Disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Sweden

– historical development and two different approaches of Discourse Analysis

Helena Hansson NylundPhD Candidate

Örebro University

2011: Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) applied to the government for the permit to build a facility in Östhammar.

Swedish method for disposal of high level nuclear waste

http://skb.se/Templates/Standard____24109.aspx

Problem formulation:What are the most evident constraints in the situation of today? How can those constraints be considered from the perspective of rhetorical agency and participation?

First analysis of the situation:- Specialized language and large implicit

understanding.- Many different participants but friendly climate.- Rhetorical genres intertwined.- Predictability (according to the participants)

Starting point: Observation of hearing arranged by the Swedish government on the siting of the depository facility, 4-5 June 2008. 100-200 participants: SKB, state and municipal authorities, environmental organisations, nuclear industry associates.

Discourse-historical approach

Retrospective critique: Foregrounds the connection between past and present, examines the present handling of past events. Compares similar historical texts/situations over time, from micro to macro level (Wodak, Reisigl , 2000)

Questions – development of situational constraints :How has the concpet of hearings on depository siting developed over time?Focus on intellectio/inventio: How do the actors prepare for meetings?How can the dialogue-type be described: debate, negotiation, discussion?How do the participants evaluate the situation?

Selection of material

Interviews , biographies Archived material (Swedish National Archive, local archives)News paper articles (mainly local papers)Participants written records, their video recordings from meetings etc.

Two previous similar meetings chosen:

Kynnefjäll 2/10 1979: First meeting between actor responsible for geological investigations and locals/environmental movement.

Almunge 31/10 1985: Last meeting during 1980’ies. Redirection of the geological investigation program and new PR approach.

1. “A rhetorical crisis occurs when discourse fails to fulfill ordinary epistemological and axiological expectations. Previously functional practices of communication and techniques of persuasion break down, proliferating disbelief when informed consensus is demanded, foreclosing options when cooperative action is seen as vital.” Farrell, Thomas B., Goodnight, Thomas G. “Accidental Rhetoric: The Root Metaphors of Three Mile Island” i Communication Monographs, Vol. 48. (1981)

Two perspectives on ”rhetorical crisis”

2. ”Pro-movement” – strives for acceptance. ”Anti-movement” – strives for change.

A ”rhetorical crisis” appears when a speaker in the pro- or anti-movement disturbs previously balanced communication. L M Griffin The Rhetoric of Historical Movements (1952)

The rhetorical dimension of conflict at Kynnefjäll 1979-80 Pro-movement (Gov. Committee responsible for

test drillings)- Top down communication, no initial preparation for

contact with local residents. ”Hit and run”-strategy.- Narrow definition of the question, disregard of

political dimensions and connections between waste repository and nuclear industry expansion.

- Took unclear responsibility for communication when locals demanded meetings.

- Short time perspective, dissociations of concepts.

Anti-movement(local associations and political parties)- A broad political and environmental perspective.- Early interest in the case and strived for contact with

pro-movement 1978 and forward.- Preconceptions about the motives and consequences

of the project. Association between arguments: waste issue – nuclear industry (pars pro toto)

- Long time perspective.

The rhetorical dimension of conflict at Almunge 1985Pro-movement (the company Swedish Nuclear Waste Management SKB)- Continuation of ”hit and run” strategy.- Initiatives to inform locals through direct neighboorhood

contacts and flyers, but just days before drillings.- Decisions of information meetings but no actor takes

responsibility for organizing the event.- Unclear communication internally in SKB between operational

unit and PR unit.

Anti-movement (local and national associations)- Locals refused to accept drillings until proper information.- Broaded network of anti-movements around Sweden and

associated anti-experts. - Delicate balance between scientific information and political

(anti nuclear) claims.

How crisis affects the rhetorical process

- Rhetorical crisis forces the speaker/audience to see the subject from other points of view (Smith, Smith, 1994)

- Phronesis in crisis leadership about interpretation and understanding more than handling physical damage.

- Responsibility for crisis a question of interpretation.

- ”Long shadow” (Boin m fl. 2005) because of unclear strategies forward.

Change from a critical or a positive perspective?

Critical Discourse Analysis:- Considers more or less overt relations of struggle and

conflict, dominance, discrimination. (Weiss, Wodak, 2003 )- Showing connections and causes which are hidden, implies

intervention, providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged by change. (Fairclough 1992)

- Deciphers the establishment and maintenance of unequal power relations (critique of ideology) (Weiss, Wodak 2003)

”Positive” Discourse Analysis:- Presents discriminated voices on their own terms. (Martin i

Weiss and Wodak 2003)- Transformation through innovative strategies to resolve

rhetorical dilemmas. (Fairclough 1992)- Change seen as a possibility for emancipation and

alternatives (Bartlett 2012)

Example 1: ctor from the environmental movement changes the performance in terms of clothing and way of speaking in order to adjust to the style of the industry and the state authorities. Critical: Adjustment to the dominant discoursePositive: Creation of rhetorical agency

Example 2: An actor from the SKB acts in a manner (low voice, calmness, avoiding to answer provocative questions) that on the one Critical: Arrogance, voice of domination.Positive: Avoiding conflict in a peaceful way.