Greening Communication

Milstein, Tema

doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-101-6_10

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that tactics in self-representation also must evolve in order to reconfiguratively speak to -and spur -widespread public engagement in ecological protection (Milstein, 2012). Organizations such as Sea Shepherd -with charismatic and controversial life-long leaders devoted to war-framed radical action to garner wins and attention -may have a harder time changing than others.…”

Section: From Shepherd To Guardianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Make love, not war?: Radical environmental activism’s reconfigurative potential and pitfalls

Milstein

McGaurr

Lester

2020

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New radical environmental action movements are attracting large numbers of diverse actors who inevitably will take inspiration and learn from mistakes of those radical environmental organizations that precede them and continue today into middle age. The representational strategies of these established organizations are of specific interest as they enter a maturity phase that coincides with the planet experiencing an unprecedented anthropogenic moment of reckoning – a time when more broadly engaging and transformative activism is paramount to reconfiguring ecological, societal, and spatial orientations. We focus on Sea Shepherd, a global ocean protection organization founded in the same decade as many other formatively radical organizations, to examine its historic and current representations of its direct action stance; its multiple and at times conflicting positioning of cetaceans; its emphasis on celebrity and timely campaigns; and its longstanding military, war, and piracy framing – much of which has garnered attention based on appealing to news values of conventional media outlets. We illustrate ways direct action may be framed as in opposition to current extractive practices ( against framing) or as a collaborative means to thriving futures ( with framing) and consider ways activism frames might eschew violent clashes and celebrity long valued by conventional media outlets and speak more to today’s broader internet-savvy populations and to the reconfigurative potential of guardianship, interconnectedness, and nurturance.

show abstract

Section: From Shepherd To Guardianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Make love, not war?: Radical environmental activism’s reconfigurative potential and pitfalls

Milstein

McGaurr

Lester

2020

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This literature challenges the conception of non-human animals as voiceless, or as participating in political processes only through implicit claims (Milstein, 2012). To be sure, scholars within the intersections of political philosophy and animal rights theory have recently begun to rethink human duties to animals through giving animals 'voice' on an abstract societal level through concepts like citizenship, justice and sovereignty (Hinchliffe et al, 2005;Hobson, 2007;Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2011;Garner, 2013).…”

Section: Internatural Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solidarity Between Human and Non-Human Animals: Representing Animal Voices in Policy Deliberations

Essen

Allen

2017

Environmental Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we discuss the bridging potential of "interspecies" solidarity between the often incommensurable ethics of care and justice. Indeed, we show that the Environmental Communication literature emphasizes feelings of care and compassion as vectors of responsibility taking for animals. But we also show that a growing field of Political AnimalRights suggest that such responsibility taking should instead be grounded in universalizable terms of justice. Our argument is that a dual conception of solidarity can bridge this divide: On the one hand, solidarity as a pre-political relation with animals and, on the other hand, as a political practice based on open public deliberation of universalizable claims to justice; that is, claims to justice advanced by human proxy representatives of vulnerable non-humans. Such a dual conception can both challenge and validate NGOs' claims to "speak on behalf of animals" in policy following the Aarhus Convention, indeed underwriting the Convention by insights from internatural communication in solidarity as relation, and by subjecting it to rational scrutiny in mini-publics in solidary as practice.KEYWORDS: Solidarity, internatural communication, discourse ethics, proxy representation, mini-publics Pre-production version of manuscript published in Journal of Environmental Communication http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. 1080/17524032.2016.1269820 2 Solidarity between Human and Non-Human Animals: Representing Animal Voices in Policy DeliberationsWhile perhaps equally important in defining our relationships to vulnerable others, the concepts of care and justice are often presented as in profound tension with one another (Noddings, 1984;Gilligan, 1987;Okin, 1989). On the one hand, it is thought that such relationships must be based on feelings of care and empathetic understanding of the needs andinterests of the vulnerable who cannot, for one reason or another, rationally formulate or articulate their own good (Goodin, 1986;Donovan, 1996;Fineman, 2008). On the other hand, it is thought that our relationship and responsibility-taking for vulnerable others must be based on universalizable claims to justice; claims that gain validity through rational argumentative defenses against skeptical challenges concerning what the vulnerable need and what they are properly owed (Regan, 1995;Garner, 2012). Indeed, the rational universalizability of claims to rights and justice proves essential to the task of giving public justification to policy decisions concerning vulnerable members of the shared political community (Goodin, 1996). Here, the tension between the concepts of care and justice derives from a difference in emphasis regarding the basis of moral responsibility (Buchanan, 2013). This is the difference between developing feelings of being responsible for vulnerable others and defending before a universal audience of all those who are purportedly placed under an obligation that they should to take responsibility.Such a tension between care and justice is by no mean limited ...

show abstract

Rhetoric and the Animal Turn: Concluding Thoughts on the Benefits of the Cross-Species Study of Persuasion

Parrish

2021

The Sensory Modes of Animal Rhetorics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greening Communication

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Make love, not war?: Radical environmental activism’s reconfigurative potential and pitfalls

Make love, not war?: Radical environmental activism’s reconfigurative potential and pitfalls

Solidarity Between Human and Non-Human Animals: Representing Animal Voices in Policy Deliberations

Rhetoric and the Animal Turn: Concluding Thoughts on the Benefits of the Cross-Species Study of Persuasion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About