Group 2 Handout

Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline Palmer, "Eco-speak and rhetorical analysis"

Killingsworth and Palmers' article examines the patterns of rhetoric commonly used in environmental writing in an attempt to offer improved methods for addressing the environmental crises that effect our world. The essay takes a closer look at the roots of the environmental dilemma as well as the issues that prevent it from being solved; specifically, the limiting and worn-out methods of environmental rhetoric (ecospeak) that fail to generate social collaboration and shared interests.

The writers argue that the environmental dilemma and the rhetoric it spawns revolve around questions of ethics and epistemology. This is due largely to the seemingly impossible predicament of the "American Dream" and its conflict with environmental protection. How do we pursue an ever-higher quality of life when it results in disastrous environmental consequences? Killingsworth and Palmer claim that this dilemma is seemingly unsolvable due to Western society's "inability to solve ethical problems" (4) and lack of a unified public. Rather than taking action as a whole, the public is divided into opposing groups that approach critical issues with their own sets of values and interests. Unfortunately, those involved in the environmental debate "work from ethical foundations so widely separated that compromise becomes irrational and conflict endures with no end in sight" (4). This problem is exacerbated by its roots in humankind's removal from nature, an epistemological issue that dictates respective group's differing views of the human and non-human world. Some see nature as merely valuable to the extent it is usable by humans while other see it as a divine, efficient system that is far more important than mankind's modern assaults. This divergence in attitudes requires environmental writers to target not only the ethics of their audience, "but also the way the reader regards the entire community of nature" (4). The writers contend that to be alienated or separate from nature is to actually be separated from oneself, as we are "never entirely independent of [our] social context or natural context" (5). As the issue of environmental deterioration becomes more pressing and entreats upon the consciousness of the general public, participants in the environmental dilemma look to discourse as a way of mobilizing their audience to a cause.

The essay goes on to explain that the environmental dilemma has generated various "discourse communities" (7) that are made up of groups, each with their own interests, beliefs, and methods, that use focused language to promote their respective view of the world. Thus, the discourse of all groups is comprised of respective specialized language that is used by writers and speakers to create appeals that incite "cooperative social action" (7). The main goal of this rhetoric is to provide its audiences with identification: ethical, emotional, and logical requests that allow audiences to connect to a message or cause. However, countless groups such as deep ecologists, preservationists, politicians, etc. have all been "unable to create strong communicative links with the mass public” (7) that would incite major reform or change as environmental rhetoric has become somewhat worn-out and clichéd. This is where ecospeak comes in, having “emerged as a makeshift discourse for defining novel positions in public debate” (8). All too often its methods of argumentation are made up of stock phrases, tired examples and familiar language. These shortcomings run the risk of perpetuating conflicts and steering the public away from resolution as it prevents social cooperation and open-mindedness. Killingsworth and Palmer also point out that it has created a division between "good guys" and "bad guys" (e.g., environmentalist vs. developmentalist) in the media and everyday conversation that fails to reach out to those left in the middle, confused and overlooked by the starkly divided debate. Furthermore, ecospeak fails to highlight other "sources of solidarity and conflict" (10) that could actually help work through the environmental dilemma.

The "retreat into ecospeak" (10) is habituated by various participants in the environmental debate that have differing perspectives on nature’s purpose; there are those that see nature as an object, those that see nature as a resource, and those that see it as a spirit. Ironically, it is used just as heavily by environmentalists as it is by the media and "big business." It dominates the environmental literature landscape which, as Killingsworth and Palmer argue, is not an ideal way to achieve the level of social cooperation necessary to solve the ever-worsening environmental dilemma. Environmental rhetoric is in serious need of a departure from the overused narratives and language that prevent us from getting to the root of the problem. In order to be successful, it must adapt to the modern landscape of environmentalism and implement wider-reaching, fresher methods of rhetoric that will help bring about cultural (and consequently, environmental) renewal.

