52
Conceptual Perspectives
agreements that threaten to undermine local rules for workers' safety, health,
and environmenta l protections in many natio ns. Indeed, environmental and
human rights critics charge that NAFTA and other trade agreements have "created [a1new language for challengers to use aga inst environmental restrictions"
(Andrews, 1999, p. 343; see also Esry, 1994, pp. 48-50; and Cox, in press).
Environmental progress also has been made in a number of international
agreements. Among th ese are bans on trad e in endangered species and new
restrictions on " toxic traders," firms that sell haza rdous waste materia ls to
other nations. Recent attempts also have been made to esta blish stan dards
for reducing chemical pollutants that affect Earth's climate and ozone layer.
(Appendix C summari zes some of these agreements.)
As we've seen in the development of these fo ur antagonisms, the concepts
of nature and the environment are highly contingent. That is, they are su bject
to redefinition as new voices and interests contest prevail ing understandings of
o ur environments. T he core of these challenges is a distinctly rhetorical process
of human influence, questioning, and persuasion, and it is this perspective that
we will explore in the following sectio n.
Rhetorically Shaping the Environment
53
Of course there is. But it is through d iffering symbolic modes that we understa nd and engage t his world, infuse it with sign ificance, and act toward it.
If the environment is someth ing that we know partly through la nguage and
other sym bols, then different linguistic and symbolic choices construct diverse
meanings for the worlds we know. As a result, some scholars adopt a rhetorical pe rspective to study the different ways in which journa lists, scientists,
corporations, environmenta lists, an d citizens attempt to influence o ur perceptions and behavior toward the environment. A rhetorical perspective
foc uses on purposefu l and consequentia l efforts to influence society's attitudes and ways of behaving through comm unication, wh ich includes public
debate, protests, news stories, advertising, and other modes o f symbolic
action (Ca mpbell & Huxman, 2003).
In this section, I' ll introduce t he concepts of rhetoric and its pragmatic
and constitutive ro les. I'll a lso describe d iscourse and symbol ic legitimacy
boundaries-the other main ideas com posing the rhetorical perspective that
we' ll use in this book.
The Art of Rhetoric
A Rhetorical Perspective on the Environment
As we've just seen, few words have acq uired the same symbolic cu rrency as
environment. (Closely related may be ecology and nature.) Literary scholars
Carl G . Herndl and Stuart C. Brown (1996) note that the rich ness of t his term
has nurtured " not one environmental discourse but many " (p. 4). From its
origin in w ilderness preservation campaigns in the 19th century to calls for
environmental justice in the 20th century, the en vironmental movement in the
Un ited States has drawn on a rich variety of languages and symbols to shape
public perceptions of nature. Environment now signifies a wide range of concerns, from wilderness, air and water pollution, and toxic wastes to urban
sprawl, global climate change, and the quality of life w here people live, work,
play, and learn.
Perhaps due to t he diversity of mea nings for the word environment, some
communication scholars have beg un to examine the key role of language and
other symbols in t he discursive fram ing and contestation of environmental
concerns. For exa mple, H erndl and Brown (1996) argue somewhat provocatively t hat the term environment is "a concept and an associated set o f cultural va lues that we have constructed through the way we use language. In a
very real sense, there is no objective environment in the fJhenomenal world,
no environment separate from the words we use to represent it" (p. 3; emp hasis added). T his is not to suggest that there is no material world "out there."
The study o f rhetoric traces its origins to classical G reek philosopherteachers such as !socrates (436-338 B.C.E.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C. E. ),
who taught t he arts of citizenship to political leaders in democratic citystates such as Athens. The practice in these city-states was for citizens to
speak publ icly in law courts an d the political assembly, where each citizen
represented his own in terests. (In Athens and other cities, civic speech was
limited pri ncipally to male, p roperty-owning citizens.) As a resu lt, competency in publ ic speaking, debate, and persuasion was vital for conducting
civic business-war and peace, taxes, construction of public monuments,
property claims, and so forth.
It was du ring t his period that Aristo tle summarized the teachings in the
art of civic speaki ng when he defined rhetoric as "the faculty !power] of discovering in t he particu lar case what are the ava ilab le means of persuasion"
(Cooper, 1960, p. 7). Th is art of rhetoric rested not simpl y on skillful delivery but on t he abil ity to discover the resou rces for persuas ion t hat were
avai lab le in a specific situation. Aristotle's focus on the speaker's ability
draws our attention to one of the ea rly definitions of r hetoric as a purposeful (instrumental) choice among the availa ble means of persuasion that a
speaker uses in o rder to accom plish some effect or ou tcome.
In Chapter 1, we defined environmental communication in part as the
pragmatic and constit utive veh icle for our understa nding of the environment
as well as our relationships to the natural world. As I just noted, rhetoric
54
Conceptual Perspectives
trad itio nall y has been viewed primaril y as fJragmatic o r instrumenta l activity
that ena bles indi vid ua ls to choose fro m the ava ilable means of persuasion
to effect a desired outcome. Let me briefly illustrate this pragmatic ro le and
then suggest a second function in w hich rhetori c may also be viewed as a
constitutive vehicle.
Rhetorically Shaping th e Environmen t
I;·''
J
; ·. I
55
.
·:: .·-.-~
•
,Ngw·
. . ·,:·Fi
I,
Rhetoric as a Pragmatic Vehicle
An example of rhetoric's pragmatic role in influencing environmental pol icy is th e newspaper advertisement that appea red in th e June 9, 1966, edi tions of the N ew Yorl~ Times, the Wa shington Post, the Los Angeles Times,
and the San Francisco Chronicle. T he fu ll-page ad was an important means
of persuasion in a Sierra Club campaign opposing pla ns by the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamatio n to build dams inside the Gra nd Canyon to provide electricity for industries in th e Southwest. In what was at the time the " best k nown
campaig n for [preservati on j in newspa per history" (Turner, 1991, p. 172 ),
the ad a nd letters it prompted to Co ngress a nd the president succeeded in
blocking the construction of the dams.
T he Sierra Clu b's executive director, Dav id Brower, actua lly had two different vers io ns of the June 9 th ad. In the first version, Brower wrote a factu al letter to the secretary of the interi o r, Stewart Uda ll, arguing aga inst the
dams. In the second version, Sierra Club med ia consultant Jerry Ma nder
composed a splas hier script. Its headline ann o unced, "Now Only You Can
Save Gra nd Ca nyon From Being Flooded ... For Profit" (New York T imes,
1966, p. 35). (See Fig ure 2.3.) T his ad included a mock photo of a flooded
Grand Canyon and details of the plan, and it concluded with the emotional
co re of the C lub's rhetorica l strategy: " Remember, with a ll the co mplexities
of Washington politics ... and the ins a nd o uts of commi ttees and pr ocedures, th ere is only one simple, incred ible issue here: T his time it's the G rand
Canyon they want to flood. The Grand Canyon" (Za kin, 1993, p. 165).
Brower convinced each newspa per to split its press runs so that he could
determine which version worked better- his open letter to Secretary Uda ll
or M ander's ha rder-hitting version (Za kin, 1993). Writer and editor Tom
Turner (1991) reported, " Mander's o utdrew Brower's by abo ut th ree to two,
as measured by the cou pons soliciti ng donations to the Club that were clipped
and returned to C lub headquarters" (p. 171 ). M ore importantly, the Mander
version produced a firestorm of medi a coverage and political reaction.
