Abstract
This article is focused on some recent examples of ‘nuclear discourse’, with a specific reference to the civil use of nuclear power in order to produce energy. The basic aim of this article is dual-fold. From a methodological point of view, I want to show an example of the application of a specific form of semiotic analysis (linked to the ‘continental’ tradition of structural analysis) to contemporary communication forms and supports. In this way, semiotics appears as a specific form of qualitative analysis, aimed at the understanding of meaning production by social actors on the basis of ‘signs’ (significant objects such as paper and electronic texts) that are produced and exchanged. From the point of view of the subject under analysis, I want to present some observations on recent pro-nuclear rhetorical forms, which have emerged in Europe in the last two years, before and after the tragedy of Fukushima. I analyse different types of texts, in particular videos and websites. The analysis of the ‘internal’ organization of texts is combined with attention to the context of their production.
Keywords
Introduction
This article is focused on some recent examples of ‘nuclear discourse’, with a specific reference to the civil use of nuclear power in order to produce energy. The basic aim of this article is double. From a methodological point of view, I want to show an example of the application of a specific form of semiotic analysis (linked to the ‘continental’ tradition of structural analysis) to contemporary communication forms and supports. In this way, semiotics will appear as a specific form of qualitative analysis, aimed at the understanding of meaning production by social actors on the basis of ‘signs’ (significant objects such as paper and electronic texts) that are produced and exchanged. From the point of view of the subject under analysis, I want to present some observations on recent pro-nuclear rhetorical forms, which have emerged in Europe in the last two years, before and after the tragedy of Fukushima.
The basic hypothesis of this article is that contemporary European forms of discourse on nuclear (civil) power present two phenomena that the American scholar W. Kinsella (2005) identified in the case of nuclear communication in the USA as: a tendency to the ‘disempowerment’ of the public, and the construction of a ‘modernistic’ basic narrative. The first term indicates the fact that texts and communication tend to present nuclear power as a subject out of the control and intervention of normal citizens, excluding a real participation in decisions about its development (or elimination). Communication forms on nuclear power tend to narrow down spaces for discussion and debate among different opinions. The second expression means that nuclear power is also presented as the protagonist of a positive story, as a source of evolution towards the development of humanity, with a strong link to the ideology of enlightenment (exaltation of science, reason and optimism about the future, which will be better than the past thanks to technology). The question that we should be asking is: Are contemporary pro-nuclear discourses in Europe, and in particular in countries such as France, Italy and Belgium, examples of disempowerment and of a ‘modernistic’ basic narrative?
In order to answer this question, I decided to adopt a qualitative semiotic approach, so as to identify and analyse significant examples of recent pro-nuclear communication. I observed a small ‘corpus’ composed of different types of texts: a French advertisement, an Italian ‘didactic’ video on nuclear power and the websites of the Italian and Belgian ‘Nuclear Forums’, which are two lobbies created by nuclear industries in order to promote this kind of energy in the two countries. 1
In the case of the two ‘forums’, I will take into consideration two dimensions: on one hand, how the two websites propose (or not) real possibilities of open interaction to the web surfers, and, on the other, which are the dominant enunciation postures inside the ‘constellation’ of texts of the websites with particular attention to the relationship between enunciation and axiological positions (that is, positions in favour or against nuclear power). These two aspects will enable us observe the tendency of ‘disempowerment’ and the narrowing of participation identified by Kinsella. 2 The two ‘forums’ affirm (or affirmed in the past, given the temporary closure in 2011 of the Italian forum’s website) their intention to offer a place for information and discussion. It was interesting to verify how this explicit intention was put into practice, in order to observe the real presence of spaces for debate and deliberation as well as to challenge the basic hypothesis of ‘disempowerment’. Semiotic analysis of the two websites has been supported by information inquiries among the staff of the two nuclear forums. As to what concerns the two websites, I will take into consideration two other examples of ‘video-messages’ produced before the Japanese catastrophe and still available on the websites, those disseminated on the internet and on TV by the Belgian Nuclear Forum and a short advert disseminated by the Italian Nuclear Forum. These short texts will be observed in order to identify specific enunciation and persuasion strategies that are complementary in relation to those of other parts of the websites.
In the case of the French advertisement, more focus will be on the position of nuclear energy in the narrative world created by the text. In the case of the Italian video, I will observe some aspects of the ideological construction of a positive image of nuclear power basing myself on the observation of some linguistic solutions and on the type of visual experience. Texts such as the French advertisement and the Italian video, with their narrative content, were very good for testing the hypothesis of a modernistic storytelling, and for watching out for its eventual evolutions.
The presentation of the analysis will be preceded by a discussion on the reflexion proposed by Kinsella and by a presentation of my semiotic approach.
It should be noted that this article does not want to propose universal results about nuclear discourses, nor conclusions based on quantitative analysis. However, following the basic rules of qualitative analysis, the goal is to identify and analyse some specific, concrete phenomena and categories, which other research could apply and compare to other specific cases (epistemological principle of transferability). 3
Nuclear discourse and semiotic approach
The tradition of analysis on discursive productions about nuclear power is rich (Kinsella, 2005). The last 10–15 years have seen the so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’ (World Nuclear Association, 2011), a global tendency towards an increasing interest for this form of energy for economic, strategic and environmental reasons. The consequence of this tendency is an increase in different types of discursive production in Europe and elsewhere. The Japanese tragedy has recently interfered with the nuclear renaissance and with its discursive dimension, with different effects following local political and social situations. This article will take into consideration, but only in a limited way, the effect of this ‘crisis’, which has most certainly changed the development of this kind of energy production: a deeper focus will be given to long-term discursive phenomena.
Kinsella (2005) proposed a global critical reflection on nuclear discourse (i.e. discourses on civil and military applications of nuclear power) in North America during and after the period of the Cold War, pointing out four main ‘themes’. In his opinion, nuclear discourse is based on mystery (an esoteric scientific knowledge that legitimizes the power of a small elite), potency, secrecy (linked originally to the military aspects, but also including the civil dimension of nuclear power production), and a vision of the ‘entelechy’ of the nuclear power (its ‘essence’, its destiny) as linked to something ineluctable (a kind of nuclear determinism). These characteristics have legitimized different forms of control and restrictions on discourse, and the production of a kind of ‘docile citizenship’. ‘Through the system of meanings I have examined here, mystery, potency, and secrecy converge to disempower public participation and individual agency in the nuclear domain. More generally, that same meaning system valorises technical expertise, military priorities, deference to authority, and narrow rather than broad participation in public policy decisions’ (Kinsella, 2005: 63). A second aspect of the nuclear ‘discourse formation’ 4 is the central role played by a form of ‘modernist discourse’, centred on inevitable and linear progress, thanks also to nuclear energy.
This article will try to apply some semiotic categories to some forms of ‘nuclear texts’ (produced before and after the Japanese tragedy), in order to see if these two phenomena (a basic tendency towards ‘disempowerment’ of public participation and the presence of a modernistic basic narrative) can be confirmed in Europe in the present era, which is characterized by a new communication environment and by new forms of instabilities (Libaert, 2010). This context is, of course, different in relation to the first era of nuclear power development, the Cold War one. The new electronic media have created a new communication environment: the development of Web 2.0 allows many more people to be active producers of content, and creates an increased possibility of interaction and mobilization with a direct impact on power distribution (Castells, 2011). Given this kind of change, are disempowerment and nuclear modernistic storytelling 5 still present today in communication practices in Europe? And if so, in what way? What are the specific discursive/semiotic forms of this presence, given the context of the growing importance of the so-called ‘mass-self communication’ (Castells, 2011)?
