The following is a draft chapter for a forthcoming book.

The backdrop to a discussion of natural resources will be familiar to many readers in a business or policy audience. The global economy is fuelled by increasing amounts of finite resources. Trillions of dollars will need to be invested in the coming years to simply meet UN Development Goals (UNCTAD, 2014). The amount of minerals, ores, fossil fuels, and biomass consumed globally is projected to triple by 2050 (National Intelligence Council, 2013).

Added to this are fiscal stimulus packages, climate targets, and associated green technology mandates projected to drive demand for strategic minerals (Jones, Elliott, & Nguyen-Tien, 2020). At the time of writing (October 2021), food and energy inflation are at levels not seen in decades and supply chain disruptions are a reminder of the interconnectedness of the global material metabolism.

This chapter draws attention to what is perhaps a less familiar dimension of resource economics. We'll consider how raw material—the most tangible of economic concepts—intersects with the more symbolic realms of human language and communication. It is at this dichotomous intersection where the global economic engine is prone to run up against different interests, values, and conceptions how the system itself functions (or ought to). The consequence can be crises for businesses, households, and entire economies. Historically, state legal and executive apparatuses have acted to bring these crises to a resolution. Whether this has led to sustainable, just, and desirable outcomes is another discussion.

This chapter explores how communication and linguistics can help us understand the dynamics of natural resource projects. My research has analyzed intercultural and intergroup communication dynamics of energy and waste infrastructure projects, mining, as well as themes of the bio-economy like genetically modified seed (Frayne, 2021a). Here, I'll outline what I see as problematic aspects of common approaches among organizations and businesses. In practice, these approaches often fall under the rubric of stakeholder or strategic communication. In theory, I argue, they are rooted in the rhetorical tradition which views communication as the practical art of influencing outcomes (Craig, 1999, 135). For counter-consideration, a proposed methodology is outlined with examples and insights for professional settings.

Beyond Stakeholders

The term stakeholder has become common in natural resource and environmental management. Stakeholders are identified as distinctive interest groups that are affected by projects and policies related to natural resources and conservation (Reed et al., 2009). While there is no cross-cutting definition of what constitutes a stakeholder in a given situation (Billgren & Holmén, 2008), cultural identity is, no doubt, a key factor. Insights from intercultural communication are pertinent when stakeholders consist of people from different cultures, which is practically an inevitability in the modern world.

Stakeholder analysis has roots in policy and business management; the former being concerned with power and influence in the policy process, the latter with threats and opportunities that could affect the success of the firm (Varvasovszky, 2000). In many sectors, notably natural resources, stakeholder analysis has included systematic relationship mapping and charting the interest/influence of different actors (e.g., Lindenberg & Crosby, 1981). Such approaches can be described as instrumental or means-ends, in that they are intended to influence and achieve desired outcomes. Even studies with an intercultural focus could be described in this light such as, for instance, Wang, Ni, & De la Flor (2014) who use an intercultural competence model to assess public relations management in the Peruvian mining industry. By contrast, normative approaches are also found in natural resource and environmental management literature, often under the banner of stakeholder participation or communication. Normative approaches employ notions of justice, democracy, or morality to assess legitimacy among stakeholders (Reed et al., 2009). Such approaches might stress stakeholder participation, equity, and involvement of marginalized groups in decision making processes (Johnson, Lilja, Ashby, & Garcia, 2004).

My research proposes a move beyond the notion of stakeholders, towards more in-depth understandings of communication itself. This is not to suggest there are not merits to stakeholder analysis as a discipline and practice. However, stakeholder approaches can be problematic when it comes to the nuances of the debates and the outcomes beyond financial interests of organizations. The very definition of a stakeholder as anyone affected by a decision (Freeman, 1983) is problematic if, in practice, stakeholder communication is restricted to individuals and groups deemed to have enough relative influence to warrant consideration by proponents or regulators. The idea of stakeholder groups is also problematic from a conceptual, intercultural standpoint. The natural world is a source of cultural identity. People with historical, cultural, and spiritual relationships to landscapes and lifeforms are more than stakeholders to be considered alongside institutions, corporate entities, and others whose interests are often material and bureaucratic. A cultural relationship to the natural world is one of dwelling, care, and meaning.

While the shortcomings are most evident with respect to instrumental approaches, it is also borne out of inadequacies in normative frameworks. Normative stakeholder communication theory is often premised on Habermas' (1984) communicative rationality, which aims for rational agreement through dialogue to establish shared understanding and consensus. This aim is underpinned by the premise that transparent and clear language, as opposed to force or manipulation, can generate consensus. This aim may seem amenable to intercultural understanding but the issue here, as Czobor-Lupp (2008) points out, is the assumption of linguistic clarity, transparency, and rationality. Language can, of course, be all those things. However, language—particularly when imbued with cultural meanings—is also aesthetic, rhetorical, and metaphorical. As Lakoff (2010) claims, the Enlightenment ideal of language and reason is often a barrier to understanding why people hold certain views towards environmental issues.

To summarize, stakeholder approaches fail to address the complexity and depth of human cultures and communication. Strategic communication, rooted in a rhetorical art of achieving desired outcomes, is often inauthentic and culturally dismissive. Similarly, appeals to dialogue and reason often fail to account for the complexity of human languages and forms of life.

Multilevel Discourse Analysis

The shortcomings outlined above point to the challenge in conceptualizing human languages and cultures. I often cite Sluga's (2011) discussion of the Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein to refer to languages, cultures, and communication as hyper-complexities. It is unsurprising that intercultural communication is a field of “theoretical turbulence” (Poutiainen, 2014). Over several decades, the discipline has spanned microcultural and metalinguistic elements of communication as well as the macrocontext of social and economic systems (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2013; Moon, 2011). More recently, in line with the Zeitgeist, an ecological turn (Kinefuchi, 2018) proposes to take the macro a step further, beyond the traditional scope of the field.

To be sure, simply stating that something is complex is not helpful, particularly for a business or policy audience. However, as with social sciences like economics, it's important to be aware of situations where methodologies and models are, at best, partial representations. As with economics, there are real, often harsh, implications for failing to acknowledge that we don't have the whole picture.

In the face of the conceptual challenges, my research aims to survey the landscape of human communication through a holistic framework called multilevel discourse analysis. Discourse here refers to communication in the broadest sense: ordinary spoken/written language as well nonverbals, signs, and symbols. By distinguishing communication according to levels (ecological, cultural, socio-economic, and cognitive) we can gain insight into the many variables and contexts that lead to misunderstandings. The levels cascade in a top-down manner from macro to micro, and are summarized as follows:

1. Ecological. Discourse about nature and the more-than-human world. This includes discourse that concerns ecology in a scientific sense, the geographic and cyber-physical situatedness of communication, as well as human subjective experiences of environments [Umwelten].
2. Cultural. Expressions of identity, values, and worldviews; people commenting about who they are, either directly or indirectly.
3. Socio-Economic. Discourse related to economics, institutions, and power relations. Notably, aspects of social existence that do not express cultural identity.
4. Cognitive. Mental representations and cognitive frames as reflected in communication. This level draws on concepts from cognitive linguistics as well as nonverbal communication.

To distinguish levels in this way is, necessarily, a simplification. In practice, these factors blend and there are not clear dividing lines between them. Ecological discourse is often cultural, the cultural and social realms are overlapping, and so on. Likewise, insights from cognitive linguistics do not apply to a subset of communication, they are features of communication itself. Nonetheless, segmenting communication in this way can help one view an otherwise unsurveyable landscape.

Methodological challenges include the data requirements and wide scope of analysis. In practice, the methodology utilizes corpus linguistics and to obtain and analyze large, representative data sets. Computational methods can help gain insights that would be impossible through human analysis alone (Hunston, 2002). Ideally, the methodology would combine the emic depth of ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with the breadth and generality possible with large and varied corpora.

Examples

Verbal communication about a gas pipeline

The first example is an analysis of verbal communication surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP). Using a web-corpus, I collected hundreds of text quotations from statements made by individuals in the context of the 2016 protests and gatherings on Standing Rock Sioux territory bordering North and South Dakota. In these quotes, culture—specifically indigenous identity—was central. However, culture was bound up with political and economic relations as well as the common (and understandable) tendency to view a pipeline primarily as a scientific and engineering problem. The multilevel framework was used to integrate disparate aspects of the debate.

