… or a cat on a bench.
*****
In the last few weeks I’ve met some people involved in various social activism causes. On the one hand, the climate change cause; on the other, something new to me, “chocolate slavery.”
According to my new acquaintance, “chocolate slavery” is a practice prevalent in countries like the Ivory Coast and Ghana in which young children are taken from their families and forced to pick cocoa for no money or other reward.
In talking to the two groups of activists it struck me afresh just how profoundly language shapes my response to the world. Because in each case, my response was very different, and the difference lay wholly in language.
No arousing opportunity
When someone’s talking about climate change, I completely zone out. I’m not a climate change denier; it’s just that two things are missing for me.
The first is an arousing opportunity to live into. I just don’t get that a 10% cut in carbon emissions or 20% or 50% is an arousing opportunity, and I dare anyone else to get it. I’m supposed to yearn for a cut? Are you crazy? Anyone expecting this kind of goal to galvanise the public hasn’t the first idea of how human beings work. And if won’t work for the public, it won’t work for governments which are simply the public writ large.
This stuff is Marketing 101, and I’ve never even studied marketing. It’s the old problem of mistaking a feature for a benefit. It’s not the mechanism (cuts in carbon emissions) or the measures (10%, 20%) of any desired change that motivates an audience, it’s what the change will deliver. I don’t buy expensive shampoo because it contains macadamia oil but because I want to look good tomorrow.
And nor does it require only a move from features to benefits. Because you could say “save the planet” is a benefit, but it’s certainly not motivating. I hear “save the planet” and a general, doom-laden miasma seems to rise all around. Like a rat in a reinforcement experiment, I want to squat in the centre of my cage in alarm and helplessness.
No, to be arousing the benefit has to be intrinsically attractive. In the area of climate change, surely someone could start framing some opportunities relating to the following:
- simpler, easier lifestyles
- harmony, integrity
- community, participation
- freedom from dependency
- power (conceived not as force, but as Landmark Education conceives it, as the speed at which you can translate intentions into actions)
- strength
- durability, heritage, custodianship, timelessness
- flourishing.
No call to action
The second thing that’s missing for me when someone’s discussing climate change is a call to action. Just what is it you want me to do? Tell me.
It’s no use broadcasting to me as a member of the public the same message you might give to the Government: eg, we want 20% cuts at Copenhagen. Or simply continuing to dwell on the problem. Instead, tell me what you want me to do. For example:
- “ring the City Council and request they implement a congestion tax”
- “ring your local member and request the Government starts taxing emissions above [x] level”
- “join us in our campaign to increase solar energy usage from 5% to 50% of total energy usage”
- and so on.
In contrast, have a festival
What’s missing for me in climate change activism is what my new acquaintance demonstrated in a matter of seconds when she mentioned a project she’d launched: “I’ve started a project to organise a Fair Trade Chocolate Festival.” In less than 12 words, I was hooked and intrigued and excited. How to resist a declaration containing the intrinsically attractive concepts of fairness and chocolate and, best of all, festival? Was there ever such a great word?
Straightaway, I wanted to know more about fair trade chocolate and why it was important (which introduced me to the whole new idea of chocolate slavery). And I knew, without her having to add another word, what was being asked of me. Or, to put it another way, I knew how I could contribute.
It’s this kind of simplicity and arousal the climate change lobby needs to develop in all its conversations.
*****
Image: Thanks, Carlos
What you say about the exploitative conditions behind the chocolate we imbibe could be said about many other things we enjoy, like clothing, computers, running shoes, etc.
Not to buy the goods and services produced under these conditions is something we all can do if we feel otherwise unempowered.
Regarding climate change, below is a link to a speech by the late Michael Crichton about complexity, in particular the complexity underlying climatic conditions.
It makes one realise why we get almost everything wrong when predicting the future, including climate change.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html
What Crichton said reminds me of what Bertrand Russell once said about experts: that when they are agreed on anything, the opposite of what they say cannot be held to be certain.
Hello Mr Pip. Yes, I guess the chocolate thing is similar to the Nike sweatshop issue. I hadn’t come across it before. Thanks for the link. Great article. Very much concur with Crichton’s points about fear-mongering, and the paralysing, debilitating effects of speaking in apocalyptic tones. I feel just this way about climate change: paralysed. Also had a laugh at his discussion of Y2K. Geez, remember all that hoo-haa?
interesting post and loved the pic.
Thanks :)