Obama did not hold back. His subject was “one of the most significant long-term challenges” our planet faces: the growing threat of a rapidly changing climate. He took it for granted that his audience already knew the science and was aware of warming trends in the weather. Obama took it for granted that it was time to act – “before it’s too late”. And then he took a pot shot at the climate change deniers: it did not matter if they were fellow politicians, three out of 100 scientists, or radio shock jocks. Obama was striving to be optimistic with regards the future and inspire a rising generation to attend to things which might help us all meet this grim challenge. It was no longer time to beat about the bush.
The political history of our country has been littered by crude denials, unlikely claims to being a “conservationist” and declarations that climate change is the most important moral issue for our time. We know about backflips. One of the areas which has not been explored very thoroughly is why communities act in denial. They often do so in a way which enables elected leaders to act out further acts of denial through the policy decisions they make.
Kari-Marie Norgaard is a sociologist of emotions. Some years ago she made a study of a well-off, reasonably well-educated Norwegian town. Its citizens had just experienced their warmest ever winter; the snows had come late and the effect on the winter tourist industry was well and truly evident. She wanted to explore how communities “manage” their responses; she was struck by how individuals were aware of the prospect of climate change in private conversations but when it came to public and communal life there was silence. Norgaard wondered about the make-up of denial and how it can be expressed through throwaway lines – like “turning a blind eye”, “looking the other way”, and “if people only cared”.
One of the writers Norgaard drew upon was another sociologist by the name of Stanley Cohen. His specialist area of interest is the phenomenon of denial. There are three basic forms. The first is literal. That is where we say something did not happen or is not true. The second is interpretative. Here the facts of the case are not denied but they are given a different interpretation. Euphemisms, Don Watson’s weasel words, technical jargon and word changing are used to dispute the meaning of events. One example of such is the use of the phrase “collateral damage” to speak of the killing of citizens. The third form of denial is by way of implication. The basic information is not denied but what ensues in terms of the psychological, political and moral response is out of kilter and a total remove from what the evidence would suggest.
Obama did not make these distinctions in his attack on denial. Cohen’s framing is nevertheless useful. It can help us read the talk around us. It may even make us aware of how we ourselves are responding and raise questions why.
For members of the church this insight into the nature of denial is also rather useful. The Christian faith has often been regarded as too otherworldly. We might say it has had too much heaven on its mind to care about what is happening to God’s good creation. There is another tradition, though, which has demonstrated great ecological sensitivity. Its patron “saint” is Francis of Assisi whose name is given to the present Pope.
There are also those who look to Jesus’ teaching of the parable of the prodigal son: he wants his inheritance now so that he can enjoy the good life without too much thought for the consequences. He is in denial. He finds himself living in a pigsty; it is only then that he “comes to his senses”.
Maybe it’s time to “do an Obama”. Maybe it’s time to take leave of the climate change deniers. Maybe it’s time to “come to our senses”.
