Climate Change and the Politics of Apocalyptic Redirection

Abstract

Alison McQueen’s study of the historical role of apocalyptic ideas in realist political theory cautiously proposes the ‘redirection’ of apocalyptic thought as a plausible alternative to its rejection. Apocalyptic redirection, so understood, uses apocalyptic language to describe potential future catastrophes in order to inspire drastic action to prevent them. Although McQueen acknowledges that apocalyptic redirection may have certain risks, she suggests it may be an appropriate response to the crisis of climate change. In this article, I aim to show that this use of the discourse of apocalyptic redirection is ideologically problematic. I argue that it involves conflating the interests of those who are at least moderately materially comfortable with the interests of humanity as a whole. I will also draw on the 2019 ‘Stop Adani Convoy’ in Australia as a case study to show how the ideological character of this discourse renders it ill-suited to generating popular support for action on climate change, and liable to reproduce existing power relations.

Getting Realistic About Action-Guidance: Moralism, Radical Realism and Divisions of Labour

“…Consider, for example, that there is a distinction between: (1) recognising that all the legitimation beliefs supporting P are defective, (2) wanting others to recognise this as well, (3) actively trying to persuade others that this is the case and (4) taking actions to try to stop P from being implemented. Although these three steps -from (1) to ( 2), ( 2) to (3), and (3) to (4) -may seem natural, they can all be coherently rejected (Cross, 2021(Cross, : 1120(Cross, -1121. In general, it is important to recognise that two people can accept the same findings of ideology critique and decide to pursue very different political agendas as a result.…”

“…In the former case, action-guidance is also based on knowledge, but this knowledge can do no more than resource decisions about what to do, and perhaps offer limited criticisms. For example, the ideologist and the general political theorist may criticise political actions that are undertaken in ignorance of the kind of knowledge they both seek to provide (Cross, 2021(Cross, : 1117(Cross, -1120). Yet their combined knowledge lacks the normative content necessary to generate reasons for political action sui generis.…”

“…My interest here concerns Ulaş’ critique of radical realism – a distinct form of political realism for which there is now a growing body of literature (Aytac and Rossi, 2022; Cross, 2022a; Prinz, 2016; Raekstad, 2021; Rossi, 2019). One of the most distinctive features of radical realism is its use of ideology critique as a means of evaluating the epistemic merits of beliefs and narratives (Aytac and Rossi, 2022; Cross, 2021; Geuss, 2008; Prinz and Rossi, 2017, 2021; Raekstad, 2021; Rossi, 2019). Ulaş’ (2020: 19–21) argument is that this form of ideology critique is highly esoteric and intellectually demanding, such that we cannot plausibly expect most people to be able to use it.…”

“…Moralists may regard a division of labour between the identification of correct normative principles – whether ideal whether ideal (Erman and Möller, 2013; Swift and White, 2008) or nonideal (Anderson, 2010) – and devising appropriate methods for implementing or approximating them as a way of showing that their normative claims are not infeasible. Radical realists have argued that this division of labour is unrealistic in certain respects (Cross, 2021: 1116–1117; Prinz and Rossi, 2017: 335; Rossi, 2019: 644–645). This invites the question: why is it ok for radical realists to rely on a division of labour, if it is not also ok for moralists to do so?…”

Apocalypticism as Radical Realism? On the Dangers and Benefits of Wishful Thinking in Prefigurative Politics

“…I worry that these two methods of reconciling political realism and apocalypticism are problematic on realist grounds. Elsewhere (Cross, 2021), I have argued that McQueen’s idea of redirection is ideologically problematic, in virtue of its tendency to divert attention away from human suffering in the present. The merging of ideal theory with feasibility constraints, meanwhile, remains vulnerable to many of the standard realist critiques of ideal theory, though perhaps not all of them.…”