L8 - climate (in)action and (dis)engagement Flashcards
(18 cards)
intro
revisit eco-affects/emotions like grief, anxiety and guilt
- can play into eco-politics: allow political claims of injustice, reparative justice
- can also shape peoples orientation toward politics: what they want from their leaders (env nostalgia (trade freedom for idea of return to better past))
- eco-guilt can be translated to channeling energy away from political activity
climate (in)action
- what motivates people from taking action and what stops them from it?
- what leads people to engage with env politics/concerns?
common sense answer: people don’t pay attention to env bc they don’t know much of it (engagement presupposes information), if they are informed they would do more
BUT inaction and disengagement can also follow from attention and care (if it seems impossible, people may disengage)
- withdrawal may look like apathy, but it isn’t necessarily
+ env engagement can be channeled into indiv behaviour -> structural change can be averted, energy can be guided away from politics, to press for systemic change
- adjust market behaviour can squeeze out meaningful political climate action
Carvalho et al give new view on inaction
inaction: Carvalho et al.
env inaction is a function of depoliticization
- not of psychological withdrawal, checking out
depoliticized env communication positions people as incapable of actively contributing to the making of env politics
depoliticized env communication posits people as passive targets of communication
- don’t invite people to seem themselves as agents, but invite people to see themselves as passive sponges that can only absolve env messaging, targets of messaging campaigns trying to get them on board on pre-determined set of env politics and political positions
- passive agree-ers rather than agents
when people are positioned this way, they check out and disengage
2 functions of language/discourse
- ideational
- interactional
ideational: language represents objects, phenomena, concepts, ideas
- e.g. what is climate change? scientific, technical, political
- signifies what things are
interactional: language constructs roles of and relations between people
- e.g. McAdam vs Felli on climate migrant vs climate refugee
function 2 language: interactional
= language (discursive paradigms) constructs the role of and relations between people
- e.g. McAdam vs Felli on climate migrant vs climate refugee -> conceptualizing same group diff endows them with diff rights and positions them differently vis-a-vis states
language does more than signify who someone, or what something, is
it also constructs the “statuses of and between people”
language paradigms/discourses construct subjectivity (i.e. form and position people as people or subjects)
discourses give people
- different roles to play
- different capacities to act
discursive subject formation isn’t just something that happens to people
people also use language to try to form and position themselves
e.g. large corporate actors are constituted into powerful positions, individuals get position of consumption that has much less power
!!subject positions are constantly being reconstructed, they can shift, compete, people themselves are part of this process (negotiate discursive paradigms, carve out positions for themselves)
- use language to position ourselves + are positioned by language at the same time through language
self-positioning + being positioned -> forms agency, identity
- bi-directional relation
crisis of political subjectivity
depoliticization corrodes political subjectivity,
it shuts down political contestation by universalizing a particular (set of) position(s) as the only reasonable one
when the politics is taken out of politics, people “dont now 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
env political discourse is depoliticized and positions citizens as “passive spectators” to env politics, the content of which is already preset
env political discourse is depoliticized via: scientization, economization, moralization, and for Carvalho et al. “higher order” mechanism of naturalization
scientized env discourse
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”
- climate change, env disrepair are scientific problems that need to be addressed by scientific solutions -> politics only needs to mimic the scientific perspective: we scientifically know what the problem is and how to fix it -> need to mirror this in society, reproduce it
We know scientifically what causes climate change and what needs to be done to stop it, so politics and policy simply need to reflect this
This narrative is depoliticizing because
- it predetermines the content of environmental politics
- it positions citizens as having virtually nothing to contribute/add to the content of that politics
- point of env politics is to be the echo of climate science: science tells us how to solve the problem = predetermines content of env politics -> pushes substantive discussion/debate into the periphery
This narrative encourages inaction and disengagement (i.e., if the substance of env politics is prefigured by science, then there’s no role for citizens to play in actively constructing it)
- eco-politics is about translating scientific agreement into the political consensus/agenda -> ordinary people do not have something to contribute, only to accept -> encourages disengagement: citizens can’t really participate, inviting passivity (bystanders to env politics)
- env inaction and disengagement are the by-product of posing people as by-standers of env politics
economized env discourse
Carvalho et al.: economized environmental discourses “create a context in which technical market-based policy responses are justified by a logic of economic calculation”
- narrows and shuts down discussion: predetermines content env politics
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
- predetermines the content of environmental politics, thereby narrowing deliberation
- particular eco prescription is presented as only reasonable/possible option - silences citizens by positioning them as having no role to play in creating this politics
- people have little to contribute if it is about mainstream eco agreements into political agreements, people can add only little to that = it is only something for people to get along with, to accept
This narrative also invites citizen inaction and disengagement
- economizing discourses prefigure env politics in ways people can’t really contribute in -> pacifies them
moralized env discourse
Inhibits debate by predetermining some env perspectives as morally good and others as bad
- point to moral consensus: we know what the morally right course of action is -> politics needs to reflect this moral agreement, moral agreement needs to be translated into political agreement
Insists that env 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 condemnation and social censure (i.e., to avoid being seen as “bad people,” those with non-consensus views may withdraw)
- implies that anyone that opposes a particular policy consensus is bad for the env and in favour of climate change’s potential apocalyptic consequences -> people will prefer inaction over this
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”
- suggestion: prevailing approach clearly isn’t working -> why not try something different with more civic involvement
Depoliticized env politics in which citizens are passively positioned isn’t working, so maybe it’s time to try something different (repoliticization)
- repoliticization -> more engagement, more meaningful contestation/deliberation of everyday democratic citizens
Carvalho et al.: repoliticizing the env?
Repoliticization can be seen in some activist efforts that give citizens an active role to play in the construction of environmental politics
= ways to repoliticize env practices (bottom-up examples for other people), positions people as contributers/articulating agents env practices
- Acts of resistance (e.g., blocking open-pit mining projects)
- Prefigurative action (e.g., community based renewable energy initiatives) = provide alternative approaches to env practices/politics
But these repoliticizing env practices haven’t gained widespread uptake
- Climate activism may struggle to grow insofar as it seems to be an alternative lifestyle choice (counter-cultural outlet) instead of a broad-based mass movement
- Climate activism may struggle to grow if it doesn’t connect with people’s existing realities and understandings (e.g., climate justice efforts may get less uptake in the Global North)
- Not all climate action aims to be political (i.e., some prefigurative groups stress their apolitical nature and avoid political parties and institutions, steering clear of contentious politics)
-> Carvalho et al. offer qualified hope for reconstitution of citizens of doers of env practices/politics (it is possible, people can be invited to consider themselves as climate practice doers), but in terms of scaling up efforts there is some work to do
action: Scheuerman
Scheuerman asks: what are the promises/pitfalls of existing approaches to climate/env action/activism?
-> 2 branches env activism
Environmental nonviolent civil disobedience (NCD)
- more prominent
- conscientious and largely, but not entirely, nonviolent approach to env intervention
environmental block and disrupt activism (BD)
- less prominent
- militant and more aggressive (to stop fossil-fuel driven econ)
- sees NCD as insufficiently combative
both have democratically questionable aspects
(does also find the first is more preferable than the second)
env NCD activism
Politically motivated lawbreaking carried out with civility and conscientiousness
- some criticize this: to much emphasis civility -> rules out some actions that are necessary
E.g., Extinction Rebellion (XR), Fridays for Future
Draws on traditional nonviolent civil disobedience playbook (e.g., Gandhi, King)
- most env NCD seems uninterested in changing the traditional playbook
- try to get visibility, advance views by legal, principled, political arguments, working through mostly peaceful activities
Advantages of drawing on NCD tradition include
- moral cachet (powerful historical legacy with figures like Gandhi and King, gives moral standing to the movement)
- familiarity (of figures like Gandhi and King may make people feel more comfortable with participating, it is more approachable bc it is familiar)
Contemporary environmental NCD action embraces not just spirit but discursive framing of traditional NCD activism
E.g., echoing tradition, contemporary env NCD-ers contend that “symbolically significant lawbreaking provides an attention-gaining mode of political address by means of which otherwise indifferent political peers can be persuaded to support change”
- both provide moral charge to the effort: spiritual self-sacrifice, moral urgency etc. prominent discourses
Scheuerman’s concerns about NCD
= linked mostly to misguided applications of social sciences
Tactical
- Environmental NCD has an “extraordinarily optimistic assessment” of the power of non-violent action
- Assessment based on political science regarding non-violent revolution against authoritarian governments (in non-democratic contexts, no non-violent revolution has failed once 3.5% population has participated in an observable peak event)
- But demanding environmental policy change from democratic institutions and overthrowing authoritarian regimes aren’t the same thing and confusing one for other can be counterproductive
(even if the 3.5% mark is correct, which is itself contested) - E.g., 2019 XR blockade of London underground would’ve made sense if the point was to challenge the UK government, but didn’t make sense as a public support building move = Scheuerman sees it as counterproductive
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 (not tactically questionable by perhaps being counterproductive, but democratic problems):
1. citizen assembly would grant much power to the facilitators tasked with running them
2. random set of population takes part of citizen assembly -> may incentivize coordinators to rig the system bc potential the group would come up with solutions XR would not endorse
3. unelected quality -> questions about legitimacy and accountability (why allow such unelected groups to dictate legislative institutions whose members individuals had an influence in selecting/deliberating?)
