Wild Animals in Media

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Previous research

The search for previous research concerning the topic of the wolf was conducted both in Swedish and in English. The first step was taken by searching for the keywords such as wolf/varg, wolf hate/varghat in Primo, the database of Jönköping University Library. This resulted in multiple books and articles, of which the books were mainly written in Swedish, while the articles tended to be written in English. The literature list at the end of each work referred to further research, which helped providing an overview of the field. A careful analysis of the material indicated that the issue of the wolf in Sweden is connected to the urban-rural divide and the issue of political alienation, leading to further research on those terms.
Further searches were performed in the databases Communication Source and Scopus, this time searching only in English. The keywords used were the same as previously mentioned, as well as framing, nature, attitude, relations, wildlife, wild boar, and bear, to get a wider perspective of the issue of the wolf. Searches for political alienation and urban norm were also done.
Through the analysis of the literature, three categories became visible in the material. These categories have been used to organize this chapter. The first part is an overview of how the wolf has been politicised in Sweden during the last decades. The second part contrasts the Swedish relationship to the wolf with the one in other countries. The third part concerns how other potentially dangerous animals are portrayed in media.

The Politics of the Wolf

Eriksson (2016) has investigated the attitude of Swedish people towards wolves. The study spans over ten years and consists of three surveys conducted in the years 2004, 2009 and 2014. Each survey consisted of a national sample of 1067 respondents and a series of municipal samples of 150 respondents each. Statistics Sweden, the official registry of Swedish statistics, was used as a sampling frame to minimise the risk of errors. During the study the Swedish wolf population grew in size, resulting in human interaction with wild wolves becoming more common. In 2004, 32% of the participants answered that they had seen a wolf or wolf tracks, while in 2014 the number had risen to 46%. During the same time, the support for a more restrictive wolf policy rose from 30% to 35%, and according to the author this is a number that will keep rising. The study found a polarisation based on geography, where people living on the north-east coast are the least likely to support a more restricted wolf policy while the south-east parts of the country are the most likely to do so. This reflects the urban-rural divide, as the north-east coast is more urbanised than the inland areas. The south east is also the part of the country where the Swedish wolf population lives. (Eriksson, 2016)
According to Eriksson, the wolf debate is not actually about the wolf, but rather about the uneven power balance between urban and rural areas. The rural areas are struggling with aging population, depopulation, and a general feeling of powerlessness. They experience a feeling of political alienation, and the wolf becomes a symbol for their discontent as the national government and institutions in Stockholm makes decisions that influence their lives (Eriksson, 2016). It does not matter if the wolf is actually dangerous or not, what is essential is whether people perceive the animal as dangerous or not. It is also of utmost importance how the authorities deal with their fear and complains. If people do not feel like they are taken seriously the wolf hate will continue to grow stronger (Eles, 1986).
The wolf debate follows the political debate and climate. When people were still living mainly in rural areas, the wolf was a very real threat and it was common sense to think that all wolves should be killed. At this time, folk belief was still seen as a valuable source for information and facts (Eles, 1986). Then came the industrialisation when people moved into the cities, and a new common sense evolved where nature and wildlife needed to be protected. This view grew particularly strong in the 1970’s when the wolf became protected by law (Berge, 2018). During the same time, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency was founded, the first in the world of its kind (Eriksson, 2016).
Today the major political parties in Sweden all have policies for hunting, and wolf hunt in particular. The left wing is closest to the opinion of the environmentalists, and advocates for protecting the wolves. The further right the parties are on the scale, the more in favour of a more restrictive and locally based wolf policy they are. In the election of 2006, the wolf was one of the main issues and the conservative block promised an introduction of licensed hunting. This helped them gain votes in the rural areas and win the election (Ekman, 2010).
The wolf is also used by the nationalistic party Sverigedemokraterna to attract voters in the rural areas. Their website states that “some areas of Sweden have a remarkably high concentration of wolves” and that they want to abolish the influence of EU as well as “small environmental organisations” in hunting right questions (Sverigedemokraterna, 2019). People living in the rural areas of Sweden tend to be male, older, have an interest in hunting and a lower level of education. All of these factors correlate with the demography of the people who vote for Sverigedemokraterna as well as with having a negative view on wolves (Eriksson, 2016; TT, 2018).
Almost half of the total wolf mortality is made up by poaching. As hunting takes place in remote places, far away from the institutions that control them, it is relatively easy for the poachers to do this in peace. Research suggests that the most effective way to regulate this is through social pressure. A fear of getting reported by one’s peers is more effective than the threat of a distant institution. Besides getting rid of an animal that is viewed as a threat, poaching is also a symbol for political resistance. Changing this behaviour would therefore require efforts to make alienated groups feel like part of the political system again (Peterson, von Essen, Hansen & Peterson, 2019). Meanwhile, environmental NGO’s are doing everything they can to protect the wolves. They are working to stop any deregulation of the wolf policy and attempts to place the decision making on a local level. This in turn confirms the opinion among the anti-wolf groups in the rural areas that it is impossible to change anything from within the system (von Essen & Allen, 2017).

The Wolf in Other Countries

Sweden share their wolf population with Norway, and the annual inventory is done in cooperation with the Norwegian authorities. Norway does however have a more restrictive policy and a population of less than 100 wolves. The main reason for this is that Norway has more than two million sheep on pasture (Ekman, 2010; Rovdata & Viltskadecenter SLU, 2018). The Norwegian wolf debate is very similar to the Swedish one, as the two countries share history and culture. A study from 2018 shows that people in urban areas have a more positive attitude to wolves than people in the rural areas, and that the population is split in half concerning whether they want wolfs in Norway or not. Most negative are older men with a low level of education, who live in the rural areas and are positive towards hunting but mistrust authorities (Krange & Skogen, 2018).
Finland and Siberia share the Scandinavian view of the wolf, which makes them the part of the world with the highest tension between wolf and humans. Other European countries consider the wolf to be a threat only to cattle, not humans. For them the wolf is just another animal, not the symbolic beast it has become in northern Europe. The Mediterranean countries seems to have the most relaxed attitude in Europe towards wolves, and a study from Italy in the 80’s showed that the people there were more afraid of wolves the further they lived from them. Farmers in the countryside did not consider the wolf to be a threat, while restaurant keepers in big cities were the group which was most afraid of wolves (Eles, 1986).

Wild Animals in Media

The search of the academic literature led to surprisingly few studies concerning the portrayal of wild animals in media and how they are constructed as an issue. However, according to Mörner & Olausson, the field has grown in recent years. This is the result of a bigger interest in the area of sustainability and the need for humans to exist in harmony with nature (Mörner & Olausson, 2017).
A study from 2017 shows that hunting videos on YouTube follow the classic idea of man’s fight against nature, where it is impossible for the two to coexist. Nature and wildlife are often portrayed as something that needs to be defeated, consumed, or dominated. Mankind is assumed to be the superior party with the right to dominate nature and other species (Mörner & Olausson, 2017). This view is reinforced through media, for example in tourist information. In a world where the urban lifestyle is the norm, “nature” and “wildlife” has become buzzwords in marketing campaigns. The city is a product that needs to be sold and contradicting enough this is done by emphasising the nature in it. Nature and animals are packaged as parks and zoos, contained in a confined area and controlled by humans (Uggla & Olausson, 2013).

Rural versus Urban

Today 85% of the Swedish population lives in urban areas and the rural areas are facing the consequences of a shrinking and aging population (Bjerke & Mellander, 2017). The urban lifestyle has become the norm, and the rural is considered “the other.” It is the cities that represents the future, with universities, big companies and innovative solutions (Uggla & Olausson, 2013). These institutions attract young and creative people, resulting in an even wider gap between rural and urban (Mellander, 2008). Moving away from a small settlement in the rural area is seen as a win and staying is considered to be a failure. Many young people believe that there is no way of succeeding in life if they do not move to one of the bigger cities. The ones who stay behind feel like they are not wanted by the local and national politicians, as they do not contribute to society (Svensson, 2006).
This trend is not unique to Sweden but can be found globally and is also reflected in the political environment. The right-wing nationalistic forces are strongest in the rural areas and are often fuelled by discontent with the establishment and the feeling of political alienation (Bjerke & Mellander, 2017; Mellander, Ömer & Norman, 2014, Stoker & Evans, 2014). This is also reflected in the wolf debate, as the animal is now a symbol for the urban versus the rural areas.

Lessons learnt from the literature

The review of previous research has shown that there is a long tradition of wolf hate in Sweden, connected to living in rural areas close to nature. The will to protect the wolves has a much shorter history, starting when people moved into the cities and became urbanised. Wolves are part of the Swedish culture and occur in many of the old folk tales, used as a symbol for all things evil (Ekman, 2010; Berge, 2018). According to research, people who have come into contact with wolves tend to have a more negative attitude towards them than people who have not. This means that the wolf areas, Värmland, Närke and Dalarna, are the ones with the most negative attitudes towards the animal, and that the urban areas surrounding the big cities have the most positive attitude towards them (Eriksson, 2016).
As the wolf issue reflects the divide between urban and rural, it has become a symbolic question. People living in rural areas are unhappy with the fact that decisions about their lives are made by politicians who may not have any direct connection to the concerned areas. They do not feel like part of society and the political system, resulting in political alienation. (Eriksson, 2016).
The review has also shown that there is a gap in the previous research concerning how media portrays the wolf. None of the reviewed studies used content analysis to examine the medial image of the animal, as this study aims to do.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework for this study is based primarily on Critical Discourse Analysis (which is also used as a method, see chapter 5). Critical Discourse Analysis is an approach that stems from critical linguistics, which aim to show how grammar and language can be used to convey an ideology. Critical linguistics was however not sufficient to explain the connection between language, power and ideology, which is why Critical Discourse Analysis was developed. The aim of Critical Discourse Analysis is to highlight the political and ideological practices and conventions that can be found both in the actual text and the context it was created in. The theory is “openly committed to political intervention and societal change.” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 4.)
In order to narrow it down and focus on the particular issue of the tension between rural and urban, centre-periphery theory and the concept of political alienation are used to complement Critical Discourse Analysis. Centre-periphery theory is used to explain how the tension came to be in the first place, while political alienation explains the issue further.

Centre – Periphery Theory

The centre-periphery theory describes the unequal relationship between a developed centre and its less developed surroundings in a system. For example, the relationship between rural and urban areas of a country. The theory has its roots in Marxist studies of imperialism at the beginning of the 20th century, and was established during the 1950’s. It aims to explain the uneven relationship and development of different parts of a country, where the centre tends to develop faster (Centre-periphery, 2002). Shils (2015) states that all societies have these centres, and each citizen’s relationship to that centre is what defines their societal membership. The centre has very little to do with the geography and geometry of the society but is rather an abstract idea of where the power centre of the society is located. It is the centre that sets the so-called central value system for the society, which is the official norm that the periphery then has to adapt to.
Centre-periphery models often focus on the imbalance of power, as the centres for communication, culture, industry and other institutions tend to all be located in a few locations within an economic system. This creates a distance between the people living periphery and those who live in the centre (Centre-periphery, 2002). The elite in the centre generally have more resources in the form of education, money and power, which makes it possible for them to govern over the periphery. This is based on a certain level of appreciation for the central institutions. The periphery might be unhappy and complain about the unequal relationship with the centre, but nonetheless confirm to the idea of them being in power. Without this appreciation the societal system would crumble (Shils, 2015).

Political Alienation

Political alienation is defined as attitudes of estrangement from the political system. According to Olsen (1969), it contains two broad categories, political incapability and discontentment. Political incapability is forced upon the individual by the surrounding environment, while discontentment on the other hand is a choice made by the individuals themselves (Olsen, 1969). People who experience political alienation are often minorities in society and lack power in the form of social resources. Political alienation can be rooted either in people not having any direct political representation, or in a sense of not sharing the values and attitudes of the ruling powers in a society (Eriksson, 2017).
The most classic and most studied form of political alienation is estrangement. Estrangement is a perceived fundamental division between an individual and the polity. Despite being born and raised into a political system, the individual feels as an outsider and unrepresented in the political process. This often leads to isolation, where citizens chose to withdraw from the political system (Eriksson, 2017; Schwartz, 1976).
Political alienation can also take the form of negative evaluation of the political system and public affairs. This means that the individual feels alienated from the actors rather than the polity itself. This negative evaluation might concern both the competence and the motives of the actors. Politicians are perceived to not understand or live by the same rules as common people. The citizens know what is right, but their politicians seem to be unaware or ignoring the common sense of right or wrong (Schwartz, 1976; Stoker & Evans, 2014). In these cases, the individual might find other, alternative sources for information and representation. These people might describe themselves as anti-establishment (Ball, 2017).
Political alienation might result in a rejection of the institution of elections, where elections are perceived as providing no real choices and that a single vote does not make a difference. In a democratic society where the political system is legitimised through procedural rather than substantive terms, this poses a threat to democracy. (Schwartz, 1976)
The level of political alienation grows with the distance from the political centre, meaning that it is stronger in rural than urban areas. This is a result of rural areas being subordinate to urban areas and urban living becoming the norm (Stoker & Evans, 2014; Eriksson, 2016). Political alienation has been proven to affect the attitude towards certain policies, strengthen group identity and increase resistance towards groups perceived to be in power. Social mobilisation in rural areas is often driven by political alienation (Eriksson, 2017). In those cases, political alienation often increases the political participation. However, it is more common that it decreases the political participation as individuals chose to opt out of the political system. As a result, the political system will represent an even smaller part of the population (Schwartz, 1976).
As political alienation is an issue of power and ideology, it fits as a complement to CDA. Since language is a reflection of a person’s ideological standpoint, according to Machin and Mayr (2012), it is where signs of political alienation can be found. It is also an issue of urban versus rural, making it suitable for an analysis of the wolf debate.
News media has the possibility to strengthen this feeling of political alienation depending on which topics they cover, and how. According to McCombs and Valenzuela (2017), and Weibull, Wadbring and Ohlsson (2018), media has an influence on how and what people think and talk about, and how they perceive society and their role in it. If media portrays an issue in a certain way, it will affect the common view of that issue. This is true both for the content produced by the journalists themselves, and for texts written by others that the paper chose to publish (McCombs & Valenzuela, 2017).

Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a cross disciplinary approach often used within social sciences and the humanities. The theory has its roots in the beginning of the 20th century, as a reaction to the rise of neoliberalism and the social and economic changes at the time. Fordist mass production turned into flexible accumulation in the post-industrial area, resulting in a growing interest in the importance of a critical perspective on language. CDA is motivated by the wish to make people aware of what is, how it has come to be and what it can become instead (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007). Before any change can be made, it is necessary to understand the current situation (Machin & Mayr, 2012).

Language, Discourse and Power

According to CDA, language and society influence each other equally. Which language is being used in a certain situation depends on the societal context, while the language simultaneously influences how society is viewed and what is understood to be natural and common sense. Studying language will reveal signs of ideology and power, as it is a reflection of the ruling common sense and the author’s worldviews. (Machin & Mayr, 2012)
The main difference between CDA and semiotic analysis is that language is not viewed as a system but as a set of resources. If a communicator is aware of how words and visual elements affect others, they can use these resources in different ways to get their message across. These choices do not happen by accident, but are active decisions reflecting the ideology and political interest of the communicator. (Machin & Mayr, 2012)
The social practice which determines how language is used is called discourse. Different discourses will come into action depending on the context (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007). Which discourse is active in a text will determine which ideologies are highlighted and which are downplayed. This in turn decides how people and events are represented, which shapes the common world view and what is viewed as natural and common sense. A discourse is never natural but always constructed and depending on the context (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Structures created by people can also be changed by people (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007). Different discourses represent the interests of different groups, which is why power and ideology are two core concepts of CDA. Power is defined as access to social resources, such as education and wealth, which results in authority, status and influence. People with power can dominate and control people without power. Language is used to reproduce this societal order and legitimise the dominance of the rulers (Machin & Mayr, 2012). By presenting man-made structures as natural and unchangeable, unequal power relations are mystified and can remain in place (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007). Ideology is defined as a shared set of ideas about the workings of the world, and values influenced by those ideas. The dominating ideology in a society reflects the interests of the people in power (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
CDA is typically used to analyse news texts, political speeches and advertisement, to show that what at first appears to be normal or neutral is in fact rooted in ideology (Machin & Mayr, 2012). As this study focuses on texts from newspapers about an issue connected to a political and societal issue, CDA provides a fitting framework.

Table of contents
1. Introduction and Background
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Background
2. Aim and research questions
2.1. Problem Formulation
2.2. Aim
2.3. Research Questions
3. Previous research
3.1. The Politics of the Wolf
3.2. The Wolf in Other Countries
3.3. Wild Animals in Media
3.4. Rural versus Urban
3.5. Lessons learnt from the literature
4. Theoretical framework
4.1. Centre – Periphery Theory
4.1. Political Alienation
4.2. Critical Discourse Analysis
4.2.1. Language, Discourse and Power
5. Method and material
5.1. Method
5.2. Material
6. Analysis and results
6.1. The Text
6.2. Discursive Practice
6.3. Social Practice
7. Conclusions
7.1. Conclusions
7.2. Further Research
References
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT