Lecture 9 - Climate (In)Action and (Dis)Engagement

Inaction: Carvalho et al. (4)

• Env inaction is a function of depoliticization

• Depoliticized env communication positions ppl as incapable of actively contributing to making of env politics

• Depoliticized env communication positions ppl as passive targets of communication

• When ppl are positioned this way, they check out + disengage

Two functions of Language (3)

• Ideational

  • Lang represents objects, phenomena, concepts

• Interactional

Interactional (8)

• Lang constructs roles of + rels between ppl

  • E.g., McAdam vs. Felli on “climate migrant” vs. “climate refugee”

• Lang does more than signify who someone, or what something, is

• It also constructs “statuses of + rels between ppl”

• Lang paradigms or discourses construct subjectivity (i.e., form + position ppl as people or subjects)

• Discourses give ppl a) diff roles to play b) diff capacities to act

• Discursive subject formation isn’t just something that happens to ppl

• Ppl also use lang to try to form + position themselves

Crisis of Political subjectivity (6)

• Depoliticization corrodes pol subjectivity

• Depoliticization shuts down pol contestation by universalizing a particular position or set of positions as only reasonable one

• When pol is taken out of pol, ppl “don’t know…how to act politically” + may not even appreciate “why acting politically is imp”

• In a depoliticized context, ppl aren’t positioned or constituted as pol actors w pol agency

• Env pol discourse is depoliticized + positions citizens as “passive spectators” to env politics, content of which is already preset

• Env pol discourse is depoliticized via: scientization, economization, moralization + for Carvalho et al., also “higher order” mechanism of naturalization

Scientized Environmental Discourse (4)

• Scientization

• We know scientifically what causes climate change + what needs to be done to stop it, so pol + policy simply need to reflect this

• This narrative is depoliticizing bcs it a) predetermines content of env politics b) positions citizens as having virtually nothing to contribute to content of that pol

• This narrative encourages inaction + disengagement (i.e., if substance of env politics is prefigured by science, then there’s no role for citizens to play in actively constructing it)

Scientization

Carvalho = refers to widespread claim that pol of climate change constitutes nothing more than translation of established consensus within (physical) climate science regarding anthropogenic nature of climate change into a pol consensus

Economized Environmental Discourse (2)

• Carvalho et al.: economized env discourses create context in which technical market-based policy responses are justified by a logic of econ calculation

• Economized env discourse contends that pol + policy must mirror not geophysical scientific consensus but mainstream econ consensus (e.g., green growth, carbon markets)

Economized environmental discourse - Implications (2)

• This narrative is depoliticizing bcs it a) predetermines content of env politics, thereby narrowing deliberation + b) silences citizens by positioning them as having no role to play in creating this politics

• This narrative also invites citizen inaction + disengagement

Moralized Environmental Discourse (4)

• Inhibits debate by predetermining some env perspectives as good + others as bad

• Insists that env pol reflect moral consensus ab what good or right thing to do is

• Doesn’t position ppl as bystanders due to lack of knowledge

• Instead, invites passivity by threatening those who disagree w condemnation + social censure (i.e., to avoid being seen as “bad ppl,” those w non-consensus views may withdraw)

Confusion around argument for citizen engagement (3)

• Argument for citizen engagement ≠ citizens know best

• Not that citizens’ proposals are better than those coming from experts or pol leaders BUT that failure of pol options tested up until now suggests that diff climate pol may be necessary + that citizen pol engagement may play a key role in bringing it about”

• Depoliticized env 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? (2)

• Repoliticization can be seen in some activist efforts that give citizens active role to play in construction of env politics

• But these repoliticizing env practices haven’t gained widespread uptake

Repoliticization can be seen in some activist efforts that give citizens active role to play in construction of env politics (2)

• Acts of resistance (e.g., blocking open-pit mining projects)

• Prefigurative action (e.g., community based renewable energy initiatives)

But these repoliticizing env practices haven’t gained widespread uptake (3)

• Climate activism may struggle to grow insofar as it seems to be an alt lifestyle choice instead of a broad-based mass mvt

• Climate activism may struggle to grow if doesn’t connect w ppl’s existing realities + understandings (e.g., climate justice efforts may get less uptake in Global North)

• Not all climate action aims to be pol (i.e., some prefigurative groups stress their apol nature + avoid pol parties + inst)

Action: Scheuerman (7)

• Environmental nonviolent civil disobedience (NCD)

  • More prominent

  • Conscientious + largely, but not entirely, nonviolent

• Environmental block and disrupt activism (BD)

  • Less prominent

  • Militant + more aggressive

• Both have democratically questionable aspects

Environmental NCD Activism (6)

• Pol motivated lawbreaking carried out w civility + 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 incl a) moral cachet b) familiarity

• Contemporary env 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 attention gaining mode of pol address by means of which otherwise indifferent pol peers can be persuaded to support change”

Scheuerman’s Tactical concerns about NCD (4)

• Env NCD has an “extraordinarily optimistic assessment” of power of non-violent action

• Assessment based on poli science re. non-violent rev against authoritarian govs

• But demanding env policy change from demo inst + overthrowing

  authoritarian regimes aren’t same thing + confusing one for other can be counterproductive

• E.g., 2019 XR blockade of London underground would’ve made sense if point was to challenge UK gov, but didn’t make sense as a public support building move

Scheuerman’s Political concerns about NCD (4)

• Some env NCD activists call not just for env policy change but pol institutional change

• E.g., XR proposal for a “more-or-less rev constituent assembly, selected by lot, outfitted w vast authority not only to counter global warming but also to pursue extensive pol + constitutional change”

• Also based on misapplication of social science, in this case deliberative demo theory

• But proposals like this are democratically dubious

Environmental BD Activism (3)

• Largely rejects peacable nonviolence

• Even more skeptical of existing demo practices + inst

• Action can be uncivil bcs public persuasion is irrelevant

Largely rejects peacable nonviolence (3)

• Militant in its actions + self-presentation

• Broader + more freewheeling approach to prop damage, which may be undertaken in secret

• E.g., vandalism + sabotage against gas pipelines, mining companies, petroleum operations

Even more skeptical of existing demo practices + inst (4)

• Sees reform as impossible and persuasion as futile

• Expresses impatience w + a desire to circumvent demo 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 + vandalism that blocks + disrupts fossil fuel infra

Scheuerman’s concerns about BD (2)

• Unrealistic ‘science fiction’

• Anti-demo

Unrealistic ‘science fiction’ (3)

• Fanciful to think a “small avant-garde can cripple a complex fossil fuel econ”

• Even if it could successfully block many fossil fuel producers’ operations, this wouldn’t be enough

• Only scaled, mass action could bring global fossil fuel econ to a halt

Anti-demo (4)

• To abandon persuasion is to abandon demo

• Urgency talk flirts w longstanding rationale for abandoning demo (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

• BD env activists allocate a parallel authority to themselves

An underwhelming choice (5)

• BD environmental activism is more demo worrisome

• But NCD comes up short on this metric too (i.e., also deploys lang of emergency in addition to some group’s democratically questionable inst proposals)

• On other hand, NCD retains commitment to mobilizing + engaging ppl, making it less of an overall risk to demo + preferable

• Yet choice between more + less demo risky env activisms doesn’t present us w robust options

• What would it mean to pursue ambitious env action w/o endangering

  demo? How can we act swiftly to save planet w/o giving up on demo?