Reading Response #2

In his beautifully crafted essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin underscores the greater importance of argument and rationality over that of an image or photograph, stating that while “One picture is worth a thousand words […] it may take ten thousand words to validate it”. Yet as he made that statement, Hardin seemed to forget that humans are not purely rational creatures; but also emotional ones. It cannot be denied that the power of a solid argument, or that of a particular discourse, as John Dryzek and other social constructivists assert, matters greatly, all the more as they relate to the most imminent interests of individuals and of states. However, it is not wise to ignore the moving potential that vision has to shape human behavior, especially after looking at cases in which images appear to have played a significant role in eliciting political action where arguments alone had failed to do so.

In his Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, John Dryzek presents two concrete examples of environmental issues in which a single image was largely effective in seizing the attention of the international community and important national actors: the finite nature of the Earth and the depletion of the ozone layer. Dryzek observes how the first photographs of Earth taken from space poignantly drove home what was already a theoretically-grounded notion: Earth is a materially-limited system, and a “fragile one at that” (2005: 40). More exemplary, it was an image captured in 1985 of the ‘ozone hole’ over Antarctica that finally gave a “face” to the ozone depletion problem of which warnings had been made since the 1970s (43). Perhaps not so coincidentally, two years after this image was shown to the world, twenty-four states signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol (43).

It is important to note, however, that Dryzek makes a caveat about the apparent success over the ozone issue, observing that “it was fortuitous that the material interests of key players could eventually be brought into line with global environmental concerns” (45). This observation is in reference, for instance, to the fact that important economic interests of the United States were at play, as corporations like Du Pont had been investing in CFC substitutes at the time (44). It is indeed necessary to consider the effective response that aligning interests with environmental issues can yield, especially the interest of big international actors like the U.S.

Solid arguments themselves, as Hardin averred, can also significantly incite effective action. Dryzek again provides an example with the Global 2000 report, which ultimately (filtered by the Heritage Foundation) had an impact in some environmental policies of the Raegan administration (64).

After considering all of this, perhaps the best way to motivate action not only from powerful actors but also from individuals is to compose solid arguments, determine linkages between material interests and the environment, and employ striking images all at once. Which of these options plays the larger role in inspiring and convincing people to address a particular issue is hard to determine and probably dependent on specific circumstances. Yet for environmental issues, given that we are so connected to the natural world by our sense of vision, the power of the image in affecting individual conduct and policy should not be understated.