This page makes a detailed critique of their third set of findings, which are about how to frame climate change and climate justice when trying to communicate with the UK public. The critique is from a Biblical Christian perspective, and tries to lay out some of the starting-points of my perspective, just as FCJ have admirably done. My critique employs the LACE approach being pioneered by the UK Christian Academic Network, which seeks to Listen, Affirm, Critique and Enrich; see Introduction to LACE.
The text below is the original FCJ text, pasted directly from their website, and my comments and critiques are in boxes, mostly in table form.
"What we tested & what we found. Using these insights we prepared 10 different frames to test. Here is a summary of how they moved people's thinking, and what we'd recommend."
I am looking at these in two ways.
|
| Critique: | How, on what grounds, did they choose these narratives, values, etc.? |
| Critique: | FCJ seems to have a blanket approach, wanting to find narrativews that work foracross all people. However, is it not important, for good communications, to take into account the concerns and dignities of each group differently? |
"WHAT WE TESTED A narrative emphasising solidarity between the UK and the global south. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This was the strongest performing across all our messages. It moved people's thinking on climate justice helpfully in these ways: top result for agreeing least responsible are the most affected; top result for agreeing those affected should play a bigger role in developing solutions; top result for having hope for solutions in the next 20 years.
OUR RECOMMENDATION Use this narrative."
| Affirm: | All three prior key principles can be affirmed by Christian belief and many Bible verses. So can what we assume they mean by solidarity. |
| Critique: | What are the presuppositions underlying their view of solidariry? Is is the warlike one of 'against an enemy' as in Marxism? Or is the Biblical one of oneness of all Creation and all humanity (under God). I suspect it is the latter (without the bracketed?) but some in the movement will have the former at least subliminally. |
| Enrich: | Strengthen idea of solidarity as togetherness of all humanity (under God) and extend it to togetherness with all Creation, and clarify humanity's role and responsibility (in Value sense; see below) of shepherding the Rest of Creation. |
"WHAT WE TESTED A narrative emphasising UK's historical responsibility for climate change. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This narrative had very little impact. It didn't move thinking even on areas that were directly related (e.g. taking responsibility for the past).
OUR RECOMMENDATION More testing is needed to talk about responsibility effectively."
| Listen: | By "responsibility" they seem to mean accountability for past wrongs, rather than an attitude or heart of responsibility as a value oriented to the future. Do they mean to imply reparations? |
| Affirm: | Responsibility for past wrongs can be affirmed leading to repentance, a Biblical idea of repentance that goes deeper than mere reparations. Reparations might indeed be called for, but can be made without any deep repentance that says "I was / We were wrong". |
| Critique: | Clarify that they do mean Responsibility-for-past wrongs. |
| Enrich: | Add also Responsibility as a Value and not just a narrative of the past. Use different terms for the two "responsibility"s. |
| Enrich: | Bring in the Biblical idea of repentance. |
| Recommendation: | Further research needed: Need also to test the narratives of Responsibility-as-Value and Repentance. |
"WHAT WE TESTED A narrative emphasising collective action and people power. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This narrative had mixed results, and didn't move people strongly in any direction. It made people point the finger at the big global actors (governments and corporations), and it made people more likely to call for indigenous communities to have bigger role in developing solutions.
But it had a backfire effect, making people more likely to disagree with resource redistribution. And, ironically, it had no impact on whether people felt hope...
OUR RECOMMENDATION More testing needed to appeal to hope effectively. (Seems better to show not tell!)"
| Listen: | Notice that they don't seem to mean hope the way Christians do; by "hope" they seem to mean only that given through collective action and people power. Understand why hope is important, both to FCJ and more generally, and identify which of FCJ's reasons overlap with Bibclical ones. |
| Affirm: | the need for hope and that hope is available - for Biblical reasons, such as that it is promised and it stimulates people. |
| Critique: | What presuppositions are made to see collective action and people power as grounds for hope? It might be a necessary condition for the fulfilment of hope, but what grounds for hope itself, given the possibility that "people", including collectively, are not necessarily all fully good in heart? Might "No impact on whether people felt hope" be evidence of the paucity of their presupposition? |
| Enrich: | Bring in the Biblical idea that (a) hope must be grounded in something outwith those who act to fulfil the possibility of hope, and that such hope is available in God the Creator who loves the Creation. |
| Recommendation: | Extend their research to include the Biblical idea of Hope grounded in God, at least as one of the options, to see how effective it might be and which backfire effects it might have. (Warning: Be very careful about thinking out how to research anything related to CHristian ideas, because researchers will not be used to it and might misunderstand or unintentionally misrepresent it. For example, the lazy hope-in-god (sic) as an excuse for doing nothing, which seems to pervade some Christian communities and thinking, is NOT the Biblical hope in God that is coupled with responsive and responsible partnership with God.) |
| Recommendation: | The People of God can apply "collective action and people power" not to defend themselves, but to foster the call for indigenous communities to have a bigger role in developing solutions. |
"WHAT WE TESTED A narrative emphasising crisis and doom. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This had mixed and apparently conflicting results. It made people point the finger of blame at governments and corporations. And it was the top result for encouraging people to call for a bigger role of indigenous communities in the solutions to climate change.
