IN THE NET THE VISUAL AND VERBAL RHETORIC OF THE CAMPAIGN "OPERATION DOLPHIN BYCATCH" BY SEA SHEPHERD FRANCE - DIVA ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
In the Net
The Visual and Verbal Rhetoric of the Campaign
“Operation Dolphin Bycatch” by Sea Shepherd
France
Annika Wappelhorst
Master thesis, 15 hp Supervisor:
Media and Communication Studies Leon Barkho
Sustainable Communication Examiner:
Spring 2021 Paola Sartoretto
[I]
JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY Master thesis, 15 credits
School of Education and Communication Course: Media and Communication Science with Spe-
Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden cialization in Sustainable Communication
+46 (0)36 101000 Term: Spring 2021
ABSTRACT
Writer: Annika Wappelhorst
Title: In the Net
Subtitle: The Visual and Verbal Rhetoric of the Campaign “Operation Dolphin Bycatch”
by Sea Shepherd France
Language: English
Pages: 39
The marine conservation organization Sea Shepherd is most known for its radical direct ac-
tion, e. g., against whale poaching. This thesis examines the campaign “Operation Dolphin
Bycatch,” coordinated by the French branch of the NGO, through discourse analysis and
interviews with Sea Shepherd France (SSF) members.
Dolphins serve as the flagship species of the campaign. They allow SSF to criticize non-
selective fishing methods that cause the accidental killing of dolphins in the Bay of Biscay.
With expressions from war and religion, SSF portrays the French government and most
fishermen as enemies of the dolphins’ wellbeing that pursue self-interested profit values.
It is found that SSF positions itself as radical more in its worldview than its approaches. The
ecological philosophy of biocentrism contradicts the anthropocentrism that dominates socie-
ty. In this campaign, the NGO uses “outsider” tactics: It exerts pressure on French policy-
makers with footage of dolphin bycatch and takes great care to maintain international legit-
imacy by staying within legal boundaries.
Keywords: Environmental Communication, Marine Conservation Campaign, Sea Shep-
herd, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, In-Depth Interviews, Biocentrism, SDG 14
[II] RÉSUMÉ L’organisation de conservation du milieu marin Sea Shepherd est surtout connue pour ses méthodes d’action directe radicale, par exemple contre le braconnage des baleines. Ce mé- moire de master examine la campagne « Opération Dolphin Bycatch », qui est coordonnée par la branche française de l’ONG, à travers une analyse multimodale du discours et des en- tretiens avec des bénévoles de Sea Shepherd France (SSF). Les dauphins sont l’espèce porte-drapeau de la campagne. Ils permettent ainsi à SSF de criti- quer les méthodes de pêche non sélectives qui provoquent la mort accidentelle de dauphins dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Avec des expressions provenant des champs lexicaux de la guerre et de la religion, SSF dépeint le gouvernement français et la plupart des pêcheurs comme poursuivant des valeurs lucratives égoïstes à l’encontre du bien-être des dauphins. Il s’avère que SSF se positionne comme radicale dans sa vision du monde plus que dans ses approches. Sa philosophie biocentrée de l’environnement contredit l’anthropocentrisme qui domine la société. Dans cette campagne, l’ONG utilise des tactiques « extérieures », c’est-à- dire qu’elle exerce une pression sur les décideurs politiques français avec des images de prises accessoires de dauphins et prend soin de maintenir une légitimité internationale en restant dans un cadre légal. ABSTRACT Die Meeresschutzorganisation Sea Shepherd ist vor allem für ihre radikalen „Direct Action“- Methoden bekannt, beispielsweise gegen Wal-Wilderei. Diese Arbeit untersucht die Kampag- ne „Operation Dolphin Bycatch“, die vom französischen Zweig der NGO koordiniert wird, durch multimodale Diskursanalyse und Interviews mit Mitgliedern von Sea Shepherd Frank- reich (SSF). Delfine dienen als Flaggschiff-Art der Kampagne. Sie ermöglichen es SSF, die nicht- selektiven Fischereimethoden zu kritisieren, die das versehentliche Töten von Delfinen im Golf von Biskaya verursachen. Mit Begriffen aus Krieg und Religion schreibt SSF der franzö- sischen Regierung und den meisten Fischerleuten eigennützige Profitinteressen zu und stellt sie als Feinde des Wohlergehens der Delfine dar. Es zeigt sich, dass SSF eher in ihrer Weltanschauung als in ihren Ansätzen eine radikale Posi- tion beansprucht. Ihre biozentrische Umwelt-Philosophie steht im Widerspruch zum Anth- ropozentrismus, der in der Gesellschaft vorherrscht. Bei dieser Kampagne bedient sich die NGO „Außenseiter“-Taktiken: Sie übt Druck auf französische Politiker*innen aus, indem sie Filmaufnahmen von Delfin-Beifang zeigt, und achtet durch das Einhalten gesetzlicher Vorga- ben darauf, internationale Legitimität zu wahren.
