Comments on: Winning Words

By: The first rule of talking about extreme weather | Grist

The first rule of talking about extreme weather | Grist — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:30:05 +0000

[...] this is one of the fundamental "brand challenges" of global warming, and the reason that I've long pleaded with climate communicators to stop talking about polar bears and stop saying "future generations." It's happening now. Our [...]

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:45:31 +0000

Oh, here, maybe this is the link? (Google to the rescue!)http://www.grist.org/article/mark-mellman-must-read-on-climate-messaging/:-)

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:13:05 +0000

Great article. Thanks, Anna! After skimming through it, though, couldn’t find any reference to either Joseph Romm or Mark Mellman in the seedmagazine.com link that you posted. Did I totally miss it during my “proverbial 5″?

By: Anna Fahey

Anna Fahey — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:01:08 +0000

One more addition: Grist’s Joseph Romm (chiming in with pollster Mark Mellman) assesses the EcoAmerica climate messaging recommendations. Basically, he pans the findings. I think he makes some really good points as does Mellman. Now it remains to be seen who in DC picks up which signals from pollsters and messaging gurus:http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/is_there_a_better_word_for_doom/

By: Anna Fahey

Anna Fahey — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:41:22 +0000

After the EcoAmerican leak, Seed Magazine hosted an interesting roundtable discussion about the merits and pitfalls of climate change messaging/framing. It’s a nice addition to the discussion that we’ve had here on the Daily Score: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/is_there_a_better_word_for_doom/

By: Anna Fahey

Anna Fahey — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:20:54 +0000

From Professor Brulle:Dear Anna:I have followed the comments on your blog, and found them to be very interesting. FYI, I also was the subject ofa blog entry by George Lakoff on this same topic:George Lakoff has posted a comment on AlterNet today defending ecoAmericahttp://www.alternet.org/environment/140138/how_we_talk_about_the_environment_has_everything_to_do_with_whether_we%27ll_save_it_/?page=entire#commentsI have sent the editors of AlterNet the following reply (attached below). This might also be of interest to your readers. Feel free to post it.BestBob Brulle—To the editors:I was very interested to see Dr. Lakoff’s editorial today, in which he directly critiques my scholarship. I have written the following response. I hope that you will give this response a prominent position in your blog.Sincerely,Robert Brulle—I found Dr. Lakoff’s comments quite interesting and revealing of the limitations of cognitive science in the analysis of social change processes. From a sociological perspective, attitudes and beliefs are the outcome of socialization processes. There are not just two different cultural models available for us to use in our interpretation of the world. Lakoff reduces the complexity and plurality of competing and/or contradictory world views into a highly simplified and individualistic approach. In essence, this is a form of psychological reductionism. For a competing view of value socialization and moral development, I suggest a review of “Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action” by Jurgen Habermas.Additionally, I have never seen any engagement by Dr. Lakoff of the literature on the processes of social change. My work focuses on the role of citizens and social movement in fostering social change, which Dr. Lakoff reduces to a typification of only one part of my research. There is an extensive theoretical and empirical literature on the processes by which social change occurs, which is all ignored by Dr. Lakoff and the communications marketing approach. Again, for those interested in this approach, I suggest a read of chapters 2, 3, & 4 of my book: “Agency, Democracy, and Nature.” Additionally, many of my current writings are available online on my web site: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj/For a direct response to Dr. Lakoff, I highly suggest a review of the article “Spinning our Way to Sustainability?, which is available on my web site.I am not the only person to critique the social marketing approach to fostering social change. I highly suggest a review of the report “Weathercocks and Signposts” published by WWF—UK.http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/campaigning/strategies_for_change/It is not that messaging is unimportant. However, the cognitive science approach neglects the social movements literature on the type of message that builds long term commitment to a movement for social change. We need to create and promulgate an effective message on global warming. I recently published an opinion article on this in Newsday.http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opbru1212641311apr20,0,4827742.storyMy concern over rhetorical form is that we are neglecting social movement building. The PR strategy seems to be the dominant mode of action for today’s environmental movement.Al Gore has his “Alliance for Climate Protection”, ecoAmerican has its spin campaign, etc. There is hardly anyone doing anything except virtual campaigns, or inside the beltway professional advocacy. The only exceptions I know of are Bill McKibben and 350.org/1Sky, the Sierra Club, and numerous local environmental groups. None of the well-recognized national organizations, such as EDF, NRDC, or even Greenpeace, has an active citizen participation component. The only engagement citizens can have is to make a financial contribution.We aren’t going to get there with effective rhetoric alone. Rather than saying we are engaged in a multiyear messaging struggle—I see it as a multiyear political struggle, with messaging being one key part, but not the only, or even the most important part.To deal with global warming, we need a social movement with sufficient political power to compel effective action to reverse ecological degradation. Clever, top down marketing schemes will not be able to accomplish this task. Rather than following the simplistic, and fundamentally undemocratic strategy of elite developed, funded, and controlled media campaigns, we need to shift to building a genuine social movement that directly involves individuals. This is essential to build a movement that is capable of acting to protect the environment, not just for a short term campaign, but to foster a long term process of social change toward a just and ecologically sustainable social order. For those interested in the specifics of my argument on reform of the environmental movement, I suggest reviewing the article “Fixing the bungled U.S. Environmental Movement”, also available on my web site.Back in 1971, Dr. Barry Commoner noted the need to build a strong environmental movement based in citizen mobilization. It is no accident that it is during this time period that the environmental movement enjoyed its greatest success. He noted that “Anyone who proposes to cure the environmental crisis undertakes thereby to change the course of history…But this is a competence reserved to history itself, for sweeping social change can be designed only in the workshop of rational, informed, collective social action.” We need to follow his advice, and rebuild the environmental movement.Robert J. Brulle PhDProfessor of Sociology and Environmental ScienceDepartment of Culture and CommunicationsAffiliate Professor of Environmental HealthSchool of Public HealthDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia, PA 19104Web Site: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj/

By: Michelle

Michelle — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:39:07 +0000

Interesting, Michal. Thanks for the input!Here’s a link to an article regarding this study (although, some of the hyperlinks appear to be out of date).Quickly reading through the article, (and distilling it down to a very simplified version during my proverbial “five minutes” the study appears to confirm the Cardinal Rule of Effective Public Speaking:Know Thy Audience.The study also looks at how JOURNALISTS influence the public discourse regarding important facts, such as Global Warming, simply by the way they choose to frame “policy solutions.” From the article:”When policies are framed in ways that affirm rather than threaten citizens’ cultural beliefs, people are less likely to dismiss information that runs contrary to their prior beliefs,” notes the study.

By: Michal

Michal — Tue, 19 May 2009 02:26:05 +0000

I just spent a few of my proverbial “five minutes a day” scanning your post and the comments. Very interesting points, all.The one thing I’d add is the interesting finding from “The Second National Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of – and Making Progress In – The American Culture War of Fact.” One of the study’s finding underpins the point that you need to be careful what words you use to pursuade; if the words are “loaded”, they will either be very effective or can blow up in your face. In short (and very simplified) if you show someone with “individualistic” tendencies evidence that GHG emissions are causing climate change, and suggest that more regulation of GHG emitting industries is the solution – that person is likely not only to reject the solution but is likely to dispute the validity of the evidence. However, show another person with the same individualistic tendencies the same evidence and suggest that encouraging free market solutions through deregulation is the answer, that person is likely not only agree with you, but accept that climate change is a big problem that requires immediate action. I admit that I have not read the entire study, but I’ve heard one of the authors, Donald Braman, interviewed about it and found the abstract – which you can find by searching the name of the study.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:12:56 +0000

The alternative is probably getting thrown to the floor, JUDO style!In an interview that Alan had with a journalist years ago (maybe even a decade ago), Alan said something to the effect of, “conServation and conVersation go together.”It’s getting that conversation started, and keeping that conversation productively going, that, to me, is the “Art of Aikido Politics.”Blogs are one source of conversing about conservation.

By: Anna Fahey

Anna Fahey — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:54:44 +0000

Thanks, Michelle!If we were journalists and not “just” bloggers we might have the bandwidth to invite folks like Professor Brulle to give their input. Maybe I’ll send him the post so he can respond though—because I value his opinion and in many ways I agree with his position. In my perfect world people would engage in a deeper conversation. I think that’s happening among the “converted”—but what I’m talking about gets beyond preaching to the choir and using smart strategies to invite people in to the conversation in the first place. If they aren’t there and don’t feel interested, they can’t have that deeper kind of engagement. And yes, unfortunately, we’re dealing with a public that is isolated and dispersed across a segmented media landscape—and real people who have less than five minutes a day to engage. I wasn’t trying to pick on Brulle so much as a general aversion to “PR tactics”—or smart communications—as a way to start that conversation. If you’re not using smart, effective communications what’s the alternative?Not very aikido of me though!