Download Politicized Discourses on Environmental and Technological Risks

ISSN 1392 – 0758 SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
Politicized Discourses on Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of
Lithuania
Audrone Telesiene
Kaunas University of Technology
Donelaicio 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania
Ausra Rimaite and Kristina Juraite
Vytautas Magnus University
Donelaicio 58, LT-44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.74.4.1032
contents depend on time, space and situation. Risks, apart
from having physical descriptions, are constructed by
different social agents, including the mass media.
The mass media together with other social agents play
a particular role in selecting, transforming and transmitting
environmental constructions in modern society (Juraite,
2002). American sociologist Tuchman (1978) argued that
the news reconstructs the social world and is a window
onto that world, determining, what individuals want to
know, what individuals have to know and what individuals
should know. After all, most of the modern environmental
problems for instance global warming, ozone layer
depletion, toxic contamination, acid rains or nuclear
radiation are usually invisible to the naked eye.
Studying the construction of environmental problems
in the mass media is of particular importance in terms of
global environmental issues particularly dependent on
external sources of information. Time constraints, location,
information sources, media frames, and gate-keeping are
important factors in shaping media coverage. Canadian
sociologist Hannigan (2006) differentiates three key issues
central in understanding environmental reporting. First of
all, there is a direct relationship between environmental
issues and economic and political structures and policies.
Second, environmental and health discourses are hardly
separable. Third, environment is often regarded as a policy
area like health care, education and social welfare.
The mass media generally raise, select and define
issues to be presented as social problems in public debate
and decision-making. Therefore, the more environmentrelated information people receive from the mass media,
the more they consider it an important social issue (Juraite,
2002). Special Eurobarometer 295 survey (2008), carried
out to compare European citizens’ attitudes towards the
environment, revealed that people having more
information on environmental issues also expressed higher
concern for and personal engagement in environmental
protection. European average level of being informed
about environmental issues is 55 percent, and 42 percent of
Europeans feel they are not informed. Among the countries
with the highest numbers of not-informed inhabitants are
Lithuania and Romania (respectively 60 and 64 percent of
Abstract
The aim of this article is to analyze the scope and
depth to which discourses on environmental and
technological risks are marked by political domination.
Authors
explain
the
reciprocal
model
of
interconnections between 1) environmental and
technological risk discourses and 2) such factors as high
trust in science and technologies, ascription of
responsibilities to political authorities, low civil
participation and low rates of trust in civil sector
organizations. The article is based upon national media
monitoring research, Eurobarometer data, ISSP
national survey and several other national opinion
polls. The results show the political (and expert)
domination of public discourses on environmental and
technological risks, as channelled through popular
newspapers in Lithuania.
Keywords:
discourse,
environmental
and
technological risks, risk communication, political
domination.
Introduction
Environmentalism has been identified as one of the
key features of modernity by contemporary sociologists
such as Ulrich Beck (1992, 1998, 2008), Anthony Giddens
(1990, 1991) and Scott Lash (1999; Beck, Giddens and
Lash, 1994). In the contemporary risk society individuals
are facing environmental and technological risks. Society
is constantly informed about risks of nuclear power plants,
air pollution, genetically modified products, climate
change, ozone layer depletion and other environmental
changes. Within sociology and contiguous sciences
explanations of risks follow two principal approaches: the
realistic approach, which claims that risk is objective and
amenable to scientific measurement, and the
constructionist approach, which claims that risk
perceptions are socially constructed and mediated
(Balzekiene, 2006, 2009). The authors of this article follow
the social constructivist approach and understand risks as
social and cultural constructions, whose shapes and
20
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
the respondents saying they are not informed). Newspapers
and television news are considered by Europeans to be the
main sources of information on environmental issues.
Furthermore, various other Eurobarometer surveys show
that Lithuanians are more optimistic about technological
development, ascribe more trust than average EU to public
officials and scientists, are among least trusting in NGO’s
and civil sector (Special Eurobarometer 340, 2010) and
show least rates of active civil participation (Flash
Eurobarometer 189a, 2006). The presented data introduce
Lithuania as an atypical case within the European Union
family of countries, with low rates of being
environmentally informed, high rates of technological and
scientific trust and optimism, low rates of civil activism.
Thus it is important to analyze the causes or channels
through which Lithuanians form their environmental
consciousness, and to analyze media discourses as well as
ways in which these discourses are interconnected with
public opinion.
Understanding the content and other characteristics of
information provided by the mass media on environmental
risks, including nuclear energy, climate change and GMOs,
was amongst the main objectives of the national research
project RINOVA: Risk Perception, Public Communication
and Innovative Governance in Knowledge Society
(Rinova, 2009). Some of the findings of qualitative and
quantitative research carried out under this project showed
politicization of public discourses on issues of nuclear
power, climate change and GMO’s. This served as an
inspiration to search for a wider explanation why this is the
case, and also an inspiration to look deeper into the data in
order to see in what ways this politicization occurs. Thus
the research problem to be addressed in this article is
defined by the following questions: how can the
politicization of risk discourses be traced media texts?
What features of public attitudes and behaviour serve as
grounds for this politicization? How can the reciprocal
interplay of media discourses and public opinion be
explained?
The aim of this article is to analyze the extent to which
discourses on environmental and technological risks are
marked by political domination (in Lithuania). This is
supposed to have interconnections with low civic
participation on issues of technogenic risks, distrust in
NGO’s and civil sector, high rate of trust in scientific
expertise and an influence upon Lithuanian’s tendency to
delegate decisions to political institutions.
Several objectives have been identified: to analyze the
rates of public trust in science and technologies at EU level
and in Lithuania; to study the levels of civic participation
and rates of trust in civil sector organizations; to analyze
who is assigned the responsibility in issues of
environmental and technological risks; to analyze the
media framing of environmental and technological risks.
conducted as part of the RINOVA project, conducted in
2007-2009, financed by the Lithuanian State Science and
Studies Foundation (Contract no. C-10/2007), and
coordinated by Kaunas University of Technology,
Department of Sociology. Research methodology, applied
in the RINOVA research project, followed the mixedmethods approach, including surveys, content analysis and
interviews. The project involved the following thematic
research groups: ‘Risicus’ analyzing the public perceptions
of risks, ‘Media’ analyzing the public communication of
risk and ‘Civicus’ analyzing the governance of risk. Three
groups of risk-related issues were under focus of this
project: nuclear energy, climate change and GMO’s. The
authors of this article were members of the RINOVA
group of researchers. This article mainly draws upon the
data of the research on public risk communication, but also
employs some survey data on public perception of risks.