[III]
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used ................................................................................. V
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ VI
List of Images .......................................................................................................................... VII
1. Introduction and Background .............................................................................................1
1.1 Sea Shepherd ............................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research Questions (RQ) ............................................................................................ 3
2. Previous Research .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Campaigns and Representations of Sea Shepherd ...................................................... 3
2.2 Environmental NGO Campaigns for Marine Conservation ........................................ 5
2.3 Selected Species in Conservation Biology ................................................................... 6
2.4 Research Overview and Gap ........................................................................................ 8
3. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Biocentrism and Deep Ecology .................................................................................... 9
3.2 The “Insider” and “Outsider” Paradigm .................................................................... 10
3.3 Conceptual Approach of this Thesis .......................................................................... 10
4. Methods ............................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MMDA) ................................................................. 10
4.1.1 Criteria of Analysis ..............................................................................................12
4.2 Semi-Structured Interviews .......................................................................................12
4.3 Analysis Procedure .....................................................................................................14
5. Interview Results: Campaign Planning and Communication...........................................14
6. Analysis of Results ............................................................................................................ 15
6.1 Denotation .................................................................................................................. 15
6.2 Connotation ............................................................................................................... 18
6.2.1 Lack of Transparency ......................................................................................... 18
6.2.2 Opposing Values ..................................................................................................19
6.3 Salience ...................................................................................................................... 25
6.3.1 Fish ..................................................................................................................... 25
6.3.2 Dolphins ............................................................................................................. 26
[IV]
6.4 Classification of Social Actors.................................................................................... 28
6.4.1 The Fishing Community ..................................................................................... 28
6.4.2 The French Government .................................................................................... 29
6.4.3 Self-Representation and the Public.................................................................... 30
6.5 Lexical Fields and Choices ..........................................................................................31
6.5.1 War ......................................................................................................................31
6.5.2 Religion .............................................................................................................. 32
7. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 33
7.1 Campaign Strategies and Public Perception ............................................................. 33
7.2 Strength and Limitations........................................................................................... 36
7.3 Further Research ....................................................................................................... 37
8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38
9. Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 40
9.1 Table of Analyzed Content from the Campaign ........................................................ 40
9.2 Exemplary Extract from a Real Verbatim Interview Transcript ................................41
9.3 Consent for the Usage of Copyrighted Images .......................................................... 43
References ................................................................................................................................ 45
[V] List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used ENGO – Environmental Non-governmental Organization MMDA – Multimodal Discourse Analysis NGO – Non-governmental Organization RQ – Research Question SDG – Sustainable Development Goal SSCS – Sea Shepherd Conservation Society SSF – Sea Shepherd France Transl. – Translated to English by the author of this thesis UK – United Kingdom UN – United Nations US – United States of America WWF – World Wildlife Fund
[VI] List of Tables Table 1. Interviews conducted by the thesis author ................................................................13 Table 2. Main visual elements from the campaign .................................................................16 Table 3. Values and characteristics of different social actors in SSF’s communication ........ 20 Table 4. Campaign content used for the MMDA .................................................................... 40
[VII] List of Images Image 1. A dead dolphin (SSF – Officiel, 2021b, 01:53) .........................................................16 Image 2. Webpage of Operation Dolphin Bycatch (SSF, n. d.-a)............................................16 Image 3. Fishermen in the darkness (SSF – Officiel, 2021b, 00:28) .....................................16 Image 4. Volunteers with dead dolphins (SSF – Officiel, 2021a, 01:25) ................................ 17 Image 5. A dolphin obduction (SSF – Officiel, 2021b, 00:39) ............................................... 17 Image 6. Campaign Logo © Sea Shepherd ............................................................................ 25 Image 7. Contact email to the media team of Sea Shepherd France...................................... 43 Image 8. Reply from Sea Shepherd France and agreement to use screenshot and pictures for the master thesis ...................................................................................................................... 44
[1]
1. Introduction and Background
In the Atlantic Ocean, West of France, most common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) die not of
natural death but due to fishing for human consumption (Peltier et al., 2019). When dolphins
accidentally swim into large “non-selective” fishing nets, they suffocate because they can no
longer come to the surface for oxygen. Fishermen (hereafter called “fishers” or “fishermen”
indiscriminately) then release the dead marine mammals back into the ocean. After all, laws
consider these animals “incidental/unwanted catch” or short “bycatch” of the fishing indus-
try. While bycatch affects cetaceans (dolphins, whales, and porpoises) and other sea animals,
common dolphins are the most affected in the Bay of Biscay between Western France and
Northern Spain. Several thousands of lifeless dolphins end up stranded on the French beach-
es every year, and autopsies prove that fishing gear caused the animals’ suffocation (Peltier et
al., 2019; Dars et al., 2020).
The death of a dolphin is seen as collateral damage of fishing, and therefore legal as long
as the fishers declare each bycatch – although dolphins are a protected species in the Euro-
pean Union (Baraud, 2020). One non-profit organization is raising awareness about the per-
vasive bycatch of dolphins: Sea Shepherd France (in the following SSF), a national branch of
the non-governmental organization (NGO) Sea Shepherd Global. According to SSF, merely
10 of about 10,000 estimated dolphin captures were declared as bycatch by fishers in the Bay
of Biscay in 2019 (SSF, 2021a). That is why the organization started the campaign “Operation
Dolphin Bycatch1” that has been going on for four consecutive years (four winters and one
summer), including the winter of early 2021 (SSF – Officiel, 2021a).
Goals consist of 1) observing and documenting dolphin bycatch on the high sea and on
beaches, and 2) releasing this footage to journalists and the public (Le Coz in Brégardis &
Rédaction Ouest-France Service Photo, 2021). Furthermore, 3) the NGO wants to hold politi-
cians accountable for the protection of dolphins (SSF, n. d.-a). Lamya Essemlali, chairperson
of the French branch, points out: “It is a question of prohibiting non-selective fishing meth-
ods in areas where there are protected species [like dolphins]. Otherwise, we cannot say that
these species are protected” (Lailler, 2020, 21:11; translated by the author, short: transl.). So
how did SSF plan the campaign the way it did? How are dolphins represented and why?
What do the word and image choices reveal about the campaign’s ecological philosophy? This
thesis will find answers to these questions and more.
