Monday, September 27, 2010

Environmental Anxiety Globalized

Lawrence Buell writes that Toxic Discourse is defined as "expressed anxiety arising from perceived threat of environmental hazard due to chemical modification by human agency" (31). This anxiety can take many forms. Generally, it is propagated by the mass media's prediliction for fear-mongering that, in some cases, has genuine concern behind it. Richard Kirkland Jr wrote an article for Fortune magazine in 1988 that is just as relevant today as it was then. The article is entitled Environmental Anxiety Goes Global. It portends a future where all nations will be striving to quell environmental concerns, while at the same time continuing their enjoyable states-of-being. This idea of keeping intact a wall of "pastoral-uptopian innocence" (Buell 37) stands in the way of Toxic Discourse as a prevailing attempt to key the public in on the threat of environmental disasters. Kirkland writes about "Western Europeans...slow...[adoption of] catalytic convertors" to help cut down on automotive exhaust pollution. This is indicative of the stance of many white, rich consumers. Pretending to care about pollution is good (ie reading Toxic Discourse documents and nodding in agreement), but this feigning interest can only go so far. Real force must play into the equation to thwart what Kirkland cites as Britain's then prime minister Margaret Thatcher's idea of pollution as "the enemy within". Only with direction action, can "the individual or social panic [of Toxic Discourse]" (31) be assuaged. This may include reclycing, passing new legistation to clean up the environment, implementing other green-friendly energy sources (solar, wind, etc), and the list goes on.
For better or worse, Toxic Discourse often provides "totalizing images of a world without refuge from toxic penetration" (38). This is essentially what Kirkland's article relies on to paint a global picture of the threat of epic environmental disaster. Countries such as Germany, England, France and others are mentioned in regard to what steps they have taken to clean up their respective environs. This sense of common identity forged by outside forces is pivotal to the idea of Toxic Discourse. Collective action is needed to save the trees, oceans and other natural wonders, yet it can sometimes be alienating, since the charge might seem, to some, too large a task to even comprehend. Kirkland writes that, "Peugeot, a major French employer, convinced the governmental that [an anti-pollution control on small cars] would make its cars too expensive, costing sales and ultimately French jobs." This is paradoxical. Companies rule the world, yet we cannot possibly rely on them to fix the problems that they cause with their low production costs and slurry ponds and other massive industrial waste. Globalization has connected us all, totalized us onto a world scale awash with dark oil clouds and related uncertainty.
This is dark territory, something Buell refers to as "Gothificication", a tool used by purveyors of Toxic Discourse to create a sense of emotional panic. This use of haunting imagery to evoke social change is seen as an alternative to trying to get corporate involvement for the better of the planet. Keying people in on the desolation associated with environmental disasters as an empathetic plea is the first line of Kirkland's article, as he writes, "Dead seals did for Europe's environment awareness last summer what medical waste did in the U.S."- that is, let people know that something wicked was brewing under the surface. Abandon your lawn mowers and look to the coast, the storms are raging.
Neither Buell nor Kirkland provide clear-cut solutions to environmental problems. Toxic Discourse seems, to me anyway, as more of a channel of information, than a marked change of pace. Buell perhaps believes that by simply convincing consumers there are many damaging impacts associated with their gobbling up of natural resources (dead seals, burning waste, oil spills galore, etc etc etc ad naseum), they will attempt to change their ways. New legislation must be implemented however, for things to really turn around.

1 comment:

  1. Ah, Toxic Discourse. I really don't mind that word, discourse. It implies a conversation, a conversation where facts are relayed to one another and hopefully, potentially a solution or a compromise might be able to blissfully tie it all together. Good way to go about things, even if the outcome is most certainly impossible.

    Scaring people to death, however, is not the proper way to get people to agree with your view, no matter how factual it is. Once you scaremonger, your side has lost. It's really not much better than the Republicans telling people that "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism."

    Much like the issue of universal health care, eventually we as a nation will get to the point where the environment needs more direct intervention and pursuit of clean technology. We are even attempting to get closer, with the President's endorsement of creating clean energy jobs but we are still a nation. Just like how Obama cannot fit the last eight years in two years, we still need to wait and eventually see the long term benefits.

    You and I don't seem to have much in agreement, but you are still a good writer.

    ReplyDelete