Erica von Essen

Whose Discourse Is It Anyway? Understanding Resistance through the Rise of “Barstool Biology” in Nature Conservation

This study examines what happens when contentious lay citizens harness the technical-ecological repertoire of experts as means of challenging nature conservation policy. The causes, manifestations, and implications of this phenomenon are elucidated through a critical discourse analysis. The case study is based on the wolf reintroduction project in Europe, with particular focus on Sweden, using illegal hunting discussions as a point of entry within the hunting community. It reveals the deployment of three topoi, which are defined as stock arguments situated within a discourse. Analysis shows how while some topoi often incur short-term gains in the debate because of their scientific guise, they are fundamentally relegated as folk science (or “barstool biology”) by government experts and, in some cases, contribute to the further marginalization of other knowledges. Acquiescence to this discourse is shown to greatly impede the debate. Finally, the study shows how lack of trust in the public dialog, which hunt...This study examines what happens when contentious lay citizens harness the technical-ecological repertoire of experts as means of challenging nature conservation policy. The causes, manifestations, and implications of this phenomenon are elucidated through a critical discourse analysis. The case study is based on the wolf reintroduction project in Europe, with particular focus on Sweden, using illegal hunting discussions as a point of entry within the hunting community. It reveals the deployment of three topoi, which are defined as stock arguments situated within a discourse. Analysis shows how while some topoi often incur short-term gains in the debate because of their scientific guise, they are fundamentally relegated as folk science (or “barstool biology”) by government experts and, in some cases, contribute to the further marginalization of other knowledges. Acquiescence to this discourse is shown to greatly impede the debate. Finally, the study shows how lack of trust in the public dialog, which hunters openly recognize to be colonized by ecological expertise, results in increasingly noncommunicative forms of resistance toward policy.

Who let the wolves out? Narratives, rumors and social representations of the wolf in Greece

As a way of coping with uncertainty and threats to their livelihoods following wolf reintroduction, livestock breeders in Greece deploy incriminating rumors about the wolf and the premises and actors around its reintroduction. In this paper, we identify the social representations with which livestock breeders make sense of and constitute the wolf as a social object. Through Moscovici’s social representations framework, we show how enduring and contemporary (corresponding to core and peripheral) attributions formalize into coherent narratives and become designated as rumors by their unverified, third-party nature. To this end, the two rumors that dominate in Greece as well as the rest of Europe are that of wolves being secretly released by NGOs and wolves as genetically impure hybrids. These become counter-narratives to the dominant truth and function as the currency of the voiceless in wolf conservation. The paper situates these rumors in a global context of contemporary conspiracy theories on the wolf currently reproduced by disenfranchised hunters, breeders and rural residents. It suggests the affinities across these rumors point to generalizable drivers to rumor creation, including the perception of inaccessible official channels for communication.

From Obstructionism to Communication: Local, National and Transnational Dimensions of Contestations on the Swedish Wolf Cull Controversy

ABSTRACT Two obstructionist ways of doing politics on contentious wildlife management issues currently reflect a legitimacy deficit in official channels for public engagement. The first is that of a pernicious “direct-action” politics, in the form of resort by hunters in rural Sweden to illegal killings of protected wolves over whose policy they contest. The second obstruction is when environmental non-governmental organizations routinely file appeals in higher-level courtrooms contesting democratically mandated wolf cull decisions. Although markedly different when it comes to their categorically deliberative values as well as fidelity to the law, we argue both extra-legal and the litigative phenomena reflect disenfranchisement with the participation channels in which such controversies may be resolved through a public dialogue. We also argue that both possess negative systemic deliberative value inasmuch as they frustrate goals of reaching deliberative consensus, by contributing to a stalled public communication on wolf management. We address this deficit by appeal to recent developments in the theory and practice of mini-publics that promote both the categorical and systemic deliberative value of channeling contestation. In particular, we appeal to a novel conception of hunter-initiated, but citizen controlled, mini-publics as a vehicle for re-starting stalled public communication on wolf conservation.

The impact of modernization on hunting ethics: Emerging taboos among contemporary Swedish hunters

This study examines how processes of modernization affect hunting ethics, including commodification, cosmopolitanism, demographic shifts, technological innovation, and invasive species. The impact of such change processes has been documented in indigenous hunting societies, but not in postindustrial Western hunting communities. Instead, wildlife ethics are often seen as a private matter or a static inheritance from past generations, and not as researchable from a perspective of change. The underexposure of research on ethics in this context is explained as taking place within a framework of ethical subjectivism to the detriment of opening up ethics to a needed conversation as the context for hunting changes in modernity. This study uncovers the hunting ethics of contemporary Swedish hunters in response to modernization and reveals new lines of moral demarcation and emerging taboos for right and wrong hunting. It concludes by considering the virtue of hunting taboos for wildlife conservation.ABSTRACT This study examines how processes of modernization affect hunting ethics, including commodification, cosmopolitanism, demographic shifts, technological innovation, and invasive species. The impact of such change processes has been documented in indigenous hunting societies, but not in postindustrial Western hunting communities. Instead, wildlife ethics are often seen as a private matter or a static inheritance from past generations, and not as researchable from a perspective of change. The underexposure of research on ethics in this context is explained as taking place within a framework of ethical subjectivism to the detriment of opening up ethics to a needed conversation as the context for hunting changes in modernity. This study uncovers the hunting ethics of contemporary Swedish hunters in response to modernization and reveals new lines of moral demarcation and emerging taboos for right and wrong hunting. It concludes by considering the virtue of hunting taboos for wildlife conservation.

Environmental disobedience and the dialogic dimensions of dissent

ABSTRACTIn this paper, the potential for applying deliberative disobedience as a legitimation framework for environmental disobedience is unpacked. At present, disobedience on behalf of non-humans is not justified within the liberal theory of disobedience put forward by Rawls. Instead of framing harms to environment as indirect harms to humans, Smith’s framework of deliberative disobedience may be invoked on the premises that disobedients publicize not fundamental rights violations, but systematically distorted communication in the process that enacted the environmental policy or decision. To this end, the paper engages in a critical discussion about the dangers of legitimating environmental disobedience through deliberative disobedience. Indeed, its justification hinges on possessing deliberative or “dialogic” credentials as an alternative mode of address to distorted official channels. But its consequence, that of characterizing environmental disobedience as dialogic, means embracing the increasingly vi...ABSTRACT In this paper, the potential for applying deliberative disobedience as a legitimation framework for environmental disobedience is unpacked. At present, disobedience on behalf of non-humans is not justified within the liberal theory of disobedience put forward by Rawls. Instead of framing harms to environment as indirect harms to humans, Smith’s framework of deliberative disobedience may be invoked on the premises that disobedients publicize not fundamental rights violations, but systematically distorted communication in the process that enacted the environmental policy or decision. To this end, the paper engages in a critical discussion about the dangers of legitimating environmental disobedience through deliberative disobedience. Indeed, its justification hinges on possessing deliberative or “dialogic” credentials as an alternative mode of address to distorted official channels. But its consequence, that of characterizing environmental disobedience as dialogic, means embracing the increasingly violent, clandestine and coercive acts as dialogue. I argue, this from deliberative premises with precarious implications for the legitimacy and uptake of environmental disobedients.

Discourses on illegal hunting in Sweden: the meaning of silence and resistance

ABSTRACT The first rule to poaching is that you do not talk about poaching. If you do, you do so behind a veil of anonymity, using hypotheticals or indirect reported speech that protect you from moral, cultural or legal self-incrimination. In this study of Swedish hunters talking about a phenomenon of illegal killing of protected wolves, we situate such talk in the debate between crime talk as reflecting resistance, reality or everyday venting. We identify four discourses: the discourse of silence; the complicit discourse of protecting poachers; the ‘proxy’ discourse of talking about peers; and the ‘empty’ discourse of exaggerating wolf kills as means of political resistance. Our hunters materialize these discourses both by sharing stories that we sort into respective discourses and by providing their meta-level perceptions on what they mean. Specifically we examine whether Swedish hunters’ discourses on illegal killing are (1) a means of letting off steam; (2) a reflection of reality; (3) part of a political counter-narrative against wolf conservation; or (4) a way of radicalizing peers exposed to the discourse. We conclude that illegal killing discourses simultaneously reflect reality and constitute it and that hunters’ meta-talk reveals most endorse a path-goal folk model of talk and action.

Solidarity Between Human and Non-Human Animals: Representing Animal Voices in Policy Deliberations

ABSTRACT In this paper, we discuss the bridging potential of “interspecies” solidarity between the often incommensurable ethics of care and justice. Indeed, we show that the Environmental Communication literature emphasizes feelings of care and compassion as vectors of responsibility taking for animals. But we also show that a growing field of Political Animal Rights suggest that such responsibility taking should instead be grounded in universalizable terms of justice. Our argument is that a dual conception of solidarity can bridge this divide: On the one hand, solidarity as a pre-political relation with animals and, on the other hand, as a political practice based on open public deliberation of universalizable claims to justice; that is, claims to justice advanced by human proxy representatives of vulnerable non-humans. Such a dual conception can both challenge and validate NGOs’ claims to “speak on behalf of animals” in policy following the Aarhus Convention, indeed underwriting the Convention by insights from internatural communication in solidarity as relation, and by subjecting it to rational scrutiny in mini-publics in solidary as practice.

Policing Peers and Selves between Law and Morality: A Socio-Legal Perspective on Managing Misconduct in Hunting

Contemporary hunting is at great pains to assert a sovereign jurisdiction to state interference. Hunters sometime view laws as illegitimate and cultivate an informal normative order to guide conduct and to protect the integrity and outside representation of hunting in modernity. This involves policing selves and peers mainly from an ethic of fair chase, which is multifaceted. In this study, we interview hunters who reflect on the dynamics of the fair chase ethic as a guiding principle across various dilemmas, including technological gears, commodification of hunting, game allocation and social sanctions over transgressions. Consistent with our socio-legal theory, we observe hunting’s moral and cultural perceptions of what constitutes fair chase in many situations is at odds with what is legally proscribed. Our final discussion elucidates the implications of hunters turning away from authorities in these situations, concluding with calls for deliberative culture that can re-integrate moral norms and formal laws.

Shoot shovel and sanction yourself: Self-policing as a response to wolf poaching among Swedish hunters

Self-policing is essential for addressing wildlife-related crime where illegal activity is extremely diffuse, and limited resources are available for monitoring and enforcement. Emerging research on self-policing suggest key drivers including economics, folk traditions, and socio-political resistance. We build on this research with a case study evaluating potential drivers of self-policing illegal wolf killing among Swedish hunting teams. Swedish hunters marginally leaned toward considering illegal hunting of wolves an expression of resistance (10.30 out of a possible 17 on a resistance scale) and strongly believed outsiders had undue influence over hunting (15.79 out of a possible 21 on an influence scale). Most (73%) Swedish hunters stated they would report illegal wolf killing to authorities, but 20% stated they would handle the infractions through internal sanctions. Viewing illegal hunting of wolves as a form of political resistance, viewing wolf management as being controlled locally, and perceived prevalence of illegal wolf killing among hunting acquaintances were positive predictors of preferring internal sanctions to address illegal wolf killing over reporting the crimes. Resistance and perceived prevalence of wolf killing also predicted preferring no action to address illegal wolf killing. These results suggest that a counterpublic of marginalized ruralism may promote forms of self-policing that rely on internal censure for illegal wolf killing rather than using formal legal channels. Similarly, folk traditions within this counterpublic (e.g., perceptions of prevalence of illegal wolf killing) shape if and how internal sanctions are advocated. Re-engaging marginalized hunting groups and emphasizing the rarity of illegal wolf killing may promote wolf conservation, both in Sweden and in other democratic regimes.

Hunters, Crown, Nobles, and Conservation Elites: Class Antagonism over the Ownership of Common Fauna

Because of their status of res nullius —owned by no one—property theory is underdeveloped in regard to wildlife. In this article, wildlife is seen to be sometimes subject to a shadow ownership by class interests in society. Hunters accuse protected wolves of being the “pets” or “property” of an urban-based conservationist middle class. This phenomenon fragments the common fauna and undermines responsibility taking and policy compliance for wildlife that is seen as being owned by an oppositional social class. Using an empirical case study of Swedish hunters, we show how responsibility for wildlife has become entangled with property rights. A historical materialist analysis reveals that hunters once experienced ownership of wildlife by the nobility as co-opting state coercive power. Today, however, aristocracy is replaced by a new elite class of conservationists. Noting the hunters’ tendency to evoke quasi-aristocratic virtues of ownership, we advance recommendations for an alternative approach. We appeal to deliberative democracy to promote the “communing” of wildlife across classes in fora that withstand co-optation by class interests.