92
4
4.1 Discourses and Practices
In 7 Chap. 3, we defined a discourse as a socially shared perspective on a phenomenon. Each discourse is based on assumptions, claims and arguments. Discourses
can be seen as lenses through which the subject is viewed, and discourses are created
and maintained by social actors. Within each discourse, contributions have some
similarity in content, and they may also be marked by use of the same types of
expressions such as certain metaphors and manners of relaying specific examples.
Dryzek (1997) argues that a discourse may have useful features for society by
providing a key to interpret environmental issues and thereby facilitating action.
At the same time, discourses also make their proponents blind from seeing alternative interpretations and actions. Thus, some discourses create important frameworks for interpretation of specific issues, and political decisions and ways of
handling these issues can be seen as results of these discourses. There are global
actors who contribute particularly actively to the design of leading discourses.
These actors thus practise discursive power.
We show in this chapter that there are a few discourses on the issue of conservation, which have, in various periods from the beginning of conservation in the late
nineteenth century until today, been prevalent and dominated at a global level.
Whereas discourses consist of something that is said and written, we see practices as the actions that are carried out. Thus, conservation discourses are produced, while practices of conservation take place, for instance, in the specific ways
protected areas are established and managed. Some may claim that these two
dimensions are inseparable and should be treated as such. Absolute borderlines
can obviously not be drawn between discourses and practices. Nevertheless, we
argue that it is useful to make an analytical distinction between the two in order to
show how and why the portraying of a specific practice by involved actors may differ substantially from the observations we have of the same practice. Thus, we
show how some actors contribute to the production of one discourse, while at the
same time taking part in a practice in compliance with a different discourse.
This approach implies that we are open to the possibility that some of the contributions to the production of a discourse may come from actors that sometimes
deliberately tell about specific practices in ways that deviate from their own knowledge about these practices. These are actors who see an interest in portraying the
practices in coherence with a particular discourse.
The approach we use here can be combined with the approach that Igoe et al.
(2010) propose for studies on conservation based on Gramsci’s terms ‘hegemony’
and ‘historic bloc’ (Gramsci 1971). An idea, or, as we will emphasise, a discourse on
conservation, ‘becomes hegemonic when it is so systematically and extensively promoted that it acquires the appearance of being the only feasible view of how best to
pursue and implement conservation goals’ (Igoe et al. 2010: 488). A historic bloc
» refers to a historic period in which groups who share particular interests come
together to form a distinctly dominant class. The ideas and agendas of this class
thus come to permeate an entire society’s understanding of the world (Igoe et al.
2010: 489–490).
Chapter 4 · Conservation Discourses Versus Practices
4
4.1 Discourses and Practices
In 7 Chap. 3, we defined a discourse as a socially shared perspective on a phenomenon. Each discourse is based on assumptions, claims and arguments. Discourses
can be seen as lenses through which the subject is viewed, and discourses are created
and maintained by social actors. Within each discourse, contributions have some
similarity in content, and they may also be marked by use of the same types of
expressions such as certain metaphors and manners of relaying specific examples.
Dryzek (1997) argues that a discourse may have useful features for society by
providing a key to interpret environmental issues and thereby facilitating action.
At the same time, discourses also make their proponents blind from seeing alternative interpretations and actions. Thus, some discourses create important frameworks for interpretation of specific issues, and political decisions and ways of
handling these issues can be seen as results of these discourses. There are global
actors who contribute particularly actively to the design of leading discourses.
These actors thus practise discursive power.
We show in this chapter that there are a few discourses on the issue of conservation, which have, in various periods from the beginning of conservation in the late
nineteenth century until today, been prevalent and dominated at a global level.
Whereas discourses consist of something that is said and written, we see practices as the actions that are carried out. Thus, conservation discourses are produced, while practices of conservation take place, for instance, in the specific ways
protected areas are established and managed. Some may claim that these two
dimensions are inseparable and should be treated as such. Absolute borderlines
can obviously not be drawn between discourses and practices. Nevertheless, we
argue that it is useful to make an analytical distinction between the two in order to
show how and why the portraying of a specific practice by involved actors may differ substantially from the observations we have of the same practice. Thus, we
show how some actors contribute to the production of one discourse, while at the
same time taking part in a practice in compliance with a different discourse.
This approach implies that we are open to the possibility that some of the contributions to the production of a discourse may come from actors that sometimes
deliberately tell about specific practices in ways that deviate from their own knowledge about these practices. These are actors who see an interest in portraying the
practices in coherence with a particular discourse.
The approach we use here can be combined with the approach that Igoe et al.
(2010) propose for studies on conservation based on Gramsci’s terms ‘hegemony’
and ‘historic bloc’ (Gramsci 1971). An idea, or, as we will emphasise, a discourse on
conservation, ‘becomes hegemonic when it is so systematically and extensively promoted that it acquires the appearance of being the only feasible view of how best to
pursue and implement conservation goals’ (Igoe et al. 2010: 488). A historic bloc
» refers to a historic period in which groups who share particular interests come
together to form a distinctly dominant class. The ideas and agendas of this class
thus come to permeate an entire society’s understanding of the world (Igoe et al.
2010: 489–490).
Chapter 4 · Conservation Discourses Versus Practices