Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The narrative properties of ideology: the adversarial turn and climate skepticism in the USA

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A central concern in policy studies is understanding how multiple, contending groups in society interact, deliberate, and forge agreements over policy issues. Often, public discourse turns from engagement into impasse, as in the fractured politics of climate policy in the USA. Existing theories are unclear about how such an “adversarial turn” develops. We theorize that an important aspect of the adversarial turn is the evolution of a group’s narrative into what can be understood as an ideology, the formation of which is observable through certain textual-linguistic properties. Analysis “of” these narrative properties elucidates the role of narrative in fostering (1) coalescence around a group ideology, and (2) group isolation and isolation of ideological coalitions from others’ influence. By examining a climate skeptical narrative, we demonstrate how to analyze ideological properties of narrative, and illustrate the role of ideological narratives in galvanizing and, subsequently, isolating groups in society. We end the piece with a reflection on further issues suggested by the narrative analysis, such as the possibility that climate skepticism is founded upon a more “genetic” meta-narrative that has roots in social issues far removed from climate, which means efforts at better communicating climate change science may not suffice to support action on climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003.

  2. “Climate-Change Putsch,” Wall Stree Journal, Opinion/Review & Outlook section, Aug. 3, 2015, accessed at http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-putsch-1438642218 on Aug. 11, 2015.

  3. We do not devote much discussion to the political roots of climate skepticism, which is the subject of a wealth of literature that we are not able to explore herein (some recent literature include Bohr 2016; Bousallis and Coan 2016; Farrell 2016). See also Jacques (2009) who coins the phrase “environmental skepticism” to refer to a counter movement, which claims that global environmental problems have been either highly exaggerated or purposely fabricated.

  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/here-are-10-more-conspiracy-theories-embraced-by-donald-trump/?utm_term=.0afa60be11a9.

  5. Some theorists maintain that all texts are inherently intertextual (Kristeva 1980). Even the most strident, closed ideological text draws presuppositions from other texts. This is why we apply intertextuality to mean direct reference to texts outside the corpus of text belonging to an ideology.

  6. Note that, if we ascribe to Ricoeur's notion that actions can also be considered as text (Ricoeur 1981), then the two concepts are essentially equivalent.

  7. http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2011/04/‘green-dragon’-slayers-how-religious-right-and-corporate-right-are-joining-fo.

  8. http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2011/04/‘green-dragon’-slayers-how-religious-right-and-corporate-right-are-joining-fo.

  9. Due to space constraints, we analyze a conservative text, but could equally have chosen a progressive one. Our task is not to show how one side of an issue is right or wrong, but to highlight the narrative properties found in any ideological text. Future analysis may compare competing texts.

  10. (1) http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2014/02/15/there-no-global-warming-and-will-be-none-decades, (2) http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2014/12/30/people-i-don't, and (3) http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2014/02/19/obama-wants-waste-billion-climate-change, (4) http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/epas-punitive-fraudulent-clean-power-plan/.

  11. It is not clear what this means within the text, however.

  12. Seth Borenstein, an Associated Press reporter, quoting Dr. Thomas Karl: http://theadvocate.com/news/8162122-123/noaa-world-in-2013-was.

  13. In other cases, or even with respect to the climate change debate, contextuality could relate to a reference to other forms of empirical evidence such as local or experiential knowledge of impacted communities, professional knowledge of various practitioners and so on.

References

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z: An essay (R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

  • Bohr, J. (2016). The ‘climatism’ cartel: Why climate change deniers oppose market-based mitigation policy. Environmental Politics, 25, 812–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, J. (2013). Why and how narrative matters in deliberative systems. Political Studies, 61(3), 620–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousallis, C., & Coan, T. G. (2016). Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt. Global Environmental Change, 36(2016), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenberg, G. J. (1999). Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sciences, 32(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics for beginners (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detraz, N., & Betsill, M. M. (2009). Climate change and environmental security: For whom the discourse shifts. International Studies Perspectives, 10(3), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, J., & Lee, J. (2015). Framing dynamics and political gridlock: The curious case of hydraulic fracturing in New York. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1116378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Stevenson, H. (2014). Democratizing global climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, E. E., & McCright, A. M. (2015). Challenging climate change: The denial countermovement. In R. E. Dunlap & R. J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives (pp. 1–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0010.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R., McCright, A., & Yarosh, J. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enriquez, L. E. (2014). Undocumented and citizen students unite: Building a cross-status coalition through shared ideology. Social Problems, 61(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, J. (2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 113, 92–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, C. B. et al. (2014). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, pp. 1–32.