The chosen approach is qualitative and semiotic. Semiotics is a discipline that focuses on how signs (objects that can have a meaning for someone, the ‘interpreter’) orient and guide the meaning production of social actors. The meaning is not pre-defined by signs; instead, it is produced by social actors (people, and groups of people) in their interactions with others and with the world. But signs influence this continual sense-making process, in which we are all implied as ‘symbolic animals’ (in the sense of Aristotle). Semiotics tries to identify in signs which elements (expressions) can be linked to a specific meaning (the content). This meaning is not unique or pre- determined by the text – this would be a radical version of a (structuralistic) determinism. Social actors maintain an active part in the process of interpreting. But the close analysis of texts can help in defining the most probable ways of meaning production by interpreters who have a specific cultural background or ‘encyclopaedia’ (Eco, 1976). These hypotheses on the most probable meanings in a specific context can orient other types of research, like the analysis of real sense-making of specific samples of people through interviews and questionnaires – and semiotics can also help in interpreting the results of interviews and other types of data collection. Semiotics, through its different schools and orientations, has produced (and is producing) a lot of analytical tools (see, for example, Floch, 2001; Fontanille 2008; Watts and Sriramesh, 2004). I think that this discipline can help in developing a deeper understanding of sense-making by social actors and communication, by its capacity to closely inspect how specific expressive configurations can be linked to possible content.
We will focus on complex signs, that is, ‘texts’ that are, following the definition of Norman Fairclough (2005: 916), ‘the linguistic/semiotic elements of social events, analytically isolable parts of the social process’. A text is a concrete configuration, the trace of social events and interactions, offered to the observation and scrutiny of the social scientist. As such, texts (complex signs) let the qualitative analyst make hypothesis on the ‘semiosic processes’, which is the processes of meaning production made by social actors. 6 This approach wants to renew the old project, initiated by F. de Saussure (one of the founders of modern linguistic and semiotics, or ‘semiology’), which is aimed at understanding the ‘social life’ of signs: how signs are produced and interpreted in the context of social interactions and relations. In my case, the main intention is to study social meaning production on the basis of text analysis. From this point of view, this article wants to show an example of application of semiotics to communication analysis.
The underlying epistemology of this semiotic approach is linked to the ‘social realist ontology’ of Fairclough (2005: 916). The British author proposes a moderate constructivism, far from the (neo-nominalistic) reduction of social entities (such as organizations) to the dynamic of ‘organizing’ and interactions, furthermore, avoiding the postmodernistic reductions of social structures to discourse 7 as well. Fairclough underlines the fact that the action of individuals (the ‘organizing’ process, well theorized by Weick, 1979) is necessary in the understanding of the production of social structures and entities, such as organizations. Nevertheless, the latter have a power of influence on individuals. Social structures and organizations ‘exist’ as specific types of boundaries and limits for individual agency. In this sense, Fairclough proposes a ‘dualistic’ vision in which both individuals and collective entities have a place as a source of agency. He criticizes also the reduction of organizations to pure discursive entities, as is proposed in some postmodernist texts (Mumby and Stohl, 1996). Fairclough identifies three different levels of ‘active reality’ to be analysed by social scientists: events and processes, social practices (including institutions and organizations, but also ‘discursive orders’, which are types of discursive production following specific rules) and structures (such as verbal language). I consider ‘structures’ and social practices (including linguistic and semiotic ones, like the ‘discursive orders’ of the Foucauldian tradition) as forms of repetitions, habits and resistances linked to interests and powers that are incarnated in concrete enunciation activities. These repetitions, habits and resistances appear in individual behaviours, impose their presence and are able to orient and (partly) determine their evolution. 8
A semiotics interested in social context, or socio-semiotics, tries to identify ‘discursive orders’ behind concrete texts. Discursive orders (habits of production and interpretation of texts, such as cultural rules, ‘styles’, ways of thinking and taboos) form what could be called the cultural and ideological ‘software’ of a specific group. This ‘software’ is always in tension with individual enunciation activity: this last one is governed by it (we are, in a way, ‘spoken’ by our own language, and governed by our own culture), but it can always change the software (individuals can fortunately bypass, adapt or change laws, habits and cultural systems). Semiotic agency (the power to establish ‘normal’ ways of producing and interpreting signs, of creating codes and rules) is always split between discursive orders and individual agents. This ‘dualistic’ position is perhaps in contrast with a part of the structuralist tradition, and perhaps also with the sociology of authors such as Bourdieu, who exalted the power of structures and institutions (Fairclough, 2005; Grosjean and Bonneville, 2011).
On the background of this balanced epistemology (agency is shared between individuals and social entities, such as organizations and discursive orders, considered as specific forms of habits), socio-semiotics tries to identify specific parts of discursive orders and cultural codes, based on the analysis of texts. This research can be conducted on different levels: narrative, enunciational (how the text presents the interlocution between the enunciator and the reader), iconic (the use of visual non-verbal languages) and sensorial (the mobilization of different senses in communication). The analysis of texts can allow the analyst to propose hypotheses on possible sense-making patterns. This can be done, of course, in connection with the reconstruction of specific contextual elements, such as enunciation circumstances (who speaks to whom, what are their reciprocal roles, as in the case of hierarchical relations) and political and economical interests in place (for example, in the case of discourse production about sustainable development, which is the goal of each enunciator). Socio-semiotics tries to delimit the pattern of possible meanings, to analyse texts as devices able to stimulate certain types of sense-making more than others. In this way, socio-semiotics can become one voice in a complex interdisciplinary approach to public relations and communication activities as social phenomena. As in previous papers (Catellani, 2010, 2011, 2011b), I have particularly underlined a specific dimension of socio-semiotics, that is the consideration of rhetoric as the discursive effective representation of tensions, negotiation and interaction of different elements (opinions, enunciations, ideological positions, etc.). This discursive space of tension, conflict and relation is in interaction with external social, political and economic dynamics: it acts on them but is also a result of them. Socio-semiotics can try to analyse, for example, how ideologies – reductive semantic structures that select specific aspects of meaning and narratives in order to orient sense making and action – are built, in relation to specific forms of power distribution (Eco, 1976).
Nuclear power has been a remarkable source of rhetoric tensions in discourse since its first appearance – only discursive at the beginning, in scientific texts, and then extremely physical, with the invention of the atomic bomb and the beginning of civil uses – at the beginning of the 20th century. Different interests and values collide on nuclear energy, creating the occasion for rhetorical and critical activities. I will explore how different actors of nuclear industry in three countries (Italy, France and Belgium) produce texts in order to develop different discursive strategies, always linked to the valorization and promotion of this kind of power: this article does not take into consideration the anti-nuclear rhetoric in a direct way.
