“Never wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it” as the old saying goes. But what if we, secretly, enjoy it too? Or if wrestling with the pig is a safer and more fun option that wrestling with the angry rabid hippo who is next in line?
WTAF am I talking about?
Well, I stumbled on some interesting work by a guy called William Connolly, and blogged it. Among much else, Connolly discerns two kinds of climate denial-
First stage denial is the insistence by many evangelicals and neoliberals that the issue is not nearly as severe as climate scientists and the recent flood of climate marchers in many cities contend. The second stage of denial is admitting the issue but continuing to study and act within old sociocentric categories. We need to confront both modes.
(Connolly and Macdonald, 2015: 266)
Connolly, W. and Macdonald, B. 2015. Confronting the Anthropocene and Contesting Neoliberalism: An Interview with William E. Connolly. New Political Science, 37:2, 259-275.
. A reader of this blog (who knew such a creature existed) then put his own take on things here.
And he and I have had further discussion (hopefully the beginning of a really useful conversation). And in that context I am going to plagiarise/rework a little about “why argue with denialists”. I think there are two reasons