Discourse Analysis of Whaling Regulation and the Influences on Perceptions of Morality
| Author | Charlotte Klinting |
Discourse Analysis of Whaling Regulation and the Influences
on Perceptions of Morality
Charlotte Klinting*
This Article tracks the historical development of whaling regulations
and the simultaneous development of discourses, which aided by public
perceptions of morality, have led to the creation of opposing value
spectrums with irreconcilable differences within the International
Whaling Commission. Section II presents a historical perspective on the
development of the whaling industry and of the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The accompanying
discourses of this development show shifts from industry to science and
to ethics as our relationship with nature changes. Section III discusses
the politics of whaling and the discursive influence of public opinion by
animal rights, media and direct actions; the insistence on whaling based
on culture; and lastly, analyses the discourse applied in the 2014 ICJ
case of Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand
Intervening),1 which aims to demonstrate the tensions between pro- and
anti-whaling nations.
I. INTRODUCTION: PERSONAL WHALING ENCOUNTERS
AND CHANGING RELATIONSHIP TO NATURE
Walking along in the harbour of Iceland’s capital, Reykjavik, is a thought-
provoking experience, as the heart of the town’s fishing industry confronts an
interesting paradox of conservation and industry. A friend points to a boat, and
says: ‘See that one? That’s the whale watching boat’. Then he points to the boat
next to it and continues: ‘And that one, that’s the whaling boat’. After a moment
of stunned silence, I wondered why it came as such a shock that these two polar
opposites should co-exist in a country like Iceland. It makes sense, considering
* Charlotte Klinting received a BA (Hons) in Law and Development Studies from SOAS,
University of London in 2015 and is continuing her studies within environmental law and
marine systems policy. She wishes to thank Dr Yoriko Otomo for her guidance during the
writing process and for the support in exploring this area of interest.
1 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand Intervening ) [2014]
cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf> accessed 20 April 2014.
(2015) Vol. 2, Issue 2 Charlotte Klinting 71
SOAS LAW JOURNAL
the importance of whales to the country’s tourism as well as industry and food
culture, which I experienced, when I was served minke whale for dinner. Yet,
that felt morally wrong.
Why is this? Humans have a peculiar relationship with nature; although we do
not associate or have any contact with ocean giants, we presumably treasure
them for their intelligence, sociability, natural beauty, and maybe as one of the
last remnants of ‘pure’ nature. Paul Watson, Captain of the Sea Shepherd (a
vessel belonging to the direct-action anti-whaling organisation of the same
name) even says that whales are the one species with which we have a real
possibility of establishing communication.2 The organisation depends on
emotional arguments and I believe our revulsion at the idea of killing whales
has much to do with the influence of the media and public opposition to
whaling in the name of animal welfare. This represents a shift in our
relationship with nature, as the idea of conservation just for the sake of the
animal is a relatively new idea, seeing as animals were primarily considered as
resources. Nature, as Raymond Williams3 describes it, has become commodified
and privatised over the centuries and whales are no exception. Knowing nature
is about knowing how it can generate value and whaling was an industrial
activity, albeit governed by issues of economics. Since the 1960s, however, it has
undergone a transformation, from being an industry that provides basic
necessities, to a practice that has become a public barometer of human civility.
With this transformation, discourse has simultaneously shifted, both within the
realms of legislators and of the public. We have moved away from purely
scientific evidence to a discourse governed by ethics, morality and guilty
conscience. Nature has become external and what is left of it must be enclosed
and protected. By exploring the idea of our shifting relationship with nature,
this Article aims to show how whaling legislation and the accompanying
discourse has influenced the public perception of ethics and morality, and vice
versa.
1.1 Critical Discourse Analysis
The approach of this Article, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), applied on
whaling discourse and policy, concerns the way power is used to define the
parameters of particular questions,4 such as the question of whether whaling
should be banned outright; set rules for whaling practices; or shape agendas of
whaling countries. The method focuses on ways discursive structures enact,
2 Jeff Goodman, ‘Black Harvest’ (BBC 1986).
3 Raymond Williams, Problems in Materialism and Culture (Verso 1980).
4 ibid.
To continue reading
Request your trial