A bit of theory: Mass nouns and mechanisms of erasure

By

By Rodrigo Cáceres

 In two previous essays, we used a specific linguistic term to analyse environmental discourse: the "mass noun". We defined it as "an abstract concept that generalizes and homogenizes an ensemble of entities". And we gave two examples of mass nouns: Humans and Natural Resources (the links will take you to each respective essay). Other examples of mass nouns are: nature and environment.

Today I would like to shed some light onto the mechanisms by which mass nouns homogenize and generalize. Also, I would like to understand how they create erasure patterns. An erasure pattern is a "linguistic representation of an area of life as irrelevant, marginal or unimportant through its systematic absence or distortion in text" (Stibbe, 2015). If you remember, in those previous essays I used verbs such as "conceal", "hide" and "background".

Let's start! So first of all, we should note that the purpose of creating a "mass noun" word is to be able to incorporate many and diverse elements into a single word, so that one can convey all those elements at once. Thus, mass nouns are made to encompass rather than to scrutinize. In this way, with mass nouns we can make extremely general statements such as "humans depend on nature", which are truthful, but they tell us nothing about which specific elements of nature we depend on and to what extent. Thus they are simply not made to identify, their purpose is to represent the general instead of the particular.

So now we can come back to one of our examples: "Humanity is destroying Earth". Humanity is defined as "people in general" (Cambridge dictionary) and as "the totality of human beings" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). This second definition should be of particular interest because it evokes humanity as a mere collection of individual human beings. It is no surprise that this can take us in the direction of a "shared responsibility model" were everyone is equally responsible for environmental problems.

If we think about it, speaking about "humanity" does not evoke human beings as embedded in cultures that comprise institutions, social norms, religions and conventions that determine individual behavior. By extrapolating, it is oblivious to the fact that there is also a diversity of cultures, each of them having different institutions, social norms and so on.

Moreover, it conceals the existence of collective agents, such as corporations, nation-states and organizations in general that have real effects on the world.

All of this complexity of human worlds is flattened, left out of the frame when we evoke "humanity" as responsible for environmental problems.

But how does this happen? The cognitive linguist George Lakoff would say that it has to do with the way our brains work. I will come have to come back to this issue in a future post.

To sum up, mass nouns might be useful for general statements such as "Humans depend on nature". For our concerns, however, in important ways they prove to be insufficient and inadequate to provide a truthful picture of the multilevel complexity of environmental issues. To our understanding, mainstream use of "mass nouns" is counterproductive to a thorough understanding of environmental issues. Through mass nouns such as "We", "Humans" or "Humanity", mainstream discourse currently frames environmental issues at an individual and consumerist unitary level of analysis.

 References 
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge.

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