DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH
Layer 1: Analysis of storylines, metaphors and myths
The terms of policy discourses in this layer comprise for the most part storylines; however metaphors and myths also fall into this category. These textual utterances play a large role in
“sustaining societal support for particular policy programmes” (Hajer, 2003:6). Since it is often the case that storylines contain or carry metaphors, and myths are incorporated into storylines, the concept and function of storylines are elaborated further here than myths and metaphors.
Storylines
Stories are believed to play a considerable role in argumentative policy analysis, because they are often used by policy analysts, planners and other role players in decision-making to frame and conduct their arguments (Kaplan, 1993). Hajer (2003:10) defines storylines as “(crisp) generative statements that bring together previously unrelated elements of reality and thus facilitate coalition formation”. It is an umbrella term that includes discursive practices such as
“metaphors; analogies; historical references; clichés; appeals to collective fears or senses of guilt” (Hajer, 1995:63). All of these practices have the same function within the context of discursive intercourse in that they create the common ground necessary to facilitate communication. When actors, each with their disparate perception of reality or understanding of what the policy problem is, engage in the process of argumentation with other actors within a policy network, a mechanism is required to create a shared orientation of a policy problem, so that antagonism is reduced and problem closure is achieved. Hajer (1995:63) remarks that these practices are the “discursive cement that creates communicative networks among actors with different or at best overlapping perceptions and understandings”. Storylines therefore
assist in the construction of the policy problem and facilitate the creation of a policy network that is required to reach problem closure.
Storylines are valuable for reducing the tangled mess that could ensue from discursive interaction. In many cases the issues under debate are complex and multifaceted, thereby making problem closure unlikely. Storylines function to reduce this discursive (disciplinary) complexity by providing actors with “a set of symbolic references that suggest a common understanding” (Hajer, 1995:62). However, Hajer (1995) stresses that although storylines may allow for shared orientations, they do not necessarily allow for shared understandings of the policy problem. For example, the storyline that ‘PFM is the only way’ suggests that respondents may have a shared orientation about the future of indigenous forest management in South Africa. This does not mean that all respondents who use this storyline agree on why PFM is the only way. Their perception of the problem and understanding of how and why PFM is the solution differs. The complexity of these differences is hidden behind the storyline, which thus serves to reduce the complexity by suggesting something that more actors would find agreement on and around which a discourse coalition could be formed. Storylines, in reducing discursive complexity, represent complex data so that details are recalled when the storyline is mentioned. For example, the storyline of the ‘pre/post 1994 dispensation’ is an historical reference that brings to mind the shifts that were required in South African government departments and society post 1994. Just by mentioning ‘1994’ these shifts are recalled and so ‘1994’ here brings to mind the shifts and the storyline as a whole without recalling all the political and social complexities associated with it.
In addition to reducing discursive complexity, storylines give permanence to the policy debate by taking on a ritual character. Hajer (1995:63) states that this occurs as storylines “become
‘tropes’ or figures of speech that rationalise a specific approach to what seems to be a coherent problem”. For example, attributing the historical ‘fences and fines’ approach to natural resource management as the reason PFM was needed in South Africa has been given permanence in the South African people-parks debate. When the people-parks issue is raised, the issue of fences and fines is automatically linked, which serves to entrench this concept in the debate, despite there being alternative approaches. It makes sense to talk about ‘fences and fines’ when the issue of people and parks is raised even though the veracity of this logic has not been critiqued. In this way a particular perspective is associated with a policy problem owing to the repetition of the storyline within which that perspective is encapsulated.
Storylines also assist in the process of positioning. According to Hajer (1995) they are the devices through which actors are positioned. For example, DWAF might be positioned as the
‘experts’ or ‘developers’ in the management of indigenous forests; some actors might be positioned as ‘the ones to blame’ or ‘the ones at fault’. Through positioning, discourse coalitions are formed. The influence of storylines in discourse formation is a feature that distinguishes discourse coalitions from other, traditional political coalitions. Hajer (1995:66) remarks that “it is storylines, not interests which form the basis of the coalition whereby storylines can potentially change previous understandings of what the actors’ interests are”.
For example, through the promotion of particular storylines, an actor’s interests may appear to shift. Although their interests may remain the same, the storylines may position the actor in a way that suggests a change of interests and necessitates the formation of new coalitions. The actor may be no longer positioned as the law enforcer but rather as the developer.
