Entry #10

Hi all, in the last post I mentioned I would be sharing with you some application of the CDA and NA methods I had written up in that rubric for myself. I've spent quite some time at the University Science-Engineering Library in the last week or so, looking at various essays from glaciology journals and seeing if my empirical analysis rubric was at all applicable. It turned out to be very helpful and applicable, and also highly elucidating in terms of signaling how the language utilized within this particular scientific discourse in effect reproduces certain assumptions we as humans have about our relationship to nature. In the last week or so of my project I'd also like to apply these methods to some media texts in order to get a more well-rounded view, but otherwise I'm very pleased with the results so far. Here's an example analysis bit that I produced for one of the texts (formatting will probably get screwed up, but whatever):

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.

Entry #9

Now that the time allotted for my project is coming to a close, I decided it is necessary to start thinking in terms of not only my final product, but also my presentation. Working with Sarah for her upcoming PhD research, along with following her reading suggestions on political ecology and glaciology, attacking the Foucault, and then researching discourse analysis on my own time has made for a pretty scatter-brained project. I'll concede that with Sarah's resource suggestions I significantly deviated from my original reading list I produced for the project; however, I have most certainly read more than I expected to/set out to read initially. But, for thinking in terms of the presentation, I realized that all of my research needs to be presented in a way that is both vaguely chronological and coherent, one that clearly indicates how the different fields are connected. And not only that, but presented in transparent, grounded language. For the sake of clarity, this means examples. Thus, in the last week I have created for myself a sort of discourse/narrative analysis "rubric", methods/guidelines of which I plan on applying to glacier texts of all different discourses (media, scientific, conversational, etc.). I'm hoping that approaching the discursive content of these texts (most of which I can find online, or at the U of A library) in an empirical fashion, I will access an efficient means of gauging the politicization of the texts' language and hence their "construction" of socialized meanings and associations surrounding natural concepts. The slight irony is that one of the main ideas of the texts I've been working with these past two months is to be openly critical of empiricism, specifically scientific empirical "truth", so by approaching these texts empirically I am being (structurally) somewhat hypocritical. However, I feel this constitutes a necessary evil, with the tradeoff being a clear, understandable, and logically fluid presentation. Plus, it's good practice for application of CDA/NA methods. For all the texts I analyze I will produce a write-up and upload that to the Evernote database I maintain with my advisor Sarah, such that she can easily refer to them for her own research. Lastly, I am aware that not all of these methods/steps of the rubric will be applicable to each individual text. Part of discourse analysis is determining the limits of any particular method and its relevance to the text in question. But here's what I've got for my rubric:

1. Critical discourse analysis methods (Fairclough); asking the following questions:
   a. What "experiential" values does the text's language use/refer to? That is to say, are words being used that are in some way ideologically contested? Is an ideology explicitly made clear by the text?
   b. What "relational" values do the words have? Do the words being used point to a common ideological ground between speaker and reader? Is there an element of formality/are euphemisms used?
   c. What metaphors does the text use? Are processes being described in other terms? What ideological implications might that have? (For instance, if one characterizes a series of protests as a cancer or a sickness, it is a priori assumed that that person does not want to reason with the protestors, but instead wants to categorically remove them)
   d. What logical connectors does the text use? Do the relationships made between statements demonstrate a form of ideological common-sense? To whom might this type of logic be exclusionary?
   e. What larger-scale structures does the text have? That is, does the text conform to any socially expected structure (specific orderings of types of statements) in making its point? Why might that be so?
2. Narrative analysis methods (Lejano, Ingram & Ingram)
   a. Somewhat similar to last question: does the text fit into any larger narrative scheme or metanarrative? (ie man vs. nature, Odyssey homecoming narrative, etc)
   b. Does the text demonstrate emplotment---are isolated events made to appear causal or related (or "meaningful") via their placement next to each other and into a larger narrative structure?
   c. Does the text have clearly-defined characters, ie with different personalities? How does their characterization contribute to the larger point being made by the text?
   d. Does the text demonstrate plurivocity---does it intend to be able to be interpreted in a variety of ways? Are there nonetheless limitations of this plurality of interpretations? By what ideological rules might those interpretations be delimited?
3. Larger-scale questions regarding discourse types; specifically, the "rarefaction among speaking subjects" of a discourse (Foucault)
   a. Does the text point to the prevalence of a "fellowship of discourse"? Does the text function in some way to preserve a given discourse, but ensure that it stays within a closed community?
   b. Does the text point to the prevalence of "doctrine"? Does it function to disseminate a particular discourse, linking the reader to certain types while barring him or her from others?
   c. Does the text point to the prevalence of "social appropriation of discourse"? Does it function to align education of certain discourses with social/political agendas?
4. Overall purpose: taking from the above, are the ways natural facets are presented by the text, when looked at through the lens of discourse and narrative analysis, somehow indicative of a certain ideological or political epistemology? Is it a hegemonic knowledge source? Why this one instead of another? Under this epistemological regime, what other power-laden statements might be able to be made, and to whose benefit?

