Discourse-oriented approach

A discourse-oriented approach is employed in the analysis of social framings of Sesan water governance. It aims to analyse the way in which the actors articulate the Sesan water problem including means to address the problem. It also requires paying

attention to actors’ words and way of speech, as well as their statements and observing how the actors translate vision and plans for Sesan water management into practice. Firstly, it is discourse analysis that focuses on a critical analysis of words, statements, and speeches that actors use in order to give meanings and share perceptions. This method is influenced by the discipline of human geography. Secondly, is discourse analysis focusses on the “mode of talking” and analysis of “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorisations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer, 2003a, p. 44). According to Sharp and Richardson (2001), discourse analysis examines both discourse as text and discourse in text.

Following Sharp and Richardson, Hajer (2003) posits that discourses have to look beyond the text and moment of utterance or mode of talking. This includes understandings the position of actors and rationality of the statements made by different actors. The discursive act at which discourse is operated is central for the articulation. Hajer and Versteeg (2005) state: “the basic assumption of discourse analysis is that language profoundly shapes one’s view of the world and reality, instead of being only a neutral medium mirroring it” (p. 176). Based on this, the basic assumption

underpinning discourse has to be carefully observed as do the position and context of its emergence. Discourse is defined as:

a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts and categorizations that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices, through which meaning is given to physical and social realities (Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p. 198).

Waitt (2005) stipulates that examining the structure of discourse is extremely important, including how ideas are represented and the way in which texts are

Page | 57

(i) to explore the outcomes of discourse in terms of actions, perceptions, or attitudes rather than the simply the analysis of statements/texts; (ii) to identify the regulatory frameworks within which groups of statements are produced, circulated and communicated within which people construct their utterances and thoughts; and (iii) to uncover the support or internal mechanisms that maintain certain structures and rules over statements about people, animals, plants, events, and places in existence as unchangeable, ‘normal’, or ‘common-sense’ rather than to discover the ‘truth’ of the ‘origin’ of a statement. (Waitt, 2005, p. 165)

The concept of discourse has largely been inspired by the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault (1972) refers to ‘discourse’ as:

practices that [are] system-articulated,[and] form the objects of which they speak…It is an orientation to practice that views social worlds and their subjectivities as always already embedded and embodied in its discursive conventions. (Gubrium & Holstein, 2000, p. 494)

Discourse not only puts words to work; it gives them their meaning, constructs

perceptions, and formulates understanding and ongoing courses of interaction (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 494). According to Howarth (2002), “Discourses, then, are made up of a limited number of statements for which a group of conditions of existence can be defined” (Foucault, 1972, cited in Howarth, 2002 p.120). “It is produced by the

difference between what one could say correctly (under the rules of grammar and logic) and what is actually said” (Foucault, 1972 cited in Howarth, 2002 p.120). Following this line of argument, Hajer (2003) posits:

Foucault's theory of discourse shows that the reference to institutional

backgrounds or vested interests is an unsatisfactory circular explanation because institutions are only powerful in so far as they are constituted as authorities vis- a-vis other actors through discourse. Similarly, interests cannot be taken as given apriori but are constituted through discourse. The point here is that interests have to be constantly reproduced and will change over time, for instance, through what Foucault described as the play of discontinuities between discourses. (p.50)

Unpacking the discursive structure of discourse and its rationality is likely to reveal the democratic quality of the debates underpinning the idea (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005). Application of discourse analysis therefore problematised the processes by which and through which policy problems and even policy arenas are constructed (Feindt & Oels, 2005). “A discourse analysis of policy making shows how environmental problems and a related set of subjects and objects are discursively produced and rendered

governable” (Feindt & Oels, 2005, p. 163). In analysing the discursive formation, Howarth (2002) pointed out the four elements which are necessary for analysing

Page | 58

discursive formation; they are objects about which a statement is produced, the place where a statement is uttered, the concept involved, relevant themes, and position. Based on this, the basic assumptions underpinning discourse have to be carefully observed, as do the position and context of its emergence. The four elements are necessary for discourse analysis. Of particular interest is the social context in which discourse

emerges and the discursive acts and actors’ positions, including power and knowledge, which form the discourse (Hajer, 2003a). In addition, the actors’ positions towards the framing of environmental problems and the issues of representation and the social and cognitive processes through which discourse emerges need to be considered (Hajer, 2003b).

What is central to discourse analysis is ways in which certain problems are represented, how differences are played out, and how social coalitions on specific meanings sometimes emerge. Hajer (2003) further notes that “discourse analysis investigates… how particular framing of an issue makes certain elements appear as fixed or appropriate while other elements appear problematic” (Hajer, 2003a, p. 54). This implies that while particular framing gains dominance and others are deceived or lose ground. In analysing representations of discourse, Hajer (2003) draws attention to the following processes: discourse structurisation (actors construct discourse and aim to persuade others by their position and power to interpret

discourse in the same way); institutionalisation (the process by which discourse turns to practices and institutions); and coalition (storylines and practices to influence the views of other actors).

In particular, Hajer (2003) defines discourse-coalitions “as the ensemble of (1) key story-lines” and; (2) the actors who utter these story-lines; and (3) the practices in which this discursive activity is based” (Hajer, 2003a, p. 64). Storylines are

described as “the medium through which actors try to impose their view of reality on others, suggest certain social positions and practices, and criticize alternative social arrangements” (Hajer, 1993, p. 47). Therefore, in order to understand how some discourses gain dominance, it reveals the power of storylines legitimating or

discrediting certain discourses. Hajer (2003) explicitly states that storylines are made from narratives which are uttered to convince other social actors and to gain

influence. Drawing from Hajer’s discourse coaltion approach, the three characters are unpacked and explained.

In summary, discourse analysis is used in this thesis to unpack the following: (1) the key storylines that underpin Sesan water resources development and

management and the positions of actors; (2) the discursive framing of Sesan

Page | 59

the key Sesan water players to maintain the power of the storylines The use of a discourse analysis approach in this thesis allows an analysis of the social framing of Sesan water governance in a way that demonstrates the power of discourse in shaping the practices of water resources management and water governance.