Exposing ideological effects of mediational means variation or alignment in stakeholders’ impact discourses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36005/jplm.v4i1.104Keywords:
Sustainable development, Discourses in place, Mediational means, Historical body, Interaction orderAbstract
The mining industry’s links to sustainable development (SD) often trigger a struggle over mining’s impact representations. For instance, there are politics of what issue to communicate and whose interest is served by mining SD representations. To represent mining’s impact, stakeholders prefer one meaning-making system over another. In the social world, no semiotic system choice is neutral. Rather, they are mediated by social actors’ values and interests. What has not been extensively studied is how stakeholders’ choice of a mediational means over another indexicalise the stakeholders’ ideology manifested in the discursive strategies of positive in-group and negative out-group representations. Investigating stakeholders' mediational means choices can facilitate stakeholders’ engagement because it affects how people relate to others in society. Data is generated from an interview tour of a mining company’s physical settings and selected portions of the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) letter to the stakeholders. The concepts of ideological use of mediational means and mediational means as historical, informed the empirical analysis. The findings of this study show that the local activists used ethnographic photographs to engage in negative othering, but the company used disembodied visuals to engage in positive self-representation. We conclude that the politics of mining impact representation must be understood as involving an irreducible tension between ‘what is out there’ in the physical settings and the stakeholder's ideological use of ‘what is out there’ to engage in either a positive self-representation or a negative othering. Policy measures aimed at resolving mining companies and communities' struggles must uncover the hidden interests and values behind semiotic resources used to communicate impact.
Downloads
References
Amoako, K. O., Amoako, I. O., Tuffour, J., & Marfo, E. O. (2022). Formal and informal sustainability reporting: an insight from a mining company’s subsidiary in Ghana. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 20(5), 897–925. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-12-2020-0368
Bebbington, A., Hinojosa, L., Bebbington, D. H., Burneo, M. L., & Warnaars, X. (2008). Contention and ambiguity: Mining and the possibilities of development. Development and Change, 39(6), 887–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00517.x
Benford, R. D. (1997). An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00445.x
Bhatia, V. K., John, F., & Jones, R. H. (2008). Approaches to discourse analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, R. H. Jones, & J. Flowerdew (Eds.), Advances in Discourse Studies (1st ed., pp. 1–18).
Boakye, B., Cascadden, M., Kuschminder, J., Szoke-Burke, S., & Werker, E. (2018). Implementing the Ahafo Benefit Agreements: Seeking Meaningful Community Participation at Newmont’s Ahafo Gold Mine in Ghana. In SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3661951
Breeze, R. (2012). Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after deepwater horizon. Discourse and Society, 23(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431511
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Conde, M. (2017). Resistance to mining: A review. Ecological Economics, 132, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.025
Davies, B., & Harre, R. (2001). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & J. S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice (1st ed., pp. 261–271). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Davolos, P., & Albuja, V. (2014). Ecuador: Extractivists dynamics, politics and discourse. In H. Veltmeye & J. Petras (Eds.), The new extractivism : A post-neoliberal development model or imperialism of the twenty -first century? (1st ed., pp. 144–171). Zed Books Ltd.
De Mattos Neto, A. J., & Da Silva Rebelo, R. E. (2018). Social movements against large mining companies in Brazil. Veredas Do Direito, 15(32), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v15i32.1240
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (1st ed.). Longman publishing.
Fairclough, N. (2016). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Frederiksen, T., & Banks, G. (2023). Can Mining Help Deliver the SDGs : Discourses , Risks and Prospects. https://doi.org/10.1177/10704965221139759
Gilberthorpe, E., & Banks, G. (2012). Development on whose terms?: CSR discourse and social realities in Papua New Guinea’s extractive industries sector. Resources Policy, 37(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.09.005
Gray, B., Hanke, R. C., & Putnam, L. L. (2007). The Discourse of Environmental Conflicts: How Stakeholders Construct Their Claims, Their Opponents and Themselves. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1111635
Haalboom, B. (2011). Framed Encounters with Conservation and Mining Development: Indigenous Peoples’ use of Strategic Framing in Suriname. Social Movement Studies, 10(4), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.614108
Hult, F. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202(202), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2010.011
Hult, F. (2015). Making Policy Connections across Scales Using Nexus Analysis. In Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning (pp. 217–231). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118340349.ch19
Hult, F. (2017). Nexus Analysis as Scalar Educational Ethnography. In M. Martin-Jones & D. Martin (Eds.), Researching multilingualism: Critical and ethnographic perspectives (pp. 89–103). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Kirsch, S. (2010). Sustainable mining. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-009-9113-x
Morehouse, E. R. (2012). Beginning interpretative inquiry: A step-by-step approach to research and evaluation (1st ed.). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Nilsson, A., Sandström, J., & Lind, T. (2013). Sustainability communication in the mining industry. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:997011/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Ocaklı, B., Krueger, T., Janssen, M. A., & Kasymov, U. (2021). Taking the discourse seriously: Rational self-interest and resistance to mining in Kyrgyzstan. Ecological Economics, 189 (107177).
Onn, A. H., & Woodley, A. (2014). A discourse analysis on how the sustainability agenda is defined within the mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.086
Özen, H., & Özen, Ş. (2017). What Makes Locals Protesters? A Discursive Analysis of Two Cases in Gold-mining Industry in Turkey. World Development, 90, 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.002
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice. In Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (1st ed.). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2003.13.2.246
Scollon, R. (2008a). Analyzing public discourse: Discourse analysis in the making of public policy (First). Routledge.
Scollon, R. (2008b). Discourse itineraries. Nine processes of resemiotization. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in Discourse Studies (1st ed., pp. 233–244). Routledge.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Scollon, S. W., & de Saint-Georges, I. (2015). Mediated discourse analysis. In Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, January 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068.ch5
Snow, D. A., Vliegenthart, R., & Ketelaars, P. (2019). Framing perspective on social movements: Its conceptual roots and architecture. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, H. Kriesi, & J. McCammon, Holly (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168577.ch22
Tibaijuka, A. (2019). Comprehending the nature of mine-community relationships from the local’s unspoken viewpoints in Gieta, Tanzania. In Journal of Sociology and Development (Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 1–22).
Walton, S., & Rivers, C. (2011). A missed opportunity : understanding community stakeholders ’ perspectives. 6563(August). https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2011.591521
Wellington, J. (2015). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The Primacy of Mediated Action in Sociocultural Studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039409524672
Whitmore, A. (2006). The emperors new clothes: Sustainable mining? Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(3–4), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.10.005
Wohlwend, K. E. (2014). Mediated Discourse Analysis : Tracking Discourse in Action. In P. Albers, T. Holbrook, & A. . Flint (Eds.), New methods in literary research (pp. 72–85). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Planning and Land Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