So that's that..also, a heads-up to any readers I may have amassed: I will be in NYC for a Columbia pre-orientation thing for part of next week, so I apologize in advance for what's probably going to be another late-ish blog update. I really hope to share with you some of these methods in action, as well as possibly what I have written of my rough draft of my final product by that point. Alright, hope you enjoyed this post and have a good rest of the week!

Entry #8

Hi all, sorry for the late-ish update! Things are going well with my project. This week I finished the outline for my short story and its theoretical companion piece (well, sort of finished--I've sent it to my advisors for suggestions and criticism, so it's highly likely I'll be making changes to it). I'll probably edit this post with a link to the outline in the next couple days, after I've gotten a chance to speak to my advisor Sarah about it. Or maybe I'll just save that for next week's post, I'm not too sure. In terms of helping Sarah with stuff, she's finished applying for grant aid so there's no more proofreading to be done (for the time being)! She's had me transcribing interviews in English which she recorded a while back for her Confluencecenter project. It's somewhat tedious, but it's alright, and believe it or not I'm seeing a lot of overlaps in subject matter with the book by Lejano, Ingram and Ingram on narratives in environmental networks, which I finished reading and mentioned in my post last week. Originally, as part of that Confluencecenter project, Sarah's plan was to produce a bilingual map of the AZ-Sonora border region, complete with interviews, narratives, and just general fun facts about various places of interest, and which whole thing she was hoping I could help her with (come with her to places on the AZ side of the border, take photos, etc.). However, she's put that on hold for the time being and has instead decided to contribute to a larger map being put together by another organization (I'm not too sure of the specifics at the moment; she just mentioned this to me the end of last week). Either way, I'm still hoping I'll be able to help out with a project like that, combining elements of geography and my recent knowledge of narrative analysis to put together some cool features. It's definitely not set in stone, though, and I'll have to find out more.

What's great though is that I'm right on track with the schedule I wrote, like, three months ago in terms of making on my final product. Starting next week I'll be working on the rough draft of my short story and companion piece--all the theory I've learned so far from my reading and working with Sarah these last two months will culminate in that, so I'm really trying hard to make sure it's my best work. I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to writing essays, slaving for hours over tiny details like sentence structure and word choice, so I'm hoping that carries over into my creative writing--obviously, though, not to the extent that I don't manage to finish! I have high hopes for this though and I'll be keeping the blog updated with my various drafts, if any readers are interested in taking a look at my progress (I know you're quite busy with your own projects). Alright then, have an awesome and productive week!

Entry #7

      Hi all, this week I managed to get started on my final product. Might seem a little early, but right now it's just the framework/outline for my short story. I also finished the narratives book I mentioned last week (or at least, the sections of it that are relevant to my project). The main thesis of the book, The Power of Narrative in Environmental Networks, by Lejano, Ingram and Ingram, is that focusing on the narratives surrounding environmental networks (often in the form of local knowledges of how certain ecological systems function/came to be) is a useful tool for bridging cultural gaps and conducting more equitable and effective science. The book argues that combining literary analysis with conventional enviro-sciences is helpful in the sense that narratives are inherently interpretative--that is to say, no single reading of a story is necessarily the correct one. Thus, this aspect of interpretation lends itself to a pluralism of options when dealing with ecological proceedings, and hopefully inspiring newfound respect for local knowledge systems, which are more than often attacked by conventional Western science as "backward" or supposedly negative for the environment (despite, in most cases, local coexistence for hundreds if not thousands of years). Either way, it's an interesting read, and yet another example of subtle issues in scientific discourse and its way of dealing with non-conventional epistemologies. The book contains a few key case studies, including one involving researchers' attempts to conduct science on the Arizona-Sonora border. This one was highly elucidating for me in terms of learning about some of the political barriers to ecology in our region, and although not necessarily relevant to my project, it was still really informative and of course an example of the power of constructing a narrative in order to deal with these kinds of struggles.

Also, I think I forgot to mention in my last post, but I went to a lecture at the U of A last week on glacial cycles (of expansion and retreat), by premier geochemist Wally Broecker (of Columbia University!) hoping to gain a more scientific perspective on my topic. Unfortunately, almost all of the information went over my head...the presentation comprised a lot of graphs indicating CO2 levels over 20,000 year periods. Broecker's argument was that CO2 from volcanic eruptions probably had much more of a role than previously thought by geologists in driving these long-term glacial cycles. My project is dealing with the ways in which humans have talked about glaciers (in recent history), so sadly this wasn't too helpful, but still interesting I suppose and also a very clear-cut example of pure, supposedly objective and rational scientific discourse in action.

I've been making my way through the Fairclough book on discourse analysis, and having just completed the two chapters on analysis methods, I'm hoping to try some of them out on media sources. My advisor informs me that the U of A library probably has a full collection of National Geographic magazines, so that will probably be a great opportunity for analysis, as there are no doubt numerous articles in their on glaciers. It will certainly be interesting to see what kinds of things are uncovered; mainly, I'm looking to see what assumptions are in place governing how humans perceive natural change, based on the types of language used by media in describing glaciers and glacial movement/retreat.

Now, a bit of a jump, but if you're interested in the types of themes my short story will be touching upon (I've already got a pretty good idea of how I'll integrate most of these!) here's a quick list I compiled, with the authors I'm getting these ideas from (formatting might get messed up because I'm copying and pasting from a Word document):
1.     Contesting of dichotomy between internal and external nature: internal nature’s depiction as an inherent human drive to dominate external nature, or external nature’s depiction as strictly an anti-human force
2.    Human monetary desires’ otherizing effect on nature: seeking to confine the environment to a managerial/institutional order so as to “make sense” of it in terms of capital (Harvey)
3.    Cartography as power-laden: choosing to emphasize certain geographic or social features over others speaks to imbedded assumptions people hold about society and nature (rural versus urban, national boundaries prior to natural formations, etc.)
4.    Emergence of a “new history”: one of pinpointing and describing relationships between various chronologies, determining those chronologies’ “interplay of correlation and dominance” by exposing certain relevant grammatical and semantic trends (Foucault)
5.     Finite-ization of language: discourse not as an ever-expanding field of statements but rather a “unity” within which only certain statements can be made and be deemed sensible (Foucault)
6.     Nature and wilderness as human constructions: evidenced by perpetuation of certain imageries found in media, political, scientific, and conversational discourse, and upheld by institutions such as conservation initiatives (Robbins)
7.     Similar construction of natural/ecological disasters: disasters only disasters to the extent that humans interact with natural transformations taking place, yet framed consistently by media as anti-human forces; impoverished areas more prone to disaster due to poor infrastructure, reduced access to aid, etc. (Carey)
8.     “Duality of ecological and social projects”: different narratives surrounding environmental change often follow existing social/political divisions, sustainability debate more about preserving a social order than preserving nature (Harvey, Robbins)
9.     Power of narrative in describing environmental systems: emphasizes interpretive aspect of ecology, allowing for multiple perspectives and more equitable environmental solutions, cf. conventional science’s maintenance of itself as the only valid form of explanation (Lejano, Ingram & Ingram)
10.  Power of ideology in discourse: ideology (coherent set of political and social beliefs) most effective when “naturalized”: ceasing to be viewed as just one possible belief system but rather embodying certain “common-sense” beliefs, concealing its original arbitrariness (Fairclough)

That's all for now! Hope you all had a good week.

Entry #6

Hi all, here's an update on what I've been doing:

It's been more of the same with my advisor Sarah, who is still in the process of applying for grants for her upcoming research. This means a lot of proofreading on my end, helping to make sure they're as clear and effective as possible. In addition, she found a friend who had a copy of a new book that combines discourse analysis (specifically narrative analysis) and political ecology, titled The Power of Narrative in Environmental Networks, by Raul Lejano, Mrill Ingram and Helen Ingram. (Her friend lent it to Sarah who's lent it to me.) It is indeed quite new, published in 2013, and contains what I've found to be a very useful chapter on methods of narrative analysis--terms for analysis such as emplotment, plurivocity, and characterization--all in the context of ecological systems. Seems really cool, and will certainly be helpful for my upcoming writing project. I plan on starting that this coming week; it's Spring Break and my advisor is gone for part of it, so that will give me a bit of time to finish this narratives book and the Fairclough text, which I mentioned in a previous post, as well as get started on my short story! I'm quite looking forward to it all.

I mentioned last week I'd give a run-down of a sort of discursive "timeline" about glaciers as delineated by Carey's essay How glaciers became an endangered species. Although Foucault explicitly mentions that discursive formations cannot be traced back to particular events--but rather it is the discourse itself that gives rise to other discursive "possibilities" --I still feel it is important to keep in mind a historical context when talking these kinds of trends. Apparently, up until the early 20th century, glaciers were thought of and depicted as sort of a menace; their inevitable creep, often destroying farmland and roads, was used as fodder for apocalyptic tales for hundreds of years. Simply put, (Western) people wished they would go away. This would correspond with the Romantic era of thought, which featured the notion of the sublime--the unfathomable power of nature in relation to man. This view of glaciers changed when the Little Ice Age ended around 1900, and glaciers started to melt. On one hand, despite the glaciers' slow disappearance, this melting was destructive; consequently formed glacial lakes are extremely unstable bodies of water, typically held in by week moraine dams, and often experiencing outburst floods and destroying villages (as was the case throughout the 20th century in Peru). On the other, and as the century progressed, these disappearances started to be viewed as visual markers for global climate change, and media coverage of their melting contributed to widespread knowledge of the phenomenon. In recent years, glaciers have shifted from an objective exemplar of global warming to a sort of "endangered species," as Carey puts it---sort of creatures in need of compassion and respect. This viewpoint is demonstrated by the "Save the Glaciers" discursive trend emphasized by much environmental literature, or the recent Greenpeace nation-building stunt pulled two weeks ago, which I wrote about in my blog post. It's all very interesting, but my questions are: what is the next phase in how we talk about glaciers? what sort of events might lead up to that? and what sort of epistemological repercussions might be brought about by this new narrative/discourse surrounding masses of ice? My creative writing project will touch upon these questions.

Have a good Spring Break!

Entry #5

Hi all, hope you had a great week at each of your internships. As of right now, my advisor is writing applications to receive monetary aid for her upcoming research/field work in South America this summer, so I've been working on proofreading her essays (for both readability and effect), hoping to help her secure some grant donations for her PhD work. Most of these programs are very selective in terms of who they give money to, so altogether it sounds like a highly stressful process! Nevertheless, I'll be trying my best to make sure it works out well for her. We've been moving forward in The Archaeology of Knowledge. An interesting thing about Foucault is that he likes to never refer to things outright; before nearly everything he alludes to there is a sequence of qualifiers distancing himself from the traditional interpretation of a given word. A quick example: instead of just writing the word "science" he'll choose to acknowledge "the region usually known as science"; on one hand this idiosyncrasy can be tiresome, as it leads to a lot of nebulous propositions difficult for the reader to produce hypotheticals for. But on the other hand, from a structural point of view, it makes a lot of sense: Foucault, in his assessments of how language is set up - his analysis of the assumptions, groupings, metaphors, etc. that we as humans tend to absent-mindedly gap-fill - does not want to fall into the same trap of accepting the definitive nature of any given word or phrase ("definitions" of words are something he has a big problem with! See for example his examination of the evolution of the word "madness"). Thus, he wants to keep his distance from these concepts, these bundles of notions and assumptions that may or may not be tied inextricably to the maintenance of power, i.e., the idea of "correctness" in modern society. Foucault's writing style alone, although often critiqued by scholars for its obscurantist terminologies, has provided me with inspiration for my upcoming writing project. How, in conversational discourse, for instance, do we avoid these outright referrals to something definitive? I was reading James Simon Kunen's The Strawberry Statement earlier (a novel about Vietnam war protests) when I came across the following line, which I found to be quite funny, as well as relevant to my project! He writes: "We youths say 'like' all the time because we mistrust reality. It takes a certain commitment to say something is. Inserting 'like' gives you a bit more running room." (The Strawberry Statement preceded The Archaeology of Knowledge by three years, interestingly enough.)

In other recent news (last week or so), the Chilean division of Greenpeace (a massive international environmental NGO) has pulled a pretty bold stunt relating directly to my project: claiming a legal loophole to create a new state within Chile: the "Glacier Republic." This is a means to bring attention to the lack of legal protection for Chilean glaciers, which account for 82% (!) of S American glacier mass. This lack of protection, argues Greenpeace, amounts to an open invitation for mining companies to negatively impact regions reliant on glaciers for water resources, including one of Chile's most populated areas. This stunt, not unlike the NGO forces compelling the Pascua Lama mining project to be suspended last year, indicates a recent and interesting discursive reorientation towards the role of glaciers in modern society, in subtle contradistinction to the ideas put forth in Carey's book In the Shadow of  Melting Glaciers: rather than framing glaciers as potential dangers to humans, in the vein of catastrophes such as glacial lake outbursts and avalanches, the establishment of the Glacier Republic depicts these bodies of ice as more or less endangered (with their destruction, of course, also negatively impacting those who depend on them for water resources). This recent development has compelled me to dive into one of Carey's essays, "How glaciers became an endangered species," which I'll fill you in on next week. This essay, along with his book, will be key to establishing a more or less chronology containing certain events, at which points the discourse surrounding glaciers was irrevocably altered. I've decided that my short story will be a near-future sort of narrative, depicting a new event at which the glaciers have been discursively (and thus, epistemologically) altered. I'm quite looking forward to it!

Entry #4

Hi all, hope everyone's projects are going well. My advisor's been in KY for a conference the second half of this week, so I got the day off these past couple of days. I took this as an opportunity to delve into a new book that I found a .pdf for online: Language and Power, by Norman Fairclough, who's one of the leading scholars in the field of CDA. I'm only up to Chapter 4, where he talks about discourse's reflection of what he calls ideology, ideology being the non-power-related assumptions about the world around us (he outlines the link between power and discourse pretty comprehensively in Chapter 3, but of course there's a lot of crossover). At the time of this writing I haven't gotten to the section devoted to discourse analysis methods (Chapter 5 I believe), so I can't share anything yet in the realm of application, but I assure you that's coming up (probably next week!). Another thing about the book: Fairclough's version of discourse, and the thing that he's analyzing the most is spoken word (recorded transcripts, spoken texts, speeches, etc.), however he devotes a lot of time to media discourse as well, which is of most relevance to my project. Media discourse, like conversational discourse, is different from a lot of written language in that certain linguistic structures are generally favored, and certain types of information are valued (or omitted), often making for interesting power dynamics as expressed by the piece in question, which Fairclough outlines very methodically in his book.

I've also been working my way, slowly but surely, through what's probably the most difficult (but also the most enlightening!) text I've ever read, Michel Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge. My advisor, Sarah, has herself never read the book so we're working on this one together, with her guiding me along and clarifying the parts I've found to be impenetrable when reading alone. There's a lot going on here! I'll talk about what I've found to be most interesting: first, in the introduction, he sets up a dichotomy between the "old" version of history and the "new" version it's evolved into, with the traditional one concerned with pinpointing various "discontinuities" (a term he's yet to clearly define, as of Chapter 4) and neutralizing them by defining each of their positions in relation to one another, in effect setting up a chronological series of causality. He argues that history's new role is one of not only defining the limits of each of these "horizontal" series (histories such as medicine, philosophy, religion, literature, politics, etc.), but of determining the "vertical" relationships among these series - as in, what dynamic of correlation (or domination!) exists between them. Foucault suggests, as a means of assessing this interplay, looking at the language used in certain historical documents, in what amounts to one of the earliest cases for CDA: language analysis in terms of looking not at the "what?" but the "why?" of discourse. Later on, he calls into question his own role as a discourse analyst. He insists he's not for an outright denial of all assumptions governing our thinking; despite his assertion that much of discourse is based not so much on a traditional "already-said" but rather a "never-said" (a "repressive presence of what it does not say"), he instead wants to unwind its innate assumptions, to show that they cannot just be commonsensibly, or as he puts it, "tranquilly" accepted. Lastly and quite helpfully, Foucault puts forth what I feel is a really great definition for discourse analysis, summed up by the following three questions:
1. "[A]ccording to what rules has a particular statement been made?"
2. "[A]ccording to what rules could other similar statements be made?" and
3. "[H]ow is it that one discursive statement appeared rather than another?"
These are the questions I need to be asking when I begin actual discursive analysis of media sources relating to Pascua Lama in the coming weeks.

I mentioned last week I'd talk a bit about Mike Carey's book In the Shadow of Melting Glaciers and how it relates to the field of Political Ecology as detailed by Paul Robbins. Not only a great introduction for someone like me, in terms thinking about the social, economic, and political implications of glacier retreat, Carey's book also addresses how all human ecological assumptions and endeavors have power-laden ideologies backing them, conscious or no. The book, which I've nearly finished, describes the social and political climates of towns in the Andes affected by glacier retreat throughout the 20th century, in which a host of actors, including local residents, rural farmers, various Peruvian regimes, and glacier experts interact to confront the issues posed by climatic change and the natural disasters in the region caused by that climatic change. Carey analyzes competing strategies regarding things such as glacial lake draining, hazard zoning, and dam construction as not just an allegory for but evidence and a result of the racial and class distinctions present in Peru. He explains how in the wake of numerous natural disasters in the area (outburst floods, avalanches, an earthquakes), government officials and government-backed capitalists descended upon the area to enact sociopolitical and economic agendas, respectively - things such as the construction of infrastructure, building of hydrological and hydroelectric frameworks, and even socialistic land redistribution. All of these implemented strategies are shown to be reflective of gains of political power - and too often for the locals most affected by the natural disasters, losses of it. These are trends to be on the lookout for when conducting discursive analysis on texts relevant to Pascua Lama, and how the language used in those (mostly media) sources suggests narratives different to or in line with these highly thematic struggles.

That's all for now! I hope you enjoyed this post (I know I did - these blog posts are actually quite helpful for me in terms of distilling key points from my, frankly, all-over-the-place notes). I'm quite enjoying this project and where my research is headed!