There are many theories and definitions of ‘discourse’ that emphasise linguistics, knowledge-power and practice to varying degrees, depending on their take on post-structuralism. I find in my own material a variety of discourses around land use that compete with one another. Therefore, I find it useful to follow an approach that specifically defines ‘discourse’ in relation to the environment, focuses on knowledge-power, and attends to the way that discourse produces resistance. As such, other discursive approaches such as Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough 1992, Van Dijk 1993), the post-structural approach or purely Foucauldian approach are less empirically relevant to my case.
Drawing on the ideas of Foucault and scholars such as Hajer, John Dryzek describes an
‘environmental discourse’ as a shared way of apprehending the world enabling those who subscribe to it to put bits of information together in coherent accounts (Dryzek 2013, 9). The assumptions, judgements and contentions of a discourse provide the basic terms for analysis and debate (ibid.). This chimes with the definition of environmental discourse as “specific ways of talking about particular environments and their futures”
(Muhlhausler and Peace 2006, 458). Using environmental discourse rather than discourse draws attention to the human-environment relationship and environmental problems (Dryzek 2013, Muhlhausler and Peace 2006).
Dryzek thinks about environmental discourses as ‘departures’ from the terms of
industrialism (2013). Industrialism is characterised by its commitment to growth and to the material benefits of growth. Environmental discourses endorse or propose some form of action in order to respond to the environmental problems of industrialisation (Dryzek 2013, 14). A discourse then advocates particular actions for future
interventions in an environment, based on their ontology, assumptions and actors. The ontology of a discourse is what the discourse recognises in the world. For example, some discourses recognise nature only in terms of brute matter whilst others see it as a living organism. The assumptions of a discourse are what the discourse says about the relationships between things, such as the hierarchy between nature and humans. And, the actors of a discourse are those who play an important role. For example experts, bureaucrats, collectives or Mother Earth (2013, 18). Dryzek classifies environmental discourses broadly into problem solving discourses, sustainability, and green radicalism.
22
This provides me with a thorough way of thinking about the components of a discourse.
It also encourages the analysis to consider how environmental discourses can be influenced by other discourses. For example, when the sustainable development discourse is swayed by market liberalism its meaning is changed.
Discourses are ‘emergent’ which means that they are always shifting and never completely closed (Dunn and Neumann 2016, 3). With this, discourses “develop, crystallize, bifurcate and dissolve” (Dryzek 2013, 19) in relation to their contexts.
Discourses are also intertwined with material political realities, such as the pressure on governments to achieve economic growth (ibid., 10). Companies can stop investing in response to government policies they don’t like and the reason they might do this is because they subscribe to a particular market-oriented discourse that defines certain policies as right and wrong (ibid.). In turn, the impact of discourse can be felt in different ways.
Discourses can take effect directly and become embedded in institutions and influence policy making. They can take effect indirectly in society and culture by influencing broader perceptions and values (Dryzek 2013, 20). For example, corporate and state discourses about the environment are capable of manipulating perceptions of the environment by minimising or exaggerating the severity of environmental problems.
The effect of an environmental discourse also depends on whether people are affected directly by the environmental issues it discusses (Muhlhausler and Peace 2006, 461).
This plays into the extent to which a discourse is accepted, which also depends on how a discourse is rationalised and legitimised (Kallio, Nordberg, and Ahonen 2007). For example, Kallio, Nordberg, and Ahonen study the sustainable development discourse and find that environmental protection is a good rationale for the discourse but that scientific evidence is not enough to legitimise business action (2007). In the analysis, I will explore the effects of discourse by considering these discussed aspects.
The view that discourses are productive of reality – what can be known and acted upon – underscores the links between knowledge and power (Dunn and Neumann 2016, 3).
Discourse is powerful because it makes ‘intelligible’ some ways of acting in the world which in turn, endorses a certain common sense, and makes other modes of thinking
“impracticable, inadequate or otherwise disqualified” (Milliken 1999, 229). Theorists follow Foucault, building on his idea that power is the practice of knowledge and
23
discourse is productive (Foucault 2002, Foucault and Rabinow 1991). Following
Foucault’s knowledge-power, Dryzek states that discourses are “bound up with political practices and power” (2013, 10). Discourses empower and disempower by defining and enabling, silencing and excluding certain ways of knowing (ibid.). The use and effect of knowledge-power is why discourse analysists argue that “language has the capacity to make politics, to create signs and symbols that shift power balances, to render events harmless or, on the contrary, to create political conflict” (Hajer and Versteeg 2005, 179). Actors can exercise power by consciously or unconsciously imposing a discourse into a discussion.
In this sense, power is “the practice of knowledge as a socially constructed system within which various actors articulate and circulate their representation of truth” (Dunn and Neumann 2016, 54). The purpose of enquiry is to “denaturalize dominant forms of knowledge and question the practices they enable” (Milliken 1999, 236). To do this, analysts see representations as instances of discursive practice. In this way, mechanisms of legitimisation – such as those that operate in the context of mining in Goa – can be considered discursive practices, or exercises of power, that shape how subjects come to understand mining and its impacts. The ability of discourse to “define and to enable, and also to silence and to exclude” (Milliken 1999, 229) alternative knowledge, views and discourses, albeit partially, is the focus of this discourse analysis, followed by the way in which subjects are represented.
As discourses are bound up with power, a fuller conceptualisation of power is useful here. Political and social theorist Steven Lukes breaks down power into three
‘dimensions’ (2005). A one-dimensional view of power is straightforward: “behavior in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of
interests” (ibid., 19). For example, that A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests (Lukes 2005, 37). A two-dimensional view of power acknowledges that power can still be exercised in ‘non-decision-making’. In Lukes words, “decisions can be prevented from being taken on potential issues over which there is an observable conflict of interest” (2005, 25). For example, when a mining company sets the agenda for discussion in a public hearing then they have the influence and authority to define what can be spoken about and prevent certain issues from being discussed as part of the decision-making process. According to Lukes, the most
24
effective forms of power operate at the three-dimensional level. Power can be exercised in the absence of observable conflict, which may have been successfully averted, though there remains, a latent conflict, between the interests of A and the real interests of B (Lukes 2005, 28). In such a situation, society is encouraged to comply with – not necessarily explicitly – the socio-political order or aspects of that order (ibid., 8).
Importantly, the real interests of social actors are not unitary or dual but can be multiple and conflicting. Three-dimensional power, Lukes argues, can put “constraints upon interests” and “speak of interests imputed to and unrecognized by actors” (2005, 146).
Therefore, power is not just a thing external to those subject to it; power is exercised to constrain interests and possibilities for action. For example, as I explain in chapter 7, three-dimensional power is exercised when a government manages to shame
environmentalism to such an extent that activists do not want to identify any longer as environmentalists. I use discourse as an extension of three-dimensional power because discourse, as discussed, can work to do just this. Environmental discourses produce ways of thinking about certain issues through representations that consolidate or dismantle norms and orders. As Van Dijk argues, ideologies are “acquired, expressed, enacted and reproduced by discourse” (2006, 124) and therefore, discourse works to constrain interests and actions in line with what people recognise as legitimate. It is important to note that discursive exercises of power always have the possibility of resistance against them, whether resistance is conscious or unconscious. Resistance can confirm alternative representations, create new ones or withhold confirmation (Dunn and Neumann 2016, 57). In summary, discourse is a pragmatic way of studying the exercise of power, how discursive power operates in practices that in turn produce resistance.