Climate change 'science' on the London stage
Climate change 'science' on the London stage
复制标题
伦敦舞台上的气候变化“科学”
DOI：
10.1002/wcc.173
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bottoms S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bottoms S
本文认为气候变化作为一个有争议的文化理念，这是通过不同形式的文化叙事，其公约和习俗的影响显着的“故事”是告诉公众介导的。具体来说，它研究了四个最近的英国舞台剧，其中每一个描绘气候变化科学家为中心人物。这些是史蒂夫沃茨的《应急计划》（布什剧院，2009年），迈克巴特利特的《伦敦地震》（国家剧院，2010年），理查德比恩的《异教徒》（皇家法院剧院，2011年），以及多作者的《格陵兰岛》（国家剧院，2011年）。本文认为，这些戏剧代表了一个进化的一步，从相当粗糙的，世界末日的叙述，在主流电影的主题处理明显，因为他们试图抓住-以各种方式-与周围的科学发现和未来的预测必要的不确定性。他们还试图通过研究科学家，政治家和普通公众之间的关系和对比责任来戏剧化“气候变化的新文化政治”（史密斯）。这篇文章考虑了戏剧对这些互动的不同处理所产生的各种关键问题。沃茨的剧本中，科学顾问在政府中扮演了一个务实的、技术官僚的角色;比恩的剧本则主张经验纯粹主义（并讽刺了2009年东英吉利大学的气候门“丑闻”）;巴特利特的提出了一个洛夫洛克科学家的数字作为折磨恶棍在文化绝望的万花筒戏剧治疗（继2009年哥本哈根峰会失败之后）;格陵兰将老科学家和年轻科学家作为环境变化的道德参与见证人。10.1002/wcc.173这篇文章分类下：跨学科的观点>人文和创意艺术
This article considers climate change as a contested cultural idea, which is mediated to the public through varying forms of cultural narrative whose conventions and rhetorics impact significantly on how the ‘story’ is told. Specifically, it examines four recent British stage plays, each of which depict climate change scientists as central characters. These are Steve Waters'TheContingency Plan(Bush Theatre, 2009), Mike Bartlett'sEarthquakes inLondon(National Theatre, 2010), Richard Bean'sThe Heretic(Royal Court Theatre, 2011), and the multiauthoredGreenland(National Theatre, 2011). The essay argues that these plays represent an evolutionary step forward from the rather crude, apocalyptic narratives apparent in mainstream film treatments of the subject, insofar that they attempt to grapple—in various ways—with the necessary uncertainty around scientific findings and future projections. They also attempt to dramatize the ‘new cultural politics of climate change’ (Smith) by examining the relationships between, and contrasting responsibilities of, scientists, politicians, and the lay public. This article considers various critical questions arising from the plays' varying treatments of these interactions. Waters' play sees a pragmatic, technocratic role for scientific advisers in government; Bean's argues for empirical purism (and satirises the UEA Climategate ‘scandal’ of 2009); Bartlett's presents a Lovelockian scientist figure as the tortured villain in a kaleidoscopic theatrical treatment of cultural despair (following the failure of 2009's Copenhagen Summit);Greenlandpresents scientists old and young as ethically engaged witnesses to environmental change.WIREs Clim Change2012 doi: 10.1002/wcc.173This article is categorized under:Trans‐Disciplinary Perspectives > Humanities and the Creative Arts