" Response to the ad was so overwhelming that the ad itself became news"
(Zakin, 1993, p. 165), and it prompted a heavy-handed respo nse from
President Lyndon B. Jo hnson's administration. O n June 1Oth, the day after
the ad ran, the In ternal Revenue Service threatened the Sierra Clu b's taxexempt status. Turner chronicles w hat ha ppened next: "The press got the
Figure 2.3
Advertising fo r a Ca nyon, New York Times, June 9, 1966
story and blistered the IRS. Freedo m of [sjpeech became an issue along with
conservatio n. As Brower said later, 'People w ho d id n' t know whether or not
they loved th e Grand Canyon knew w hether they loved the IRS'" (p. 172).
The Sierra Club's membership soared. T he following year, the Burea u withdrew its proposal for the two dams in the Gra nd Canyon.
. The Sie rra Club's G rand Can yon ad illustrates rh etoric's pragmatic or
Instrumental role, but it also ill ustrates th e power of symbolic actions to affect
events beyond the specific intent of an autho r or speaker. O n one band, the
ad succeeded by adapting th e best mea ns of persuasion to achieve its goal. But
56
Conceptual Perspectives
the ad itself triggered other rhetorical resources-the action by the IRS and
the subsequent media coverage and public outrage. This resulting, symbolic
drama between a powerful and disliked government agency (the IRS) and a
natu re club had effects beyond Mander's intent. Tn other words, rhetorical
agency also may include the capacity of language and other symbolic fo rms
to affect perceptions and behavior beyond an author's or speaker's intent.
Rhetoric as a Constitutive Force
Although traditional definitions of rhetoric emphasize its instrumental or
pragmatic role, recent definitions have broadened rhetoric's scope by noting
its constitutive function as well. This is the capacity of symbolic action to
affect or constitute our perceptions of rea lity itself. For example, rhetorical
scholars have pointed out that rhetoric often constitu tes a sense of collective
identity when politicians address U.S. citizens as "Americans" or simply as
"the people" (McGee, 1975).
The literary theorist Kenneth Burke makes a similar point about language
in describing the use of terministic screens, the way in which our language
orients us to see certain things, some aspects of the world and not others.
Burke ( L966) proposed that, "if any given terminology is a reflection of realityr, J by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and
to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality" (p. 45). T hat is,
our symbolic or terministic screens powerfully shape or mediate o ur experiences-what is selected for notice, what is deflected from notice, and therefore how we understand our world. As a result, whenever we speak or write,
we actively participate in constituting our world .
A striking illustration of rhetoric's constitutive role comes fro m a recent
dispute between environmentalists and the U.S. Department of Commerce
over the mean ing of "dolphin safe," which appears on the labels on cans of
tuna fish. Since 1990, the government has prohibited companies from using
" dolphin safe" to label tuna caught by fishing fleets that chase and encircle
dolphins in order to catch tuna. The reason is that dolphins often swim
above schools of tuna and are snared in the fleets' encircling nets when the
tuna is hauled on board. However, in 2002 the Commerce Department ruled
that trapping dolphins while usi ng encirclement nets to catch tuna does not
significantly harm dolphin populations. As a result of this ruling, exporters
of tuna to the United States could use the label "dolphin safe" even though
they fished with controversial nets, as long as their fleets employed o bservers
on boa rd to certify that they saw no dolphins killed (M., 2003 ).
In response to the new ru le, Earth Island Institute, Defenders of Wildlife,
and other envi ronmental groups filed a lawsuit to prevent the use of "dolphin
Rhetorically Shaping the Environment
57
safe" labels on tuna caught with encirclement nets. T hey argued that, even
with observers, these nets "deplete dolphin populations by separating calves
from mothers and causing stress-related deaths" (M., 2003, p. 3). Meanwhile,
tuna companies like Star Kist realized that it would be "a PR nightmare to
anger legions of dolphin-loving school kids armed with lunch-pails" by using
the relaxed standards. T herefore, many of these companies pledged to adhere
to the older, stricter rules for use of the " dolphin safe" label (p. 3).
The point is that, in th is and other environmental disputes, the public
becomes concerned as a result of the selective presentation of terms and information that name or constitute the issues at hand. German sociologist Klaus
Edcr (1996) explains that often it is " the methods of comm unicating [about]
environmental conditions and ideas, and not the state of deterioration itself
wh ich explain ... the emergence of a public discourse on the environment"'
(p. 209).
Act Locally!
"Dolphin Safe" Labels: How Safe Arc Dolphins?
Do cans of tuna fish in your local grocery stores still carry the " dolphin
safe" label? What does this label mean today? Does the label mean that
fewer dolphins die as a result of fi shing methods used to catch tuna?
In 2004, a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction
that kept the strict "dolphin safe" standard in place unti l the court can
hear a laws uit on the issue brought by environmental groups. As I
write this book, that case (Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Commerce
Secretary Donald Evans) is still pending.
What is the most recent court ruling in this case, and what does " dolphin safe" mean today? Start by checking the websites of two of the
leading plaintiffs in the case, Earth Island Institute (www.earthisland
.orglncws/news.cfm) and Defenders of Wildlife (www.defenders.org/
wildlife/new/dolphins.html).
Rhetoric's constitutive role is particula rly important in communication
that names a state of affairs as an environmental problem. Political scientist
Deborah Stone (2002) explains that: " Pro blems .. . are not given, out there
in the world waiti ng fo r smart analysts to come along and define them correctly. T hey are created in the minds o f citizens by other citizens, leaders,
organizations, and government agencies" (p. 156). Rhetoric's constitutive
58
Conceptual Perspectives
fo rce comes into play in this ability to characterize a set of facts or a condition in the world one way rather than another and therefore to name it as a
problem o r not. It is for precisely t his reason that questions of " how and
why certa in environmental issues become identified as ' pro blems,' including
contestation of such claims as problematic," a re such an important part of
enviro nmenta l communication itself (Tindall , 1995, p. 49; emphasis added) .
Dominant and Insurgent Discourses
Ea rlier I referred to a dominant discourse that viewed wi ld nature as a
commodity to be used. The idea of discourse is a very important concept in
contemporary communication theory. It asse rts that persuasive effects are
present in sources of communication that are broader than any single speech
or utterance. Instead, a discourse is an overall pattern o f speaking, writing, or
other symbolic actio n that results from multiple sources. It functions to "circulate a coherent set of mea nings a bout an important topic" (Fiske, 1987,
p. 14). Such mea nings often influence our understanding of how the world
works o r should work. For example, Gifford Pinchot's conservatio n discou rse in the ea rly 20th century helped to justify utilitarian uses of nature
such as logging, and John Muir's discourse of preservation served to justify a
ban o n a ll commercial activities in wilderness areas. We also saw that, in t he
late 20th century, activists calling for environ mental justice criticized the prevailing discourse of environmenta lism that overlooked the places where
people lived , worked, played, and lea rned . Each of th ese discourses arose
from multiple sources-speeches, essays, and other sy mbolic acts-that articulated a coherent view of nature and our re lationships to th e environment.
