Andrew J. Hoffman: How Culture Shapes Climate Change

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

RaymondWilliams famously remarked that “Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” and one of the reasons he gave was that the term had become integral to a number of distinct and not necessarily compatible systems of thought (Williams 1976). In my own discipline of anthropology and some cognate ones, scholars have worked hard to formulate measured and useful definitions of culture. Despite the concept figuring prominently in the title of his book, Andrew Hoffman has no interest in definitional issues. His concern is with the “cultural schism” over climate change that runs through American society, and how a new cadre of “climate brokers” might bridge this divide by building trust and consensus among currently hostile groups and parties. Hoffman himself is in no doubt that consensus exists within the scientific community that global warming is the most pressing issue facingmankind today. He points to a succession of reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change through to the views of a majority of practising climate scientists, whilst acknowledging that developments such as Climategate might well have dented the credibility of some of these authorities. However, he asserts this consensus is by no means matched in society at large in substantial part because of a failure by the scientific community to adequately communicate its findings to the American public. BThe challenge in improving the form of public and political debate is not simply scientific in nature; at this stage it is as much about the communication of science as it is about the science itself^ (p. 13). In part because of this failure, Hoffman argues, political rhetoric rather than scientific reasoning dominates the public discourse over climate change. At one end of the spectrum, climate change is a mere hoax, at the other it has reached a critical stage, whilst across the board distrust of spokespersons, their sources, their messages and their goals, has become endemic. The reasons why this set of circumstances merits the term Bcultural schism^ in Hoffman’s view are essentially twofold. First, the division in public opinion over climate change has become incorporated into, and dominated by, deep-rooted ideologies which have long run through the social fabric of America. The conservative side which celebrates hierarchical and individualistic values is sceptical of all claims pertaining to environmental risk, including climate change, since their recognition would lead to unacceptable controls on commerce and industry. The liberal side, by contrast, is egalitarian and communitarian in nature, so is receptive to ideas about climate change, and it accepts that, for the good of society, regulation and controls are fully warranted. The second reason is that the media routinely compounds this cultural divide rather than moderating it: “distorted media discourse ... affects our underlying process of reasoning” (p. 46), with climate contrarians especially fostering distortion and thereby the dissemination of distrust. This book is one of a series entitled Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press, which are promoted on the company’s website as: “Short and incisive, Stanford Briefs promote intelligent debate, bringing novel perspectives to a wide range of readers.” There is no question that Hoffman’s contribution at roughly 30, 000 words is short; whether it is incisive is another matter altogether. The factual content is certainly occasionally noteworthy, for example he informs the reader that between 2003 and 2010, the climate change countermovement in the US received $7 billion, much of it (as one might anticipate) from anonymous sources. But one * Adrian Peace adrian.peace@bigpond.com