Helena Hansson Nylund PhD Candidate Örebro University

1. Disposalofspentnuclearfuel in Sweden – historicaldevelopment and two different approachesof Discourse Analysis Helena Hansson Nylund PhD Candidate Örebro University

2. Swedish method for disposalofhighlevelnuclearwaste 2011: Swedish NuclearFuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) applied to the government for the permit to build a facility in Östhammar. http://skb.se/Templates/Standard____24109.aspx

3. Starting point: Observation of hearing arranged by the Swedish government on the sitingof the depositoryfacility, 4-5 June 2008. 100-200 participants: SKB, state and municipal authorities, environmental organisations, nuclearindustryassociates. • Problem formulation: • Whatare the most evident constraints in the situation oftoday? • Howcanthoseconstraints be considered from the perspectiveofrhetoricalagency and participation? • Firstanalysisof the situation: • Specializedlanguage and large implicit understanding. • Many different participantsbutfriendlyclimate. • Rhetorical genres intertwined. • Predictability(accordingto the participants)

4. Discourse-historical approach Retrospectivecritique: Foregrounds the connectionbetweenpast and present, examines the present handling ofpast events. Comparessimilarhistorical texts/situations over time, from microtomacrolevel (Wodak, Reisigl , 2000) Questions – developmentofsituationalconstraints : How has the concpetof hearings on depositorysitingdeveloped over time? Focus on intellectio/inventio: How do the actorsprepare for meetings? Howcan the dialogue-type be described: debate, negotiation, discussion? How do the participantsevaluate the situation?

5. Selectionof material Twoprevioussimilar meetings chosen: Kynnefjäll 2/10 1979: First meeting betweenactorresponsible for geologicalinvestigations and locals/environmental movement. Almunge 31/10 1985: Last meeting during 1980’ies. Redirectionof the geologicalinvestigation program and new PR approach. Interviews, biographies Archived material (Swedish National Archive, local archives) News paper articles (mainlylocalpapers) Participantswrittenrecords, their video recordings from meetings etc.

6. Twoperspectives on ”rhetoricalcrisis” 1. “A rhetorical crisis occurs when discourse fails to fulfill ordinary epistemological and axiological expectations. Previously functional practices of communication and techniques of persuasion break down, proliferating disbelief when informed consensus is demanded, foreclosing options when cooperative action is seen as vital.”Farrell, Thomas B., Goodnight, Thomas G. “Accidental Rhetoric: The Root Metaphors of Three Mile Island” iCommunication Monographs, Vol. 48. (1981) 2. ”Pro-movement” – strives for acceptance. ”Anti-movement” – strivesfor change. A ”rhetoricalcrisis” appearswhen a speaker in the pro- or anti-movement disturbspreviouslybalancedcommunication. L M Griffin The RhetoricofHistorical Movements (1952)

7. The rhetorical dimension ofconflict at Kynnefjäll 1979-80 • Pro-movement (Gov. Committeeresponsible for test drillings) • Top down communication, no initial preparation for contactwithlocal residents. ”Hit and run”-strategy. • Narrow definition of the question, disregardofpolitical dimensions and connectionsbetweenwasterepository and nuclearindustry expansion. • Tookunclearresponsibility for communicationwhenlocalsdemanded meetings. • Short timeperspective, dissociations ofconcepts. • Anti-movement(local associations and politicalparties) • A broad political and environmental perspective. • Earlyinterest in the case and strived for contactwith pro-movement 1978 and forward. • Preconceptionsabout the motives and consequencesof the project. Association between arguments: wasteissue – nuclearindustry(pars pro toto) • Long timeperspective.

8. The rhetorical dimension ofconflict at Almunge 1985 • Pro-movement (the company Swedish Nuclear Waste Management SKB) • Continuationof ”hit and run” strategy. • Initiativestoinformlocalsthroughdirectneighboorhoodcontacts and flyers, but just daysbefore drillings. • Decisionsof information meetings but no actortakesresponsibility for organizing the event. • Unclearcommunicationinternally in SKB betweenoperationalunit and PR unit. • Anti-movement (local and national associations) • Localsrefusedto accept drillings until proper information. • Broadednetworkof anti-movements around Sweden and associated anti-experts. • Delicatebalancebetweenscientific information and political (anti nuclear) claims.

9. Howcrisisaffects the rhetorical process • Rhetoricalcrisisforces the speaker/audiencetosee the subject from otherpointsofview(Smith, Smith, 1994) • Phronesis in crisisleadershipabout interpretation and understandingmorethan handling physicaldamage. • Responsibility for crisis a questionof interpretation. • ”Long shadow” (Boin m fl. 2005) becauseofunclearstrategies forward.

10. Change from a critical or a positive perspective? • Critical Discourse Analysis: • Considersmore or less overt relations ofstruggle and conflict, dominance, discrimination. (Weiss, Wodak, 2003 ) • Showing connections and causes which are hidden, implies intervention, providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged by change. (Fairclough 1992) • Deciphers the establishment and maintenanceofunequalpower relations (critiqueofideology) (Weiss, Wodak 2003) • ”Positive” Discourse Analysis: • Presents discriminatedvoices on theirown terms. (Martin i Weiss and Wodak 2003) • Transformation through innovative strategiestoresolverhetorical dilemmas. (Fairclough 1992) • Change seen as a possibility for emancipation and alternatives (Bartlett 2012)

11. Example 1: ctorfrom the environmental movement changes the performance in terms of clothing and way of speaking in order to adjust to the style of the industry and the state authorities. Critical: Adjustmentto the dominant discourse Positive: Creation ofrhetoricalagency Example 2: An actor from the SKB acts in a manner (low voice, calmness, avoiding to answer provocative questions) that on the one Critical: Arrogance, voice of domination. Positive: Avoiding conflict in a peaceful way.