Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
representations of the world and access those most relevant to explain their
current situation. In this way people may appear to be inconsistent.
A similar critique is also provided from a discourse analysis perspective
which is also, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, critical of social representations
theory, particularly given that the two perspectives share some similar ideas.
The discourse critique of social representations suggests the concept is too
vague and pays little attention to power and ideology while representations
are too prescriptive, requiring passive acceptance of ideas by social groups
(Voelklein and Howarth, 2005). Discourse analysis, on the other hand,
focuses on the power of spoken and written language as a functional tool that
structures actions in relation to context (Potter and Wetherell, 1987).
Discourse is important in the reproduction of ideas in everyday life (Van Dijk,
1997). Discourse can vary across conversational contexts and thus people
exhibit apparently different perspectives according to the social context
(Willig, 2003).
There has been limited application of discourse analysis in the tourism or
transport field, although there is considerable potential to apply this perspec-
tive particularly in the contested area of climate change (Dickinson et al,
2010b). For example, Becken (2007) argues the discourse of air travel and cli-
mate change has been largely produced by the aviation industry. Gössling and
Peeters (2007) identify four major discourses used by airlines that do not con-
cur with the current scientific understanding. Such discourses can therefore be
employed by individuals to justify air travel even where individuals may be
well aware of the climate change impacts. As Frändberg (2005, p275) sug-
gests, 'particular ways of understanding environmental problems and their
solutions are “co-produced” and “co-refused”'. In this respect, discourses are
more powerful than the actual sense conveyed by the words, as they can actu-
ally construct and perpetuate a social reality. For instance, Frändberg's (2005)
discourse analysis of tourism and the environment in the mid-1990s identified
four 'story lines' that focus on the benign nature of tourism and exclude the
problems caused by transport. In a similar vein, Guiver (2007) shows how bus
travel is frequently constructed on the basis of 'worst case scenarios', while car
travel is not, highlighting the strategic use of a discourse strategy to generate
an unequal status for bus travel.
Qualitative research has revealed that people can experience a level of dis-
comfort when discussing holiday travel and climate change (Dickinson et al,
2010b), and Dickinson et al (2010a) show how people ably employ a variety
of discursive strategies to maintain a positive self-presentation. One such dis-
cursive strategy is for people to question their power to act. This was achieved
through the use of three discourses: politics preventing progress - making ref-
erence to limited government activity to address climate change (a finding also
consistent with Becken, 2007); scientific scepticism - references to a conflict-
ing basis for the science of climate change; and claiming limited awareness of
climate change. A second discursive strategy was to express ambivalence
towards appropriate climate change mitigation actions in a holiday context.
This was predominantly expressed through exhibiting green credentials in
other aspects of life that were felt to offset potential holiday impacts. Thus
