Master’s Thesis, 60 ECTS
Social-ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development
Master’s programme 2013/15, 120 ECTS
Uncovering rural resentment in the
global North: A discourse analysis of how
‘Fishing for Leave’ express and
communicate feelings of discontent.
Conall Ó Duibhir
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Uncovering rural resentment in
the global North:
A discourse analysis of how ‘Fishing for Leave’ express and
communicate feelings of discontent.
Author: Conall Ó Duibhir Supervisors: Wijnand Boonstra Tim Daw Examiner: Maria Tengö
Research Theme: Marine Research Stream: Stewardship
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank the wonderful people of Cornwall, without whom this study would not be the same. In particular, I would like to thank the fishers who took the time to speak with me and share their opinions about the industry and community they care so passionately for. I am grateful to the Joneses for accommodating me in Cornwall and Essex, and for sharing their local knowledge of fisheries and culture in equal measure. I wish to thank the artist and scholar Jane Gray for accommodating me and for being my temporary partner in crime. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Anna Woodhead and Rachel Turner who shared their expertise in fisheries research in Cornwall.
Special thanks are due to my supervisors and examiner at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. I am indebted to Wijnand Boonstra for bringing this wonderful case to my attention and for the time and effort he took in supporting me to develop this project. My sincere thanks to Tim Daw for his generous support, in particular for sharing his immense knowledge of fisheries. I thank Maria Tengö for going out of her way to suggest Wijnand as an ideal supervisor for my thesis. I feel privileged to have Maria as my examiner.
At the Stockholm Resilience Centre, I also wish to thank Emma Sundström for sharing her expertise in computer coding and saving me plenty of time in the process. The support, encouragement and care of Miriam Huitric as director of studies, is greatly appreciated. I would like to thank all my classmates, particularly Vera, Paloma and David for reading drafts of the thesis and providing important feedback, which I eventually took on board.
Ba maith liom buíochas speisialta a ghabháil le mo chlann as ucht an cúnamh ar fad atá tugtha acu dom. Gan an tacaíocht atá faighte agam, ach go háirithe agus mé sa tSualainn, ní fhéadadh mé an tráchtas seo a scríobh. And to Fathia who will always be my Swedish family. Finally, I wish to dedicate this thesis to Alfie, who has been with me and supported me every step of the way.
2
ABSTRACT
Discontent of primary resource users (PRU) towards authorities, governing bodies and policy regulations, here termed ‘rural resentment’, has been growing in the global North.
Resentment is a hidden emotion, which is not frequently voiced. However, the greater prominence of neo-nationalist populism in various recent elections and referenda across Europe and North America has offered a new platform for its expression. This creates an opportunity to study and better understand rural resentment. The aim of the study is to examine the ways in which feelings of resentment are expressed and communicated by PRU in the global North in relation to access to and control over natural resources. Feelings of resentment, such as distrust towards elites and anti-globalisation views, can undermine efforts to establish sustainable management of natural environments. When these feelings are
ignored, they can lead to reduced willingness to cooperate and comply with governing bodies. This study specifically examines the ways in which Fishing for Leave (FFL), an anti-European Union (EU) fisheries lobby-group, campaigned for Brexit and leaving the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. A discourse analysis is used to explore how fishers’ resentment is expressed on social media by FFL. The findings describe the expressions of resentment by fishers, namely a sense of injustice, inequality and a need to regain British sovereignty over UK fishing grounds. The study also explores how associated feelings of resentment are expressed in the form of blaming various actors and examines FFL’s alternative policy as a pro-active measure to try and achieve their goal. Ultimately, the study provides a framework and methodology for identifying rural resentment and demonstrates the value of observing resentment in online discourse, to help better understand the views and feelings of PRU.
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgments... 1 Abstract ... 2 Table of Content ... 3 List of Abbreviations ... 5 Introduction ... 6 Theoretical Framework ... 9 Characteristics of resentment ... 9Manifestations of rural resentment ... 10
Case Study ... 12
Common Fisheries Policy and the United Kingdom. ... 12
Methods... 15
Literature Review... 15
Fieldwork ... 15
Twitter & Social Media ... 16
Ethics of mining Twitter data ... 17
Results and Discussion ... 18
Fishing for Leave on Twitter ... 18
Narratives of Resentment ... 21
Blaming the EU... 21
Criticism of UK politicians ... 22
Identity ... 25
Alternative Sustainability Policy. ... 28
Outcomes of the study ... 32
4
Conclusion ... 35
Literature Cited ... 37
Appendix ... 40
5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APG – Alternative Policy Group CFP – Common Fisheries Policy EU – European Union
FFL – Fishing for Leave PRU – Primary Resource Users RT - Retweet
6
INTRODUCTION
“Sea fisheries remain the only significant economic activity of developed countries which are a form not of harvesting or processing, but of hunting. So the feelings they arouse are both deep and ancient. As a fisherman myself I understand these feelings. If I ever find someone else engaged in fishing a pool which by law, convention or comity I have a better right to be fishing at that moment than he, I experience feelings of sheer rage” (O’Neill 2000; 245-246).
The aim of this study is to examine the ways in which feelings of resentment are expressed and communicated by primary resource users (PRU) in the global North in relation to access to and control over natural resources.
As the complexity and cross-scale interactions of eco-systems are being recognised in policy and science, there also comes increased attention on the spatial mismatch associated with local management of natural resources (Folke et al., 2007; Galaz et al., 2008; Epstein et al., 2015). Therefore, management of natural resources is increasingly moving further away from the local scale, towards national, regional and global scales (Rosen and Olsson 2013).
Regional and international governing bodies can play a significant role in increasing cooperation and compliance from stakeholders across spatial scales, through the
implementation of laws, directives and policies to improve institutional fit (Epstein et al. 2015). This is especially relevant for avoiding a tragedy of the commons scenario, where PRU have no incentive to cooperate and the eco-system becomes degraded. This is most salient in cases where eco-systems are common property or have cross jurisdictional boundaries as in the case of fisheries (Ostrom 2015).
However, the upscaling of management and policies coincides with increased distance between national and extra-national institutions and the local communities that are affected. Distancing can lead to PRU feeling ignored, disconnected, under represented or unheard when policy decisions are made (Ostrom 2005, Woods et al. 2012, Epstein et al. 2015). Moreover, urbanisation also adds to a loss of connection between PRU who live mostly in rural areas and the majority of the population in the global North who live in cities
(Hochschild 2016). As such, many PRU living in rural areas do not feel policy makers understand their needs and desires. This rural-urban divide can lead PRU to feel resentment towards urban-based governing bodies who they perceive to limit their access to natural
7 resources (Boonstra et al. 2017). It is important to understand rural resentment, because it can lead to non-compliance, and even open resistance and opposition towards efforts of
governance and intervention (Woods et al. 2012).
The recent support for populist parties in rural areas in the global North can be seen as a manifestation of these feelings of resentment. Many populist political campaigns demonstrate an appetite among their supporters for neo-nationalist, insular policy making, as opposed to international policies, which are framed as corrupt, dishonest and elitist (Eger and Valdez 2015). Both the discourse of a rural-urban divide and the increased visibility of populist views, reinforce and legitimise feelings of rural resentment.
It is relevant for sustainability science and related fields to foster an understanding of the type of resentment felt by PRU and the role this plays in natural resource management. The
emotions that PRU experience play a significant role in their willingness to participate, engage and comply with policies which effect their access to natural resources. Resentment is often passive and unspoken (Demertzis 2006), which means that it can increase unnoticed if measures are not taken to acknowledge the presence of resentment and address the causes. Therefore, this thesis examines the following question:
How does resentment manifest itself among PRU, and how it is communicated among PRU and towards others?
To answer this question, the study explored the case of Fishing for Leave (FFL), a lobby group representing British fishers. FFL initiated a campaign in April 2016, to articulate fishers’ desire to leave the European Union (EU) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The FFL campaign is an instructive case because here the emotion of resentment was
communicated openly in the wider context of the United Kingdom Independence (Brexit) Referendum. The emotions and feelings of these fishers have thus been well articulated and documented on social media, and this open communication has facilitated a discourse analysis appropriate to this study.
The discourse analysis of FFL tweets discovered a variety of arguments which demonstrated resentment. These range from blame and loss of control of fisheries to fishers’ experiences of the industry. This communication of resentment adds legitimacy to FFL’s views through online dissemination. The study also finds that while British fishers feel resentment towards
8 the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) efforts of sustainability, the fishers are aware of and engaged with the need for sustainable management of their waters, albeit from a different point of view.
The next section in this thesis outlines the theoretical framework of the study. The state of the art of resentment literature is explored and the way in which resentment is understood and defined for the purposes of this study is outlined. The case study is then presented, with essential background information, after which the methodology of the study is described. Following this, the findings of the study are presented, along with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities that rural resentment poses for natural resource management. Finally, the conclusion provides a summary of the key finding and arguments. The appendix includes a revised ethical review of the research project.
9
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Characteristics of resentment
This section discusses the theory relating to rural resentment to provide an understanding of its relationship to the management of natural resources. It begins by outlining the definition of resentment used in this study and draws on the state-of-the-art of resentment literature. This is followed by more specific consideration of research relating to rural resentment and its impacts on broader environmental policy.
Resentment is associated with many interrelated feelings including, but not limited to anger, blame, envy, hurt, injustice, betrayal and powerlessness (Meltzer and Musolf 2002,
Nussbaum 2016). While individuals and groups may feel some of these emotions, there are two distinctions that characterise resentment as it is understood in this study. The first of these is that resentment is deep seated and can be long lasting (Scheler [1915] 1994). Thus, resentment is a strongly felt emotion and the associated feelings and views that are aroused in resentment can endure and be difficult to change. For this reason, resentment is also
understood as a ‘social mood’ (Olson 2006). Another characteristic of resentment is that it can be hidden or passive, at least some of the time or in certain contexts (Scott 1990,
Demertzis 2006). The implications of this is that resentment can often go unnoticed by others who do not share the feelings. Resentment is likely to intensify if no action is taken to address and eliminate feelings of negativity.
Resentment is generally felt by individuals or groups who feel that they are restricted or treated unfairly by powerful groups or institutions. The term ressentiment is sometimes used to describe more intense expressions of resentment. According to Scheler ([1915] 1994), there are three conditions that can cause resentment to develop into ressentiment. Table 1 outlines these conditions in which ressentiment occurs.
Three Conditions of Ressentiment Compromised
Meritocracy
Ressentiment is said to occur in formally meritocratic societies. When social equality is granted, but capitalist structures lead to social inequality, ressentiment can develop within individuals or groups that are relatively disadvantaged by these structures.
10 Moral Injustice Ressentiment can arise when moral justice is compromised,
and the welfare or identity of individuals or groups are felt to be undermined.
Powerlessness Ressentiment can occur when actors feel they do not have the agency or opportunity to change their circumstances, owing to the presence of power structures.
Table 1. The three conditions of ressentiment based on (Scheler [1915] 1994).
The above definition demonstrates that resentment is a complex emotion and is based on a multitude of factors. This study asserts that resentment is present if the negative feelings discusses above are felt intensely over an extended period under the conditions outlined in table 1 and remain hidden or passive at least some of the time.
Manifestations of rural resentment
The reason for focusing on rural resentment and its relationship with natural resource management is that feelings of discontent can manifest in many ways to challenge and alter power structures. While this is oftentimes beneficial for the actors seeking change,
resentment can also lead to irrational decision making with negative consequences. It is important for natural resource management and governance, along with sustainability science to recognise this dynamic, as PRU may be motivated to disrupt management because of feelings of resentment. Studies from the fields of rural studies, rural sociology and the sociology of emotions help to demonstrate how such disruptions can occur.
One way in which feelings of resentment are acted on is at the ballot box. Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild (2016) explored how emotions related to identity and culture play a leading role in the views of rural American voters towards sustainability policies. In her discourse analysis of interviews with Republican voters in Louisiana, Hochschild found emotions of discontent towards liberal values and the perception of vilification by urban elites heavily influences the political views of subjects. As a result, voters chose Republican candidates based on identity politics rather than pragmatically choosing those seeking to regulate the pollution that was serious effecting the environment and health of these same voters. While the study does not represent a major shift in political leaning, it demonstrates an underlying passive resentment over time affecting environmental governance.
11 While discontentment can affect the political leaning of rural voters, rural resentment can also lead to political mobilisation or protests. Government policies that are perceived to limit or threaten rural life and values can trigger protests in rural communities. In their analysis of hunters and farmers in Great Britain, Woods et al. (2012) argue that emotions play a role in leading passive citizens to engage in political mobilisation. Emotions such as resentment can distort the actions of PRU engage in political mobilisation. However, they can also be consciously managed and communicated to the public, so as to attract public sympathy or support for their cause (ibid).
Whether based on identity or fostered through a political mobilisation, resentment has been found to impact the compliance of PRU in natural resource management (Pomeroy 2003) (Gray 1998). Therefore, in this case study the presence of resentment in PRU is explored.
12
CASE STUDY
Common Fisheries Policy and the United Kingdom.
In 1973, when the United Kingdom (UK) joined the European Community - subsequently the European Union (EU) - fishers felt they lost out and were angry as significant access to UK waters was provided to other member states (O’Neill 2000). While a majority of the
electorate were pleased with EU membership (Walsh 2016), fishers at the time and to this day argue that British fisheries were “completely surrendered in order to join” (Fishing for Leave 2017).