The Media thematic research group aimed to explore
environmental risk coverage and understand the media
contexts in which environmental and technological risks
are being communicated in the mainstream media.
Following the principles of discourse analysis (e.g.
Titscher et al., 2000; Ezzy, 2002), the Media research was
constructed around a twofold analytical facet including
content and context of risk communication (Juraite and
Telesiene, 2009). The research methods employed were a
multi-stage purposeful sampling of texts from three most
popular national dailies for time period April-July 2008, a
review of texts and illustrations; qualitative and
quantitative text analyses. Within this article only several
variables from quantitative and qualitative content analysis
are covered: sources of information as referred to in texts
on environmental and technogenic risks, location of the
texts within newspapers, length of the news articles,
dominant story-lines of texts on environmental and
technogenic risks. The empirical basis consists of 401
texts. In order to research the public perceptions of risks,
the Risicus group conducted a national representative
survey in 2008, N=1000.
The article also draws upon pieces of data generated
during other research projects. The data about Lithuanians’
attitudes towards science and technologies are taken from
project ‘Monitoring of social problems: implementation of
International Social Survey Program (ISSP)’ (see
information at the end of the article). One of the main aims
of the project was to carry out an internationally
comparative analysis with a focus on various social
problems (following the International Social Survey
Program – ISSP – methodology). The project was
implemented by the Institute of Politics and Public
Administration at Kaunas University of Technology.
Audrone Telesiene was member of the project team. This
article employs data gathered through national
representative survey conducted in 2010 (N=1023).
The data about public perception of political and
public institutions in Lithuania is taken from national
research project ‘Perception of public institutions and
political action: Support for democracy or massive
protest?’ (see information at the end of the article). The
project aimed to explore public perceptions of the state
institutions, public and political engagement, and the role
Empirical basis and methods
The article employs data from several sources. The
bulk of the analysis (sections analyzing the content of
environmental and technological risk discourses) is based
upon the results of media monitoring research that was
21
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
of media in shaping and supporting political awareness and
participation. The research was coordinated by the
Department of Sociology, Vytautas Magnus University.
Kristina Juraite was member of the project team. The
national representative survey was conducted in 2010
(N=1048).
In addition to drawing upon data of various national
research projects, the article also employs data from
various Eurobarometer surveys, as presented by the
European Commission and available through open
database
site
‘Public
Opinion’
(http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion).
ensure security of nuclear energy. High rates of
Lithuanians’ trust both in scientific expertise and in
technological capabilities to tackle environmental and
technological risks are reported also in a national
representative survey on nuclear risk perceptions in
Lithuanian society conducted in 2006 (Balzekiene and
Rinkevicius, 2006).
The most recent representative national public survey
conducted as part of the ‘Monitoring of social problems’
project in 2010 (N=1023), also supports the thesis that
Lithuanians are scientific and technological optimists.
Three out of four Lithuanians did not agree that modern
science does more harm than good. Two thirds of
respondents did not agree that ‘We believe too often in
science and not enough in feelings and faith’. Another 76.8
percent of respondents ‘strongly agreed’, ‘agreed’ or
marked ‘neither agree nor disagree’ for the statement
‘Modern science will solve our environmental problems
with little change to our way of life’.
The high rates of trust in science and technology in
Lithuania is a significant precondition for openness of
public discourses to expert domination. This thesis needs
further elaboration. Still, within this article, high public
trust in science and technologies is assumed as the high
probability factor giving answer to question ‘Who are
allowed to actively participate and thus dominate public
discourses on environmental and technological risks’.
Before exploring the actual data of political and expert
domination within public discourses, let us further analyze
the tendency to delegate responsibility to political
authorities and experts. The following part of the article
also provides the analysis of the low levels of civil
participation and low trust in civil sector organizations
among Lithuanians.
Trust in scientific and technological expertise
Risk societies, as noted by Beck (1992), are
increasingly characterized by decreasing trust in science
and technologies. Risk society questions the capabilities of
modern social institutions to assess and control the allencompassing new types of risks (Rinkevicius, 2002;
Rimaite and Rinkevicius, 2008; Balzekiene, 2009).
Technological development induced risks and exposure to
unforeseen consequences of scientific research and
development should reduce society’s confidence in
science, experts and technologies (Beck, 1992). As stated
in the Special Eurobarometer 340 report on Science and
Technology (2010, p. 43), the image of scientists in Europe
is quite pessimistic. The majority of European citizens, 53
percent of respondents at the EU27 level, indicate that
scientists, because of their knowledge, have a power that
makes them dangerous. The results of the same survey
show that Europeans are quite optimistic about the effects
of science and technology but are less optimistic than in
2005. This indicates the slight decrease of technological
optimism in the European Union and supports the Risk
society theses.
However, in Lithuania the trust in science and
technologies is relatively high (Special Eurobarometer 340,
2010). With reference to the question ‘How much you
agree or disagree with statement: Science and technology
can sort out any problem’, Lithuanians appeared to be the
second most optimistic among Europeans – 37 percent of
respondents agreed with the statement, compared to EU27
average of 22 percent (Romania being most optimistic and
France being least optimistic). If compared to other EU
countries, Lithuania is also more optimistic when judging
the positive effects of science and technologies: ‘The
application of science and technologies will make people’s
work more interesting’ (Lithuania having the highest rates
of agreement with the statement), ‘Thanks to science and
technologies, there will be more opportunities for future
generations’ (Lithuania being 4th most optimistic),
‘Benefits of science are greater than any harm’ (Lithuania
being among 10 most optimistic countries). This proves
Lithuanians to be scientific and technological optimists.
The thesis that Lithuanians have positive attitudes
toward science and technologies is also supported by
national scientific surveys. For example, the representative
survey conducted in 2008 (Balzekiene, Telesiene and
Rinkevicius, 2008; Rinova, 2009) shows that 54 percent of
Lithuanians trust the ability of science and technologies to
Delegation of responsibility to political authorities
and experts
Post-industrial societies witness the rise of
participatory governance and growing civic engagement.
Still in Lithuania the research records low levels of civic
participation and low rates of trust in civil sector
organizations (Imbrasaite, 2009, 2011). This is also typical
of the other Baltic countries. Furthermore, the
responsibility on issues of environmental and technological
risks is assigned to scientists and political bodies rather
than nongovernmental organizations, civil society or
business sector.
Therefore, public participation in the decision-making
becomes vital and important when it comes to risk
management issues. The public participation and
engagement is a linking element between decision makers
and society. It, as a discursive device, facilitates
establishment of both way connection of delivering
desirable values into decision making (Bennet, Calman and
Curtis, 2010).