When a discourse gains a broad o r taken-for-granted status in a culture
(for example, "growth is good for the economy") o r w hen its mea nings help
to legitimize certain policies o r practices, it ca n be said to be a dominant discourse. Often, these discourses are invisible, in the sense that they express
natura li zed or taken-for-gra nted assumptions and va lues about how the
w orld is o r should be organized. Perhaps the best example of a dominant
enviro nmen ta l discourse is w hat biologists D ennis Pi rages and Paul Ehrlich
(1974 ) called the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP). Although they use the
term paradigm, communication scholars w o uld note that the DSP is a discursive tradition that has sustained attitudes of human dominance over
nature. As exp ressed in literature, art, political speeches, advertising, photograph y, and so forth, th e DSP affirms societ y's " belief in abu ndance and
progress, our devotion to growth and p rosperity, o u r fa ith in science and
tech nology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited government planning and private property rights" (quoted in Dunlap & VanLiere,
)
Rhetori cally Shaping the Environment
59
1978, p. l 0). In everyday terms, the DSP is recognized in references to free
markets as the so urce o f prosperity and the wise use of natu ral reso urces to
build a strong econo my and so forth.
Other discourses may question society's domina nt discourses and their
assumptions. These alternative ways of speaking, writing, o r portraying nature
in art, music, and photographs illustrate insurgent discourses. T hese are modes
of representation that challenge society's taken-for-granted assumptions and
offer alternatives to prevailing discourses. In some ages, insurgent d iscourses are
muted or absent, whereas in other periods they may be boisterous and widespread. In our own time, insurgent discourses have inf iltrated mainstrea m media
in popular fi lms such as Erin Brockovich (2000}, a lternative news and opinion
journals such as Earth Island journal (www.earthisland.org/eijourna l/journal
.cfm), on the websites of groups such as Common Dreams (www.commondreams.org), Truthout (www.truthout.org), and Women's Voices for the Earth
(www.womenandenvironment.org), and through multi-media networks for
news such as the Independent Media Center (www. indymedia.org), a network
of more t han 110 centers in 35 countries (Kidd, 2003, p. 224 ).
Some point to an insurgent discourse emerging in popularity after Earth
Day, 1970, ca lled the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). T he NEP emphasizes beliefs and values such as " the inevitabili ty of ' limits to growth,' . .. the
importance o f preserving the 'ba lance of nature,' and t he need to reject the
anthropocentric notion that nature exists solely fo r human use" (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978, p. 10; see also Dunlap, VanLiere, Mertig, & J ones, 2000).
Other exa mples of insurgent disco urses have appea red in writings such as
Paul Ehrlich's (1968} The Population Bomb, Rachel Carson's (1962} Silent
SfJring, and Murray Bookchin's (1990} Remaking Society: Pathways to a
Green Future. These authors appropriated an apocalyptic narrative literary
style to warn of impending and severe ecological crises. Literary critics Jimmie
Killingsworth and Jacq ueline Pa lmer (1996) expla ined that, " in depicting the
end of the wo rld as a result of the overweening d esi re to contro l nature, [these
autho rs! have discovered a rhetorical mea ns of contesting their opponents'
claims for t he idea of progress with its ascendant narratives of human victory
over nature" (p. 21). Similarly, supporters of deep ecology such as C hr istopher
Manes (1990) have criticized society's "culture of extinction " and its pursuit
of "short-term affluence at the cost of impoverishing the environment," a
pathway that risks " the specter of ecologica l collapse" (p. 24).
As domi nant discou rses coalesce around specific po licies and institutions,
they fo rm symbo lic boundaries that help to legitimate these pol icies. These
s~mbolic legitimacy boundaries serve to sa fegua rd specific policies and practices, and th e a uthority of certain groups an d institutio ns. £'11 d escribe t his
final concept next.
60
Rhetorica lly Shap ing t he Environmen t
Conceptu al Perspectives
61
sense-it makes sense to encourage peop le to make sure that the forests not
only arc hea lthy from disease, but are healthy from fire .... T his is just common sense." (White House, 2002, emphasis added.)
Symbolic Legitimacy Boundaries
Thro ughout this book, we will focus on public debate, med ia reports, and
o ther fo rms of communication that seek to shape perceptions and policies
about the environment. In an important sense, the function of such communication is to help establish-or challenge-the legitimacy of actions affecting
the environment. Legitimacy is generally defined as the right to exercise
autho rity. Yet. such a right is not granted naturally. Instead, recognition of
legitimacy depends upon a specificall y rhetorical process. Communication
scholar Ro bert Francesconi (1982) defines this rheto rical basis of legitimacy as
"an o ngoing process of reason-giving ... w hich forms the basis of the right to
exercise authority as well as the willingness [of audiences] to defer to authority" (p. 49) . Importantly, legitimacy may be claimed by a person or group, but
it is granted by others-voters, a group's members, o r other constituencies.
Fra ncesconi explained that rheto ric perfo rms "a vita l socio-po litical function
by bridging the ga p between legitimacy as claimed by those w ho would exercise autho rity and legitimacy as believed by those w ho would o bey it" (p. 50).
O ne of the most persuasive ways to earn legitimacy is to link a po licy o r
idea with certa in values. Sociologist T alcott Parsons (1958) defined the legitimatio n (granting of legitimacy) as " the appraisal of [an] action in terms of
shared o r common values" (p. 201 ). Fo r example, pro posals to protect oldgrowth forests may be seen as more or less legitimate, depending upon public perceptio n of the val ues that are at stake: Is the nati on experiencing a
sho rtage of timber supply, or is it facing a loss of biodiversity? Detailed
knowledge of how a proposal works, w hile o bvi o usly important, may be
The President sough t rhetoricall y to justify his proposa l for selective logging of the fo rests-described as clearing brush- in ter ms o f va lues th at his
listeners pres um a bl y shared a bo ut the cautio n o r ca re they take a ro und th eir
own ho mes, summed up as commo n sense.
Beca use legitimacy is rhetorica lly constituted, it is a lso open to question
and challenge. An appea l to com mon sense is usuall y a n effective means of
ga ining legitimacy, since it purpo rts merely to describe things "as they reall y
arc." However, pa rt of its power is that it also may mask other m eanings or
altern ati ves. Fo r examp le, environmenta l groups cha llenged the common
sense of logging o ld-growth trees-pa rt of the President's pian-as well as
brush, th us begin ning a public debate over th e legitimacy of the President's
Healthy Forests p lan.
Political scientist Charles Schulzke (2000) o bserves that the outcome
of arguments between pa rties over legitimacy turns only partl y o n fac ts.
Equa lly important are symbolic legitimacy boundaries. Schulzke defines
these as the symbolic associations that po liticia ns, business, and the public
attach to a pro posal, policy, or person . Sym bo lic legitimacy boundaries
defi ne a particula r policy, idea, or institu tion as reasona ble, a pprop riate, or
acceptable. T hey also help to esta blish a presumption of normalcy that
comes from being in the political center. Fo r example, Pa ul Ehrlich (2002 ),
the Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford Uni versity, attempted to
locate enviro nmenta l concerns inside the symbolic bo und ari es of science and
reason w hen he declared, "There is li ttle d ispute w ithin the knowledgea ble
scientific community today about the glo ba l ecological situation " {p. 31 ).
On the other hand, the symbo lic associati o ns th at ma ke up a legitimacy
boundary also name w hat or who is unreasona ble, unwise, or unacceptable.
For example, when conservative rad io commenta to r Rush Limbaugh called
environmenta lists "wackos" and " dunderheaded ala rmists and prophets
of doom" in his best-selling book The Way Things Ought to Be (1 992,
, pp. 155-157), he was portraying those w ho wo rried abo ut such matters
as the ozone layer as outside the symbo lic bo unda ries of common sense. As
a consequence, symbolic legitimacy boundaries tell us "what or who is
~ncluded o r excluded in a categor y," says Stone (20 02). They " define people
111 and o ut o f a conflict or p lace them on diffe rent sides" {p . 3 4).
As w ith legitimacy itself, sym bolic legitimacy bo unda ri es are not granted
a utoma tically but are constituted in th e rhetori cal struggle that makes up
public debate and controversy in o ur modern-day agora, o r public sphere.
Stone (2002 ) says that, in these struggles to create public sup po rt, "symbo ls,
o nly pa rt of th e sto ry of its legitimacy.
One of th e most rhetorically powerful claims to legitimacy in American
po litical culture is that something is just common sense. T he term is impr ecise, but it generally refers to what people assume to be the views of "everybod y"-w hat is gener ally agreed to be true. When politicians or others
in voke commo n sense to advocate the use of natural resources to spur economic growth, they also implicitly draw o n the disco urse of the Do minant
Social Pa radigm , no ted ea rlier.
The cla im to be talking from commo n sense has become a source of legitimacy in recent debates o ver Western wi ldfires a nd ways to safeguard nearby
ho mes and communities from these fires. For example, the George W. Bush
administrati on called its proposal to thin Western fo rests {that is, to selectively log trees) to prevent wi ldfires the H ealthy For ests Initiative. Rolling
o ut his proposal, President Bush to ld a crowd in Portland, O regon:
We need to make our fo rests hea lthy by using some common sense. . .. We've
got to understand that it makes sense to clea r brush. We've got to make
...
62
Conceptual Perspectives
sto ri es, metapho rs, a nd labels are all weapons in th e a rmame nta rium (to use
a metaph o r). ... By co nveying images of good and bad, right and wrong,
suffering a nd relief, t hese devices are instruments in the struggle over public
policy" (p. 156). (In C hapter 9, we w ill exami ne the rh etorical struggle over
an important symbol ic legitimacy bou nda ry in environmental policy-the
public's res pect for scientific knowl edge.)
Visual Rhetorics: Portraying Nature
As I noted earlie r in this c hapter, rh etoric is not lim ited to sp eech o r writing.
Visual representations of t he environment have been prominent in shap ing
Americans' perceptions at least si nce the ea rly 1 8th a nd 19th centuries, in o il
paintings a n d photographs of the American West. Since then, visua l po rtrayals o f na ture have ranged from popular H o ll ywood films suc h as The
Day After Tomorrow (2004) and television ads of SUVs driving in forests,
to image events of Greenpeace activists placing t hemselves between w hale rs'
harpoons and w ha les (DeLuca, 1999).
Recentl y, rhetorical scho lars ha ve begun to look closely at the r heto rical
significance of visua l symbols in culture gener all y. For example, Ro bert
H a riman a nd J ohn Lo uis Lucaites (2002) argue that th e famou s photogra ph
of five ma rines a nd navy soldiers raising t he America n flag on lwo J ima in
194 5 is symbolically powerful and illustra tes the fact that visual media are
"particula rl y good at acti vating aesthetic norms tha t ca n sha pe a udience
acceptance of political beliefs and historical narratives" (p. 366). Other scholars ha ve looked a t the importance o f visual symbo ls in post-cold-wa r images
of nuclear devasta tion a nd waste (T aylor, 2003); t he Vietnam War photograph of a young girl running down a road, screaming in pain from napa lm
(Harima n & Lucaites, 2003); and the c ultu ral significance o f monum ents and
popular films such as Saving Private Ryan that remember W orld War II
(Biesecker, 2002). H ence, T believe it's important to end our discussio n of a
rhetorical perspective by d escribing th e function of visual rh etorics o f the
environment, that is, th e role that visual images and representa tions of na ture
play in in fluencing public attitudes tOwa rd the enviro nment.
Refiguring Wilderness in Art and Photographs
Earlier, we saw tha t 18th- and 19 th-century artists such as T homas Cole,
Albe rt Bie rstadt, a nd the H ud son River school painters we re a significant
source of the public's awareness of the America n W est. Equally im portant
were the a rtists and photograph ers w ho followed mil itary expediti o ns a nd
Rhetorically Shaping the Environment
63
surveyors into W estern territories. R hetorical critics Kevin DeLuca a nd Anne
Demo (2000) have argued t ha t lan dsca pe photogra phers such as Ca rleton
Watkins, Charles Weed, and Will iam H enry jackson were among the first to
portray the West to many people who lived in easte rn cities and towns.
Photographs of Yosemite Valley, Yellowstone, t he Rocky Moun ta ins, and
t he Gra nd Ca nyon not only popu larized t hese sites but, as t hey became
broadly ava ila ble in t he media, "were facto rs in building p ublic support for
preserving t he areas" (p. 24 5) .
W it h such popularization, however, ca me an embedded o rientation a nd an
ideologica l disposition toward nature a nd human relationships w it h the land.
On the one h and , the paintings of the Hudson River school aided in constituting natural areas as pristine a nd as objects of the su blime. Yet, rhetorical
scholars Gregory C lark, Michael H alloran, and Allison Woodford (1996)
have a rgued that such portrayals of w ilderness depic ted nature as separate
fro m h uman c ulture; the viewpoint of pai ntings distanced the human observer
by viewing the landsca pe from a bove, or in con tro l of na ture. T hey concluded
that, although expressing a reverence for the land, such depictions functioned
"rhetorica ll y to fuel a process of conquest" (p. 274).
More recently, DeLuca and Demo (2000) have argued that what was left
out of la ndscape p ho tographs of the West may be as important as what was
included. T hey gave the exa mp le of ea rly photos of Yosemite Valley ta ken in
the 1860s by t he photographer Carleton Watkins. DeLuca and Demo wrote
that, when Watkins portrayed Yosem ite Valley as w ilderness devoid of human
signs, he a lso helped to construct a national myth of p ristine natu re that was
harmful. In a critiq ue of the implicit rhetoric of such scenes, th ey a rgued that
the "ability of whites to rhapsod ize a bout Yosemite as paradise, the o riginal
Garden of Eden, depended on the forced remova l a nd forge tting of the indigenous inha bitants of t he area for t he past 3,500 years" (p. 254 ). Writer Re becca
Solnit (1992) has pointed o ut, " T he West wasn't empty, it was e mptiedlitera ll y by expeditio ns like the Ma riposa Battalion [which killed and/or relocated the native inha bitants of Yosemite Valley in the 1850s], and figuratively
by the sublime linages of a vi rgin paradise created by so many painters, poets,
and photographers" (p. 56, quoted in DeLuca & Demo, p. 256).
Whether or not o ne agrees with DeLuca's and D emo's claim abou t the
impact of Watkins's p hotos, it is importan t to note tha t these an d other
images often played pivota l roles in shaping perceptions of natural areas,
endangered species, and (with recent visua l awa reness of t he impacts of pollution a nd toxic waste) peoples an d h uma n com m unities. As D eLuca and
Demo (2000) argue, t hese visua l port rayals often a re "en mesh ed in a t urbulent stream of m ultiple and conflic tual discourses th a t shape what these
images mea n in pa rticular contexts"; indeed, in ma ny ways such p ictures
64
Rhetorically Shapi ng t he Environment
Conceptual Perspectives
constitute " the context in which a politics ta kes place-th ey a re creating a
reality" (p. 24 2).
