There is a quote that is attributed to David Suzuki which has drastically shaped the way I move through the world. It goes like this:
“The way we see the world shapes the way we treat it. If a mountain is a deity, not a pile of ore; if a river is one of the veins of the land, not potential irrigation water; if a forest is a sacred grove, not timber; if other species are biological kin, not resources; or if the planet is our mother, not an opportunity — then we will treat each other with greater respect. Thus is the challenge, to look at the world from a different perspective.”
I often hold this quote close when I see the destruction humans have wrought on the planet – it reminds me that perspectives can, and often do, change as we are provided with more information. It gives me hope that as we begin to embrace the realities of the climate crisis, we might start to view the world differently, and therefore start to change the way we treat it. Hopefully, this change does not come too late.
This quote also reminds me of how important language is. We know that some communication strategies are more effective than others at eliciting a desired response from the public regarding important issues like climate change and that certain barriers to communication exist depending on the population you are attempting to reach (Kaushal et al, 2021). Strong language has been proven to be more effective than passive language, and that terms like “climate emergency” and “global heating” are the preferred new terms amongst groups such as the UN and the EU, as opposed to “climate change” and “global warming”, which don’t suggest the same level of “existential threat”, according to The United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres (Carrington, 2019).
“The way we see the world shapes the way we treat it. If a mountain is a deity, not a pile of ore; if a river is one of the veins of the land, not potential irrigation water; if a forest is a sacred grove, not timber; if other species are biological kin, not resources; or if the planet is our mother, not an opportunity – then we will treat each other with greater respect. Thus is the challenge, to look at the world from a different perspective.”
– David Suzuki
The language we use matters in how we communicate the effects of climate change on our planet, but also how we act towards the planet. When I rest at my sit-spot and remember that this body of water is a ‘Migratory Bird Sanctuary’ rather than just a humble ‘waterway’, do I act differently towards it? Do I take extra care to ensure that none of my garbage is taken by the wind, do I pay more attention to the metal debris visible through the water? When we recognize that this place, this land we are on is home to more beings than ourselves, do we keep the noise down so as not to bother our neighbours?
In her article for Orion Magazine, “Speaking of Nature”, Robin Wall Kimmerer discusses the “linguistic imperialism” which permeates Western Culture, and “the replacement of a language of animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders the beloved land as a lifeless object, the forest as board feet of timber”.
Of course, there is a push in climate communication to use language that is more accessible, more “user-friendly” and “audience appropriate”. But it feels to me that the easiest way to engage humanity in the fight for the planet is to remind ourselves that the planet is a living, breathing, life-giving being. Decolonizing the language we use to refer to nature can remind us that far from being separate from this planet and the beings that inhabit “it”, we are one with, and most importantly, dependant on them. As Kimmerer reminds us, “instead of ignoring our mutual relationship, [we must] celebrate it.”
References:
Carrington, D. (2019). Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
Kaushal, S., Dhammi, S., & Guha, A. (2021). Climate crisis and language–A constructivist ecolinguistic approach. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.093
Kimmerer, R. W. (2017). Speaking of nature: Finding language that affirms our kinship with the natural world. Orion Magazine.
Retrieved from https://orionmagazine.org/article/speaking-of-nature/
Image: Cotoaga, K. (2018). Torres del Paine. Retrieved from https://unsplash.com/photos/cqbLg3lZEpk
Hi Kaitlin – You’ve done such a great job of contrasting the disconnected colonial view with one that is connecting humanity within nature…of taking the view that we are PART of nature, not controlling nature. What I really appreciate about your post is how straightforward and simple it is, on a subject that could weave all over the road, and dive down rabbit holes where you might lose your reader. The messaging is clear.
I love that David Suzuki quote too.
Hi Kaitlin, to echo Leah I think you really hit the nail the head with understanding and explaining this concept. I like your example of a framing the place as a migratory bird sanctuary vs a waterway, and ponder what other interpretations people may have for the same spot. You bring up an important point about as you know it is a protected area that you are more conscientious about your interactions with said spot. I think it’s a really beneficial exercise, through a sit spot especially to be able to take a step back and reflect and reinterpret the places and spaces we spend time in. I’ve always thought it’s so interesting how we as humans have a tendency to want to travel and explore the world to discover and experience other places, but how through this type of thinking and interpretation you mention it is entirely possible to gain fulfillment and new perspectives through reimaging places closer to home.
Thank you for the insight and your thoughtful words.
Thanks for this Kaitlin. You are definitely tapping into the potential power of the linguistic shift: much like stories, language shapes how we understand what the world is and who are in that world. I’m interested in your last rhetorical move in which you suggest that the easiest way forward is to remind people of the living nature of the planet. I wonder how easy it actually is? Western culture has a lot invested in not remembering this reality as it would call us to account in a way that many people aren’t prepared for. Perhaps coupled with that reminder will be the need for practices that enable grief and reparations as we reckon with the depth of harm so many of us (and so many of our ancestors) have participated in.