Rachel Carson's Toxic Discourse: Conjectures on Counterpublics, Stakeholders and the “Occupy Movement”

• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Author: Mark N. Wexler
• Date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12007

Rachel Carson’s Toxic

Discourse: Conjectures on

Counterpublics, Stakeholders

and the “Occupy Movement”

MARK N. WEXLER

ABSTRACT

This article draws attention to the origins, forms, and

implications of “toxic discourse” as a genre central to the

understanding of the public sphere in business in

society. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is used as a pivotal

cultural document establishing “toxic discourse” as an

ongoing form of moral narrative rooted in the rationality

of counterpublics. Toxic discourse is framed within a

center/periphery model in which toxic discourse gains

salience in periods of economic dislocation and uncer-

tainty. In these periods, toxic discourse draws together

those on the periphery or counterpublics who otherwise

would not unite in their opposition to the center. The

article critically examines how stakeholder theory,

despite making sense of the public sphere for agents of

organizations, glosses counterpublics and relegates toxic

discourse, as evident in the “Occupy Movement,” to the

ephemeral role of temporary, disruptive protest groups

with very little of substance to communicate.

Mark N. Wexler is a University Professor of Business Ethics and Management, Beedie School

of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada. E-mail: wexler@sfu.ca.

bs_bs_banner

Business and Society Review 118:2 171–192

© 2013 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Blackwell Publishing,

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

HEARING TOXIC DISCOURSE

In modernity, toxic discourse signals the possibility of virulent

or costly elements in contexts assumed to be safe, managed

and governed by legitimate authorities and their agents

(Auyero and Swistun 2008; Buell 1998; Hosey 2011). Initially,

toxic discourse was associated with inadvertent forms of chemical

poisoning. More recently, it points toward the costs borne by third

parties when those entrusted with governance roles are believed

to have acted less than responsibly. Those alerting others of the

toxic danger believe that they are playing an educator or activist’s

role in society. Others disagree and portray them as malcontents.

Toxic discourse is mobilized in a contested space or zone of

contention (Constanza-Chock 2003; McAdam et al. 2003). On the

one hand, there are those responsible for and espousing the

benefits, as they see them, of reliance upon an informed and

rational commitment to a desirable line of action (Bourdeaux

2007; Doh and Guay 2006). On the other hand, there are those

who insist that serious danger ensues from both a continued

commitment to this line of action (Berg 2011; Jonas 1986). The

moral aspect of toxic discourse arises in the insistence by both

sides of the controversy or contested space that “the other” is

lacking virtue and acting irresponsibly.

The term “toxic” in this context is employed as an adjective. It

modifies what was once healthy, but now due to neglect, corrup-

tion, or indifference is sliding into deeper and more virulent

trouble (Aminzade et al. 2001; Smith-Hillman 2007). This dis-

course ties the natural world with the managed or organized

world in an exchange over whom and what is responsible for the

costly spread and anticipation of preventable danger. Toxic dis-

course calls attention to preventable danger or risk and whether

or not those doing “the calling” are credible. However, the greater

the credibility of the source of the discourse the more seriously it

is embraced by the public.

In this matter, toxic assets, address the manner in which

experts and agents of financial firms create complex products that

hide risk (Scott and Taylor 2009; Sinn 2010). Stein (2007) ties the

“toxicity image” to the metaphorical idea of poisoning, noting that

it has found its way into social discourse on management models,

organization studies, and governance studies in general. Toxic

172 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW