The Power of Language and the Language of Power in International Environmental Statements

Abstract

Two important documents addressing aspects of the planetary crisis were published in 2015: Laudato Si’ by Pope Francis, head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Paris Agreement, between government parties at COP21, on how to tackle climate change and its impacts. The contrasts between these two texts are highlighted by novelist Amitav Ghosh (2016, 151-159), whose conclusion is that Laudato Si’ is humble, straightforward and genuine in its critical call to action at all levels, whereas the Paris Agreement is arrogant, overly complex and uncritical. This dissertation considers these two documents, which both have a global, inter-cultural audience, from a critical linguistic perspective, to assess the veracity of Ghosh’s argument. The comparison uses a close reading analysis, based on Critical Discourse Analysis and Ecolinguistics, to reveal the way the two documents use language and how they tell stories and make assumptions. The analysis confirms Ghosh’s basic, stated assessment. Laudato Si’ speaks to a diverse audience engagingly and genuinely seeks a radical way forward, despite issues with how it respects parts of its audience. The Paris Agreement, on the other hand, presents a formulaic, legalistic series of actions to be taken within a business-as-usual context. This analysis goes further, however, suggesting that the Paris Agreement does not intend to speak to our globally diverse society and unify it in tackling environmental threats, whereas Laudato Si’ is genuine in trying to unite “all people of goodwill” and effect change at all levels.