• Do any of the recent readings fall under the category of ecospeak? How or why not?
• How would Killingsworth and Palmer view César Chavez’s Wrath of Grapes Boycott Speech? Are the anecdotes he uses of innocent victims poisoned by pesticides an example of overused narratives in environmental rhetoric? Is his call for action fresh and inspirational to various audiences or does it perpetuate oversimplified oppositions?

Robinson Jeffers, “The Answer” and “Carmel Point”

In the poems “The Answer” and “Carmel Point”, Jeffers turns a critical eye to the “atrociously ugly” tendency of man to sever himself from nature and the nonhuman world. “The Answer” reads like a cautionary tale of sorts for those that have placed damaging distance between themselves and the “the earth and stars and [their] history” as well as those that are “deluded … [or] duped” into fantasies of “universal justice or happiness” (251-252). The message of this poem draws its strength from the concept of integrity; Jeffers repeats it twice as the key to avoiding “man’s pitiful confusions [and drowning] in despair” that is brought about by removing ourselves from the natural world. He values (and suggests that we do, too) “the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty of the universe” that are as connected to us as our own limbs. By respecting and taking pleasure in these things that are intrinsically and infinitely important, Jeffers suggests that we might arrive at “the answer.” He brushes off violence, tyranny, and oppression as a mere blip on the radar of infinite, glorious nature that holds more importance than anything our human interests create (and destroy). This idea of nature as an extraordinary force with unparalleled endurance is repeated in “Carmel Point.” In this poem, Jeffers praises “the extraordinary patience of things” that has little concern for the “crop of suburban houses” that disrupts the beautifulness of nature. He uses words that attest to the natural world’s purity and integrity (“pristine,” “unbroken”, “clean,” “confident”) that is reminiscent of “The Answer”, painting our world as one that should be valued by us finite and destructive humans for its immeasurable perpetuity. The natural world “has all time,” he writes, unlike humans who are but a mere “tide / that swells and in time will ebb, and all / their works dissolve.” The poem claims that the idea that we come from the earth and will be gone long before we can spoil it requires us to “uncenter our minds from ourselves.”

Jeffers’ poems refrain from using scare tactics or tired rhetoric in order to promote a message about the environment. Instead of pointing out the threat that faces human life and well-being or shocking us into heightened perception (as in Toxic Discourse or ecospeak), the intent of Jeffers’ poems is to recognize the “divine” beauty and “organic” integrity of the natural world so that we might close the expansive gap we have driven between the human and nonhuman world. This can be considered a deep-ecologist perspective in that it seeks to defy the Western separation of humans from nature: “Love that [divine beauty of the universe] / not man apart from that” is arguably the strongest line (and clearest declaration of deep ecology) in the “The Answer.” As such, Jeffers’ poems can be connected to the other writers we have read in this course that have similar deep-ecologist perspectives, such as N. Scott Momaday’s “A First American Views His Land.” Momaday’s Native American deep ecology is similar to Jeffers’ poems in that they both express reverence and respect for the land that they are intrinsically connected to: “I shall celebrate my life in the world and the world in my life,” Momaday asserts, sharing in Jeffers’ message of a divine nature that is more than worthy of our respect and reverence.

• How would Garrard respond to the deep ecologist ideas presented in Jeffers’ poems? Critically or favorably? Are there any other ecological tropes to be found in these poems?
• Can “The Answer” and “Carmel Point” be considered ecospeak or toxic discourse? Do they (implicitly or explicitly) attempt to steer the reader towards a certain direction or course of action? If so, what methods or tactics do the poems employ to achieve this?

W.S. Merwin, “Place”

