![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines Rachel Carson's rhetoric following the 1962 publication of Silent Spring. Although she had generated a fierce controversy, Carson could not rely on a scientific consensus to defend her arguments. As the author of this article argues, she turned to a series of interrelated strategies necessitated by the fact that controversy over pesticides was legitimate. Carson argued that the pesticide issue was moral, exigent, and corrupted by corporate interests. Rather than cloistering debate to scientific professionals, she granted the public autonomy to engage and form scientific arguments. In addition to extending scholarship on Rachel Carson, this article contributes to historical and contemporary understandings of environmental controversy. When an issue is contested within the scientific community, framing debate as open and promoting audience participation may be necessary – and perhaps effective – rhetorical strategies.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Bjørn Stillion Southard and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on earlier versions of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Mollie K. Murphy
Mollie K. Murphy (M.A., University of Montana, 2014) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia and Adjunct Instructor in the Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Communication Studies at Utah State University, where she will begin as an Assistant Professor in Fall 2018. Her work uses rhetorical criticism and theory to understand how and to what effect social justice activists negotiate rhetorical challenges.