Skip to main content
Log in

Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study

British Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

The foxhunting debate conjures up dichotomies on party politics, the rural/urban divide, class, animal welfare, animal rights and the right to hunt them. In the lead-up to the 2004 hunting ban, animals themselves became peripheral in the political debate on hunting. This paper presents a contemporary analysis of shared viewpoints on hunting that highlights the centrality of animals to debates over foxhunting. I use Q methodology to identify four discourses on hunting in public debates. Liberal progressives are against hunting on the basis that it is cruel, unnecessary and outdated. Critical-radicals oppose hunting from a structural perspective, encompassing critiques of power and class. Countryside managers support hunting as a form of wildlife management and emphasise the differences across animals. Sporting libertarians support hunting as a legitimate sport. These findings demonstrate the complexity of the hunting debate in the public sphere that is simplified and exaggerated in mainstream media and Westminster.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The terms ‘man-made’ and similar are used here because they reflect the language used by advocates of this position, exemplified by the Countryside Alliance: ‘The British countryside has been created by man over centuries to meet human needs. In this man-made environment, wildlife has to be managed. Mankind cannot abdicate its responsibility for the ongoing management of the countryside it has created’ (Countryside Alliance 2012).

References

  • Anderson, A. 2006. Spinning the Rural Agenda: The Countryside Alliance, Fox Hunting and Social Policy. Social Policy and Administration 40 (6): 722–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J., and J. Proops. 1999. Seeking Sustainability Discourses with Q Methodology. Ecological Economics 28: 337–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, J. 2016. The Performance of Political Narratives: How Australia and Britain’s ‘Fat Bombs’ Fizzled Out. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (3): 724–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Application of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. 1986. Q Technique and Method: Principles and Procedures. In New Tools for Social Scientists: Advances and Applications in Research Methods, ed. W.D. Berry, and M.S. Lewis-Beck. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. 1996. Contributions to the Study of Animals and Society. Paper Presented at International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, University of Missouri, Columbia, 3–5 Oct 1996.

  • Brown, S.R. 1997. The History and Principles of Q methodology in Psychology and the Social Sciences. In A Celebration of the Life and Work of William Stephenson (1902-1989), University of Durham, UK, 12–14 Dec.

  • Byrd, K. 2002. Mirrors and Metaphors: Contemporary narratives of the wolf in Minnesota. Ethics, Place and Environment 5 (1): 50–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, E.C., M.B. Rutherford, and M.L. Gibeau. 2012. Human Perspectives and Conservation of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Canada. Conservation Biology 26 (3): 420–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Countryside Alliance. 2012. The Case for Hunting. Countryside Alliance. http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/campaigns-hunting .

  • Cross, R.M. 2005. Exploring Attitudes: The Case for Q methodology. Health and Education Research 20 (2): 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curchin, K. 2017. Testing the Limits of the Politics of Recognition: Fox Hunters in the United Kingdom. International Political Science Review, published OnlineFirst 01 (06): 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S. 2005. The Politics of the Earth, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S., and J. Berejikian. 1993. Reconstructive Democratic Theory. The American Political Science Review 87 (1): 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S., and S. Niemeyer. 2008. Discursive Representation. American Political Science Review 102 (4): 481–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ercan, S., C. Hendriks, and J. Boswell. 2017. Studying Public Deliberation After the Systemic Turn: The Crucial Role for Interpretive Research. Policy and Politics 45 (2): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffares, S., and C. Skelcher. 2011. Democratic Subjectivities in Network Governance: A Q Methodology Study of English and Dutch Public Managers. Public Administration 89 (4): 1253–1273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalof, L. 2000. The Multi-layered Discourses of Animal Concern. In Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology, Cheltenham, ed. H. Addams, and J. Proops. Northampton MA: Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marvin, G. 2003. A Passionate Pursuit: Foxhunting as Performance. The Sociological Review 51 (2): 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marvin, G. 2007. English Foxhunting: A Prohibited Practice. International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (3): 339–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 2013. Q Methodology, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S. 2011. The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics. Politics and Society 39 (1): 103–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumb, A., and D. Marsh. 2013. Beyond Party Discipline: UK Parliamentary Voting on Fox Hunting. British Politics 8: 313–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves, L. 2015. Animal Rights Hardliners Put RSPCA at Risk. The Times.

  • Ramlo, S. 2016. Centroid and Theoretical Rotation: Justification for Their Use in Q Methodology Research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher 28 (1): 73–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmolck, P (2014), PQMethod 2.35 with PQRot 2.0 for Windows, Peter Schmolck [online], available at: http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/pqmanual.htm .

  • Sickler, J., et al. 2006. Social Narratives Surrounding Dolphins: Q method Study. Society and Animals 14 (4): 351–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenner, P., D. Cooper, and S. Skevington. 2003. Putting the Q into Quality of Life; the Identification of Subjective Constructions of Health-Related Quality of Life Using Q Methodology. Social Science and Medicine 51 (3): 2161–2172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. 1935a. Technique of Factor Analysis’. Nature 136: 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. 1935b. Correlating Persons Instead of Tests. Journal of Personality 4 (1): 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. 2015. Contemporary Discourses on the Environment-Economy Nexus. SPERI Research Paper No. 19, Sheffield: Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.

  • Toke, D. 2010. Foxhunting and the Conservatives. The Political Quarterly 81 (2): 205–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Exel, N.J.A. and G. de Graaf. 2005. Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview. www.jobvanexel.nl

  • Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western Morning News. 2015. As RSPCA Struggles to Find a New Chief Executive, is Animal Rights Extremism Blighting a Once Great Charity?. Western Morning News, 4 November. .

  • Woods, M. 1998. Mad Cows and Hounded Deer: Political Representation of Animals in the British Countryside. Environment and Planning A 30: 1219–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M. 2000. Fantastic Mr. Fox? In Animal Spaces, ed. C. Philo, and C. Wilbert. Beastly Places, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Centre for Animals and Social Justice and the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy J. Parry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

J. Parry, L. Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study. Br Polit 14, 290–310 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5

Keywords

Navigation