Exploring discursive representation: Flemish agriculture as a case

Abstract

What the above illustrates is the need for some form of systematic understanding of ideas, since three seemingly similar concepts in fact conceal entirely different ideational backgrounds and identical concepts are adopted and employed strategically by groups that share radical differing worlds of meaning. Indeed, without such a systematic understanding it would seem to be unclear why and in what proportion agriculture should be productivist, multifunctional, 'objects' of representation such as territorial constituencies (e.g. 'I represent the interests of the Flemish citizens ') or social groups ('I represent the retailers'), discourses become the basis for representation ('I represent the multifunctionality discourse'). The framework of discursive representation and its underlying concepts and assumptions will serve as a guideline for our study of ongoing political processes in the Flemish agro-food system. Chapter 2 will be entirely devoted to the elaboration of the basic assumptions of discursive representation, its relation with deliberative democracy, and the way in which Chapter 1 6 1.2. DISCOURSES, INSTITUTIONS & POLITICS Recently, scholars began to take seriously the role of discourses in institutional change. In political theory, discourse was often considered to have secondary value to explain what happens within institutions. For instance, in rational choice theory, ideas are reduced to 'cheap talk' (Austen-Smith, 1992) used by actors to persuade others, having the main goal to influence an individual's preference on a particular policy issue (or voting option). It's 'cheap' because 'everyone can talk', which also makes it relatively low in importance. Ideas are one of the many strategic devices, instruments for the maximization of material interests, which ultimately guide political behavior and institutions (Schmidt, 2010). Furthermore, political institutions were often portrayed as rather fixed entities in which either rational calculation of material interests and aggregation of preferences (=rational choice institutionalism), regularized patterns and pathdependent trajectories (=historical institutionalism) as well as the appropriation of cultural norms (=sociological institutionalism) serve to understand how 'stability' within institutions is reproduced (Schmidt, 2010). Institutional change is often depicted as the result of an external influence, such as e.g. the emergence of an economic or ecological crisis leading to political instability, in turn necessitating the re-configuration of a governmental structure (Schmidt, 2010; Hajer, 2009). This PhD is anchored within an emerging research tradition that aims to address the dynamic relationship between discourses and institutional arrangements. How does the articulation of discourses lead to institutional continuity and change? If political actors advocate a new form of democratic participation to become part of the political system, for instance, a city council introducing participatory budgeting or a politician evoking the need to have a proce...

Discursive Representation within the Institutional Void: The Rise and Fall of a Governance Network on Sustainable Food in Belgium

“…How a government or governance network deals with different interpretations of sustainability depends in part on the rules, norms and interactive patterns of the specific 'policy field' or 'policy arrangement' in which it is conducted (Arts et al 2000). In the context of the empirical case, we point out that the agricultural policy domain is influenced by codes of group-based representation in the neo-corporatist and consociationalist tradition (Frouws 1994;Dezeure 2004;Deschouwer 2009;Crivits 2016). We do claim, however, that a fuller understanding of the dynamics of the NFF governance process can be gained by using the theory and approach of discursive representation as an additional analytical and evaluative framework.…”

“…2000). In the context of the empirical case, we point out that the agricultural policy domain is influenced by codes of group‐based representation in the neo‐corporatist and consociationalist tradition (Frouws ; Dezeure ; Deschouwer ; Crivits ). We do claim, however, that a fuller understanding of the dynamics of the NFF governance process can be gained by using the theory and approach of discursive representation as an additional analytical and evaluative framework.…”