The texts chosen for analysis (a French advertisement, an Italian video and two websites) can be divided into two groups. On one side, we have quite long texts aimed at involving the reader in an intensive ‘textual experience’ that we could call ‘flux texts’. This is the case of the advertisement ‘Energy: One Powerful Story’ by Areva (France). It is also the case of the (pseudo?) didactic video ‘La tecnologia nucleare’ (nuclear technology), distributed in Italy by Enel and EDF in 2010. A flux text is quite long, and it is presented in a narrative or discursive linear form that involves the readers, who are ‘transported’ by the textual structure, as in the case of movies and novels (one page after the other, one image and shot after the other). The flux text does not ask the reader to abandon the ‘flux’ of his/her reading to understand better one aspect or the other (for example, through footnotes, illustrations, references, etc.): the reading experience is linear and continuous.
The second macro-type of text is that of the websites of Italian and Belgian ‘nuclear forums’: two hypertexts that present a rich collection of quite short texts of different types (videos, verbal texts, images) that the web surfer can explore. 9 We could talk, in this case, of ‘map text’, to underline the ‘collage’ effect these texts can create. 10 The reader-receiver in these cases is not invited to a continuous and emotionally intense experience, but to a more rational, detached activity of connecting pieces of information. The reader has to interrupt his/her linear reading in order to make sense of short pieces of information by connecting them to one another; the model of reading is more discontinuous.
The following analysis will explore texts that are nearer to one pole or the other of this basic opposition (linear vs. multi-linear, or flux vs. map). Flux texts are often the place for stories: in this case, storytelling (the act of telling stories in order to promote values and interests) can develop its strategies and forms based on long, continuous, linear textual forms, or flux texts. This is the reason why I will focus on the French advertisement from Areva and on the Italian video: these two texts, with their continuous internal structure aimed at holding the attention for quite a long time, present the ideal environment in which a modernistic narrative on nuclear energy can be proposed. On the other side, map texts can be the place to collect information, to improve and deepen analysis on a given subject: a map text can offer a sort of ‘paradigm’ of choices (different materials, sources, voices) to interested readers who are looking for information about a subject. In this perspective, I will see how the websites of the two ‘forums’ offer a real choice between different positions about nuclear energy (in favour and against). Electronic hypertexts, like the websites of the two ‘nuclear forums’, are also the place in which the reader could find a space for interaction and exchange with the organization, as the word ‘forum’ seems to suggest (see the following section), but is it really the case? Interactivity with an organization through a website can have different forms, more or less immediate and rich: from the simple fact of the possibility of sending emails and receiving an answer, to the fact that all messages sent to and from the organizations are visible to other web surfers (as in the case of blogs, forums and chats). From this point of view, we can ask if the two websites offer rich or poor forms of interaction to their visitors. 11 This will be another aspect of the analysis.
Diffusing information and argumentation before and after the catastrophe: ‘Nuclear forums’ as ‘map texts’
Italian and Belgian nuclear ‘forums’ are very interesting socio-semiotic objects. I will start with some information on their organizational forms, based on the analysis of their self-presentation on the websites and on information collected from the staff of the two forums. The subsequent semiotic observation will be based on the websites as they were visible between the end of March and 10 of April 2011, with a final visit to the Belgian website at the end of May 2011 to observe a specific change in its interactive structure, and to the Italian website in September 2011 to register the closure of a big part of the website. Some observations will be done also on the situation of the Belgian website in March 2012, given the fact that a new communication campaign has started, and that some modifications have occurred on the site. These two sites present examples of ‘map texts’: they offer the reader a ‘collage’ of small texts (verbal, visual, etc.) that have to be connected together, defining the reader attitude as that of a voluntary and rationally motivated exploration. Of course, this collage includes links to longer texts that offer the flux text experience (more abandoned, uncontrolled and linear fruition), such as YouTube videos. The ‘switch’ from map to flux and vice-versa is, of course, possible and even programmed in communication strategies.
From a semiotic point of view, I observed in particular the interactive aspect (presence of chat services, blogs, ‘forums’, possibility of sending emails and getting answers to questions from the website staff, visibility of messages sent to and from the forum, ‘filtering’ of messages from the web surfers) and the type of representation of enunciation inside the text. In this second case, I paid particular attention to pronouns and verbs in order to see if the impersonal type of enunciation (third-person verbal forms, and absence of clear signs of the two partners, the author and the reader) is dominant or not in relation to the personal one (use of first and second persons, which allows a clear expression of the presence of an interlocution between an ‘I’ and a ‘you’). This second strategy is useful to create an ‘impression’ of direct relation and/or questioning. As for the short videos proposed on the website, I observed their internal organization (the combination of images, written and spoken text) in order to classify them following the distinction of ‘map’ and ‘flux’ texts, and in order to identify their contribution to the global communication device of the website.
Belgian nuclear forum: ‘Ventriloquism’, pedagogy and ‘psychagogy’
The Italian and Belgian nuclear forums act and communicate as spokespersons of the nuclear industry. 12 The Belgian forum was founded in 1972 by French, British and Belgian organizations (Areva, Electrabel, Westinghouse and Tractebel); its nature has evolved, as it is explained on the website, from a forum of information for nuclear industry professionals to the role of a communication agent between this world and the media and global public. Its internal structure is small and light: a president, a general secretary and an operational staff of three people. This group works as a ‘hub’ of different actors that includes members of the forum, different pro-nuclear opinion leaders and a series of communication agencies. 13
The political context of the forum has been marked by two events: the ‘Phase-out’ law (2003), which established the progressive elimination of Belgian nuclear power to be completed in 2025, and a decision taken in 2009 to postpone the first phase of this plan by 10 years. 14 The website is a part of a bigger device including communication campaigns, like those of 2009–10 and 2012. The website also functions as a memory of this larger device – for example, it keeps images and videos about certain events organized as parts of specific campaigns. The aim of the forum is to become ‘the reference in the field of pacific applications of nuclear power’. 15 Among its activities, the forum wants to ‘inform’ and ‘make [citizens] aware’ in order to ‘contribute to the social dialogue on energy’.
I observed some aspects of the way in which the forum’s website proposes a specific kind of relation with the web surfers. Following Johannes (2009: 74), in the past there was a clear contradiction between the logic of image (the ‘intention to orient opinions in a favourable way’) and the logic of relation (to ‘leave a space to listening and consideration for contrary opinions’). In March and April 2011 the website presented a series of connected pages about different subjects: nuclear current affairs (dominated by the tragedy of Fukushima), the identity of the forum and its activities, a series of themes linked to nuclear technology and energy. Interactivity was limited to the presence of small buttons and links to ‘read more’ and to ‘react’. A section, on ‘debates’, was announced in particular as a place for confrontation.
Unfortunately, in March and April the links to react did not work, confirming the observations Johannes made two years before, with the aggravating aspect of a false invitation to debate and confrontation. 16 The last reaction, posted at the end of April 2011, dated back to 14 November 2010; the ‘chat’ had been inactive since 12 May 2009; finally, the ‘free discussion’ section was in fact reserved for pro-nuclear opinion leaders, invited by the forum. This resulted in a static site, and also in a modification of the meaning of the word ‘forum’. The Merriam Webster online dictionary, for example, states that a forum (in the specific field of media) is ‘a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas’. Connotations of openness and neutrality are clearly exploited by different national pro-nuclear organizations, even if the absence of real interaction and the control on the content are far from the current meaning of the terms.