The results of Flash Eurobarometer 189a on EU
Communication and the citizens (2006) show that in 2005
the average intensity of political participation in Lithuania
was much lower than in most of the other EU member
countries. Among the member states, political activism
22
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
was the lowest in all three Baltic countries: Lithuania was
ranked the 23rd, Latvia ranked the 24th, whereas Estonia
ranked the 25th.
Low rates of public participation have resulted in
relative distrust in the abilities of civil societies’
institutions to have significant role in decision-making
process. The results of Special Eurobarometer 340 (2010)
show that only 11 percent of Lithuanians (compared to 24
percent of the EU average) agree that environment
protection associations and only 6 percent (compared to 23
percent of the EU average) of respondents agree that
consumer organizations are best qualified to explain the
impact of scientific and technological developments on
society. This shows the low trust in the abilities and
knowledge held by civil society institutions in questions
regarding science and technologies. Lithuanians rarely
become members of nongovernmental organizations,
rarely participate in public initiatives and thus do not
assign these organizations a dominant role in problem
solving in issues such as environmental and technological
risks.
Furthermore, the results of the national representative
survey, conducted in 2008, show (Balzekiene et al., 2009;
Rinova, 2009) that Lithuanians feel that decisions about
climate change, nuclear energy or GMO development
should be regulated by scientists and various political
bodies, including national government, national
parliament, the European Union and United Nations
(Figure 1).
There is a relatively low reference to the role of nongovernmental organizations, local authorities or business
sector. Interestingly, this tendency to assign the dominant
role of decision making to political sector is dominant
throughout the European Union (Special Eurobarometer
322, 2009; Special Eurobarometer 341, 2010). The
delegation of decision-making power in issues of
environmental and technological risks to scientists and
political bodies indicates elitist worldviews that predominate collective consciousness in Lithuania. There is a
general belief, shared both by the public and by the elite
groups, that the private sector is selfish, thus not trusted,
local authorities are powerless and not competent enough,
thus not trusted, the public sector is incompetent and not in
charge of anything (a relic of communist ideology, still
deeply rooted in the minds of some of the members of our
society), and the environmental non-governmental
organizations are brawlers and jesters, not competent to
represent public interest. In such a situation scientists seem
to have high trust and high competence, but are they given
access to public discourse on environmental and
technological risks? This will be discussed further in the
text, but first one has to note the contradictory public
opinion about the role of political bodies.
Figure 1. Distribution of respondents by their attitudes towards who should take care of nuclear energy development and
security/climate change mitigation/secure development of GMO’s in Lithuania (Lithuania, 2008, N=1000)
23
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
Parliament
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
4.4
Political parties
5
Government
12.1
People
16.8
Courts
21.8
Local authorities
21.6
Labour unions
34.9
NGOs
34.9
Police
39.7
TV
37.4
Dailies
38.9
Internet
41.7
Radio
42.7
Army
56.1
Church
56.3
Universities
65.8
President
68.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 2. Trust in public and political institutions, in percentage (Lithuania, 2010, N=1048).
risks have not yet become part of daily agenda either in
public opinion or in media discourses (Juraite, 2002;
Balzekiene, Telesiene and Rinkevicius, 2008; Rimaite,
2009). Thus these questions are still lacking substantial
concern and discussions. The public tends to assign
responsibility to political bodies for all the common issues
that are less familiar, sound complicated or in cases where
there is much of uncertainty. In this way the public is
hiding their ignorance and lack of awareness.
Let us return to the question, if the scientists, whom
the public tends to trust a lot, are given access to media
discourses. The following part examines the broader
questions of who is given access to media discourse on
environmental and technological risks, and how
technogenic issues are framed.
The recent national research project ‘Perception of
public institutions and political action: Support for
democracy or massive protest?’ showed that there is an
extremely low trust in most of political and state
institutions, including parliament, government and political
parties, except for the president in Lithuania (Juraite and
Jasnauskaite, 2011). The research showed that Lithuanians
neither particularly trust other people, local authorities nor
NGOs (Figure 2).
Political bodies are assigned the decision-making
responsibility, but at the same time Lithuanians tend not to
trust the national government and national parliament. In
general, Lithuania is among the most sceptic nations with
regard to political institutions. For instance, Eurobarometer
307 (2009) survey data also show that Lithuanians fall
behind other European countries in least trusting their
national government (16 percent in Lithuania, whereas the
EU average is 34 percent), as well as low trust in regional
and local public authorities (31 percent in Lithuania,
whereas the EU average is 50 percent). Low trust in public
and political institutions is very much related to the low
rates of public and political participation. To some extent
this is due to the lack of social habitus and political
tradition which has been developed during the past 20
years. This means that the public had quite short time to
develop civic participation culture, but also political parties
are not coherent in their political ideals and are more
oriented towards gaining new elections rather than
promoting certain values and ideas.
How can it be so that Lithuanians do not trust the main
national political institutions, but tend to assign them the
main role of decision-making on issues of climate change,
nuclear power and GMO? Probably this is the outcome of
the fact that issues of environmental and technological
Media framing of environmental issues
This section presents the data of quantitative content
analysis of media texts, generated as part of the Rinova
project. The data reveal the main characteristics of media
framing of environmental risks. Among the quantitative
characteristics of media content, sources of information
were assessed (Table 1). As the research data show,
officials are the most frequently mentioned and/or cited as
sources of information in the news articles on
environmental risks (totality of 217 out of 401 texts). The
officials included various political or governmental
representatives from parliament, government, ministries of
other subordinate institutions. Business representatives and
other specialists were identified as main sources of
information in 25 percent and 18.7 percent of articles,
respectively. Scientists amounted to 9.5 percent of the
whole news sources share. It also should be noted here that
24
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
representatives of NGO’s and the public were mentioned
as sources only in 3.7 and 3.6 percent of the texts
respectively.
As seen from the data presented in Table 1, officials
are prevailing in the media texts on nuclear energy
(48.6 percent). The data show that the representatives of
political bodies gain access to media discourses on
technogenic risks more often than the representatives from
other sectors and this supports the main thesis of this
article, namely, that media discourses on environmental
and technological risks are marked with political
domination.
As presented in the previous sections of this article, the
public assigns political bodies the main responsibility for
technogenic risks. An assumption might be made here
about a high probability that the domination of political
officials in the texts on technogenic risks has an influence
upon public opinion and amounts in high rates of
responsibility delegation to political bodies. There is
another assumption that low rates of trust in public sector
organizations might be a result of constant lack of access
to media discourses as experienced by these organizations.