Quotes were first categorized based on whether they represented the pro- or anti-pipeline side of the debate. These statements were then identified as expressing ecological, cultural, socio-economic themes. Cognitive analysis looked to categorizations, connotations, and conceptual schemas implicit in statements.

Notable in the ecological level of analysis was the framing of natural resources. Project proponents often spoke of the physical environment as something that can be managed and controlled, both through technology and the legal framework. Statements had the effect of conveying an impression of competence and control with respect to the built, physical environment. Proponents also made the case for the pipeline as needed infrastructure for economic growth and energy security. At both the ecological and socio-economic levels, there was an implicit ‘back-and-forth' legitimacy exchange between pro- and anti- sides. Whereas proponents aimed to establish and uphold legitimacy over resources and infrastructure, opponents challenged that legitimacy. Points of contention encompassed water quality concerns, health risks, global climate, economic inequality, and the role of executive and judicial branches vis à vis protestors and the corporate entity. The cognitive level revealed how this exchange became polarized. Analysis drawing on cognitive linguistic concepts of radial categories and idealized cognitive models (Lakoff, 1987) showed how stereotyping, in/out group identification, and othering was at play to create negative associations with protestors, with the effect of placing certain actors beyond the pale.

Interestingly, there was a sense in which cultural statements stood apart from the legitimacy exchange described above. Cultural expressions—often referring to holistic relationships between people, culture, nature, and the economy—operated in an entirely different frame of meaning from that of the proponent/opponent poles. Language was often symbolic, connotative, and metaphorical. Rather than intercultural misunderstanding between sides of the debate, there was an evading of the culture altogether in much of the proponent discourse. In other words, rather than communication or dialogue in the framework of cultural meanings, there was a tendency to reduce or strip away cultural identity and context. Cultural discourse in this case, might be conceived as a turning away from the language of social/institutional power structures. On the part of opponents, one might claim lost of trust and legitimacy in the discursive space is countered by assertions of shared identity and experience. On the part of proponents, decontextualizing might be seen (deliberately or otherwise) as a way of managing the discourse. Keeping the subject bound within the expertise of certain groups (e.g., institutions, professional communities, corporations) helps maintain legitimacy and authority of those groups.

This analysis gives insight into how to reconcile critical and interpretive approaches to communication. On the one hand, there is a need for hard-edged critical analysis of socio-economic factors like financial and legal relations; on the other, is a need to account for elusive cultural meanings and perspectives of unique, diverse groups and individuals. In this example, a multilevel discourse approach helped distinguish the blurred line between political/economic and culture dimensions of these debates.

Nonverbals in mining debates

The second example discusses nonverbal analysis of mining discourse. Nonverbals can be analyzed with multimodal communication, which draws from the textual as well as aural, linguistic, spatial, and visual capacities or modes (Murray, 2013). Prior to discussing the example, it will be helpful to outline of why nonverbals are essential to meaning and communication:

• Human cognition is mostly (some research has claimed 98%) unconscious and is inseparable from emotion. Moreover, cognition is embodied, meaning ideas, language, and even thought are mediated by the body (Lakoff, 2010).
• Human needs, emotions, and intentions are processed by the limbic brain. Nonverbal communication, in particular body language is, to a large extent, the expression of unconscious limbic processing (Lamendella, 1977). Gestures are expressions of embodied cognition (Kinsbourne, 2006).
• In contrast to largely unconscious nonverbal communication, verbal language is more consciously driven and concentrated in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is responsible for thinking, planning, and judgment.

Nonverbals often occur without our conscious awareness and, thus, are explicable in terms of the limbic system. Involuntary facial expressions, for instance, originate in the subcortical areas of the brain (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). There is also evidence that head movements encode emotional intent (Livingstone & Palmer, 2016).