1“Operation Dolphin Bycatch” will be the spelling used throughout this thesis, not “ByCatch” which is
preferred by SSF.[2] 1.1 Sea Shepherd If one quotation is associated with Sea Shepherd like no other, it is certainly “If the Oceans die, we die.” First pronounced by the NGO’s Canadian founder Paul Watson, it has been re- peated over the past few years, be it by himself or those talking about him (Ted x Talks, 2015; Stubbs, 2019; Essemlali, 2021). Sea Shepherd dedicates its activities to the United Nations World Charter for Nature (Watson in Lester, 2011), with the official mission to “defend, con- serve and protect our oceans and all marine life” (Sea Shepherd Global, 2021b). Even though illegal fishing and high seas poaching are among the main targets, and the crews consume no animal products, Watson states that it is not an animal rights organization (Maritime Execu- tive, 2017) – it is more accurately described as an environmental NGO, short ENGO. In 1977, Watson was voted out of the ENGO “Greenpeace”, of which he had been a co- founder (Lester, 2011; Berube, 2021). In the same year, he established “Earthforce” – a non- governmental and non-profit marine conservation organization that set out to do direct ac- tion (such as sinking whaling vessels) and is today called “Sea Shepherd” (Sea Shepherd Global, 2021a; Center, 2016; Sea Shepherd UK, 2021). In 1981, it was incorporated into the “Sea Shepherd Conservation Society” (SSCS) based in the United States (US) and officially registered as a charity. “Sea Shepherd Global” was additionally created as a coordination center of international activities in 2013 (Sea Shepherd Global, 2021c). SSF is only one of 20 national entities of Sea Shepherd Global created to date. Like the other branches, it has its own website and social media accounts to communicate in the local language, thus French (SSF, n. d.-b). Every branch also regroups local chapters of volunteers who do not necessarily engage in campaign work on the high seas. SSCS, on the other hand, operates in the US and has several local chapters there. Despite the distinct names, the only significant difference between the SSCS and Sea Shepherd Global is that the latter was registered in Europe for practical reasons. Therefore, even though Watson describes Sea Shepherd as “a collective of numerous national entities” and states it is “not actually an organization” (Maritime Executive, 2017), the words “organi- zation” and “(E)NGO” will be used for reasons of simplicity throughout the thesis, to refer to all the national branches of Sea Shepherd Global and the SSCS. Sea Shepherd is a campaign-based organization with few employees and many interna- tional volunteers recruited for each campaign (Berube, 2021). Its fleet with 12 ships and sev- eral smaller boats allows the organization to plan missions for usually several months in oceans everywhere in the world (Sea Shepherd Global, 2021d). Operation Dolphin Bycatch is one of three ongoing campaigns that lie in the responsibility of the French branch, and the only one happening in France (excluding the French overseas departments and regions such as Mayotte).
[3]
According to Berube (2021), Sea Shepherd has opted for media attention and sinking ille-
gal fishing boats from 1977 to 2007 (without injuring any persons), then focused on stopping
Japanese whaling until 2016 by chasing and ramming techniques2. Since 2016, the organiza-
tion has embraced more legitimate methods, such as entering “partnerships with countries in
maritime law enforcement” (Berube, 2021, p. 50). SCSS has started cooperating with various
governments, such as the Mexican and the Costa Rican ones (SSCS, 2019a; SSCS, 2019b).
1.2 Research Questions (RQ)
This master thesis contributes to the field of environmental communication by providing new
insights into an international marine wildlife organization. The overarching research propo-
sition is to gather knowledge about Sea Shepherd’s environmental stance and the semiotic
construction of the campaign Operation Dolphin Bycatch. To this end, the following RQs will
focus on text (images; written and spoken language) published by SSF and supplemented by
expert interviews.
- RQ 1: How does SSF portray different actors: the fishing community in the Bay of
Biscay, French policymakers, the public?
- RQ 2: How does SSF represent and categorize biocentrism as a philosophy in its
communication?
- RQ 3: What role do dolphins play in this campaign?
2. Previous Research
2.1 Campaigns and Representations of Sea Shepherd
Common literature and research topics about Sea Shepherd include its rhetoric and identity
(Lester, 2011; Stuart, Thomas, Donaghue, Russell, 2013; Center, 2016; Milstein, McGaurr &
Lester, 2020) and its anti-whaling strategy (Nagtzaam & Lentini, 2008; Hoek, 2010;
Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Phelps Bondaroff, 2014; Phelps Bondaroff, 2015). Overall, the Sea
Shepherds’ self-presentation and actions have equally aroused academic interest. At least two
doctoral students have dedicated their dissertation to Sea Shepherd (Phelps Bondaroff, 2015;
Center, 2016). The diverse disciplines of research include, among others, law (Nagtzaam &
Lentini, 2008; Hoek, 2010), political science (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Phelps Bondaroff,
2014; Phelps Bondaroff, 2015), political psychology (Stuart et al., 2013), communication sci-
ence (Center, 2016), and environmental communication (Lester, 2011; Milstein et al., 2020).
In the following, I will describe selected research in more detail.
