliticized and positions citizens as “passive spectators” to
environmental politics, the content of which is already preset
§ Environmental political discourse depoliticized via: scientization, economization, moralization and, for
Carvalho et al., also the “higher order” mechanism of naturalization
Scientized environmental discourse - Carvalho
Carvalho et al.: scientization “refers to the widespread claim that the
politics of climate change constitutes nothing more than the translation of
the established consensus within (physical) climate science regarding the
anthropogenic nature of climate change into a political consensus”
- We know scientifically what causes climate change and what needs to be
done to stop it, politics and policy simply need to reflect as much - This narrative is depoliticizing because it a) predetermines the content of
environmental politics b) positions citizens as having virtually nothing to
contribute to the content of that politics - This narrative encourages inaction and disengagement (i.e., if the
substance of environmental politics is prefigured by science, then there’s
no role for citizens to play in actively constructing it)
Economized environmental discourse
economized environmental discourses “create
a context in which technical market-based policy responses
are justified by a logic of economic calculation”
Carvalho et al.:
Economized environmental discourse contends that politics
and policy must mirror not geophysical scientific consensus
but mainstream economic consensus (e.g., green growth,
carbon markets)
This narrative is depoliticizing because it too a) predetermines
content of environmental politics, thereby narrowing
deliberation and b) silences citizens by positioning them as
having no role to play in creating this politics
This narrative also invites citizen inaction and disengagement
Moralized environmental discourse
- Inhibits debate by predetermining some environmental
perspectives as good and others as bad - Insists environmental politics reflect moral consensus
about what the good or right thing to do is - Doesn’t position people as bystanders due to lack of
knowledge - Instead, invites passivity by threatening those who disagree
with opprobrium and social censure (i.e., to avoid label of “bad
person,” those with non-consensus views may withdraw)
Anticipated confusion clarified
§ Argument for citizen engagement
≠
argument that citizens know best
§ “We are not claiming that citizens’
proposals are better than those
coming from experts or political
leaders. What we are claiming is that
the failure of the political options
tested up until now suggests that a
different climate politics may be
necessary and that citizen political
engagement may play a key role in
bringing it about”
§ Depoliticized environmental politics in
which citizens are passively positioned
isn’t working, so maybe it’s time to try
something different
Carvalho et al, repoliticizing the environment
§ Repoliticization can be seen in some activist efforts that give citizens an active role to play
in the construction of environmental politics
§ Acts of resistance (e.g., blocking open-pit mining projects)
§ Prefigurative action (e.g., community based renewable energy initiatives)
§ But these repoliticizing environmental practices haven’t gained widespread uptake
§ Climate activism struggles insofar as it seems to be a countercultural lifestyle choice instead of a
broad-based mass movement
§ Climate activism struggles to connect with people’s existing realities and understandings (e.g.,
climate justice efforts that get more uptake in Global South than North)
§ Not all climate action aims to be political (i.e., some prefigurative groups stress their apolitical
nature and avoid political parties and institutions)
Action: Scheuerman: environmental nonviolent civil disobedience
Environmental nonviolent civil
disobedience (NCD)
§ More prominent
§ Conscientious and largely,
but not entirely, nonviolent
Action: Scheuerman: Environmental block and disrupt activism
§ Environmental block and
disrupt activism (BD)
§ Less prominent
§ Militant and more aggressive
§ Both have democratically
questionable aspects
Environmental NCD activism (Scheuerman)
Politically motivated lawbreaking carried out with civility and conscientiousness
E.g., Extinction Rebellion (XR), Fridays for Future
Draws on traditional nonviolent civil disobedience playbook (e.g., Gandhi, King)
Advantages of drawing on NCD tradition a) moral cachet b) familiarity
Contemporary environmental NCD action embraces not just spirit but discursive framing of traditional NCD activism
E.g., echoing tradition, contemporary environmental NCD-ers contend that “symbolically significant lawbreaking provides an attentiongaining mode of political address by means of which otherwise indifferent political peers can be persuaded to support change”
Scheuerman’s tactical concerns about NCD
Tactical
§ Environmental NCD has “extraordinarily optimistic assessment” of the power of non-violent action
§ Assessment based on political science re. non-violent revolution against authoritarian governments
§ But demanding environmental policy change from democratic institutions and overthrowing authoritarian
regimes aren’t the same thing and confusing one for other can create backlash
§ E.g., 2019 XR blockade of London underground, which would’ve made sense if point was to challenge UK
government, but didn’t make sense as a public support building move
Scheuerman’s political concerns about NCD
Political
§ Some environmental NCD activists call not just for environmental policy change but political institutional
change
§ E.g., XR proposal for a “more-or-less revolutionary constituent assembly, selected by lot, outfitted with vast
authority not only to counter global warming but also to pursue extensive political and even constitutional
change”
§ Also based on misapplication of social science, in this case deliberative democratic theory
§ But proposals like this are democratically dubious
Environmental BD activism
Largely rejects peaceable nonviolence
* Militancy to action and self-presentation
* Broader and more freewheeling approach to property damage which may be undertaken in secret
* E.g., vandalism and sabotage against gas pipelines, mining companies, petroleum operations
Even more skeptical of existing democratic practices and institutions
* Reform impossible and persuasion futile
* Impatience with and desire to circumvent democratic processes which are seen as hopelessly ill suited to
address climate change emergency
* “Dedicated avant-garde” must take matters into its own hands to stop climate change
* Via sabotage and vandalism that blocks and disrupts fossil fuel infrastructure
Action can be uncivil because public persuasion is irrelevant
