Den retoriska kritikens potential när det gäller akuta omedgörliga problem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52610/rhs.v29i90.312Nyckelord:
Omedgörliga problem, klimatomställning, retorisk kritik, tröghet, pågående kriserAbstract
Vi hävdar att retorikvetenskap både kan och bör ta ännu större plats i förhållande till akuta samhällskriser där man behöver komma till handling. Det gäller särskilt kriser som innehåller konflikter eller är värdeladdade, eller omedgörliga problem, och där retoriska perspektiv har potentialen att bidra till en kritisk kulturell självreflektion. Det kräver emellertid andra förhållningssätt än de som är brukliga inom retorikfältet – exempelvis andra metoder, ett närmare deltagande och en övertygelse om att man kan förändra genom sin forskning. Vi exemplifierar med klimatkrisen och tar utgångspunkt i erfarenheter från två studier i ett forskningsprojekt om hur människor legitimerar sina klimatskadliga handlingar.
Referenser
Bendell, J., & Read, R. (2021). Deep adaptation: Navigating the realities of climate chaos. John Wiley & Sons.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520353237
Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose (3rd ed.). University of California Press.
Cassegård, C., & Thörn, H. (2022). Post-apocalyptic environmentalism: The green movement in times of catastrophe. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13203-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13203-2
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222
Conley, T. M. (1984). The enthymeme in perspective. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383687
Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication, 1(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030701333948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030701333948
Cox, R. (2013). Environmental communication and the public sphere. SAGE.
Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11), 841–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00928.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00928.x
Dickinson, J. E., Robbins, D., Filimonau, V., Hares, A., & Mika, M. (2013). Awareness of tourism impacts on climate change and the implications for travel practice: A Polish perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478691 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478691
Dryzek, J. S., & Lo, A. Y. (2015). Reason and rhetoric in climate communication. Environmental Politics, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.961273 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.961273
Endres, D. (2020). Environmental criticism, Western Journal of Communication, 84:3, 314-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2019.1689288 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2019.1689288
Eubanks, P. (2015). The troubled rhetoric and communication of climate change: The argumentative situation. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315732398
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gore, T. (2021). Carbon inequality in 2030: Per capita consumption emissions and the 1.50C goal. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Oxfam. https://doi.org/10.21201/2021.8274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21201/2021.8274
Griggs, S., & Howarth, D. (2013). The politics of airport expansion in the United Kingdom: Hegemony, policy and the rhetoric of ‘sustainable aviation.’ Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9780719076138.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9780719076138.001.0001
Griggs, S., & Howarth, D. (2017). Discourse, policy and the environment: Hegemony, statements and the analysis of U.K. airport expansion. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1266930 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1266930
Griggs, S., & Howarth, D. (2023). Depoliticisation, discourse and policy hegemony. In Contesting aviation expansion: Depoliticisation, technologies of government and post-aviation futures (pp. 21–42). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447344285.003.0002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447344285.003.0002
Heise, U. K., Christensen, J., & Niemann, M. (2017). The Routledge companion to the environmental humanities. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315766355
Homer-Dixon, T., Renn, O., Rockstrom, J., Donges, J. F., & Janzwood, S. (2021, December 16). A call for an international research program on the risk of a global polycrisis. Research Institute for Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4058592 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4058592
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841200
Ihlen, Ø. (2020). Science communication, strategic communication and rhetoric: The case of health authorities, vaccine hesitancy, trust and credibility. Journal of Communication Management, 24(3), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-03-2020-0017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-03-2020-0017
Ihlen, Ø., Toledano, M., & Just, S. N. (2021). Using rhetorical situations to examine and improve vaccination communication. Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.697383 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.697383
Joosse, S., Powell, S., Bergeå, H., Böhm, S., Calderón, C., Caselunghe, E., Fischer, A., Grubbström, A., Hallgren, L., Holmgren, S., Löf, A., Nordström Källström, H., Raitio, K., Senecah, S., Söderlund Kanarp, C., von Essen, E., Westberg, L., & Westin, M. (2020). Critical, engaged and change-oriented scholarship in environmental communication. Six methodological dilemmas to think with. Environmental Communication, 14(6), 758–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1725588 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1725588
Kahan, D. M. (2015). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. In S. M. Kosslyn (Ed.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–16). John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417
Kamb, A., & Larsson, J. (2019). Climate footprint from Swedish residents’ air travel. Hämtad 28 augusti 2025, från https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/508693
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2018). Audience analysis and reception studies of rhetoric. In J. E. Kjeldsen (Ed.), Rhetorical audience studies and reception of rhetoric. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6
Knez, I. (2016). Is climate change a moral issue? Effects of egoism and altruism on pro-environmental behavior. Current Urban Studies, 4(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2016.42012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2016.42012
Kretz, L. (2012). Climate change: Bridging the theory-action gap. Ethics and the Environment, 17(2), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.17.2.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.17.2.9
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (2013). Learning and awareness. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053690
Mårald, E. (2013). Om olösliga problem och betydelsen av idéhistoria. Thule - Kungl. Skytteanska Samfundets årsbok, 26, 13–28.
Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1378
McBurney, J. H. (1936). The place of the enthymeme in rhetorical theory. Speech Monographs, 3(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637753609374841 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637753609374841
Mendelson, M. (2013). Many sides: A protagorean approach to the theory, practice and pedagogy of argument. Springer Science & Business Media.
Middleton, M., Hess, A., Endres, D., & Senda-Cook, S. (2015). Participatory critical rhetoric: Theoretical and methodological foundations for studying rhetoric in situ. Lexington Books. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978726000
Miller, A. B., & Bee, J. D. (1972). Enthymemes: Body and soul. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 5(4), 201–214.
Moser, S., & Dilling, L. (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535871
Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and everyday life. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262015448.001.0001
Nye, D. E., Rugg, L., Flemming, J., & Emmett, R. (2013). The emergence of the environmental humanities. Mistra. Hämtad 28 augusti 2025, från https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/en/publications/the-emergence-of-the-environmental-humanities
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2011). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior. 44(2), 257-299 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673
Oxfam (2023). Sveriges väg till en jämlik och rättvis klimatomställning. Oxfam. Hämtad 28 augusti 2025, från https://oxfam.se/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Oxfam.Sveriges-vag-till-en-jamlik-och-rattvis-klimatomstallning.2023.pdf
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Pess.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Rowson, J., & Pascal, L. (2021). Dispatches from a time between worlds: Crisis and emergence in metamodernity. Perspectiva.
Sörlin, S. (2016). Grön humaniora: Vad, när, varför och varthän? Kulturella Perspektiv - Svensk Etnologisk Tidskrift, 8–19.
Stoknes, P. E. (2015). What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: Toward a new psychology of climate action. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Stromer-Galley, J., & Schiappa, E. (1998). The argumentative burdens of audience conjectures: Audience research in popular culture criticism. Communication Theory, 8(1), 27-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00210.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00210.x
Suldovsky, B. (2017). The information deficit model and climate change communication. In Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301
Sörlin, S. (2018). Humanities of transformation: From crisis and critique towards the emerging integrative humanities. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx030
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2012). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin UK.
Thøgersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00039-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00039-2
Vikøren Andersen, I. (2023). Rhetorical citizenship and the environment. Climate Resilience and Sustainability, 2, e249. https://doi.org/10.1002/cli2.49 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cli2.49
Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Nilsson, M., & Skånberg, K. (2018). Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability Science, 13(2), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0
Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2010). Aristoteles enthymem. Rhetorica Scandinavica, (53), 36–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52610/EZAP4535
Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2012). Topos som meningsskapare: Retorikens topiska perspektiv på tänkande och lärande genom argumentation. Retorikförlaget.
Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2017). Aristoteles retoriska toposlära – en verktygsrepertoar för fronesis. Södertörn Rhetorical Studies.
Wolrath Söderberg, M. W. (2021). Tankestrukturer som hindrar omställning – och hur vi kan överkomma dem (p. 93) [Rapport för Miljömålsberedningen 2014/10]. Regeringskansliet. Hämtad 28 augusti 2025, från https://www.sou.gov.se/contentassets/e66f5e3eaaed43ddb8ae786a452eed39/tankestrukturer-som-hindrar-omstallning-och-hur-vi-kan-overkomma-dem.pdf
Wolrath Söderberg, M., & Wormbs, N. (2019). Grounded: Beyond flygskam. Fores. Hämtad 28 augusti 2025, från https://fores.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Grounded-Beyond-flygskam_Online.pdf
Wolrath Söderberg, M., & Wormbs, N. (2022). Internal deliberation defending climate-harmful behavior. Argumentation, 36, 203-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09562-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09562-2
Wormbs, N., & Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2021). Knowledge, fear, and conscience: Reasons to stop flying because of climate change. Urban Planning, 6(2), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i2.3974 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i2.3974
Wormbs, N., & Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2023). Thinking structures of climate delay: Internal deliberations among Swedes with sustainable ambitions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 23683-23700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03618-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03618-x
##submission.downloads##
Publicerad
Referera så här
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2025 Rhetorica Scandinavica
Detta verk är licensierat under en Creative Commons Erkännande-Ickekommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0 Internationell-licens.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
