Discourse

Some of this week’s readings offered an interesting perspective on how discourse and narratives can be used by various groups as a platform for their causes. Escobar in particular makes an interesting case in re-examining the concept of biodiversity and investigating its links to and usefulness in social movements.

Taking a science and technology studies approach, Escobar argues that biodiversity is a “historically produced” discourse that is a “response to the problematization of survival motivated by the loss of biological diversity” (54). This biodiversity discourse has coproduced a network of actors which has invaded into the public domain and has resulted in the creation of a vast institutional apparatus (Escobar, 56). While some biodiversity perspectives can have bioimperialist and hegemonic tendencies, Escobar recognizes that this discourse opens up discussion for culturally based forms of development.

Escobar uses the example of Colombia’s Process of Black Communities (PCN) movement to demonstrate yet another form of hybrid discourse creation. In their struggle to securing territorial rights, the PCN’s political strategy has become entangle with a Colombian biodiversity movement (PBP), resulting in a conceptual innovation redefining biodiversity as “territory plus culture” (70). The discourse evolving around the group’s use of the new concept of region-territory goes beyond the traditional perception of territory and is a veritable construction for the PCN’s cause (71). This new discourse using ecology and culture has developed a more complex and solidified position of the PBP and PCN movement, and Escobar argues that such a combination of ideas has potential to question the dominant models of culture and the economy (76).

While some might find Escobar’s deconstruction of biodiversity problematic or not agree with using constructed discourses based on non-absolute ideas to support a cause, I think the points he makes represent interesting opportunities for future environmental and social movements. If biodiversity is indeed simply a creation and in a way non-existent, the fact that it has become commonly accepted and is a major driving force in policy around the world, demonstrates that nonetheless, such a discourse can have great power which could be used to further push the movement or transform it to incorporate other pressing issues.

If an innovative discourse surrounding a just cause is formed properly, it could have great potential to help disempowered groups. As Escobar points out, it is yet too early to determine whether the PCN and PBP’s region-territory framework can be deemed a success, but I believe that if an effective network can be created around this movement as did happen with biodiversity, then the potential for its success could be great.

In his article, Howitt describes the narratives surrounding and suppressing Australian indigenous groups. He argues that there must be an “inclusive engagement and negotiation as respectful equals” amongst indigenous groups and government as well as a re-narration of indigenous history. Since the described discourses of emptiness, occupation and possession have been powerful in working against reaching progress in improvin indigenous rights, couldn’t Escobar’s approach of molding together environmental and social discourses to more accurately represent the indigenous groups work to counter the other narratives?

Certainly, more localized movements will not be able to gain the same momentum as did the biodiversity movement. Nonetheless, one shouldn’t underestimate the influence a well constructed, and well-presented discourse can have in a network of local actors. Indeed, there has been much debate within nature conservation about a shift form traditional government involvement in shaping environmental policy to a new form of governance being the primary dirver. NGOs, invested individuals, corporations, internet-based organizations etc. have been emerging as strong actors, influencing the public in less-traditional, non-government focused ways. Such a development could indeed help launch new configurations of social and environmental groups and help groups’ innovative discourses gain ground.