Merwin’s poem “Place” is abbreviated and simplistic, discussing in short phrases the desire to plant a tree “on the last day of the world.” The poem clarifies that the speaker would plant the tree not for the fruit it would provide but because “I want the tree that stands / in the earth for the first time / … in the earth full of the dead” (717). The world is ending and the speaker wants nothing more than a tree that will live in an environment that is surrounded (and connected) to “the sun,” “the water,” “the clouds” through its roots and leaves. The speaker’s desire to plant the tree is far removed from any notion of producing fruit, which would merely leave the tree with a devalued sense of purpose. Merwin supports, like Jeffers, the unifying of man and nature rather than the harmful separation. His description of a tree “that stands / in the earth” and connects to elements of nature despite being surrounded by apocalyptic death speaks to human’s lack of relationship with the nonhuman world. The world might be on its last leg (perhaps from humans’ destructive assaults) and yet the tree that the speaker imagines stands alone in the midst of death with a distinct air of fortitude and splendor. Like the nature that withstands “intrusion” and “spoiler[s]” in Jeffers’ poem “The Answer,” Merwin’s image of the tree is one of integrity and beauty whose strength is innate and deeply rooted. Merwin’s poem can be considered based in deep ecology, like Jeffers, in that it maintains a reverence for nature and defies humankind’s detachment from it.

• Is Merwin’s poem more or less hopeful than Jeffers’? Does it exemplify nature in the same way? Does it exhibit a purely deep-ecologist perspective?

Lawrence Buell, “Toxic Discourse”

This essay, which examines the concept of toxic discourse and its effects on environmental issues, begins with a few quotes that set a somewhat disturbing tone for the essay, particularly the first, which states, “There is a real world, that is really dying, and we had better think about that” (30). The reader immediately gets the idea that this is going to be an essay that employs scare tactics and guilt to invoke action and responsibility in its audience (a method that Anthony and Soule would discourage as it is the opposite of ecopsychology).

Within the first paragraph of Buell’s essay the definition of discourse (not toxic discourse, however) is presented as an “an interlocked set of topoi whose force derives partly from the anxieties of late industrial culture, partly from deeper-rooted habits of thought and expression” (30). The definition does a fair job of clarifying discourse apart from the use of the word topoi (a traditional theme or motif or literary convention, according to Princeton’s WordNet search engine), which further complicates his theory because the reader more than likely has to look up a definition. Put more simply, Buell’s idea of discourse is subject matter that is popularly discussed in part because society is worried about the issue and also because of the way society thinks and acts as a whole.

The following paragraph offers the definition of toxic discourse, which is, “expressed anxiety arising from perceived threat of environmental hazard due to chemical modification by human agency” (31). With this definition, Buell emphasizes how fear is the motivating factor behind this discussion. According to Buell, the two reasons that toxic discourse has not been given enough attention is first that other subjects, such as health or property, are higher priorities in society. The second is what Buell calls the “tribal factor,” or how different groups of people have been talking about the environmental crisis. The differing viewpoints of the groups prevent cohesive action so Buell suggests ““mutual construction” of discourse,” which is a cooperative approach to environmental solution. This is closely related to Killingsworth and Palmer’s article, which promotes social ecology and asserts that the environmental crisis is a direct result of the way people think and act in society. Rebecca Solnit also makes a similar argument in her article, “The Thoreau Problem,” as she promotes both the importance of seeing the environment and society as inextricably linked and the necessity of unified action to solve these interrelated problems. In presenting the reasons that toxic discourse has not taken center stage in public discussion, Buell’s argument can be seen as a form of social ecology as he is implying that society’s way of thinking and acting must be altered to achieve environmental solutions.

Like Anthony and Soule’s piece, Buell also touches on the relationship between the need for social justice and environmental justice. Buell shows that it is not just the elite class calling for environmental solutions, but the non-privileged classes as well. These groups seem to be prescribing modes of action akin to Anthony and Soule’s ecopsychological propositions in that both emphasize the importance of community in remedying social and environmental difficulties.

Buell goes on to focus on what can be described as a rude awakening effect that induces panic in society. He gives some examples of literary works that have this effect on the reader, one of which is included in our readings and is titled “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. Buell claims that the “effective beginning” of toxic discourse was with Carson’s piece. As mentioned earlier, Buell chooses a similar effect for his readers with his choice of quotes that introduce the chapter. It seems Buell sees the rude awakening as a very if not the most effective rhetorical device for compelling his readers to effect change in the world.