A new exploration of the interactive aspects of the website on 25 May 2011 revealed that there had been a restyling of the visual organization of the website (large scrolling images on the first page, a different spatial organization, different typefaces, etc.). More importantly, the false invitation to interact had been eliminated: now, the only possibility of feedback was an email to the staff. 17 A reserved section for journalists had been created. The new version of the website was globally non-interactive as the relational logic has been (almost) completely abandoned. 18
From the enunciation point of view, the website offered different configurations, following the different types of texts that compose the global ‘map text’. In the months of March, April and May 2011, the opening pages offered a few examples of interpellation (‘questions you ask’). On the other pages there were examples of ‘inclusive us’ and of interpellation (‘discover …’) in a global context of balance between impersonal enunciation (third-person discourse) and direct interpellation of the reader (first and second-person discourse).
Videos proposed in the website 19 were in many cases advertisements (issue ads) previously shown on TV, and they can be interpreted as ‘flux’ components of the global ‘map’ hypertext: the web surfer is invited to disconnect from the active research of information inside the ‘map’ in order to follow an involving discourse. Some of the videos propose a sort of ‘internal reasoning’ on arguments in favour and against nuclear power. Often, videos do not clearly enunciate a final statement in favour of nuclear power, but suggest the reasonability of it. 20 Enunciation proposes an ‘inclusive us’ form, and some cases of direct interpellation (‘you’). The enunciator takes a position that is close to the receiver, offering the reader a rational journey that is ‘shareable’, and activating a sort of mimetic mechanism (reader and author, we share the same logic and rational journey). It is an example of ‘enunciation illusion’: the text creates an effect of fusion with the reader and his/her own reasoning, the traces of enunciation are not cancelled, but on the contrary exhibited. In this way, the texts tend to create the impression of direct contact with the inner experience of a character by ascribing to the reader the thoughts, emotions and reflections of that character.
The visual components of many of these videos show an animation of the narration (phrases appear on the screen in synchrony with their oral enunciation), reinforcing by redundancy the effect of evidence and inevitability of the reasoning.
The textual device of these videos is of course nearer to the model of flux texts. From the point of view of the basic effect of texts, a specific opposition proposed by Michel Foucault (2001) can be evoked. Based on the proposition of this French author we can distinguish between pedagogy, which is the transmission of information in order to build the competence of a rational subject, and ‘psychagogy’ (a combination of ‘psyche’ and ‘goge’, to lead), the proposition of an involving experience in order to create a mimetic adhesion to a message, by using strategies such as the ‘enunciation illusion’ – the (illusory) inclusion of the reader in the enunciation act represented in the text. Pedagogy is based on the proposition of information, and of the method used to treat and elaborate this information (as in school situations), while psychagogy is influence based on the proposition of an experience, the transmission of emotions and feelings about something. Flux texts are often ‘psychagogical’ devices, aimed at leading the receiver to an emotionally charged experience of sense. Psychagogy (involving the receiver in an intense experience), which is dominant in the case of the Areva advert (see ‘Telling stories before the catastrophe’ below), is a minor component of the ‘textual galaxy’ of the Belgian nuclear forum website, dominated by a more pedagogical attitude (offering interesting information on nuclear power and stimulating explicitly the reflection of the reader). At the same time, enunciation illusion (the effect of a direct contact with the enunciator’s feelings and reasoning) is added to the dominant ‘referential illusion’, that is the impression of realism and truth in relation to the external world, based on referential discourse and images that propose an accumulation of details and information on states of things. In this way, from a more theoretical point of view, two oppositions (enunciation illusion vs. referential illusion, and ‘psychagogy’ vs. pedagogy) can be added to the other already described (flux vs. map texts; see Figure 1).
Some basic oppositions
Globally, the Belgian nuclear forum website offers an example of progressive abandon of a rich version of relational 2.0 logic, in favour of a logic that includes a poorer version of interaction; one-way communication, persuasion (based on pedagogy, map texts and referential illusion, with a limited component of ‘psychagogy’, flux texts and enunciation illusion) and image-building are dominant on two-way communication, conversation and listening. 21 Some people could see in this movement a reflex, an indicator of the global phenomenon of ‘disempowerment’ and reduction of public access indicated by Kinsella. It can also be taken as an example of a specific defensive strategy in a context of growing criticism towards nuclear power. 22
Italian nuclear forum: Relation and persuasion
The non-governmental organization (NGO) Forum nucleare italiano was created in 2009. It is a small organization, 23 which includes an assembly, a directive council, some supportive organs and an operational staff. Its supporting members include the protagonists of the nuclear industry, starting with EDF and Enel. The president is Chicco Testa, originally anti-nuclear but now an advocate of nuclear power. The goals of the forum are the ‘promotion of information and debate’ on nuclear power, and the ‘support’ of it as a source of energy. As in Belgium, the Italian forum launched an important communication campaign at the end of 2010 (supported, among others, by communications agency Hill & Knowlton), including a TV advert 24 and the website. The latter was a rich platform, continually updated, with different types of content: current affairs, didactic information on nuclear power, laws and legal documentation, texts from pro- and anti-nuclear opinion leaders, and a blog, ‘Newclear’, that appeared as a real space for feedback and discussion. 25 The blog’s posts were published by the president and other staff members, and they also intervened in discussions about specific posts. 26 A new observation in September 2011 (after our first observations in March, April and May 2011, and after the negative result of the referendum of June 2011, which blocked the construction of nuclear power stations in Italy) showed that the website is not visible anymore online (it is ‘under construction’). The only active part is the blog. Consequently, the following analysis refers to the website as it was in March, April and May 2011. 27
The blog (and the rest of the website before its closure) generally presented a third-person style of enunciation. The result is a serious and institutional tone. This enunciation form is coherent with the basic ‘reading contract’ proposed to the web surfer, which includes serious and precise information and a specific axiological position (pro-nuclear) well defended and articulated in a logical and rational way: information is connected to a form of rational and pedagogical advocacy. Referential illusion was dominant inside the website before its closure: the website proposed a ‘complete’ vision of nuclear affairs in Italy and Europe, which also included rational opponent voices. This latter inclusion had the effect of legitimizing the open nature of the ‘forum’. The blog proposes comments on the situation of energy production around the world, underlining, for example, difficulties linked to the abandonment of nuclear power after Fukushima, and takes a ‘serious’, rational and referential approach, while maintaining a clear partisan point of view.
Exceptions to the global third-person enunciation can be seen in some videos, like the one analysed in the next section (and accessible before summer 2011 in the ‘videos’ section of the website): the journalist, Cecchi Paone, makes direct contact with his public. Another exception is the Forum Nucleare Italiano TV advert, proposed also in the video section of the website.The advert shows a chess match between two characters, one anti-nuclear and the other pro-nuclear: each move is accompanied by an argument against or in favour of nuclear power (the arguments against come first). 28 The exchange ends with the two characters (dressed in a very similar way) turning their eyes towards the observer and asking him/her a question. 29 This scene clearly wants to legitimize the theme, which was ‘taboo’ before, by mobilizing ‘psychagogic’ mechanisms, as in the Belgian case (a reasoning enunciated by the characters offered to the audience for identification). This advert is also an example of involving flux text, even if it is shorter than the video on nuclear energy and the Areva advert. As in the case of the Belgian forum, videos like these were a psychagogical ‘ingredient’ of the global pedagogical galaxy of the website (a map text, dominated by pedagogy and by referential illusion), which proposed a rational vision of nuclear energy, of its presence in the world, and rational reasons in favour of it.
Before its closure, the interactive and enunciation model of the Italian website was globally less monologic and more open to interaction than in the Belgian case. The web surfers had (and still have, in 2012) the possibility of posting their comments freely and of reading other comments in the blog section, which is completely absent in the Belgian case. Interaction and persuasion were not opposed, but combined; there were some (limited and controlled) spaces for interaction in the blog. This combination was probably motivated by a context that is different from the Belgian case: nuclear energy was a ‘taboo’ to be destroyed by mobilizing and attacking contrary opinions, and by legitimizing it through debate. The presence of reasons against nuclear power and the space left to public discussion, in the context of Italian public opinion, could have a pedagogical and persuasive function: they opened the way to the proposition of ‘conversion paths’ offered to the web surfer, 30 and contributed to the building of an image of openness and goodwill. Following the closure of the website, the blog continues to propose pro-nuclear posts and to offer a conversational space that is also a ‘conversion space’, waiting for a new version of the global website. In this case, the hypothesis of a ‘disempowerment’ of the public is not completely confirmed.
As we have tried to show, nuclear forum websites are complex devices (map texts that integrate also some flux texts) that mobilize both referential and enunciation illusions, and both pedagogy and psychagogy: the first term in each category (map, referential illusion and pedagogy) is dominant, the second is a complementary strategy. Web surfers can always pass from map to flux, even if the second model is less evident and accessible, in particular after the Japanese tragedy. Pro-nuclear flux texts were evident before the tragedy, distributed via TV screens or on the internet. Their survival after Fukushima is more obscure, because they persist in the internal section of the forum websites, or (outside the control of their producers) on YouTube and similar social medias, where they are exposed to critical comments from the public (when commentary is possible). In the Italian case in particular, the website has been a victim of the failure of a political and communications strategy, and its closure is proof of the search for a new approach.
Telling stories before the catastrophe
In this section, I present the results of a semiotic analysis of two videos: an advertisement by the French nuclear group Areva in 2011 and a didactic video sent to Italians by the two energy providers Enel and EDF in 2011. The two videos, which are flux texts according to my earlier definition, will be analysed in order to understand what kind of story they tell about nuclear power and whether a modernistic storytelling (in the sense of a positive image of nuclear power as an inevitable achievement and step in the progress of humanity) is proposed through them.
In the case of the French advertisement, the analysis has focused on three aspects: the identification of specific ‘narrative programmes’ (programmes of actions of the actors represented in the texts); the observation of the action of filming (how filming is realized); the observation of connections established between nuclear elements (such as the representation of nuclear power plants) and other significant elements of the narrative world (such as the natural environment) in order to identify possible specific effects on sense production originated by the connections.
Areva’s advertisement: ‘Energy, One Powerful Story’
In January 2011, Areva, a French (public owned) nuclear firm that specializes in the building and maintenance of nuclear power plants, carried out a global campaign about the story of energy (a video advertisement entitled ‘Energy: One Powerful Story’): there were 1500 occurrences of the advertisement, 30 TV channels were involved and the campaign cost 20 million euros. The campaign was managed as an event, with the launch of a ‘making of’ video that tells the story of the complex preparation of the video and explains the links with the corporate identity and values of Areva. Anti-nuclearist groups have contested the campaign: a complaint presented by the network Sortir du nucléaire to the French advertising standards board was not accepted. The Fukushima catastrophe forced Areva to stop the campaign and, since March 2011, the spot has only been available on YouTube and other websites – a testimony to how the internet is able to retain the memory of past events despite communication plans and strategies – while the explanation of the campaign and the ‘making of’ video are still available on the Areva website’s internal pages.
The advertisement 31 is very long (two minutes), this is in order to make a real impression in the mass of TV or cinema commercials. Furthermore it appears in this way as a real flux text. There are four parts to the advert, each for a specific historical period and form of energy. 32 It is a video made of synthetic images of high quality. The four represented worlds are connected to different visual styles, as explained on the Areva website; 33 the music is also adapted to each scene (from classical to computer-generated music). The result is very coherent and spectacular. Each ‘world’ (Babylon or a generic Middle Eastern ancient city, a Middle Ages town, a European 19th-century industrial city, etc.) shows different activities (commerce, building a cathedral, extracting coal and travelling, watching a film, partying) but always with a more or less strong connection to energy production, which we could call ‘a use narrative programme’. 34 Each time the use narrative programme of energy production is represented in a different technological situation, energies appear as the narrative helper that humans need (it goes without saying that Areva is potentially the best of the helpers at the end).
Enunciation filming solutions are based on a very dynamic type of sequence-shot: the camera penetrates and travels inside the different scenes. In this way, the observer is given a sort of powerful and dominant position: he/she is able to dominate time and space, creating continuity inside change and the difference of time and space. The passage from one scene to the next appears to the observer as quite dramatic (the camera ‘falls’ towards different elements of the image, like a bell tower or a railway station). 35 But each time the same continuous movement of the camera penetrates each scene until the (provisional) end with the final scene of a party: at the end of the video, the ‘camera’ shoots a group of young people having fun and dancing on the top of a building, not far from a nuclear power plant. 36 The camera sequence-shot reinforces the global sense of linear change and evolution, which is the meaning of the campaign and the central aspect of the image that Areva wants to propose. 37
The final scene proposes nuclear energy (a two-reactor nuclear plant) in harmony with renewable energy (a solar field, wind turbines in the laguna), with nature (green hills, blue ocean) and mankind (young happy people dancing). Nuclear energy seems to be valorized as being good for the environment (against climate change), a basic argument of recent pro-nuclear communication. The visual connection between nuclear energy, renewable energies and a clean environment is very strong, and the narrative world is clearly oriented: nuclear energy is shown as a present and future substitute of coal and petrol, instead of (for example) an energy developed in parallel with (and complementary to) the increase in oil exploitation (e.g. in the 1950s). A critical approach can reveal different connections (nuclear and oil, instead of nuclear and renewable energies) that could break the linearity of the advertisement. But the flux text of the advertisement is completely coherent in its progression towards a better future, which includes nuclear energy. Represented human basic narrative programmes can change (commerce, religion, having fun) but the role of energy is always important. The short verbal text at the end of the advertisement invites the reader to become involved in the ‘writing’ of the story of energy.
This advertisement seems to propose a form of narrative not far from the ‘modernistic narrative’ of nuclear energy identified by Kinsella. In his vision, ‘notions of inevitability, technological determinism, or “autonomous technology” … often inflect the entelechy principle [the definition of the essence of nuclear energy], in technological discourse generally and in nuclear discourse more specifically’ (2005: 65). Determinism and the idea that there is ‘an unknowable telos [goal, destiny] that drives history’ linked to the nuclear energy (and technology in general), and as a result, the reduction of the space left to individual human responsibility and possible alternatives, are important aspects of nuclear discourse, according to Kinsella. The ‘story of energy’ of Areva (from the Ancient world to the 21st century, with nuclear as a part of the future) proposes a vision that appears as a positive, euphoric and spectacular version of this narrative: a better future is linked to nuclear technology.
