Hunting the Beast on YouTube

Open access


Humans’ perceived relationship to nature and non-human lifeforms is fundamental for sustainable development; different framings of nature – as commodity, as threat, as sacred etc. – imply different responses to future challenges. The body of research on nature representations in various symbolic contexts is growing, but the ways in which nature is framed by people in the everyday has received scant attention. This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of the framing of nature by studying how wild-boar hunting is depicted on YouTube. The qualitative frame analysis identified three interrelated frames depicting hunting as battle, as consumption, and as privilege, all of which constitute and are constituted by the underlying notion of human as superior to nature. It is suggested that these hegemonic nature frames suppress more constructive ways of framing the human-nature relationship, but also that the identification of such potential counter-hegemonic frames enables their discursive manifestation.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bordwell David & Thompson Kristin (2012). Film art: An introduction. London: McGraw-Hill.

  • Boykoff Maxwell T. & Boykoff Jules M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of U.S. mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38: 1190-1204.

  • Buell Lawrence (2005). The future of environmental criticism: Environmental crisis and literary imagination. Malden MA: Blackwell Publications.

  • Burgess Jean E. & Green Joshua B. (2009). The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture beyond the professional-amateur divide pp. 89-107 in Snickars Pelle & Vonderau Patrick (eds.) The YouTube reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

  • Carbaugh Donal & Cerulli Tovar (2013). Cultural discourses of dwelling: Investigating environmental communication as a place-based practice. Environmental Communication 7(1): 4-23.

  • Cardoso Gustavo (2012). Networked life world: Four dimensions of the cultures of networked belonging. Observatorio (OBS*) Journal Special Issue: 197-205.

  • Carragee Kevin M. & Roefs Wim (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication 54(2): 214-233.

  • Cassidy Angela & Mills Brett (2012). “Fox tots attack shock”: Urban foxes mass media and boundary-breaching. Environmental Communication 6(4): 494-511.

  • Castells M. (2005). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy society and culture. London: Wiley.

  • Champ Joseph G.; Williams Daniel R. & Lundy Catherine M. (2013). An on-line narrative of Colorado wilderness: Self-in-“cybernetic space”. Environmental Communication 7(1): 131-145.

  • Cox Robert (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication 1(1): 5-20.

  • Corbett Julia B. (2006). Communicating nature. How we create and understand environmental messages. Washington: Island Press.

  • DeLuca Kevin M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

  • DeLuca Kevin M. & Slawter-Volkening Lisa (2009). Memories of the Tropics in industrial jungles: Constructing nature contesting nature. Environmental Communication 3(1): 1-24.

  • Dixon Wheeler W. (2003). Visions of the apocalypse: Spectacles of destruction in American cinema. London: Wallflower Press.

  • Entman Robert M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 52-58.

  • Esaiasson Peter; Gilljam Mikael; Oscarsson Henrik & Wängnerud Lena (2012). Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle individ och marknad [Handbook of methods: The art of studying society individuals and markets]. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.

  • Flyvberg Bent (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245.

  • Gamson William A. (1988). Political discourse and collective action pp. 219-244 in Klandermans Bert; Kriesi Hanspeter & Tarrow Sidney G. (eds.) International social movement research. Greenwich: JAI Press

  • Gamson William A. & Modigliani Andre (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action pp. 137-177 in Braungart Richard D. (ed.) Research in political sociology: A research annual. Greenwich: JAI Press.

  • Ganetz Hillevi (2004). Familiar beasts: Nature culture and gender in wildlife films on television. Nordicom Review 25(1-2): 197–214.

  • Garrard Greg (2012). Ecocriticism. London: Routledge.

  • Goffman Erving (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Gottdiener Mark (1995). Postmodern semiotics: material culture and the forms of postmodern life. Cambridge Mass.: Blackwell.

  • Hansen Anders & Machin David (2013). Researching visual environmental communication. Environmental Communication 7(2): 151-168.

  • Hartman Steven (2007). The rise of American ecoliterature. American Studies in Scandinavia 39: 41-58.

  • Haraway Donna (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs people and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

  • Ingram David (2000). Green screen: Environmentalism and Hollywood cinema. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

  • Ivakhiv Adrian (2008). Stirring the geopolitical unconscious: Towards a Jamesonian ecocriticism. New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics 64: 98-109.

  • Jameson Fredric (1995/1992). The geopolitical aesthetic: Cinema and space in the world system. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Jenkins Henry (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  • Kaika Maria (2005). City of flows. Modernity nature and the city. New York: Routledge.

  • Katerberg Will H. (2008). Future west: Utopia and apocalypse in frontier science fiction. Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas.

  • Lakoff George (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication 4(1): 70-81.

  • Latour Bruno (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  • Macnaghten Phil & Urry J. (1998). Contested natures. London: Sage.

  • Merchant Carolyn (1990). The death of nature: Women ecology and the scientific Revolution. New York: HarperOne.

  • Merchant Carolyn (2003). Reinventing Eden: The fate of nature in western culture. London: Routledge.

  • Milstein Tema (2008). When whales “speak for themselves”: Communication as a mediating force in wildlife tourism. Environmental Communication 2(2): 173-192.

  • Milstein Tema (2009). “Somethin’ tells me it’s all happening at the zoo”: Discourse power and conservationism. Environmental Communication 3(1): 25-48.

  • Oelschlaeger Max (1991). The idea of wilderness. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

  • Olausson Ulrika (2009). Global warming – global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science 18(4): 421-436.

  • Olsen Lester C. Finnegan Cara A. & Hope Diane S. (2008). Visual rhetoric. A reader in communication and American culture. London: SAGE.

  • Ortner Sherry B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? pp. 67-88 in Rosaldo Michelle Z. & Lamphere Louise (eds.) Woman culture and society. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Peeples Jennifer (2011). Toxic sublime: Imaging contaminated landscapes. Environmental Communication 5(4): 373-392.

  • Pan Zhongdang & Kosicki Gerald M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10: 55-75.

  • Plumwood Val (1997). Androcentrism and anthropocentricism: Parallels and politics pp. 327-354 in Warren Karen J. (ed.) Ecofeminism: Women culture nature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Reese Stephen D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication 57: 148-154.

  • Scheufele Dietram A. & Tewksbury David (2007). Framing agenda setting and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 21: 5-31.

  • Seegert Natasha (2014). Queer beasts: Ursine punctures in domesticity. Environmental Communication 8(1): 75-91.

  • Shehata Adam & Hopmann David N. (2012). Framing climate change. Journalism Studies 13(2): 175-192.

  • Sowards Stacey K. (2006). Identification through Orangutans: Destabilizing the nature/culture dualism. Ethics & the Environment 11(2): 45-61.

  • Stiegler Bernard (2009). The carnival of the new screen: From hegemony to isonomy pp. 40-59 in Snickars Pelle & Vonderau Patrick (eds.) The YouTube reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.

  • Stibbe Arran (2001). Language power and the social construction of animals. Society and Animals 9(2): 145-161.

  • Uggla Ylva (2010). What is this thing called “natural”. Journal of Political Ecology 17: 79-91.

  • Uggla Ylva & Olausson Ulrika (2013). The enrollment of nature in tourist information: Framing urban nature as “the other”. Environmental Communication 7(1): 97-112.

  • Willard Barbara E. (2008). Special issue: Communication at the nexus of nature and culture. Environmental Communication 2(2): 129-132.

  • Williams Raymond (1980). Problems in materialism and culture. London: Verso.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.270

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 388 253 13
PDF Downloads 183 128 5