The third assumption: scientists, despite high rates of
public trust, also lack the access to media discourses on
issues of environmental and technological risks.
Another variable in the quantitative media texts
analysis is the location of the texts on technogenic risks
within the newspapers. Location of texts reveals the level
of importance ascribed to the issues by media agents (as a
reflexive perception of the needs of the audience). It is
believed that location of the news also plays an important
role in public awareness raising on the issues covered. For
instance, the article published on the front pages will be
more effective than those reported on following pages. The
analysis reveals that only 8 percent of texts on
environmental risks were covered on the dailies’ front
pages. Every third article was published on the 2nd to 5th
pages, usually containing information on public affairs,
political and economic news on national and international
levels. News stories on the nuclear energy issues were
more likely to appear on the first pages of the dailies than
the rest of the environmental risks’ stories (climate change
or GMO’s).
The length of the news article represents another
variable measured while analyzing media framing of the
environmental and technogenic risks. The majority of the
texts were either very short or medium, i.e. from 14 to 600
words (84 percent). Most of the articles included
illustrations (photos, pictures, graphs). Texts on GMOs and
climate change were more often supported with the
illustrations (90 and 62 percent, respectively), whereas
stories on nuclear energy included visual information more
rarely (57 percent respectively).
In general, environmental risks including nuclear
energy, climate change and GMOs were mainly framed as
political issues rather than environmental ones in the top
Lithuanian dailies. Most of the news stories were
presenting official news sources provided by the politicians
and state officials, as well as business representatives and
specialists. However, scientists and NGOs were extremely
rarely reported in the texts, indicating that environmental
risks are being primarily treated as political and economic
issues. Apparently, such stories were lacking a deeper
analysis and balanced reporting from people with different
approaches.
Table 1
officials
business
representatives
scientists
1
GMO
statistical data
Climate change
Sources of
information:
LEO Lt1 (nuclear
energy as
secondary theme)
Texts on:
Nuclear power
Quantitative characteristics of environmental risks’ coverage in Lithuanian dailies: sources of information (%,
N=401 texts)
6
9
21.6
20
All
texts
14,2%
59.2
54.5
40.5
40
48.6%
16.3
40
13.5
30
25%
4.7
1.8
21.6
10
9.5%
0.4
0
2.7
10
3.3%
2.7
10
3.7%
medicine
representatives
NGOs’
representatives
other specialists
2.1
0
18.5
15.5
10.8
30
18.7%
public
6.4
2.7
5.4
0
3.6%
artists
0
0
0
10
2.5%
110 texts were coded as having main theme on Leo Lt, a consortium for nuclear power plant construction.
25
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
Instead, the news stories covering environmental issues
mainly included factual information about what, where and
when happened. It also should be mentioned here that
business representatives were only popular sources of
information in texts with nuclear energy as secondary
theme. With these texts excluded, business representatives
would be referred to only in every fifth publication on
environmental and technogenic risks and thus it could be
stated that they are not constructed as important ‘voices’ in
the risk discourses.
The quantitative analysis of media texts only shows
the structural characteristics of media discourses on
environmental and technological risks. The following part
of the article will examine the content and the latent as
well as manifest popular narratives on nuclear energy,
climate change and GMOs.
narrative about Lithuanian obligations towards the
European Union to decommission Ignalina nuclear power
plant (NPP) and Lithuanian struggle to prolong the work of
the plant.
The same story-line also denotes a narrative about
Lithuania’s efforts to build a new nuclear power plant in
order to become less dependent on Russia’s energetic
resources. It is very often referred to that if Lithuania had a
nuclear power station (either new or old), it would easily
solve energetic dependence from Russia. On the other
hand, if Lithuania did not have a nuclear power station,
this would mean energetic isolation within the EU and
dependence on imperialist Russia’s interests. Sometimes
the texts use the words, such as ‘independence’ or
‘combat’ to show that Lithuania’s struggle for regaining of
independence in late 1980s and early 1990s is still present.
Lithuania regained the political independence from the
Soviet Union in 1990, and made its finances and
economics independent from Russia in the proceeding
decade. However, there is still a need to struggle for
energetic independence, and this theme is present (as latent
narrative) in today’s media discourse on nuclear energy:
Main story-lines in environmental and
technological risk discourse
Quantitative content analysis revealed certain
characteristics of environmental risks’ framing in the
media. In the second stage of the content analysis,
qualitative approach was used to study the main storylines, i.e. dominating narratives on nuclear energy, climate
change and GMOs.
Hajer (1995) describes story-lines as narratives of
generative type that encompass certain cultural categories
under which the natural and social phenomena are given a
certain meaning within a specific discourse. Discourse
story-lines are meta-narratives, narratives about the nature
of social reality. Various ways of speaking about a
problem or an issue intertwine and compose certain set of
symbolic significations that are then used by discourse
actors. If an actor denotes one of the symbolic
significations, s/he denotes all the set of symbolic
significations. That is by referring to a story-line an actor
refers to the latent narratives and meanings that come
along with this story-line.
The scientific inquiry presented in this article looked
for story-lines, for the latent narratives, underlying almost
all texts whenever environmental risks are communicated
in Lithuanian newspapers. Differences were found among
the story-lines underlying texts on nuclear energy, texts on
climate change, or texts on GMO. These different storylines for each of the three risks are described further in the
text. This is followed by a short comparative analysis of
underlying narratives of all three risks.
As mentioned above, environmental risks’ stories,
particularly those on nuclear energy were often reported
from the political perspective. Even more – texts found
under keywords of nuclear energy more often speak about
national energetic policies, financial relations between
state and business enterprises, but not environmental risks
of nuclear energy. Risks of nuclear energy are most often
presented as political risks and are discussed in terms of
energetic dependence/independence from Russia or
energetic isolation within European Union or need for
private-public partnership. Thus the main story-line in the
texts on nuclear energy: it is a weapon used to strive for
energetic independence. This story-line encompasses a
‘Speaking about the countryʼs energetic security the minister
stressed that creation of a common EU energy market by
integrating isolated regions remains a top priority for Lithuania.’
(Respublika, 5 July 2008, p. 12).
Another story-line underlying the texts on nuclear
energy comes under the following headline: we need a
public and private partnership as well as international
cooperation in order to build the new nuclear power plant.
