41
2
both approaches have a focus on language. People do not only create language, but
are also created by it. These labels (‘structuralist’, ‘poststructuralist’) have, however, rarely been used by scholars who have been associated with these ideas and
several of the leading thinkers in the field can be seen as representatives of both
structuralism and poststructuralism (e.g. Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes).
De Saussure had developed the idea that a sign can be seen as both ‘signifier’
(the form a sign takes) and ‘signified’ (the concept it refers to). Furthermore, signs
are given meaning through the relationship with other signs within a structure (e.g.
language). Poststructuralist writings, however, question this binary opposition
between signifier and signified. Therefore, to understand an object it is necessary
both to study the object itself as well as its meaning (i.e. the discursive level).
In practice, this has meant that poststructuralist writings have focused on what
is said and written about an object or a phenomenon. Through historical studies
on topics such as the medical treatment of madness and punishment and prison
administration, Foucault (1979, 1988) showed how practice in different periods has
been linked to discourses that have defined what has been seen as meaningful, true
and accepted forms of statements and actions.
A discourse can be defined as an established knowledge regime linked to a particular phenomenon or theme (see 7 Chap. 3 for more on discourses). Leading or
hegemonic discourses are shared among powerful actors. One dimension of globalization is that a limited number of discourses dominate global debates. In this
book, we will show different examples of how global discourses about environment
and development can impact both national and local levels.
In environmental discourse analysis, nature is studied as a contested notion
with the basic assumption that language not only reflects, but also shapes our views
of the world and reality (Hajer and Versteeg 2005). Various discursive elements
have been analysed since the emergence of environmental discourse analysis in the
early 1990s with particularly narratives and metaphors as rhetorical devices occupying a central role (Hajer 1995; Dryzek 1997; Adger et al. 2001).
Images (drawings, photographs, maps) as forms of non-verbal rhetorical
devices have been studied to a lesser extent in political ecology and environmental
discourse analysis in general (Benjaminsen 2020). The recent focus on ‘Nature 2.0’
within political ecology, which is concerned with a combination of visual and textual analysis, may, however, be seen as an exception. Nature 2.0 refers to the
increased use of social media by environmental organizations, which has rapidly
changed the political economy of conservation, and led to a reimaging of nature
and human-nature relations (Büscher 2016). This literature focuses on the study of
human alienation from nature combined with remote environmental engagement
through the use of new media, such as conservation websites, blogs, videos, photos,
text and online chat forums. For instance, Igoe (2017) studies the use of romanticized and spectacular online photographs and videos of African wildlife and wilderness to sell safari destinations as well as conservation interventions, but which
adversely result in alienation and commodity fetishism.
In discourse analysis carried out within environment and development studies
as well as in political ecology, Emery Roe’s approach to narrative analysis with a
focus on crisis narratives has been influential (Roe 1991, 1999). Roe is especially
2.3 · Poststructuralism
2
both approaches have a focus on language. People do not only create language, but
are also created by it. These labels (‘structuralist’, ‘poststructuralist’) have, however, rarely been used by scholars who have been associated with these ideas and
several of the leading thinkers in the field can be seen as representatives of both
structuralism and poststructuralism (e.g. Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes).
De Saussure had developed the idea that a sign can be seen as both ‘signifier’
(the form a sign takes) and ‘signified’ (the concept it refers to). Furthermore, signs
are given meaning through the relationship with other signs within a structure (e.g.
language). Poststructuralist writings, however, question this binary opposition
between signifier and signified. Therefore, to understand an object it is necessary
both to study the object itself as well as its meaning (i.e. the discursive level).
In practice, this has meant that poststructuralist writings have focused on what
is said and written about an object or a phenomenon. Through historical studies
on topics such as the medical treatment of madness and punishment and prison
administration, Foucault (1979, 1988) showed how practice in different periods has
been linked to discourses that have defined what has been seen as meaningful, true
and accepted forms of statements and actions.
A discourse can be defined as an established knowledge regime linked to a particular phenomenon or theme (see 7 Chap. 3 for more on discourses). Leading or
hegemonic discourses are shared among powerful actors. One dimension of globalization is that a limited number of discourses dominate global debates. In this
book, we will show different examples of how global discourses about environment
and development can impact both national and local levels.
In environmental discourse analysis, nature is studied as a contested notion
with the basic assumption that language not only reflects, but also shapes our views
of the world and reality (Hajer and Versteeg 2005). Various discursive elements
have been analysed since the emergence of environmental discourse analysis in the
early 1990s with particularly narratives and metaphors as rhetorical devices occupying a central role (Hajer 1995; Dryzek 1997; Adger et al. 2001).
Images (drawings, photographs, maps) as forms of non-verbal rhetorical
devices have been studied to a lesser extent in political ecology and environmental
discourse analysis in general (Benjaminsen 2020). The recent focus on ‘Nature 2.0’
within political ecology, which is concerned with a combination of visual and textual analysis, may, however, be seen as an exception. Nature 2.0 refers to the
increased use of social media by environmental organizations, which has rapidly
changed the political economy of conservation, and led to a reimaging of nature
and human-nature relations (Büscher 2016). This literature focuses on the study of
human alienation from nature combined with remote environmental engagement
through the use of new media, such as conservation websites, blogs, videos, photos,
text and online chat forums. For instance, Igoe (2017) studies the use of romanticized and spectacular online photographs and videos of African wildlife and wilderness to sell safari destinations as well as conservation interventions, but which
adversely result in alienation and commodity fetishism.
In discourse analysis carried out within environment and development studies
as well as in political ecology, Emery Roe’s approach to narrative analysis with a
focus on crisis narratives has been influential (Roe 1991, 1999). Roe is especially
2.3 · Poststructuralism