Discourses

In this thesis, I treat narrative and discourse analysis as two parts of the same process.

I regard narratives as central elements of a discourse. In the introduction to these concepts, I

start with an elaboration on my understanding of discourses. First, I would like to make clear what the term discourse means in this thesis. I lean upon a social science understanding of the term. Blekesaune & Stræte (1997:12, my translation) describe a discourse as "everything included in the process that makes us perceive things around us as comprehensible phenomena".

I choose to adopt the definition by Adger et al. (2001:683). They offer a more thorough description of discourses as a truth regime, understood as:

"a shared meaning of a phenomenon. This phenomenon may be small or large, and the understanding of it may be shared by a small or large group of people on the local, national, international or global level. The actors adhering to the discourse participate in varying degrees to its production, reproduction and transformation through written and oral statements. "

The term discourse is used in different settings with different meanings. In order to avoid misunderstandings, I find it useful to mention two common understandings of the term that differ from how I understand it. Both Neumann (2001) and Svarstad (2002; 2003) point to these two understandings as different from how the term is used in most social science. First, the linguistic understanding treats discourse as a synonym to text, implying that discourse analysis is an assessment of how meaning is formed by combination of sentences. Second, the term discourse is used in everyday speech as a "conversation or discussion about a given issue" (Svarstad 2002:67). According to Svarstad this latter understanding of the word is also applied to some social science studies. However, in this study I adhere to a social science understanding of the term as defined above.

3.3.1 Discourse analysis

There are different ways of applying discourses in a research project. Jørgensen & Phillips (1999) differentiate between discourse theory, represented by Laclau & Mouffe (1985), and critical discourse analysis. As part of political ecology within a critical realism tradition, I place myself within this critical discourse analysis approach. I will now elaborate on my inspirations.

I have two main inspirations in my approach to discourse analysis. According to Adger et al. (2001), one of the characteristics of discourses is homogeneity in message and expressive means. Thus, they describe discourse analysis as consisting of three elements:

"analysis of regularities in expressions to identify discourses; analysis of the actors producing, reproducing and transforming discourses; and social impacts and policy

outcomes of discourses". (Adger et al. 2001:684)

This implies a study of claims, claims-makers and the claims-making processes. In this thesis, I will mainly concentrate on the first element in the analytical approach of Adger et al.

(2001). However, I will briefly touch upon the two last elements towards the end. I find this approach most useful in the process of linking the narratives from my empirical material to broader discourses.

The second source of inspiration is from Blekesaune & Stræte (1997). I read Blekesaune

& Stræte as an empirical and practical application of Laclau & Mouffe's (1985) discourse theory. They define discourse analysis to include an analysis of:

"- How elements are redefined into moments in one discourse.

- The meaning of the ideologies as nodal point for our understanding.

- How opponents can be pacified through construction of social antagonisms.

- How different actors try to create a hegemony for their own meanings"

(Blekesaune & Stræte 1997:14, my translation, original emphasis) In the use of this approach, I will mainly concentrate on the second and third point. This approach is useful for me in the comparison between the narratives I find in the data material, and between the discourses these narratives are linked to. I will also comment on the first point when linking the narratives to broader discourses.

However, I will emphasise that this study is not a study about how discourses develop.

Thus, I will not treat what Neumann (2001) calls the "dialogic relations" within a discourse.

Rather, I will point to how the narratives I identify from the empirical material can be seen as parts of broader discourses. Hence, I apply narrative analysis more than discourse analysis.

Before continuing, I would like to make a comment on my application of the analytical framework of Blekesaune & Stræte (1997). They focus on how these mechanisms work within one discourse. The way I read their report, I find that they treat these concepts in relation to a debate, where different arguments, representing different discourses, are

presented. Hence, they apply an understanding of the notion 'discourse' more in line with the everyday use as described above. Svarstad (2003) makes a similar comment to the

understanding of discourse in the report by Blekesaune & Stræte (1997). As I apply a different understanding of discourse, I also use this analytical framework differently. My approach concentrates more on how these mechanisms apply to relations between different

discourses. Compared to Jørgensen & Phillips' (1999) presentation of Laclau & Mouffe's (1985) discourse theory, Blekesaune & Stræte's application is an extension of the theory. I find it necessary to make a comment in this respect. Laclau & Mouffe (1985) use the concept of nodal points within one discourse. My use of the concept is not in accordance with this understanding as I search for nodal points between the different narratives. However, as a justification, my understanding of discourses is relevant. I understand discourses to be

multiple, coexisting truth regimes in the social sphere. Examples of coexisting non-conflicting discourses can be geographical (e.g. European, North-American) and topical (within e.g.

fields of environment, medicine, sports). However, there may also be conflicting discourses on one topic. In this study, I assess environmental discourses as expressed through narratives in Geiranger. Geiranger as a geographical setting may thus be seen as the location for a geographical discourse, the Geiranger discourse, that implicitly of explicitly relates to other discourses. Within this geographical discourse there are competing environmental discourses.

The nodal points I identify serve as nodal points within the geographically determined

Geiranger discourse, and between the competing topical narratives I identify to be part of this geographical discourse.

I also argue that these analytical steps are relevant for analysing narratives, as I see narratives as parts of discourses. This will be elaborated in the following section of this chapter.