THE USES OF NATURE: SOCIAL POWER AND REPRESENTATION - Making Sense of Nature - page 207

The power of discourse
Let me conclude this extended discussion of one case (of deforestation
discourse in Guinea) by linking back to my earlier examination of social
power. Courtesy of Fairhead and Leach's research, we've considered a sit-
uation where a particular representation of the forest-savannah transition
zone advanced by a scientific-bureaucratic elite in Guinea had significant
long-run effects. This elite stood for the forest (they were its spokespersons
politically) by claiming to represent it epistemically (as scientists or experts).
Their depictions underpinned new land management policies, created gov-
ernment jobs, curtailed ordinary farmers' freedom, and - as the twentieth
century drew to a close - channelled overseas money into Kissidougou and
similar districts. Its power derived not so much from its content as from who
produced it . The predecessors and successors of Aubréville authorised them-
selves to create and mobilise knowledge of whole landscapes as part of their
professional modus operandi as state employees. They viewed these land-
scapes as largely natural - in actuality or in their ideal state. Though they
had the means, they had neither the will nor the wisdom to challenge a
deforestation discourse entirely of their own making, yet which they pre-
sumed reflected Guinea's biophysical 'realities'. Once this discourse became
institutionalised, it created inertia and made it hard to see the 'realities' of
land use change on the ground.
Ironically, Fairhead and Leach found that Kissidougou's farmers often
behaved as if the deforestation discourse was correct. They suggested two
reasons why. First, it helped farmers avoid conflict with local forest offi-
cials. Second, it often yielded collateral benefits. For example, European
Union-funded forest plantation projects in the 1990s brought new schools
(among other things) as a reward for community support and compliance.
To pretend deforestation discourse was true may perhaps be regarded as a
'weapon of the weak' in this case. There's little or no evidence that the
discourse successfully interpellated Kissidougou land users in the way I dis-
cussed in Chapter 3. Its power over them stopped short of affecting their
self-understanding (cf. Leslie Feinberg's struggles to establish 'hir' identity,
recounted in Chapter 5) . In fact, despite its efficacy, the embrace of the
discourse by forestry officials, Fairhead and Leach showed, produced a grass-
roots lack of faith in the competence and integrity of these officials. 15 T o
be effective, social power need not persuade those subject to it that its
discursive claims are valid. Conversely, nor should the lack of persistent
or periodic protest by Kissidougou's farming communities be taken to sig-
nify their contentment with prevailing forest policies through much of the
twentieth century.
In recounting this story of epistemic inequity between Kissidougou's land
users and forestry managers I have, necessarily, given credence to Fair-
head and Leach's particular representation of forest-savannah dynamics.