Abstract:
This paper utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to explore the dimensions of domination and freedom
within two significant public forums on climate change in Utah: (1) the resolution HJR 12 passed in the Utah
State Legislature in 2010 and (2) the Blue Ribbon Committee on Climate Change (BRAC) process organized in
2006. The resolution HJR 12 reflects an extremist or inflammatory rhetoric point of view, while BRAC presents
itself as a beacon of bureaucratic rationality, efficiency, and hierarchy. Forums such as these are force-feeding
Americans subtly and not so subtly with divisive discourse and restrictive visions that pollute American politics
and weaken the nation's capacity to address and solve its most challenging problems. HJR 12 exemplifies the
role interpretive control plays in silencing those who disagree. The BRAC process illustrated how bureaucracy
and rationalization may constrain future vision and action, reinforce current power structures, and encourage
extreme rhetoric further down the road. This analysis uncovers the idealization of rational power underlying both
forums. This idealization creates an unstable ground where powerplays, poorly disguised as rational policy
making, dominate while silencing other voices. Scholars, government bureaucracies at all levels, and the
American public wishing to deal with today’s complex challenges must purposefully address destructive
assumptions associated with idealized rational processes, while recognizing the important role uncertainty,
values, worldviews, and interests play in encouraging or discouraging policy change.
