Critical Stuudies 3A

Individual Assignment 2010

Essay Based on Given Topic.

“Drawing the Short Straw” by Tyrone Andrey

Student Number: 783

 Drawing the Short Straw.

When considering discourses on Nature and the Environment, one’s research will highlight
the fact that a magnitude of such discourses exist; many being similar, different &/or
opposing to each other (Hannigan, 1995: 3).

The Eighteenth Century saw the conception and birth of the industrial revolution, a time
also referred to as the Age of Enlightenment; “..a philosophical and social movement”
(Dickens, 2004: 1). As noted by Dickens, (2004:1), during this time, there was holistic
dedication to reason, science and freedom of the individual; the concentrations that led to
Nature being perceived and considered as a resource.

Following this notion; the late Eighteenth Century & early Nineteenth Century marked the
creation of the Romanticism movement; a movement concerned with art, literature and
intellect, a social movement opposed to the “social and political norms of the Age of
Enlightenment and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature.” (Romanticism
on Wikipedia 2010). Romanticism was the social movement that led to then led to the more
recent Environmentalism movement: Romanticism being the foundation of what Herndl
and Brown label as ‘poetic discourse’; the circle that opposes ‘regulatory discourse’
(Nature perceived as a resource) & ‘scientific discourse’ (Nature perceived as ‘knowledge’)
on the triangle they used to explain their ‘rhetorical model for environmental discourse.’
(Hannigan, 1995: 3).

When analyzing and investigating discourses on Nature and the Environment, as

previously stated, it is evident that there are many different perceptions amongst the many
academics that have engaged with this subject (Hannigan, 1995: 3). I believe that as
Hannigan highlighted (1995:3), Brulle documented nine discourses on Nature; a collection
of discourses that I find most simply comprises the ‘many’ that exist. Brulle’s discourses
are: Manifest Destiny, Wildlife Management, Conservation, Preservation, Reform
Environmentalism, Deep Ecology, Environmental Justice, Ecofeminism and Ecotheology
(Hannigan, 1995: 3). I believe that a more beneficial and excellently succinct categorization
of these many discourses that is more appropriate to contemporary society, is
demonstrated by a ‘Typology’ of environmental discourses by Hannigan (1995:3); his
categorization of the ‘key environmental discourses of the twentieth century’, comprised of
‘Arcadian’ discourse, ‘Ecosystem’ discourse & ‘Environmental Justice’ discourse.

Hannigan’s ‘Typology’ is a chronological listing of the discourses that arose during the
environmental movement (1995:3). As explained by Hannigan (1195:3); ‘Arcadian’
discourse looks at how nature is constructed as something external to human society, how
the image of nature is “modeled on stereotyped visual images that become embedded in
cultural memory”, and how nature “stands counterpoint to the urban industrial society and
to the social and all of the environmental ills attached to it.”

‘Ecosystem’ discourse, is described by Hannigan (1995:3), as “A second major discourse

that has powerfully shaped how we regard nature and the environment is that centering on
the notions of ‘ecology’ and the ‘ecosystem’.” Herndl and Brown (Hannigan, 1995: 3), find
‘Ecosystem’ discourse to be modeled on ‘scientific discourse’.

Hannigan (1995:3) explains, ‘Environmental Justice’ discourse is that pertaining to the

notion that ‘civil rights’ are socially accepted and perceived as more important than the
‘rights of nature’. This looks at ‘civil rights’ being those pertaining to the law that “All
citizens have a basic right to live and work in a healthy environment.” (Hannigan, 1995: 3,
Table 1).

After having such insight about discourses on Nature and the Environment, and when
considering the Industrial Revolution; it becomes evident that such discourses have and
continue to have drastic effects on both what were contemporary societies and what is
now contemporary society. During the Age of Enlightenment, it has been noted that nature
was seen as mainly being designed for human purposes (Dickens, 2004: 1), this is clearly
seen when considering the rise and development of activities such as mining,
manufacturing and the construction of buildings and modification of land; namely using
land in a way far different to the way a farmer uses land, i.e. taking from the land and
giving to people as oppose to taking from the land for the people whilst giving back to the
people. As Dickens (2004:1) explains; the Age of Enlightenment was a time during which
the notion of ‘private ownership’ became predominant among society, leading to the
popular notion of ‘Capitalism’; a concept that is infamous with the idea of Nature being
seen as a resource, as well as an object.