This story-line predominates the narrative on Lithuania’s
negotiations with neighbouring countries concerning the
construction of the new nuclear plant. It also covers a
narrative on government-private sector negotiations and
partnership. However, such a partnership is presented as
troublesome and even disorderly. It should be noted that
there is no discussion on whether Lithuania needs a new
power plant – this need is taken for granted, as if everyone
knows and agrees with the profits and benefits that come
together with Lithuania’s status as a nuclear state. This
story-line underlines the narrative about the possibilities to
construct a new nuclear power plant in Lithuania and the
negotiations that are going on between the Lithuanian
government and private partnerships. In fact, the joint
governmental and private capital enterprise under the
acronym ‘Leo LT’ becomes the main headline for about
one third of all texts on nuclear power. These texts analyze
the nexus of administration and control questions of Leo
LT, also cover discussions on who (government vs. private
capital) and to what extent should invest in the initial stage
of the project. Thus, this story-line illuminates a debate
between the state authorities and private investors,
primarily highlighting and legitimizing the political power
which is given discursive priority to control nuclear energy
related issues in the media. Also, an image of Lithuania as
a leader in nuclear energy issues in the region is
constructed:
‘The day before yesterday representatives of the four
countries’ energy companies who intend to build nuclear power
plant in Lithuania met in the International Energy Conference in
Spain. (...) Our country offered the three partner countries until
the end of summer to establish a joint project development
26
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
company, in which LEO LT would manage 51 percent of the
shares. The remaining 49 percent would be equally shared by the
other partners’ (Lietuvos rytas, 18 June 2008, p. 16.).
there is only a vague discussion about whether climate
change is taking place at all. The discourse excludes
discussions on the nature of climate change and the
processes that accompany the climate change. Alternative
views towards climate change causes are underrepresented
in the media discourse, too.
The third group of the texts, texts on GMO’s, diverged
from the rest of environmental risks covered in the
Lithuanian dailies. These risks are usually related to food
security (and need for greater governmental control), food
labelling, consumer rights, scientific achievements and
agriculture. The main story-line of the texts on GMO
implies that GM food is unsafe, incompatible with a
healthy diet. GM food is presented as having undetermined
effects upon human health, for instance birth defects,
allergies, illnesses. GM food is discursively opposed with
natural, organic foods:
The interpretation of what is omitted in the nuclear
energy discourse is as insightful as the interpretation of
what is manifested in this discourse. With reference to the
public communication of nuclear energy risks, one should
note that the nuclear energy issue is presented in media
discourse as a familiar theme to the readers, i.e. this theme
does not require any broader explanations or prehistory,
which would involve the narrative on Ignalina NPP built
by the Soviets in early 1980s. The prehistory would also
entail a successful development of the town Visaginas due
to profitable work of Ignalina NPP. Thus, the current
discourse on nuclear energy is reinforced by success
stories and nuclear energy supportive stories of Ignalina
NPP. But this prehistory would exclude the fact that the
third reactor of Ignalina NPP was decommissioned due to
the environmental protests in late 1980s. Also discourse on
nuclear energy excludes the theme of the catastrophe in
Chernobyl NPP, as well as the themes on risks related to
nuclear fuel storage or other environmental risks.
Somewhat different story-lines were derived while
analyzing the texts on climate change related issues.
Climate change did not come as the main theme in most of
the news stories containing climate change as the keyword.
The main story-lines, dominating in the publications
related to climate change issues included the stories on the
effect of climate change on weather conditions and
humans; the role of the EU in fighting against climate
change; and Lithuania’s efforts to extend the operation of
Ignalina NPP in addressing global climate change. As the
main aim of this article is to argue the politicization of
media discourses on technogenic risks, only the story-line
on the role of the EU in fighting against climate change
will be shortly discussed.
One of the story-lines in climate change prevailing in
media discourses in Lithuania in 2008 was the story line
that emphasizes the role of the EU as a global leader in the
fight against climate change. Here again risk
communication is accompanied by political stories, as it
was revealed in the case of the nuclear energy stories. The
articles on climate change are presenting the European
Union as the world leader in discussions on climate
change, as well as the hero in the global fight against
climate change related problems:
‘Adverse combinations of genes may lead to new human,
animal, and plant diseases, cancer and increase the resistance to
antibiotics. They can also be a cause of allergy.’ (Lietuvos rytas,
3 June 2008, p. 14.).
This story-line usually contains connotative meanings,
metaphors, e.g. proverb ‘we are - what we eat’ is used
repeatedly. Thus, the risk communication reveals the latent
narrative of fear of becoming culturally modified nation.
On the other hand, the metaphor of golden mine is used
with a reference to the global food crisis, denoting that
huge profits are possible when GMOs are used.
Another group of the texts on GMO stresses the need
for adequate GM food labelling to insure the consumer
rights. Texts often report on labelling violations and
producer subterfuge. The story-line could be summarized
as follows: Labelling of GM products must ensure
consumer choice:
‘All products available on the Lithuanian market, containing
GMOs, are really marked. However, so far, the inscriptions are
of the same font as other inscriptions on the label. There are no
bold or underlined letters, manifest labels. Thus it might be
simply overlooked that a product is genetically modified.’
(Respublika, 22 July 2008, p. 19).
The comparative analysis of the story-lines underlying
the texts on nuclear energy, climate change and GMOs
related risks shows that nuclear energy is most often
presented as a manifest political issue, climate change
issues are usually accompanied by the latent political
narratives of leadership, whereas GMOs related risks are
presented through the manifest narratives of public health.
‘Europe today is seeking to become a leader in the fight
against climate change.’(Respublika, 7 June 2008, p. 13).
Lithuania, according to A. Paulauskas, supports the leading
positions of the EU in addressing climate change concerns not
only within Europe but also globally, to lead the international
negotiating process. By setting itself to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the EU is already showing itself as an example
encouraging other countries to take concrete steps.’ (Respublika,
4 July 2008, p. 2).
The cyclic process of the politicization of risk
discourses and amplification of certain social
attitudes and norms
Leaning upon the various data presented above in the
article, a hypothetical model is derived. This model
explains the influence of certain societal attitudes and
norms upon politicization of technogenic risk discourses
and also explains the amplification of those social attitudes
and norms by the discourse itself (as a reciprocal process).
