Knowledge and power

Knowledge and power are closely inter-connected (J. Allen, 2003; Foucault, 1980). Haas (2004) asks “when does power listen to truth?” Pettenger (2007a, p. 2) asks, in relation to climate change, "when does knowledge achieve power and bring change?” Most see power as controlling knowledge. Political actions are about gaining power for a particular interest or viewpoint and the social constructions that benefits that position (Crotty, 1998; Hannigan, 1995). “When we say that something is a social construction, we are acknowledging that social facts are facts for social purposes” (Pettenger, 2007b, p. xiv). Demeritt (1994, p. 30) writes about the “the tyranny of narrative … story-telling is inevitably an exercise of power". Cromby and Nightingale (1999, p. 5) consider “knowledge is inextricably linked to, and emerges as a product of, activity and purpose”. Likewise Foucault (1980) considered, that in a non-economic analysis, power is “exercised, and that it only exists in action” (p. 89). Escobar (1995) cited in (Guthman, 1997, p. 66) considers: “The facts then, are not the issue, but rather, who has the power to claim they are facts.” Foucault (1980, p. 114) considers that it is power that determines meaning and truth: “The history which bears and determines us has the form of a war rather than that of a language: relations of power, not relations of meaning.”

Interest group claims-making is targeted at gaining media attention as a vehicle to influence public opinion and government policy makers in their favour (Best, 1987; Dunlap, Michelson, & Stalker, 2002; Karlberg, 1997; Lange, 1996). Lange (1996), analysing the North American spotted owl controversy, describes how opposed sides in resource conflicts mirror and match each others discursive strategies which he calls 'interactive logic'. The strategies he includes are framing the issue to suit the groups interests, which are then reframed by the opposed group. Quantitative measures incorporated are at the extreme high or low which ever supports the

rhetoric, each side vilifies the other and ennobles their own, the issue is simplified and dramatised, and both sides lobby government and legally challenge decisions that are contrary to their interests. He makes the point that this is primarily via the mass media and without direct communication between the parties. Best (1987) considers that as 'claims-makers' become more experienced they construct claims that are newsworthy and become attuned to approaches that influence the policy makers. Karlberg (1997) notes that the news media itself covers many environmental issues in an adversarial frame, as a dichotomy or duality, with focus on the extremes, report instead of investigating the positional statements, and reduce the debate to a cost- benefit analysis.

The exercise of power can be envisaged as a web, network (Foucault, 1980) or labyrinth, some of the paths prescribed and formal, some of the paths less than explicit. The labyrinth is not two but four dimensional. In addition to the spatial dimension (J. Allen, 2003) the labyrinth includes a third vertical hierarchical dimension of authority and submission (J. Allen, 2003) and a fourth dimension of past knowledge and activity as the historical basis of the status quo (Foucault, 1980). At each of the intersections and locations in the labyrinth there is the potential for the reinterpretation of ‘fact’ because “individuals are the vehicles of power” (p. 98) and have the potential to ‘translate’ knowledge and meaning. It is the structure of the labyrinth that holds together all the resources and relationships. Spatially the resources of government are centralised, most grandly nationally and then to a lesser extent regionally. The physical structures and resources are not power per se, but the physical monuments and resources house and enable the exercise of power (J. Allen, 2003). With increasing distance from the centre of power, resistance increases correspondingly (Foucault, 1980). The exercise of power requires the constant mobilisation of resources, by temporarily combining with other groups, and through charismatic or expert leadership (J. Allen, 2003). Compliance is always conditional and the chain of command ambiguous as its authority is embodied in individuals (J. Allen, 2003). Power and control are never complete. Scarce (1999, 2000) found although salmon biologists were constrained by research funding specifications at the control/power end of a notional continuum, individual impulses towards the freedom/self-determination end of the continuum, undid total dominance.

The more tightly a bureaucratic process is inscribed, the less room there is for alternative translations (Latour 1987) cited in (J. Allen, 2003), particularly if access to key material is restricted. Visual representation of space as paintings, as maps, as title documents, as diagrams can all serve to extend the power of the network to gather in the biophysical natural world. Cartography, art and survey plans were tools of the colonial commodification of the land (Burrows, 2005; Gregory, 2001; Hall-Jones, 1992). Scarce (2000) considers the computerised modelling of 'whole ecosystems' an attempt to extend total control over the environment.

Predominance can change. Karl Marx considers that the interests of those who controlled the means of production predominated (Crotty, 1998). Whoever prevails politically will impose their social construction of nature and thus their landscape. “The dominant discourses surrounding the politics … play a critical role in privileging particular actors, problem definitions, and solutions in the policy process” (Cass & Pettenger, 2007, p. 236). Conservation (Holdgate, 1999) and environmentalism (R. White, 1995) as emergent constructions of nature are seen as largely urban in origin.