“Somethin’ Tells Me It's All Happening at the Zoo”: Discourse, Power, and Conservationism1

Hunting the Beast on YouTube

“…Here we find evidence that nature is framed 'as something that exists to be appropriated and commodified for ever-increasing accumulation and profits within global political economic frameworks' (Milstein 2009: 28). Such a framing implies the simultaneous repression of the other end of the dichotomy, the discourse of idealism which, according to Milstein (2009), can function as a creative force in rethinking the human-nature relationship to encompass more than just economic rationality.…”

“…to identify the discursively suppressed counter-hegemonic frames (Carragee & Roefs 2004). In order to discuss what counterhegemonic frames may be obscured in the studied materials, the three dialectics proposed by Milstein (2009) as generally permeating western discourse on the human-nature relationship, are helpful. These include mastery vs. harmony, othering vs. connection, and exploitation vs. idealism.…”

“…The very notion that non-human life forms are inferior 'others' informs and justifies the hunting frames, and the logical consequence is the discursive repression of the other pole of the dichotomy, connection. This counter-hegemonic discourse has the ability to neutralise the natureculture divide and instead acknowledge the interconnectedness between humans and non-human species (Milstein 2009).…”

“…However, the upper-class overtones of the privilege frame, suggesting that the right to dominate non-human species is given by inheritance and tradition, distinguishes it from dwelling. Arguably, the hunters of the privilege frame, despite their somewhat old-fashioned appearance, have little in common with the pre-colonial cultures that harmoniously adapted to and interconnected with nature (Milstein 2009). Thus, the counter-hegemonic discourse of harmony, which acknowledges a more equal and balanced relationship between humans and nature, is thus largely suppressed in the studied YouTube videos.…”

“…As argued by Macnaghten and Urry (1998: 3), 'an appropriate politics of nature would be one which stems from how people talk about and conceptualize nature in their day-to-day lives, in their localities and other "communities"'. Cultural meaning influences the ways in which humans interact with non-human life forms (Williams 1980), which means that discursive constructions of nature not only result in a material impact, but also serve to justify and reinforce these material practices (Milstein 2009). For instance, if people think and talk about nature as a threat, activities such as poaching will be legitimised and reproduced.…”