Ex-cite-ing News

Having the chance to say something is one thing, but when someone else uses what you said to help advance the conversation, that's really special.

Two years ago, I blogged about the publication of the paper that I wrote with Dr. Michael Salvador. That was a pretty special moment, particularly after the many years of work that went into writing it. However, the newest development in the history of that article might be even more exciting because I recently discovered that for the first time, a paper citing our article has been published.

Dr. Lawrence R. Frey and Dr. Joshua S. Hanan teamed up to write a paper calling for critical rhetoricians to use their work more for direct social activism, and that piece, titled "Toward Social Justice Activism Critical Rhetoric Scholarship," has now been published in the International Journal of Communication. As they make their case, the authors cite the paper Dr. Salvador and I wrote, saying:

"Recent scholarship reveals that rhetoricians—working in conversation with the ideological, critical, and decolonial turns in rhetorical studies—are poised to engage in social justice activism research. For example, during the past two decades, rhetoricians have studied oppressed communities’ social justice struggles; in part, to “interrogat[e] the underlying impulses of rhetorics that appear to be advocating for freedom” (Hartzell, 2018, p. 13). Using primarily textual methods, that scholarship has offered important insights into intersectional and (neo)colonial workings of power, as well as how discourses of freedom, liberation, and emancipation subtly can reproduce hierarchy and inequality (e.g., DeLaurier & Salvador, 2018; Discenna, 2010; Enck-Wanzer, 2011; Hartzell, 2018; Hasian & Delgado, 1998; Hurt, 2007; Kearl, 2015, 2018; Middleton, 2014b)."

To be honest, it's a very cool feeling to know that someone else thought enough of our work to incorporate it in their own. It certainly provides validation and a nice shot of confidence. What's even more encouraging is the objective of Frey and Hanan's article. The idea of using rhetorical scholarship for social activism is a crucial aspect of the foundation for our article, and to see someone taking it further is very heartening. I think this is an important development for rhetorical analysis, academic scholarship in general, and society as a whole, and I am so happy that I was included in it. To read the entire article by Frey and Hanan, click here.

Building on ideas represents the essence of scholarship to me, so I am very pleased I could play a role in developing these ideas, and I am eager to see where critical rhetoric goes from here.

Reflecting on 10 Years of Blogging

What do you do after you have to create a blog for a class assignment and that class ends? If you're a tree-hugger with Finnish heritage, the obvious answer is to retitle it envirofinn and write about the environment for at least 10 years.

For the 2010 spring semester of my Ph.D. studies, I had to start a blog in my rhetoric class. It was simply a blog about assigned readings. Since I didn't have any more of those after the class ended, I decided to take the blog in a new direction on May 19, 2010. I thought it could become a good place to collect and share information about the environment.

Looking back on the last decade of envirofinn, I realize how much I put into its development and maintenance. It turned into a lot more than an information hub. I liked the template I chose so much, I haven't changed it once despite having many new options. The fall theme is just too me. Plus, I think it still looks nice. Besides, I spent a great deal of time trying to find the perfect color scheme for the text, and when I finally found it, I didn't want to let it go. I'm also quite fond of the envirofinn flag I created by adding the green of the blog to the Finnish flag.

A lake in Repovesi National Park reflects
a partly cloudy sky over Finland.

Yes, a lot of myself went into this blog. Eventually, the posts evolved from sharing resources, tips, and events to covering some of my personal experiences and growth as well. A few highlights included going to Finland in 2012 and coming back with material for several posts and the series from summer 2015 that chronicled my coming to terms with the age of global warming.

Some posts also recorded professional accomplishments and development. For instance, I used the blog to announce that I had published a journal article about environmental communication. In addition, I covered my work with Initiative 1631, Carbon Washington, The Nature Conservancy in Washington, and the Black Hills Audubon Society. In short, envirofinn contains some major pieces of my life even though it continues to be a place where I share resources, tips, and events. It probably helped me further my understanding of the environment as much as it helped anyone else learn where to recycle something or how to buy reusable shopping bags.

One thing I take extra pride in is the fact that I have made at least one post in each of the last 120 months. I may not post as often as I once did, but it remains important to me to keep the streak going.