• How can Buell's idea of toxic discourse be applied to Philip Dick's short story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
• Do the ideas about beauty, unity and integrity presented in Jeffers' poem "The Answer" coincide with Buell's perscriptions about the relationship between society and the environment?
• How is Buell's idea of toxic discourse different from Killingsworth and Palmer's notion of ecospeak?
  

Rachel Carson, “Silent Spring”

For this class, we read an excerpt titled “A Fable for Tomorrow,” which introduces Rebecca Carson’s book, Silent Spring. It begins with a short description of a town that is at first very lush, green and picturesque but is then suddenly plagued with “a strange blight” that kills all the animals around it and eventually adults and young children. Eventually the landscape around the town dies and becomes polluted and brown. The effect the plague has on the birds is extremely disturbing as they could not sing nor fly but could only shake intensely. This is the origin of the title as no birds sang in the spring. The cause of the plague is the insecticidal pesticide DDT, or, as Carson puts it, the people themselves. While the town described in the story does not actually exist, Carson declares that every aspect of deterioration she describes has happened somewhere in world. Carson then moves into a virulent attack on the dangers of DDT and the damage it has already inflicted on a large variety of birds from all over the world, particularly the bald eagle. The book had a tremendous effect on environmentalism, as is made clear by Buell’s reference to it as the forerunner of toxic discourse. Despite attacks from chemical companies, Carson’s book resulted in the restriction of the use of DDT and, as Buell points out, created a feeling of intense anxiety about the benefits of modernization in society. It can be argued that Carson romanticizes nature in a manner similar to Thoreau or Muir, particularly in the first paragraph that describes the town prior to the introduction of DDT. Killingsworth and Palmer might point out that this romanticism is important for the rhetoric of the book, as it appeals to the emotions of the reader in a very strong way.

• Does Anthony and Soule's concept of ecopsychology correspond with Carson's prescriptions? Does it take Carson's ideas a step further?
• How would Cronin analyze Carson's representation of the town? Would he critique the romanticism or see it as necessary?
• Does Scott Sander's short story have any parallels with Carson's account of the town? Can pastoral ecology be seen in Carson's piece?
  

Beverly Wright, “Living and Dying in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley”

Beverly Wright’s “Cancer Alley” piece discusses environmental racism (spawned by slavery) among predominantly African American communities within Louisiana’s “chemical corridor” due to its overabundance of petrochemical production. Segregation and discrimination are still apparent in the south in the form of housing. People’s health along with the economy is suffering from environmental racism due to “governments and big businesses taking advantage of people who are politically and economically powerless” (88). Because of corrupt government practices and “look-the-other-way environmental policies and giveaway tax-breaks” Louisiana is consistently ranked as one of the most polluted states with high poverty rates.

Wright’s reading shows the power that these corporations have within government. They are well organized with a solid plan of supporting political candidates who in turn support the association’s interests to promote expansion and pro-industry economic development. The Industrial Property Tax Exemption, described by Wright as “a corporate welfare program paid for by the poor of Louisiana, (91)” is a good example of the tight-knit relationship between these chemical corporations and politicians.

A majority of the African American communities within the corridor live within three miles of a polluting facility, a clear pattern of discrimination. Within these communities, there have been environmental justice struggles due to emerging health problems and terrible living situations that could be connected to the Toxic Discourse reading. Such bad health and living situations have produced numerous outcries and battles which Wright addresses in this reading, showing the nightmares that these people have to live out on a daily basis. Living with views of these facilities through their front windows, flares erupting nosily and unpredictably, unexplained booming noises, strange smells wafting into homes that produce headaches and breathing difficulties are only a few of the problems that people face in these areas.

• How can the corporation "UNorth" and their protective lawyers from "Michael Clayton" connect to the ties between government and corporation in Wright's piece? Is Wright's presentation of these corporations, lawsuits, and politics similar to Chavez's speech?
  

Eric Schlosser Lecture

Author of “Fast Food Nation” and contributor to the movie Food Inc., Eric Schlosser spoke at OU educating on the evils of the fast food industry and its effects on both humans and non-humans alike. Schlosser emphasized that millions of people (Americans and internationals) around the world are suffering from obesity, increased levels of cholesterol and diabetes, all of which are helping them die at an early age. His examples of the increased McDonalds chains in Great Britain along with Okinawa expressed how these fatty foods negatively transform entire nations.

