PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

91
green consciousness” as the result of this universalizing discourse (p.20). At other times,
however, they are quick to point out that Greenspeak does ultimately not represent one
unified voice, but rather “new worldwide cluster of dialects.”
In summarizing recent literature on the topic, one can note a tension between two
types of environmental discourse analysis. On one hand, there are very linguisticallyoriented
scholars who are strong believers in the social constructivist research framework
and who employ environmental discourse analysis because they believe that all social
action can only be understood discursively (e.g. Harré, Brockmeier et al. 1999). On the
other hand, there are more orthodox Foucauldian scholars who remain careful to still
relate the discerned discourses back to social and political power relations (e.g. Darier
1999). The former sort of analysis is most frustrating for planners and policy-makers in
that it has the greatest difficulty in moving from critique to recommendation. The
concluding paragraphs of such studies typically call for “greater rationality,” or “clearer
argumentation,” forgetting that the art of persuasion in planning and policy-making does
not necessarily imply that the most rational argument is necessarily the most attractive to
decision-makers. 12
3.3.5 Post-Modernism ? Post-Fordism and pro-modern ? pro-capitalist
The overview in table 3.1 not only distinguishes the various discursive
frameworks with regard to their relationship to modernity, but also with regard to
capitalism. We have already noted in the previous chapter that during the last three
on technical standards, rather than visionary environmental policy-making is often the result.
12 Rydin (2000) makes similar points in her excellent book review on the two cited works. Especially in this
last point, there is a strong affinity between studies of environmental policy-making written in discourse