Access to EU waters was pooled between member states and quotas were allocated to each member state through the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (Penas 2016). As a result, individual states no longer had control over their own waters (ibid). Member states are assigned quotas which determine how much of each species fishers can catch, based on the Total Allowable Catch which is then divided up at national and local levels (ibid).
Until now fishers have had to discard bycatch; i.e. species caught which they do not have sufficient quota for or fish below the minimum landing size. This has caused resentment among fishers across Europe for moral reasons (wasting good fish) and financial reasons (loss of potential profit) (Catchpole et al. 2005). At present a ban on discards is currently being rolled out across EU fisheries to address these concerns (Condie et al. 2014). While this policy encourages fishers to use selective gear and avoid bycatches, those who operate mixed fisheries do not welcome this policy as it is considered much more difficult to eliminate bycatch in these waters. (Chaffin 2018). While the UK government continues to comply with the CFP framework, British fishers perceive themselves as negatively affected by the quota system.
As such, UK fishers have campaigned vehemently for Brexit, under the banner of the
fisheries lobby group, FFL, using this as a window of opportunity to see an end with the CFP in the UK. More specifically, this can be seen as a ‘policy window’ where for a brief period in politics, in this case Brexit, an interest group is able to push their interests higher on the political agenda (Kingdon 2014). FFL, founded by skipper Aaron Brown, emerged in the weeks leading up to the referendum. They organised a protest which consisted of a flotilla up
13 the River Thames in London (Image 1). This made national and international headlines and provided them with a platform to communicate fishers’ desire to leave the EU and the CFP (Booth 2016, Goldman 2016).
Image 1. The Thames Flotilla. Source (The Independent 2016).
On 23 June 2016 the UK electorate voted to leave the EU. At the time of writing (May 2018) on-going negotiations demonstrate continued involvement of the UK in many aspects of EU institutions (Rankin 2018). It is still unclear if the UK will remain or leave the CFP, as politicians appeal for fishers’ votes, but have been accused of using and misleading fishers (Carpenter 2016, Johnson 2018, Roberts 2018). It is likely that the UK will be forced to make compromises in negotiations with the EU, and fishers fear being ‘sold down the river’ and being forced to continue to comply with the CFP (Chaffin 2018, McKenna 2018). Because of this, FFL continue to be vocal even though the referendum has been won.
One of the ways in which Fishers have been vocal in their campaign for greater control over their industry is through social media. This has been facilitated in part by the introduction of broadband connections on vessels, thus allowing Fishers to engage in blogs, comment and
14 tweet during their spare time at sea (World Fishing & Aquaculture 2018). Many fishers have become vocal on Twitter in particular.
Fishers have felt resentment over the UK’s membership in the EU from the beginning (O’Neill 2000, Turtle 2005). Though the discourse and visibility of fishers’ dissatisfaction has been hidden at times, the feelings of hurt, inequality and betrayal have been ongoing and consistent. Therefore, based on the definition of resentment put forward in this study,
15
METHODS
This is an exploratory study, combining methodologies to understand the evolving
phenomenon of rural resentment. Resentment, as previously mentioned, is often a hidden and passive emotion and is most often expressed through other combined emotions such and anger, frustration or blame. Context is very important for differentiating between the latter emotions and social mood. Therefore, a case study is chosen in which resentment is identified in relation to natural resource management. A discourse analysis of written text vocalising rural resentment is undertaken to capture expressions of resentment that might otherwise be hidden or that might otherwise be suppressed in oral conversation.
Literature Review
A literature review was carried out on literature from rural studies and the sociology of emotions to identify the characteristics of rural resentment. When the case of British fishers was selected, extensive reading on the context of fishers’ anti-EU resentment commenced. As the campaign for Brexit and subsequent lobbying by British fishers is a relatively recent and an ongoing event, a wide variety of information sources were consulted, including British newspapers, fisheries blogs, social media and books. Further reading in journal articles provided insights on the CFP and its implementation in the UK and fisheries management more specifically.
Fieldwork
Based on the literature review, Cornwall was identified as an ideal location for the case study. The rationale for this selection included the fact that significant mixed fisheries are present off the coast of Cornwall and this means that the ban on discards is particularly relevant to the Fishers in this area. The author visited Cornwall on two occasions. The first trip lasted one week and the second lasted three and a half weeks. Fieldwork included observation of the industry and conversations with fishers, industry personnel and fisheries researchers.
One 90-minute interview was conducted and recorded with a fisheries blogger and former fisher. Conversations lasting from 10-45 minutes, were conducted with six practicing or retired fishers and notes were taken. In each case the discussions were based around the
16 theme of fisheries and Brexit. Brief discussions were held with local people not directly involved in the fishing industry. These included librarians, shop assistants and agricultural workers. Books, brochures and newspapers of local interest to Cornwall were also examined to deepen the understanding of the specificities of the case.
Twitter & Social Media
Based on the observation from fieldwork and the literature, it became apparent that resentment, a hidden or passive emotion (Scott 1990, Demertzis 2006), is much more apparent and accessible in written form than it was during conversations with the fishers for this study. This is supported in Charles(2017), which argues that the written form can be more effective than interviews for analysing view on sensitive and controversial issues. Considering this finding, the next phase of the study focused on the examination of the social media activities of fishers to gain a greater insight into their views. The Twitter account of FFL was examined, and their tweets were tested for the presence of resentment. A deductive approach was used to identify themes of resentment, based on the literature of rural
resentment and on the experience from the fieldwork. Additional themes were selected based on the conditions of the case. Then an inductive approach was used to create case-specific codes for each theme to understand resentment in context.
Twitter is a microblogging platform where individual opinions can be expressed, shared, reinforced and refuted. Internet users utilise Twitter for “recognizing and expressing grievances, and organizing resistance” (McCaughey 2014; 2). Tweets are also quoted in newspapers, blogs and on radio, further disseminating these views in political discussions (Jeffares 2014). For anti-EU fishers, Twitter can act as a continuation of local group politics in a broader network of shared experiences and views (Gerbaudo 2015). In the run up to the Brexit referendum, ‘pro-leave’ tweets outnumbered ‘remain tweets’ 2:1 in a random sample of Brexit related tweets (Jackson-Preece 2016). This suggests that Twitter activity is a suitable platform for exploring resentment among Fishers.
From April 2016 to December 2017, the time frame of the study, FFL posted a total of 1736 original tweets, retweets and replies under the Twitter handle @fishingforleave. For the purposes of this study, tweets were categorised as Pre-Brexit (April 2016 – 24 June 2016), Post-Brexit 1 (25 June 2016 – December 2016) and Post-Brexit 2 (January 2017 – December 2017). Within each time frame the tweets were coded in randomised order until a point of
17 saturation was reached. During this process codes were added and removed based on the findings from the tweets. In total 362 tweets were coded, representing 20.9% of the overall sample. The codes were subsequently used to identify resentment in the form of images posted by FFL on their website and Twitter, FFL reports and FFL blog posts to provide deeper and more elaborate expressions of resentment.
