Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study

Lucy J. Parry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The foxhunting debate conjures up dichotomies on party politics, the rural/urban divide, class, animal welfare, animal rights and the right to hunt them. In the lead-up to the 2004 hunting ban, animals themselves became peripheral in the political debate on hunting. This paper presents a contemporary analysis of shared viewpoints on hunting that highlights the centrality of animals to debates over foxhunting. I use Q methodology to identify four discourses on hunting in public debates. Liberal progressives are against hunting on the basis that it is cruel, unnecessary and outdated. Critical-radicals oppose hunting from a structural perspective, encompassing critiques of power and class. Countryside managers support hunting as a form of wildlife management and emphasise the differences across animals. Sporting libertarians support hunting as a legitimate sport. These findings demonstrate the complexity of the hunting debate in the public sphere that is simplified and exaggerated in mainstream media and Westminster.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)290-310
Number of pages21
JournalBritish Politics
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

methodological studies
animal
discourse
party politics
ban
Sports
welfare
Hunting
Discourse
Public Sphere
manager
methodology
management

Cite this

J. Parry, Lucy. / Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study. In: British Politics. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 290-310.
@article{2e427d6124e740ac89127a2b484c40f4,
title = "Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study",
abstract = "The foxhunting debate conjures up dichotomies on party politics, the rural/urban divide, class, animal welfare, animal rights and the right to hunt them. In the lead-up to the 2004 hunting ban, animals themselves became peripheral in the political debate on hunting. This paper presents a contemporary analysis of shared viewpoints on hunting that highlights the centrality of animals to debates over foxhunting. I use Q methodology to identify four discourses on hunting in public debates. Liberal progressives are against hunting on the basis that it is cruel, unnecessary and outdated. Critical-radicals oppose hunting from a structural perspective, encompassing critiques of power and class. Countryside managers support hunting as a form of wildlife management and emphasise the differences across animals. Sporting libertarians support hunting as a legitimate sport. These findings demonstrate the complexity of the hunting debate in the public sphere that is simplified and exaggerated in mainstream media and Westminster.",
keywords = "Animal ethics, British politics, Discourses, Foxhunting, Q methodology",
author = "{J. Parry}, Lucy",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "290--310",
journal = "British Politics",
issn = "1746-918X",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",
number = "3",

}

Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study. / J. Parry, Lucy.

In: British Politics, Vol. 14, No. 3, 01.09.2019, p. 290-310.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study

AU - J. Parry, Lucy

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - The foxhunting debate conjures up dichotomies on party politics, the rural/urban divide, class, animal welfare, animal rights and the right to hunt them. In the lead-up to the 2004 hunting ban, animals themselves became peripheral in the political debate on hunting. This paper presents a contemporary analysis of shared viewpoints on hunting that highlights the centrality of animals to debates over foxhunting. I use Q methodology to identify four discourses on hunting in public debates. Liberal progressives are against hunting on the basis that it is cruel, unnecessary and outdated. Critical-radicals oppose hunting from a structural perspective, encompassing critiques of power and class. Countryside managers support hunting as a form of wildlife management and emphasise the differences across animals. Sporting libertarians support hunting as a legitimate sport. These findings demonstrate the complexity of the hunting debate in the public sphere that is simplified and exaggerated in mainstream media and Westminster.

AB - The foxhunting debate conjures up dichotomies on party politics, the rural/urban divide, class, animal welfare, animal rights and the right to hunt them. In the lead-up to the 2004 hunting ban, animals themselves became peripheral in the political debate on hunting. This paper presents a contemporary analysis of shared viewpoints on hunting that highlights the centrality of animals to debates over foxhunting. I use Q methodology to identify four discourses on hunting in public debates. Liberal progressives are against hunting on the basis that it is cruel, unnecessary and outdated. Critical-radicals oppose hunting from a structural perspective, encompassing critiques of power and class. Countryside managers support hunting as a form of wildlife management and emphasise the differences across animals. Sporting libertarians support hunting as a legitimate sport. These findings demonstrate the complexity of the hunting debate in the public sphere that is simplified and exaggerated in mainstream media and Westminster.

KW - Animal ethics

KW - British politics

KW - Discourses

KW - Foxhunting

KW - Q methodology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046419449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/discourses-foxhunting-public-sphere-q-methodological-study

U2 - 10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5

DO - 10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 290

EP - 310

JO - British Politics

JF - British Politics

SN - 1746-918X

IS - 3

ER -