Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
were then applied. As the analysis demonstrates, the discursive construc-
tion of the burning issue is more complex and nuanced than the two
broadly opposing pro- and anti-burning positions imply. We begin our
discourse analysis by applying Hajer's Foucauldian-inspired framework
before moving on to examine what Dryzek's Habermasian framework can
add to the analysis.
Applying Hajer's analytic framework
5
In keeping with Foucault's own work, Hajer has applied his ideas in
detailed case studies. This allows more extended engagement with the
ideas he has developed than is possible here, in the context of a discourse
analysis of a specii c text. Hence, the emphasis of the analysis will be on the
particular concept of story-lines. It must therefore be acknowledged that
some aspects of the Foucauldian approach are underplayed. The idea that
a discourse comprises a set of practices as well as a set of representations
is not given full weight by a text-based methodology. The emphasis on
practices within a Foucauldian approach should not, however, be taken
to exclude a concern with the text and the words it comprises. The use of
the Cape York seminar transcript provides an opportunity for considering
the story-lines embedded in these words and the potential for discourse
coalitions thereby created.
The main story-lines adopted by the key actors are set out in Table 6.1.
There is the clear distinction between two opposing discourses, constructed
as pro- and anti-burning. The strongly drawn distinction sets the context
or frame for the policy discussion and, as such, it can support the argu-
ment for two discourse coalitions coalescing around these two opposition
perspectives on the use of i re. In the 'pro' coalition are the Aborigines, the
government scientists and the pastoralists, while the residents of Wattle
Hills and the independent scientists make up the 'anti' coalition.
It might be argued that the anti-burning discourse is placed in the posi-
tion of challenging the established pro discourse, a task that is bound
to require additional discursive resources as the existing policy scenario
is well established. Those stakeholders who are anti-burning have to
promote a new story-line of 'i re is undesirable' and actively dismantle the
'i re is desirable' story-line. This suggestion of an embedded bias towards
the established 'pro' story-line is, however, somewhat undermined by the
framing of the seminar itself. The title of the seminar 'Tropics Under Fire'
and the illustration on the front cover of the conference transcript of a bird
and other iconic animals (such as kangaroos) l eeing smoke and l ames
lit by a giant, match-wielding human hand suggests that, at least within
CAFNEC (the environment centre that set up the seminar) there might be
a bias towards the 'i re is undesirable' story-line. Instead of relying on the