A striking example o f the capacity of photos to construct a context in
wh ich po li tics take place occurred in 2003 during a Congressio nal debate
a bo ut the opening o f the Arctic Nationa l Wildlife Refuge to o il drilling.
65
eve r s.een ~nd is so remote a nd untamed that many peaks, valleys and lakes
a rc snll with out na mes." The new version says, "Unna med Peak, Roma nzof
Mo unta ins." ... Shortly after the !failed] vote, the Smithson ian ... sent a
letter to the publisher, saying that the Smithsonia n no longer had any connection to M r. Banerjee's work. (p. A20)
After atto rneys fo r the museum insisted that he remove all mention o f the
Photography and Controversy
Over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
In O ctober 2000, a 33-yea r-old physicist named Subhan kar Banerjee, a
native of Calcutta, India, cashed his savings and left hi s jo b at the Boeing
Company in Seattl e, Washington, to begin a two-year project to p hotograph
the seasons and the biodiversity of Alaska's Arctic Na tio nal Wild life Refuge.
His project, w hich too k him on a 4,000-mile jo urney by foo t, kayak, and
snowmo bile th rough the wi ld life refuge in w inter as well as summer, culminated in a collecti on of stunning p ho tographs th at w ere published in his
book Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land (2003) . (Fo r
a sample of the pho tographs and descriptio n of Banerj ee's pro ject, see www
. wwbpho to.com.)
Ba nerjee ho ped t hat his book of photog raphs wou ld educate the public
a bout threa ts to the future o f Alas ka 's remote refuge. The Smithsonian
Museum in W ashington, D.C., had scheduled a majo r exhibition o f Banerjee's
p hotos for spring 2003. However, t he yo ung scientist-ph otog raph er sud d enly found his photos and the Smithsonian exhibit ca ught in the midst of a
poli tica l controversy. During a March 18, 2 003, debate in t he U.S. Senate
about o il drilling in th e Arctic N ational Wild life Refuge, Senato r Bar bara
Boxer of Califo rn ia urged every senator to visit Banerjee's ex hibit at the
Smithso nian " before ca lling the refuge a frozen w asteland " (Egan, 2003,
p. A2 0 ). The vote to open the refuge to o il dr illing later failed by four
votes-52 to 4 8 . (As I w rite, another effort is being made in 2 005 to open
the refuge to oil drill ing.)
Altho ugh Banerjee's photos were certa inly not the only influence on the
Senate's vote, the co ntroversy over the pho tos caused a political firestorm
and helped to create a context for d ebate over the refuge itself. W ashington
Post w riter T imothy Ega n (2003) repo rted t ha t Ba nerjee had been told by
the Smithsonian that " the museum had been pressured to cancel o r sharply
revise the exhibit" (p. A20 ). Documents from the museum give an idea of th e
changes. Egan reported,
Fo r a picture of the Ro manzof Mountains, the original caption quoted
Mr. Ba nerjee as saying, "The refuge has the most bea utiful la ndsca pe I have
Smi thson i ~ n from his boo k, Banerjee spoke to reporters. "I was told that m y
work was JUSt too po litical" (Bailey, 2003, p . 16). In fact, museum staff had
objected th~t his photos and their captions constitu ted advocacy: '" W e do
not engage 111 advocacy,' said Randa ll Kremer, a muse um spokesma n. 'And
some o f tl~ e captions bordered o n advocacy"' (Ega n, 2 003, p . A2 0).
Jn o ne Importa nt sense, Kremer's criticism of Banerjee's photograP,hs was
correct. Photographs may be powerful, rhetorical statements and, as DeLuca
and ~emo (2000) a r~ued, they ca n constitute a context for understanding
and .Judgment. ~specially when accompanied by ca ptio ns t hat enco urage a
pa rticular mean mg, pho tos can embod y a range o f symbolic resources th at
susta in o r cha llenge prevailing viewpoints. Some o bservers felt that Banerj ee's
photos of Alaska's wi ld erness had this po tential. A book reviewer for the
Planet in Jackson H o le, Wyoming, o bserved of these pho tos, "Sometimes pictu res .have a cha n~e to change history by crea ting a larger understand ing of
a subject, thus enltghtening the public and bringing grea ter awa reness to an
iss ue" (Review, 2003).
Both Carlto n Watki ns' 19th-century photographs of the " pristine" W est
and Su bhank a.r Banerjee's scenes of Alaska 's wi ld life and indigenous peoples
help to co n~titute a co ntext of mea ning and implicitly em body multiple
streams of d1sco urses. As a r esult, visua l media's ability to a ffect contexts of
understa nding a nd appreciatio n exemplify w ell w hat I earl ier d escribed as
the constitutive role of rhetorical agency.
Conclusion
?vcr the centuries, people have described their relati ons to the environment
~~ d::a ~atically different ways~"a hideous & desolate wilderness," "pristi ne,
the places where w e live, wo rk, play, and lea rn," and a " natural
resource" f01: hun~an .use. T hese meanings have been the subject of political
clebat~, art, lll~agma uon, advertising, scientific research, and fantasy. The
rh eto nca l shapmg of the environ ment and our relati on to it remi nds us that,
what~ver else they may be, nature and environment are powerful ideas w hose
meanmgs are always being defined and contested.
66
Rhetorica ll y Shaping the Enviro nment
Conceptua l Perspectives
In the first section o f t his chapter, we described fo ur histo ri cal periods in
which individ uals and groups cha llenged p revailing defi nitions of the en vi ro nment. W e called these perio ds of q uestio ning and challenge antagonisms,
w hich reveal limits of the prevailing views o f society:
1. T he late 19th- and early 2 0th-cen tury q uestioning o f nature as repugnant by advocates wishing to preserve t he w ildern ess and ot hers who articulated an ethic o f conservation or efficient use o f natural resources.
2 . The grow th o f an ecology movement in the 1960 s and 1970 s, w hich
cr iticized a system of poo rl y regulated ind ust rial behavior that contributed
to human health problem s from chemical conta mination and other fo rms
o f air and wa ter pollution. This movement built upon efforts of 1920s envir onmental health pioneers such as Alice H am ilton.
3. A com munity-based m ovem ent for en viro nmental justice in the 1980s
t hat challenged mainstream views o f nature as " a place apart" fro m the places
where peo ple wo rk, live, learn, and play.
4 . A gr owing, m ultinational movement to p rotect local com munities and
the glo bal commons in th e face of some forms o f globalization.
In the seco nd section, w e developed a r hetorical perspective by looking at
the idea o f rhetorical agency: pragmatic and constitutive effo rts by differ ent
forces to infl uence so ciety's attitudes and beha viors thro ugh the distinctly
human mo des of comm unicatio n ava ilable to us-persuasion, p ublic debate,
narrative, art, and other mod es o f symbolic action .
Related to this sense of rhetorical agency are two other concepts-discourse
and sym bolic legitimacy bo undaries. D iscourses are t he recurring patter~s of
speech or systems of rep resentatio n that circulate a coherent set of meanmgs;
they may achieve a dominant stat us in society w hen they coalesce around particular viewpoints and natura lize a way of behaving toward the environment.
W e called these pa rticular patterns of speech dominant discourses. D ur ing
some periods, o ther voices arise t hat question and challenge these d iscourses;
such insurgent discourses present an alternative visio n or point o f view.
