POWER RELATIONS: ENVIRONMENT, EMOTION, AND VIOLENCE IN THE SITE C DAM APPROVAL PROCESS by Brenda Fitzpatrick A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Anthropology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2021 ©Brenda Fitzpatrick, 2021 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Power Relations: Environment, Emotion and Violence in the Site C Dam Approval Process submitted by Brenda Fitzpatrick in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology Examining Committee: Dr. Bruce G. Miller, Anthropology, UBC Supervisor Dr. Carole Blackburn, Anthropology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Shaylih Muehlmann, Anthropology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Tracey Heatherington, Anthropology, UBC University Examiner Dr. Tina Loo, History, UBC University Examiner ii Abstract The Site C hydroelectric dam on the Peace River in northeastern British Columbia, though purportedly a source of green power, is controversial because it would flood 5660 hectares (approximately 14,000 acres) of wilderness, farmland, and First Nations’ treaty territory. This dissertation is both an ethnography of that environmental conflict, and an exploration of the intersections between ethnography and conflict transformation. Research methods consisted of participant observation between June 2013 and October 2014, attendance at the Site C public hearings, analysis of hearing transcripts and related documents, and interviews with dam supporters and opponents, including a photo prompt exercise and a key word exercise. I found that different relationships to the environment and place, and different notions of development carried motivational, moral force in the conflict and were reflected in communication at the public hearings. The competing worldviews did not meet on equal terms, however. The official environmental assessment process discursively and materially favoured pro-Site perspectives in ways that amounted to both structural and cultural violence, in support of a project, that, because of the avoidable physical and psychological harms it would cause affected people, and its inequitable distribution of benefits, would itself be violent. This research contributes to ethnographic understanding of non-Indigenous perspectives on the environment and extractivism, and their connections to the violence manifested in environmental consultation. It underlines the gravity of environmental violence as real violence, particularly against Indigenous people, and challenges the notion that structural violence is invisible. The photo prompt exercise demonstrated potential as a non-rational, non-confrontational method for uncovering unarticulated differences in perspective, and overall, the research iii suggests the value of combined ethnographic and conflict transformation approaches in worldview conflicts. I conclude by drawing on Docherty’s (2001) concept of “worldview translation” as a way to navigate between the need to promote understanding and the obligation to call out injustice, in conflicts where sincere worldview differences are entangled with systemic violence. iv Lay Summary This study aimed to improve understanding of the conflict over the Site C hydroelectric dam. Field research took place between June 2013 and October 2014 and included attendance at public hearings and interviews. I found that Site C supporters and opponents were motivated by differing ideas about the environment and development and communicated differently at the public hearings. The Site C project would cause unnecessary physical and psychological harm to Indigenous and some non-Indigenous people in the area, while benefits would primarily go to others; therefore, I argue that the project would be violent, although individuals did not harm other individuals directly. Site C proponents had financial and political advantages in Environmental Assessment process, and the process itself caused harm to Site C opponents, while justifying a violent project; therefore, I argue that the process was also violent. This research suggests that anthropological research can provide insights into environmental conflicts. v Preface This dissertation is independent and original work by Brenda Fitzpatrick, the sole author, who conceived and performed all aspects of the research (including research design, ethics, field research, analysis, and presentation of results). Photos are by the author. This research was approved by the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board under the title “Site C for Conflict: A Case Study in Anthropology and Mediation,” Certificate Number H13-00750, (Principal Investigator: Dr. Bruce G. Miller). An adaptation of the Introduction and parts of the Conclusion has been published as Fitzpatrick, B. (2020). Anthropology and Conflict Transformation: Promises and Dilemmas of Worldview Translation. In A.J. Willow & K.A. Yotebieng (Eds.), Anthropology and Activism: New Contexts, New Conversations (pp. 160-174). London: Routledge Press. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary .................................................................................................................................v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................xv List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xvi Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. xviii Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xxi Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Orienting Theory: Conflict, Culture, Environment ......................................................... 4 1.2.1 Peace and Conflict Studies, Conflict Transformation................................................. 4 1.2.2 Culture and Peace and Conflict Studies ...................................................................... 7 1.2.3 Anthropology, Peace, and Conflict ............................................................................. 9 1.2.4 Worldviews, Conflict, and Violence ......................................................................... 12 1.2.5 Environmental Conflict ............................................................................................. 17 1.3 Methodology: Complications of Double-sided Ethnography ....................................... 23 1.3.1 Community Participation .......................................................................................... 23 1.3.2 Conflict Dynamics .................................................................................................... 25 1.3.3 Analysis..................................................................................................................... 26 1.3.4 Symmetrical Anthropology, Engagement, and Conflict Transformation ................. 28 1.4 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................... 32 vii The Peace River Valley and the Energetic City: Opportunity and Impact ..........37 2.1 The Peace ...................................................................................................................... 37 2.1.1 Centre of Abundance ................................................................................................ 38 2.2 The Energetic City ........................................................................................................ 41 2.2.1 Fort St John: “What Did I Do Wrong?”.................................................................... 41 2.2.2 “A Powerhouse of Opportunity” ............................................................................... 44 2.2.2.1 Economic Activity ............................................................................................ 44 2.2.2.2 Hydroelectricity/Site C ..................................................................................... 46 2.2.2.3 “Explosive Growth” .......................................................................................... 47 2.2.2.4 Getting It Done in a Tight Labour Market ........................................................ 48 2.2.2.5 “A Place to Raise a Family and Enjoy a High Quality of Life” ....................... 50 2.2.2.6 “Just Here on the Surface” ................................................................................ 51 2.2.2.7 Poverty and Violence .......................................................................................