42
2
concerned with arguments and courses of action in a narrative. In addition to such
storylines, narratives also tend to contain a gallery of actors, such as the archetypical heroes, villains and victims (Svarstad 2009).
Narratives are stories with a beginning, middle and an end, or when cast in the
form of an argument, with premises and conclusions. According to Roe (1999: 6),
» crisis narratives are the primary means whereby development experts, and the institutions for which they work, claim rights to stewardship over land and resources
they do not own. By generating and appealing to crisis narratives, technical experts
and managers assert rights as “stakeholders” in the land and resources they say are
under crisis.
In a development context, this means that crisis narratives have portrayed marginalized people as the villains (and usually also the victims of their own mismanagement), while external experts associated with state polices are presented as the
heroes who provide the solutions. In this way, states and other powerful actors have
used such narratives to assert authority over land and natural resources at the
expense of customary land-users (e.g. Leach and Mearns 1996; Stott and Sullivan
2000; Bassett and Bi Zuéli 2000; Adger et al. 2001).
Metaphors are also frequently used in environmental discourse (Larson 2014),
as well as in the communication of crisis narratives. Well-known examples are
‘spaceship earth’, ‘the sinking ark’, ‘greenhouse’, population bomb’, ‘tragedy of
the commons’, ‘land grabbing’, ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘creeping desert’ to mention
just a few. Metaphors are essential ingredients in communication and the rhetorical
power of metaphors is well-known in politics and, in particular, by politicians and
policymakers (Charteris-Black 2011).
However, as mentioned, the role of images in environmental discourse and in
crisis narratives seems to be a neglected topic. To help us conceptualize the impact
of images within environmental narratives, the classic work of Roland Barthes may
be useful. Building on structuralist theory, Barthes (1961) articulates visual communication into the two separate levels of denotation (literal meaning of an image)
and connotation (societal values communicated through an image). He added that
image and text are closely connected, and that image does not necessarily illustrate
text, but that it may often be the other way around. The caption, in particular, is
included in the image denotation.
Later, Barthes (1972) added myth as a third layer, which refers to historically
grounded ideological ideas that are evoked by an image. Myth is depoliticized
speech that ‘has the task of giving a historical intention a natural justification, and
making contingency appear eternal’ (Barthes 1972: 254).
Barthes’ conception of ‘myth’ can be seen as closely linked to Foucault’s idea
about questioning what is taken for granted in a society. This has inspired political
ecologists to study and question established ‘truths’ about various environment and
development issues (Leach and Mearns 1996; Stott and Sullivan 2000; Adger et al.
2001; Paulson and Gezon 2005). Such truths have in political ecology been studied
as mainstream views, received wisdom, dominant or policy narratives and myths.
However, it will often be difficult to separate in practice these three levels of
meaning, because interpretation will vary with cultural background and also
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions
2
concerned with arguments and courses of action in a narrative. In addition to such
storylines, narratives also tend to contain a gallery of actors, such as the archetypical heroes, villains and victims (Svarstad 2009).
Narratives are stories with a beginning, middle and an end, or when cast in the
form of an argument, with premises and conclusions. According to Roe (1999: 6),
» crisis narratives are the primary means whereby development experts, and the institutions for which they work, claim rights to stewardship over land and resources
they do not own. By generating and appealing to crisis narratives, technical experts
and managers assert rights as “stakeholders” in the land and resources they say are
under crisis.
In a development context, this means that crisis narratives have portrayed marginalized people as the villains (and usually also the victims of their own mismanagement), while external experts associated with state polices are presented as the
heroes who provide the solutions. In this way, states and other powerful actors have
used such narratives to assert authority over land and natural resources at the
expense of customary land-users (e.g. Leach and Mearns 1996; Stott and Sullivan
2000; Bassett and Bi Zuéli 2000; Adger et al. 2001).
Metaphors are also frequently used in environmental discourse (Larson 2014),
as well as in the communication of crisis narratives. Well-known examples are
‘spaceship earth’, ‘the sinking ark’, ‘greenhouse’, population bomb’, ‘tragedy of
the commons’, ‘land grabbing’, ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘creeping desert’ to mention
just a few. Metaphors are essential ingredients in communication and the rhetorical
power of metaphors is well-known in politics and, in particular, by politicians and
policymakers (Charteris-Black 2011).
However, as mentioned, the role of images in environmental discourse and in
crisis narratives seems to be a neglected topic. To help us conceptualize the impact
of images within environmental narratives, the classic work of Roland Barthes may
be useful. Building on structuralist theory, Barthes (1961) articulates visual communication into the two separate levels of denotation (literal meaning of an image)
and connotation (societal values communicated through an image). He added that
image and text are closely connected, and that image does not necessarily illustrate
text, but that it may often be the other way around. The caption, in particular, is
included in the image denotation.
Later, Barthes (1972) added myth as a third layer, which refers to historically
grounded ideological ideas that are evoked by an image. Myth is depoliticized
speech that ‘has the task of giving a historical intention a natural justification, and
making contingency appear eternal’ (Barthes 1972: 254).
Barthes’ conception of ‘myth’ can be seen as closely linked to Foucault’s idea
about questioning what is taken for granted in a society. This has inspired political
ecologists to study and question established ‘truths’ about various environment and
development issues (Leach and Mearns 1996; Stott and Sullivan 2000; Adger et al.
2001; Paulson and Gezon 2005). Such truths have in political ecology been studied
as mainstream views, received wisdom, dominant or policy narratives and myths.
However, it will often be difficult to separate in practice these three levels of
meaning, because interpretation will vary with cultural background and also
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions