Also published at Cognitive Policy Works.
This video was released as part of Bill McKibben’s global awareness-building exercise last week for 350.org,an organization promoting the idea that carbon emission levels above 350 parts per million are dangerous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz555JBIwY&feature=player_embedded
I’d like to treat this as a case study in visual metaphors and conceptual frames to show how insights into human cognition are vital for effective climate action.
This video contains several innovative elements that are worthy of note. I’ll consider each in turn.
Visual Metaphors
Human thought is profoundly metaphorical. Our most basic concepts are grounded in the bodily experience and “abstracted” through metaphorical extensions. We understand knowledge through several bodily activities such as grasping (I get what you’re saying), seeing (That explanation is a bit murky), eating (I find that hard to swallow) and physical forces (Relativity theory just about blew my mind).
These metaphors are all conceptual. They are found in every human language. They are also involved in spatial and auditory reasoning. This video makes use of visual metaphors that are designed to make profound points through the experience of watching it. Here are a few of them I noticed:
Emotional energy is physical heat.
A layer of clothing is one unit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The “natural state” of nudity is the “natural state” of our global climate system (undisturbed by global warming).
Each of these metaphors is activated through gesturing and movement. Thus it is expressed visually in the video. It becomes active in our language when we “put words” to them and articulate our understanding of these ideas.
Making Climate Action Sexy
A major theme of this video is that solving the climate crisis is a natural compulsion (another metaphor!) just like having a sex drive is an innate quality for human beings. It playfully asserts that engagement with the challenges we face in dealing with climate can be pleasurable and fun.
What’s more, the final moments of the video set up the pressure to “finish the job” and get those last two parts per million out of the way. A clear and powerful objective has been set up (for those who find supermodels sexy) to get down to “bare essentials” where these people most like to be.
Deconstructing the Fashion Industry
Each layer of clothing fits within the supermodel frame, meaning that the style of garments represent the glamor and extravagance of the fashion industry. As the models remove each article of clothing, they are promoting the idea that all these layers are not only unnecessary, but they are bad for us.
This puts the fashion industry in a precarious position. If all those layers of extravagance (metaphorically implied as causing the heating problem) are harmful AND unnecessary, we can and should return to simpler forms of pleasure (like sexual interaction with those who appeal to us and, by extension, other kinds of simple pleasures) that do not contribute to the disruption of global climate.
An Image Schema That Leaves (Some of) Us Wanting More
Another key insight about human cognition is that we have body-based concepts for using our bodies in the world. These include core capacities to maintain balance, move along a trajectory, recognize containers, and so on. Each of these capacities requires what are called “image schemas” or schematic concepts for acting out our plans in the world. Two key image schemas in this video are the BALANCE SCHEMA and the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL SCHEMA.
The BALANCE SCHEMA arises when we feel drawn toward or away from a physical object. The metaphor sex appeal is physical attraction makes this evident. We are “pulled” toward the things that attract us and remain “unbalanced” until we either resist the pull or make contact with the source of attraction.
The SOURCE-PATH-GOAL SCHEMA is set up throughout the entire video. As the models reveal that their intention is to remove articles of clothing in a continuing sequence, a trajectory appears in our understanding of what is going on that “leads to” the culminating point where the model is naked.
Those of us who find this end state desirable are left “unbalanced” at the end of the video. These people feel a compulsion to act. This forms the motivational drive to reduce carbon emissions. If, according to the metaphors involved, the only way to achieve the natural state of nakedness is to reduce carbon dioxide levels back to their undisturbed state, this compulsion will remain active and unbalanced until sufficient climate action has been achieved.
Being Evocative Through Controversy
Some readers will find this video offensive. There is plenty of controversy around the objectification of women, idolization of celebrities (including supermodels), and the use of sex to “sell” climate change.
I see these controversies as very effective from a marketing perspective. The two motivating tendencies for sharing this video - and it is clearly going viral at the moment with over 109,000 views at the time of this writing - are (1) people who felt good about the video and wanted to share and (2) people who were appalled at the video and felt the need to complain about it. Both of these tendencies are driving the viral spread of the video.
Closing Comment - Understand Your Political Mind
Every part of this analysis shows that human cognition has many central roles in the spread of ideas. It is vital that social change advocates of all stripes learn more about the workings of our minds and the political/cultural ramifications of this knowledge.
————
Joe Brewer is a cognitive scientist turned social change strategist who consults with advocacy organizations of all kinds to bring us closer to a sustainable world. Reach him here. Follow him on Twitter here.
————
I’ve just posted a response (and in part a rebuttal) to this piece at the environmental communication blogs Indications and Immanence. A little more controversy can’t hurt to make it more viral…
That said, I do think Joe’s point about “deconstructing the fashion industry” is just wishful thinking — the video plays along with that industry.
Adrian,
Thanks for posting your response. I’ve added a longer comment on the Indications blog. Here’s a snippet of it:
Okay, I’ll make a brief comment too about the impressions viewers have of the models themselves (and, by extension, the fashion industry). First off, I must repeat what Robin Chase said, which is that people bring their prejudices to this piece of art and the reactions to it vary dramatically. Anyone who claims that one response (e.g. it’s too sexy) are missing the point that emotionally potent media bring out strongly personal feelings in viewers. There are many reactions and all of them engage with unique patterns of individual people.
As for the critiques of the models being too thin as a supposed form of support for the fashion industry, the contradiction is in the telling. Those of us who feel that the fashion industry promotes unhealthy ideals for women will see this message in the video (thus undermining any positive feelings we might have about it).
The point of my analysis was that this video places the fashion industry in a precarious position exactly because critical reactions will arise in the minds of many viewers – which is exactly what is happening.
Regardless of the ultimate impact of this video on promoting climate action, I see it as a valuable case study for innovation and exploration of new approaches – particularly those intended to reach a broader audience.
Best,
Joe
I also responded to another thoughtful comment you posted on Cognitive Policy Works
Seems we’re following each other on four different blogs at once (!).
I agree with most of what you’re saying about the video - just a slight disagreement about the fashion industry (see here for more). Thanks for passing on the video and for your useful analysis of it!
Hey Adrian,
We do keep following each other around!
It’s been really nice sharing ideas so far… and I agree that we’re mostly on the same page (and that all these websites are getting to be clunky for discussions - twitter feed perhaps?).
Best,
Joe
I find the analysis rather hard to swallow as the predominant impact is missing. Such metaphors you describe are theoretically possible but surely other stronger associations are taking precedent here? Young, underweight, women that say nothing but take off their clothes to music. . . hmmm
1. Eliciting a sexual response and all the associations that go with that for most people. . . I cannot see how this is elicits the aspect of human nature that leads to acting for the collective good. has on the contrary, we are bombarded with such images already and they help keep us in a state of mind where we are far less wiling to do things for the greater good. Keep people thinking about sex, death, money etc.
2. The message is not a stand alone piece and must surely be better viewed as part of the overall message that such media figures - v.skinny, v. young, silent females - represent, the role they have in the stories we are living by. The messenger is the message and the people in these videos represent the aspirational figures for many women, especially young women.
Asserting that there is an implicit message in the visual metaphor of striptease that is first and foremost anti-consumerist is ignoring so many other deeply embedded associations about women’s role/position in a patriarchal society and this can be very well argued to be a fundamentally linked with our abusive treatment of the earth.
Leaving aside for one moment that they are not atypical in promoting the idea that style/beauty are more important that personal well-being (being under weight is systemic to the fashion industry). This is a big one with many ramifications but hey. . . . what do I know!
IF the models in the film spoke in an intelligent and powerful way and were authentically self relfective on the role of the media and the fashion industry has on over consumption it might, just might, be something worth doing.
As it is, it is a sad aping of ways of being that we all know get people’s attention, and carries with it so many loaded messages about the way we should be it is at best a counterproductive waste of time.
Ciaran,
I think you missed the point of my analysis when you assert that the young women “said nothing” and you presume that the message of the video must involve having the women speak “in an intelligent and powerful way”.
