Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis offers a more in-depth approach. It shares the three fundamental components of all discursive approaches. Its theory of knowledge is rooted in constructivism, it analyses language as constitutive rather than neutral and it focuses on the micro level as the sphere of analysis. However, it goes beyond

linguistics and description by situating discourse in a wider social setting. The focus is on the social situation and how this can be understood through discourse (Haggett and Toke 2006, p.113). Critical discourse analysis does not simply investigate how a specific ensemble of words creates a specific meaning or set of meanings. Rather, it challenges the foundations of our knowledge and questions the power that is implicit in the establishment of what is ‘true’ and ‘natural’. It is critical because it is not only concerned with how meaning is constructed, but also why one particular meaning may feel ‘natural’ when others do not. How does discourse operate to construct

‘truth’ at the societal level? What role does power play in this process?

For critical discourse analysis, ‘discourse’ is more than just words and specific meaning; it is the rules that underlie meaning and how it can be constructed. A

discourse is embedded in social relations and is instrumental in constructing

26

knowledge that people believe to be ‘true’ and the actions that they understand as

‘appropriate’. All forms of discourse present reality in a specific way depending on the words, ideas and concepts that are employed in speaking. However, for critical theorists, the discursive process is more complicated than this. It is not simply a case of presenting any version of reality by choosing from an infinite range of ideas, concepts and categories. Rather, discourse limits the options that are available to construct ideas. Discourse is ‘the unwritten rules and structures which produce particular utterances’ (Mills 2003, p.54). It is not just any combination of words to produce any arbitrary meaning; it is the rules which dictate what can and cannot be said. For critical theorists, ‘discourse’ is imbued with power. It is through the successful exercise of power that particular discourses become ‘true’ and specific words and actions become ‘appropriate’. Knowledge and power are therefore inextricably linked:

By picking out what to emphasise and what to present positively or negatively, knowledge shapes the world it describes. Knowledge is linked to power not as a result of some perversion of its true function or essence... but as the unavoidable result of its own activity (Ransom 1997, p.19).

Through the communication of a piece of knowledge, power is being exerted on the receiver of knowledge through the very act of knowledge giving. It controls them in as much as what they are being told is portrayed as ‘true’ and this affects the way they see the world. The very exercise of transferring knowledge is imbued with power relations.

Hall (2001) argues that ‘power relations permeate all levels of social existence’ (p.77). As the fundamental component of politics, power exists, quite explicitly, at the international level and in the relations between the state and its citizens. However, power is also prevalent in the relations between individuals. Given the constructivist nature of the world, ‘meaning’ and ‘truth’ are invariably subject to contestation. Power is therefore exerted through the production of knowledge and meaning. We see ‘politics as a struggle for discursive hegemony in which actors try to secure support for their definition of reality’ (Hajer 1995, p.59). Successful power relations stem from the establishment of a particular version of reality as ‘true’.

Carabine (2001) claims that, ‘some discourses are more powerful than others and have more authority or validity... dominant discourses tell us the “truth”’ (p.275).

27

Critical discourse analysis is interested in this process. How do things become established as true? Why do some discourses become dominant? Fairclough (2001) claims that critical discourse analysis ‘aims to show non-obvious ways in which language is involved in social relations of power and domination and in ideology’

(p.229). This kind of exploratory endeavour is evident in the work of other important critical theorists, not least Michel Foucault. Foucault aimed to ‘circumvent the anthropological universals in order to examine them as historical constructs’

(Florence 2003, p.3). He was interested in how things came to be the way they are (Ransom 1997, p.2). There are differences between the specific works of critical theorists, but this underlying interest in power and the construction of knowledge is common to them all. Critical theorists are interested in how ‘truth’ is established and how it is maintained. Indeed, van Dijk (2001) claims that, the main preoccupation of critical discourse analysis is ‘the role of discourse in the (re) production and challenge of dominance’ (p.300).

For critical theorists the most useful way to explore these processes is to analyse interaction at the micro level. According to Rabinow and Rose (2003), Foucault did ‘fieldwork in philosophy’ (p.ix). He studied the everyday talk and text (the micro) in order to understand how ‘truth’ was created at the societal level (the macro). Foucault (1982) argued that ‘we have to refer to much more remote processes if we want to understand how we have been trapped in our own history’ (p.128).

Critical discourse analysis contends that there is a reciprocal relationship between everyday communication or action and societal discourses. Critical theorists study

‘micro events’ and ‘macro structures’ and see ‘the latter as both the conditions for and the products of the former’ (Fairclough 1985, pp.739-40). Everyday interaction (micro events) contributes to the reproduction of dominant societal discourses (macro structures). Conversely, dominant societal discourses limit the options available for communication at the micro level. Particular language and actions are ‘appropriate’

and therefore available for use because they are congruent with the dominant

discourse, which tells us the ‘truth’ about what we should say and how we should act.

Close analysis of the micro level can help us to understand how this process works.

2.2 A Discursive Approach to Climate Change

In the context of environmentalism, discourse analysis has already been widely used. Many studies have considered the general relationship between

28

discourse and the environment (Dryzek 1997; Darier 1999; Fischer and Hajer 1999;

Harre et al 1999; Hajer and Versteeg 2005; Feindt and Oels 2005). Others have focused on a specific environmental or policy issue. These have included environmental problems, such as ozone depletion (Liftin 1994) and flooding

(Penning-Roswell et al 2006), as well as policy issues, such as planning (Sharp and Richardson 2001) and local government legislation (Garrison and Massum 2001).

Work has also considered environmental discourse in the media (Rydin and Pennington 2001; Peterson 2007) and critical discourse analysis of eco-tourism (Stamou and Paraskevopoulos 2004).

The discursive work on climate change is less extensive but growing. Studies have considered discourse in climate policy (Lindseth 2004; Slocum 2004a;

Backstrand and Lovbrand 2006; Fletcher 2009; Methmann 2010) and climate

discourses in the media (Weingart et al 2000; Carvalho 2007; Boykoff 2008; Doulton and Brown 2009; Olausson 2009). In this section I will conduct a critical literature review of current discursive work in the area of climate change and address the potential strengths and weaknesses of this work. In section 2.2.1, I will consider two important criticisms of the relationship between constructivism and climate change. I will argue that constructivism is indeed a useful approach to the problem of climate change. In section 2.2.2, I will look at the importance of analysing climate change at the micro level and in section 2.2.3 I will discuss the work that has already been done in this area. Section 2.2.4, will then consider the distinction between descriptive and critical analysis and the importance of critical discourse analysis as an approach to climate politics. Finally, section 2.2.5, will discuss the role of agency in discourse analysis and the prescriptive potential of an empirical project.

Given the similarity in themes and approaches, the section will also draw on discursive work on the environment more generally, where applicable.