Framing for care and engagement (Part I): Defending life on Earth

By

A lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudatus). Photo by Sander Wehkamp on Unsplash

By Rodrigo Cáceres

In the previous part of this post, we examined the word biodiversity as a highly abstract new word that we can quite hardly relate to our subjective and collective experiences of nature. Instead, the more intimate and inclusive words of "life" and "life on Earth" show every sign of being profoundly adequate to trigger a deep engagement and care for life on Earth and a willingness to defend it from current destruction. For this reason, we will try to examine them a bit more deeply in this post.

Before we start, for the purposes of this post I will assume that nature, biodiversity and life on Earth are completely equivalent and interchangeable terms, since all three refer to the very same thing. I agree that there are some conceptual differences between the three terms because of their history (for example, that in modern cultures nature is usually seen as separate from the human world). Nevertheless, in terms of content they do refer to the same reality.

So, to try and keep things very applied to current events happening in the world, let's take a look again (as we did in a previous post) at the IPBES Summary for policymakers. 
We will first take a look at IPBES's definition of nature:

" [Nature] refers to the natural world with an emphasis on its living components. Within the context of western science, it includes categories such as biodiversity, ecosystems (both structure and functioning), evolution, the biosphere, humankind’s shared evolutionary heritage, and biocultural diversity [...]"

This definition from the IPBES confirms that nature, biodiversity and life on Earth refer to exactly the same thing: this is, the totality of living organisms, their diversity, their assemblages and their history.

So let's analyse (with our tools from ecolinguistics) the section C of the IPBES report, where can find the following main statement:
Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.

If we take an excerpt from this lengthy sentence, we can detect the following affirmation:

(1) "Goals for conserving [...] nature [...] cannot be met by current trajectories".

For those of you who are not familiar with intergovernmental texts like this one, this affirmation is quite powerful and unprecedented. It basically means that International governments and expert scientists got to an agreement that there is an incompatibility between "current trajectories" and "conserving nature". When two things are incompatible, it means that they are not reconcilable, that they are incapable of coexisting in harmony. In other words, this means that "current trajectories" are in opposition to "conserving nature".

(This already suggests a loving and life-affirming narrative of "Reconciling with nature" that you might identify with and make yours to employ in language. Re-concile comes from the Latin re- "again" and conciliare, which means "to bring together, unite in feelings, make friendly".)

 Going back to our analysis, you might have noticed that affirmation (1) is in a passivized form, the agent being expressed in the predicate. Thus, if we mirror affirmation (1), we get the following equivalent affirmation: 
(2) "Current trajectories cannot meet goals for conserving [...] nature.

 Since we assumed that nature and life on Earth refer to the very same thing, we can rephrase the affirmation (2) as follows:

(3) " Current trajectories cannot meet goals for conserving [...] life on Earth ".

We can readily notice a striking difference of salience between affirmations (2) and (3), even though they refer to the very same thing. Again, we can interpret the statement as saying that "current trajectories" are incapable of coexisting in harmony with life on Earth.
If you agree with me that speaking about life on Earth is clearly more salient and affecting, then this seems to be an adequate language for engaging people towards the transformative changes that IPBES calls for.

(In the case of affirmation (3), our narrative of reconciling becomes "Reconciling with life on Earth" or, in short, "Reconciling with life".)

We'll keep discussing these topics in Part II of this post. Thanks a lot for staying with me so far!



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the “exploitation of natural resources”

By
Image
Text translated by Louise Nicolas-Sourdot Texte traduit par Louise Nicolas-Sourdot A few weeks ago, I started working on an analysis of French secondary school textbooks and how they portray the relationship between humans and nature. Particularly, I examined an Earth and Life Sciences textbook for 6 th grade, and I obtained rather surprising results that I'm sharing with you in this post. In this textbook, the relationships between humans and nature are a rather secondary subject. Nonetheless, when these relationships are addressed, it is through the idea of the “exploitation of natural resources”. Apparently, one of the main learning objectives for the Earth and Life Sciences program in French secondary school is the understanding of the “impacts of the exploitation of natural resources”. What I would like to illustrate in this text is that this notion is far from being neutral, it symbolizes a strictly utilitarian and objectifying vision of nature, that i...
Read more

On Ecolinguistics

By
Image
  By Rodrigo Cáceres Ecolinguistics is currently one of the most productive fields of inquiry about language, since it allows us to take a broader, more encompassing perspective on language, enabling us to see how discourses that prevail in different cultures lead people to think and treat differently animals, plants and the land they live on. Ecolinguistics enable us to see for example how arbitrary it is that our western culture separates and opposes nature from culture, thus permanently banishing animals and plants from what is considered "Society" or the "community". It also renders visible how Western culture is filled with destructive discourses that shape the kinds of things westerners do: mass consumerism, global corporatism, destruction of ecosystems, climate catastrophe, and so on, that are leading to the 6th mass extinction and the consequent human self-destruction within decades. I claim that one of the most groundbreaking works that allow...
Read more

What is ecolinguistics?

By
Image
Each culture has its own unique view of nature, its own interpretation of what the world is made of. In the Comanche community in the United States, for example, there is a kinship link that connects humans to all that exists, to animals, plants and even to the very matter of which stars are made, since we all have a common origin. In our industrial societies, in contrast, nature is understood mainly by its utility: for us nature is not quite nature but it is above all a set of "natural resources". Similarly, ecosystems are not quite ecosystems, but they are above all a set of “ecosystem services” that we benefit from. What is nature? Is it our kin or is it a resource? Undoubtedly, the answers given to this question shape the ways in which nature is treated and how each society feels connected to it or tries to separate from it.  Language plays a fundamental role in this, because it is through words that we will provide a specific answer to this question. In other words, i...
Read more