To capture this often-overlooked dimension of communication, I collected eight hours of audio and video recordings representing different perspectives on various mining operations and proposed developments. These included interviews, documentaries, recordings of ‘town hall' type meetings. Timestamps of interest (points in the recording with distinctive and pronounced non-verbal expression) were then annotated and analyzed. Segments were categorized based on ecological, cultural, and socio-economic subject matter. (The cognitive level was not isolated since all the nonverbal analyses centre on cognition.)

The observed trends in facial expressions and gestures suggested that different cognitive responses were exhibited at different levels of discourse. The ecological level exhibited more verbal and spatial reasoning and did not appear to trigger emotional responses. In other words, the “fight or flight” emotional responses of limbic system and subcortical areas of the brain were being mediated. In contrast, speakers at the ecological level generally showed less facial expression. Gestures were predominantly iconic and depicted physical/spatial processes. Compared to the other levels of analysis, intonation and stress was less pronounced. Speakers at the cultural level displayed more power and confidence gestures, including pointing (to add emphasis), thumb displays, and fist pumping. Gestures were more metaphoric than was the case in the ecological level, depicting abstract concepts such as God, culture, identity, and fighting back. Contempt and agitation were displayed, at one point by a contempt expression (raised side of mouth) as well as the backwards thumb gesture on another occasion. The socio-economic level displayed a high degree of emotion, often expressed in the eyes. Universal facial expressions of fear and sadness could be seen in speakers and listeners. Gestures also indicated hopelessness and innocence, such as the palm open “pleading” gesture as well as shoulder shrugs.

The consequence is that the ability to read nuanced, face-to-face, non-verbal communication matters a great deal in the context of these projects. Engaging and mobilizing people will depend on framing issues in a way that speaks to their implicit, unconscious attitudes. Along similar lines, Lakoff (2010) discussed cognitive linguistic aspects of environmental communication, stressing the importance of discussing environmental issues in terms of moral values; the efficacy of stories and narratives as opposed to statistics and bland facts; the necessity to address everyday concerns and avoid technical jargon (79-80). Based on observations from the nonverbal analysis of mining debates, the point about moral values could emphasize cultural identity and worldviews. Also, on the point “everyday concerns”, one might stress the importance of framing issues in terms of economic livelihoods.

Implications

Researching these topics is different from dealing with them in the field, workplace, or community life. In practice, challenges of conceptualizing languages and cultures are eclipsed by our limited perspectives within organizational and situational constraints. The method and examples outlined in this chapter outline how I approached the challenge from a research perspective, but this does not necessarily translate directly into applied methodology or industry best practices. That said, some considerations can be helpful.

A first consideration is recognizing when legal/rationalistic or rhetorical communication is being used in settings where others are employing cultural meanings. The pipeline example suggests that rather than taking a view of intercultural misunderstanding as incompatibility between different cultural communities (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001), it may be more appropriate (at least in some cases) to view misunderstanding in terms of whether the cultural dynamics are even being taken into account. To put it another way, discourse consists of multiple culturally embedded language games, but there is a tendency to reduce, simplify, and decontextualize. This tendency is perhaps a manifestation of bias or mental shortcuts the human brain uses to reduce complexity (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Uncertainty leads to the stress response in humans (De Berker et al., 2016) so it is natural to seek more secure conceptual ground by replacing ambiguous concepts (like culture) with clear and distinct frameworks (like law or empirical science). Cognitively, this categorization functions similar to stereotype, where information is simplified in order to make sense of an otherwise too complex world (Tajfel, 1981). While this simplification may be inevitable, being aware of it will add depth to communicative practice.

Another consideration has to do with the public sphere in which communication occurs. The pipeline case, as well as many other citizen mobilizations, draws attention to the forums and spaces for communication in the modern world. These spaces are many and are changing rapidly due to technology. At the same time, one could argue that spaces for free, authentic, ‘in the flesh' communication are under threat by private, institutional interests. Citizen environmental movements, as well as more spontaneous disruptions to the resource engine of the economy, might be seen as openings of a public sphere whose official channels (e.g., media, political processes, etc.) have been closed off. These openings often take place on the periphery, outside formal centres of power, in places where narratives of progress are more likely to clash with material and historical realities. By viewing natural resource communication through a civic and historical (as opposed to a strictly economic) lens, we can gain a better understanding of context and significance.

A final consideration has to do with intercultural competency. One aspect of intercultural competence is cognitive complexity, which has been identified as important in avoiding stereotypes and being perceptive to subtleties in communication. While these aspects certainly apply to the present discussion, there are other dimensions of cognitive complexity when it comes to natural resource communication. While cognitive complexity often refers to perceptual and communicative skills (e.g., perceiving nuanced differences), there is also need for complexity in terms of abstract mental structures and frames. Cognitive complexity might be elaborated as an ability to navigate shifting contexts, distinguish different levels (ecological, cultural, socio-economic, cognitive), and integrate them in practice.

References

Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. A&C Black.

Beattie, G. (2016). Rethinking body language: how hand movements reveal hidden thoughts. London: Routledge.

Billgren, C., & Holmén, H. (2008). Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 550–562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.004

Caves, R. W. (2005). Agora. In Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

Czobor-Lupp, M. (2008). Communicative Reason and Intercultural Understanding. European Journal of Political Theory, 7(4).

De Berker, A. O., Rutledge, R. B., Mathys, C., Marshall, L., Cross, G. F., Dolan, R. J., & Bestmann, S. (2016). Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans. Nature Communications, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10996

Frayne, C. (2021a). Corpus-based Analysis of Genetically Modified Seed Discourse. Discourse & Society (Vol. 32).

Frayne, C. (2021b). Demarcating Cultural Expressions in the Dakota Access Pipeline Debate. International Journal of Language and Culture (in Review).

Freeman, R. E. (1983). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Friedman, V. (2014). Negotiating Reality: Intercultural Communication as Negotiating Social Space. In S. Poutiainen (Ed.), Theoretical Turbulance in Intercultural Communication Studies (pp. 10–28). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, N., Lilja, N., Ashby, J. A., & Garcia, J. A. (2004). The practice of participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management. Natural Resources Forum, 28(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00088.x

Jones, B., Elliott, R. J. R., & Nguyen-Tien, V. (2020). The EV revolution: The road ahead for critical raw materials demand. Applied Energy, 280(October), 115072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115072

Kinsbourne, M. (2006). Gestures as embodied cognition: A neurodevelopmental interpretation. Gesture, 6(2), 205–214.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749

Lamendella, J. T. (1977). The Limbic System in Human Communication (pp. 157–222). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-746303-2.50010-5

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2013). Notes in the history of intercultural communication: The Foreign Service institute and the mandate for intercultural training. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The Global Intercultural Communication Reader (2nd ed., pp. 17–34). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639009383919

Lindenberg, M. M., & Crosby, B. L. (1981). Managing Development: the Political Dimension. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Livingstone, S., & Palmer, C. (2016). Head Movements Encode Emotions During Speech and Song. Emotion (Vol. 16). https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000106

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (2013). Facial Expressions. In D. Matsumoto, M. G. Frank, & H. S. Hwang (Eds.), Nonverbal Communication: Science and Applications. Los Angeles: Sage.

Moon, D. G. (2011). Critical Reflections on Culture and Critical Intercultural Communication. In The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication (pp. 34–52). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444390681.ch3

Murray, J. (2013). Composing Multimodality. In C. Lutkewitte (Ed.), Multimodal Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

National Intelligence Council. (2013). Natural Resources in 2020, 2030, and 2040: Implications for the United States. National Intelligence Council Report (Vol. 05). Retrieved from https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/NICR

Navarro, J. (2008). What every body is saying: an ex-FBI agent's guide to speed –reading people. New York: HarperCollins.

Poutiainen, S. (2014). Introduction. In Theoretical Turbulence in Intercultural Communication Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., … Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

Sluga, H. (2011). Wittgenstein. Wiley-Blackwell.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 144–167). Blackwell.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

UNCTAD. (2014). World Investment Report. Geneva. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf

Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Planning and Policy, 15(3), 239–246.

Wang, Q., Ni, L., & De la Flor, M. (2014). An Intercultural Competence Model of Strategic Public Relations Management in the Peru Mining Industry Context. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.795864