This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 13:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Western Journal ofCommunicationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

WSCA and the sustainabilitychallengeConnie Bullis aa Associate Professor, Department ofCommunication , University of Utah , Salt LakeCity, UT, 84112Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Connie Bullis (2004) WSCA and the sustainabilitychallenge, Western Journal of Communication, 68:4, 454-461, DOI:10.1080/10570310409374813

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374813

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Western Journal of Communication, 68(4) (Fall 2004), 454-461

WSCA 2004 Presidential Address:WSCA and the Sustainability Challenge

Connie Bullis

I HOPE AND TRUST that everyone has been enjoying the 75th WSCAconference. Presumably, you've all been widening your circles, re-

newing old relationships, and making new ones. This year's conferencehas more attendees than any WSCA except one, thanks to MyronLustig and Ken Frandsen, Christina Sanchez, and Rachel DwigginsBuele's planning. We are fortunate to have so many undergraduatescholars with us this year due to the first undergraduate honorsconference organized by Mary Jane Collier and in part, funded byWSCA's Executive's Club. As most of you probably know, WSCA iswidely known as the best of the regionals because of our leadership inscholarship, strong management of the organization, and our confer-ence is the best, thanks to our members who contribute so generously.Today, I want to spend a few minutes brainstorming ways we mightextend our range of leadership to a new arena: the sustainabilitychallenge.

When Dennis Alexander asked me to run for an office in WSCA, likemost people I said "no." But Dennis didn't accept no. He insteadreminded me that he had started a conversation in WSCA that neededto be continued. He had set ecology as the theme for the conference heplanned in Vancouver. He had enlisted Dennis Jaehne and me tofacilitate a pre-conference on "Greening the Discipline." And he hadappointed a small committee to consider greening WSCA. Dennis wasright, this effort needed to continue. And I agreed to run. Last year, theconference theme was "Communicating for Sustainability" to reflectthe trend toward understanding social and ecological issues as insep-arable. The pre-conference, facilitated by Jennifer Peeples and GeorgeCheney, focused on sustainability and communication. Lois Gibbs toldus how she communicated sustainability to change Love Canal's his-tory. Today, I want to consider how the sustainability challenge per-tains to WSCA.

Connie Bullis is Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Utah,Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Fall 2004 455

What Is the Sustainability Challenge?

The UN-commissioned Bruntland report on sustainable develop-ment published in 1987 encourages us to ask, How can we, living in thepresent, meet our needs without compromising the ability of others inthe present and of future generations to meet their needs? Withoutrepeating the sobering and uncomfortable details of the litany of socialand environmental problems that are threatening the well-being ofecological systems including humans in the present, and particularlyin the future, I think we all can agree that human well-being is injeopardy. (Whether this should be of concern or whether this anthro-pocentric interest is the problem is a discussion for another time. HereI assume that we are interested in human well being.) We face amassive sustainability crisis. Too many people today, especially in thedeveloping world—but also in many of our communities, do not haveaccess to safe air to breathe, safe water to drink, and safe soil andsunshine to nourish. At least a billion of the earth's population live atthe margin of life without ample clean water, air, food. We know thatbasic soil, water, air, natural systems are being depleted and pollutedso that future generations will be at vastly greater risk of inadequatesocial, economic, and natural systems to meet their basic needs. Thesustainability challenge suggests that we have a responsibility toexamine ways in which we can live differently. Although it would bedifficult to disagree with those who insist that all major institutionsneed to change and that a fundamental spiritual change may be themost important challenge (Orr, 2002), I focus today on more mundaneand relatively simple prospects and trust that small, feasible activitiesare related to larger systems.

How Does the Sustainability Challenge Matter to Us, to WSCA?

Tarla Peterson (1997) has pointed out that the ambiguity of theterm provides a multitude of opportunities for innovating, interpret-ing, negotiating varied, locally adaptable meanings and practices. Thisis a rich, flexible, and potent intellectual and practical space.

One way it matters then, is intellectually as it relates to our re-search, theory, and intellectual practices. On one hand, our currenttheories and research programs should be quite helpful in providinginsights and practical applications to sustainability. For example, oneview of a general model, reported by Macnaghten and Urry (1998)relies on three assumptions:

1) Science has the ability to measure limits, effects of economic sys-tems, damage to earth systems.