He also discusses the affects of what the Fast Food Industry does to animals—taking animal cruelty to a whole new level. Cattle and chickens are packed into small cages and surrounded by their own fecal matter for most of their short lives. To think that one cattle feedlot could produce more waste than five large cities combined, which can amount to three trillion pounds of waste per year is incredible but these days unfortunately not unimaginable. Schlosser could be labeled as an environmentalist. Concerned about what the effects of poor animal care is doing to the environment, like causing mass pollution, Schlosser is outspoken and hard-pressed to create change by speaking out and educating audiences, but the rest he leaves up to activist organizations. He has done significant research to bring light on such important matters and it is from his research that has sprouted many organizations vying for change not just in the fast food industry but also to help preserve health and life for humans and non-humans. Schlosser still admits he loves the occasional burger and fries combo so he isn’t as dedicated as most deep-ecologists are but he does inspire deep-ecologists to take action.

The toxic discourse reading can also be connected to Schlosser’s point on human sickness deriving from bad food that produces mass poisonings like E. coli and salmonella. The chemicals that are put into the ground and consumed by animals that we in turn eat sometimes continue to carry the virus. After many poisonings and recalls, more people have started to rally against chemical products and have turned to organic lifestyles.

Schlosser also touches on people’s loss of connection with the food they consume. Their ignorance keeps them dependent and blind to capitalist industries providing them with food, and everything that goes into producing it. This could be connected to “Michael Clayton.” Consumers can’t take all the responsibility of being ignorant when big companies like UNorth and McDonalds spend most of their time and energy hiding the dangers of their products that happen to be killing thousands of uninformed people.



Cesar Chavez, “Wrath of Grapes Boycott Speech”

Cesar Chavez’s speech is a passionate call for action meant to call out and put a stop to “the selfish interests of California grape growers [that] threaten lives throughout North America” (691). He uses information from the EPA, New York Times, and various statistics and studies to reveal the appalling and extremely dangerous realities of the pesticides and poisons making their way into our food, homes, and bodies. Chavez supports his arguments with several examples of innocent children and adults victimized by the “systematic and reckless poisoning” carried out by the “powerful self-serving alliance between the California governor and the $4 billion agricultural industry” in 1986 (691). Referencing the relentless and selfish “self-interest” (691) that lies at the heart of this toxic epidemic, Chavez urges his audience to boycott grapes “until the demands of decency have been met” (694) in the hopes that truth and awareness will be able to combat the selfish interests of the government and big business.

Chavez’s use of information pertaining to pesticides found in grapes (and in water and the air) very much illustrates toxic discourse. Chavez uses information about the ingredients in and harmful effects of poisonous pesticides in a way that highlights the severity and impact of this critical issue. His support of his argument with tragic real-life examples also calls attention to (and generates emotion for) an issue that has been a brutal reality for far too long. Chavez’s speech can be considered toxic discourse in that it uses the flagrant health hazards brought about the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals in a way that capitalizes on the high-level of anxiety surrounding this issue. Furthermore, Chavez asks his audience to become involved and support the boycott, attempting to garner community support for a problem that indeed affects us all. This is similar to both Buell and Anthony and Soule’s position of social cooperation amongst communities is a major key to combating environmental crises. Chavez can also be considered a social ecologist in that a major part of his concern for the hazardous consequences of pesticides is that it exploits the communities and workers exposed to them. He attacks the selfish interests of big business and the government, emphasizing the need for political and social reform in order to solve environmental problems.


Carl Anthony and Renee Soule, “A Multicultural Approach to Ecopsychology”

Anthony and Soule’s piece blends together the themes of “race, ecopsychology, [and] the city” in order to assert the idea that “cities must be made whole in and aesthetic if wild habitats are to survive with integrity” (850). This essay advocates the blending of various cultural experiences, attitudes, and connections to the environment in order to understanding the simultaneously positive/negative interdependence between urban and natural environments. Anthony and Soule’s emphasis of the reciprocal relationship between city and wilderness strengthens their claim that “we are all in this together” and that in order to achieve “compassionate, creative responsibility” humans must recognize and appreciate the interdependence that connects us all (853).