Closely related to the work of d ominant discourses are symbolic legitimacy
boundaries. T hese are t he symbo lic associatio ns-words, metaphors, images,
and o ther sources of meaning-that encourage perceptions of a policy, idea, or
institution as reasonable, appropriate, or acceptable. M uch o f t he rhetorical
wo rk o f an insurgent discourse is its challenge to these symbolic associations.
Finally, we explored some of t he ways in which visual rhetorics such as art
and photographs embody symbolic reso urces that can shape o ur perceptions
67
of nature. As we saw in the p hotographs of a " pr istine" W est and scenes o f
Alaska's w ildlife and peoples, visua l rheto rics may impart an ideologica l d isposition towa rd specific defini tions of natu re and t hereby help to constitu te
the context in w hich politica l d ecisio ns take p lace.
KEY TERMS
Antagonism: Recognition of the limi t of an idea, a widely shared viewpoint, or a n
ideology that allows an opposing idea or belief system to be voiced.
Apocalyptic narrative: A litera ry style used by some environmental writers to warn
of impending and severe ecological crises; evokes a sense of the end of the world as
a result of the overweeni ng desire to control nature.
Common sense: W hat people assume to be the views of "everybody," or what is
generall y agreed to be true; a source of legit imacy.
Conserva tion: T he term used by early-20th-century fo rester Gifford Pinchot to mean
the wise and efficient use of natural resources.
Direct action: Physical acts o f protest such as road blockades, sit-ins, and tree spiking.
D iscourse: A pattern of speaking, writing, or other symbolic action that results from
multiple sources. Discourse fu nctio ns to circulate a coherent set of mean ings abo ut
an im portant topic.
Dominant discourse: A d iscourse that has ga ined broad o r taken-for-gra nted status
in a culture, for exam ple, the belief that growth is good for the economy; its meanings help to legitimize certain policies or practices.
Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP ): A dom ina nt discursive tradition of several centuries tha t has sustained attitudes of huma n dominance over nature. The DSP affirms
society's belief in econom ic growth and its fa ith in techno logy, limited government,
and private property.
Earth Summ it: T he 1992 Uni ted Na tions Con ference on Enviro nm ent and
Development in Rio de Ja neiro, Brazil.
Insurgent disco urse: Modes of rep rese nta tion that challenge society's takenfor-gra nted assum ptio ns and offer alternatives to preva iling d iscourses.
Legitimacy: A right to exercise authority.
National Environmental Policy Act: Requi res ever y federal agency to p repa re a n environmental impact statement and invite public comment on any project that wo uld
affect the environment. Signed into law by President Nixon on j anuary 1, 1970,
NEPA is the cornerstone of modern environmenta l law.
68
Conceptual Perspectives
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP): An insu rgent discourse emerging in popula rity
after Earth Day, 1970, which emphasizes beliefs and values such as "the inevitability of 'limits to growth,' ... the importance of preserving the 'balance of na ture,' and
the need to reject the anthropocentric notion that nature exists solely for hu man
use." (Dunlap & Va n Lie re, 1978, p. 10).
Preservationism: The movement to ban commercial use of wilderness areas and to
preserve wi ld forests a nd other natural areas for appreciation, study, and outdoor
recreation.
Principles of Environmental Justice: Sixteen principles adopted by delegates at the Fi rst
National People of Color Envi ronmental Leadership Summit in 1991 tha t enumerated
a series of rights, including "the fundamenta l right to political, economic, cultural, and
environmental self-determination of all peoples."
Rh etorically Shaping the Environment
Transcendentalism: Belief that a co rrespondence exists bet
1·
.. ·
ween a 11g11er rca 1111 of
spu ttua 1trut11 and a lower one of materia l ob'Jec ts, •nc
· 1u d'mg nature.
Tree spiking: The practice of driving metal or plastic spikes 01. Jlat' ls · t
.
• 111 o trees tn an
· 1 d 1
I IS
sc 1e u ed to be logged ' to discourage tl1c cutttng
· o f t he trees.
area tlat
Utilitarianism: Theory th at the ai m of act'o
1 n s1lOU Jd be t11e greatest good for the
'
greatest num ber.
Visual rhetoric: The capacity of visual images and .
.
.
'
tepresentattons to 111fluence pub.
. d
.
ltc attltu es toward objects such as the environment.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Public interest: The symbolic marker of legitimacy for actions that arc taken in the
name of the nati on's people or the common good .
1. Is wildemess merely a sy mbolic construction? Does this matter?
2.
IU1 ctoric: The faculty (power) of discovering the ava ilable means of persuasion in the
particular case.
Rhetori cal perspecti ve: A focus on purposeful and consequential efforts to influence
society's attitudes and ways of behaving through communication, wh ich includes public debate, protests, news stories, advertising, and other modes of sym bolic action.
Rio Declaration: A document adopted by representati ves at the Earth Summit that
reaffirmed an earlier Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, adopted at Stockholm in 1972, and pledged to work " towa rds international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the in tegrity of the
global environmenta l and developmental system."
Sublime: An aesthetic category that associates God's influence with the feelings of awe
and exultation that some experience in the presence of wilderness.
Sublime response: Term used to denote (1 ) the immediate awareness of a subli me
object (such as Yosemite Valley), (2) a sense of overwhelming personal insignificance
and awe in its presence, and (3) ultimately a feeling of spiritual exaltation.
Superfund: Legislation enacted in l 980 authorizing the Environmental Protection
Agency to clean up toxic sites and hold the responsible pa rties accountable for the costs.
Symbolic legitimacy boundaries: The symbolic associations that politicians, busi ness,
and the publ ic attach to a proposal, policy, or person; such boundaries define a particu lar policy, idea, or institut ion as reasonable, appropriate, or acceptable.
Terministic screens: The means whereby our language orients us to see certain things,
some aspects of the world and not others. Defined by literary theorist Kenneth Burke
( 1966) to mean, " if any given terminology is a reflection of reali ty; by its very nature
as a terminology it must be a selection of rea lity; an d to this extent it must fu nction
also as a deflection of reality."
69
~o you agree with historia n William Cronan that wi lderness represents the
fa lse hope of an escape from responsibility, the illusion that we ca n .. . return
to the tabula rasa that supposedly existed before w b
I
,~
.
e egan to eave our marks
1
o~l t le world . D~es the Idea of wilderness as a place apa rt from civilization
dtvert your attentton from everyday problems or does til. 'd
'd
IS 1 ea p rovt c a
.
f .
'
SOLII Ce o tenewal or a challenge to civilization's shortcom ings?
·
3. Does rhetoric consti tute reality? How~ Is it possible to " k
"
•
·1
now so met111ng
t1l e a 'd
t o f 1anguage?
wttlOLJt
4.
~o. environmental problems exist before someone names them as problems?
I OJ example.' Js ~he burnmg of hospital biochemical wastes an acceptable risk
1· 1 f
for those lt vmg 111 nea rby neigh borhoods~ How clo
·
·
you exp am t 1e act that
not everybody agrees on which th ings are problems?
5. How would y~u characterize the dominant discourse or prevailing viewpoint
a~out t~le envtronment toda y? Do you know of any who a re challenging this
VJeWpOIIlt?
6. O.thelr than the "dolphin safe" label on tuna ca ns, what other products carry
01 s 10uld ca rry labels
·
· cnvt.ronmental impacts? Coffee~'
'
a ttestmg
to t1letr
Sneakers? Clothes from sweatshops?
·
7.
~o visual m~dia functio~
rhetorica lly to construct an ideological orientation
owatd nat~te or th e envtronment? Brainstorm to identify the different visual
rcpresenta ttons you see today in medi a today-for example on MTV
'
' on
news shows, in Holl ywood fi lms, in ads for SUVs or ca:s.
SUGGESTED READINGS
For deta iled acco
f US
·
'
unts o . . envt ronmental history and US and glob 1
·
mental groups, see
· ·
a cnvtron-
70
Conceptual Perspectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in
the United States, 1955-1985 (1987)
Carolyn Merchant, The Columbia Guide to American Environmental History
(2002)
Philip Shabecoff, A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement
(2003)
Robert Gottlieb, Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American
Environmental Movement (1993)
Luke W. Cole and Shei la R. Foster, Prom the Ground Up: Environmental
Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movem ent (2001 )
Robert .J. Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. f.nviromnental
Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective (2000)
Bron Raymond Taylor, Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global
£mergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism (1995)
Paul Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics (1996).
Information on the life of Dr. Alice H amilton and her ad vocacy for industrial health
in the 1920s can be found in her autobiography, Exploring the Dangerous Trades:
The Autobiography of Alice /-/ami/ton, M.D. (1943).
REFERENCES
Alston, D. (:1990). We speak for ourselves: Social justice, race, and environment.
Washington, DC: Pa nos Institute.
Andrew s, R. N. L. (1999). Managing the envirmmrent, mmtaging ourselves. New
Ha ven, CT: Yale University Press.
Axe lrod, R. S., Downie, D. L., & Vig, N. J. (2004). The global environment:
i nstitutions law & policy (2nd ed.). Washington, D C: CQ Press.
Bailey, H. (2003, May 5). Pictures of controversy: The Smithsonian. Newsweek, p. 16.
Banerjee, S. (2003). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of life and land.
Seattle: Mounta ineer Books.
Biesecker, B. A. (2002). Remembering W o rld War II: The rhetoric a nd politics of
national commemoration at the turn of the 2 1st cen tury. Quarterly j ournal of
Speech, 88, 393-409.
Bookc hin, Murray (1990). Remaking society: Pathways to a green future. Boston:
South End.
Bradford, W. (1952). Of Plymouth fJlantation, 1620-7647. (S. E. Morison, Ed.).
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.[Originally published 1898.1
Bru ll e, R . .J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The U.S. environmental movement from a critical theoryfJerspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Buck, S. .J. (1996). Understanding envimnmental administration and law. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Bulla rd, R., & Wright, B. H. (1987). Environmentalism and the po litics o f equ ity:
Emergent trends in the black community. Midwestem Review of Sociology, 12,
21-37.
Rhetorically Shaping the Environment
7]
Burke, K. ( 1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and
method. Berkeley: Universi ty of Californ ia Press.
Campbell, K. K., & Huxman, S. S. (2003). The rhetorical act (3rd ed .). Belmont
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
'
Carson, R. ( 1962). Silent spring. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett C rest.
Clark, G ., Halloran, M., & Woodford, A. ( J 996). Thomas Cole's vision of "nature"
and the conquest theme in American cu lture. In C. G. H ernd l & S. C. Brown
(Eels.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America
(pp. 261-280). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Clinton, W. J. (1994, February 16). Federal actions to address e nvironmental justice in m inority populations and low-income com muniti es. Executive Order
J 2898 o f Febru ary 14, 1996. Federal register, 59, 7629.
Cole, L. W., & Foster, S. R. (2001). From the ground ufJ: Environmental racism and the
rise of the environmental justice movement. New York: New York University Press.
Cooper, L. (1960) . The rhetoric of Aristotle. New Yo rk: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cox, J. R. (1980). Loci communes and Thorea u's arguments for wilderness in
"Walking" (1851 ). Southern SfJeech Cornmunication journal, 26, 1-16.
Cox, J. R. (i n press). Golden tropes and democratic betrayals: Prospects for environmenta l justice in neoliberal "free trade" agreements. In P. C. Pezzullo &
R. Sand ler (Eels.). Environmental justice and environmentalism: Contrary or
comfJiimentary? Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cronan, W. (1996). The trouble with w ilderness, or, getting back to the wrong
natu re. In W. C ronan (Ed.), Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place
mnature (pp. 69-90). New York: W. W. Norton.
DeLuca, K. M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of envimnmental activism.
New York: Gu ilford Press.
DeLuca, K., & Demo, A. T. (2000). Imaging nature: Watki ns, Yosemite, and the birth
of environmental ism. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 17, 241-260.
Di Chiro, G. (1996). Nature as community: The convergence of environment and
socia l justice. In W. Cronan (Ed.), Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human
place in nature (pp. 298-320). New York: W. W. Norton .
Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. C. (Eels.). (1992). American environmentalism: The
U.S. environmental movement, 1970-1990. Philadelph ia: Taylor & Francis.
Dunlap, R. .E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The "new environmenta l paradigm": A proposed Instrument and preliminary ana lysis. journal of Environmental Education,
9, 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D ., Merrig, A. G., & J ones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
enforcemen t of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. journal of
Social Sciences, 56, 425-442.
Eder, K. (1996). The institutionalization of environmentalism: Eco logical discourse
and the second transformation of the public sphere. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski,
& B. Wynne (Eels. ), Risk, environment, and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 203-223). London: Sage.
Egan, T. (2003, May 3). Smithsonian is no safe haven fo r exhibit on Arctic Wildlife
Refuge. New York Times, p. A20.
Ehrlich, P. R. ( 1968). The population bomb. San Francisco: Sierra C lub Books.
72
Conceptual Perspectives
Ehrlich, P. R. (2002). Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental
ethics. BioScience, 52(1): 31-43.
Esty, D. (1994). Greening the GAIT: Trade, environment, and the future.
Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London: Methuen.
Flippen, J. B. (2003). Richard Nixon and the triumph of environmentalism. In L. S.
Warren (Ed.), American environmental history (pp. 272-289). Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Francesconi , R. A. (1982). James Hunt, the Wilmington 10, and institutional legitimacy. Quarterly journal of Speech, 68, 47-59.
Gottlieb, R. (1993a). Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American enviromnental movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gottlieb, R. (1993b). Reconstructing environmentalism: Complex movements,
d iverse roots. Environmental History Review, 17(4 ): 1- 19.
Gottlieb, R. (2002). Environmentalism unbound: Exploring new pathways for
change. Cambridge: M IT Press.
Hamilron, A. (1925). Industrial poisons in the United States. New York: Macmillan.
Hamilton, A. ( 1943). ExfJioring the dangerous trades: The autobiography of Alice
Hamilton, M.D. Boston: Little, Brown.
Hariman, R., & Lucaites, J. L. (2002). Performing civic identity: The iconic photograph of the flag raising on lwo Jima. Quarterly journal of Speech, 88, 363-392.
Hariman, R., & Lucaites, J. L. (2003). Public iden tity and collective memory in U.S.
iconic photography: The image of "accidental napalm." Critical Studies in
Media Communication, 20, 35-66.
H ays, S. P. (1987). Beauty, health, and permanence: Environmental politics in the
United States, 1955-1985 . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
H elvarg, D. (1994). The war against the greens: The "wise use" movement, the new
right, and anti-environmental violence. San Fra ncisco: Sierra Club Books.
Herndl, C. G., & Brown, S. C. (1996). Introduction. In C. G. Herndl & S. C. Brown
(Eds.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America (pp. 3- 20).
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Hill, J. (n.d.). J ulia Butterfly H ill. Downloaded August J 6, 2005, from www.venus
project.com/books_a uthors/j ulia_butterfly _hi ll.html
.
Jasins ki, J. (200 1). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetortcal studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
J ehl, D. (200 1, March 2 1). E.P.A. to abandon new arsenic li mits for water supply.
N ew York Times, p. Al.
Kazis, R., & Grossma n, R. L. (1991 ). Fear at work: j ob blackmail, labor and the
environment (New ed.). Philadelphia: New Society.
Kidd, D. (2003). Become the media: The global IMC network. In A. Opel &
D. Pompper (Eels.), Representing resistance: Media , civil disobedience, and the
global justice movement (pp. 224- 240). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ki ll ingsworth, M. J., & Palmer, J. S. (1996). Millennia! ecology: The apocalyptic narrative from Silent Spring to Global Warming. l n C. G. H erndl & S. C. Brown
Rhetori ca lly Shaping the Environment
73
(Eels.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contempormy America (pp. 21-45).
Madison: Uni versi ty of Wisconsin Press.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Toward a radical democracy. London: Verso.
Lee, C. (1993). Beyond toxic wastes and race. Jn R. D. Bullard (Ed. ), Confronting
environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots (pp. 41 -52). Boston: South
End Press.
Lee, C. ( 1996). Environment: Where we live, work, play, and learn. Race, Poverty,
and the Environrnent, 6, 6.
Limbaugh, R. (1992) . The way things ought to be. New York: Pocket Books.
M., R. (May/J une 2003). Tu na meltdown. Siena, 88(3), 1 5.
Man es, C. (1990). Green rage: Radical environmentalism and the unmaking of
civilization. Boston: Little, Brown.
McGee, M. C. (1975). In sea rch of " the people": A rhetorical alternative. Quarterly
j oumal of Speech, 61, 235-249.
Merchant, C. (2002). The Columbia guide to American environmental history.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Miller, C. (2004). Gifford Pinchot and the making of modem environmentalism.
Washington, DC: Island Press/Shea rwater Books.
Nash, R. F. (2001). Wilderness and the American mind (4th ed.). New Haven: Yale
Uni versity Press.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Subcommittee on Waste a nd
Facility Siting. (1996). Environmental justice, urban revitalization, and brownfields: The search for authentic signs of hope. EPA 500-R-96-002. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Now On ly You Can Save G ra nd Ca nyon From Being Flood ed ... For Profit. (1966,
.June 9). New York Times, p. 35.
Oravec, C. (198 1). john M uir, Yosemite, and the su blime respon se: A study in the
rhetoric of preservation ism. Quarterly ]oumal of Speech, 67, 245-258 .
Oravec, C. ( J 984). Conservation ism vs. preservation ism: The "pu blic interest" in
the Hetch H etchy controversy. Quarterly journal of SfJeech, 70, 444-458.
Parsons, T. (1958). Authority, legitimation, and politica l action. In C. Friedrich
(Ed.), Authority (pp. 197-221 ). Cambridge: Harvard Un iversity.
Pezzullo, P. C. (2001 ). Performing critical interruptions: Rhetorical invention and na n·atives of the environmental justice movement. Western journal of Communication,
64, 1-25.
Pirages, D. C., & Ehrlich, P.R. (1974). Ark ll: Social resfJOnse to environmental
imfJeratives. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Proceedings: The first national fJeofJle of color environmental leadership summit.
( 1991, O ctober 24-27). Washington, DC: United Ch urch of Christ Commission
for Racia I Justice.
Review. (2003, J une 5). Subh anka r Banerjee, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
Seasons of Life a nd Lan d. Planet (J ackson Hol e, WY). Down loaded J uly 17,
2004, from www. mou nta ineersbooks.org/prod uctdeta i ls.cfm? PC=524
74
Conceptual Perspectives
Sa le, K. (J 993). The green revolution: The American environmental movement
1962- 1992. New York: Hill & Wang.
Schueler, D. ( 1992). Southern exposure. Sierra, 77, 45-47.
Schul zke, E. C. (2000, Marc h 26). Policy networks and regulatory change in the
104th Congress: Framing the center through symbolic legitimacy conflict.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Po litical Science Association, Sa n
J ose, CA.
Schwab, J. (1994). Deeper shades of green: The rise of blue-collar and minority
environme11talism in America. San Francisco: Sierra C lub Books.
Sha becoff, P. (1 996). A new name for fJ eace: International environmentalism, sustainable development, and democracy. H a nover, N H: Un iversity Press of
New England.
Shabecoff, P. (2000) . Earth rising: American environmentalism in the twenty-first
century. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Shabecoff, P. (2003). A fierce green fire: The American environmental movement
(Rev. eel.). New York: Hill & Wang.
Sha iko, R. G. ( 1999). Voices and echoes for the en vironment: Public interest representation in the 1990s and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, A. ( J9 10). An inquiry into the nature and ca11ses of the wealth of nations
(Vol. 1 ). London: J. M. Dent & Sons. (Original work published 1776.)
Solnit, R. (1992). Up the river of mercy. Sierra, 77, 50, 53-58, 78, 81, 83-84.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy fJaradox : The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.).
New York: W. W. Norton.
Taylor, B. C. (2003). "Our bru ised arms hung up as monuments" : Nuclear iconography in post-co ld war culture. Critical Studies in M edia Communication,
20, 1- 34.
Taylor, B. R. ( 1995). Ecological resistm1ce movements: The global emergence of radical and fJOfJUlar environmentalism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Th oreau, H. D. (1893). Walking. In Excursions: The writings of Henry David Thoreau
(Riverside ed., Vol. 9, pp. 251-304). Boston: Houghton-Mi ffli n. (Origi nal work
published 1862).
Tindall, D. B. ( 1995). What is environmental sociology? An inquiry into the paradigmatic status of environmental sociology. In M. D. Mehta & E. Ouellet (Eels.),
Environmental Sociology: Theory and Practice (pp. 33-59). North York, Ontario:
Captus Press.
Tu rner, T. (199 1). Sierra Club: 100 years of fJ rotecting nature. New York: Harry
N. Abrams.
Waddell, C. (Ed.) (2000). And no birds sing: Rhetorical analyses of Silent Spring.
Ca rbon dale: Sout hern Illinois Uni versity Press.
Wapner, P. ('1996). Environmental activism and world civic fJ olitics. Al bany: State
University of New York Press.
Wa rren, L. S. (Eel. ). (2003). American envir011111ental history. Oxford , UK: Basil
Blackwel l.
Rhetorica ll y Shaping the Environment
75
Wh ite House. ( 1994, February 1 J ). Executive O rder 12898: Federal action s to
address environ mental justice in min ority populations and low-income populations. Office of the Press Secreta ry.
White H ouse. (2002, August 22). Pres ident announces Hea lthy Forest Initiative.
Office o f th e Press Secretary. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from www.wh ite
house.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020822-3.html
White, L., Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155,
1203- 1207.
Wigglesworth, M. (1662) . God's controversy with New England. In Proceedings of
the Ma ssachusetts Historical Society, 12 ( 187 1), p. 83, in Nash (2001), p. 36.
Zakin, S. ( 1993). Coyotes and town dogs: Earth Pirst! and the environmental movement. New York: Penguin.