My discussion of conceptual metaphors, image schemas, and cognitive models is meant to show that the video conveys a considerable amount of meaningful information. The young woman who created the video was not attempting to design a lecture where fashion models tell their story. Rather, she wanted to find a creative way to have her friends (who are models in New York where she lives) participate in Bill McKibben’s international day of awareness-building.
Another point I’ll make is that the reactions people have to this video vary widely and dramatically. This is because its information content is deeply tied to peoples’ emotions. Some watch the video and think about sexual associations. Others watch it and think the girls are just having fun. Others still see it and feel offended by its lack of rationalist/intellectual discourse.
All of these reactions are valid. My point in doing this analysis was not to suggest that there is only one way to make sense of the video, but rather to show how various cognitive mechanisms operate within it and help it go viral.
Best,
Joe
I understand you think things are being “said” metaphorically. I am questioning that such metaphors are relevant or on the radar for most people given the over-riding associations that commonly occur with such imagery and the identity of those taking part in the piece.
You say:
Those of us who find this end state desirable are left “unbalanced” at the end of the video. These people feel a compulsion to act. This forms the motivational drive to reduce carbon emissions. If, according to the metaphors involved, the only way to achieve the natural state of nakedness is to reduce carbon dioxide levels back to their undisturbed state, this compulsion will remain active and unbalanced until sufficient climate action has been achieved.
I think this is not a likely outcome!
Conceptual metaphors are not “on the radar”. Nor will they be. Body-based metaphors operate outside of conscious awareness and only become “objects of the mind” (another conceptual metaphor… actually a complex of them) when analyzed and presented like I’ve done.
I am not suggesting that people consciously deconstruct the video to find its semantic content, but rather that there is a rich and fertile landscape of conceptual structure that makes it possible to understand it
As for the comment about BALANCE schemas and SOURCE-PATH-GOAL trajectories, they are present throughout the narrative sequence of the video. The logic is easy to identify and the inferences flow from the logic.
You may not map the same feelings onto this trajectory as I described, but that doesn’t mean the logical structure is absent. It just means you’re grappling consciously with your own personal feelings about the piece. Others will grapple with theirs.
Hmm, you probably think I am missing the point and yes we are speaking slightly at cross purposes. maybe I am missing your point a bit
BUT indulge me!
I am not arguing that the form of analysis is wrong or that meaning in messages may be subconscious, body based, metaphorical or otherwise. I guess I am just trying to point out that your conclusions flowing from the analysis are non-secuiturs because they miss the over riding context of our culture and elicits aspects of our nature that make taking action harder not easier.
e.g. You assert that the piece is Deconstructing the Fashion Industry - “As the models remove each article of clothing, they are promoting the idea that all these layers are not only unnecessary, but they are bad for us.”
It might be the conscious intention or might even be the spoken message, but the subconscious associations with other ideas and feelings are too hard wired through repeated exposure to similarly framed messages for this to be the case.
Ultimately if you define marketing success by the number of people who might see a message then yes it may well be successful. But in a deeper sense a marketing campaign can be flawed and counterproductive (as I see this one as) if it carries the wrong messages and elicits the wrong response through deeper subconscious frames/associations. A marketing manager might ask “is this good for the brand? Do we want a sexy image? Is it helpful for people to feel sexy at the moment we want them to decide on our action request?”
Hi Ciaran,
I understand where you’re coming from. The point of my analysis was to show how the video worked and why it went viral. The comment about the fashion industry was a minor side note about how the narrative flow of the video implied that people don’t need lots of stuff.
I never meant to suggest that this video would lead to dramatic shifts in viewer behavior or that it would result in the toppling of an entire industry. The exercise was simply intended to show how playfulness and fun were involved in the spread of a piece of media.
Best,
Joe
The end of the ad - ‘This is what 352 looks like - if you want to see us in our natural state, at 350, then you have to get your politicians to act’ - is clever, and could work.
But the fundamental problem with the ad is that it explicitly encourages the idea that warming up is good - because the models take their clothes off because it is so hot (in today’s world).
This is disastrous, if we want to cool the world.
An elementary point; no way around it for this ad, I fear.