Neo-structuralist analysis of green-marketing discourse: interpreting hybrid car manufacturers and consumers

Abstract

To explain inconsistent behaviour that is well documented in green-marketing and consumption, the authors develop the (neo)structuralist model of meaning co-creation that is based on the signifying practices of hybrid car manufacturers and consumers. The model reveals that market agents are recruited into a symbolic order that requires the perpetual reinforcement of self-opposing meanings as a condition for signification. The main problem of green practice is not the issue of market agents' authenticity/hypocrisy. Rather it represents a more interactive phenomenon – the common structure of meaning-creation – which silences important transformative action choices and thus defeats its own purpose.

Keywords:

• culture
• meaning
• structure
• symbolic order
• hybrid cars
• green-marketing

Notes

1. We prefer the notion of neo-structuralism to the term poststructuralism. There are several reasons. First, these writings do not make a unified body of theory (Holt 1997); rather, umbrella terms (e.g. poststructuralism, neo-structuralism, postmodernism) are used to delimit diverse and often contradicting perspectives (Frank 1989; Nöth 1990; Belsey 2002). Structuralist ideas are not only the foundation or a starting point for these analyses of culture, but also the source of inspiration. Derrida (1978a) did not consider himself apoststructuralist, arguing that his analysis was both structuralist and anti-structuralist which in general focuses on structural problematic concepts. Nöth (1990) considered the writings of the aforementioned authors to be the part of the structuralist philosophy. He argued that structuralist concepts are so ingrained in their writings that the right term to use would be neo-structuralism or super-structuralism. This view is supported by other reviewers too (Frank 1989).