Who Wouldn't Want to Go Green?

“Going green” has been all the rage lately as a crucial attempt to help save our environment. And though it seems that many people are jumping on the bandwagon, there may just not be enough to help tip the scale towards a better and “green” earth. In the article written by Taylor Hengen entitled, “Show Me the Honey,” Hengen explains that an outrageous amount of pesticides have been found in bee hives and have ultimately led to a disorder called Colony Collapse Disorder. Unfortunately, this disorder has taken over the bee population, and has caused the bees to become not only disoriented, but has affected their immune systems as well. Hengen goes on to explain that an organic lifestyle may just be the answer because it would help to eliminate the pesticides that are contributing to the disorder. I feel that this article clearly demonstrates a “scientific” approach by utilizing the arrangement of the argument and by representing the format of stases to help not only clarify the aim to the readers, but to justify the claims of the argument as well.
In order for this article to be clearly affective, it must first be understood as to whom this article was written for. Though this article was published on the Popular Science website and may seem to be directed towards those more interested in science than the general public, I think that Hengen had a bigger audience in mind. By mentioning that the ice cream franchise, Haagen-Dazs, was trying to raise awareness of the issue to the general public this shows that even those not interested science are affected by this issue. And, if in fact the general public should be concerned about this issue then Hengen needed to present her argument in such a way that anyone could understand why this is important. I believe that this is where the formation of Fahnstock and Secor’s stases came into play.
Hengen begins her article by explaining the fact, or the “what is it,” if you will. She states, “…bees haven’t been staying on task…They’ve been acting a little weird lately—leaving their hives and not coming back…” This statement makes the reader wonder just what is going on. She then goes on to clarify the name of the crisis, the Colony Collapse Disorder. Hengen even goes one step further by making sure that the reader knows what a substance is and how it affects the body if taken in a certain dosage. By explaining all of this in the beginning paragraph, the author establishes what the article is about and who it affects. These “facts” then make the reader wonder about the cause, or “what caused it?”
To help the reader understand the issue better, the author tries to explain what the problem is, and how it all got started. First, she states, “The disorder is generally attributed to…” which is a clear indicator of the cause. However, the causes listed in this statement are not the main argument of the article, and Hengen does not necessarily dismiss their claims to be truthful, but rather just dismisses their argument from this article. Hengen then says, “While pesticides have consistently been acknowledged as a contributing factor…pesticide levels in hives are much higher than researchers predicted.” By providing evidence that pesticide levels have been tested and scientifically researched, it allows the reader to believe that this truly may be the cause of the disorder, which helps to support the argument. However, the cause is of no use to the reader if we don’t know the value of the issue.
Hengen does not necessarily focus on this particular stases for very long. It is quite evident to the reader that if a substance is causing a disorder then it is not good for you. Hengen does indicate that the pesticide is bad for you by stating that it is “toxic.” Also, she writes, “…these toxic chemical combinations…may cause behavioral changes...These changes include immune system blocks and disorientation, which may help to explain the CCD crisis of late.” The value of this argument need not to be explained any further because its effects on the bees are apparent. To sum up the argument, the reader must now know what should be done, or the policy that should be enforced. Without the policy, the argument is ineffective.
Hengen focuses her article mainly on this stases because she is trying to get her readers to take action on the issue. She explains in depth what is being done currently to help reduce this issue and what should be done in the future. By explaining what is already being done in Congress and in other agricultural organizations, Hengen reiterates that the issue is important to everyone. If the government is concerned, then the reader should be as well. The biggest point that Hengen makes, however, is that the reader cannot only be concerned about the issue, but must take action also. This is where the idea of “going green” and “supporting organic agricultural practices” comes into play. When Hengen explains what should be done, the reader understands that a stance on the issue must be made. At this point, the reader knows that either he or she needs to make a decision based on the supporting facts, causes, values, and policies of the crisis.
Though the arrangement of the stases in Hengen’s article may have not been intentional, it is quite effective. The stases allow the reader to flow through the argument and conceptualize the point of this article in a step by step process. What is the problem? How did this problem come to be? Why is this important to me as the reader? What can I do to help? These are common questions that come to be when reading an article; and when these questions are answered, the reader understands the argument better. By forming her article in this way, Hengen sets up her argument in a “scientific” approach that makes her argument clear and extremely persuasive as well. It’s hard to not want to jump on the bandwagon and join the others who have already “gone green.”