FFL are by no means representative of all fishers in the UK. However, the interviews and discussions undertaken during the fieldwork reflected the themes presented in the findings of this study. Therefore, the experience of fieldwork triangulates the findings. The themes presented also arise in the literature, particularly literature regarding the history of British fisheries since joining the EU, but also more recent newspaper articles, which report on interviews with fishers (Turtle 2005, Chaffin 2018). Furthermore, a preliminary analysis of individual fishers’ Twitter accounts and their interactions with FFL demonstrated support for FFL and agreement with many of the organisation’s views. FFL’s original and
non-personalised tweets were retweeted on average 72 times. However, it is possible that many of these retweets were generated by users who are not fishers.
Ethics of mining Twitter data
Concern for data protection and consent of social media users has been growing over recent years, with great public concern over the privacy of personal data. Although all public posts on Twitter are legally open access, many users are unaware of this (Williams et al. 2017). Therefore, despite being legal to extract and analyse this data, there are ethical implications around informed consent when using this data for scientific analysis. However, when a public organisation such as FFL are involved, the circumstances are different. Public organisations generally understand that they are communicating with a public audience. Thus, similar to the publication of a book, these tweets can be freely cited (ibid). As this study only analyses the content of FFL tweets, consent from FFL has not been sought.
18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fishing for Leave on Twitter
FFL have been tweeting extensively since May 2016 to campaign for Brexit and subsequently to influence the removal of the UK from the CFP. Under the handle
@fishingforleave, Twitter provides a network for FFL to disseminate messages of fishers’ discontent with the EU and CFP through brief opinions, calls to rallies and events and by the dissemination of articles from their blog with fishers and anti-EU Britons alike. FFL
communicate these messages with its 7,900 followers (as of 24 April 2018) and with Twitter users more generally. Figure 1 shows the number of times FFL posted tweets. These vary between original tweet, where a general post is made, not directed at anyone specific; retweets (RT) when a tweet of another Twitter user is shared by FFL; and replies or personalised tweets, where a tweet is directed at one or several specific Twitter users. Although the total number of tweets peaked in the lead up to the Brexit referendum in June 2016, the latter half of 2017 demonstrated increased engagement of FFL as the unclear future of the fishing industry was discussed. There is a noticeable rise in the number of replies and personalised tweets over 2017, demonstrating FFL engaging in debate with individuals and organisations.
Figure 1: Fishing for Leave number of tweets from April 2016 – December 2017.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 N um be r o f t w ee ts
Fishing For Leave Tweets
RT Replies and personalised tweets Original (non-personalised) tweets Total
19 FFL used Twitter to share and re-tweet sympathetic views that speak to their discontent towards the EU and CFP. For example, FFL retweeted a video posted by fervent Leave campaigner and former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Nigel Farage (Image 2). In the 33 second clip, Farage argues that the UK most show “real leadership” in negotiating with the EU for control over British waters, which he describes as “rightfully ours”. Sharing such tweets lends credibility to FFL’s campaign among a broad public who are sympathetic to Nigel Farage and Brexit more broadly.
Image 2. @Nigel_Farage 2018-03-07
Over the period of the study, FFL tweeted on many aspects of the fishing industry and Brexit that demonstrate traits of resentment. Table 2 illustrates the main themes that were present and the codes that were used to analyse the tweets and blog posts of FFL.
20 Table 2 Theme and codes of resentment in FFL’s tweets. The column on the left outlines the themes of resentment identified. The first four were selected deductively based on the theoretical framework, while the remaining two were added inductively based on fieldwork. The column on the right outlines the codes corresponding with each theme. The codes where selected inductively and revised during the coding process.
FFL discuss many different issues and events in their tweets. To examine how resentment towards the CFP is communicated by FFL, this section continues with an analysis of how a strategic or sympathetic narrative of fishers is created by presenting the EU as undemocratic, criticising seemingly unsympathetic UK politicians and appealing to working class and British identities. The three conditions of ressentiment as outlined in the Theoretical
Framework section; denied democracy, powerlessness and injustice provide the context for
Themes Codes
Discontent &
Blame on others Blaming or challenging the UK government Blaming or challenging the EU governance Resentment of suggested policy
Perceived EU and UK collusion or close collaboration Accusation of ‘Remain’ campaign and pro-EU actors being
misleading
Inequality Resentment towards foreign fleets in British waters Perceived robbery of British fish stocks
Perceived unfairness of CFP
Autonomy Question of sovereignty and democracy.
Demonstrating the strength and independence of other non-EU states.
Britain’s strength outside EU. Identity &
Culture Defence of local history, culture and/or community Nostalgia Defence of local ecological knowledge
Brexit Calling for Brexit votes Call for hard(er) Brexit
Economic argument against EU membership Sustainability Understanding of stocks and quotas
Claim to be suggesting more, equal or sufficient levels of sustainability.
Critique of CFP’s inability to meet sufficient sustainability standards.
Science, NGOs or UK government being misleading on Brexit. Resentment or discrediting of science and research findings.
21 the presence of resentment. This is followed by a discussion on FFL’s engagement with sustainability science and policy and their pro-active efforts to radically alter and shape fisheries management in the UK. Lastly, some of the limitations of the study will be outlined.
Narratives of Resentment
This section examines the presence of resentment in FFL’s framing of the narrative around the lived experience of UK fishers under the CFP. FFL’s tweets express feelings of injustice, powerlessness, and restricted agency in a variety of ways, in an effort to alter the public discourse and influence favourable change for fishers.
Blaming the EU
Blame, an emotion that often arises through anger and resentment is a common theme in the texts of FFL. Over the period studied, blame was attributed to various actors for causing and reinforcing the struggles of fishers. Initially, in the lead-up to the referendum, nearly all blame was placed on the EU and those canvassing to remain in the EU. Blame is used by FFL to portray fishers as victims and to demonstrate how they will not remain silent on the
management of their livelihoods. The following three tweets serve to illustrate this.
Good morning people,another day closer to freedom of democracy! @fishingforleave 2016-05-20 05:50:59
Article 50 the start of our country being able to decide own destiny.After 40yrs of hurt,UK will be free of the CFP. https://t.co/Iw72RVXskt https://t.co/FIg6g2H3z5
@fishingforleave 2017-03-30 19:41:49
If our fishing industry hadn't been smashed on EU altar & DEFRA got its finger out its arse it I'd be different! https://t.co/t1R0HLD60t
@fishingforleave 2017-09-05 01:51:01
In the first tweet, posted days before the Independence referendum, FFL look forward to ‘freedom of democracy’ following their presumed victory of Brexit. The tweet implicitly argues that EU membership is undemocratic and that ‘freedom of democracy’ is not being experienced through EU membership.
22 In the second tweet, following the UK’s signing of Articles 50 to trigger the UK leaving the EU, FFL claimed at the time that the country is in an advantageous position to decide its own destiny. This tweet is highly emotive, stating that EU membership has caused hurt because of the implementation of the CFP. In comparison with the previous example, the rhetoric in this tweet is much more explicit in the placing of blame and the portrayal of fishers as victims of the CFP.
In the third tweet the EU and DEFRA, the UK’s Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, are criticised. ‘Smashed on EU altar’ draws on the idiom, to be sacrificed on the altar of something, described as ‘to be destroyed by an activity, system, or belief that is bad but more important or more powerful’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2018). If FFL have chosen their words carefully, then this provides one example of how FFL perceive the EU and CFP as an authoritative force.
These tweets represent a small sample of the many tweets by FFL which demonstrate the resentment of British fishers towards the EU and CFP. FFL portray the EU as holders of power who restrict the freedom of fishers, whose industry is hurt and sacrificed. The blame placed acts to make the EU culpable in fishers’ struggle and calls for their actions to be reversed. The selected tweets are representative of many of the tweets that describe fishers’ lived experience, particularly their feelings of victimisation and powerlessness. Collectively the tweets portray how the fishers struggled under CFP and argues that their agency lies outside of the EU and CFP. This is echoed in the views expressed by Cornish fishers during fieldwork, who spoke about the CFP threatening the economic viability of fishing in
Cornwall and the UK.
Criticism of UK politicians
Although the CFP has consistently been the bête noir of FFL, after the referendum passed, the expressions of blame shifted towards British politicians who were not seen to have British fishers’ interests at heart. In addition to portraying fishers’ struggles, FFL share direct
critiques of individuals who oppose the views of fishers on EU membership and fisheries management. These tweets are much more challenging than the previous examples and serve to voice fisher’s desire to hold politicians to account. The following is a series of three consecutive tweets directed to Nicole Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, who campaigned to remain in the EU.
23
@theSNP @NicolaSturgeon how about coming up to fishing expo in aberdeen, for EU debate,pm for details if not too scared! #Brexit #LeaveEU
@fishingforleave 2016-05-23 21:22:54
@theSNP @NicolaSturgeon tories and UKIP there,your chance to put your case for #Remain or running scared #brexit #LeaveEU
@fishingforleave 2016-05-23 21:25:09
@NicolaSturgeon you said you were not afraid to debate no one, fishing expo #brexit #LeaveEU
@fishingforleave 2016-05-23 21:27:04
In these tweets, FFL challenge Sturgeon to attend a debate on EU membership ahead of the referendum, but goadingly enquire if she is too frightened. This rhetoric could easily be perceived as aggressive and therefore is unlikely to entice Sturgeon to debate. Therefore, it is more likely that the tweet was posted in an effort to disempower or undermine her position as a politician sympathetic to the EU, rather than to lead to a conversation or debate as a more literal reading of the tweets would imply.
After the referendum, critiques of British politicians increased. The following tweet and image of Teresa May demonstrates FFL’s misgivings at Teresa May, the UK Prime Minister (image 3).
24 Image 3. @fishingforleave 2017-11-29 09:40:56
In this tweet, May is called out for betraying fishers and is framed as accountable if the government does not end UK compliance with the CFP. Six members of parliament from May’s Conservative Party, who are in favour of a harder Brexit, are mentioned in the post. The intention of this is likely to undermine Teresa May’s authority within her party. By singling out politicians, FFL seek to alter the narrative of fisheries management through delegitimising politicians and their parties within fisheries negotiations. This creates a
consequence for politicians who support policies unfavourable to fishers. In the two previous examples, both politicians are made aware that any actions taken against the wishes of FFL will be called out on Twitter and fishers will not remain silent. However, it is worth noting that FFL have been criticised on Twitter for being ‘disrespectful’ in their tweets.
25
@OwenPaterson @michaelgove @DefraGovUK Agree @Crystalseass118 -so what's with barrage of personal abuse at FFL by clique who wanted to kill FFL? Our tweets aren't disrespectful but truthful highlight of the abuse.Trying to portray reasonableness is trying to erroneously deflect from nastiness that you well know about
@fishingforleave 2017-11-22 08:31:22
In this tweet, FFL defend themselves against claims of being disrespectful on Twitter. FFL assert that they are speaking the truth in the face of ‘abuse’. This statement aims to alter the narrative of how they are perceived. The perceived futility of trying to reason is also
highlighted which implies FFL’s sense that they have not been listened to previously and that perhaps they are now being more forceful in their struggle for recognition. This example demonstrates how FFL can frame fishers both as victims of unfavourable resource management, but also as agents with a voice to prevent this “abuse” continuing. By challenging politicians, it could be said that FFL hope to achieve conditions for fisheries management and policy that reflect their interests.
Identity
To broaden their appeal, FFL strive to appeal to British and working-class identity to gain support for their cause. Appealing to these interlinked identities enables FFL to make fisheries management a class issue and gain nationalist support. This is achieved in several ways, but most notably through visual material. One of the richest examples of British identity is the organisation’s logo (Image 4).
26 Image 4. Fishing For Leave’s logo. ffl.org.uk
The FFL logo contains many traits associated with the resentment seen in their tweets. The image consists of a haddock in armour holding a shield and waving a flag, both of which are emblazoned with the Union Jack flag. This speaks to British identity and stimulates
connotations with war and battle. The fish’s left fin is raised, as though it is leading troops or pointing in the direction of attack, while the armour and shield imply defence. The plate armour could be viewed as nostalgic or traditionalist, placing the struggle of FFL in a historical context and adding historical legitimacy. The tagline and the image together erase the fact that many of the fish caught by British fishers are mobile species and are not
confined to UK waters. This poses the question, what or whom are the fish being saved from? The logo however prioritises the cultural message of sovereignty and fishers’ rights over the physical realities of the fishery.
Working class identity is another way in which fishers’ appeal to wider support to discredit the EU and CFP. In the following tweets posted in response to an image of signer and political activist, Bob Geldof, opposing the fishers’ flotilla on the Thames, ‘the people’ is used as a term to differentiate PRUs and the cosmopolitan elite of London (Image 5).
27 Image 5. FFL respond to a photograph of Bob Geldof posted by a twitter user in
response to a FFL tweet. @fishingforleave 2017-12-27 14:03:32
FFL articulate a cultural divide between the ‘establishment’ and ‘the people.’ Bob Geldof’s provocative pro-EU gesture is articulated by FFL as a direct attack on hard working men – in Britain raising the middle finger and index finger carry similar weight as raising the middle finger alone. Geldof’s behaviour is presented as that of the ‘London Establishment’, arguably a proxy for the centralisation of power in Britain’s capital, which is seen not to have UK fishers’ interests at heart, as demonstrated in the previous tweets addressed to DEFRA and
28 Teresa May. The term “Champagne socialist” implies someone with socially liberal values, while enjoying a privileged lifestyle. The paradox between Geldof’s prescribed values and actions, echoes concerns expressed by fishers during fieldwork that the CFP claims to listens to fishers’ points of view, but they do not feel that they are taken into consideration in
policies. This fuels FFL’s argument that inequality and compromised meritocracy are experienced by fishers.
Like many grassroots movements seeking to influence their access to natural resources, FFL frame their argument in the language of injustice. By framing the EU as undemocratic and implying culpability of the British government in betrayal and robbery, FFL create a narrative of fighting for social justice in the face of hegemonic control of their resources. While this may be representative of the experience of fishers, it does not allow for nuance or
acknowledgement of the sustainability motivations of the CFP. As FFL’s challenges of UK politicians demonstrates, alternative views are confronted, and sympathy is sought from the wider public. This limits the scope for open discussion. However, by influencing a more sympathetic public mood and pressuring politicians, FFL’s approach may be the most direct way for fishers to achieve their aims of achieving their desired fisheries policy.
Alternative Sustainability Policy.
“Transitioning to Days-at Sea would automatically end discards, end the regulatory morass of the quota regime, allowing and encouraging accurate reporting in contrast to the
misreporting under quotas.”
Brexit Textbook on Fisheries; page iii.
The most thorough way in which FFL engage with influencing the management of UK fisheries is through the presentation of an alternative policy which draws on alternative scientific research to bring about sustainable management in more favourable conditions for fishers. While FFL’s Twitter content is dominated by blame of EU and UK governance and questions of sovereignty, they tweet links to their blog and printed reports, which provide details of their views on sustainability and their goals for better management of British fisheries.
FFL’s ‘Brexit Textbook on Fisheries’ is a 144-page policy document published by FFL in February 2017. It is the most formal publication by FFL and articulates many arguments for ending the CFP in the UK and for the transfer of fisheries management to the UK legislator.
29 FFL disagree with the CFP and argue that it fails to meet its goals, in particular regarding sustainability. FFL are much more explicit about their commitment to sustainability in the textbook. This is evident in the following quotes.
The UK must manage her greatest renewable resource in an effective, sustainable, equitable and transparent manner, with the full co-operation of all stakeholders, to maximise the socio-economic and seafood production benefits for the nation.
Brexit Textbook on Fisheries; section 2, page 13.
It must be recognised fishermen are the stakeholders with the greatest interest in
Sustainability - No fish = No fishermen. Fishermen are not environmental pirates as often portrayed.
Brexit Textbook on Fisheries; section 2, page 13.
Stocks fluctuate naturally, it is human arrogance to think we can impose a rigid system of micromanagement . An interactive system is needed that is reactive to the fluidity of the natural environment [].
Brexit Textbook on Fisheries; section 2, page 13.
In the first quote, FFL acknowledge the complexity of fisheries and demonstrate an understanding of the importance of stakeholder engagement. However, the exclusive UK focus demonstrates that they are only open to resource management on a national scale, benefiting the UK alone. The second quote goes further in identifying fishers as the actors most concerned with the sustainability of fisheries, while arguing that the opposite is often portrayed. This demonstrates an effort on the part of FFL to change the perception about fishers’ views on sustainability. It suggests that fishers should hold more authority in the design and implementation of sustainability policy. In the third quote the CFP’s quota system is criticised for its lack of adaptability and inability to address changes in UK fisheries. These three arguments serve to decouple commitment to sustainability and commitment to the CFP. The main argument put forward in the Brexit Textbook on Fisheries supports a shift from the current quota system, which entails discarding by-catch (and the ensuing landing obligation) to a ‘days-at-sea’ model. Basing their findings on the Faroe Islands where days at sea is in place, FFL explain that this system limits the time that fishers can spend fishing. However, it ultimately allows them to catch less fish overall, while landing and selling more as there are
30 no quotas or discards in place (Image 6). FFL argue this leads to increased profit and reduced labour. Days-at-sea is currently in place as part of cod stock management in the North Sea and the findings have been favourable due to the enforceability of this policy and increased compliance (Catchpole et al. 2005).
Image 6. Faroe Pyramid Eco System (2). An illustration presented by FFL to demonstrate how days-at-sea can reduce overall catch and ensure species are not overfished. Brexit Textbook on Fisheries; section 2, page 24.
The term Alterative Policy Group (APG) is used to describe grassroots or protest groups who oppose policies of the government and proactively set about creating and advocating for their own (Carroll 2016). The publication of FFL’s ‘Brexit Textbook on Fisheries’ demonstrates their promotion of a UK managed policy of days-at-sea as an alternative to the quota system of the CFP. Although days-at-sea and repatriation of national waters are not unique to FFL, in
31 the context of the management of UK waters, they are the only significant actors, asides from supporting politicians, advocating for such a policy and it is radically different from the status quo. It is salient therefore, to discuss FFL as an APG. By proposing an alternative policy to that of the CFP, FFL seek to influence national politics and legitimise their desire to leave the CFP within a scientific and policy sphere.
The case of FFL differs from many of the case studies examining APGs. Popular cases focus on grassroots organisations that challenge the unsustainable policies of states and big
business (ibid). A narrative of good versus evil emerges from many of these cases. However, the case of FFL and the CFP is much more nuanced. It demonstrates the contested interests of two opposed groups as they each claim to represent just and sustainable management of fisheries.
The policy of nationalisation of fisheries as put forward by FFL has limitations, including the failure to address the fact that fish are mobile species and the inter-related nature of fish moving between state jurisdictions. Furthermore, days-at-sea can reduce the economic incentives for fishers to fish selectively (Schrope 2010). However, days-at-sea has some credibility from a sustainability point of view when overall catches are reduced (Catchpole et al. 2005). Therefore, this provides an example of how fishers who are adamantly anti-CFP are willing to engage with sustainable fishing without the conditions that led to resentment. Although fishers’ subjective interests strongly influence the methods of sustainable
management they wish to engage in, they also demonstrate more rational decision here. Though many of the claims in FFL’s textbook are supported by fisheries science, citations are not used, with one or two exceptions. For example, no citation is given in the textbook for the statements quoted above or the for the research related to the Faroe Pyramid Eco System in Image 6. Therefore, it does not have the scientific rigour one expects from a policy document produced by a more formal body such as a state-based institution. However, it draws on fishers’ own observations and experiences of fishing. This local ecological knowledge is valuable and FFL feel it is missing from CFP research and findings. The discourse they present promotes fishers who are pro-actively striving to take management issues into their own hands to meet their own ends. Although the purpose of the CFP is the sustainable management of EU fisheries, the reluctance of FFL to comply, should not be interpreted as a desire to fish without regard for sustainable issues.
32
Outcomes of the study
FFL use Twitter in an effort to communicate a very strong narrative about fishers and their struggles with the CFP. On the one hand they portray fishers as victims of the
(mis)management of their industry at the hands of the EU and CFP and appeal to British and working-class identities for wider support and recognition of their struggle. On the other hand, FFL present a much more pro-active and engaged narrative of fishers. When
challenging politicians, FFL do not portray themselves as victims. Rather, they assert their social capital and demonstrate agency in fighting for their goal of repatriating UK fisheries. They have seized a window of opportunity in Brexit to act on long held feelings of
powerlessness and inequality at the hands of the CFP. Rural resentment has played a role in the manifestations of these actions.
Though resentment is clear in FFL’s Twitter feed, through the presentation of an alternative policy for fisheries management, they also act to promote a rational and less emotive way forward. By decoupling the CFP and sustainability more broadly, FFL present fishers as stakeholders willing to engage with sustainability outside of the CFP. This creates scope for negotiations on sustainable natural resource management to take place. However, while FFL are very critical of EU ‘micromanagement’, the policy of days-at-sea desired by FFL is not without potential problems and limitations. Therefore, the field of sustainability science can play a significant role in ensuring any future interventions or measures taken to address rural resentment within natural resource management is coupled with robust data on fish stocks. Overall, the discontent that had been building in fishers over decades since the UK joined the EU found its voice like never before in the context of Brexit. This case demonstrates how rural resentment can be mobilised to undermine projects of natural resource management. While this can be problematic for politicians and policy makers, manifestations of resentment are generally based on legitimate feelings of perceived powerlessness and injustice.
Therefore, PRU’ fervent desire to alter the structures of natural resource management may bring about more equitable institutions that are more resilient to social disturbances. While resentment frequently has negative connotations, pro-active mobilisation and policy-writing by FFL demonstrates the potential for positive or constructive outcomes from rural
resentment, echoing relatively more resent theory on resentment (Rawls 1999, Nussbaum 2016). Therefore, sustainability science should be aware of consequences of resentment when
33 evaluating models of natural resource management, but also open to the possibilities that resentment can bring, as PRU may be eager to find workable alternatives.
The Twitter account of FFL has provided a rich source of expressions of resentment relating to the experiences of Fishers. While the fieldwork interviews and conversations with fishers indicated many of the same concerns, in FFL’s tweets the manifestation of rural resentment are more explicit in the language used. Therefore, the paper argues that Twitter is a valuable source of data for identifying and understanding the presence of rural resentment.
Furthermore, the themes explored in this thesis provide a framework for future studies to examine the presence of rural resentment of PRUs on social media and in the written form more broadly.
Limitations of the Study
This study set out to provide a framework for understanding and identifying the presence of resentment in the natural resource management. Many of the findings demonstrate the ways in which resentment can challenge or undermine efforts of natural resource management. However, the following limitations must be considered.
The study focused on examining the discourse of FFL as an articulation of resentment. Though the methodological process selected the most salient arguments that represent the case, no specific analysis was carried out on which individuals or groups of people engaged with the tweets. A network analysis would allow for a greater understanding of which messages are being communicated to whom and the significance of various messages. This would deepen the understanding of the effects of resentment and its communication in terms of natural resource management.
The experience of fieldwork in Cornwall was used to triangulate the output of FFL and ensure that FFL represent the concerns of individual fishers. However, only a limited number of interviews were possible. Analysis of a larger number of in-depth interviews would have allowed for greater comparisons to be made between FFL discourse and individual fishers. As fishers are a heterogeneous group, a larger sample size would have allowed for closer examination of the nuances in their views. Therefore, it can be argued that this study simply represents some of the more vocal and extreme cases of discontent with the CFP.
34 The codes from this study provide a framework for further analysis of resentment felt by PRU in the global North. However, some of the codes are specific to the study topic and as resentment is a highly contextual emotion, not all codes will be present or relevant in other cases.
Addressing these limitations would lead to a more nuanced picture of fishers’ views of resource management. However, the aim of this study was to examine the manifestations of resentment and to identify and understand the emotions that arise in natural resource
35
CONCLUSION
At the time of writing, no definitive decision has been made on the future management of British fisheries. As UK fisheries continue to be regulated through the structure of the CFP, FFL are consistently vocal on Twitter to defend their industry from remaining within the CFP.
The aim of the study has been to examine expressions of rural resentment felt by PRU in the global North. This has been achieved by examining manifestations of fishers’ resentment and exploring the way in which FFL communicated resentment through Twitter.
The study located resentment in the context of rapid urbanisation and scaling up of natural resource management in the global North, and a sense that PRU have less access to and control over their resource than they once did. As natural resource management is centralised PRU often feel that their voices are not heard and feel discontent towards environmental governance. This study makes the case for analysing resentment through the written form, as resentment is often a hidden emotion, but one that is important to understand and address. The analysis of FFL’s social media content reveals the strong presence of traits of resentment and a pro-active attempt by fishers to alter the management of their fisheries. Resentment is articulated through the construction of a narrative on British fishers and their treatment at the hands of EU institutions. This involves portraying fishers as victims of the CFP, placing blame on the EU and pro-EU politicians in Britain, and appealing to working class and British identity. This allows FFL to gain support from likeminded individuals, while seeking to increase their influence in policy negotiations.
FFL are also pragmatic through the presentation of an alternative policy for fisheries
management in the UK. This demonstrates a desire for fishers to have more control over their resource, while adopting a similar rhetoric to that of policymakers. FFL also demonstrate an ability to engage in citizen science, blurring the boundary between scientific research, policy making and fishers. The study finds that, while being opposed to the CFP, fishers have an awareness of the need to sustainably manage fisheries and believe they can achieve this more effectively and more equitably at a national level.
36 An understanding of the expressions of rural resentment is important for sustainability
science and those working with natural resource management as they illustrate how PRUs feel discontent towards certain forms of management. In the case of FFL, resentment manifests itself as an effort to undo policy structures. The study also demonstrates that resentment can at the same time lead to more meaningful engagement of PRU through the adoption of alternative policies for sustainable management of natural resources.
37
LITERATURE CITED
Boonstra, W. J., S. Birnbaum, and E. Björkvik. 2017. The quality of compliance:
investigating fishers’ responses towards regulation and authorities. Fish and Fisheries 18(4):682–697.
Booth, R. 2016, June 15. Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof’s rival EU referendum flotillas clash on the Thames. London.
Cambridge Dictionary. 2018. . https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-sacrificed-on-the-altar-of-sth.
Carpenter, G. 2016. The grievances of the fishing industry would be better aimed at the UK government , not the EU:4.
Carroll, W. K. 2016. Expose, Oppose, Propose: Alternative Policy Groups and the Struggle for Global Justice. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax & Winnipeg.