A lot has happened since its inception, but looking toward the future, envirofinn will continue exploring our connection with the environment.

Locating Co-Presence: It's in the Journal

Anyone looking for co-presence with the environment can find it in the academic journal Environmental Communication.

After several years of work, "Locating Co-presence in Media Messages about Global Warming," the research paper I wrote with Dr. Michael Salvador, has finally received publication in Environmental Communication.

I last blogged about this paper when the journal accepted it in early 2016. In the meantime, the article appeared in the online version of the journal. However, this publication in Volume 12 Issue 3 of the hard-copy version makes the acceptance feel more real.

As I celebrate the publication, I would like to thank Dr. Salvador for all his work and help on this project. Hopefully, our paper can make a contribution to the ways we analyze and produce environmental communication. The objective always was to improve the relationship people have with the environment. If you would like to access the article, click here.

We can find co-presence with our environment in how we talk and the actions we take, and now, we can find it in Environmental Communication.

The Irony of Don Henley's "Praying for Rain"

We already know Don Henley as a great singer, musician, and entertainer, but as it turns out, he's also a pretty good rhetorician.

For his latest album, Henley effectively uses a rhetorical-narrative device to draw attention to the issue of global warming. The song, "Praying for Rain," employs irony to question our lack of action in responding to the signals of a warming planet. Check out the song here:

Ironic narratives feature main characters overcome by and unable to affect their situations. In "Praying for Rain," the irony becomes apparent when the first-person narrator, a farmer besieged by drought, says, "We hardly had a winter, had about a week of spring. Crops are burned up in the fields. There's a blanket of dust on everything. The weatherman is saying that there ain't no change in sight. Lord, I've never been a praying man, but I'm saying one tonight." Laying out the drought conditions paints the picture of an overwhelming situation for the farmer. He's never seen anything like it--a common reaction to the extreme weather events generated by global warming; and we know he feels powerless because of his admission that the predicament appears endless. Together, these narrative elements suggest we're listening to an irony, a suspicion confirmed when the man who's never prayed is driven to prayer--ironic indeed.

Action, not prayer, however, is the objective of Henley's irony. The farmer might turn to prayer, but that doesn't end the ironic narrative. In desperate circumstances, all he has is prayer, and the desperation only grows as he repeats that prayer over and over again without receiving any response. That's what we're left with: a powerless man and an unheard echo that remain completely at the mercy of their circumstances. In this way, Henley uses the ironic narrative theme of powerlessness as a call for action. The repeated chorus holds us in the frustration of failing to take action, calling into question all those times when people have actually tried to pray drought away.

We can't choose not to act while action is still possible and then expect that we'll be able to act in desperate circumstances, and Henley has given us the right rhetorical device to hit that realization home.

Cause and Possibility

We're told to think big. We have a lot of practice thinking about now. However, we need to work on thinking long--as in long-term. DamNation, a documentary about dams, shows us how and gives us a sense of what is possible when we do. Check out the trailer for the film below:



Many people who study communication or engage in communication as a profession are interested in effects. They want to know what effect a piece of communication has caused or will cause. Such an approach to communication yields a lot of great information, particularly about the now and the short-term. The problem is that it tends to miss some of the bigger, long-term picture. Environmental advocates often despair over a campaign not generating immediate results, yet failing to produce an immediate effect does not mean an act of communication cannot have an impact. That's because not all reactions are produced right away. Sometimes, communication is about opening up possibilities for the future.

Rhetoric provides an opportunity to probe beyond direct and immediate effects. As DamNation, which is presented by clothing manufacturer Patagonia, beautifully demonstrates, the apparent initial failure of some communication isn't the end of the story. Rhetorical symbols like cracks painted on dams were seen as radical, fringe ideas in the 1990s. However, that symbolic act created a foothold for an idea (removing dams) that is becoming more mainstream--to the point that people are embracing and putting their own stamp on the activist art. Now, it's the dams and their environmental impacts that are questioned.

DamNation also reminds us that environmental issues are big and require long-term thinking as well. We created dams to address immediate needs but failed to consider the larger repercussions. That failure led to major problems. Clearly, we can't address the environment only in the short-term, and we shouldn't look at communication that way either.

Thinking big got us dams. Thinking now makes us miss so much. And thinking long has major possibilities.

National Geographic's Misapplication of GMOs

In the rhetoric of science, one of the following is not like the others: evolution, global warming, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The misfit is GMOs. That is unless the scientific rhetoric in question comes from National Geographic.

I recently took part in a panel discussion about the intersection of scientific rhetoric and environmental communication, and one of the topics that came up was National Geographic's most recent issue, which contains the cover story about why people have a distrust of science. (Check out the article here.) The article features an okay discussion about why so many people have doubts about things like evolution and global warming. However, in contrast to the principles of science, which seek to gain an ever-larger understanding of our situation, the article impedes and constrains itself substantially, particularly in regard to GMOs.

The article identifies the conflict between people's common sense and the scientific method as a key source of misunderstanding. That's certainly a valid point, but it's only part of the discussion. An important issue the article fails to address is that science itself created some of the distrust. As one of my colleagues on the panel pointed out, science enjoyed a "golden age," in which it aligned with industrial and political forces to create dangerous products (for example, atomic bombs and industrial chemicals) that harmed humans and the environment. Along the way, these scientific creations also harmed the reputation of science.

National Geographic says that the majority of scientific research holds that GMOs are safe for human consumption, and therefore, the case of GMOs is a defining example of people's irrational common sense trumping scientific consensus. With regard to the safety of eating GMOs, National Geographic may very well be right, but consumption is not the whole story, and the magazine does a disservice to science by leaving out key considerations.

It is in the history of science's malpractice that we find the difference between evolution, global warming, and GMOs. GMOs are scientific creations, not established theories about the planet's health and development. As scientific creations, GMOs are more like industrial chemicals and pesticides. In fact, they work in tandem with pesticides to create environmental problems. For example, the combination of GMOs and pesticides imperils monarch butterfly populations by eliminating milkweed, an important source of food for the insects. Pesticides like DDT were once said to be "safe" until we became aware of their larger environmental impacts (like the near extinction of bird species, including the bald eagle). And that is where the aspect of public doubt that National Geographic ignores comes into play. We have been misinformed about scientific creations before, and that led to the crash of science's golden age. Given that history, the control that GMO developers have placed on information regarding their products makes people even more wary.

By disregarding an important contributor to public doubt over science, National Geographic simplifies a complex issue, neglects important environmental considerations (like the possible extinction of species), and contributes to the cloud of mistrust people have for even firmly supported and comprehensive scientific facts like global warming and evolution.

I guess crop fields aren't the only places GMOs are misapplied.

Greenpeaces of Rhetoric

Rhetoric and Legos have a lot in common, and thanks to Greenpeace, one of those things is the environment.

A key trait shared by rhetoric and Legos is the ability to construct something elaborate out of connected pieces (of language or blocks, respectively). Much like Legos construct whole worlds, rhetoric builds our world. As we define and frame events, decisions, actions, and our surroundings, we put together understandings that become the world we live in. For example, the Lego brand has partnered with Royal Dutch Shell to build Lego worlds complete with Shell's corporate symbols and oil operations. As the partnership brings Shell into the rhetoric of Legos, it reinforces the oil company's standing as a major part of our world.

We can also deconstruct both rhetoric and Legos, and Greenpeace has done exactly that with a video example of critical rhetoric. Watch it below:

LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome from Greenpeace on Vimeo.

Critical rhetoric challenges dominant forms of rhetoric and attempts to expand our understanding of the world. By taking the symbols of Shell and Lego, including the song, "Everything is Awesome," and raising questions about them, Greenpeace deconstructs the world the two companies had built and replaces it with a different world. In the world put forth by Greenpeace, the partnership between Shell and Lego is neither innocent child's play nor "awesome." Rather, the partnership is corrupting and, above all, threatens the environment, a threat Shell and Lego had neglected to include in their world.

A critical approach to rhetoric works by disconnecting the pieces of dominant rhetoric and reconnecting them to form a bigger picture of the world. Lego should know a little about that. Greenpeace sure does.