The cyclic process, as seen in Figure 3, has several
stages. Firstly, high rates of trust in science and technology
and ascription of responsibilities to political authorities and
experts opens up public discourses for political
The dominating narrative of this story-line implies that
every time one speaks of climate change, they mention the
European Union or the Member states supposing that
climate change issue is well-known in these countries,
which are capable to deal with climate change related risks
and can be a good example for other countries in the
world. As mentioned above, in Lithuanian newspapers,
27
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
domination. When there is a high rate of trust in science
and technology, one would suppose the openness of public
discourses to scientists. Technogenic risks discourses are
to some extent open to scientists and independent experts,
but the inner system/tradition of academic sphere is
marked by the principle of normative neutrality and thus
scientists rarely expose their normative opinions on issues
like environmental or technogenic risks. Often they are
addressed for clarification of some technical details. Still
the sophistication of risk discourse highlights the need for
some elitist comments of bodies with high legitimate
power and responsibilities. Here the political authorities
find their niche. The tendency to ascribe them the
responsibility for assessment and management of
technogenic risks serves as an impetus and opens up public
discourses for political authorities. On the other hand,
discourse may contain dialogues between many
stakeholders. But civil organizations are not trusted and
thus their say on matters concerning technogenic risks is
not welcomed by media. The civil participation also has
low rates and thus autonomous individuals rarely engage in
such a discourse by their own initiative. Thus we have a
second-order factors that serve as restraints for civil sector
actors to participate in public discourse.
Secondly, when the politicization of public discourse
on technogenic risks occurs (and our data show this), it
legitimizes the role of dominant actors. The public tends to
ascribe more and more responsibilities to the ones whom
they see as common speakers in risk discourse. And these
are political authorities. Thus discourse serves as an
important mediator and increases the trust in and ascription
of responsibilities to political authorities in matters of
technogenic risks. The increase in positive attitudes
towards authorities will again open more and more of
discursive arenas to political domination. Thus is the
essence of the mechanism of the politicization of risk
discourses and amplification of certain social attitudes and
norms (Figure 3).
The authors borrowed the term of amplification from
the theory of risk amplification as developed by Kasperson
et al. (2003, 2010). According to this theory, social
amplification of risk is a social experience constructed
from various social institutions, groups, individuals and
their behaviour thereby contributing to an ever increasing
perception of risk consequences. According to Dobson and
Saiz (2006, p. 79), ‘the information system and
characteristics of public response that compose social
amplification are essential elements in determining the
nature and magnitude of risk.’
Low levels of civil
participation
Low trust in civil
sector organizations
Politicization of public discourses on environmental and
technological risks
Amplification
Serve as restrains for
civil sector actors to
participate in public
Opens public discourses
for political domination
High rates of trust in
science and technology
Ascription of
responsibilities to political
authorities and experts
Figure 3. Interconnections between public opinions/practices and public media discourse: model explaining politicization
of public discourses on environmental and technological risks
28
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
Despite the fact that traditionally decision making was
a one-way flow of information from risk experts, in a
contemporary word it is assumed that every decision
should be derived from the interests of stakeholders.
However, such approach poses a risk to achieving the most
effective decision. Saying that it is important to stress the
possible lack of full and correct information in the hands of
any stakeholder thereby limits the achievement of an
effective decision making.
With reference to Lithuania, the media discourse
reveals that information about environmental and
technological risks is highly politicized and without a
substantial involvement of stakeholders in the discussion
and decision making. This amplifies the domination of
political claims within the discourses on environmental and
technological risks.
hiding their ignorance and lack of awareness on issues of
environmental and technological risks.
The questions to be addressed by further research are
the following: who opens or restricts arenas of public
discourses? Thus what is the role of media ‘gatekeepers’?
Who are these gatekeepers? Are they doing this
unconsciously or based on some interests? What are these
interests and whom do they benefit? What other significant
factors are there in answering the question: why are there
high rates of trust in scientific expertise and low rates of
trust in civil sector organizations? And finally, why do
Lithuanians tend to ascribe responsibility for nearly all
issues to the political sector, lacking active personal civil
engagement?
Acknowledgements
The article employs data from two research projects:
Project
‘Monitoring
of
social
problems:
implementation of International Social Survey
Program (ISSP)ʼ. The research was funded by a grant
(No. SIN-15/2010) from the Research Council of
Lithuania; coordinated by Kaunas University of
Technology.
2. Project ‘Perception of public institutions and political
action: Support for democracy or massive protest?ʼ.
The research funded by a grant (No. SIN-12/2010)
from the Research Council of Lithuania; coordinated
by Vytautas Magnus University.
Conclusions and broader implications
1.
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of media texts
show that discourses on environmental and technological
risks are marked by political domination: politically
coloured narratives prevail as latent or manifest story lines
in texts on nuclear energy, climate change and GMOs;
political representatives are given wider access to the
discourse and usually become sources of information in
texts on technogenic risks; scientists and especially
representatives of civil sector are denied wider access to
media discourses; news on environmental and technogenic
risks are most often framed as political or economic or
health issues rather than environmental issues.
Hypothetically one may claim that the politicized
media discourses on technogenic risks have great influence
upon public opinion: Lithuanians tend to trust media in
reporting risk related or environmental information and
also Lithuanians report that most of the information on
nuclear energy, climate change or GMOs they acquire
through media.
The influence of politicized media discourses might be
twofold: 1) high rates of trust in scientific expertise and
relative
technological
optimism;
2)
political
representatives, rather than civil sector organizations and
public, are assigned the responsibility for environmental
and technological risks.
Despite the decreasing trust in scientific expertise in
EU countries, Lithuania experiences high rates of trust in
scientists and regards science optimistically, believing that
science and technologies can solve environmental
problems and do less harm than give benefits.
Lithuanians hold somewhat elitist views and ascribe
responsibility for environmental and technological risks to
political bodies and scientists. Scientists are trusted, but
not given proper access to discourse, politicians are not
trusted, but given a wide access to discourse. Political
bodies have very low trust rates among Lithuanians. This
paradox (Lithuanians do not trust political bodies, but
ascribe them the main responsibility in technogenic issues)
is due to the fact that public generally tends to assign
responsibility to political bodies for all the common issues
that are less familiar, sound complicated or in cases where
there is much of uncertainty. In this way Lithuanians are
References
1.
Balžekienė, A. (2006). Socialinis branduolinės rizikos suvokimas:
teorinės įžvalgos ir jų refleksija Lietuvos visuomenės požiūriuose į
Ignalinos AE (Daktaro disertacija, Kauno technologijos
universitetas, 2006).
2.
Balžekienė, A. (2009). Rizikos suvokimas: sociologinė
konceptualizacija ir visuomenės nuomonės tyrimo metodologinės
prielaidos. Filosofija. Sociologija, 20, 4, 217-226.
3.
Balžekienė, A., Butkevičienė, E., Rinkevičius, L., ir Gaidys, V.
