Popular(ized) environmental rhetoric : a toulminian approach
Lempinen, Hanna (2009)
There are no files associated with this item.
Lempinen, Hanna
Lapin yliopisto
2009
openAccess
Tiivistelmä
This study examines the structure of environmental argumentation through two of the most influential environmental comments of our time. As milestones of the popular environmental debate, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth have participated in shaping environmental consciousness and politics. The aim is to explicate and compare how, why and based on what environmental issues are constructed as problems and what kind of rhetorical means are used in the process. Carson's novel about the dangers of pesticides and Gore's global warming documentary are discussed in the context of Stephen Toulmin's theory of rhetoric. Focusing on the structures of natural argumentation, it offers a convenient theoretical and methodological framework for approaching persuasive environmental argumentation. The elements essential for 'logically candid argumentation' – data, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal and conclusion – are examined and discussed on the macro-level and placed in the argument diagram.
A Toulminian analysis of environmental argumentation and rhetoric reveals striking similarities between the arguments of Silent Spring and An Inconvenient Truth. Both Gore and Carson base their claims on scientific data and based on this empirical evidence, a normative conclusion stating the absolute necessity of the recommended measures is drawn. The demand for action is warranted by the desirability of ensuring the future of 'our' planet, and the advantages of taking action are further underlined by the backings presented. A multi-field strategy of backing appears as an essential feature in persuasive environmental argumentation – the desirability of taking action is presented in terms of anthropocentric, ecosystemic and financial benefit and as morally just and aesthetically inspiring. Respectively, also differences in argumentation can be characterized. Whereas Carson indicates uncertainty in the science forming the data, Gore declares the grounds of his conclusion as absolutely certain – still, Carson effortlessly draws a certain conclusion based on uncertain grounds. Gore's personal authority plays a crucial role in the construction of his comment, leaving no room for rebuttal; for Carson, the reaction is left, in principle, for the public to decide.
In addition to the similarity in patterning the argument as a whole, Silent Spring and An Inconvenient Truth share one more feature distinctively present in all elements of argumentation. Sharp critique towards the dominance of anthropocentrism, technology and economy dictating the relationship to nature is constantly presented – global warming and chemical contamination are manifestations of the profound distortion of human-environment relationship. Curiously enough, the keys for solving the problem are placed in the hands of the human race and its technological achievements – also, taking action is encouraged with the promise of financial gain. The logic behind the solutions provided participates in further enforcing the dominance it criticizes.
A Toulminian analysis of environmental argumentation and rhetoric reveals striking similarities between the arguments of Silent Spring and An Inconvenient Truth. Both Gore and Carson base their claims on scientific data and based on this empirical evidence, a normative conclusion stating the absolute necessity of the recommended measures is drawn. The demand for action is warranted by the desirability of ensuring the future of 'our' planet, and the advantages of taking action are further underlined by the backings presented. A multi-field strategy of backing appears as an essential feature in persuasive environmental argumentation – the desirability of taking action is presented in terms of anthropocentric, ecosystemic and financial benefit and as morally just and aesthetically inspiring. Respectively, also differences in argumentation can be characterized. Whereas Carson indicates uncertainty in the science forming the data, Gore declares the grounds of his conclusion as absolutely certain – still, Carson effortlessly draws a certain conclusion based on uncertain grounds. Gore's personal authority plays a crucial role in the construction of his comment, leaving no room for rebuttal; for Carson, the reaction is left, in principle, for the public to decide.
In addition to the similarity in patterning the argument as a whole, Silent Spring and An Inconvenient Truth share one more feature distinctively present in all elements of argumentation. Sharp critique towards the dominance of anthropocentrism, technology and economy dictating the relationship to nature is constantly presented – global warming and chemical contamination are manifestations of the profound distortion of human-environment relationship. Curiously enough, the keys for solving the problem are placed in the hands of the human race and its technological achievements – also, taking action is encouraged with the promise of financial gain. The logic behind the solutions provided participates in further enforcing the dominance it criticizes.
Kokoelmat
- Pro gradut [3938]