Luthcke, Arendt, Rowlands, McCarthy & Larsen: Recent glacier mass changes in the Gulf of Alaska region from GRACE mascon solutions (2008) [taken from Journal of Glaciology, Vol 54 No 188 (2008-2009)]
Abstract + Introduction summary: Usage of GRACE satellite imagery during the period of April 2003-September 2007 indicates an overall negative mass balance in Gulf of Alaska glaciers, with the most rapid glacial mass losses observed during the 2004 melt season due to record high temperatures experienced that year. Loss of Alaskan glacier mass is important to understand because current measurements depict melting ice from mountain glaciers and ice caps as presently contributing more to global sea-level rise (GSLR) than the loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, due to the high sensitivity of mountain and ice cap glaciers to climatic fluctuations, especially in coastal environments. The subpolar, coastal glaciers of Alaska and northwestern Canada are the largest known contributors to GSLR of all glacier systems, despite the aforementioned ice sheet melt having more long-term potential for contributing to GSLR.
1. CDA methods (Fairclough)
a. Experiential/explicit ideological values: In choosing to study and publish the extent of Alaskan glacier retreat, the authors of the text assume that this loss of glacial mass is somehow germane to human interests. Ideologically contested language that is used are phrases such as GSLR, “total sea-level rise potential,” and “significant accelerated ice loss,” all of which might be subject to qualification, possibly in terms of what constitutes “significant” ice loss or what one means by GSLR “potential”. Also, the author’s confidence in usage of recent satellite laser imaging technology to determine the extent of mass loss points to an ideology wherein mankind, through creation of specific tech, can accurately gauge natural and climatic processes, as well as determine how prone it is to natural disasters associated with glacier melt, and with the help of sufficient data, possibly mitigate those catastrophes entirely. Finally, the context of the piece, a scientific journal, presents an ideology where empirical, scientific calculation is inherently objective and not subject to social or political restraints in any acknowledged or presupposed way.
b. Relational values: Do to the scientific context of the piece, a common ideological ground presented between the reader and the authors of the text might be one where it is safely assumed that the text’s statements are told in good faith and accurate insofar as the project’s research methods were accurate and comprehensive, however open for critique such that a more accurate and objective answer to the initial question of the extent of glacier retreat may be discovered. To defend and reproduce this supposedly unbiased ideology, scientific euphemisms for the socially charged notion of “glacier retreat” are used throughout the text - in particular, “loss of glacier mass” and “mass loss”. This serves to distance the authors from any aspect of socialization that might infiltrate their hyper-rational scientific discourse.
c. Textual metaphors/description of processes in other terms: No explicit metaphors, however much of the text utilizes mathematical language, describing certain processes as a “function” of others, elements of data as existing in a “series”, and necessary “conversions” between volume and mass changes. This might imply an ideology wherein nature can be feasibly reduced to mathematical concepts and formulae, at first glance removed of any emotion or element of socialization.
d. Logical connectors/existence of ideological common-sense: Incorporation of satellite-to-satellite technology so as to obtain more detailed temporal information with regards to glacier mass loss relies on the assumption that more data results in a more “well-rounded”, objective conclusion. The study’s assertion that contemporary altimetry does not take into account “detailed temporal information” implies a void that must be filled, in this case by satellite imaging. The text explains that while the laser imaging produces static noise that must be smoothed over in human post-processing (a necessary approximation that points to the still-incompleteness of the additional temporal information), any additional information in that regard is better than none, an argument that works to construct a frame in which the negative incompletion must be filled or explained by some sort of positivist statement.
e. Large-scale structures: The text takes the form of a paper in a scientific journal, beginning with an abstract and an introduction, a briefing on the research methods utilized, data and results, and conclusions regarding those results. This empirical structure reproduces the ideological concept of the scientific method being the supreme means of establishing a “truth”, in this case that of the extent of glacier retreat in Alaska.
2. Narrative analysis methods (Lejano, Ingram & Ingram):
a. Larger metanarrative schema: The text might fit into the broad tale of using methodical practices in order to understand natural processes and possibly mitigate a potential disaster - a mastery of the sciences to ward off the unpredictable terror that is nature - however no explicit acknowledgement of an upcoming disasters actually occurs within the text (although the concept of GSLR might be code for it).
b. Demonstration of emplotment: Similar to “logical connectors” and “large-scale structures” component: usage of the scientific method works to depict all facets of the study as cohesive and producing of a singular conclusion about the phenomenon. However, “meaningfulness,” in the sense of a literary gesture (for instance, elaborating on mankind’s distinct relation to nature), is not established beyond situating the text into a scientific framework wherein a statement is meaningful insofar as it is empirically “accurate” and can make way for other similar scientific statements to be made.
c. Presence of characterization: Very little is attempted by the text in the realm of characters or establishing distinct personalities for those characters. One might make the concession that the glaciers themselves are characters, mysterious entities hoped to be understood, and the scientists, wielding the tool of satellite-to-satellite laser imaging, as the protagonists hoping to conquer the other that is the lack of temporal information on Alaskan glacier melt. Beyond that, not much.
d. Demonstration of plurivocity (ability of the text to be interpreted in multiple ways): Beyond the matter-of-fact interpretation of the text that is simply the conclusion presented by the essay about the calculated extent of glacier mass loss, one might treat this influx of data as a sign to begin (or work harder) attempting to mitigate the long-term effects of GSLR and raise awareness about mountain glacier retreat. Conversely, one might view the study as, in the long term, irrelevant to human interests due to this loss of mountain ice’s contribution to GSLR as having been shown to be miniscule in comparison to that from future ice sheet melt, and thus our attention as humans is best suited elsewhere.
e. Emphasis on the role of alterity/the other: Touched upon earlier, but if we were to place this text into a narrative framework, the other would have to be that of the glaciers, as well as the extent of their retreat - both hoped to be understood by the scientific/glaciology community. While barriers to research may have existed in the course of the study, they are not touched upon in the text and thus there is little to go off of in terms of establishing any sort of “enemy” for the protagonists (assumed to be the scientists).
3. Larger-scale questions regarding discourse types (Foucault):
a. Establishment of a “fellowship of discourse”: Some rarefaction by the text in the sense of it re-producing the preservation of this scientific discourse, but ensuring it stay within a closed community is definitely at play here. Jargon specific to the field (“eustatic component of GSLR”, “KBRR data residuals”, “Airborne laser altimetry”, “geodesists”, etc.) is heavily utilized and the material is of a niche variety. If the title of the journal was not enough, this text definitely caters to a certain individual - the glaciologist - and the informing of him or her. It is not made explicit, however, that this information cannot leave this closed circle; it would in fact be somewhat counter-intuitive for this information about GSLR to not reach the public or the possibly the political spectrum so as not to just be recirculated within the discourse of glaciology. The intention is clear, that if this crucial information regarding Alaskan glacier retreat were to be disseminated to a broader audience, it would not be in this form, but likely a simpler, less jargon-intense version of the message and methodology.
b. Establishment of “doctrine”: The text, now published in a respected glaciology journal, can now be considered the scientific “truth” or “reality” until further critique or elaboration. Hence, the text functions to establish for the discourse a certain version of reality different from what was understood previously, and barring the audience (glaciologists) from interpretations separate from this new one - unless, of course, a glaciologist has sufficient data to underlie a counter-interpretation of glacial processes, in which case that which is understood as scientific truth shifts in his or her favor and the doctrine is once again amended. Each doctrinal shift, however, is reliant on the framework in place involving scientific journals and the thousands of scholars and scientists who may choose not to accept it, the favor of which is typically acquired through persuasive methodologies, clear writing styles, and sufficient data to prove a given point.
c. Prevalence of “social appropriation of discourse”: The text serves to align its disseminated scientific concepts, as well as glaciological discourse overall, with social/political agendas insofar as those social and political actants (grassroots organizations, conservation groups, political figures) interpret the text as worthy of being acted upon and incorporate it into their own discourses and agendas. The content of the text seems more prone to incorporation into a discourse associated with that of efforts to combat climate change and to raise environmental awareness, seeing as the text’s message is one of emphasizing the Alaskan glacier retreat’s contribution to GSLR, an issue widely pointed out by activists, labeling human industry as at least in part responsible for the climatic change that in turn precipitates loss of glacier mass.
4. Evidence for the “construction” of nature, a description of natural processes tailored to promote a particular social or political epistemology, which in turn paves the way for certain other similar statements to be made: When looked at through the lens of discourse and narrative analysis, this glaciology text reveals itself as fitting into broad scientific framework/discourse, but one which nonetheless delimits the types of statements which can be made - ones, for instance, which are arrived at through empirical rigor and reflection and incorporation of statements made by others operating within the same discourse (activated in the form of references). The text does not explicitly align itself with any social or political epistemology other than the facet of which that serves to further promulgate science as essentially true (to the best of our knowledge) and scientists as knowing what they’re doing, not cutting corners, etc. Nonetheless, it is the non-explicitness of the alignment that lends itself to the very power of the scientific argument, an interesting concealment that allows for statements made within a supposedly objective scientific discourse to be appropriated by separate discourses known to be, in a broad sense, socialized and politicized. One might consider the question of whether a social or political value inheres in the “original” glaciological statement (presupposing here it is not merely a transposition of a statement from a separate discourse), or if they are simply ascribed to afterwards by these socio-political discourses. As in, whether the hegemony that is being reproduced by the scientific glaciological discourse, along with this text which resides within it (or as a constituent of it), is one that perpetuates science as objective and free from social effects, but also perpetuates these separate social and political fields (which utilize the knowledges produced by the scientific discourse) as prone to those effects. However, if one understands the socialized value not as an inherent socialized “ingredient” residing within a statement that is transferred from one discourse to another, but rather the result of a complex structural relationship between discourses and institutions (as Foucault would argue). When assessing this larger framework, wherein a supposedly “objective” statement can be activated at any point for a political means, what is arrived at is evidence for a scientific framework that is inextricably linked to a political one, serving as the “rational” basis for those socialized and power-laden discursive “facts”, and thus summarily implicated in the epistemological consequences associated with that transition.
Yeah, it's quite long. I did a couple of these, each taking a few hours to read and to analyze, but I felt it was completely germane. In other news, my project is wrapping up. I'm putting the final touches on my final product (the short story) and I'm currently working on my Powerpoint presentation, for which I have my first practice run a week from today. Next week's post will most likely be my final update for the blog; in the post I'll include a .pdf of my short story, along with its theoretical companion text for anyone whose interested. Have a good last week of your projects, everybody! It's been great so far.
