| Summary: | In this thesis I examine how the aggressive fracking-debate in the Canadian Province New Brunswick from 2010 onwards, and how the three participating actors (the fracking-critical Native Canadian group Elsipogtog First Nation, the non-native fracking-critical group New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) and the fossil fuel company Southwestern Energy Resources Canada) view nature in different ways. Statements from all three actors are analysed through a loose application of Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis. The three actors and their corresponding views of nature are also compared with each other using Gingrich and Fox’s (2002) postmodern comparation techniques as a starting point. By mapping out these discourses I hope to understand both how the actors in the debate ground their arguments in differing nature views and comprehend why the New Brunswick debate was markedly more aggressive compared to other recent fracking debates. I conclude that the three actors’ constructions of nature are both different and similar when compared. SWN Resources and NBASGA both primarily argue from a view of nature where humanity/society and the natural sphere are completely separate. However, SWN Resources’ view of nature has a colonial angle, whereas NBASGA see nature as a human right worthy of protection. Finally, Elsipogtog view nature as both holy and intimately connected to the human through a symbiotic relationship.
|
|---|