2When employing ramming as a technique against whale poaching, a Sea Shepherd crew intentionally
hits a whaling ship, destroying the poachers’ property “to be disruptive to whaling operations or the
ship’s mobility” (Berube, 2021, p. 32). However, the Japanese whalers also rammed Sea Shepherd
ships to harm the NGO (McCurry, 2010; Sea Shepherd UK, n. d.).[4] The (public) identity of the SSCS is a paradoxical one – that is what Stuart et al. (2013) concluded. For their hybrid qualitative research design, they analyzed 21 editorial articles and comments published on the SSCS website by its founder Watson and conducted six in- depth interviews with Sea Shepherd volunteers. The interviews showed that to defend his ENGO against criticism and reinforce its position as radical and unique, Watson deliberately uses controversial terms such as “gentle terrorists” or “pirates of compassion” – forcing its members to rephrase and justify what Sea Shepherd stands for perpetually. The volunteers identified passion as one of their only shared values and stressed the diversity within the movement (Stuart et al., 2013). This controversial discursive construction of the SSCS image may indicate a paradoxical structure of campaigns as well. By analyzing an in-depth semi-structured interview which she conducted with Paul Wat- son, Lester (2011) was able to understand how the NGO founder achieves and directs media visibility for his organization. Watson continually differentiates his organization from the ENGO Greenpeace, accusing the latter one of not being radical enough and of not producing actual change by its protests. Lester found out how Sea Shepherd manages to stay relevant in news discourse. On the one hand, a lot of footage and quotes are published by the NGO in real-time on its own channels and then retransmitted by journalists. On the other hand, journalists are taken on board for short periods during campaigns. Watson carefully navi- gates his public portrayal as uncompromising and potentially violent while making sure nev- er to cause any human injuries. Through cooperation with celebrities, the NGO receives even more media attention (Lester, 2011). Milstein et al. demonstrated that Sea Shepherd presents itself as a “no-compromise direct- action” group (2020, p. 10) and a piracy organization. The scholars applied cultural and criti- cal discourse analysis to content published between 2016 and 2019 – from the Sea Shepherd Global and Australian websites, from the website of the Southern Ocean campaign, and fund- raising emails. They concluded that Sea Shepherd highlights certain species (whales, dol- phins) and specific campaigns (especially whale-related ones), which contributes to a narrow public image and less public knowledge about other diverse campaigns. They argued that Sea Shepherd’s predominant self-framing of being against (e. g., whaling, governments) could be harmful to its own goals and should rather be replaced by with (e.g., wildlife, communities) frames (Milstein et al., 2020). After four months of participant observation on board a Sea Shepherd anti-whaling vessel, Phelps Bondaroff established that the SSCS follows a “direct enforcement” strategy on the sea “whereby it seeks to enforce existing marine conservation laws” (2015, p. 2). He and Eilstrup- Sangiovanni described how the anti-whaling campaign “Operation No Compromise” exem- plified a previously undescribed form of environmentally motivated political activism (2014).
[5] Phelps Bondaroff observed that the SSCS plans a direct enforcement campaign by identifying a target likely to break valid law and documenting its actions to back up its allegations (2015). Prior research shows that the NGO positions itself as the enemy of what it considers to be harmful activities and actors for the ocean, such as whaling, pirates, and certain governments (Lester, 2011; Stuart et al., 2013; Bondaroff, 2015; Milstein et al., 2020). While Milstein et al. described that Sea Shepherd likes to position itself as “anti” (2020), the researchers did not evaluate which form of environmentalism implicitly justifies this position. The NGO’s ideo- logical stance remains under-researched. 2.2 Environmental NGO Campaigns for Marine Conservation To the author’s knowledge, an overwhelming majority of digitally accessible studies about the strategies and the perception of ENGO campaigns are not peer-review studies but master theses – be it in English (Empringham, 2013), French (Aura, 2018; Bertin, 2020; Bise, 2020; Brouillard, 2020) or German (Peltonen, 2020). That may indicate a lack of research interest in non-governmental environmental actors and civil society – or perhaps limited funding opportunities for examining non-profit organizations in academia. The more specific topic of marine conservation campaigns has been the object of few re- search papers (Richards & Heard, 2005) and several master’s theses (Empringham, 2013; Bertin, 2020; Kentonen, 2020). The author’s search showed only one master thesis that ex- amined an ENGO campaign multimodally (Kentonen, 2020). Marine conservation commu- nication seems to be under-researched: “To date, […] environmental communication, as a field, has largely focused on terrestrial ecosystems and more recently on climate change, leav- ing research-informed marine conservation communication neglected” (Kolandai-Matchett & Armoudian, 2020, p. 1). Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, Richards and Heard (2005) sought to understand how European ENGOs plan and conduct their marine conservation campaigns. The researchers determined that categorizing NGOs as “outsider” or “insider” organizations was no longer valid. Instead, the organizations preferably combined these tac- tical approaches. For example, they engaged in direct action (from the outside) and consulted with governments (from the inside). In the 160 online and postal questionnaires and the twelve structured interviews, most ENGOs expressed that media exposure, scientific re- search, and political lobbying were the most successful campaign strategies. They identified forming coalitions among NGOs as problematic because it could mean agreeing to different tactics and sharing media exposure – but it was seen as increasingly imperative to influence cross-border policymaking and work towards often overlapping goals (Richards and Heard, 2005).
[6] Several studies examined the framing of campaigns and identified emotional frames (Em- pringham, 2013; Bertin, 2020; Kolandai-Matchett & Armoudian, 2020). In their integrative research review, Kolandai-Matchett and Armoudian (2020) discovered that six frames are dominant in marine conservation communication, namely 1) emotional, 2) problem/solution, 3) outcome, 4) value-based, 5) distance, and 6) social norm frames. For species conservation campaigns, the authors pinpointed emotional frames based on the human-nature relation- ship as particularly successful. Those build on positive feelings that many people associate with specific marine animals, especially with charismatic species often used as so-called flag- ship species (Kolandai-Matchett & Armoudian, 2020; cf. 2.3). Bertin (2020) examined the reception of an animated video released by Greenpeace Bel- gium, which featured sea turtles as flagship species. By conducting semi-structured inter- views with 14 individuals after they had watched the video, Bertin concluded that the video had a different impact on those previously engaged towards Greenpeace than on those not engaged. The engaged group was more likely to sign the petition (the campaign’s goal) and to react with sadness and anger, while several members of the non-engaged group were indif- ferent towards the turtle conservation message. Nonetheless, the video made everybody’s attitude towards the ENGO more favorable (Bertin, 2020). Either values and emotions or data and information are commonly used in marine conser- vation campaigns, as Empringham (2013) showed. For his quantitative study, he identified relevant campaigns in the US and Canada via cluster analysis and conducted 22 semi- structured interviews with campaign managers (Empringham, 2013). None of the above- cited studies focused on a marine conservation campaign’s environmental philosophy (or ecosophy). However, one study that is not freely accessible online (Pigeon & Létourneau, 2014) examined the discourse of two Canadian NGOs regarding fish farming – concluding that it was in both cases embedded in biocentric ethics. 2.3 Selected Species in Conservation Biology In conservation biology, so-called “surrogate species” have been defined as those that repre- sent other species or aspects of the environment and that help solve conservation problems. Depending on their function, surrogate species are further sub-divided into “umbrella”, “key- stone”, “indicator”, and “flagship” species (Caro & O’Doherty, 1999; Frazier, 2005; Veríssimo, MacMillan & Smith, 2010). For example, umbrella species such as the elephant can be used to define which size and type of habitat should be protected. Keystone species have a dispro- portionally large impact on their community or habitat, or ecosystem, while indicator species may reveal environmental health, population trends, or biodiversity. Sometimes, several con- cepts can apply to one species (Caro & O’Doherty, 1999).
[7] “Flagship species” is the only ecological term related to marketing. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is an example of an ENGO that chose the panda as its main flagship species (Jepsen & Barua, 2015). Researchers suggested that flagship species are chosen (e. g., by NGOs) less for their biological or ecological qualities but for their potential to act as a symbol (Frazier, 2005) and attract a target audience (Veríssimo et al., 2010). The concept has been popular in marine biology since the 1980s (Frazier, 2005), but several literature reviews have shown that scholars across academic disciplines still tend to confuse it with other surrogate concepts (Caro & O’Doherty, 1999; Frazier, 2005; Veríssimo et al., 2010). Like Frazier (2005), Veríssimo et al. (2010) argued for closer collaboration between marketing experts and conservation biologists to select an appropriate flagship species. Several researchers sug- gested following a certain number of steps with specific criteria that help choose a flagship species more successfully (Caro & O’Doherty, 1999; Veríssimo et al., 2010). In addition, Veríssimo et al. proposed a new definition of flagship species as “a species used as the focus of a broader conservation marketing campaign based on its possession of one or more traits that appeal to the target audience” (Veríssimo et al., 2010, p. 2). The schol- ars determined that flagship species were not always the most effective choice for represent- ing biodiversity, e. g. when leading to the public’s “fatigue” with a species because it is too prevalent (Veríssimo et al., 2010). Indeed, Frazier (2005) showed that the marine turtle was an example of a species massively chosen as a flagship species – i. a. by governments, local communities, and civil society. Naylor and Parsons (2018) discovered how the public thinks and what it knows about whales, dolphins, and their conservation status. By conducting an online survey, the US- based researchers found that 95 % of their respondents considered dolphin and whale con- servation important – with 40 % of female respondents ascribing a higher degree of im- portance to it than their male counterparts. The scholars linked the level of expertise about the cetaceans to positive attitudes towards them, but they did not identify knowledge as a prerequisite for a positive attitude. It appears that social media can contribute to the acquisi- tion of knowledge: “those participants with a social media account(s) were more likely to re- port higher knowledge of dolphins and related conservation issues.” (Naylor & Parsons, 2018, p. 4). Most participants also felt that whales and dolphins were only slightly or under- protected. It is relevant to mention that most of the over 800 survey participants were from the US and India, and 60 % were male (Naylor & Parsons, 2018). Literature has shown that when ENGOs or other actors promote the conservation of living beings, the flagship species embodying the campaign may be decisive. While flagship species are not always chosen based on their biological or ecological importance, their function as flagships may overlap with other surrogate concepts. Naylor and Parsons also showed that
[8] society’s attitude towards dolphins and whales is predominantly positive and that there is a widespread wish to guarantee the continued existence of these cetaceans (2018). 2.4 Research Overview and Gap Qualitative methods have dominated earlier research about the functioning of specific EN- GOs. Many studies relied on interviews, combined with discourse or content analysis. Such a hybrid research design has proven successful in providing insights from an outsider’s per- spective (through content or discourse analysis) and an insider’s perspective (by obtaining opinions and views from informants). Therefore, this thesis will complement multimodal discourse analysis (MMDA) with semi-structured interviews of people associated with the SSF campaign. To the author’s knowledge, merely one master’s thesis (Peltonen, 2020) and no research papers conducted an MMDA to examine a marine conservation campaign. The Sea Shepherds’ anti-whaling efforts received much scholarly attention compared to the other campaigns of the ENGO, perhaps because the organization concentrated its activi- ties on anti-whaling between 2007 and 2016 (Berube, 2021). Dolphins and whales are in the limelight of Sea Shepherd (Milstein et al., 2020), but for reasons that are not yet evident. Other conservation NGOs use certain animals like pandas or turtles as flagship species be- cause they increase the audience’s willingness to respond to fundraising campaigns (Veríssi- mo