With respect to the functions of storylines within discourse coalitions, argumentative analysis holds that “in a struggle for discursive hegemony, coalitions are formed among actors (that might perceive their position and interest according to widely different discourses) that, for various reasons are attracted to a specific (set of) storylines” (Hajer, 1995:65). These storylines enable previously independent practices to be related to one another and for a common discourse to emerge which gives these different, independent practices meaning or legitimacy within a given political project. Storylines therefore assist in the formation of discourse coalitions, but in so doing also function to “help people to fit their bit of knowledge, experience or expertise in the larger jigsaw of a policy debate” (Hajer, 2003:6). Hajer (1995) comments that storylines provide a mechanism for actors to construct knowledge about a phenomenon that is ordinarily beyond their realm of experience or expertise and in so doing, expanding their own insight and discursive abilities.
The extent to which a new policy discourse is able to become dominant or hegemonic is dependent upon its attractiveness but also on the cognitive power of its storylines. This power does not come about only by individual strategic choice or by logic but also because of the discursive affinities that are created through storylines (Hajer, 1995). If something has discursive affinity it means that “separate elements might have a similar cognitive or discursive structure which suggest that they belong together” (Hajer, 1995:66-67). Hajer explains this concept using the example of Darwinism. He comments that Darwin borrowed the idea of
‘competition’ from the social sciences and used it as a metaphor to explain an observed phenomenon in the natural world. The concept of competition therefore is a storyline that becomes hegemonic in the natural science evolutionary discourse based on the fact that it sounds plausible owing to it having a similar discursive structure to the meaning of the concept in the social science discourse.
Storylines play a large role in argumentative discourse analysis, both in constructing the problem and creating the opportunities for problem closure. They also are significant to the process of positioning and coalition formation.
Metaphors
Metaphors can be defined as “linguistic devices that convey understanding through comparison” (Hajer, 2003:6) and function to reduce the complexity of policy issues so that different actors are able to engage in communication over them. When it comes to solving problems, there is generally no one who is an expert on all elements of the problem. Metaphors create a common ground between various discourses and also:
“give the actors an opportunity to create their own understanding of the problem, interpreting various elements of knowledge outside their specific realm of competence, or filling in the gaps and ambivalences that were left by the original text” (Hajer, 1995:62).
With reference to Schön (1979) Hajer (1995:61) suggests that metaphors are a useful way of
“representing scientific findings in non-scientific discourse”. It is often the case that complex scientific data needs to be recorded in a manner that enables politicians to incorporate it into their political discourse. Incorporation into a political discourse is necessary if the issue is to be seen as politically relevant. The metaphor uses a particular discourse to record issues or data in a format that can be taken up by political discourse. This is how generative metaphors function to reproduce discourse (Hajer, 1995).
Metaphors, along with storylines also assist in the process of discursive closure by allowing the overcoming of fragmentation. Hajer (1995) refers to this as a process whereby complex research is reduced into catchy one-liners or visual representations. Discursive closure results in a loss of meaning and texts being open to various interpretations, but Hajer (1995) emphasises that this should happen in argumentative discourse analysis for conflict to be regulated.
Myths
Myths function along the logic that if something is said often enough and persuasively enough, sooner or later people will come to believe it as truth. Hajer (2003:6) states that myths “bring coherence by explaining why things cohere”. In other words, they bring unity by explaining why people should be united. Myths could either explain unity by consistently relating and reiterating a foundational event (a constitutive myth). They could also encourage people to coalesce to avoid disaster (a dystopian myth). The term ‘dystopia’ is the opposite of utopia and refers to an imaginary place or society in which everything is bad (Goodall, 1987). Thus people cohere to prevent the occurrence of ‘badness’ in an effort to restore a utopia. For example, people may be drawn into a discourse coalition in an effort to halt the destructiveness of certain actions that will ‘destroy’ the beauty or ecological integrity of a natural resource.
Therefore, a call to save the forests from destruction could constitute a dystopian myth, whilst a call for people to come together to participate in forest management based on a response to new democracy that removed ‘exclusionary and white dominated management of the past’
could be considered a constitutive myth. Myths result in a shift in thinking and the production of storylines that corroborate the myth.