In a post-truth context where environmental claims of scientists and politicians are increasingly contested, this article explores how satirical climate fiction facilitates the imagination of and engagement with climate change. Taking Don’t Look Up (2021) as a case study, it presents a thematic analysis of 640 Reddit contributions. The analysis reveals that the movie served as a meaningful text, decoded in various ways, and invited the audience to engage in online public environmental debate. In this ‘participatory culture of climate debate’, the movie became popular cultural capital for the readers to (1) environmentally inform each other, (2) share environmental critiques and (3) mobilize ecopolitical action. We theorize that it was exactly Don’t Look Up’s satirical ambiguity and humor, combined with its immersive fictitious nature, that made the text quintessentially participatory. Thus, we argue that the movie made an impact beyond the individual, fostering collective environmental imagination and awareness.
AndersenG (2020) Climate Fiction and Cultural Analysis: A New Perspective on Life in the Anthropocene. Abingdon: Routledge.
2.
AppaduraiA (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
AupersS (2012) Trust no one’: Modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture. European Journal of Communication27(1): 22–34.
4.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
5.
BilandzicHSukallaF (2019) The role of fictional film exposure and narrative engagement for personal norms, guilt and intentions to protect the climate. Environmental Communication13(8): 1069–1086.
6.
BoreILKReidG (2014) Laughing in the face of climate change? Satire as a device for engaging audiences in public debate. Science Communication36(4): 454–478.
7.
BoukesM (2019) Agenda-setting with satire: How political satire increased TTIP’s saliency on the public, media, and political agenda. Political Communication36(3): 426–451.
8.
BoukesMChuXNoonMFA, et al (2022) Comparing user-content interactivity and audience diversity across news and satire: Differences in online engagement between satire, regular news and partisan news. Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(1): 98–117.
9.
BoulianneSTheocharisY (2020) Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review38(2): 111–127.
10.
BowmanSWillisC (2003) We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. Reston, VA: The Media Center at the American Press Institute.
11.
Boxman-ShabtaiLShifmanL (2014) Evasive targets: Deciphering polysemy in mediated humor. Journal of Communication64(5): 977–998.
12.
BraunVClarkeVHayfieldN, et al (2018) Thematic analysis. In: LiamputtongP (ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer, pp.843–860.
13.
BruhnTDoonaJ (2022) Serious grappling with satire: Rhetorical genre affordances and invitations to participation in public controversy. Javnost – The Public29(3): 284–300.
ButlerJ (2015) Notes Towards a Performative Theory of Assembly. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
CabreraNLMatiasCEMontoyaR (2017) Activism or slacktivism? The potential and pitfalls of social media in contemporary student activism. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education10(4): 400–415.
17.
CallisonC (2020) Communal matters and scientific facts: Making sense of climate change. In: JenkinsHPeters-LazaroShresthovaS (eds) Popular Culture and the Civic Imagination. New York: NYU Press, pp.223–230.
ChenMWangJYinZ (2024) Identifying the active ingredients of climate change narratives: A model of temporal perspective, narrator perspective, and psychological distance. Science Communication46(2): 123–150.
20.
DavisJLLoveTPKillenG (2018) Seriously funny: The political work of humor on social media. new media & society20(10): 3898–3916.
21.
de WildtLGrusauskaiteKAupersS (2024) Encoding/decoding entertainment media. In: BowmanND (ed.) Entertainment Media and Communication. Berlin: DeGruyter, pp.85–100.
22.
DeathC (2022) Climate fiction, climate theory: Decolonising imaginations of global futures. Millennium: Journal of International Studies50(2): 430–455.
23.
DoonaJ (2020) Political comedy engagement: Identity and community construction. European Journal of Cultural Studies23(4): 531–547.
24.
DoonaJ (2021) Civic stage fright: Motivation and news satire engagement. European Journal of Cultural Studies24(4): 850–868.
25.
FiskeJ (1989) Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge.
26.
GammonT (2023) Isn’t it a bit rough?’ – Vietnamese audience reception of wrist-grabbing in Korean Television dramas, feminist consciousness, and fantasy. Sexuality & Culture27(4): 1599–1618.
27.
GreenMCBrockTC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79: 701–721.
28.
HallS (1980) Encoding/decoding. In: HallSHobsonDLoweA, et al (eds) Culture Media Language Working Papers in Cultural Studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.1972–1979.
29.
HarambamJ (2020) Contemporary Conspiracy Culture: Truth and Knowledge in an Era of Epistemic Instability. Abingdon: Routledge.
30.
HarambamJAupersS (2021) From the unbelievable to the undeniable: Epistemological pluralism, or how conspiracy theorists legitimate their extraordinary truth claims. European Journal of Cultural Studies24(4): 990–1008.
31.
HoutmanDAupersSLaermansR (2021). Science Under Siege: Contesting the Secular Religion of Scientism. Cham: Springer.
32.
JasperJM (2018) The Emotions of Protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
JenkinsH (1992) Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Cultures. New York: Routledge.
34.
JenkinsHItōMboydd (2016) Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A Conversation on Youth, Learning, Commerce, and Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
LamontMMolnárV (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology28(1): 167–195.
LittleH (2022) The use of satire to communicate science in Don’t Look Up. Journal of Science Communication21(5): C06.
39.
McIntyreL (2018) Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
McKayA (2021) Don’t Look Up. Los Gatos, CA: Netflix.
41.
MehnertA (2016) Climate Change Fictions: Representations of Global Warming in American Literature. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
MilkoreitM (2019) Pop-cultural mobilization: Deploying game of thrones to shift US climate change politics. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society32(1): 61–82.
MorleyD (1980) The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding. London: British Film Institute.
45.
MortonT (2013) Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
46.
OomenJHoffmanJHajerMA (2022) Techniques of futuring: On how imagined futures become socially performative. European Journal of Social Theory25(2): 252–270.
47.
RadwayJA (1984) Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
48.
RieschH (2015) Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science24(7): 768–775.
49.
SalmoseN (2018) The apocalyptic sublime: Anthropocene representation and environmental agency in Hollywood action-adventure Cli-Fi films. The Journal of Popular Culture51(6): 1415–1433.
50.
Schneider-MayersonMWeik Von MossnerAMałeckiWP (2020) Empirical ecocriticism: Environmental texts and empirical methods. ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment27(2): 327–336.
51.
Schneider-MayersonM (2017) Climate change fiction. In: Greenwald SmithR (ed.) American Literature in Transition, 2000–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.309–321.
52.
Schneider-MayersonM (2018) The influence of climate fiction: An empirical survey of readers. Environmental Humanities10(2): 473–500.
53.
Schneider-MayersonMGustafsonALeiserowitzA, et al (2023) Environmental literature as persuasion: An experimental test of the effects of reading climate fiction. Environmental Communication17(1): 35–50.
54.
SimpsonP (2003) On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satirical Humour (Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 2). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
55.
TraubC (2018) From the grotesque to nuclear-age precedents: The modes and meanings of Cli-fi humor. Studies in the Novel50(1): 86–107.
56.
WagnerP (2023) Embracing the environmental grotesque and transforming the climate crisis. ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment30(4): 911–930.
57.
WebsterJG (1998) The audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media42(2): 190–207.
58.
ZekavatMScheelT (2023) Satire, Humor, and Environmental Crises. Abingdon: Routledge.
59.
ŻukiewiczPGerlichD (2023) Poland as Gilead. Pop culture fiction and performative protests in the era of the pandemic. Media, Culture & Society45(7): 1418–1434.