et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2012; Bertin, 2020). Sea Shepherd neither pays people to raise funds nor conducts extensive donation campaigns (Maritime Executive, 2017). Therefore, it is not evident if the organization spotlights a particular animal because, e. g., it evokes public sympathy or is an animal in urgent need of protection. Milstein et al. (2020) found that Sea Shepherd focuses on communicating one campaign rather than another. It also seems like the anglophone branches and their activities are more prevalent in academic literature: Researchers wrote e. g. about Sea Shepherd Australia (Mil- stein et al., 2020), Sea Shepherd United Kingdom (UK; Stuart et al., 2013), and the Canadian founder Paul Watson. That is perhaps not surprising considering that Watson, as the face of the ENGO is English-speaking and that the working language on all Sea Shepherd ships is English. In addition, SSF copresident Essemlali stated that Sea Shepherd’s operational mode is an Anglo-Saxon one. She believes French citizens are not yet used to NGOs doing anything other than protesting and sensitizing the public (Essemlali, 2021). What she refers to is pre- sumably direct action, or what Bondaroff calls “direct enforcement” (2015). Yet, SSF de- scribes itself as “by far one of the most dynamic national branches” (n. d.-b; transl.). It holds potential for new research knowledge, specifically in environmental communication: Possible topics are self-representation, campaign strategies, and the identity of SSF. Essemlali, who was one of three SSF co-founders in 2006 (Essemlali, 2021), is an essential figure of the French environmental movement and has been interviewed for media purposes
[9] several times, not least for the Netflix documentary “Seaspiracy” about the impact of fishing on marine life (Andersen & Tabrizi, 2021). Moreover, Essemlali has close bonds with Watson, as she has been the co-coordinator of Sea Shepherd Global since 2013 and wrote a book about him (Essemlali, 2021). She has become one of the most prominent figures within the organization. Frazier (2005) noted that social scientists, even those writing about environmental issues, rarely use expressions related to surrogate species – even though the “flagship” concept, for instance, is at the intersection of marine biology and marketing activities from business and communication research. He thereby confirms what has been observed in 2.1: Previous re- search has not used any surrogate species regarding Sea Shepherd. RQ3 addresses whether one or several labels from conservation biology may apply to dolphins in SSF’s campaign. 3. Theoretical Framework 3.1 Biocentrism and Deep Ecology Sea Shepherd embraces the image of being a radical environmental group (Stuart et al., 2013; Milstein et al., 2020). As such, the organization adheres to the environmental philosophy and social movement called “deep ecology”. The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess first devel- oped it in 1977 (Madsen, n. d.). It is part of the biocentric school of thought that states hu- mans should not harm other life forms. In polar opposition to biocentrism is anthropocen- trism. Supporters of this philosophy consider humans to be the only ones with moral stand- ing, while other living beings are seen as resources at human disposal (Hedenus, Persson & Sprei, 2018). It is assumed that this position of human superiority originated in the Judeo- Christian Bible, in which God created Adam and Eve to dominate other creatures (Boslaugh, n. d.). Lamya Essemlali states that she adheres to biocentrism. Even though she recalls having been called not objective enough in public, she sees her philosophical stance as the most ob- jective, as humans are part of a wider world of living beings (Essemlali in Lailler, 2020). Paul Watson’s famous question to new NGO members, “Would you give your life for a whale?”, referring to the potential danger of confrontational direct action, illustrates his biocentric approach (Stuart et al., 2013; Essemlali in Lailler, 2020). However, not all Sea Shepherd vol- unteers are willing to die for the protection of marine mammals, as in-depth interviews with some of them revealed (Stuart et al., 2013, p. 17). That shows that not all members of Sea Shepherd may adhere to the radical deep ecology stance that the organization projects to the public.
[10] 3.2 The “Insider” and “Outsider” Paradigm According to previous research (cf. 2.2), political advocacy organizations with an environ- mental agenda usually combine several tactical approaches to achieve their goals (Richards & Heard, 2005; Milstein et al., 2020). They can therefore not be categorized according to the insider/outsider paradigm. According to the latter, an “outsider” organization exerts political pressure as an uninvolved bystander and an “insider” organization collaborate with or lobbies policymakers (Richards & Heard, 2005; Fogarty, 2011). While organizations do not fit these classifications according to new research, their tactics still do. Nasiritousi (2019) concurs that most NGOs employ both insider and outsider tactics, alternating between cooperation and confrontation. Berube (2021) has shown that this applies to Sea Shepherd, as it historically favored outsider approaches but is increasingly employing insider ones. While the focus of this thesis remains SSF’s communication through visual and rhetoric text, the NGO’s strategies are intrinsic to its messages and self-representation. Demonstra- tions that are part of the campaign (cf. 5) are frequently described as outsider approaches in research (Fogarty, 2011; Lester, 2011; Nasiritousi, 2019). Although Lester (2011) identified protest techniques as part of Sea Shepherd’s repertoire, its founder Watson denies this (Stu- art et al., 2013). Here, we deal with potentially contradicting self-representations by the NGO which this theoretical framework can help clarify. 3.3 Conceptual Approach of this Thesis The author’s main lens to understanding the advocacy approach of SSF in the upcoming analysis is biocentrism, along with deep ecology. The insider/outsider paradigm will be an additional point of reference since it is a valuable tool to examine the coherence of SSF’s campaign communication, and the strategies of Sea Shepherd over time. In Kress’s words, “cohesion tells you about the devices [used] for making something coherent” (Jeff Bezemer, 2012, 08:18). 4. Methods The research design of this thesis is a qualitative one. This chapter will describe the setup of the discourse analysis (content, type, platform, and time frame) and the interviews (how, when, with whom, in what language, to what goal, with which means of evaluation). 4.1 Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MMDA) Multimodality is the field that applies social semiotics theory to practice. It is through a social semiotic MMDA that the meaning of a text (in its broad sense) becomes evident, according to Kress (2012). Social semiotics is a theory of meaning and communication. It emerged in the 1970s and is a perspective through which people can understand communication. It builds on
[11]
semiology, the study of signs first described by French linguist Saussure and American phi-
losopher Peirce in the late 19th and early 20th century (Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.
d.). A central entity of social semiotics is text, which the Australian linguist Gunther Kress
defines as “the material site of emergence of immaterial discourse(s)” (2012, p. 36). Text is
composed of certain semiotic choices or “modes” – image, writing, speech, color, font, etc. –
that make meaning.
Each of these modes fulfills specific functions. Color, for instance, can frame or highlight.
Kress also points out that “features of meaning are shared among all modes […]. Intensity
may be materialized as loudness in speech and as saturation in colour [sic], or as thickness or
bolding in writing or in image” (2012, p. 47). This thesis shall use MMDA to demonstrate how
SSF put together the Dolphin Bycatch campaign, which modes were chosen, how, and why –
regarding the biocentric ecosophy. Semiotic choices are always particular to a specific histori-
cal and cultural context (Mavers, n. d.).
Videos are the predominant type of original content shared by SSF on its social media ac-
counts on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. The NGO usually distributes the same videos
among all platforms. While the videos are directly uploaded on Instagram (a platform that
requires the publication of a photo or video), they are shared on Facebook and Twitter via a
link to the YouTube video (the latter being an entirely video-based platform). The analysis of
the campaign will focus on “Operation Dolphin Bycatch 5” which SSF has declared on its me-
dia channels between January and February 2021 – it refers to the fifth time the campaign
was conducted. The first Instagram post concerning this campaign after several unrelated
posts was published on January 8, 2021, and the first website article that indicates a crew is
on the high seas in the Bay of Biscay is from January 30 (SSF, 2021a; SSF, n. d.-a). On April
18, declarations on Facebook and Instagram indicate that the campaign ended for this sea-
son. Therefore, I concentrated on content published between January and April 2021. Ac-
cording to email correspondence with an interviewee (the captain, cf. 4.2), the crew on the
ship Sam Simon was in the Bay of Biscay from February 5 to March 26, 2021, while the land
team was on-site slightly longer. The included elements in my analysis were taken from the
SSF platforms and included the following components (cf. 9.1 in the appendix):
- The campaign logo, used in every video and posted on the website
- The campaign description on the website
- Seven website articles about the campaign, published between January and April
2021
- Two videos that SSF released on YouTube in February 2021
The role of SSF as a political advocacy organization is especially relevant when looking at the
symbols used in the campaign communication. The environmental communication scholar
Lester states: “Symbols mean power in environmental politics, more so than in many other[12]
political fields. Bloodied water, smoke-filled skies, smoldering logs, cracking ice; these imag-
es have come to stand for environmental degradation and loss” (2011, p. 8). The MMDA will
make sense of stranded dolphins lying on beaches, drone views of the oceans, etc.
4.1.1 Criteria of Analysis
1) Denotation. It is a term initially coined by the French philosopher Roland Barthes
in opposition to ‘connotation’. It refers to visuals and is the first level of analysis: the
description. Asking ‘What does this image denote?’ means ‘What does it depict?’
(Hansen & Machin, 2019).
2) Connotation. For Barthes, the connotation (which he also calls ‘myth’) of visuals is
what ideas and values they transmit. Carriers of connotation can, among others, be
poses, gaze, objects, and settings (Hansen & Machin, 2019).
3) Salience. As described by Kress (2012), salient elements are significant and stand
out in a composition. In images, salience can be constructed through foregrounding,
size, overlapping, tone, color, or focus (Hansen & Machin, 2019) – a salient element
could be brighter, bigger, more central, more colorful, etc. (Machin & Mayr, 2012). In
written text, size, font, bold or italic writing, color, etc. may decide about what is per-
ceived as salient.
4) Classification of social actors. This aspect is equally essential in visuals as in
speech and writing. How are individuals categorized, named, and identified? Are they
presented as individuals or in a collective? Are they nominated or functionalized?
How personalized are they portrayed? Who is not represented? A social actor analysis
answers these and more questions (Machin & Mayr, 2012). We will learn how SSF
evaluates the fishermen and the political decision-makers by applying this social actor
analysis to Operation Dolphin Bycatch.
5) Lexical fields and choices. Is informal or formal language used? (Machin & Mayr,
2012)? What lexical fields are noticeable because expressions are repeatedly used
from those fields, e. g. war, crime, social welfare, education, biology? A lexical analysis
looks in detail at the usage of single words (Hansen & Machin, 2019). This criterion
will be relevant for writing and speech.
4.2 Semi-Structured Interviews
In addition to the MMDA of online content, I conducted three semi-structured expert inter-
views. Hansen and Machin point out that “[interviews] are often used to support or explore
other kinds of data” (2019, p. 50). Carter et al. stress how in-depth interviews are beneficial
because they elicit “spontaneity, flexibility, and responsiveness” in the respondents (2014, p.
1). By combining MMDA with interviews, I used method triangulation that refers to the use[13]
of several methods within one qualitative research study (Carter et al., 2014). Simultaneous-
ly, we can speak of a data triangulation regarding the interviewees involved in different parts
of Operation Dolphin Bycatch. The four types of triangulation were first theorized by Norman
Denzin in the 1970s to validate one 1) method, 2) type of data, 3) investigator, or 4) theory by
another one. Later authors preferred to use triangulation to vary (instead of verifying) the
perspectives from which they understood a research object (Flick, 1991; Carter et al., 2014).
I contacted potential interviewees who are or were involved in Operation Dolphin Bycatch
via email. Every person asked for an interview replied or recommended somebody else who
they felt was more appropriate. Therefore, the anticipation that “very little information
[would] be released through an interview to an outsider” from members of the NGO (Phelps
Bondaroff, 2015, p. 70) proved to be unjustified. Phelps Bondaroff, who had dedicated his
dissertation to Sea Shepherd, explained that the hesitation towards interviews he had experi-
enced from Sea Shepherd was due to security reasons. Furthermore, he argued that since it is
a radical environmental group, it only discloses information to those with whom it has estab-
lished trust.