2) That information can be communicated to responsible, states, com-munities, organizations who then translate the information intoappropriate laws, products, information for individuals regardinghow to live.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

456 WSCA and the Sustainability Challenge

3) People's sense of empowerment and responsibility will lead them totake appropriate actions.

We know that such a rational top/down model that is based oninformation translating into change through multiple levels is prob-lematic at best. Science is not able to determine facilely precisely andmeasure the state of affairs. Even where there is scientific agreement,governments don't operate on scientific information. United Kingdomscholars Macnaghton and Urry (1998) have identified additional waysthis model breaks down in practice, at least in the UK. People doexperience sustainability as part of a constellation of insecurity andmalaise and loss of faith in the future. People feel no sense of agencyand they don't trust science and government, the institutions that areexpected to implement this model. Instead, people experience sustain-ability concerns at personal, local, experiential levels. (For examplethey see green space disappearing or experience illness from drinkingwater.) The study went on to report how people distrusted informationtoo far removed from their own dwellingness and how people invokedvaried contradictory identities related to sustainability; people feelresponsible while feeling that they are powerless to do anything.

A variety of our theories and research could be deployed to advancemore meaningful models. We have some understanding of the rhetoricof science, the naievete of pure information, the complexity of largecommunication systems, relationships between micro and macro-levelsystems, with corporations as major actors in economic and politicalsystems, with leadership, political rhetoric, and persuasive campaigns.We have theories of how social change happens, empowerment, fearappeals, the inability of information to persuade, the inability of sci-ence to deliver unequivocal information, the importance of politics,how people understand and manage contradictions they face, credibil-ity, how communication patterns create and sustain taken for grantedassumptions, how people create meanings, and how people interpretlarger institutions through social interactions. We know somethingabout attitude change, social movements, how power can shape pat-terns of understanding and behavior, how symbolic forms are shaped,shifted, contested, and encourage some forms of seeing and doing anddiscourage others.

These are just a few of the ways in which we might contribute to thesustainability challenge. But we don't fully attend to sustainability. Ibelieve that has to do with our other hand, our second intellectualchallenge: Interrogating Our Theorizing. We can ask, How might ourtheorizing be related to the sustainability challenge? We understandthe importance of symbols, discourse, conversation, interaction, orwhat we most generically refer to as the social construction of reality.Sustainability, though, may not be fully addressed through our best

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Fall 2004 457

current theorizing. We need to take ourselves seriously enough tointerrogate our best theorizing.

In general, we define communication as human communication andtake as our starting point how humans are defined as against non-human. We tell ourselves that human communication is much morecomplex than non-human (such as physical, animal, material, biolog-ical). Humans have special, more developed communicative abilities.In spite of the wide variety of theories and in spite of our theorizing ofpower and marginalization, a close reading of our most common theo-rizing, I think, would reveal a persistent habit of drawing a boundaryaround our domain as human, discourse, message exchange, symbol,conversation, and an exclusion of non-human, non-symbolic, the ma-terial. In our efforts to legitimize and celebrate the fundamental im-portance of the symbolic, we sometimes assume the symbolic is sofoundational that there is nothing else of significance, there is nothingoutside of communication, making it difficult to fully acknowledge thematerial, and importantly as related to sustainability, on the intersec-tions between the symbolic and the material. Given the sustainabilitychallenge, we may need different ways of theorizing communicationand especially the relationships between communication and thatwhich is not communication. Consistent with the conference theme, wemay need to widen our circle.

If we interrogate and seek to transform our theorizing, what mightwe come to? Put simply, we need more useful models, theories, andmetaphors to better acknowledge how communication is related tomaterial, social, economic, spiritual ecological domains or systems.There are many examples developing, I'll mention a few.

Tarla Peterson (1997), writing on sustainability and rhetoric, hassuggested that we need to consider how our human/social systems,behaviors are connected with natural systems. She draws on Luh-mann's (1989) use of systems theory as a way to theorize communica-tion as it operates within subsystems, between subsystems, and be-tween social and natural interfaces.

Rich Rogers, in the Western Journal of Communication, called foropening our understanding of communication by theorizing nature asa conversational partner. In this way, we remove the barrier so oftenassumed, that we study and confine our selves to solely human com-munication. He invites us to listen and open (Rogers, 1998).

Donna Haraway's (1991) theorizing of cyborg encourages us to con-sider the linkages, overlaps, hybridization of humans, technology, com-munication nature. Through cyborg theorizing, boundaries are openedand challenged.

Susan Hafen has especially focused on animals as relational part-ners and in fact generated a panel for this conference on that theme.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

458 WSCA and the Sustainability Challenge

Work on communibiology by Jim McCroskey and colleagues (e.g.,Heisel, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1999) has suggested that we ignoregenetic, biological predispositions of communicative behavior at theloss of some explanatory power.

Kevin DeLuca (1999) encourages an expanded understanding ofrhetoric, especially social movement rhetoric as he illustrates theimportance of image and image events that operate outside of tradi-tional bounds of rational discourse to disrupt and constitute tactics ofchange.

James Shanahan and Catherine McComas (1999) found that natureis trivialized and thus symbolically annihilated in TV news stories. Wemight further consider how similar processes might color our intellec-tual practices.

Dana Cloud's work (e.g., 2003) has persistently called attention tothe material.

These are a few examples that encourage us to reconsider assump-tions about communication. In various ways, they ask Is the study ofhuman symbol exchange a boundary that should define our domain?What do we miss when we define communication as foundational? Howcan communication theory encourage understandings that can relateto the material, the physical, the spiritual, and ultimately the needs ofcurrent and future generations. Communication theory and researchstands to more fully address the sustainability challenge as our theo-ries evolve to more fully acknowledge how communicating humans aresituated in and dependent on more than the discursive.

WSCA is also embodied in our organizational practices and we canconsider sustainability as it relates to WSCA as an organization.

How Can WSCA Address the SustainabilityChallenge through Practice?

Through our practices as individuals, professionals, and as an or-ganization, we can contribute.

Many, if not all, of us as individuals contribute to the sustainabilitychallenge in our personal lives through our volunteer commitments,donations, personal practices, and conversations. With the scope of thischallenge, professional contributions are also timely. WSCA, as a pro-fessional organization, can consider how our practices are related tosustainability.

WSCA has already created a policy that requires us to ask aboutenvironmental policies as we negotiate with hotels. Thanks to ourdiligent and obsessive Executive Director, Sue Pendell, that policy hasbeen implemented when we consider where to meet. We ask hotelsabout their environmental policies. When it is feasible, we encourage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Fall 2004 459

eating lower on the food chain. You have just had a vegetarian meal aswe've had occasionally in previous years.

Hopefully, we will extend our considerations. We might ask morequestions of the companies with which we do business . . . hotels, air-lines, car rental companies, printers, publishers, the tourist areas andrestaurants we publicize . . . as we continue to examine our own prac-tices.

First and most basically, are we doing business with criminals?What is the compliance record regarding labor, safety, environmentallaws? And are we complying with all laws that pertain to our organi-zation?

Second, does this company adhere to a broadened understanding ofstakeholder relationships? Does it publish a sustainability report?Does it share more rather than less social, economic, and environmen-tal information than industry norms? Is there evidence of commitmentto partnerships for local, and in some cases national and global, sus-tainability initiatives? We need to turn this lens on WSCA as well. Whoare our stakeholders? Are there ways we might broaden our model?

Third, many companies are reinventing themselves and marketingthemselves as sustainability leaders. These companies are gamblingthat there are markets for more sustainable companies. We might helpto ensure their gambles pay off. We could ask of each company withwhich we consider doing business: Does this company claim to addresssustainability? Has it committed to a certification system or a contin-uous improvement process (such as ISO 140001 or Total Quality En-vironmental Management)? Does its mission statement and strategysupport its claims to be oriented to sustainability? Does it conductperiodic sustainability audits? Does it insist that its suppliers beenvironmentally and socially responsible? Is its sustainability recordbetter than the industry norm? Similarly, how does our record comparewith norms for similar organizations?

