The impact of social media on the delivery and longevity of a message has been mind-blowing for me this week. I knew that understanding our audience is important and that a message won’t resonate the same way with a climate action activist than with a denial person: I never thought that there is an explanation on how this message can live after its release.
When I went to my sit spot last weekend, I was in a rush between two appointments at work. I did not want to go at first, telling myself that I had no time for it. I finally walked to this hidden gem of the Japanese Garden at Royal Roads University and found it calm and beautiful, as nothing has changed for weeks. I looked at the waterwheel – which I still want to learn more about -then took deep breathes with my eyes closed. I did not get the chance to observe anything with my eyes, but I listened and stayed present with my breathing. The sound of the water and the leaves was comforting, almost nourishing.
After a few minutes at this magical spot, I went back inside Hatley castle to continue working. I tried explaining what the experience of sitting is to my co-workers. I mentioned small words about how beautiful and quiet the gardens are at this time of the year. Some colleagues preferred to say that it’s too wet to get out there!
An amazing fact is that the restoration of the gardens (called Vision in Bloom) and its controversy took most of the conversation. The situation seemed related to what Connor et al. (2016) confirmed:” if a mass-communicated climate change message is shared through extended social networks, the information passed on may differ from the original message.” The president shared a video a few weeks ago about the work project in the gardens and the importance of renewing this part of the land. The message was received and perceived differently by many people, and the propaganda started. It feels like many people question the project. I wonder why these people don’t ask questions and seek clarity. It might be easier to critique than act.
Communication mentioning nature or health have a better chance to survive over time and from person to person (Connor et al, 2016) the actors of this project have interests in sharing the video on their social media and adding their point of view on how the modernized gardens would be good for the environment (helping the biodiversity for example) and the well-being of the people who visit them. This technique would be aligned with Lewandosky’s (2021) mention of success when messages and messengers meet at a cultural level. Perhaps by using their own words to explain the work done, the project’s actors can share a positive message that their friends and colleagues can share again. It will slowly (and hopefully) change the game of negative consequences always having the front lines. Could we, as climate communicators, achieve that?
Connor, P., Harris, E., Guy, S., Fernando, J., Shank, D., Kurz, T., Bain, P. &Kashima, Y. (2016). Interpersonal communication about climate change: How messages change when communicated through simulated online social networks. Climatic Change 136(3-4), 463–476. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1643-z
Lewandowsky, S. (2020). Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health 42, 1-21. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409
October 14, 2021 at 8:45 pm
Nancy, I was intrigued to read your blog! Who knew a garden could cause so much controversy? You raise a good point that the same message can be perceived so differently by different audiences. If it’s any consolation, the fact that you shared the beauty of that place with your colleagues will likely also have an impact on future conversations. What I mean is perhaps when they bring that up with other people in their lives, they will remember your positivity and focus on that.
October 29, 2021 at 6:51 pm
Thanks, Amy. Well said. Positivity can change the world 🙂
October 22, 2021 at 4:11 pm
Thanks for your reflections, Nancy. It’s interesting to see that binary play out here — critique versus action. I think Western culture, which is so defined by the mind and rationalism, considers critique to be action, but it is an action of a very narrow kind. It can definitely generate change, but rarely by itself. I think you are right to suggest that climate communicators are part of facilitating that transition from critique to more material action, action that actually manifests in the world as people on the ground, getting the hands dirty, and all that good stuff!
October 29, 2021 at 6:51 pm
Great! Thank you!