Lecture 8: The Politics of Eco-Grief, -Guilt, and -Anxiety Flashcards
(21 cards)
What makes environmental grief distinct from other forms of grief?
Cunsolo & Ellis note its unique timeframe (can be anticipatory, tied to future losses) and disenfranchised nature (often unrecognized, lacking social support or rituals). Unlike conventional grief (e.g., loss of a loved one), it lacks formal coping mechanisms.
How does environmental grief reveal human relationships to nature?
Cunsolo & Ellis argue grief signifies interdependence—eco-grief shows that people rely on and are emotionally connected to the environment, underlining human relational ties to nature.
What kinds of losses can environmental grief involve?
Eco-grief can involve physical losses (property, changing environments), loss of knowledge (traditional ecological knowledge disrupted), and identity (for communities closely tied to land, like Inuit or Australian farmers), leading to anxiety, disorientation, and loss of confidence.
What political and ethical implications does eco-grief carry?
Eco-grief suggests both an ethical duty to care for the environment we depend on, and a political responsibility to use collective power for environmental protection. It also supports claims for eco-reparations—compensation for losses, including non-material ones, as recognized in frameworks like the UNFCCC’s Warsaw Mechanism.
What are some maladaptive coping mechanisms for eco-grief?
To cope with eco-grief, people might numb themselves emotionally or use substances to distract from the distress. These are maladaptive responses that fail to address the root causes of grief.
How might people manage eco-anxiety, and what are the risks?
People might use denial (denying climate change) or disavowal (minimizing its threat), which can lead to a vicious cycle—denial worsens the problem, leading to more denial and anxiety.
How does nostalgia link to eco-grief and feed into authoritarianism?
Nostalgia for a time when environmental loss wasn’t a major concern can make people more susceptible to eco-authoritarianism, where a strong leader denies climate change and promises to return to a less anxious, “better” past. This narrative offers hope and can sacrifice freedom for perceived ecological comfort.
How does climate change contribute to existential fear, and how might this affect political reactions?
Climate change disrupts people’s ability to find meaning in life, intensifying existential dread. To cope, some may seek relief by reaffirming the status quo or denying climate change. This can lead to reactionary backlash against far-reaching eco-political proposals that challenge their comforting beliefs.
What role do eco-friendly rhetorics play in advertising and institutional branding?
Eco-friendly rhetorics are common in advertising and branding, not because they significantly help the environment, but because they are profitable. These messages convert interest in environmentalism into consumer sales, often focusing on small individual actions (like recycling) rather than systemic change.
How do eco-friendly rhetorics perpetuate the guilt-atonement cycle?
Eco-friendly rhetorics create a cycle where individuals feel guilt for participating in destructive systems. To alleviate this guilt, they engage in individual actions (e.g., buying green products), but these actions don’t address the larger systemic issues, perpetuating the cycle of guilt and atonement.
How can eco-friendly rhetorics inhibit political environmental change?
By focusing on individual actions and guilt, eco-friendly rhetorics atomize collective guilt, which diminishes its political potential. When environmental guilt is expressed as personal responsibility, the broader need for systemic political change is obscured.
How do corporations use environmental scapegoating?
Corporations use environmental scapegoating to shift blame for environmental harm onto consumers. By making consumers feel guilty, corporations absolve themselves of responsibility for environmental wrongdoing and avoid addressing their own contribution to harm.
How does the “Crying Indian” PSA manipulate collective guilt?
The PSA asks the American audience to identify with both the ad’s protagonist (the crying Native American) and the forces responsible for making him cry, triggering a sense of collective guilt. This guilt merges the responsibility for environmental degradation and genocide, causing a moral conflict within the viewer.
How is environmental scapegoating used today through the concept of the carbon footprint?
The carbon footprint concept individualizes eco-guilt by encouraging people to monitor and reduce their personal emissions, shifting responsibility away from major polluters like corporations.
What are the two dimensions of environmental scapegoating in the “Crying Indian” PSA?
1.Viewers are blamed for pollution of the physical landscape.
2.Viewers are blamed for industrial-colonialism and its effects.
What is the effect of the PSA’s environmental scapegoating strategy?
The PSA deflects questions of responsibility by focusing on the inherited, collective guilt of the nation, diverting attention from corporate culpability. This guilt is then individualized and directed at consumers, urging them to atone for their actions through personal behavior changes rather than political action.
What role did British Petroleum (BP) play in promoting the carbon footprint narrative?
BP popularized the concept in 2005 through a $100 million US media campaign to distract from its own environmental impact and shift blame to individual consumers, steering attention away from the need for systemic political change.
What is the hypocrite’s trap in environmental rhetoric?
It’s a tactic used to discredit advocates of environmental change by accusing them of hypocrisy if their personal behaviors don’t fully align with their ecological values or recommendations.
Why is the hypocrite’s trap politically obstructive?
It shifts focus from systemic issues to individual guilt, making collective action harder by implying that only those who live perfectly eco-friendly lives are qualified to push for environmental change—an impossible standard.
What is the double bind in environmental rhetoric?
It’s a communication paradox where people are encouraged to take small eco-friendly actions, but the scale of these actions is so inadequate compared to the problem that the message undercuts itself.
How does the double bind affect individuals’ sense of responsibility in environmental issues?
It guilts people into acting in ways that can’t meaningfully address the crisis, then blames them for the inadequacy of those actions—fostering frustration, guilt, and inaction.
