CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.6 Discursive knowledge (discourses)
2.6.2 Environmental discourses
Growing environmental awareness and increasing contestation of environmental issues, especially within industrialised countries, has led to the politicisation of such issues (Dryzek, 2005). This has in turn resulted in increasing research and debate focussed on environmental politics. Environmental discourses present a useful concept for understanding public conceptions of science (and the environment) and its relationship with policy. Making sense of environmental discourses can potentially improve comprehension of the politics of environmental policy-making.
Dryzek (2005: 8) defines environmental politics as “the politics of the earth”. Analysing and understanding environmental politics is challenging since there are no “well-defined boxes”
within which environmental issues can be placed. Environmental problems, such as the issue of beach water quality management in Durban, are inherently complex since they are located at the intersection of tow complex systems, environmental ecosystems and society (Dryzek, 2005). Furthermore, the manner in which environmental problems are discursively framed can
25
have a significant impact on their interpretation by others, both spatially and over time. The very same problem can be conceptualised by different individuals, groups, or institutions in starkly contrasting ways since “contests over meaning are ubiquitous, and the way we think about basic concepts … can change quite dramatically over time”, with “the consequences for politics and policies on environmental issues [being] quite major” (Dryzek, 2005: 5). Hajer and Versteeg (2005b) term this condition ‘multi-signification’ which means that there are potentially multiple signals directing interpretation by different actors.
Since environmental politics is about meaning and contestation over the framing of the environmental problem or issue at hand (Brosius, 1999), a useful approach to understanding such politics is to undertake a discourse analysis. Moreover, because “the impact of a discourse can often be felt in the policies of governments or intergovernmental bodies, and in institutional structure” (Dryzek, 2005: 20), environmental politics related to the beach water quality management policies of eThekwini Municipality can be interpreted through the lens of discourse analysis.
The importance of a particular discourse and the degree to which it is accepted and used by actors is dependent largely on the manner in which it is framed. Discourses are influential because they provide the ontological assumptions that frame the issue at hand and thus determine the realm of possibilities and potential solutions available to researchers and the public at large. Discourses can therefore be said to be “bound up with political power” (Dryzek, 2005: 9). This in turn influences the relationship between science and society and has ramifications for the way in which science is perceived by a public that potentially subscribes to a broad spectrum of discourses.
In this research it is proposed that there are many types of knowledge that provide alternative, and potentially contrasting, understandings of an environmental issue (Callon, 1999). The focus in this study is on beach water quality in Durban as an environmental knowledge issue or controversy requiring management in coastal zone governance or ICM. It is here argued that multiple alternative discourses exist among knowledge holders of each knowledge type.
Dryzek (1997) distinguishes between three sets of environmental discourses that have been historically prominent and institutionalised: problem-solving discourses; survivalism discourses; and sustainability discourses focussed on green radicalism. This research focuses
26
on the problem-solving discourse which can be further broken down into ‘administrative rationalism’, ‘democratic pragmatism’, and ‘economic rationalism’ (Dryzek, 1997). A link can be discerned between these three discourses and Callon's (1999) models of knowledge production. In each discourse a particular knowledge type is dominant. These three discourses therefore warrant a brief description.
Administrative rationalism
The discourse of administrative rationalism is a ‘leave-it-to-the-expert’ approach (van Heerden, 2008). The ‘public deficit model’, in which the public is assumed to be unable to meaningfully contribute to a solution is one such example of this discourse (Dryzek, 1997).
This model could also be termed PEM (Callon, 1999). According to Dryzek (1997), there are a number of practices and institutions within which the administrative rationalism discourse is evident. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a systematic, check list approach to assessing and predicting environmental impacts, is one such manifestation of the discourse, as it is an expert-led process (Dryzek, 1997). Others include resource-management institutions, pollution control agencies, regulatory policy instruments, and expert advisory commissions.
By seeking to ‘leave-it-to-the-experts’ the discourse “adbicat[es]…public authority in favour of unrepresentative private interests powerful enough to secure a place in the dialogue”
(Dryzek, 1997: 96). Citizens are largely denied an opportunity to participate in decision- making circles, effectively constraining and possibly preventing an expansive democracy from being realised. Expert, scientific knowledge dominates this discourse.
Democratic pragmatism
According to Dryzek (1997) the discourse of democratic pragmatism is characterised as being an interactive problem-solving discourse. A critical assumption of the discourse is that all citizens enjoy equality and have the “right to exert political pressure, be they scientists, elected officials, pressure group leaders, ordinary voters, or ordinary non-voters” (Dryzek, 1997: 114).
Emphasis is therefore placed on the inclusion of all role-players in the decision-making and problem-solving arena. Democratic pragmatism seeks to democratise decision- and policy- making while attempting to address some of the shortcomings of the administrative rationalism discourse. Callon's (1999) PDM and CKM provide good examples of a continuum in which the principle of democratic pragmatism is embodied, with CKM being the more democratic of the two. There are many ways in which the presence of this discourse is made apparent. The public consultation component of EIA is an example of this discourse because this is the point
27
at which information is sought from a variety of perspectives, via the public (Dryzek, 1997).
Other devices include alternative dispute resolution, policy dialogue, lay citizen deliberation, public inquiries, and right-to-know legislation A crucial premise of this discourse is the emphasis placed on “interactive problem solving involving participants within government and outside it” (Dryzek, 1997: 108). Democratic pragmatism focuses on governance and not government and is therefore able to constructively contribute to deliberation in the ‘network society’.
Economic rationalism
Dryzek (1997) defines economic rationalism as a ‘leave-it-to-the-market’ approach to problem-solving. This discourse advocates for a market-driven response to decision-making, allowing the market to provide suitable solutions (van Heerden, 2008). This discourse has achieved prominence in most of the world and has fallen under a multitude of labels, from neoliberalism to free-market conservatism and even to Thatcherism and Reagonomics (Dryzek, 1997). Economic imperatives are prioritised in this discourse, achieved through economic policy promoting laissez-faire economics. Governments and NGOs throughout the world make use of this discourse (Dryzek, 1997). In its most radical form the discourse promotes the privatisation of everything (including the environment) and stresses the benefits that can accrue when the prices are right and property rights are in place. Within this discourse, environmental problems are viewed as resulting from a failure to establish the correct prices or property rights, and not from private economic interests (Mitchell and Simmons 1994, cited in Dryzek, 1997). Responsibility for environmental problem is thus abdicated. A tenuous link is evident between Blue Flag, a tourism ecolabel and market mechanism, and this discourse.
How environmental discourses are taken up by governments, institutions, and the public and included in policy is a complex process and in many cases involves the creation of an environmental brand which is justified by its adherence to particular standards, norms and indicators. One way of reinforcing a specific environmental commodity or product is through the creation of ‘ecolabels’.