Is the evolution proposed really ‘deterministic’, and is the narrative world of Areva an ideological operation in the sense of a semantic operation that hides different possible interpretations? I find some signals of ambiguity in the linear and evolutionist scenario, but also in the final verbal text, proposed at the end of the advert: 38 the passive form (the story of energy that is ‘being written’) contrasts with the successive ‘inclusive us’ form (‘let’s continue to write it …’). The story of energy is written by ‘us all’, but it is also a sort of transcendent story that goes beyond individual responsibility, too big to be controlled. The advert is a good example of flux text, built to involve the public in a filmic emotional impressive experience. 39
The Italian video ‘La tecnologia nucleare’
The second example of nuclear flux text comes from Italy. The video ‘la tecnologia nucleare’ was analysed in order to identify the presence of reductive and ideological elements, possibly linked to the construction of a linear and unilaterally positive vision of nuclear power. I focused, in particular, on verbal texts dedicated to the description of different aspects of nuclear power and on visual aspects of the narrative world proposed for this type of energy production (type of shooting, type of images).
Some of the focus will be on the context of the distribution of the video. The Italian government decided, between 2009 and 2010, to re-launch the building of nuclear power stations. 40 A big multimedia campaign was prepared, including the Nuclear Forum website and a TV advert (see the previous section). The campaign included also the launch of a didactic video (financed by Enel and EDF, the most important Italian and French energy operators) dedicated to the presentation of nuclear energy, different types of nuclear plants and the environmental advantages of this kind of energy. 41 The video, entitled ‘The nuclear technology’, published on YouTube 42 and distributed on a DVD enclosed in some Italian popular newspapers such as the Corriere della sera is presented by Alessandro Cecchi Paone, a well-known Italian TV scientific journalist and presenter. He clearly acts as a witness of scientific and rationality – a reassuring and popular enunciator.
The video is articulated in three parts: a basic presentation about nuclear power, nuclear plants around the world, and the advantages to Italy of nuclear power; a presentation of different types of nuclear power plants; and, finally, a presentation of the treatment of nuclear waste and security. The verbal text proposed by the journalist is full of clearly oriented statements, in particular in the first and last parts. Nuclear power is described as a ‘new energy’, 43 while ‘energy, all types of energy, is life’ (so, too, nuclear power). The journalist affirms that fossil fuels will run out, not mentioning the fact that uranium will have the same destiny (with the probability of it being much later). A clear choice is made by putting nuclear energy in the group of ‘alternative energies’ together with the renewable ones. The fact that nuclear energy is ‘the only technology able to produce electricity on a large scale with carbon emission next to zero’, and that ‘without nuclear energy, there is no solution [to the energy problem]’, are also clearly controversial. These kind of statements tend to build a linear semantic and narrative space in which nuclear power has only positive values and in which it is presented as an aid in a series of positive narrative programmes (energy autonomy and environmental problems in particular).
Kinsella (2005) states in his paper that nuclear power knowledge is traditionally reserved for elites, with processes of ‘rhetorical boundary work’ aimed at separating the ‘public’ and the ‘technical’ spheres. In the Italian video there is a different type of rhetorical work. Knowledge is partially revealed in a popularizing way. The information is of course very limited, but most of all there is a meta-discursive effect of revelation. For example, the journalist affirms that: ‘together we will try to deal with this subject in a clear and complete way’. This kind of sentence reinforces the connotation of completeness and control, which is the basic rhetorical effect of such a didactical flux text. The knowledge revealed by the video is coherent, non-controversial and simple: everything is clear and placed as a whole.
The power of verbal forms is also used: a sentence such as ‘here they are, the reactors that will be built in Italy’ expresses a certain and non-controversial vision of the future, a clear destiny, implicitly taking the decision out of public discussion and decision.
The visual aspect of the video is functional to building a coherent informative, popularizing and persuasive device. The host acts and moves in a completely synthetic space, manipulating objects and images in a hyper-technological environment. The video starts with images of molecules and atoms, the figure of the host emerges from a ‘cube of energy’, while he explains that ‘energy gives movement to the matter’. The camera moves from the infinitely small to the immensely big, from atoms to the earth, and, as in the Areva advert, penetrates beyond limits and forms. Objects such as nuclear plants take form under the eyes of the reader. The global rhetorical effect is one of complete visual control of reality, linked to visual pleasure and spectacle: the world of nuclear energy is clear, comprehensible, clean and completely visible. The hyper-technological filmed world, redundant and coherent, and the style of shooting (that creates an impression of complete visibility on reality), creates a global effect of euphoric rational domination and control, reinforced by music. It is remarkable that in the two cases (French and Italian, advertising and didactic video) the chosen visual language is that of synthetic images: this choice opens the way to the creation of a perfectly abstract and controlled version of reality, a sort of independent and autonomous fictional world.
Globally, the video is built as a pedagogical device that mixes a documentary and a popularizing attitude with a clear promotional and persuasive one. This video appears as the perfect realization of the programme enunciated by Berlusconi in April 2010 during a press conference in Rome. 44 On this occasion, Berlusconi clearly said that there were no alternatives to the construction of new nuclear power plants in Italy, and that it was necessary to ‘change Italian public opinion’ and to carry out ‘significant work in persuasion’ to convince Italians to accept nuclear plants in their regions. The basic decision was, as usual in the history of nuclear power following Kinsella, taken out of the sphere of public debate. The communication model evoked by the Italian prime minister was quite asymmetric and one-way: the form of communication identified is more the simple uni-directional action of persuasion about the goodness of a decision already taken than an effort to provide information about a decision to be taken, in order to promote a form of public debate. In this way, even if the ‘mystery’ aspect of nuclear discourse is attenuated in texts such as the didactic video, the effect of reducing spaces for real public debate tends to be reproduced, even in public declarations.
The Enel–EDF video is clearly functional to this project. At the end, the journalist Cecchi Paone affirms that the objective of the video was to ‘provoke a common reflection’ on the fact that ‘perhaps nuclear power is not the only solution to the energy problem, but certainly without nuclear power there is no solution’. The invitation to common reflection is partially in contrast with the authoritative end (‘certainly’). The discourse appears as linear, simplified, ‘aseptic’, asymmetric, mixing science and reassurance about a political decision (given as already taken).
In these two examples of modern nuclear storytelling in Italy and in France, the modernistic narrative of nuclear power as inevitable technological development is still present but adapted to the changing society. The fascination for science and technology, the ‘marvel’ of the atomic dimension, and nationalism are still there. The new element is made up of the themes of environmental protection (the low carbon emissions) and the protection of the level of life (expressed by the young people dancing not far from an atomic reactor). As in the case of the ‘new spirit of capitalism’ described by Boltanski and Chiapello (2005), we can talk about a ‘new spirit of nuclear power’, greener but also more hedonistic.
