Ben Glasson
Ben Glasson is Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Environmental Communication and Media at Monash University, Australia. He holds a PhD in Environmental Politics from the University of Melbourne and has significant experience analysing environmental debates in the media. His research focuses on the ways that organisations and individuals perpetuate social and ecological injustice through their communications.
less
InterestsView All (34)
Uploads
I will first consider the more important dimensions of environmental politics that discourse leaves out, before asking: What happens to these dimensions? Do they fall by the wayside? Or do they return? If so, in what form? These considerations will lead me to float the prospect that certain forms of environmental politics allow us to observe a changing relationship between that which is unspeakable and the discursive structures that maintain it as such.
Part One employs discourse theory to analyse the formation and reproduction of environmental discourses, how they recruit subjects, and the conflicts between them. Chapter one examines the climate sceptic movements in the US and Australia. It goes beyond analysis of the material bases of these movements to explain how they exploit deep-seated imaginaries of nation and frontierism to corrupt rational deliberation. At the other end of the scale, leading climate nations spruik their green credentials. Yet by analysing the official climate discourse of Great Britain, chapter two reveals a co-optive strategy aimed not at ecological crisis but at the legitimation crisis it poses to key market and state institutions. A third feature of climate politics is the ‘silent majority’. Chapter three enumerates the unfulfilled conditions that keep certain citizens from engaging in climate politics, even when they accept the science.
Part One concludes that ecologism, which seeks to reconcile ecology and society, is caught in a triple bind of antagonism, fragmentation, and co-optation that preserves the hegemonic order of growth- and consumerism-based capitalism. Part Two assesses possible ways to transcend the triple bind. Chapters four and five pursue the promise of an ecological subject, a collective agent that retains a kernel of autonomy from hegemonic discourse. It suggests such a subject does not exist behind or before discourse – as a primordial, pre-linguistic subject – but in the spaces between discourses, spaces that are not, as such, natural, but social. Chapter six further develops this argument. Enlisting the burgeoning ‘post-nature’ literature, it contends that an ecological subject, as liberatory social subject, is held back by the overarching category of Nature. Nature is implicated in the hegemony of capitalist modernity, and engenders a transcendent, ‘monotheistic’ planet immune to the damage humans inflict upon it. Finally, I turn to the strategic question of how Greens may negotiate the choice between radicalism – ‘pure’ but irrelevant – and the Faustian bargain of reform. Chapter seven contends that a third strategic alternative exists. It suggests that co-opted environmentalism can undermine the binaries that exclude its radical wing through a strategy of ‘subversive rearticulation’. Through a carefully orchestrated series of discursive pivots, subversive rearticulation can incrementally deflect, and ultimately unravel, the hegemonic logic of the triple bind.
I will first consider the more important dimensions of environmental politics that discourse leaves out, before asking: What happens to these dimensions? Do they fall by the wayside? Or do they return? If so, in what form? These considerations will lead me to float the prospect that certain forms of environmental politics allow us to observe a changing relationship between that which is unspeakable and the discursive structures that maintain it as such.
Part One employs discourse theory to analyse the formation and reproduction of environmental discourses, how they recruit subjects, and the conflicts between them. Chapter one examines the climate sceptic movements in the US and Australia. It goes beyond analysis of the material bases of these movements to explain how they exploit deep-seated imaginaries of nation and frontierism to corrupt rational deliberation. At the other end of the scale, leading climate nations spruik their green credentials. Yet by analysing the official climate discourse of Great Britain, chapter two reveals a co-optive strategy aimed not at ecological crisis but at the legitimation crisis it poses to key market and state institutions. A third feature of climate politics is the ‘silent majority’. Chapter three enumerates the unfulfilled conditions that keep certain citizens from engaging in climate politics, even when they accept the science.
Part One concludes that ecologism, which seeks to reconcile ecology and society, is caught in a triple bind of antagonism, fragmentation, and co-optation that preserves the hegemonic order of growth- and consumerism-based capitalism. Part Two assesses possible ways to transcend the triple bind. Chapters four and five pursue the promise of an ecological subject, a collective agent that retains a kernel of autonomy from hegemonic discourse. It suggests such a subject does not exist behind or before discourse – as a primordial, pre-linguistic subject – but in the spaces between discourses, spaces that are not, as such, natural, but social. Chapter six further develops this argument. Enlisting the burgeoning ‘post-nature’ literature, it contends that an ecological subject, as liberatory social subject, is held back by the overarching category of Nature. Nature is implicated in the hegemony of capitalist modernity, and engenders a transcendent, ‘monotheistic’ planet immune to the damage humans inflict upon it. Finally, I turn to the strategic question of how Greens may negotiate the choice between radicalism – ‘pure’ but irrelevant – and the Faustian bargain of reform. Chapter seven contends that a third strategic alternative exists. It suggests that co-opted environmentalism can undermine the binaries that exclude its radical wing through a strategy of ‘subversive rearticulation’. Through a carefully orchestrated series of discursive pivots, subversive rearticulation can incrementally deflect, and ultimately unravel, the hegemonic logic of the triple bind.