Fundamental Goals of Greenpeace - Essay Example

Greenpeace Greenpeace has been a frontrunner in advocating environmental issues since 1971. The group was formed, asthe book of its cofounder Rex Weyler suggests, by ecologists, journalists and visionaries. Through the years the non-profit organization has taken on different advocacy campaigns divided into climate change, forests, oceans, agriculture, toxic pollution, nuclear and peace and disarmament. It is a highly organized group with headquarters all over the world. Likewise, the organizational tier is well-defined with its members performing specific tasks within their definite department. The need to get their message across is perceptively an important part of the core goals of the association. To exemplify, even its founders have become known as writers, writing their exploits and history by authoring books. This can be deduced in the simple fact that it is inevitable that word into paper is all part of achieving their goals. Evidently, Greenpeace has its own publication and a press centre. Thus, it can be foreseen that it can be qualified within the categories defining discourse communities. At the heart of its advocacy campaigns is the need to encourage people and raise their awareness and to call for action. Environmental writing has in itself evolved tremendously over the years. It has now become a recognized genre of writing and is an integral part of the entire environmental discourse. Divide still prevail over the critics in determining the viability of sometimes thought out scenarios that range up to the extremes of end of the world proportions with the most basic inclination to pacify especially nontechnical readers on its veracity. Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ is definitely a classic example of a book rousing dissention. “The success of Carson’s apocalyptic narrative spawned both criticism and imitation” (Killingsworth and Palmer 31). Since then, many authors and scientists have reacted by releasing their own texts. As a result, environmental debates had been fought not only by advocates but well with the use of science as arsenal to support claims. John Swales proposes the commonly accepted categories in understanding the defining characteristics of discourse communities. He maintains that discourse community is distinct from both speech community and speech fellowship. To determine the existence of a discourse community, six criteria must be present as a prerequisite. First, it must have a communality of interest such that there must be a shared goal among its members. Second, there are mechanisms for intercommunication that exist exemplified by a forum where there is participation within the group for members to interact. Third, the communication process is prevalent in the discourse community for a number of reasons including exchange of information and feedback including improvement. Fourth, the sustained advancement “to develop discoursal expectations” that involves suitable topics and the function of their communication that the output will elicit. Fifth, in relation to all the previous categories, there must be an inherent dynamic to enhance the terminology common to the discourse community. Finally, the expanse of the membership and a vitality to an extent that there is ample significant and proficient expertise in such a way that the discourse community survives despite the absence or separation of one or some of its members (212-213). Greenpeace has evolved to be a sizeable force with its presence seen in various parts of the globe in various activisms all toward environment protection. In their own words “Greenpeace is a global environmental organization” with its main office in Amsterdam and with 28 regional offices outside it spread out in more than 40 countries. Each of these headquarters are given independence in carrying out their local strategies and in finding support from donors to sustain their work (Greenpeace International, par. 1). Apart from the commonly known staple exploits of the group, it has its own publication with written works by expert writers in their own fields. Professionals, scientists and writers among others, form part of the regular team providing technical and informative works all toward their goal. To delineate the characterization of Greenpeace as a discourse community, focus will be limited to the area of its advocacy on climate change its most widely known crusade. As part of its regular functions, the organization has created a team that not only focuses on attention-grabbing but also on chronicling their findings and publishing these. This is most prominently shown in their website through first person articles and more formally in an annual report consisting of the various articles and reports. Its ‘Annual Report 2011’ written and edited by Alexandra Dawe, Janet Dalziell, Steve Erwood, and Aaron Gray-Block contain 17 articles serves as the material to grab examples in determining the characteristics of a discourse community present in Greenpeace. This Report has, aside from the main articles, a message from the Executive Director, the Board of Director through the Board Chair and a space for human resources. This will serve as the main text for the analysis of Greenpeace writing. A noticeable characteristic of writing in the organization is the use of first person (often in narrative) by the authors. Words such as ‘us,’ ‘our’ and ‘we,’ in the first person plural prevail in all their works. This suggests the author, the organization and even the reader as an active participant. The publication in itself is a combination of words and photographs where the latter in itself function somewhat as editorial pictures telling a story. Greenpeace writers do not concern themselves with the use of formal language in their articles making use of even the word ‘please’ without hesitation. On the article in the Report titled ‘Catalysing An Energy Revolution, I have come across for the first time the term “corporate climate responsibility ” (Dawe, Dalziell, Erwood & Gray-Block 11). This is certainly a derivation of the term corporate social responsibility. Greenpeace has used the term and demonstrates Swales’ discourse community characteristics especially the fourth and fifth category which emphasizes on the discourse’s language dynamism. The article, ‘Your Support – The Key to Successful Campaigns’ exemplifies the fundamental goals of Greenpeace and correlatively illustrates itself as a discourse community. This uses the second person pronoun ‘you’ liberally as though talking with the audience. This is essential since the whole subsistence of Greenpeace lies on the participation of the public for funding its researches, campaigns, and voluntary work. Advocacy writing, especially environmental rhetoric, necessitates encouraging participants. This is a characteristic of Greenpeace among others and the development of its language has developed within to classify it as a discourse community. Works Cited Dawe, Alexandra, Janet Dalziell, Steve Erwood, and Aaron Gray-Block, eds. Annual Report 2011. Rep. Vol. 418. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, 2011. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. “Greenpeace Structure and Organisation.” Greenpeace International. N.p., 15 Apr. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2013. Palmer, Jacqueline S. “Millennial Ecology The Apocalyptic Narrative From Silent Spring to Global Warming.” Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. By M. Jimmie Killingsworth. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1996. 21-45. Google Books. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. Swales, John. “Discourse Communities, Genres and English as an International Language.” World Englishes 7.2 (1988): 211-20. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. Read More