The tragedy of Fukushima has created a problem for this sort of ‘flux nuclear textuality’: the overwhelming images of the explosions in the Japanese plants created too big a contrast to the spectacular, utopian and clean narrative universes of texts such as the Areva spot and the Italian didactic video, leaving space to more neutral information and crisis communication. 45 But the other type of text, the ‘map nuclear textuality’, can still be developed, as in the case of the websites of the two nuclear forums (see previous section).
Some conclusions: Nuclear storytelling, pedagogy, psychagogy and the ‘meta-narrative’ of the environment in nuclear discourses
After this short exploration of some recent European pro-nuclear flux and map texts, we can come back to the initial objects of this article: the new forms of the traditional ‘modernistic’ narrative of nuclear energy, and the eventual presence of forms of ‘disempowerment’.
The Areva advert (a good example of flux psychagogical text) and the Italian video on nuclear technologies (a flux text that mixes pedagogy and psychagogy, with strong elements of probable ideological simplification) are examples of the adaptation of the modernistic narrative identified by Kinsella. Nuclear power has a clear destiny as a solution to energy needs, in a linear way. The two texts show clearly two forms of adaptation of this old narrative to a new context.
The first form of adaptation is the appearance of the environment and of its protection. Following the postmodern theory of ‘grand’ or ‘meta-narratives’ (global narrative forms of sense organization, such as religions or political ideologies), some scholars have proposed considering the narrative based on menaces, destruction and protection of the environment as a new meta-narrative, which emerged after the (partial) elimination (at least in some parts of the world) of the traditional ones (Catellani, 2010; Jalenques, 2006). A meta-narrative can be seen as a supply of sense, signs and meaning, which can be mobilized and used by concrete social actors in their discourses. It can be seen as a series of ‘paradigms’, in the sense that this term has in linguistics: a list of different possibilities of linguistic production in different sectors of a given language (different possible words for the description of specific objects, different verbs, different pronouns, etc.). In a similar way, the environmental meta-narrative proposes some pre-defined expressive elements to concrete actors for their discursive productions. It proposes, for example, some colours (green, or in some cases blue, as the colours of environment), or specific forms and pictograms (the three arrows that form a circle as a symbol of recycling). It offers also specific objects and elements that can be presented in texts as ‘emblems’ of the environment (the polar bear or, some years ago, the panda; melting glaciers and other ‘condensation symbols’, following Cox 2010), but also a specific basic narrative scheme, such as that of the progressive global warming resulting from human intervention. In this last case (abstract narrative schemes), the different ‘places’ (or ‘actants’, in the jargon of narratology, the science of narrative, see Floch 2001) like the place of the victims, of the ‘villain’ (the polluter) and of the environmental hero, are at the disposal of concrete actors. Different discourses can use differently these basic narrative schemes. For example, Greenpeace could put (part of) big multinational corporations in the place of the ‘villain’, 46 while corporations tend to represent themselves as heroes of a rational and advanced form of environmentalism (always combined with business, and social responsibility).
The ‘modernistic’ narrative of nuclear power (represented as an inevitable step towards progress) is revitalized by this (quite) new meta-narrative, a powerful source of meaning and sense. The dominant form of this presence is the discourse on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions permitted by nuclear power stations. Nuclear power becomes a ‘helper’ in the difficult task (or ‘narrative programme’) of reducing dangerous emissions, finding its place in the narrative schemes offered by the meta-narrative.
The second adaptation of the traditional modernistic narrative of nuclear power is the link to individualism and, in particular, the centrality of personal wellness, pleasure and subjective feelings. In the Areva advert, the narrative programme supported by the production of energy in the last part dedicated to the 21st century is having fun and dancing.
Hedonistic individualism and environmental issues are two central elements of our time, and two basic sources of meaning. The French nuclear industry tried to mobilize these sources in its advert, as perhaps (much more globally) capitalism has also done. The inclusion of environmental preoccupations and of hedonistic individualism can be considered as a central aspect of this adaptation of traditional nuclear justification strategies (the ‘new spirit of nuclear power’), as new empirical research can prove. This form of storytelling has been stopped by the invasion of a different story from Japan, even if it can be revitalized in the future.
The Italian and Belgian nuclear forums have been analysed with specific attention to their interactive and enunciation strategies, and to the combination of flux and map, psychagogy and pedagogy, enunciation and referential illusions. From these points of view, they present some differences. Between 2009 and 2011 the Belgian forum abandoned most 2.0 elements and became basically a monological ‘store window’ of the nuclear industry, and an example of a defensive strategy. In 2012 the new campaign against the ‘Phase-out’ law has increased the number of videos and introduced the possibility of sending questions (exhibited to exalt the ‘openness’ and the popularity of the forum), but interaction is still completely controlled and ‘filtered’ by the forum. Hostile, ironic, critical questions (such as those suggested by Greenpeace Belgium, who organized recently a counter-campaign 47 ) are probably not published, and there is no possibility of a real debate through systems such as blogs or social network pages. On the contrary, the Italian forum’s website had, during the period of observation, a richer interactive dimension on its blog. Later, the failure of the campaign and the negative result of the referendum in June 2011 led to the abandonment of the 1.0 component of the website: a solution opposed to that of the Belgian forum, even if the closing is clearly temporary, and the blog maintains its strong pro-nuclear profile.
These opposite movements are justified probably by the context. The Belgian forum adopted a strategy of keeping a ‘low profile’ in the period between the two different campaigns and in a context in which there were risks of the acceleration of the abandonment of nuclear energy. The forum wanted to avoid all forms of public exposure whilst waiting for the new 2012 campaign (which has revitalized the website). The Italian forum keeps its more open attitude through the blog (also accepting different and hostile comments) in a circumstance where nuclear power has already been abandoned and there is ‘nothing to lose’ in trying to ‘intercept’ public online attention and discussion.
During the observation period, both websites showed a domination of pedagogy and referential illusion on psychagogy and enunciation illusion. Flux texts produced before Fukushima have been integrated in the global hypertextual structure as minor components, types of ‘rests’ that witness a ‘psychagogical’ way of communication although completely abandoned, as in the Italian case. Of course, psychagogy and flux can develop again, if the context and the strategy changes: in 2012 this is the case with the new campaign of the Belgian forum, which has introduced a series of new videos, while keeping the global equilibrium between flux and map, pedagogy and psychagogy, referential and enunciation illusion in the website. The story of the evolution of nuclear communication in different countries continues, keeping its strong link with the political and economic context.
The analysis of map and flux texts can show how different enunciation and interactive solutions, such as those identified in our corpus, can be linked to different axiological positions (against or in favour of nuclear energy). 48 From this point of view, texts can be classified in different positions, derived by the combination of some oppositional couples: ‘monologue vs. dialogue’ (a single enunciator or many different in the same textual device), ‘juxtaposition vs. syntaxic relation’ (different opinions simply exposed in different texts, or a real debate between their defenders) and ‘axiological uniformity vs. axiological diversity’ (one or more positions in the same textual device). Here below I propose some observation on the most important combinations of these three oppositions:
Axiological uniformity: one or more enunciators, all sharing a unique axiology. In the Belgian forum, and in a big part of the Italian one, this is (or was) the dominant choice, and it is the case, of course, of the Areva advertisement and of the Enel-EDF videos on nuclear energy. It is the solution more distant from the condition of a real ‘forum’, and the nearest to the condition of ‘traditional’ corporate discourse, quite allergic to debate and controversy. The questions addressed by the public and answered by the Belgian Nuclear Forum do not change this situation (the questions published do not introduce a real opposition).
