Two days off the pop grid and the media world shifts. After a brief hiatus from mediation I re-entered into a hurricane of gossip and a circus of assholes speculating every which way about what would happen to Michael Jackson’s money. legacy, kids, etc. I never thought that I’d say this, but I’m actually sad about his loss. As the above “Earth Song” video attests, he had a humanitarian strain that was lost in all the finger-pointing at his odd behavior, as if the rest of us are normal, upright citizens.
Anyhow, I love this song (and video) because it expresses the pain I feel about the insanity of our times. There are very few tunes that give me shivers, but this is one of them.
I’m sure Fox is not being ironic when they criticize The Story of Stuff for fear mongering. What is sure is that Fox is a bit of weathervane informing us of our good work. In other words, if it feels like attacking the use of The Story of Stuff in classrooms (I use it for teaching as well), then it must be working. The knee-jerk reaction to the video’s valid claim that externalities are both the source of Western wealth and the destruction of the environment is dismissed as “ponytail” Marxism, a funny pejorative, but hardly substantiative, which is par for the Fox course. Another irony in the Fox attack is how it decries the video for being “anti-government” when it is Fox’s neoliberal philosophy to attack government whenever possible.
Researchers have what they say is the first direct proof of a very old idea: that when we use a tool—even for just a few minutes—it changes the way our brain represents the size of our body. In other words, the tool becomes a part of what is known in psychology as our body schema, according to a report published in the June 23rd issue of Current Biology.
I’m glad the issue of conflict minerals is seeing the light of day– literally. As this video depicts, minerals important for our communications infrastructure are often mined by children in conflict zones. Many of the materials that go into the manufacture and out with the disposal of computers, cell phones, etc. are devastating to the “global majorities” (those who actually comprise the majority of the world’s population, but are denied access to the benefits of global capitalism). I think that if we are to take seriously the idea of the transformation of consciousness as a result of communications technology, then we should also critically engage the world system that produces such devices. I’m not suggesting that it should be one or the other (that is no phones versus economic and ecological justice), yet I believe we need to turn the screws on the technology companies to behave more responsibly when they make products, and for us to be wiser consumers. Furthermore, we should think twice about tossing the old cell phone considering the hardship that went into producing its material reality.
This leads to a broader question concerning some of the Utopian thinking about communications technology: is it possible if such futures as the singularity occur, will artificial intelligence be able to gage the issue of social and ecological justice? Currently the programs that buy and sell commodities on international markets are the least interested in such concerns. How will computers sense the livelihood at the root of their own production?
Though I haven’t seen Food, Inc., this looks to be another promising documentary about our monocultural food system. The film’s trailer starts off with a quick lesson in media literacy by juxtaposing the images of food market/ing with the reality food production. It should be noted, however, that the top PR and propaganda spinners know that people only remember pictures, and not words. So though the narration does a good job of deconstructing the images of the supermarket, one is still left with the pastoral image of an artificially abundant the food system (I say “artificial” because the high yield monocultural crops we are accustomed to are produced on borrowed time by depending on petroleum-based fertilizer that destroys biodiverse soil– a temporary fix that has long-lasting and destructive consequences on the food chain).
Nonetheless, I really like this sequence and hope the film is as compelling. The montage alludes to a deeper suspicion I have that supermarkets are more effective tools of food system propaganda than media. I urge people to consider the psychological conditioning of the market as one of the primary forms of system architecture.
One of the strategies of culture jamming is to “uncool” brands. Although I don’t believe that this tactic in and of itself is the be-all of environmental activism, I do like how Greenpeace is taking on sacred cows of consumer culture, such as Kleenex, and now Nike (and other sneaker companies).
I’m a little skeptical that depicting the disgusting practices of leather production will succeed– I think most people turn away from ugly images that don’t conform to their reality. But, I do find it useful to make the connection between the making of shoes and environmental destruction, especially for youth who are increasingly environmentally conscious and the primary consumers of brand-name sneakers.
PS I’m still of vacation and am only blogging occasionally. I hope everyone out there is enjoying the summer break (if you are a teacher or student, that is).
This Seth Godin TED video has been making the Internet rounds, but it took me a while to view it. I’m sure glad I did, because he simplifies the process for changing the world. His inspirational talk reminds me of the old punk dictum: here’s a chord, here’s another, now go start your own band. Godin would say, here’s how tribes are formed around innovative ideas, now go start your own revolution. Please do!
“Only a people serving an apprenticeship to nature can be trusted with machines.” Herbert Read
I got this choice little quote from a great discussion between Chellis Glendinning, Kirkpatrick Sale, and Stephanie Mills about a Luddite perspective of technology, and where it stands today. If you’re into the debate about the role machines play in our lives, and their moral impact on the world, then I recommend reading on.
SM: OK. So how do you see technology’s place in today’s world?