  • Fletcher, A. L. (2009). Clearing the air: The contribution of frame analysis to understanding climate policy in the United States. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 800–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieve, J., & Provost, C. (2012). Ideas and coordination in policymaking: The financial crisis of 2007–2009. Governance, 25(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafton, C., & Permaloff, A. (2005a). The behavioral study of political ideology and public policy formulation. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafton, C., & Permaloff, A. (2005b). Liberal and conservative dissensus in areas of domestic public policy other than business and economics. Policy Sciences, 38(1), 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J. F. (2005). Introduction: Narrative environments and social problems. Social Problems, 52(4), 525–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, G. (2009). Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making. Policy Sciences, 42(3), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: A critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and process-sequencing models of policy-making over time. Policy Sciences, 39(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, M., Ingram, H., & Lejano, R. (2015). Environmental action in the anthropocene: The power of narrative networks. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1113513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (2015). Making distinctions: The social construction of target populations. In F. Fischer et al. (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 259–273). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, P. J. (2009). Environmental skepticism: Ecology, power and public life. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagers, S. C., & Stripple, J. (2003). Climate governance beyond the State. Global Governance, 9(3), 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasny, L., Waggle, J., & Fisher, D. R. (2015). An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nature Climate Change, 5(2015), 782–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D., & Forester, J. (2007). Learning in practice: Public policy mediation. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(4), 342–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., Ingram, M., & Ingram, H. (2013). The power of narrative in environmental networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., & Leong, C. (2012). A hermeneutic approach to explaining and understanding public controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 793–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., & Park, S. J. (2015). The autopoietic text. In F. Fischer et al. (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 274–296). Cheltenham: Elgar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., & Taufen Wessells, A. (2006). Community and economic development: Seeking common ground in discourse and in practice. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1469–1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, C. (2015). A quantitative investigation of narratives: Recycled drinking water. Water Policy, 17(5), 831–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutzenhiser, L. (2001). The contours of US climate non-policy. Society & Natural Resources, 14(6), 511–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia (L. Wirth & E. Shils, Trans.). San Diego: Harvest-Harcourt Brace, 1985, p. 263.

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 100–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, M. M., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Brechin, S. R., & Allen, S. (2016). Ideology, capitalism, and climate: Explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 21(2016), 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communications Monographs, 54(2), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oels, A. (2005). Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government?”. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettinger, M. (Ed.). (2007). Power, knowledge and the social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polletta, F. (1998). “It was like a fever…” Narrative and identity in social protest. Social Problems, 45(2), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, B. H., & Zoppo, D. R. (2014). Is the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan legal. Regulation, 37(Winter), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

  • Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (2nd ed.) (Laurence Scott, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Rabe, B. G. (2007). Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance, 20(3), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe, B. G. (2010). Greenhouse governance: Addressing climate change in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (2012). Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Economy and Society, 41(1), 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repetto, R. (2001). The Clean Development Mechanism: Institutional breakthrough or institutional nightmare. Policy Sciences, 34(3–4), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Policy networks: A British perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(1990), 293–317. doi:10.1177/0951692890002003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rietig, K. (2016). The links among contested knowledge, beliefs, and learning in European climate governance: From consensus to conflict in reforming biofuels policy. Policy Studies Journal. doi:10.1111/psj.12169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent, L. (2009). Contemporary political ideologies: A comparative analysis. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1969). Politics, ideology, and belief systems. American Political Science Review, 63, 398–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook. A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatchenkery, T. J. (1992). Organizations as ‘texts’: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding organizational change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 6, 197–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M., & Mansbridge, J. (2013). Deliberative negotiation. In J. Mansbridge & C. Martin (Eds.), Negotiating agreement in politics (pp. 86–120). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University, 239 Greene Street, Room 424, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Raul P. Lejano

  2. Department of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, 308 Milne Hall, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY, 12203, USA

    Jennifer Dodge

Authors
  1. Raul P. Lejano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Dodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raul P. Lejano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lejano, R.P., Dodge, J. The narrative properties of ideology: the adversarial turn and climate skepticism in the USA. Policy Sci 50, 195–215 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9274-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9274-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation