The radicalisation of rural resistance: How hunting counterpublics in the Nordic countries contribute to illegal hunting

Abstract

Abstract:Populist hunting movements have risen in recent years to safeguard rural interests against nature conservation.In extreme cases this movement has been accompanied by the illegal hunting of protected species. Using Sweden and Finland as a case study, the article elucidates how the perceived exclusion of hunters in the public debate on conservation mobilised this subculture toward resistance against regulatory agencies. Establishment of an alternative discursive platform comprising several ruralities -counterpublic in Negt and Kluge's original term -allowed hunters to publicise oppositional needs, interests and rationalities in the debate, and was a key juncture in their radicalisation trajectory. Finally the paper argues that failure to grant recognition to the counterpublic radicalised some individuals beyond counterpublic by engaging in illegal hunting. This practice is marked by the termination of political debate with society and represents a danger to political legitimacy.

Whose Discourse Is It Anyway? Understanding Resistance through the Rise of “Barstool Biology” in Nature Conservation

“…The impact of wolf populations on livelihoods and lifestyles quickly mobilised dissent, especially where the safety of domestic animals were concerned (von Essen et al, 2014b). This was particularly pronounced on the part of hunters and livestock farmers who experienced the prioritisation of elitist conservation goals over their lifeworlds.…”

“…However, demographically, hunters are both urban and rural; some are working class and some are middle-class academics and all equally criticise expenditure on wolf management over economic investment in deteriorating rural industry (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2009). Common to wolf sceptics is a perceived failure to make themselves heard and recognised as legitimate actors both in the public sphere and in decision-making processes on conservation issues, which are perceived to be colonized by an environmentalist agenda that leaves no room for alternative rationalities (von Essen et al, 2014b).…”

“…The perceived exclusion from the public debate on conservation issues led hunters to constitute a counterpublic comprised by these alternative interests and perspectives (von Essen et al, 2014b). Parallel to this alternative discursive arena, a growing phenomenon of illegal hunting of protected wolves testifies to the desperate situation and low legitimacy of the wolf conservation project (von Essen & Allen, 2015).…”

“…What, then, are these alternative channels, and why is the development worrisome? It is the retreat from the public arena to private and counterpublic spheres in society, where attitudes undergo radicalization as feelings of injustice are magnified (von Essen et al, 2014b).…”

“…Darrier, 1999) -has helped precipitate distrust and the radicalisation of marginalised hunters to the point of justifying illegal acts in resistance to wolf policy in particular (von Essen et al, 2014b).…”