(2009). Ekologinių ir technologinių rizikų suvokimas: Lietuvos
visuomenės požiūriai ir nuostatos. Filosofija. Sociologija, 20, 4,
237-249.
4.
Balžekienė, A., ir Rinkevičius, L. (2006). Nuclear risk perceptions
in Lithuanian society: theoretical approaches and empirical
insights. Social Sciences, 2, 52, 10-20.
5.
Balžekienė, A., Telešienė, A., ir Rinkevičius, L. (2008). Klimato
kaita: socialinio rizikos suvokimo ir žiniasklaidos diskurso
Lietuvoje konfigūracijos. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas, 2, 22, 519.
6.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London:
Sage.
7.
Beck, U. (1998). World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
Beck, U. (2008). World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization.
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
10. Benet, P., Calman, K., & Curtis S. (2010). Risk communication and
public
health.
Oxford
University
Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562848.001.0001
29
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf
11. Dobson, A., & Sáiz, A.V. (2006). Citizenship, environment,
economy. London: Routledge.
31. Special Eurobarometer 307: The role and impact of local and
regional authorities within the European Union (2009). Brussels.
Retrieved
November
15,
2011,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_307_en.pdf
12. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and Innovation.
London: Routledge.
13. Flash Eurobarometer 189a: EU Communication and the citizens
(2006). Brussels. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_189a_en.pdf
32. Special Eurobarometer 322: European attitudes towards climate
change (2009). Brussels. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_322_en.pdf
14. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
33. Special Eurobarometer 340: Science and Technology (2010).
Brussels.
Retrieved
November
15,
2011,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf
15. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society
in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34. Special Eurobarometer 341: Biotechnology (2010). Brussels.
Retrieved
November
15,
2011,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
16. Hajer, M.A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse:
Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Social
35. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods
of Text and Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
18. Imbrasaitė, J. (2009). The Search of the ‘Monitorial Citizenʼ: a
Case of Lithuania. Social Sciences, 3, 65, 67-78.
36. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making News: A Study in the Construction of
Reality. NY: Free Press.
17. Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental Sociology: A
Constructionist Perspective. London and NY: Routledge.
19. Imbrasaitė, J. (2011). Valdžios institucijų suvokimas ir politiniai
veiksmai: parama demokratijai ar masinis protestas? Folosofija.
Sociologija, 22, 2, 95–105.
A. Telešienė, A. Rimaitė, K. Juraitė
Aplinkosaugos ir technologijų rizikos diskursų politizavimas:
Lietuvos atvejis
20. Juraitė, K. (2002). Ekologinė sąmonė ir masinė komunikacija:
visuomenės
nuomonės
apie
aplinkosaugą
konstravimas
žiniasklaidoje (Daktaro disertacija, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas,
2002).
Santrauka
Šiame straipsnyje autorės analizuoja aplinkosauginių ir
technologinių rizikų diskursą žiniasklaidoje, keldamos diskurso
politizavimo hipotezę. Straipsnyje taip pat siekiama paaiškinti ryšį tarp
politizuoto rizikų diskurso ir visuomenės nuomonės dimensijų, tokių kaip
pasitikėjimas mokslu ir technologijomis, atsakomybės priskyrimas
valdžios atstovams, nepasitikėjimas nevyriausybinio sektoriaus
organizacijomis, taip pat ryšis tarp politizuoto rizikų diskurso ir žemo
pilietinio
dalyvavimo.
Straipsnyje
analizuojama:
visuomenės
pasitikėjimas mokslu ir technologijomis Europos Sąjungos ir Lietuvos
lygiu; piliečių dalyvavimo lygmuo ir pasitikėjimas visuomeninėmis
organizacijomis; atsakomybės priskyrimas sprendžiant aplinkosaugos ir
technologijų rizikos problemas; aplinkosauginių ir technologinių rizikų
pateikimas žiniasklaidoje.
Straipsnio autorės remiasi įvairių šaltinių duomenimis.
Aplinkosauginių ir technologinių rizikų diskurso turinio analizė remiasi
projekto „Rizikos suvokimas, viešoji komunikacija ir inovatyvus
valdymas žinių visuomenėje“ (RINOVA) duomenimis. Projekto tikslas
buvo ištirti rizikos suvokimą, rizikos komunikaciją ir valdyseną pagal tris
temas, tai: branduolinė energetika, klimato kaita ir GMO.
Šiame straipsnyje taip pat pristatomi duomenys iš kitų nacionalinių
mokslinių tyrimų projektų bei Eurobarometro apklausų.
Straipsnio įvade aptariama pasaulinė aplinkosauginių ir
technologinių rizikų tyrimų tradicija, apžvelgiami Lietuvoje atlikti tyrimai
šia tematika. Konceptualizuojant rizikų socialinio tyrimo galimybes
nurodoma, jog paprastai tyrimai vykdomi remiantis dviem prieigomis:
realistine ir socio - konstruktyvistine. Realistinio požiūrio teorijos remiasi
fiziniais bei gamtos mokslais ir teigia, kad rizika yra objektyvi ir ją
galima moksliškai tiksliai pamatuoti. Socio - konstruktyvistinė prieiga
teigia, jog greta fizine prasme objektyvių rizikų ir jų poveikio egzistuoja
dar ir gretutinis, sunkiai pamatuojamas visuomenės nuomonių, socialinių
konstruktų, kolektyvinių rizikos reprezentacijų laukas, turintis savitą ir
savarankišką poveikį socialiniam žmonių gyvenimui. Straipsnio autorės
pasirenka socio - konstruktyvistinę rizikos aiškinimo paradigmą ir
aplinkosaugines bei technologines rizikas apibrėžia kaip socialinius
konstruktus, medijuojamus diskursų pagalba. Čia svarbų vaidmenį atlieka
žiniasklaida, parinkdama, transformuodama ir skleisdama ekologinių
problemų ir reiškinių socialiai sukonstruotus apibrėžimus.
Straipsnyje remiamasi ir Rizikos visuomenės teorija. Rizikos
visuomenė dažniausiai charakterizuojama akcentuojant augantį
nepasitikėjimą mokslu ir technologinį skepticizmą. Straipsnyje remiantis
įvairių apklausų duomenimis įrodoma, jog, lyginant su kitų ES šalių
gyventojais, lietuviai - technologiniai optimistai, dauguma jų pasitiki
21. Juraitė, K., ir Jasnauskaitė, B. (2011). Visuomenės informavimas ir
nuomonės formavimas apie valdžios institucijų veiklą. Filosofija.
Sociologija, 22, 2, 77–85.