weaknesses are strategic and democratic stemming on analysis of misapplying social research
! he doesn’t claim scientific research should not inform political practice, he just says in the translation, the details matter
env BD activism
(BD and NCD similar: both use illegal actions BUT rationale and politics behind sometimes overlapping activities is very diff)
Largely rejects peaceable nonviolence
- Militant in its actions and self-presentation
- Broader and more freewheeling approach to property damage, which may be undertaken in secret (covert, behind the scenes)
- E.g., vandalism and sabotage against gas pipelines, mining companies, petroleum operations
Even more skeptical of existing democratic practices and institutions
- Sees reform as impossible and persuasion as futile/pointless/waste of time
- point to need to act now, emergency status
- Expresses impatience with and a desire to circumvent democratic processes, which are seen as hopelessly ill suited to address the climate change emergency
(waiting for the public just takes more time, which is not on our disposal) - “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 and other sources of pollution
Action can be uncivil because public persuasion is irrelevant
- point is just to pull emergency break, not to make political amends or win over the public -> no need for good publicity, for good reaction
- !select recognition is not entirely irrelevant: when BD is done well, others can realize it is a good approach
- concern is not to build a movement -> no need for righteousness
Scheuerman’s concerns about BD
unrealistic “science fiction”
- fanciful to think a “small avant-garde can cripple a complex fossil fuel econ” (calls it a science fiction)
- even if it could successfully block many fossil fuel producers’ operations, this wouldn’t be enough (global econ isn’t going to be stopped by small acts)
- only scaled, mass action could bring global fossil fuel econ to a halt
anti-democratic
(this is the more troublesome of the two)
- to abandon persuasion is to abandon democracy
- urgency talk flirts with longstanding rationale for abandoning democracy (i.e. that in moments of crisis there just isn’t time for it)
- traditionally this logic has been used to authorize strong unitary executive action (single actor better able to act efficiently, particularly)
- BD env activists allocate a parallel authority to themselves (their own practitioners: only elite group climate activists can save the planet)
an underwhelming choice?
NCD vs BD
BD environmental activism is more democratically worrisome for Scheuerman
But NCD comes up short on this metric too (i.e., also deploys language of emergency in addition to some group’s democratically questionable institutional proposals)
On the other hand, NCD retains commitment to mobilizing and engaging people, making it less of an overall risk to democracy and comparatively preferable
- people are seen as env doers (Carvalho overlap), remains open to political participation/reaction to public/social demonstrations
- so it is less of a threat to democracy than BD
Yet the choice between more and less democratically risky env activisms doesn’t present us with robust options (it is an underwhelming choice)
What would it mean to pursue ambitious environmental action without endangering democracy?
How can we act swiftly to save the planet without giving up on democracy? - is it possible
questions
is Carvalho et al. anti-science?
scientized env discourse is not one that puts much capacity to act in the hands of democratic citizens (most people not env scientists) -> limits their capacity to be doers of env politics
- not anti-science, concern with primarily scientized ways to frame env politics invites people to sit back
even in contexts where participation is invited, e.g. with referenda, people don’t participate much??
-> subject formation is not a thing that happens in an instance: it is a process, takes some time (from less politically inactive person to becoming one)
- from rise neoliberalism (1970s), eco logics have corroded political logics -> depoliticization comes a long way = serious challenge -> unlikely that it will quickly change, that people will quickly repoliticize
some NCD groups have made proposals for significant institutional change alongside env change, some raising questions about democratic legitimacy and authority
specifically points to XR that introduces constituent assemblies (selected by lot, i.e. random selection) and that that assembly would be vested with serious legislative authority that other existing legislative bodies would be obliged to take up -> worry = what makes that constituent assembly responsive/responsible to democratic citizens?
recap
Carvalho:
- impediments to env action
- prominent env discourses -> depoliticization -> sidelines citizens potential contribution
- attempts to repoliticize are on the way, but acts of resistance and prefigurative projects haven’t scaled that much, so there are some hurdles there
Scheuerman:
- how existing approaches tend to play out
- may look similar: both env-motivated law breaking
- NCD remains committed to democratic persuasion, to mass engagement, BD doesn’t -> NCD preferable
- how can env action and democracy be made more compatible?
