So far, this section has attempted to critically analyse the current literature on discursive approaches to climate change. I have considered the strengths and
weaknesses of social constructivism and micro analysis as part of a discursive
approach to climate change and I have assessed the type of discourse analysis that has been carried out by other researchers. This final sub-section will deal with two issues which are important in the context of discursive politics in general, but even more pertinent to an issue like climate change: the role of agency and the limited prescriptive potential of discourse analysis.
One of the most frequent criticisms of discourse analysis is the lack of attention it pays to agency. If discourses construct the language we can use and the actions we can carry out, are we simply slaves to discursive structures? This was a particular criticism of Foucault’s work. One of Foucault’s unchanging aims was to
‘learn to what extent the effort to think one’s own history can free thought from what it silently thinks and so enable it to think differently’ (Ransom 1997, p.57). Despite this aim, critics contend that he did not leave much room for people to think
differently. Lukes (2004) argues that Foucault takes away the autonomy of the subject. If power relations exist in all interactions how can there be any autonomy for individuals? He claims that, ‘Foucault undermines the rational, autonomous moral agent’ (p.92). This is a potential problem for climate change politics. If dominant climate discourses are operating through the construction of ‘appropriate’ language and behaviour, how can individuals change their behaviour? Can we challenge dominant climate discourses?
For Foucault (1984a) resistance to dominant discourses was possible. He claims that, ‘in power relations there is necessarily the possibility of resistance because if there were no possibility of resistance, there would be no power relations at all’ (p.34). More specifically, Foucault distinguishes between power and
38
domination. Domination is the relationship between a master and slave where one agent forces another to act in a particular way. Relations of power only work if people are free and a relation of power is successful only when a free person acts in accordance with the dominant discourse (Foucault 1982, p.135). In their discursive account of climate change policy, Backstrand and Lovbrand (2006) specifically subscribe to a ‘notion of agency’ in discourse analysis. They argue that, ‘political power stems from the ability to articulate and set the terms of the discourse’ (p.52).
Similarly, Slocum (2004a) notes the resistance inherent in climate discourse:
‘Multiple publics bring different discourses to the fore through avenues other than the [Cities for Climate Protection] campaign that will interact with it, potentially
changing the terms of political discourse in the process’ (p.779).
Furthermore, the very fact that discourses are constructed indicates that they are not immutable; if they are constructed then they can be challenged. Carabine (2001) claims that ‘individuals are active agents and discourses are themselves in a state of constant reconstitution and contestation’ (p.279). Power relations work through us but we are simultaneously reproducing them; we are doing something active in this process. This leaves room for resistance and a challenge to the dominant discourse. A discursive approach is important because analysis at the micro level exposes how dominant discourses are reproduced. It is also likely to indicate signs of resistance and evidence of subversive discourses which challenge the established
‘truths’ surrounding climate change.
The other issue to be addressed is the prescriptive potential of a discursive project. If we accept a constructivist approach to the problem of climate change then how can we advocate any kind of solution to the problem? Jones (2002) asks, ‘if interests and power relations shape problem definitions, how can convincing cases be made for remedial action to prevent environmental problems’ (p.248)? Discursive analysis does not advocate a ‘better’ way to do things. The problem of climate change and any proposed solutions are social constructions and, as such, they are not ‘right’
or ‘wrong’; they are one interpretation of the issue.
For some, this may be considered a fundamental flaw in the project. What is the point of studying discourses of climate change and analysing the reproduction and subversion of dominant discourses, if one does not conclude with a prescription for improvement? Discourse analysis cannot identify specific problems and suggest
39
potential responses in the same way as the positivist work of Hale (2010) or Patchen (2010) claims to do.
Hajer and Versteeg (2005) claim that when it comes to an issue such as climate change, ‘the real contribution of this approach is not to be found in its
prescriptive force, but in the ability to trace the discursive power struggles underlying environmental politics’ (p.181). The point is not to present a ‘better’ version of the world or to criticise the way the world is at the moment. Rather, the point is to challenge the assumption that this is the way the world has to be. By understanding the ‘power struggles’ in debates over climate change we can identify possible alternative paths through the history of environmentalism. This is the critical nature of the discursive project:
A critique is not a matter of saying things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest’ (Foucault 1981, p.155).
The project is not a critique of dominant climate discourses. It is not engaged in the search for better ways to tackle the problem of climate change. It is a critical
discursive project which seeks to analyse the prevalent discourses of climate change and expose these as social constructions. The point is to illustrate the reinforcing relationship between the politics of climate change in everyday life and societal climate discourses. The analysis of these relationships addresses the question: how does this work? The contribution of a discursive approach lies in its ability to illustrate the many potential versions of the world.
However, that is not to say that the conclusions of a discursive analysis could not be applied to a more normative project. A discursive analysis can only tell us how power relations operate and how dominant discourses maintain that status. However, in doing so, it does challenge the inevitability of dominance and indicates sites of resistance. This information could be usefully applied to challenge these forms of power. By nature, the conclusions of a discursive project cannot be prescriptive, but they can be used as the basis for further critical work with potentially normative conclusions. It may be that the project can provide the analytical basis for such a normative critique.
40