Discoursal power and multi-objective forestry in the Finnish print media

•Expressions of discoursal power in the Finnish print media were analysed.•Two types of hegemony and three types of subordination were identified.•Two types were closely associated with the multi-objective forestry paradigm.•These two types de-politicised the multi-objective forestry rhetoric.•The m...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forest policy and economics 2020-02, Vol.111, p.102031, Article 102031
Main Authors: Takala, Tuomo, Lehtinen, Ari, Tanskanen, Minna, Hujala, Teppo, Tikkanen, Jukka
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Conflict
Content analysis
Critical discourse analysis
De-politicisation
Democratization
Development policy
Discursive power
Forest management
Forestry
Forests
Hegemony
Identification methods
Mass media
Multiple objective analysis
NMDS
Objectives
Post-political
Power
Printing
Qualitative analysis
Subordination
Sustainable development
Telecommunications policy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•Expressions of discoursal power in the Finnish print media were analysed.•Two types of hegemony and three types of subordination were identified.•Two types were closely associated with the multi-objective forestry paradigm.•These two types de-politicised the multi-objective forestry rhetoric.•The media actors should be aware of these mechanisms of de-politicisation. Finnish forest policy has turned into the paradigm of (participatory) multi-objective forestry during the last decades. In this paper, we identify different types of discoursal power in the Finnish print media and analyse how – and with what kind of consequences – these types of power are associated with the present paradigm. The data consist of randomly selected print media articles (n = 164) on forest issues from three case years (1977, 1997, 2017). The mixed method analysis combines qualitative content analysis with multivariate methods. Two types of hegemony and three types of subordination were identified in the analysis. Single-objective hegemony (1) manifested itself in a conflict free narration that operated within one’s own single objective for forest use. In multi-objective hegemony (2), there were several objectives in a beautiful harmony. Deeply subordinate (3) narration emphasised fundamental conflicts between the objectives, whereas optimistic subordination (4) emphasised good co-operation as a solution for all problems. Mild subordination (5) was expressed when the objectives were mutually harmonious but there was a conflict between the means to achieve them. The paradigm of multi-objective forestry was essentially built on multi-objective hegemonic and mildly subordinate narrations. The types of discoursal power associated with the paradigm of multi-objective forestry appear problematic from the perspectives of sustainable development and democratic forest policy, as they effectively mask conflicts and divisions behind an ostensible consensus. The mass media actors should be more aware of these mechanisms of de-politicisation, even if we also found some marks of the return of the political in our analysis.
ISSN:1389-9341
1872-7050
DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102031