We may want to consider long term relationships with particularhotel chains, airlines, and even communities based on some of theseand other questions. Some communities/cities and presumably stateshave stronger records and plans than do others. We could add thatconsideration to our normal criteria as we consider where to hold ourconventions. What are their tax systems like? Are they equitable?Where are their priorities in public expenditures? Are their prioritiesdesigned to consider social equity and long term sustainability?

In addition to being careful consumers, we might interrogate ourown operations as well.

Operations that come immediately to mind are publications, invest-ments, and conferences. It seems to me we are making great strides inour publications—

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

460 WSCA and the Sustainability Challenge

Stephanie Coopman has come close to moving our newsletter on lineand developed our website so that we eliminate considerable paper aswe communicate. Dan Canary, Editor of Western Journal of Commu-nication and Walt Zakahi, Editor of Communication Reports, and theirpredecessors are doing more and more of their activities on line. Wemay be moving journals in that direction more and more as we developpartnerships with publishers.

We might also consider our investments. We might peruse our assetmanagement plan to consider investing some proportion based on theDow Jones Sustainability Index or a particular sustainable fund.Clearly such investing needs to be done with care (c.f. Barnett &Salomon, 2003).

Our meetings may be the most problematic of our practices and themost difficult to address. Can we operate in ways that are increasinglypositive in terms of our people, finances, and the planet? Are thereways we might reward ideas for about improving sustainability per-formance? Should we meet every year physically? Could we reducestress on people, reduce environmental impacts, benefit financially byconsidering some virtual meetings?

Perhaps the best way we can address some of these matters is toassure that sustainability enters into every decision we make.

Our practice also extends to our work at our home institutions.Education is certainly one of the most crucial institutions to sustain-ability (Orr, 2002). WSCA could serve to encourage participation incampus sustainability initiatives. These efforts on campuses stand tobenefit from interdisciplinary participation. We can use WSCA as anopportunity to share what we do in our own home institutions. I hopewe'll see opportunities for interchanges in the future on what practicesand models are useful in our own home institutions. Of course ourteaching is of central significance as well. We are in contact with theupcoming generation of decision makers. We can participate in adifferent experience of hope, of a sense of agency and meaning becauseof our efforts in our own classrooms.

Closing

In closing, I would simply like to invite each of you to consider whatyou can contribute to WSCA's intellectual work and/or operations aswe face the sustainability challenge to live so that current generationscan live more equitably, meeting everyone's basic needs, and not di-minish the ability of future generations to meet their basic needs. As Iunderstand it, immediate past presidents of WSCA are obligated toserve by identifying some issue and working on it. I will spend thisnext year focusing on sustainability. I hope to provide meaningfulrecommendations a year from now. Please contact me, Betsy Bach, orEric Morgan, with your thoughts, recommendations, pet peeves, et

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Fall 2004 461

cetera. We are WSCA's current sustainability committee. WSCA is aleader in so many ways, I hope we'll lead in this sustainability arena aswell. Thank you for your contributions to WSCA in this importanteffort.

REFERENCES

Barnett, M. L. & Salomon, R. M. (2003). Throwing a curve at socially responsibleinvesting research: A new pitch at an old debate. Organization & Environment,16 (3) 381-389.

Beatty, M. J., and McCroskey, J. C. (2000). A few comments about communibiologyand the nature/nurture question. Communication Education. 49 (1), 25-28.

Cloud, D. L. (2003). Beyond evil: Understanding power materially and rhetorically.Rhetoric and Public Affairs. 6 (3), 531-538.

De Luca, K. M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism.New York: The Guildford Press.

Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London:Free Association Books, a

Heisel, A. D., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1999). Testing theoreticalrelationships and non-relationships of genetically-based predictors: Gettingstarted with communibiology. Communication Research Reports. 16 (1), 1-9.

Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Translated by John Bednarz Jr.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Macnaghten, P. & Urry, J. (1998). Contested natures. London, Thousand Oaks, NewDelhi: Sage Publications.

Orr, D. W. (2002). Four challenges of sustainability. Conservation Biology, 16 (6),1457-1460.

Peterson, T. R. (1997). Sharing the earth: The rhetoric of sustainable development.Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Rogers, R. A. (1998). Overcoming the objectification of nature in constitutive theories:Toward a transhuman, materialist theory of communication. Western Journalof Communication, 62, 244-272.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014