But it had two significant backfire effects: it was also the top result across all messages for supporting top-down solutions (scientists and experts to have a bigger role); and it made people more likely to say climate change has no impact on existing injustices.
OUR RECOMMENDATION Do not rely on this narrative."
| Listen: | What do they mean and imply by emergency, crisis, etc.? Triggers: Understand why FCJ treat blaming governments and corporations as good and involving experts as bad; e.g. is it dependence on experts that they mean or involvement of experts in any form? |
| Affirm: | Emergency as that which helps knock sense into the complacent and lead us to repentance. |
| Critique: | Once we understand why they want people to blame governments and corporatons and reject experts, we can ask what is presupposed to do so. Christians presuppose that all groups have a role and responsibility in the flourishing of Creation (which includes humanity), and none should be a-priori debarred. |
| Enrich: | Shift the dialogue away from treating the involvement of certain groups as good or bad to asking how all groups can be involved and work together (governments, corporations, indigenous peoples, experts, all invidivudals, etc.), what is the role of each - without the tendency to let that segway into merely supporting one's own favourite group. The Christian view offers humility and self-giving love as how all kinds can work together, as well as being supported by the idea of gifts in I Corinthians 12. |
| Recommendation: | Can we use the emergency narrative to help foster respect for indigenous communities' ideas and solutions? Can we use it to foster greater reality among the complacent, and repentance? More rsearch is needed on that. |
"WHAT WE TESTED Text emphasising the agency and voice of people affected. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This was the strongest performing value. It encouraged several helpful climate justice beliefs: made people more likely to say climate change impacts the most marginalised; made people more likely to blame wealthy governments; made people more supportive of a bigger role of governments of poorer countries in solutions.
OUR RECOMMENDATION Use this value."
| Listen: | What do FCJ see as of ultimate importance in "agency and voice of people affected"? |
| Affirm: | Self-direction as responsibility, dignity and agency. Anything else? |
| Critique: | Do they presuppose about the "people affected" are basically good and "sinless", in that if they are given voice and agency then they will opt for climate and environmental responsibility? Does the rise of the Yellow-Vests in France and Trump supporters in the USA etc. undermine that presupposition? What is their answer - mere education of such people? - and is their answer guaranteed to work in time to avert the climate crisis? Remember: The research had no input from the North of England. |
| Enrich: | Offer the following idea: # that all people equally need to be challenged (convicted of sin, and challenged to aspire to right ways) and have their hearts changed; # that righteousness (tsedeq; dikiasune: "right things among all things in the Created order of things") is valued and sought by God and that God will work with the righteous to empower righteous agency and voice; # maybe suggest recasting the "blame wealthy governments" as the higher responsibility of wealthy governments, now as well as in the past. Offer also the idea that God works with the righteous. |
| Recommendation: | Given the positive impacts of this value, use it, but in its enriched form. |
"WHAT WE TESTED Text connecting local and global, widening sphere of concern. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This value had very little impact. It didn't move thinking, even when asking people to reflect on who is most impacted by climate change, for example.
OUR RECOMMENDATION More testing needed to draw on universalism values effectively."
| Listen: | Is "universalism" a trigger concept against which some Christians react? Try to understand why FCJ think it important. I suspect that their reference to "connecting local and global, widening sphere of concern" means that responsibility-as-value is important to them. |
| Affirm: | This could be linked with the Value of Responsibility. |
| Critique: | Does Universalism seem to be a rather abstract concept? |
| Enrich: | Replace Universalism with Responsibility-as-value oriented to the future rather than past, because it is closely linked to people's dignity and is less abstract. |
| Recommendation: | Research the impact of Responsibility-as-value. Use that value, especially as linked with people's dignity. |
"WHAT WE TESTED Text emphasising the need for stability and national security, in the UK. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This value had a significant backfire effect. It made people more likely to disagree with resource distribution as a solution to climate change.