22. Juraitė, K., Telešienė, A. (2009). Ekologinės rizikos diskursas
žiniasklaidoje: tyrimo teorinės bei metodologinės prielaidos.
Filosofija. Sociologija, 20, 2, 227-236.
23. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P.
(2003). The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years
of Research and Theory. In N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, P. Slovic
(Eds.). The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550461.002
24. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P.
(2010). The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years
of Research and Theory. In P. Slovic (Ed.). The Feeling of Risk:
New Perspectives on Risk Perception, pp. 317-344. Earthscan.
25. Lash, S. (1999). Another Modernity, A Different Rationality.
Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Rimaitė, A. (2009). Genetiškai modifikuotų organizmų diskurso
formavimasis Lietuvos žiniasklaidoje (Daktaro disertacija, Kauno
technologijos universitetas, 2009).
27. Rimaitė, A., ir Rinkevičius, L. (2008). Sociokultūrinis rizikos
suvokimo konstravimas: teoriniai požiūriai ir jų taikymas tiriant
viešąjį diskursą dėl genetiškai modifikuotų organizmų. Filosofija.
Sociologija, 19, 2, 86-96.
28. Rinkevičius, L. (2002). Rizikos bei dvigubos rizikos visuomenės
teorija ir jos taikymas sociologinei Lietuvos visuomenės raidos
diagnostikai. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas, 2, 108-115.
29. Rinova: Rizikos suvokimas, viešoji komunikacija ir inovatyvus
valdymas žinių visuomenėje: Projekto baigiamoji ataskaita (2009).
Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://rinova.ktu.lt
30. Special Eurobarometer 295: Attitudes of European citizens towards
the environment (2008). Brussels. Retrieved November 15, 2011,
30
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
A. Telesiene, A. Rimaite, K. Juraite. Politicized Discourses on
Environmental and Technological Risks: the Case of Lithuania
mokslu ir mokslininkais. Kita ryški tendencija, atskleista remiantis
apklausų duomenimis, – lietuviai yra linkę atsakomybę už
aplinkosauginių ir technologinių rizikų vertinimą bei valdymą priskirti
valdžios atstovams, politinėms institucijoms. Straipsnio autorių nuomone,
technologinis optimizmas bei atsakomybės priskyrimas politikos
atstovams atveria rizikų diskursus politiniam dominavimui. Technologinis
optimizmas ir pasitikėjimas mokslininkais sukuria poreikį elitistiniam
sudėtingų problemų (tokių kaip nagrinėjamos rizikos) aiškinimui. Tačiau
mokslininkai, laikydamiesi vertybinio neutralumo principo, retai išdėsto
savo normatyvines pozicijas viešajame diskurse. Tad kelias atveriamas
kitiems elitistinio aiškinimo atstovams – politikams. Kaip rodo
žiniasklaidos turinio kiekybinės analizės duomenys, būtent politikai ir
įvairių politinių, valdžios institucijų atstovai dažniausiai pasirenkami kaip
informacijos šaltiniai ar „veikėjai“ rizikų diskurso tekstuose.
Dalyvaujančiosios demokratijos imperatyvas reikalauja įvairių
socialinių veikėjų įsitraukimo sprendžiant problemas ar diskutuojant apie
sudėtingus visuomenės ateitį lemiančius klausimus. Tai pagrindžia NVO
ar piliečių dalyvavimo rizikų diskurse poreikį. Tačiau autorės pastebi
žemą pilietinio dalyvavimo lygį (lyginant su ES šalimis) ir žemą lietuvių
pasitikėjimą nevyriausybinio sektoriaus organizacijomis. Taip viešoji
erdvė yra apribojama, nubrėžiant užkardas trečiojo sektoriaus atstovų
įsitraukimui į diskursą. Tai tik dar labiau sustiprina diskurso politizavimo
tendenciją.
Kokybinė žiniasklaidos turinio analizė patvirtina teiginį, kad
aplinkosaugos ir technologijų rizikos diskursai populiariuose Lietuvos
dienraščiuose yra labai politizuoti. Nagrinėjamų diskursų politizavimas
pastebimas analizuojant pagrindines tekstus persmelkiančias siužetines
linijas. Politikai tampa pagrindiniais žinių šaltiniais – rizikos ekspertais. O
žinios apie aplinkosaugos ir technologines rizikas diskurse yra
apibrėžiamos politikos, ekonomikos ir sveikatos problemų kategorijomis,
bet ne aplinkosauginėmis temomis. Daugumoje žiniasklaidos pranešimų
politiniai siekiai ar interesai tampa tiek branduolinės energetikos, tiek
klimato kaitos latentinėmis ar aiškiai manifestuotomis temomis.
Kalbančiąją klasę sudaro išskirtinai valdininkai, prie kurių šliejasi įvairių
sričių ekspertai, taip pat verslo sektoriaus atstovai. Kitokios tendencijos
tik GMO diskurse – čia mokslininkai, biotechnologijų verslo ir valdžios
atstovai yra ryškiausi socialiniai veikėjai. Bendra tendencija visuomenės, nevyriausybinių organizacijų atstovai lieka žiniasklaidos
artikuliuojamų aplinkosauginių ir technologinių rizikų diskursų užribyje.
Straipsnio pabaigoje autorės pristato viešojo diskurso ir visuomenės
nuomonės abipusio ryšio modelį, kuris paaiškina dvejopus procesus.
Viena vertus, tokie visuomenės nuomonės aspektai kaip technologinis
optimizmas, pasitikėjimas mokslininkais, nepasitikėjimas NVO,
atsakomybės priskyrimas politinio sektoriaus atstovams įgalina ir nulemia
diskurso politizavimą. Kita vertus, vyksta ir atgalinis poveikis. Kartą
politizuotas diskursas legitimuoja kalbančiuosius veikėjus, kurdamas jų,
kaip pagrindinių kalbėtojų, įvaizdžius, tad pasitikėjimas elitine nuomone
ir atsakomybės priskyrimas politinio sektoriaus atstovams tik stiprėja.
Susidaro uždaras diskursų politizavimo ir visuomenės nuomonės
amplifikavimo ratas. Išvadų ir apibendrinimo skyriaus pabaigoje autorės
pristato tolesnio mokslinio tyrimo klausimus, kurie leistų detaliau
paaiškinti visuomenės nuomonės amplifikacijos ir diskursų politizavimo
abipusio poveikio modelį.
Raktiniai žodžiai: diskursas, aplinkosauginės ir technologinės
rizikos, rizikos komunikacija, politinis dominavimas.
First received: October, 2011
Accepted for publication: November, 2011
31