Energy!Matters! The!Social!Construction!of!Energy!! !!!! Danish!title:!Energi!og!betydningsforhold.!Den!Sociale!Konstruktion!af!Energi!

Transkript

1 EnergyMatters TheSocialConstructionofEnergy Danishtitle:Energiogbetydningsforhold.DenSocialeKonstruktionafEnergi Numberofcharacters: (79.6pages) Submissiondate:21.December2012 Nameofsupervisor:DanKärreman Externalexaminer: DanHoHowisLauritsen Masterthesis M.Sc.inBusinessAdministrationandOrganisationalCommunication CopenhagenBusinessSchool,2012

2 2 Table&of&Contents& 1.Introduction Opening Motivation Problem ResearchQuestion Theoreticalapproach Foundationofsocialconstructionism Mappingthefieldofdiscourseanalysis Theformativerangeofdiscourse Theroleofdiscourseinconstitutionofreality LaclauandMouffe sdiscoursetheory FromElementstoMomentsthroughArticulation Floatingsignifiers,NodalpointsandChainsofequivalence Power,PoliticsandObjectivity SubjectPositionsandIdentity AntagonismandHegemony Methodology Ontology Epistemology Method Primarydata Secondarydata Choiceofempiricaldata Processingtheempiricaldata Analysis Renewableenergydiscourseanalysis Economics Politics Environment Humancapital Technology Future Consumption Fossilfueldiscourseanalysis Economics Politics Environment HumanCapital Technology PeakOil Production Overlappingdiscourseanalysis Economics Politics Environment HumanCapital Technology...69

3 5.Discussion Discussingtheanalyticalfindings:Fromwhat%andwheretowhy Hegemonicinterventions Economichegemonyinfavourofablackenergyidentity Politicalhegemonyinfavourofagreenidentity Environmentalhegemonyinfavourofagreenidentity Humancapitalsynergyinfavourofamixedenergyidentity Technologicalsynergyinfavourofamixedenergyidentity Otheremergingenergydiscoursesandcompetingmastersignifiers Futureforenergy Conclusion Reflection Bibliography

4 Executive&Summary& Denneafhandlingundersøgermeningstilskrivelsenidendanskeenergidiskurs vedatanalyserediskursenforvedvarendeenergiogfossilebrændsler.formålet eratafdækkeforholdetmellemdissetoenergidiskurer,derpådeneneside karakteriseressometantagonistiskforhold,medenlavgradafanerkendelsefor synergiskabelseogharmonisering,ogpådenandenkarakteriseressidesomet synergetiskforhold,medenhøjgradafanerkendelseforsynergiskabelseog harmonisering.hensigtenerderforattydeliggørehvorvidtoverlapfindersted ogdettesøgesopnåetigennemtrediskursanalyser;enforvedvarendeenergi,en forfossilebrændslerogenfordenoverlappendediskursmellemvedvarende energiogfossilebrændsler. Motivationenforafhandlingeneratopnåendyberegradafforståelsefor skabelsenafmeningomkringbegrebetenergi,dadetteområdeistigendegrad harfåetbetydningidetdanskesamfund,ikkemindstikraftafregeringens strategiomuafhængigfrafossilebrændsleri2050. TilatanalyseremeningstilskrivelsenbrugesErnestoLaclauogChantalMouffe s diskursteoriderharsitteoretiskefundamentrodfæstetidetsocial konstruktivistiskeperspektiv.detteanalytiskeperspektivmuliggørenopfattelse afenergisomensocialkonstruktionogdiskursteoriensværktøjermuliggøren undersøgelseafmådenhvorpåmeningertilskrivesogkonstrueres.det empiriskematerialeerprimærtbaseretpå9interviewsmedaktørertilknyttet dendanskeenergiindustrioginkludererdesudenudgivelserogindholdfra hjemmesiderfranogleafaktørerne. Udfraanalysenafvedvarendeenergiogfossilebrændslerkonkluderesdetatder findesspecifikkenodalpunkterogmastersignifiersknyttettilhverdiskurs,der baserespådertilhørendeækvivalenskæderogartikulationafelementertil momenter.idenvedvarendeenergidiskursidentificeresenmastersignifieri formafgrønenergiogfølgende8nodalpunkter:økonomi,politik,miljø, MenneskeligKapital,Teknologi,FremtidogForbrug.Fordenfossile brændselsdiskursidentificeresenmastersignifieriformafsortenergiog 4

5 følgende8nodalpunkter:økonomi,politik,miljø,menneskeligkapital, Teknologi,PeakOilogProduktion.Idenoverlappendediskurstagesder udgangspunktidefællesnodalpunktermellemvedvarendeenergiogfossile brændslerogdissebetragtessomflydendebetegnere.idenoverlappende diskursidentificeresenmastersignifieriformaffællesenergiogfølgendefem flydendebetegnere:økonomi,politik,miljø,menneskeligkapitalogteknologi. Gradenafoverlapidisseflydendebetegnerebaserespåækvivalenskædernei denoverlappendediskurs,ogdetkonkluderesatøkonomi,politikogmiljøudgør etantagonistiskforhold,hvorimodmenneskeligcapitalogteknologiudgøret synergetiskforhold. IdiskussionenbrugesLaclauogMuffesteoretiskeovervejelseromhegemonisk interventiontilatdiskuterehvorfornogleflydendebetegnereudgøren antagonismenårandreudgørensynergi.dettediskuteresvedatsammenligne ækvivalenskæderneknyttettilnodalpunkterneforvedvarendeenergiogfossile brændsler.forøkonomi,politikogmiljøsesdetatækvivalenskædernegensidigt udelukkerhinandenogsomfølgederafforetagesenhegemoniskinterventiontil fordelforidentitetenknyttettilentengrønenergiellersortenergi.økonomi knyttestilidentitetenforfossilebrændslerimenspolitikogmiljøknyttestil identitetenforvedvarendeenergi.nårgensidigudelukkelsefindersted, forhindrerdetanerkendelsenafsynergetiskeoverlapogdermedbenægtes identifikationenmedenfællesenergiidentitet.formenneskeligcapitalog Teknologibetragtesækvivalenskædernemellemvedvarendeenergiogfossile brændslersomværendeikonflikt,menikkeiensådangradatgensidig udelukkelsefindersted.somfølgederaferderikkebehovforatforetageen hegemoniskinterventionogderforanerkendesetsynergetiskoverlapog identifikationenmedenfællesenergiidentitet.densidstedelafdiskussionen sætterspørgsmålstegnveddennuværendeopdelingafenergisomvedvarende contraikkecvedvarendevedatpromovereenenergidiskursbaseretpå holdbarhed.detteinkluderermiljømæssigholdbarhedmenogsåihøjeregrad fokuspåøkonomiskholdbarhedogteknologiskholdbarhed. 5

6 1.&Introduction&& 1.1.&Opening& ThisthesisexplorestheDanishenergydiscoursebyanalysingthediscourses associatedwithfossilfuelsandrenewableenergy.indoingso,thethesistreats theterm energy asasocialconstruction.theaimisnottoinvestigatean understandingofenergyfromaphysicsperspective,i.e.energyasforce,massor joule,butrathertoanalysethemeaningsascribedtoenergyfromasocietalpoint ofview,i.e.energyasdiscourse.bytakingonthisperspective,onemaymakethe claimthatenergyisaloadedterm,belongingtotheclassofwordsthatisstrong inconnotationbutweakindenotation;energymeansalotbutisseldomdefined. Thethesisdepartsfromanunderlyingnotionthatsocietalforcesplayan importantrolewhenitcomesto understandingtheunderstandings ofenergy. Energyplaysapivotalroleinsocietyandmanysocietalinstitutionshaveastake inconstitutingitsdiscourse.furthertothepoint,thediscoursesrelatedto energyhavechangedacrosstime,leadingtoanotionthatenergyisnotastable constructandhintingattheimplicationofenergybeinginsomeconstantstateof becoming,muchlikesocietyitself. 1.2.&Motivation& Energyisatermthatcanseembothvagueandcomplicated,usedinmany contextsandaccordingtomanyviewpoints.atthesametimeenergyisbecoming anincreasinglyimportantterminsociety,notleastindanishsociety,withan emphasisonpromotingrenewableenergyandachievingindependencyfrom fossilfuels.themotivationforwritingthethesisistogainadeeper understandingofthemeaningconstructionpertainingtorenewableenergyand fossilfuelenergy,aswellasclarifytheextentofoverlapbetweenthesetwo energydiscourses. 6

7 & 1.3.&Problem&& Fromanoverallperspective,itseemsthatthemeaningsascribedtoenergyhave becomeseparatedintwo,opposingdiscoursesthatbuildonabinarydistinction betweenrenewableversusnoncrenewableenergy.acommonunderstandingis thatwewanttoridourselvesofblackenergyandgainmoregreenenergy,and thatthetwohavelittleornothingincommon.anexampleofthisdistinctionis evidentinthedanishgovernmentsenergypublication, EnergyStrategy2050, wherethebinarybecomesoneofleavingthepastoffossilfuelsandheading towardsafutureofrenewables:from%coal,%oil%and%gas%to%green%energy(weblink 1:7). Acknowledgingthatdiscoursesexistwhichtreatfossilfuelenergyand renewableenergyasunrelated,acentralobjectiveofthisthesisistoinvestigate whydiscoursesalsoexistwhichtreatfossilfuelsandrenewablesasbeing related,whatcanbeunderstoodasasynergydiscourse.suchaunifying discourseisevidentinthemediawherearticlessuchasthe%oil%industry%wants%to% utilize%synergy%effects%with%the%wind%sector(weblink2)andoil%and%wind%side%by% side(weblink3),speakofunificationbetweenfossilfuelenergyandrenewable energy.anotherexampleofadiscoursepromotingunificationcanbefoundina recentpublicationbythedanishnetworkorganization,offshorecenter Denmark,entitled Overcomingchallengesfortheoffshorewindindustryand learningfromtheoilandgasindustry (weblink4). 1.4.&Research&Question& ThisthesisinvestigatestheDanishenergydiscoursebyanalysingthediscourses relatedtofossilfuelenergyandrenewableenergy.indoingso,thethesisfocuses onthecontradictingrelationshipbetweenthetwo.ontheonehand characterizedasanantagonisticrelationship,leavinglittleroomforunification andlittleacknowledgementofsynergies,ontheotherhandcharacterizedasa synergeticrelationship,leavinggreatroomforunificationandgreat 7

8 acknowledgementofsynergies.thisthesisinvestigateswhythiscontradiction exists,leadingtothefollowingresearchquestion: WhichmeaningsareascribedtoFossilfuelenergyandRenewableenergy andtowhatextenttotheyoverlap? Inordertoanswertheproblemstatement,ithasbeendividedintothree: 1) Whichdiscourseprevailsinthecontextofrenewableenergy? 2) Whichdiscourseprevailsinthecontextoffossilfuelenergy? 3) Whichoverlappingdiscourseexistsbetweenfossilfuelsandrenewables andtowhatextentdotheyoverlap? & 8

9 2.&Theoretical&approach& Thispartofthethesiswillpresentthetheoreticalfoundationandsubsequent termsandconceptsthatwillbeused.itwillbeginbypresentingthetheoretical foundationofsocialconstructionismandwillcontinuebypresentingthemain analyticaltheory,discourseanalysis,followedbyapresentationoflaclauand Mouffe sdiscoursetheory. 2.1.&Foundation&of&social&constructionism& Akeyassumptionunderlyingdiscourseanalysisbuildsuponthe postclinguistic turn (Mumby,2008:3427),thatlanguageisacentralandconstitutiveelement ofhumanmeaningandsocialrealityformation.thismeansthatlanguageisnot justamirrorofreality,understandingtheroleofcommunicationasperipheral, butinsteadthatlanguageandcommunicationareimportantfeaturesin constructingreality.thekeypremiseofsocialconstructionistherejectionofthe totalizingtheoriessuchasmarxism,whichdictatesthatcommunicationreflectsa precexistingrealityandpayslittleattentiontotheconstitutivepowerrootedin communication(mumby,2001).fromasocialconstructionistperspectivethe centralaspectoflanguagemeansthathumanscontributetoconstructingreality throughlanguageandlanguageuse(gunnarson,1997:305). Theunderstandingoflanguageasasystemthatisnotdeterminedbythereality fromwhichitreferstocanbetracedbacktothestructurallinguistferdinandde Saussure(JørgensenandPhillips,2002).Saussurearguedthatlanguageisa systeminwhichsigns%are%not%defined%by%a%straightforward%relationship%to%an% external%referent%but%instead%by%the%presence%of%other%terms%from%which%it%is%seen%to% differ(chia,1999:220).bydistinguishingbetweentolevelsoflanguage,langue andparole,saussurearguedthatlangueshouldbeconsideredthestructureof language,i.e.thenetworkofsignsthatgivemeaningtoeachother,andparolebe understoodassituatedlanguageuse,i.e.thesignsusedbypeopleinspecific situations(jørgensenandphillips,2002).animportantfeatureunderlyingthe relationshipbetweenlangueandparoleisthefactthatsaussureconsidereda sharpdistinctionthetwo.thisinthesensethatparolehadtodrawonlanguein 9

10 ordertomakestatementspossible,butgiventheinfluxnatureofparole,itwas notconsideredtobeanobjectofscientificresearchandinsteadsaussureturned tothestablestructureoflanguageofanalysis(jørgensenandphillips,2002). SocialconstructionismbuildsuponSaussure sideathatsignsderivetheir meaningthroughinternalrelationswithinanetworkofsignsbutrejects structuralismsviewoflanguageasastablestructure(smith,1998).where structuralismrestsupontheassumptionthatsignsarelockedincertain relationshipswithotherandthushavefixedmeaning,thesocialconstructionist approachproposesthatsignsdoacquiremeaningbybeingdifferentfromother signs,butthatthosesignsfromwhichtheydiffercanchangeaccordingtothe context.assuch,socialconstructionistsacknowledgetheexistenceofstructure butdosoinatemporarystate(jørgensenandphillips,2002).takingsucha theoreticalunderstandingofstructuremeansthatthesocialconstructionist approachisabletoembracetheaspectofchange;somethingstructuralismdid notacknowledgeduetotheunderstandingofafixedstructure.tounderstand howsignschangetheirmeaning,socialconstructionismstrengthenstheroleof languageuseinpractice,i.e.theequivalentofsaussure stermparole,byarguing thatstructureiscreated,reproducedandchangedthroughconcretelanguage use(jørgensenandphillips). Torelatethetermsoflangueandparoleindiscursiveterms,aviablemarkercan befoundbydrawingonalvessonandkärreman sdistinctionbetweenlittled discourseandbigddiscourse(alvessonandkärreman,2000).littleddiscourse referstothetalkandtextinsituatedorganizationalcontextsandcanthusbe relatedtothetermparole.bigddiscourse,ontheotherhand,referstothe culturallystandardizedinterpretiveframeshistoricallyrootedinsystemsof powerandknowledge(schmisseurandfairhurst,2008)andcanthusberelated tothetermlangue.inotherwords,bigddiscoursecanbeunderstoodasa dictionaryfromwhichindividualschoosethewordstheyuse,butkeepinga socialconstructionistapproachinmind,itisnottobeunderstoodasstaticbut morestaticthanonthemicrolevel.thedegreetowhichconcretelanguageuse, littleddiscourse,isabletochangethelanguagestructure,bigddiscourse,differs 10

11 amongtheoriesrootedinthesocialconstructionistapproachandexamplesof suchdifferingperspectiveswillbediscussedinthefollowing. 2.2.&Mapping&the&field&of&discourse&analysis Thefieldofdiscoursestudiesandsubsequentuseofthetermdiscourseinsocial studiesdoesnotautomaticallylenditselftoprecisedefinitionsofwhatexactly thisareaofresearchdoesordoesnotcomprise.theuseofdiscourseanalysis doesnotlimititselftojustoneapproachordefinitionbutratherencompassesa collectionofapproachesthatareusedtoexploredifferentsocialdomains throughdifferenttypesofstudies,insomecaseswithnotheoreticalrelations apartfromthelabellingofdiscourse(alvesson,kärreman,2011).alsonotedby theauthorsintheirattempttoprovideatheoreticalandmethodological overviewofthefieldofdiscourse,scholarsondiscoursedidnottreattheterm throughdistinctandcoherentuseofitbutratherseemedto bealloverthe place (AlvessonandKärreman,2011)intheiruseandunderstandoftheterm. Thisobservationisalsosharedandstressedbyotherauthorsattemptingto clarifythefieldofdiscourseanalysis.(jørgensenandphillips,2002;jian, Schmisseur&Fairhurst,2008,Fairhurst,&Putnam,2004)Thus,inorderto qualifyforamethodologicalsoundandanalyticallypreciseuseofdiscourse analysis,itisimportanttoclarifyhowthetermisunderstoodandwhatthe intentionofanalysisis. Toillustratethewiderangeofscopesencompassingdiscourseanalysis, examplesofdifferinganalyticalapproachescanbedemonstratedalongtwo dimensions,asdepictedinillustration1.firstly,theformativerangeofdiscourse understoodastheadistinctionbetweeneverydayandabstractuseofdiscourse (JørgensenandPhillips,2002)andsecondly,theconnectionbetweendiscourse andmeaningunderstoodasthedistinctionbetweendiscourseconstituting realityanddiscoursebeingconstitutedbyreality(jørgensenandphillips,2002). 11

12 Illustration1(AlvessonandKärreman,2001:1127) Thefollowingwillprovideanoverviewofthefieldofdiscoursewithexamplesof differenttheoreticalapproachesandsubsequentlyargueforthetheoretical approachoflaclauandmouffeusedinthethesis. & &The&formative&range&of&discourse&& Thetwoendpointsalongtheycaxisconstitutetheformativerangeofdiscourse, understoodasthescopethescaleofdiscourseintermsofamicro,littled discoursedistinctionandamacro,bigddiscoursedistinction(fairhurst,g.,& Putnam,L.,2004).Intheformer,theanalyticalfocusisbasedondiscoursesthat arecreatedandchangedin everydaysocialpractices andstressestheneedfor empiricalanalysisoftalkandtextinalocallevel.thelatterfocusesonthe general,deepcstructuredpatterns,withtheintentionofproducingamore abstractmappingofthediscoursesthatcirculateinsocietyataparticular momentintimeorwithinaspecificsocialdomain.(jørgensenandphillips,2002; Mumby,2001). 12

13 Anexampleofdiscourseanalysisrootedinthemicrodistinction,illustratedas theclosecrangeassumption,canbedemonstratedthroughdiscursivephycology (PotterandWetherell,1897),whererealityisperceivedascreatedfromthe bottomupwithafocusonhowdiscourseisusedtocapturethetalkandtextof socialphenomenafromahighlylocalizedpointofview.thismeansthat DiscursivePhycologytakesaninterestinhowpeopleusediscoursesactivelyas resourcesintalkcincactionandhowtheyconstructtheirargumentstojustify certainactions(jørgensenandphillips,2002).thedelimitationembeddedinthis understandingofdiscourse,i.e.thatitfocusesonwhatpeoplesayratherthan whytheysayit,hasbeencriticizedforbeingtooreductionistasitdoesnot accountforthebroadercontext(alvessonandkärreman,2011).attheother endofthespectrum,thelongcrangeassumption,discourseisusedtoaddress standardizedwaysforreferringto,orconstituting,certaintypeofphenomena. FoucauldianDiscourseAnalysis(Foucault,1980)canbeplacedatthisend, aimingtouncoverthestructureofdifferentregimes%of%truth,(alvessonand Kärreman,2011:1129),understoodastherulesforwhatcanandcannotbesaid. LaclauandMouffe stheoryarealsobelongtothelongcrangeassumption,as theyareinterestedinhowdiscourses,fromageneralpointofview,limitour possibilitiesforactionandhowdiscoursesareinaconstantstruggletoachieve hegemony(jørgensenandphillips,2002;laclauandmouffe,2001).athirdcase ofdiscourseanalysisconsidersamixtureofthetworanges,boththemicroand macrodistinction,forinstanceinfaircloughscriticaldiscourseanalysisandhis useof ordersofdiscourse toclassify socialorder (Fairclough,2001:29). Actual%discourses,i.e.amacrodistinctionareusedtoclassifyactual%practices (Fairclough,2001:29),i.e.amicro,localizeddistinction:We%always%experience% the%society%and%the%various%social%institutions%within%which%we%operate%as%divided% up%and%demarcated,%structured%into%different%spheres%of%action,%different%types%of% situation,%each%of%which%has%its%associated%type%of%practice(fairclough,2001:29) &The&role&of&discourse&in&constitution&of&reality& Thedistinctionbetweendiscourseandmeaningfocusesontheroleofdiscourse inconstitutionofreality.hereadistinctioncanbemadebetweenformationsof 13

14 realityassomethingthatisconstitutedbydiscourseorasdiscoursebeing constitutedbyreality.inthefirstcase,themuscularity%of%discourse(alvessonand Kärreman,2011:1138)isassumedtobestronginthesensethatmeaningand discoursearecollapsed.anexampleofsuchadiscourseanalyticaltheorycanbe foundinlaclauandmouffe stheoreticalapproach:our%analysis%rejects%the% distinction%between%discursive%and%noncdiscursive%practices(laclauandmouffe, 2001:107).Understandingdiscourseandrealityfromthisperspectivemeans thatthereisnoneedtodistinguishbetweenthediscursiveandnoncdiscursive becausediscourseitselfisfullyconstitutiveofrealityandthus,thenonc discursiveentitiessuchastheeconomyorinstitutionsarealsopartsofdiscourse (JørgensenandPhillips,2002). Attheotherendofthespectrumdiscourseandmeaningisunrelatedand thereforediscoursecanbeunderstoodassimplymirroringsomeotherreality, forinstancetheeconomy.historicalmaterialism,introducedbykarlmarx,can beplacedinthisendofthespectrumasitdistinguishesbetweenabaseanda superstructureinitsdescriptionofsociety.thebaserepresentsthemeansof productionanditscoreistheeconomy.thesuperstructurerepresentsthe productionofmeaninginsocietyandcomprisesinstitutionssuchasthemedia, thejudicialsystemandthechurch(jørgensenandphillips,2006).accordingto historicalmaterialismthebase,i.e.theeconomy,constitutesthesuperstructure, i.e.thediscoursesinsociety,anditisthereforethebasethatdeterminesreality. Inthiscasethereislittlepointinconductingadiscourseanalysistodetermine therealityoftheeconomyasoneinsteadshouldfocuson,e.g.aneconomic analysis. 2.5.&Laclau&and&Mouffe s&discourse&theory& ThisthesisusesLaclauandMouffe stheoreticalapproachtogainan understandingofhowtherealityofenergyiscreatedthroughlanguageusein Danishsociety.Asmentioned,LaclauandMouffe sapproachascribesstrong muscularitytodiscourseandcoupledwiththeirmacrolevelfocus,itmeansthat theirtheoreticalapproachcanbecharacterizedasalongcrange/determination 14

15 approach(alvessonandkärreman,2000).sincelaclauandmouffedeveloped theirtheoreticalframeworkbydeconstructing(jørgensenandphillips,2002:24) otherbodiesoftheorysuchasfoucault,gramsciandsaussure,theydonot provideadistinctdescriptionofhowtoundertakeaconcreteanalysisof empiricalmaterialonatextuallevel.sincetheempiricalmaterialofthisthesisis largelybasedoninterviews,thethesisalsodrawsupontheworkofjørgensen andphillips:discourseanalysisastheoryandmethod(2002),astheyprovide moreconcretetoolstoaidtheconductionofananalysisbasedonsuchempirical material. AcentralaspectinLaclauandMouffe stheoryistheconceptofstandardized meaning,understoodastheprocesstowhichsomemeaningsbecomeso conventionalizedthat peoplecometothinkofthemasnatural (Jørgensen& Phillips,2002:96).Thiswayofperceivingrealitybecomesrelevanttothisthesis becauseitanalysespeople sperceptionoffossilfuelenergyandrenewable energyandhencethediscoursestiedtoeachenergysource.thefactthatthe thesisinvestigatesdiscoursesfromasocietallevel,andhencenotfroma localizedpointofview,laclauandmouffe stheorysustainsitsrelevanceasit takesaninterestinthelargersocietalcontextandhencehowdiscoursesina moregeneralmannerlimitpeople spossibilitiesforthoughtandaction (JørgensenandPhillips,2002).Therefore,thistheoreticalapproachopensup possibilityforanalysisoftextandlanguageasaresourcetoestablishdominating meaningswithinthediscourseoffossilfuelsandrenewables. AnotherimportantfeatureinLaclauandMouffe stheoryisthatitbuildsonthe understandingthatmeaningsinsocietyareinherentlyunstableduetothe instabilityoflanguage(laclau&mouffe2001).discoursesarenotclosed entities,whichbuildsonthereasoningthatidentitiescannotbefixedinany ultimate%literacy(laclau&mouffe,2001:96).thislineofthoughtbecomes relevanttothethesisasitinvestigatestheoverlappingmeaningssurrounding therelationshipbetweenfossilfuelenergyandrenewableenergy.ifnodiscourse isaclosedentitybutratherinconstanttransformationthroughcontactwith otherdiscourses,thispresentsitselfasavalidtheoreticalframeworkto 15

16 investigatetheoverlappingdiscoursebetweenoffossilfuelsandrenewables. Therefore,LaclauandMouffe sdiscoursetheoryhasbeenchosenasthe appropriatetheoreticalfoundationtohighlighttheaimofthisthesis &From&Elements&to&Moments&through&Articulation& LalcauandMouffedeveloptheirtheoreticalframeworkbyrejectingthe essentialistunderstandingofrealityandthereforethefactthatoneisableto rendersocietyobjectively.indoingso,theyintroducetheirownvocabularyof wordstodescribetheirconceptionofrealityandtheprocessestowhichmeaning isembeddedinit.accordingtolaclauandmouffe,thecreationofmeaningasa socialprocessisaboutthefixationofmeaning,understoodasaconstantstriveto fixthemeaningofsignsbyplacingtheminrelationtoothersigns.thisfixationof meaningdrawsuponthesausuriantraditionbyfixingsignstostructurebutwith theimportantdifferencethatsuchfixationisultimatelyimpossibleduetothe instabilityoflanguage:a%conception%which%denies%any%essentialist%approach%to% social%relations,%must%also%state%the%precarious%character%of%every%identity%and%the% impossibility%of%fixing%the%sense%of%the% elements %in%any%ultimate%literality(laclau andmouffe,2001:96). Theprocesstowhichthisfixationoccursisthroughthemeansofarticulation.By articulatingtheelements,understoodastheprocesstowhichtheseelementsare fixatedtocreatemeaning,theybecomearticulatedmomentsinadiscourse. Focusingontheseconstantattemptstofixatemeaningistheentrypointfor discourseanalysis,withtheaimofmappingouttheprocessesinwhichwe struggletofixatemeaning,sothattheybecomesoconventionalizedthatwe cometothinkofthemasnatural.inthewordsoflaclauandmouffe:%[w]e%will% call%articulation%any%practice%establishing%a%relation%among%elements%such%that% their%identity%is%modified%as%a%result%of%the%articulatory%practice.%the%structured% totality%resulting%from%the%articulatory%practice,%we%will%call%discourse.%the% differential%positions,%insofar%as%they%appear%articulated%within%a%discourse,%we%will% call%moments.%by%contrast,%we%will%call%element%any%difference%that%is%not% 16

17 discursively%articulated(laclauandmouffe,1985:105.italicsinoriginal underlinedinquotation). LaclauandMouffeattempttocreateavocabularyforthecreationofmeaningby introducingtheterms:elements,momentsandarticulation.theseterms representthebasictheoreticalbuildingblockstounderstandthecreationof meaning,eitheronaconsciousorsubcconsciouslevel,andthismeaningisdrawn fromanendlessvocabularyofsignsthat,accordingtotheory,canbebothfixed inendlessamountsofwaysandbecomesubvertedaccordingly.thisendless poolofmeaningiswhatlaclauandmouffecallthefield%of%discursivity%(laclau andmouffe,2001:111)andbecauseeverydiscourseisapartiallimitationofthis endlessmeaning,itcanalwaysbesubverted,i.e.recarticulated,bythesurplus%of% Meaning(LaclauandMouffe,2001:111)thatsurroundsit. Adiscourseisthusunderstoodasthetemporaryfixationofmeaningwithina particulardomain.theelementsdefineanydifferencethathasnotbeen articulatedandthusfloataboutinthediscursivefield,meaningthattheir identityispolysemic%(jørgensenandphillips,2002:28).allthefixatedmeanings withinadiscoursearemoments,andtheirmeaningsaredefinedbytheir differencetooneanotherandthusconstitutethetemporarystructureofthe discourse.however,duetotheinstabilityinherentinthestructuredtotalityof discourse,thestructuringneverexhaustsallthepossibilitiesfortheascriptionof meaning.putdifferently,theattemptstofixatemeaningbyturningtheidentity elementsintomomentsareneverinafinishedtotalityandthereforediscourses arealwaystemporaryandpartialfixationsofmeaningsinafundamentally decidableterrain:the%transition%from%the% elements%to%the%moments %is%never% entirely%fulfilled(laclauandmouffe,2001;110). Bymeansofillustration,letustakesigncar.Takingthewordatfacevalue,acar canmeaneverythingandthusnothing,i.e.itisanemptysignfloatingaboutin thediscursivefield,waitingtobearticulatedintoacertainmoment.suchan articulationcouldbeintermsofanenvironmentaldiscourse,linkingthecarto itsemissionofco2,orintermsofasafetydiscourse,linkingthecartoitscrash 17

18 testability,orintermsofafossilfueldiscourse,linkingthecartothepriceof petroleum.thewordispolysemic(jørgensenandphillips,2002:28)andits identityreliesonhowitbecomesrelated,i.e.articulated,tootherwords,thus removingsometheambiguityofmeaningembeddedinitsidentity &Floating&signifiers,&Nodal&points&and&Chains&of&equivalence& Thereareelementsthatareparticularlyopentodifferentmeaningsandtheyare labelledfloating%signifiers(smith,1998:87).floatingsignifiersareessentially popularelementsthathaveanidentitywhichcanbearticulatedtosuitmany differentdiscourses.inotherwords,floatingsignifierscanbeunderstoodas articulatedelements,i.e.verbalexpressions,writtenexpressionsorsocial actions,whichmanydifferentdiscoursesstruggletoinvestmeaningin.a windmillisanexampleofafloatingsignifierthatcanarticulatedinmany differentways,accordingtothediscourseinquestion.forinstance,apolitical discoursecouldarticulatethewordinrelationtoinvestmentingreentechnology whereasaneconomicdiscoursecouldarticulatethewordintermsofitsimpact onthepriceofenergy.awindmillthusrepresentsmanydifferentmeanings accordingtothediscourseitisarticulatedwithin.inthecontextofthisthesis,the overlappingdiscourseisconsideredtoconsistoffloatingsignifiersthatboththe renewableenergydiscourseandfossilfueldiscoursestruggletoinvestmeaning in. Momentsinadiscourseassumetheirmeaningbystructuringthemselvesin relationothermomentsinaparticulardiscursivefield.inalldiscursivefields, therearecertainmomentsthatbecomeastructuringpointinthediscourse,one canthinkofthemasanexusaroundwhichothermomentsorganizethemselves tofacilitatethemeaningofthediscourse:any%discourse%is%constituted%as%an% attempt%to%dominate%the%field%of%discursivity,%to%arrest%the%flow%of%differences,%to% construct%a%centre.%we%will%call%the%privileged%discursive%points%of%this%partial% fixation,%nodal%points(laclauandmouffe,2001:112.italicsinoriginalunderlined inquotation).giventheinstabilityinherentintheidentityofeachmoment,the meaningascribedtomomentsadiscourseisneverfullyfixedandcanthus 18

19 alwaysbechanged.thismeansthatnodalpointsarealsoconsideredasfloating signifiersbuttheformer involvesthenotionofaparticularelementassuminga universalstructuringfunctionwithinacertaindiscursivefield(laclauand Mouffe,2001)whereasthelatterreferstotheoncgoingstrugglebetween differentdiscoursestofixthemeaningofimportantsigns(jørgensenand Phillips;2002:28).Intherenewableenergydiscourse,theenvironmentisan elementthatassumesthefunctionofanodalpoint,whilealsoactingasafloating signifierbetweenotherdiscoursessuchasthefossilfuelfueldiscourse. Whennodalpointsactascentralizedsignsinadiscourse,theydoso,notin termsoftheirgravityinmeaningbutthroughtheircombinationwithother carriersofmeaning.thiscombinationorinterconnectednessiscalled chainsof equivalence anddenotesthecombinationofelementsintocohesivewholes, articulatingmeaningstonodalpointsbyrelatingthemtowhattheyaresimilar toanddifferentfrom.forexample,thenodalpointofenvironmentgainsit s meaningbybeingarticulatedinconnectionwithotherchainsofequivalences,for instancepollution. Inthecontextofthisthesis,chainsofequivalenceareimportanttoanalysethe discoursesoffossilfuelenergyandrenewableenergyaswellastheoverlapping discourse.thisisdonebyidentifyingwhichnodalpointsexistinthese discoursesandwhicharticulationofelementstomomentspeopleuseto describeeachdiscourse.theuseoffloatingsignifiersisusedtoanalysethe overlappingdiscoursebetweenfossilfuelenergyandrenewableenergy, buildinguponthenotionthatthiscanprovideananswertotheextentofoverlap betweenthetwodiscourses &Power,&Politics&and&Objectivity& AclassicalandoftencitedconceptionofpoweristhatA%has%power%over%B%to%the% extent%that%he%(or%she)%can%get%b%to%do%something%that%b%would%otherwise%not%do (Dahl,1957;202c203).Thisconceptionbuildsexclusivelyontheexerciseof powerandcanbeexplainedasthesystemscrationalityperception.incontrast, 19

20 LaclauandMouffehaveaconceptionofpowerassomepositiveandproductive, understoodinthesensethatitcreates%our%knowledge,%our%identities%and%how%we% relate%to%one%another%as%groups%or%individuals(jørgensenandphillips,2002:37). ThisconceptionofpoweriscloselylinkedtoFoucault sgenealogicalwork,where powerdoesnotbelongtoindividualsorgroupsbutisspreadacrossdifferent socialpractices.powerisresponsibleforbothcreatingthesocialworldand formingthewaystheworldistalkedabout,andisthusbothaproductiveand constrainingforce(jørgensenandphillips,2002:14).inthecontextofthethesis, poweristheproductiveforcethatformsthewaywetalkaboutenergy,butatthe sametimeaconstrainingforcethatlimitshowwetalkaboutit.forinstance, poweristheforcethatlimitsthemeaningpossibilitiesofanyarticulatedelement toamoment;ifaconsumerisarticulatedasanenvironmentallyconscious consumer,thislimitsthemeaningsassociatedwithsuchaconsumerbutatthe sametimeproducesthemeaningsweunderstandbyit.poweristheforcethat createsreasoninginsocietyanddenoteshowpeoplecometounderstandthings, eventhoughtheycouldhavebeenunderstooddifferently. Politicsiscloselyrelatedtopower.Justaspowerholdstheabilitytoconstrain waysofthinkingandtalkingaboutreality,politicsisunderstoodasthe organizationofsocietyinaparticularwaythatexcludesallotherpossibleways andsociety%is%thus%the%outcome%of%continuous%political%processes(jørgensenand Phillips,2002:36).Actorspromotingdiscoursesthatorganizesocietyintermsof renewableenergythusexcludethediscoursesonorganizationofsocietyin termsoffossilfuels.thisisevidentindanishenergystrategypublicationwhen itstatesthatweshouldmovefromoilandgastowardsrenewableenergy,i.e.it becomesamatterofeither/or.whenastruggletakesplacebetweenparticular discourses,itbecomesclearthatdifferentactorshavedifferentwaysof organizingsociety.anenergycompanyproducingfossilfuelscouldhavean interestinpromotingadiscoursethatemphasizestheneedforoilandgasfor manyyearstocome,andthisstandsincontrasttoarenewableenergydiscourse. Inbothcases,theorganizationofsocietyopensupthepossibilityforsubjectsto identifythemselveswiththegivenorganizingandexcludeothers.acompany producingoilandgascannotcallitselfrenewablewithoutproducingenergythat 20