黑暗使人联想到危险、腐朽和死亡。那为什么用选择“黑暗”来突出环保的主题呢？
George Marshal，2009年3月27日
在我25年的环保行动中，我经历过许多令人眼前一亮的抗议活动，也见过不少毫无意义的失败案例。但世界自然基金会的“地球一小时”行动注定是我见过的最误入歧途、适得其反的环保活动之一。
表面看来，“地球一小时”是一个相当不错的主意，它符合一个大型活动的所有标准。周六晚8：30关灯一小时是一件简单易行，容易推广的小事。
这个活动容易引起高度关注。这是一个人人都可以参与的活动，可以吸引个人和大企业加入。世界自然基金会预期全球会有几亿人参加这项活动。此外，“地球一小时”最大的长处在于它不仅是一个象征，更可以对“减排”的中心目标做出积极的甚至是可以考量的贡献。
听起来好极了。但我们先来看一下这个分析：这个活动实际上并不能减少任何温室气体排放。电力公司总是保留一些备用发电能力，而在这用电需求突然下降的一个小时中，供电公司的涡轮发电机会继续工作，为一小时后的用电新高峰做准备。
考虑到这一举动纯粹是象征性的，我们需要更深入地拷问这项活动：这个活动的对象是谁？它要表达什么？它对目标群体先入为主的态度和看法又有怎样的影响？
如果目标群体是支持和投入环保事业的环保主义者，那么这次的抗议活动效果还算不错。环保主义者本来就相信环境变化的事实和象征性的软性大众运动。他们本来就接受减少能源消耗和关闭电器开关这些观念——即使他们在行动上并不是无可指摘。
但现在的事实是，我们最不需要向环保主义者布道。发动那些关心环境变化，但对环保主义者和政府行动的动机持有矛盾态度的普通大众才是我们绝对的第一要务。
正是在我们关注的这些群体里，人们经常对环保行动采取敌视态度，因为他们觉得“环保”只是某些人对他们巧取豪夺的借口。要求人们在黑暗中度过一个小时只能助长一个常见的偏见：环保人士想让我们都回到穴居生活。
如果我们研究一下“地球一小时”深层次的象征意义，情况会更糟。加州大学的认知语言学教授George Lakoff认为，虽然人们都说会听信表面的言论，但真正改变人们态度的是语言内包含的深层次象征意义。
“光”和很多正面的、令人欣喜的意象紧密相连：文明、真相、健康、智慧、安全、希望、生命和拯救。那些反对环保行动的人深知这一点，经常在他们的宣传中使用夜晚电灯的形象，作为兴奋、文明和进步的隐喻。
因此，很难想象还有什么比关灯更能伤害我们的环保事业。黑暗的隐喻有着巨大的负面意义：危险、腐朽和死亡。我们把黑暗时代视为野蛮残酷的年景。迪兰·托马斯等诗人号召我们“怒斥光明的消逝”。在一战的前夜，爱德华·格雷爵士说“全欧洲的灯光都熄灭了”。这样的文化共鸣不能再差了。
目前压倒一切的迫切需要，就是用更美好世界的前景鼓舞普通大众，让他们觉得环保行动完全是我们需要的、正面的。
我们也有许多正面的隐喻可以使用——摆脱化石燃料的危险和肮脏，拥抱太阳能的阳光；本地和社区的核心价值；健康饮食和运动带来的健康生活；还有更广义上，人类对一个更清洁、更智能、更高效的未来的不懈追求。
天哪。为什么过了这么多年，我们还是在犯这么大的错误？
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment ... e-change-carbon-emissions
Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
Darkness evokes feelings of danger, decay and death. So why use such imagery to highlight our cause?
George Marshall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 March 2009 15.06 GMT
Passengers on the London Eye look our across the capital's skyline. Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images
In my 25 years of environmental campaigning I have seen lots of inspired protests and lots of daft or pointless ones. But the WWF Earth Hour campaign has to be one of the most misguided and counterproductive actions I have ever seen.
On the face of it, this seems like a rather neat idea, which ticks every box for a mass action. Turning your lights off for an hour this Saturday from 8.30pm is a small, simple act that is easy to publicise.
It is highly visible. It's something anyone can do and can involve both individuals and large businesses. WWF expects hundreds of millions of people around the world to take part. And, best of all, the action is not just a symbol but it makes a positive and even measurable contribution to the core issue – reducing emissions.
Sounds great. However, let's deal with one assumption first: this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again.
Given that this action is entirely symbolic it deserves some more searching questions: who is this speaking to? What is it saying to them? And how does it speak to their existing attitudes and prejudices ?
If you are talking to dedicated green liberals this protest works fine. They already believe in climate change and soft symbolic forms of mass action. They already buy into the concept if reducing energy consumption and switching things off – even if, in practice, they aren't very good at it.
But right now greens are the last people we need to be talking to. The absolute priority is engaging the large majority of the population who are concerned about climate change, but feel deeply ambivalent about the motivations of environmentalists and government.
Repeatedly in focus groups, people adopt a defensive stance against people who – they feel – are using the issue to take away material benefits. Asking people to sit in the dark plays very well to a widely held prejudice that "the greens" want us all to go back to living in caves.
And if we examine the deeper symbolism, things become far worse. George Lakoff, professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California, argues that while we claim to listen to surface argument, it is really the deeper metaphors embodied in our language that create our attitudes.
Light has a vast range of positive and aspirational associations: civilisation, truth, health, intelligence, safety, hope, life and salvation. Those opposing action on climate change understand this well and frequently use images of electric light at night in their publicity as a metaphor for excitement, civilisation, and progress.
So it is hard to think of any image more destructive to our cause than turning off lights. The metaphors of darkness are overwhelmingly negative: danger, decay, and death. We see the dark ages as a time of brutality. Poets such as Dylan Thomas call on us to "rage against the dying of the light". Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the first world war said "the lamps are going out all over Europe". Really the cultural resonance could hardly be worse.
The overwhelming need at the moment is to inspire ordinary people with a vision of a better world, to make them feel that action on climate change is utterly desirable and positive.
We have so many positive metaphors on our side – emerging from the danger and filth of buried fossil fuels into the sunlight of solar power; the core values of locality and community; the health that comes from good diet and exercise; and, as a larger narrative, humanity's long journey towards a cleaner, smarter and more efficient future.
Oh dear. Why, after so many years, are we still getting it so wrong?
George Marshal，2009年3月27日
在我25年的环保行动中，我经历过许多令人眼前一亮的抗议活动，也见过不少毫无意义的失败案例。但世界自然基金会的“地球一小时”行动注定是我见过的最误入歧途、适得其反的环保活动之一。
表面看来，“地球一小时”是一个相当不错的主意，它符合一个大型活动的所有标准。周六晚8：30关灯一小时是一件简单易行，容易推广的小事。
这个活动容易引起高度关注。这是一个人人都可以参与的活动，可以吸引个人和大企业加入。世界自然基金会预期全球会有几亿人参加这项活动。此外，“地球一小时”最大的长处在于它不仅是一个象征，更可以对“减排”的中心目标做出积极的甚至是可以考量的贡献。
听起来好极了。但我们先来看一下这个分析：这个活动实际上并不能减少任何温室气体排放。电力公司总是保留一些备用发电能力，而在这用电需求突然下降的一个小时中，供电公司的涡轮发电机会继续工作，为一小时后的用电新高峰做准备。
考虑到这一举动纯粹是象征性的，我们需要更深入地拷问这项活动：这个活动的对象是谁？它要表达什么？它对目标群体先入为主的态度和看法又有怎样的影响？
如果目标群体是支持和投入环保事业的环保主义者，那么这次的抗议活动效果还算不错。环保主义者本来就相信环境变化的事实和象征性的软性大众运动。他们本来就接受减少能源消耗和关闭电器开关这些观念——即使他们在行动上并不是无可指摘。
但现在的事实是，我们最不需要向环保主义者布道。发动那些关心环境变化，但对环保主义者和政府行动的动机持有矛盾态度的普通大众才是我们绝对的第一要务。
正是在我们关注的这些群体里，人们经常对环保行动采取敌视态度，因为他们觉得“环保”只是某些人对他们巧取豪夺的借口。要求人们在黑暗中度过一个小时只能助长一个常见的偏见：环保人士想让我们都回到穴居生活。
如果我们研究一下“地球一小时”深层次的象征意义，情况会更糟。加州大学的认知语言学教授George Lakoff认为，虽然人们都说会听信表面的言论，但真正改变人们态度的是语言内包含的深层次象征意义。
“光”和很多正面的、令人欣喜的意象紧密相连：文明、真相、健康、智慧、安全、希望、生命和拯救。那些反对环保行动的人深知这一点，经常在他们的宣传中使用夜晚电灯的形象，作为兴奋、文明和进步的隐喻。
因此，很难想象还有什么比关灯更能伤害我们的环保事业。黑暗的隐喻有着巨大的负面意义：危险、腐朽和死亡。我们把黑暗时代视为野蛮残酷的年景。迪兰·托马斯等诗人号召我们“怒斥光明的消逝”。在一战的前夜，爱德华·格雷爵士说“全欧洲的灯光都熄灭了”。这样的文化共鸣不能再差了。
目前压倒一切的迫切需要，就是用更美好世界的前景鼓舞普通大众，让他们觉得环保行动完全是我们需要的、正面的。
我们也有许多正面的隐喻可以使用——摆脱化石燃料的危险和肮脏，拥抱太阳能的阳光；本地和社区的核心价值；健康饮食和运动带来的健康生活；还有更广义上，人类对一个更清洁、更智能、更高效的未来的不懈追求。
天哪。为什么过了这么多年，我们还是在犯这么大的错误？
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment ... e-change-carbon-emissions
Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
Darkness evokes feelings of danger, decay and death. So why use such imagery to highlight our cause?
George Marshall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 March 2009 15.06 GMT
Passengers on the London Eye look our across the capital's skyline. Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images
In my 25 years of environmental campaigning I have seen lots of inspired protests and lots of daft or pointless ones. But the WWF Earth Hour campaign has to be one of the most misguided and counterproductive actions I have ever seen.
On the face of it, this seems like a rather neat idea, which ticks every box for a mass action. Turning your lights off for an hour this Saturday from 8.30pm is a small, simple act that is easy to publicise.
It is highly visible. It's something anyone can do and can involve both individuals and large businesses. WWF expects hundreds of millions of people around the world to take part. And, best of all, the action is not just a symbol but it makes a positive and even measurable contribution to the core issue – reducing emissions.
Sounds great. However, let's deal with one assumption first: this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again.
Given that this action is entirely symbolic it deserves some more searching questions: who is this speaking to? What is it saying to them? And how does it speak to their existing attitudes and prejudices ?
If you are talking to dedicated green liberals this protest works fine. They already believe in climate change and soft symbolic forms of mass action. They already buy into the concept if reducing energy consumption and switching things off – even if, in practice, they aren't very good at it.
But right now greens are the last people we need to be talking to. The absolute priority is engaging the large majority of the population who are concerned about climate change, but feel deeply ambivalent about the motivations of environmentalists and government.
Repeatedly in focus groups, people adopt a defensive stance against people who – they feel – are using the issue to take away material benefits. Asking people to sit in the dark plays very well to a widely held prejudice that "the greens" want us all to go back to living in caves.
And if we examine the deeper symbolism, things become far worse. George Lakoff, professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California, argues that while we claim to listen to surface argument, it is really the deeper metaphors embodied in our language that create our attitudes.
Light has a vast range of positive and aspirational associations: civilisation, truth, health, intelligence, safety, hope, life and salvation. Those opposing action on climate change understand this well and frequently use images of electric light at night in their publicity as a metaphor for excitement, civilisation, and progress.
So it is hard to think of any image more destructive to our cause than turning off lights. The metaphors of darkness are overwhelmingly negative: danger, decay, and death. We see the dark ages as a time of brutality. Poets such as Dylan Thomas call on us to "rage against the dying of the light". Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the first world war said "the lamps are going out all over Europe". Really the cultural resonance could hardly be worse.
The overwhelming need at the moment is to inspire ordinary people with a vision of a better world, to make them feel that action on climate change is utterly desirable and positive.
We have so many positive metaphors on our side – emerging from the danger and filth of buried fossil fuels into the sunlight of solar power; the core values of locality and community; the health that comes from good diet and exercise; and, as a larger narrative, humanity's long journey towards a cleaner, smarter and more efficient future.
Oh dear. Why, after so many years, are we still getting it so wrong?
请您支持独立网站发展，转载请注明文章链接：
- 文章地址: http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/view.article.php/c19/1710
- 引用通告: http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/trackback.php/1710