KS: My analysis, especially of the computer revolution, always comes back to capitalism. It’s that economic system that has led to Western civilization’s willingness to enslave ourselves to machines — because some people benefit enormously from it, while the costs are borne by other people and the planet. Add to that the fact that modern governments, existing primarily to protect and enhance capitalism, maintain their power through the use of technologies that control the populace — by bread or circuses, by war or schooling, by armies and police, all of which are enabled and empowered by technology. That is what we might call the stick part of capitalism, while the riches-for-the-few is the carrot.
It’s worked pretty well for five centuries. But it’s come to the point that the technologies are destroying the earth. I’m convinced that the catastrophes of the next two decades will be so vast as to bring about a world where life, if it survives, will be far simpler — and the technologies, too. Then we will have come full circle to something like life on the savanna.
SM: So … a systemic analysis of technology derives from nature.
CG: A crucial point!!
SM: Yes. If a technology is elegant, biodegradable, made from renewable materials and employs a minimum of muscular, water or wind energy, is responsive, beautiful in its way, and challenging to the user in that it develops the user’s senses and strength — it may comport with nature.
A deep analysis judges technology morally — from its conception and intention to the totality of its consequences, knowing that all “raw materials” once were someone’s home or sustenance, that extraction and manufacture at industrial scale reduce landscapes and their human beings, that distribution, employment, and disposal of technologies change lives in unpredictable ways.
Diana Verde Nieto of Clownfish writes an interesting piece in AdAge about “sustainable marketing”– a double entendre because usually these kinds articles have to deal with how the profession survives the economy, as opposed to how does marketing become relevant in a world that demands sustainable behavior. I think she’s on the right track. The key I look for in any manifesto is global ethics, which is often left out of survival pitches made by ad agencies. But if companies want to survive (literally– because you can’t sell products to an extinct species), then point one– credibility– should be the buzz word of the century.
As she points out, credibility is earned, not a figment of the marketing imagination. We are in an increasingly transparent environment and the fact is that it’s harder for people to get away with shit. In New Mexico people say, “look how your are” if you start behaving foolishly or amorally. I think it’s time we look at companies straight in the eye and tell them, look how you are. I’m glad to see some in the biz are starting to point the mirror at each other. ’bout time.
Credibility: This means no more fluff. Communications have to be underpinned by robust, verifiable technical data. This may not sound exciting, but it’s important, because sustainability communications without substance are being singled out by nongovernmental organizations and are even being banned. In the U.K. in 2007, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that 19 ads should be withdrawn for making misleading green claims, a rise from the 10 banned in 2006.
Clarity: Clear, genuine, authentic messages promote transparency, and research shows there is a positive correlation between transparency and trust. This means that instead of making vague statements about being “eco-friendly,” touch points need to be tangible. According to Shelton Group, 88% of consumers have a positive association with the concept of energy efficiency, while only 62% feel the same way about “green.” Eco-labeling, while sometimes helpful, does not always provide clarity. When Boots, a British retailer, surveyed its consumers after labeling a line of shampoos with its carbon footprint, they found that 28% didn’t know that a product’s carbon footprint was related to climate change.
Consistency: Sustainability is not a trend. In fact, at Clownfish, we believe it’s the business model for the 21st century. Sustainability is systemic and not about tackling single issues. As such, it should be applied consistently across business processes. Companies need to develop long-term sustainability strategies that are matched by rigorous business discipline and create a movement, not a campaign. Consistency is also important in the sense that messages must resonate with the company’s existing voice in the marketplace.
Conversation: In the old world of the Mad Men, the brands that won were those that told the best stories. But digital is changing that. In the new world, the brands that win will be those whose consumers and other stakeholders tell the best stories. It used to be a one-way narrative, and now it’s a two-way conversation. Tap the interactive potential of the internet to engage your critics as well as allow your fans to get penetration into the blogosphere and create a clear call to action for your consumers.
Jacqueline Hassink explores sacred spaces of multinational capitalism: boardrooms of banks and corporations, and fitting rooms of haute couture. The above image is from Nestle’s boardroom. What strikes me about it is the far wall, which is the old Mercator map projection originally designed for shipping. In essence it’s a colonial map because of the obvious distortion of land mass that makes Europe and North America far larger than the southern continents.
This is the map most of us are familiar with from school, but it’s probably the least relevant map we could study, except for historical context or as a sample for a kind of thinking. In recent years there have been alternative map makers that have tried to reflect accurate land mass or even turn the world upside down (my favorite) to illustrate that how we map the world is a matter of interpretation. Not surprisingly, Nestle’s boardroom reveals a lot about their colonial subjectivity, one based on what Vandana Shiva calls “monoculture.” Moreover, can you imagine a more sterile, disembodied space for decision making that impacts peoples in far off lands? Imagine the strange rituals practiced in this space of global command and control.
One more thing, Dr. Robert J. Brulle, who is subjected to Lakoff’s critique, has a great Website full of articles about environment and social change. You can check them out here.
In translating science for a popular audience, especially in a political context, one of course has to simplify. But I find Lakoff’s simplifications here a bit jarring. They remind me of those Cartesian diagrams of human mental circuitry by which a physical stimulus leads to a neurochemical response leads to a physical reaction (see illustration above), with no place for culture or for a feeling human agent in the middle of it. Lakoff reduces all of our understanding to words (”all of our language” works this way) activating distinct neural circuits called “frames,” which are “organized in terms of values,” with the latter in turn “determin[ing] our sense of identity.” It’s not clear where these “values” come from, or if values and identity have their own separate neural circuits or, if not, what exactly they are. According to Lakoff, “two competing value-based systems of frames,” and therefore two identities, are available “in our politics”: a conservative one and a progressive one. (See his Moral Politics for more on these.)
“Frames” are cognitive circuits that determine how we think about things. Corporations spend billions convincing us to go against our better interests using their own frames. Here are some suggestions to change the discussion surrounding climate chaos:
First, the public’s very understanding of nature has to change. We are part of nature; nature is not separate from us. Nature nurtures us. The destructive exploitation of nature is evil. What is good is the use of nature that doesn’t use up nature.
Second, the economic and ecological meltdowns have the same cause: the unregulated free market and the idea that greed is good and that the natural world is a resource for short-term private enrichment. The result has been deadly, toxic assets and a toxic atmosphere.
Third, the global economy and ecology are both systems. Global causes are systemic, not local. Global risk is systemic, not local. The localization of causation and risk is what has brought about our twin disasters. We have to think in global, system terms and we don’t do so naturally. That is why a massive communications effort is needed.
Fourth, the Right’s economic arguments need to be countered. Is it too expensive to save the earth? How could it be? If the earth goes, business goes.
Fifth, we are the polar bears. Human existence is threatened, and the existence of most living beings on earth.
Sixth, we own the air jointly and we can’t transfer ownership. Polluting corporations are dumping pollution into our air. They need to gradually be made to stop, two-percent less a year for 40 years: that is what a “cap” on carbon dioxide pollution is about. And meanwhile the polluters should pay us dumping fees to offset the cost of fuel increases and pay for the development of better fuels.
Seventh, even the most successful emissions cap would only take us halfway. Business needs to do its part to take us the rest of the way. Large corporations need to face up to reality and join in the effort.
Finally, for those in the business world: Corporate interests are constantly putting forth arguments based on cost-benefit analysis. But the very mathematics of cost-benefit analysis is anti-ecological; the equations themselves are destructive of the earth.
Maybe without intending to do so, this video ends up being a pretty good deconstruction of our food system. As a humorous remix of Steve Porter’s Slap Chop, it decontextualizes popular (mis)conceptions of food: that it’s boring; it’s something needing to be done quickly and on the run; it’s a matter of convenience (not quality); a technological solution makes food better; and there’s nothing like a little violence and aggression to improve your diet! The only thing missing is a way to do this in your car.
A note from Travis Wagner: The 10th Biennial Conference on Communication and the Environment will be held June 27-30, 2009, at the University of Southern Maine in Portland. There will be some 80 presentations on public participation, media criticism, social construction, risk assessment, and policy applications. Check out the conference website at usm.maine.edu/esd/coce.
From the conference Website (almost looks like the syllabus from my Media and Environment class):
The central theme for the 10th Biennial Conference on Communication and Environment will be “Environmental Communication as a Nexus.” As concern over the environment has risen on the international, national, and local agendas, as a discipline, what role has or should Environmental Communication played? How should other disciplines view and use Environmental Communication to advance environmental protection and promote sustainability? How should Environmental Communication play a role in the way we comprehend the relationship between how we live and the limits of the natural world? As the impacts of globalization and a world view of environmental problems become clearer, we see that our material practices have an impact on not only nearby places but also faraway places, both natural and cultural. Is and has this been communicated successfully?
This conference will explore the role of Environmental Communication in defining, understanding, and solving local, regional, national, and global environmental problems.
We invite submissions that explore the conference theme from a broad range of scholarly approaches to environmental communication and its relationship to other disciplines involved in environmental protection and sustainability. Given our current political context facing a global energy and climate crisis, this conference welcomes papers with an applied policy context. Potential paper topics might include – but are definitely not limited to – analysis of and arguments about:
Cultural reactions, perceptions, and constructions of environmental problems
Social and political impacts of a worldwide pursuit of the “American dream”
Mediated representations in popular culture, art, music, and/or the public sphere connecting individual and collective actions and impacts
Influence of decentralized mass media on accurate communication of environmental problems and solutions
Emergence of global environmentalism and the role of communication
Bridging media literacy with ecoliteracy, this blog features various meditations and musings by Antonio Lopez, an old school dharma punk and media educator. He is the author of:
Now available, Antonio's health and media literacy CDROM curriculum for youth of color, Merchants of Culture. This valuable resource contains dozens of video and print examples of how advertisers market harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco to various niche audiences, including Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Asians, GLBT and Women. This is an excellent primer for introducing the subject of cultural marketing to high school and middle school students. This is also a great product for health professionals and councilors working in the area of prevention.