OUR RECOMMENDATION Don't use this value."
| Listen: | What do FCJ mean by "stability and national security"? Presumably not military security. But probably security of a nation in terms e.g. of food supply and other self-sufficiency and sustainability. Underneath these was there any sense of (a) responsibility for the rest of the world, (b) selfish disregard for the rest of the world? How much of each? I suspect more of the latter but some of the former. Was there any sense of being a good example to the rest of the world? |
| Affirm: | I believe Christians could affirm responsibility for the rest of the world and the stability that this requires. |
| Critique: | Were these negative trigger to many FCJ participants? If so, did they perhaps skimp on the research about them? |
| Enrich: | Shift the meaning of this towards responsibility and being a good example to the rest of the world. Recommend: Retest with the new slant. |
"WHAT WE TESTED A metaphor showing colonialism and capitalism as rigged games that benefit some at the expense of others. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This metaphor helped people think more clearly about the human causes and impacts of climate change. The language of rich elites stuck with people and triggered discussion about disproportionate impacts on the poor. References to colonialism and capitalism were often repeated. But some people didn't like references to elites, perceiving it as a 'blame game', and we heard some fatalistic responses ("what are the alternative systems then?").
OUR RECOMMENDATION Use these metaphors as a way into talking about systems and discrepancies between rich and poor - but more testing needed to bring colonialism and capitalism into the frame effectively."
"WHAT WE TESTED A metaphor showing colonialism as a historical blueprint for exploitation and environmental damage, that continues through capitalism. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This metaphor helped people think more clearly about the human causes and impacts of climate change, and also about the role of economics and big business. People talked about elites and disproportionate impacts on the poor. Again, some didn't like the sound of a 'blame game'. And we heard some confusion over whether the metaphor implied a top down solution ('we need to change the minds of the architects') or bottom up ('people should design the blueprint').
OUR RECOMMENDATION Use these metaphors as a way into talking about systems and discrepancies between rich and poor - but more testing needed to bring colonialism and capitalism into the frame effectively."
"WHAT WE TESTED A metaphor showing colonialism and capitalism as being like ordering different meals, where some people have eaten very well, and others haven't. Full text.
WHAT WE FOUND This metaphor helped people think more clearly about the human causes and impacts of climate change. The meal metaphor was sticky. People talked about elites and disproportionate impacts on the poor. But some took it to imply that individuals should take more responsibility for climate change.
OUR RECOMMENDATION Use these metaphors as a way into talking about systems and discrepancies between rich and poor - but more testing needed to bring colonialism and capitalism into the frame effectively."
| Listen: | Trigger word "colonialism" and try to understand what elements of it are deemed bad by FCJ and why. |
| Listen: | What are the important ideas to which each metaphor points? e.g. unfairness, injustice. Howmuch are they really bothered about climate change, rather than perceived unfairness per-se, or even about colonialism and capitalism as systems? |
| Affirm: | At an obvious level, shared meal metaphor is used by Jesus for the Kingdom of God (and also elsewhere in Scripture, e.g. by Nathan to David in challenging him about his adultery and murder) but when Jesus uses it, he is not referring to unfairness but about reward and togetherness. At a deeper level, all three metaphors seem to be about unfairness, injustice. |
| Affirm: | Concern for injustices, especially those of disproportionate impact and probablh of unequal resource too. We can affirm the concern about sins of the systems of colonialism and capitalism, once they have been clarified by listening. |
| Critique: | Do they presuppose colonialism and capitalism as the sole evils? That individuals should not be required to take more responsibility? If so, how do they expect the climate crisis to be resolved? It seems to me that their presuppositions undermines what they purport to want to achieve. |
| Critique: | Also, what is their real concern, about climate change as they purport, or against colonialism and capitalism? Expose: what is their real concern about climate change; is it only as one issue that they can use in their dislike of colonialism and capitalism, or is it more genuine? |
| Critique: | Do they presuppose the possibility of alternative systems that would work and bring about the flourising of all Creation - within the timescale needed to address the climate crisis? |
| Enrich: | Widen the sense of injustice to the rest of Creation. One sound basis for doing so is that God created and loves and saves it. |
| Enrich: | Find metaphors that are more centrally relevant to climate change than rigged game and blueprint. Emrich: |
| Recommendation: | Take seriously the impacts of each metaphor. Esppcially the shared meal metaphor ("sticky" means that people remembered it and began using it for themselves thereafter; why?). |
This page, "abxn.org/ccge/fcj.ctq.html", is an expression of part of a project to understand the links between climate change, global economy and other matters including society's beliefs and aspirations. It is designed to stimulate thinking and discourse. Comments, queries welcome.
This page is written on behalf of the CCGE Group by Andrew Basden, but the views expressed herein are his and not necessarily those of the other members of the Group. Written on the Amiga with Protext in the style of classic HTML. Copyright (c) Andrew Basden 2008 - present, but you may use this material subject to certain conditions.
Created: 22 January 2021 Last updated: