Page 26 - KATE_JOHNSTON_2017
P. 26

production and representation is valuable to my analysis of the environmental conflicts of my

               case studies - tinned tuna and the tonnara - and to understanding the productive capacities of


               sustainability.


                       Across  the  thesis  I  argue  that  it  is  crucial  to  ask,  which  groups  have  the  power  to

               define  the  term  and  terms  of  sustainability  and  which  groups  have  the  power  to  define

               culture? These questions make sense when we remember that discourse works to form the


               rules and truths, as well as the framing and scope of possible ways of understanding, relating

               to and speaking about situations, objects and terms. Stuart Hall reminds us:



                        The question of whether a discourse is true or false is less important than whether
                        it is effective. When it is effective – organising and regulating relations of power...
                        it is called “a regime of truth”.  (Hall 2007, p. 58)



               Sustainability is an effective discourse, which contemporarily frames and delimits tuna and


               the tonnara. Of course discourse does not only exist in the realm of ideas and language but in

               everyday practice and objects. While the notion of ‘discursive practice’ (Hall 2007, p. 56) is


               helpful to locate meaning making in everyday practices, I draw on Tony Bennett and Patrick

               Joyce (2010) who bring the work of Foucault closer to a material semiotic approach of Actor

               Network Theory (ANT). By arguing that the social is always performed through the material,


               they  highlight  the  false  separation  of  environmental  and  socio-cultural  realms  (Bennett  &

               Joyce  2010,  p.  4).  What  emerges  is  the  absurdity  of  framing  the  social  as  context  in  an


               environmental  problem.  Each  in  their  own  way  Val  Plumwood,  Lesley  Head  and  Elspeth

               Probyn  have  theorised  biocultural  communities  as  a  way  to  understand  human/plant  or


               human/animal relationships. For me, the term biocultural allows me to think of environmental

               problems  and  responses  to  those  problems  as  defined  through  human/fish  relationships,

               which are materially, discursively and politically faceted. As I will expand below, my starting


               point  in  researching  the  biocultural  and  accounting  for  the  material,  semiotic  and  the






                                                                                                        14
   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31