Juxtaposition of enunciations with axiologies in opposition: This choice was dominant in the case of the ‘in favour and against’ session of the Italian forum: many voices represented different positions. There is no dialogue or discussion between different enunciators, and their simple presence legitimizes the instance responsible of the juxtaposition as open and neutral. In this way, pro-nuclear argumentations find a place in a dominantly hostile public space, breaking the ‘taboo’.
Syntaxic axiological construction: This would be the case of a real ‘forum’, with real conversations and dialogues. The Italian forum’s ‘Newclear’ blog is not far from this configuration because web surfers can comment freely on each post, even if a clear hierarchy is made between pro-nuclear posts and (pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear) comments. A more complete analysis of the blog could confirm if this conversational space is more a device to nourish the image of openness and a protected electronic place in which a limited number of ‘habitués’ develop long and perhaps sterile disputes, rather than a real instrument of public debate.
Simulation of a syntaxic axiological construction: In this case, different axiological positions are evoked by the same enunciation instance or by different (fictional) enunciators, while discourse is dominated by a unique axiology. It is necessary to distinguish this case from the general phenomenon of ‘polyphony’, studied by authors such as Ducrot (1984). Pro-nuclear argumentations necessarily include, in a more or less evident form, the opposed positions: they are for instance implicit answers to criticism. What is underlined here is a different phenomenon (a specific case of polyphony), present in the Italian TV advert (the chess game) and in some Belgian video-messages. In the Italian advert, two enunciators represent two opposed axiological positions: this is a simulation of a real interaction, useful for influencing the reasoning of the audience in a mimetic way. The Belgian videos present a different solution: a unique ‘voice’ enunciates reasons in favour and against nuclear power. The mimetic effect on the audience is very similar, but the enunciation structure is different. Simulation of a syntaxic axiological construction is particularly diffused in flux texts to ‘capture’ the reasoning process of the receiver, and to show the reasonability of pro-nuclear arguments.
In our corpus (French and Italian TV adverts and videos, Belgian video-messages, Italian and Belgian ‘forums’), the model of axiological uniformity is dominant. The syntactic model is present in a limited form (and most probably as a means of legitimization, as already seen in the Italian case). The simulation of the syntactic model, with its mimetic ‘psychagogical’ effects, appears as a complement to the dominant model of explicit uniformity, in the case of flux texts. Nuclear forums and pro-nuclear videos and adverts appear as devices built to produce axiological uniformity. From this point of view, web 2.0 can be simply abandoned, or integrated as a subcomponent useful to legitimize and modernize the campaign.
In conclusion, is it possible to talk about forms of ‘disempowerment’ of the public in the case of the important stakes of nuclear power production as they are presented in the texts analysed in this article? The analysis has showed in some cases the appearance of communication forms dangerously near to this type of phenomenon. We can remember the limited presence of real syntactic spaces from the point of view of axiology and enunciation, ‘ideological’ simplifications in the Italian video on nuclear technology and in the narrative world of the French advert, and the partial ‘regression’ of the Belgian ‘forum’ from Web 2.0 to 1.0.
The corpus examined was limited, and our observations have to be confirmed by more extended research; but qualitative research is also useful so as to propose new directions and models for larger explorations. It could also be possible to find similar phenomena in the case of anti-nuclear communication, which appears sometimes in its turn as ‘ideological’, monologic and axiologically uniform. Criticism and anti-nuclear discourse can be analysed from a semiotic point of view. Future research should compare pro-nuclear communication to anti-nuclear communication, and give some basis for the possible development of better forms of institutional communication on this crucial theme. A possible ideal would be the construction of what Umberto Eco called ‘non-ideological persuasive statements’ (1976; see Catellani 2011b): forms of persuasive communication that exclude all sorts of ‘spin’ and reduction. This different (and perhaps utopian) form of communication is a necessary goal from a moral point of view, but the context of widespread criticism and empowering of the public supported (among other factors) by the internet revolution makes it also urgent. Monologic semiotic devices can be an important and unavoidable resource. But the necessity of ‘accepting conversations’ and of taking criticism and scrutiny more into consideration (and, of course, of avoiding oversimplified storytelling) is evident for all kinds of institutions, which cannot pretend to control the meaning production as they (partially) did in the past.
This article wanted also to show an example of how semiotics can contribute to understanding the possibility of the meaning production offered by public relations and communication supports. I think that semiotics can help by ensuring that semiotic devices are considered in analysing public relations dynamics. Even if sense-making and meaning production are made by social actors in their interactions, signs (and texts, which are complex signs) keep their importance as traces of this meaning production. Sense-making, and communication, pass inevitably through signs. Semiotics is a qualitative form of analysis that can help in identifying the probable meaning that will be produced by specific texts: in this way, it can help in deepening public relations research and practice. Semiotic categories and schemes can be applied to different types of signs, such as written and oral documents, images and videos, which already exist and circulate (like the corpus I analysed in these pages). But they can also be used in analysing, for example, the results of interviews and observation. Semiotic analysis is not limited to pre-existing texts, but can be applied also to data produced or ‘provoked’ by the researcher during his/her analysis. Distinctions such as the opposition between referential and enunciation illusion, or between flux and map texts, can be identified in very different types of text and semiotic device. Each aspect of PR and communication campaigns can be analysed with semiotic tools. Good semiotic analysis can help in deepening the comprehension of how discourses and signs work in everyday communication, helping researchers and practitioners in their efforts. The link between critical approaches and semiotics is also clear, as the seminal works of authors such as Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco in the 1960s and 1970s show (see e.g. Eco, 1976). Semiotics can show how texts and their internal composition can create forms of reduction and the over-simplification of reality (as I tried to do in relation to ‘nuclear storytelling’; see also Catellani, 2011b).
A traditional criticism of semiotics is concerned with its (presumed) lack of attention for contexts and concrete communicational situations: what is ‘around’ the text influences deeply the way in which the meaning is produced. This is true, and semiotics tries to integrate the consideration of (social, political, economic, cultural) contexts in its analysis, as I tried to do in the case of my corpus, using data from different documents and sources (including questions asked of staff members of the two forums) in order to facilitate the understanding of the context of this kind of communication support. Different groups of authors, such as the supporters of ‘socio-sémiotique’ (Landowski, 1989, 2003) and of ‘social semiotics’ (Van Leeuwen, 2005), despite the epistemological and theoretical differences, are developing this kind of approach, which keeps the attention focused on texts, while deepening at the same time the consideration of contexts. Other authors (such as Fontanille, 2008) underline the fact that semiotics in itself can analyse complex situations and lifestyles, with its own tools, going beyond the traditional categories of ‘texts’ (written, oral and visual).
I think that the attention to the internal organization of texts (their forms, their ‘structure’) maintains its importance today because social actors are influenced by it in their communication processes. The text is still a source of agency in itself: interpretation is oriented and influenced by it, and specific attention to its internal form is clearly justified. I think qualitative approaches to public relations analysis can be enriched by semiotics, which enable us to take into consideration the importance of basic tools of public relations practitioners, that is, all that can be used as a sign.