Catchpole, T. L., C. L. J. Frid, and T. S. Gray. 2005. Discards in North Sea fisheries: Causes, consequences and solutions. Marine Policy 29(5):421–430.
Chaffin, J. 2018. Cornish fishermen fear catch in Brexit talks.
https://www.ft.com/content/9cd44aa0-1248-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277.
Charles, N. 2017. Written and spoken words: Representations of animals and intimacy. Sociological Review 65(1):117–133.
Condie, H. M., A. Grant, and T. L. Catchpole. 2014. Incentivising selective fishing under a policy to ban discards; lessons from European and global fisheries. Marine Policy 45:287–292.
Demertzis, N. 2006. Emotions and populism. Emotion, Politics and Society:103–122. Eger, M. A., and S. Valdez. 2015. Neo-nationalism in western Europe. European
Sociological Review 31(1):115–130.
Epstein, G., J. Pittman, S. M. Alexander, S. Berdej, T. Dyck, U. Kreitmair, K. J. Raithwell, S. Villamayor-Tomas, J. Vogt, and D. Armitage. 2015. Institutional fit and the
sustainability of social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:34–40.
Fishing for Leave. 2017. The Brexit Textbook on Fisheries. Glasgow.
Folke, C., L. Pritchard, F. Berkes, J. Colding, and U. Svedin. 2007. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institions: Ten years later. Ecology and Society 12(1):30. Galaz, V., P. Olsson, T. Hahn, C. Folke, and U. Svedin. 2008. The Problem of Fit among
Biophysical Systems, Environmental and Resource Regimes, and Broader Governance Systems: Insights and Emerging Challenges. Pages 147–182 in O. R. Young, L. King, and H. Schroeder, editors. Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Gerbaudo, P. 2015. Populism 2.0: Social media activism, the generic Internet user and interactive direct democracy. Pages 67–87 in D. Trottier and C. Fuchs, editors. Social
38 Media, Politics and the State Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Rutledge, New York.
Goldman, R. 2016, June 15. A ‘ Brexit ’ Battle on the Thames Between Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof. New York.
Gray, T. S. 1998. Fishing and Fairness: the Justice of the CFP. Page in T. S. Gray, editor. The Politics of Fishing. Macmillan. London.
Hochschild, A. R. 2016. Strangers in Their Own Land: anger and mourning on the american right. The New Press, New York & London.
Jackson-Preece, J. 2016. An undiscover ’ d country : the Brexit debate on Twitter reveals widespread democratic discontent. blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/18/an-undiscoverd-
country-the-brexit-debate-on-twitter-reveals-widespread-%0Ademocratic-discontent/%0AThe.
Jeffares, S. 2014. Interpreting Hashtag Politics.
Johnson, S. 2018. Theresa May pledges UK will control its fishing waters after Brexit transition. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/29/theresa-may-pledges-uk-will-control-fishing-waters-brexit-transition/.
Kingdon, J. W. 2014. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Second Edi. Pearson Education Limited, Essex.
McCaughey, M. 2014. Cyberactivism on the Participatory Web. Page Cyberactivism on the Participatory Web.
McKenna, K. 2018. Scotland’s fishermen feel a sickening sense of betrayal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/24/scotland-fishermen-betrayal-peterhead-brexit.
Meltzer, B. N., and G. R. Musolf. 2002. Resentment and ressentiment. Sociological Inquiry 72(2):240–255.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2016. Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice. Oxford Uni. Oxford.
O’Neill, C. 2000. Britain’s Entry Into the European Community: Report on the negotiations of 1970-1972. Whitehall History Publishing, London.
Olson, K. R. 2006. A literature review of social mood. The Journal of Behavioral Finance 7(4):193–203.
Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Page Public Choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
Ostrom, E. 2015. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Penas, E. 2016. The Common Fisheries Policy: The Quest for Sustainability. Page
Wiley-Blackwell.
Pomeroy, C. 2003. Co-managment and marine reserves in fishery management. Pages 213– 229 in D. C. Wilsen, R. J. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol, editors. The Fisheries
Co-Mangement Experience: Accomplisments, Challenges and Prospects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
39 Rankin, J. 2018. Brexit: first talks on future UK relationship with EU begin.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/18/brexit-first-talks-on-uks-future-relationship-with-eu-begin.
Rawls, J. 1999. A theory of Justice: Revised Edition. The Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. Roberts, D. 2018. “We have been hijacked”: fishermen feel used over Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/23/we-have-been-hijacked-fishermen-feel-used-over-brexit.
Rosen, F., and P. Olsson. 2013. Institutional entrepreneurs, global networks, and the emergence of international institutions for ecosystem-based management: The Coral Triangle Initiative. Marine Policy 38:195–204.
Scheler, M. 1994. Ressentiment. Marquette University Press, Milwaukee. Schrope, M. 2010. Fisheries: What’s the catch? Nature 465(7298):540–542.
Scott, J. C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University.
The Independent. 2016. Nigel Farage and Sir Bob Geldof clash over Brexit flotilla in “battle for the Thames.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-and-sir-bob-geldof-clash-over-brexit-flotilla-in-battle-for-the-thames-a7083106.html.
Turtle, D. 2005. Gone fishing... fishing gone. Self-published, Newlyn.
Walsh, J. 2016. Britain’s 1975 Europe referendum: what was it like last time? Williams, M. L., P. Burnap, and L. Sloan. 2017. Towards an Ethical Framework for
Publishing Twitter Data in Social Research: Taking into Account Users’ Views, Online Context and Algorithmic Estimation. Sociology:003803851770814.
Woods, M., J. Anderson, S. Guilbert, and S. Watkin. 2012. ‘The country(side) is angry’: emotion and explanation in protest mobilization. Social & Cultural Geography 13(6):567–585.
World Fishing & Aquaculture. 2018. Inmarsat Broadband Extended in Europe.
http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/industry-news/inmarsat-broadband-extended-in-europe.
40
APPENDIX
Ethics review reflection
An ethics review was carried out prior to commencement of this study. The ethics review was mainly focused on the fieldwork and interviews with fishers. Although fewer interviews than expected were carried out, the ethics review covered the experience of interviews. The study was explained orally to potential participants in detail. Participants were also shown a copy of the project description via email or on a hard copy of the consent form. Oral consent was received by all participants.
The use of Twitter was not foreseen in the original ethics review. Literature regarding the ethics of using Twitter data was consulted along with Twitters terms of use. Although all tweets are in the public domain, there is debate in the social sciences around the ethics of using Twitter data without consent. This is a concern as many users are unaware of the terms of use of Twitter.
It was decided that as Fishing for Leave (FFL) are a public organisation analysis of their public data was in the public domain and therefore ethical. A tweet from Nigel Farage is also shared, but as he is a public politician, this was also deemed ethical. In one image shared in this study, an individual users’ profile is visible, as he has written a comment below a FFL tweet. It was decided to keep the details visible.
