Natural arguments: Popular discourse and environmental legislation, 1945--2007.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This work identifies four major shifts in United States environmentalism from 1945 to the present and argues that the environmental community's political success during each phase depended largely upon how well its advocates intertwined their rhetoric with national discourse. When environmentalists took notice of the broad discourse community in which they participated, they effectively induced change at the national level. In response to changing circumstances, the focus of the environmental movement has shifted over time. Although wilderness preservation has been a prominent environmental concern for many decades, other issues such as toxic pollution and environmental justice have emerged. Each chapter in this dissertation examines one of the four phases through an author whose work exemplified prominent trends in the environmental thought of his or her time: Ansel Adams' concentration on wilderness preservation from 1945 to 1964; Rachel Carson's emphasis on human health and pollution from 1960 to 1980; David Foreman's environmental ethics and radical rhetoric from 1980 to 2001; and finally, Barbara Kingsolver's incorporation of arguments about national independence, patriotism, and self-sufficiency into environmental rhetoric from 2001 to the present. Adams, Carson, and Kingsolver all took stock of currents in public debate and customized their message to address popular concerns, whereas Foreman reacted to the rightward trend in popular discourse by passionately reacting against it and frustrating his own efforts.
I situate this topic in a national framework because the nation remains the most relevant context for environmental issues in spite of global problems like climate change and the diminishing power of nation-states in relation to transnational corporations. Not only does political power still reside with nation states, but federal legislation can also have a discernible effect on the material environment. Because legislation can physically alter the landscapes within national borders, one cannot ignore the effects of national discourse on the natural world.