| OCR Text |
Show 35 substantive Truth, but use their networks to create scattered, yet powerful, assemblages that produce social change. This means that corporations are important political subjects in public debates that should not be dismissed as essentially misleading actors.9 In the midst of life-threatening catastrophes such as global warming and ozone depletion, critics would benefit from attempting to understand how corporations work, as subjects, and determining the networks of relations that stabilize the global warming assemblage rather than fighting for the "right" science while bemoaning the death of deliberative rhetoric as Goodnight (1982) did in the Journal of American Forensic Association. Although this kind of criticism can be frustrating, academics should not give up on poststructural projects just because industries are charged with destroying the planet. If we are concerned with environmental problems then we must do a better job understanding the discourses that are making them possible. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is just one of many events that indicates the limits of humanism amid a new dawn of rhetoric, politics, and subjectivity where corporations are arguably the most prominent communicative actors on the planet. There are many other examples that equally demonstrate that corporations are capable of inciting tumultuous social change. Exxon Mobile, Koch Industries, and Chevron successfully perpetuate skepticism about global warming by using resources to secure the strength of the carbon-based economy, risking the survival of human and nonhuman species (McRight & Dunlap, 2010, 2011). Rio Tinto (Moody, 1991), Shell (BBC, 2015) and Coca-Cola (Huff, 2010) have committed human rights violations in Papua New 9 As DeLuca (2001) argues, corporations can have productive roles in shaping our current conceptualizations of wilderness and national parks, as demonstrated by the case of Yosemite National Park. |