Their stance is reminiscent of social ecology and deep ecology in that it calls for connection amongst humans and the environment if we are to combat ecological issues -- and recognizes political and social reform as a major factor in this process. It seems to criticize the tactics of toxic discourse, however, when it mentions the ineffectiveness of “pounding people with horrific facts and statistics [that invite] fear-based apathy” (853). The need for an overhaul of the way environmental and social injustices are presented is considered critical to promoting participation and responsibility, similar to Killingsworth and Palmer’s assertions in their piece on ecospeak. In order for humans to clearly face the truth in each other and in ecological issues the writers call for respect for diversity and recognition of various cultures, experiences, and values that does not overlook urban habitats and “displaced people”. This relates to Wright’s “Living and Dying in Lousiana’s Cancer Alley,” a piece that examines the exploitation of ignored cities and towns by big business corporations that promote pollution and environmental destruction. Both Wright and Anthony and Soule call attention to the “issues of racism and responsibility” and their affect on the environment and our relationship with it.





"Michael Clayton" (2007)

This film, starring George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and Tom Wilkinson, follows lawyer Michael Clayton (a self-described "janitor") who is brought in to fix the mess left behind when his colleague, Arthur Eden, suffers a nervous breakdown while representing UNorth, an agricultural products conglomerate, who are involved in a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit. Written off as a bipolar manic depressive gone off his meds, Arthur has suddenly "awakened" after years of running in the rat race as he realizes UNorth's guilt in killing and poisoning numerous people with their products. Determined to bring them down, Arthur is targeted by UNorth and its general counsel, Karen Crower, who eventually has Arthur killed before going after Clayton as he slowly discovers the truth behind Arthur's staged suicide and UNorth's deception.

The depiction of UNorth in Michael Clayton is a scarily accurate representation of the corporate deception and greed that takes place everyday in the modern world. Concerned only with efficiency and profit, countless corporations jeopardize the health and wellbeing of human beings and the environment. Law firms, like Clayton and Eden's, are paid millions to sweep their wrong-doings under the rug and settle up with the victims who take action against their injustices, leaving the general public either unaware of the health hazards they face or unable to do much about them. "Michael Clayton" could be linked to many concepts and pieces we have read in this course, most significantly the ideas presented in Wright's "Cancer Alley" and Chavez's "Wrath of Grapes," two pieces that go after selfish corporations and the political organizations that condone/support their reckless poisoning of humans and the world. In a particularly biting scene, Arthur repeatedly watches UNorth's deceptively "green" commercial that passes the company off as an innovator of agricultural production with environmentally sound practices. He proceeds to leave a voicemail for the company, calling out their products' toxic effects and the company's callous indifference and violation/manipulation of the public. This scathing attack on the client he was once defending has the same foundation as the critiques of the agricultural industry in Chavez's speech and the companies rallied against in Wright's "Cancer Alley".

The film also presents the tragic way in which so many of people, especially those working in corporate professions, become consumed by their job and consequently are disconnected from themselves, their families, and the world around them. This idea of detachment is represented in the major characters, from Michael Clayton's 17-year-long stint cleaning up other people's messes, to Karen's claim that her job provides all the balance she needs, to Arthur's sudden awakening after years of mindless enabling. The harmful effects of disconnection are based in deep ecology and are touched upon in many of our readings, especially the poems by Robinson Jeffers. His poem "The Answer" calls for integrity, respect for the natural world, and constant vigilance against evil and duplicity that ultimately corrupts us. This is the condition that the characters in Michael Clayton suffer from and their salvation comes from connecting at long last to things that are essentially right, beautiful, and sacred (this is especially evident in the scene where Michael steps out of his car at dawn to witness horses standing in an open field just before his car explodes in a murder attempt).