Individual interview guides contained (mostly open) questions that varied slightly from
one respondent to the other and permitted follow-up questions during the interview. One-on-
one interviews via video calls were conducted with three Sea Shepherd volunteers who had
some experience with the campaign. At the beginning of each conversation, the respondents
said which personal pronoun (he/she/they) they preferred. Everyone gave written or oral
consent to participate in research and for the recording of audio and video. Although the cap-
tain (2) and the communicator (3) agreed to have their full names disclosed, all respondents
were anonymized for reasons of uniformity. The interview length varied between about 31
and 46 minutes.
Table 1. Interviews conducted by the thesis author
Number Anonymized Role Interview Interview Lan-
Name (and Date guage
Gender)
(1) Videographer Recording video footage on May 15, 2021 German
(female) board Sea Shepherd vessels,
among others, during the cam-
paign Operation Dolphin By-
catch
(2) Captain (male) Primary decision-maker on the May 17, 2021 English
ship “Sam Simon” used for Op-
eration Dolphin Bycatch
(3) Communicator Part of the team writing website May 24, 2021 French
(female) articles and social media posts[14]
4.3 Analysis Procedure
All website articles were copied into an offline document to ensure they were not subject to
online modifications. For the selected videos, a table was used to write down the denotation
(What do we see?), the connotation (meaning, ideas, and values), and a transcript of the
words said in the video. After the interviews were transcribed in real verbatim (including all
filler words and repetitions), similarities in topics and opinions between the interviews were
searched and colors and codes were added to ease the analysis. These codes were, for in-
stance, “raising awareness”, “bycatch and fishing”, “biocentrism as self-evident”, “outdated
methods” and “careful about public perception”. Direct quotations from non-English inter-
views were translated to English for the thesis and marked as translations.
The MMDA based on selected criteria directly responds to the research questions, as it al-
lowed the author to interpret the rhetorical and visual design of the campaign. The interviews
served to gather more information about the campaign planning, structure, and communica-
tion (cf. 5), and the environmental stance of its members. The interviewees confirmed certain
observations made through the MMDA (cf., e.g., 6.4.1) and were essential in finding a well-
grounded answer to RQ3 that linked the campaign to biological concepts (cf. 6.3.2). They also
pointed to the overall strategy and rhetoric of the NGO (cf. 7.1), although strategic motiva-
tions are not the focus of this thesis. The tables, documents, and transcripts were not includ-
ed in the actual analysis.
5. Interview Results: Campaign Planning and Communica-
tion
All interviews added to the understanding of how Sea Shepherd conducts a, which is valuable
knowledge for the MMDA. The communicator explained that a national branch must present
each idea for a new campaign to Sea Shepherd Global. Once the latter has approved a cam-
paign concept, the responsibility lies in the hands of the local organization, here SSF. The fact
that campaign volunteers do not always remain the same during every period of Operation
Dolphin Bycatch could disrupt communication to the public. Therefore, the NGO seeks con-
tinuity of communication by several factors.
1) According to the captain, he is on top of the campaign hierarchy – along with the SSF
copresident and campaign leader Essemlali. These two have remained the campaign
leaders ever since the campaign started and were previously involved in Sea Shepherd
for many years. The captain is present on the ship and explained that he has the last
word for concrete action on the high seas. Essemlali, on the other hand, is based on
land and sometimes joins the vessel for shorter periods, as the videographer recalled.[15]
2) According to the communicator, a core of three people writes most texts for social
media and the website of SSF. She belongs to these people along with Essemlali.
3) All three interviewees explained that Essemlali gives the green light to all videos and
photos produced by the ship and land team volunteers and for all texts written by the
communicator and the third volunteer of the text team. The captain stated he sup-
ports the media team on board, e.g., by helping with the teach-in of new volunteers.
4) According to the videographer, the “media room” on board the vessel mainly takes
care of photo and video production. To her knowledge, most Sea Shepherd campaigns
had one photographer and one videographer on board. Operation Dolphin Bycatch,
however, had two of each, as its primary method of action is documenting bycatch ac-
tivities. As a media team member aboard during a campaign, the videographer expe-
rienced that a lot of the “corporate language” was orally transmitted from volunteers
with more Sea Shepherd experience to those with no or limited experience. On top of
that, the NGO communicated some internal guidelines from the beginning.
Videographer When you’re on a campaign for the first time, then […] you get a bit of
material, so to speak, which basically concerns the form of videos and photos, […] like:
Which...which font do we use, how...? So there are a few guidelines that are communi-
cated. (transl.)
Nevertheless, she remembered having had a lot of freedom in filming what she want-
ed, except when specific project activities had to be covered. During her time on the
ship, she produced one video for the ENGO.
5) The team on board films the fisher boats during the night when fishing activities and
potential dolphin captures happen. Additionally, there is a land team that patrols the
beaches of the Bay of Biscay and takes photos and videos for social media, counts
stranded dolphins, and joins expositions of dead dolphins on land (Ça nous regarde,
2020). The land team supplements the information obtained on the high seas.
6. Analysis of Results
6.1 Denotation
This chapter focuses on the visual elements of the campaign, namely the two chosen videos,
the campaign logo, and the photos accompanying some of the articles. Not all website articles
have photos, and in some cases, the author re-used the photo used on the campaign webpage
(SSF, n. d.-a), showing a detail of a dolphin caught in a net. The following table shows the
principal, often recurring visual elements of the campaign and where they can be found.You can also read