Dickens further explains the idea of the ‘enlightened person’ and how it was during this
time that in addition to developing a science of nature, was the development of the
‘science of Man’; the science of ‘internal’ nature, was developed. He explains that this was
the cause of Society thinking that through modifying their external environment they were
upgrading their own nature (Dickens, 2004: 1); from this it is clear that as is still today, for
the most part, humans consider themselves separate to Nature as oppose to being a part
of it. This is evidence that Nature was and is most certainly seen as a resource and as an
object.

Power relations between humans have not only manifest themselves over history through
corporations and certain organizations gaining power through the capitalist system that
has dominated the world since the Age of Enlightenment; these power relations have also
fed into and perpetuated contemporary society today.

There are numerous examples of how various discourses on Nature and the Environment
have led to various power relations issues in contemporary society; such are the post-
tsunami happenings in Sri Lanka. As is highlighted and explained in ‘Blanking The Beach -
The Second Tsunami’ (Klein, 2007: 19), before the devastating tsunami hit the country’s
shores, Arugam Bay was a fishing village; a way of living for some and a ‘potential’ for
tourism for others. For existing and potential ‘property’(hotel) investors, the locals were a
nuisance; hotel owners complained about the locals huts being in the way of the ‘view’ and
that the smell of drying fish was repulsive and negatively affected their business (Klein,
2007: 19). For the locals, Arugam Bay had been their home for generations and was more
than just what local investors called a ‘boat launch’; for the local fishing society, the bay
was their source of “fresh water and electricity, schools for their children and buyers for
their catch.” (Klein, 2007: 19).

What happened after the tsunami is a clear example of how power relations between
humans feed into and perpetuate contemporary society through the various discourses of
Nature and the Environment, affecting the way we are affected by and interact with nature.
The tsunami completely wrecked what the fishing community relied on, their huts, boats
and bungalows, leaving what investors had been dreaming of, pristine beaches; prime
space for tourism (Klein, 2007: 19).

In a matter of days after the tsunami, the law had been changed and Aid from the World
Bank accepted (Klein, 2007: 19). This change in the law and acceptance of aid brought
about complexities and major effects on the area; the locals had been adversely banned
from building onto the beaches and the aid from the World Bank came with its specific
requirements, requirements which in fact benefitted the investors and government than the
locals who had lost everything (Klein, 2007: 19).

Understanding the various and the dominant discourses of Nature and the Environment
since the Age of Enlightenment to contemporary as well as critically analyzing past actual
events around the world, leads one to witness how nature and the environment have most
definitely been seen as a resource, often leading to one seeing that different power
relations between humans effect the way we are affected by and interact with nature (Vega
The Brand Communications School 2010, p.7). We see how agendas can not only help to
achieve their ‘purpose’ but can lead to the creation of new ones & it becomes clear that
sometimes, economic policies can detrimentally and unfairly effect the livelihood of some
and in fact make countries poorer whilst greatly benefiting others at another end of the
spectrum.

What is apparent and made clear through the research and readings done for this essay, is
that many concepts of the global capitalist context drive an enormous amount of our
current interactions with nature (Vega The Brand Communications School, 2010: p.9). In
recent years, concepts such as Consumerism, Commodity fetishism, Global trade and
Carbon Footprints, have largely encouraged various types of consumer practices (Vega
The Brand Communications School, 2010: p.9). Examples of such practices are:
Environmental and Green Movements, the consumption and production of Genetically
Modified Foods as well as the usage of Environmental Impact Assessments, to name a
few (Vega The Brand Communications School, 2010: p.9).

Contemporary society is saturated with messages that convey what Hannigan (1995:3)
has termed ‘Arcadian’ discourse; every form of media filled with evidence of ‘Green
washing’; companies and corporations that have ‘gone green’ or offer a ‘green’ product or
lifestyle. Yet while the aforementioned power relations between people are still dominant
today, there is both irony and parody in this system of consumerism through which we live
our lives (Vega The Brand Communications School, 2010: p.9). We find that still, after all
the knowledge and progress we have made in understanding and developing ways of
caring for this Nature and Environment that we are both a part of and separated from, we
continue as a collective society to see nature as a recourse and as an object that we can
own; as is clear when considering how many products make use of the many available
brand and communications tools to sell tangible hope and pride to the ever eager
consumer population who is ‘innocently’ fooled. We drive a car to fetch a loaf of organic
bread from the shop, whilst the company making the organic bread are the same company
that sell us the environmentally unfriendly detergents we pour down the drain.
This hypothetical example of contemporary living demonstrates how capitalism led to
consumerism, which led to consumption which has now led to the problems and adverse
effects nature and our environment now suffer yet that we fail to correct; showing how
consumer, branding and business behavior feed into and perpetuate present society.

When taking into account the ways in which consumer, branding and business behavior
feed into and perpetuate present society, it can be questioned to what extent a rectification
can be made through using the various communications tools in branding which we know
of today.

I believe, and shall further argue, that what is thought of today as acts of rectification or
what we know as “more sustainable practices”, is an ironic ideology found in a global
society that is dominated by the ‘convenience’ created by the ever powerful capitalist
forces, and just as ironically; the communications tools used in branding are probably the
strongest way of convincing and creating change, however I believe that true change will
see the end of branding it’s self.

Today, we live in a world where most of our lives heavily depend and rely on what is rooted
in a capitalist system. We all need to work and we all need to buy, and the fine line
between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ becomes ever so blurry. We are even convinced to buy things
we don’t need and haven’t even thought about wanting. Ironically, as it is Science that
presents the only way forward, it is also science that led to where we are now, and it is the
continuation and development of science that makes everything in this world go faster; the
same science that designs for us, ways to have more free time, free time that can be used
up by another scientific and technological creation.

Today, hope and change all come at a price. Although people want and even need change,
and aim at taking less and giving more to the Earth; the solutions either exist as products
or as ‘unattainable’ due to their ‘inconvenience’ in contemporary society. It is even in these
eco-social constructs that humans are still separated from nature, for our nature is
completely dominated by a system that forces us to see the nature and the environment as
an object from which to gain and to own.

I believe the sad reality is that we have come to far and rely too deeply on the way of life
we have grown into and any ‘sustainable practices’ we can initiate today are developed as
a way to ‘better’ the system which is inherently wrong (Berger, 1980: 3).

Communications tools used in branding include: Persuasive Communication, the

exploitation of all Mediums and Media, Stereotyping, Image and Symbol Design,
Frequency, Intellectual Appeal, Emotional Appeal and Functional Appeal, Branding and
Marketing methodologies, Recognition and Recall, Design Thinking, Systemic Thinking as
well as Sustainability amongst others. It is important to highlight these communications
tools, as it is these tools that account for and cause a lot of what the global consumer
society do. It is however, also through the use of such tools that economical and political
agendas become achievable, and so it seems we are in a never-prosperous circle.
To conclude, I believe that we, as a global consumerist society, find ourselves in a situation
at which the only way ‘out’ of the system that is so deeply founded upon monetary value is
to be able to spend more money and thus once again, relies on the making and use of
what is creating the dilemma in the first place. Just as is ironic about science, ‘sustainable
practices’ as well as communications tools. I believe that there seems to be a major ‘flaw’ if
one could term it as such, in the ‘system’. Nature and the Environment continue to be
treated as an object and we continue to deplete it as a ‘resource’. I personally believe that
the answer could lie in the global adoption of a ‘farmer mentality’, however this seems a far
call when considering the ‘convenience’ we enjoy in our lives; this ‘convenience’ being for
me, the epitome of both irony and power in the world. We have ultimately drawn what I
would call the shortest straw amongst the short straws.

Bibliography:

Berger, J. 1980. Why Look at Animals. In About Looking. Vintage Books: New York.

Dickens, P. 2004. Chapter 1. In: Society and Nature: changing our environment, changing
ourselves. Cambridge: Polity press.

Hannigan, J. 1995. Chapter 3: Environmental discourse. In: Environmental Sociology. New

York: Routledge.

Klein, N. 2007. CH 19: Blanking the Beach: “The Second Tsunami.” In: The Shock
Doctrine. London: Penguin.

Romanticism on Wikipedia 2010. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism.