Please or Register to create posts and topics.

The Power Dynamics of The Greta Thunberg Phenomenon

I was reading this article a friend of mine posted on FB.

Well, the article is not a perfect analysis.
The keyword "patriarchy" is the first warning shot that you're not dealing with a very level-headed piece.
And a deeper read confirms it.

Yet, the central thesis that some men might push against Greta because of entrenched power interests, is correct.
And that push back can be linked to gender, profession, or age.
Power dynamics are indeed a crucial aspect of the Greta Thunberg phenomenon.

Let's review it quickly, but let me get this out of the way first:

Greta's Scientific Vacuousness Is A Fact

Let's make no mistake:

Greta Thunberg knows jack all about climate-issues.
Greta is a case of blind leading the blinds.

She still might have a positive impact though simply by bringing the issue to the fore.
But that doesn't change the fact that the movement she "leads" is just a different form of populism.
Swap "fighting climate change" with "stopping immigrants stealing people's jobs", and you have around the same level of intellectual depth.

And of course, most people protesting "Friday for Future" are even more clueless than she is.
That shouldn't come as a surprise: most young people have always protested the world without always fully understanding it, with yours truly here being first in line back in the days.
Back then the keyword was "no global", the enemies were "multinational corporations" and No Logo was the Bible -which almost none of us had ever read, of course-.

Today it's climate change.

And to be fair, this is a much more real issue we must tackle as a society.
Together with the even more important issues of resource depletion, mass extinction, and overpopulation. Overpopulation being one of the most important causes of course, but it doesn't market as well as attacks against Trump, the US, capitalism, etc. etc.

These issues, all real, must be addressed with intelligence, data and facts.
"Climate change", per se, is a tautoligical nonsense.
Climate always changes.
But hey, let's not go down that rabbit hole let's go back to the power dynamics.

The Power Dynamics of The Reactionary War Against Greta

Alright, so Greta knows little about climate change.

And yet, part of the push-back against her is motivated by logics of "fiefdom defense" and power conservation.

Large swaths of professions that traditionally held top authority on these issues, such as professors and scientists, resent that Greta now commands far more power than they do.

Common attacks have focused on Greta "having to go back to school".
Which is true, of course, but which is still often also motivated by a hunger for power rather than by truly wanting to help improve the world.
Academics feel that the more power Greta has, they have.

But what hurts them the most, is that Greta is completely changing that game of power and pulling the rag beneath their shoes.

Why?

Academics' claim on power is based on things like degrees, publications, years of research, peer-reviews, etc.
And Greta is undercutting all of that.
Greta has short-circuited the normal power structures of academia.

Now it's about passion, drive, forceful action.
With these new rules, academics have zero power.

Academics are twice angry because they feel cheated. They went the normal route to acquire power and status while Greta, it seems to them, is cheating the system.
It's like seeing someone else copy when you've been honest. People always get angrier at others cheating when they didn't cheat themselves.
From a power perspective, you could translate (some) of the academics' complaints as such:

We kept our head down and deferred to older professor before speaking up, and we expect you do the same.
Have some respect, kid (ie.: do what we did, not what works).

Many academics angry at Greta care more about power than about the environment.
Those who care about the environment will seek instead to leverage the Greta's phenomenon for positive change.

Gender & Age Power Dynamics

Gender and age also certainly play a role.

Greta is the new Joan d'Arc.
Older men, but also older women, resent that a teenager holds more power than they do.
Same as academics, they expect Greta to listen to obey the nonwritten rule of "listening to older folks".

Some of the pushback also comes from parents who want to hold power over their children. They see Greta as the leader of the teenager rebellion.
And nobody likes a rebellion when it comes at their loss of power :).

It's Not About Gender, It's About Power

The original article I linked focuses on gender and age, such as "older men resent the female young Greta".

It's not wrong, and I urgently need to make an article on power dynamics of feminism and male reaction to feminism (which I partially addressed in "The Red Pill analysis").

It also runs deeper, though.

Women Would Hate Greta If She Had Been Pretty

Female academics can be equally annoyed by the young upstart.

And while the original article says that men attack Greta because she's not "pretty enough", you can rest assured that some women would have disliked Great even more in case she was "pretty enough".

Why?

Because men are more partial to competition for power and authority.
But women are more partial to competition for beauty.

Yeah, there truly is no point in battles among different human groups, fellas.
When it comes to selfishness, we truly are all the same :).

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Hello, with all due respect, I think this analysis is not complete. Why do i say this? Because, at least from my point of view, this it's not about Greta's power per se, but the fact that she has puppeteers behind her who are using her for some other goal, and that in itself is a great power move. Greta herself isn't a bad person, but she has been fed bullshit by probably, power hungry people. Also the fact that the patriarchy is mentioned constantly is a red flag, very good observation from your part. The whole movement seems fake, and the fact that first emotions are stirred (we don't have time, our house is burning) so that one can not think rationally and just follow blindly triggered my bullshit alarm.

But of course, from a power point of view, a movement based on fear is a winning one (I'm not talking ethics here, just from a pragmatical point of view).

I've found this series of essays, it's quite a long read, but it raises some interesting questions (the TLDR would be: Greta is used as an image by other capitalists who don't give a fuck about the planet, but instead want more control and/or to monetize the nature. By instilling fear in a populace, that populace will demand for changes, thus a demand is created for "green alternatives", which is a business in itself. With the demand in place, the market is set, and the supply can be sold: thus, a different type of profit)

https://www.theartofannihilation.com/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

I'm grateful for your level headed analyses and willingness to debate, grazie!

-Leon