After reading Marilyn Cooper's "Environmental Rhetoric in the Age of Hegemonic Politics: Earth First! and the Nature Conservancy," I felt like I was partly being given an overview (a limited one at best) of environmental organizations that vary in radicality, and I felt like I was partly given an endorsement of the Nature Conservancy. The example of Earth First! (the only example!) was a horrible essay/article, probably one of their worst, about cattle grazing on park lands that completely relied on assumptions and did not have much credibility as it paints the government and ranchers as evil tyrants, over and over, without civility. So first, I just want you to compare the Web sites of Earth First! and the Nature Conservancy in order to see that EF! has more to say than diatribes about cow shit blighting the landscape.
Cooper argues, "if Deep Ecology is not challenged at the philisophical level, the number of environmentalists committed to ecotage is likely to grow" (249). I agree with her concern, but she does little to emphasize what is valuable in the Earth First! organization. David Foreman, the founder of Earth First! mentions that the organization is about civil disobedience and taking alternative approaches to ecological preservation. I do not agree with armed confrontations and violence to achieve environmental conscience and sustainability in our civilization, but that is not the whole of Earth First! and I doubt the entire organization supports violent action for environmental stewardship. If Cooper spent more time on diverse examples from the two organizations, rather than her stab at credibility in her account of Gramsci's radical democratic theory, I think she would have been much more credible and her article would be profoundly more effective. Nonetheless, I praise her for taking a stand and trying to converse about sustainable sustainability in the world.
As you can see in the EF! Web site, there is a lot more going on than eco-terror and uncivil disobedience. It is markedly much less business looking than the NC Web site, and it focuses on broader, more global issues than NC, which is in ways myopically focused on US ecosystems that turn profits. The links, Dangerous spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Bear Mountain Development, Vancouver Island, BC, Mountaintop Mining, Hemp, Recycling Styrofoam
Alternative Energy and Run Your Car on Veggie Oil all seem much more associated with civil disobedience and nonviolent action/discourse than the brief example that is given by Cooper. I just want to expand or perspectives here because Cooper's exposition is limited and misleading I believe.
Look at the top of the post at the enviro-fascist parody, you will see that and a whole other string of negative depictions of environmentalists when you search "envieronmentalist" on
What does this reveal about Google and its sponsors? Is there anything dialectic about their depiction of enviromentalists?
Is there anything, but stereotypes here? I felt like I was listening to Glenn Beck describe environmentalists.
Cooper references Gramsci stating, "leadership is the winning of power through building an intellectual and moral consensus, the establishment of hegemony" (241). She seems to align Nature Conservancy with this statement and Earth First! with "domination is the naked exercise of power, the use of law or armed forces to liquidate . . . opposing groups" (241). I hope to challenge that alignment and associated stereotypes that are rampant about environmentalists in general, but also those about Earth First! that Cooper perpetuates in her article. If you take the time to look closely at Earth First! they are actually providing education about sustainability that does not advocate enviro-fascism and uncivil disobedience.
Maybe Earth First! can re-shape their identity and work more with eco-satire, aligning their identity with hegemony and proving they are not a bunch of blood thirsty tree huggers, 10K strong. Unfortunately, stereotypes are what many Americans complacently lap up from the spoon. Cooper states, "the problem with the environmental movement lies not in the lack of agreement over how to pursue the goal of protecting biodiversity but rather in the absence of 'healthy interaction between the more radical groups and the mainstream groups'" (256). Do you think Cooper reinforces this or damages it?
"Cooper argues, "if Deep Ecology is not challenged at the philisophical level, the number of environmentalists committed to ecotage is likely to grow" (249)."
ReplyDeleteuhh...that was a quote from an article from The Heritage Foundation which cooper is using as an example of how people wanting to resist environmentalism can use moderate groups to criticize other groups, which would be a criticism of The Nature Conservancy not Earth First!
Russ,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see your point of Cooper’s unfair choice of examples, the things that I pulled up from the website of Earth First! Confirm her claim. The individualistic, violent rhetoric is hard to dismiss in the following text.
To start an Earth First! group in your area, consider the following elements: Contacts: Even though it is up to every individual EF!er to come up with campaigns and strategies and carry them out, a successful group still needs a "contact" to:
•Educate yourself on the ways you can attract attention to environmental concerns and dissuade people and corporations from destroying the Earth.
•Learn the law. While getting arrested will often bring increased media attention, weigh all the options. Freedom is an important asset. Avoiding jail is sometimes a better strategy.
•Become aware of the risks to which you will be exposed. Activists are often arrested during legal actions by police ignorant of the law.
•Establish a web site for your local area so that anyone may get in touch with you and learn what you're doing to help.
•Gather people to help instigate actions and spread the word on what needs to be done to protect the Earth.
www.earthfirst.org
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI'm always intrigued with what you will come up with and how you will put it online. But I'm not sure if you are FOR Earth First or against them. Are you riding the fence?
As you can probably guess from my remarks during class, I can see the slant in the article, but do not think it affects her argument much. Her important points are theoretical and, if useful, should be applicable to the rhetoric of other groups. Plus she clearly connects NC to hegemony, discusses the risk that they will serve to preserve capitalist hegemony over conservation values. Further more, deep ecology groups such as EF serve as the main arm of a possible counter-hegemony.
ReplyDeletePerhaps her choice of article stacked the deck and points to the need for revisiting EF and NC, but the purpose of the article is less to assess these specific groups than to provide theory for proceeding with other examples.
I love your google search and justifiable point about icons and stereotypes. And I like the posters you posted, especially "what Was That Bump?"
ReplyDeleteGreat comments; I appreciate your challenges, insights and complements.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I thought that the quote JWhick mentions is about toning down the violence of EF! while remaining harbingers in a way that doesn't bring a negative and violent reputation. Thanks Jwhick, after a second look I see your point that it was an example of slander.
Second, the EF! Web site does have a bit about breaking the law, but it doesn't encourage armed resistance and violence. It just has some considerations about breaking the law. I read this more as Henry Thoreau-esque civil disobedience.
Third, Yes I'm on the fence, or I am Russ so to speak. I follow my own beliefs, but I like the fact that EF! is around and I think they have something important to contribute to discussions and issues of ecology.
Yeah, I agree that I am harping a bit on Cooper's choice of examples. She actually supports the EF! movement to some extent, and she demonstrates the conflict at NC.
Thanks!