Abstract
This chapter examines how oil and tourism development are culturally evaluated. The analysis reveals differences in the “orders of worth” that shape what is considered valuable and why: (1) ecological worth, which emphasizes ecology, nature conservation, and responses to climate change, and (2) industrial worth, which emphasizes scientific and technical innovation, efficiency, and risk mitigation. The salience of these orders of worth is roughly homologous with the political economy of each region. In Scotland, ecological and industrial worth are nearly equally common, reflecting the perceived compatibility between tourism and oil development. In Norway and Newfoundland and Labrador, the industrial order of worth is dominant. Finally, ecological orders of worth are more common in Iceland and Denmark, where tourism is more visible than oil development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The timing of our data collection is relevant here. Setting aside the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on oil prices, the interviews for the Scottish case took place when oil prices were already in decline. This likely influenced the emphasis on volatility.
- 2.
Our semi-supervised learning approach gently nudges the topic model towards a list of focal concepts that are shared across the models for all five cases. If any of those focal concepts returns a nonsensical “junk” topic, it means that there is no coherent topic or theme that forms around that focal concept in the specific case. Topic 24 (with keywords on the upper left of Fig. 3.1 is such an example).
- 3.
Discussed in Chapter 2.
References
Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 359–377.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth (C. Porter, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Burkhus, W., & Ignatow., G. (2019). Cognitive sociology and the cultural mind: Debates, directions, and challenges. In W. Burkhus & G. Ignatow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive sociology (pp. 1–30). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. (2013). Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of US government arts funding. Poetics, 41(6), 570–606.
Dodds, K. (2010). A polar Mediterranean? Accessibility, resources and sovereignty in the Arctic Ocean. Global Policy, 1(3), 303–311.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.
Friedman, A. (2019). Cultural blind spots and blind fields: Collective forms of unawareness. In W. Burkhus & G. Ignatow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive sociology (pp. 467–484). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, R. J., Reing, K., Kale, D., & Ver Steeg, G. (2017). Anchored correlation explanation: Topic modeling with minimal domain knowledge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 529–542.
Hannigan, J. (2016). The geopolitics of deep oceans. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kukkonen, A., Stoddart, M. C., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2020). Actors and justifications in media debates on Arctic climate change in Finland and Canada: A network approach. Acta Sociologica. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699319890902.
Lafaye, C., & Thévenot, L. (1993). Une justification écologique? Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature. Review Français de Sociologie, 34(4), 495–524.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167–195.
Lamont, M., Silva, G. M., Welburn, J., Guetzkow, J., Mizrachi, N., Herzog, H., et al. (2016). Getting respect: Responding to stigma and discrimination in the United States, Brazil, and Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lamont, M., & Thévenot, L. (2000). Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leschziner, V. (2019). Dual process models in sociology. In W. Burkhus & G. Ignatow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive sociology (pp. 169–191). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Light, R., & Cunningham, J. (2016). Oracles of peace: Topic modeling, cultural opportunity, and the nobel peace prize, 1902–2012. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 21(1), 43–64.
McLevey, J. (2021). Doing computational social science. London: Sage.
Mohr, J. W., Bogdanov, P., DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., Blei, D., McFarland, D. A., et al. (2013). Topic models and the cultural sciences. Poetics, 41(6), 545–770.
Nelson, L. K. (2020). Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3–42.
Nilsson, J. H. (2019). Urban bicycle tourism: Path dependencies and innovation in Greater Copenhagen. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(11), 1648–1662.
Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roose, H., Roose, W., & Daenekindt, S. (2018). Trends in contemporary art discourse: Using topic models to analyze 25 years of professional art criticism. Cultural Sociology, 12(3), 303–324.
Scott, N. A. (2020). Assembling moral mobilities: Cycling, cities, and the common good. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.
Swidler, A. (2013). Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thévenot, L., Moody, M., & Lafaye, C. (2000). Forms of valuing nature: Arguments and modes of justification in French and American environmental disputes. In M. Lamont & L. Thevenot (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage.
Tilly, C. (2006). Why? What happens when people give reasons … and why. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Urry, J. (2014). Offshoring. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715.
Ylä-Anttila, T., & Kukkonen, A. (2014). How arguments are justified in the media debate on climate change in the USA and France. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 8(4), 394–408.
Ylä-Anttila, T., & Luhtakallio, E. (2016). Justifications analysis: Understanding moral evaluations in public debates. Sociological Research Online, 21(4), 1–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stoddart, M.C.J., Mattoni, A., McLevey, J. (2020). Cultural Dimensions of the Oil-Tourism Interface. In: Industrial Development and Eco-Tourisms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55944-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55944-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55943-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55944-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)