The Jaws Effect:Howmovienarrativesareused toinfluencepolicyresponsestosharkbitesin WesternAustralia
CHRISTOPHER NEFF
UniversityofSydney
Thisarticleexaminesthewaypoliticalactorsuse filmnarrativestoinfluence policymakingfollowingsharkbites.ToanalysetheserelationshipsIpropose theconceptofthe Jaws Effect,where film-basedhistoricalanalogiesareused asapoliticaldevicetoframereal-lifeeventsinwaysthatmaketheevents governableandprejudicecertainpolicyoptions.Threeelementsofthe Jaws Effectarereviewedincludingtheintentionalityoftheshark,perceptionthat theseeventsarefatalandthebeliefthat ‘theshark’ mustbekilled.These elementsareappliedtoacasestudyofpolicyresponsestosharkbiteepisodes inWesternAustraliain2000,2003,2011and2014.Thereasonswhythis politicaldevicemaynotalwaysworkarealsosuggested.
Keywords: emotion; film; Jaws Effect;publicpolicy;sharkbite;WesternAustralia
Introduction
Thisarticleexaminestheimpactof fictional filmnarrativesonthepolicyprocessfollowingsharkbites.Previousliteraturehaslookedattheinfluenceofactorsandcelebritiesonpolicy(Marshetal. 2010;t’HartandTindall 2009)aswellasthewaymovie themesandimageryinfluencepolicydiscourse.GamsonandModigliani(1989:21) examinedtheimpactofthe1979 film TheChinaSyndrome onthedevelopmentof nuclearpowerintheUS,noting ‘itsmostimportantachievementwastoprovidea concrete,vividimageofhowadisastrousnuclearaccidentcouldhappen’.In addition,bothSchulte(2008)andHollingerandLanza-Kaduce(1988)examined therolethe film WarGames inthedevelopmentofcomputercrimelegislationin theUSSchultenotes:
WarGames engageda ‘teenagedtechnology’ discourse,whichcastbothinternet technologyitselfanditsusersasrebelliousteenagersinneedofparentalcontrol. Thisdiscourseenabledpolicymakerstoequategovernmentregulationofthe
ChristopherNeffisalecturerinpublicpolicyattheDepartmentofGovernmentandInternational Relations,UniversityofSydney.SpecialthankstoMeganDraheimandFrancineMaddenfromthe Human–WildlifeConflictCollaborationfortheirsupportandfeedbackonpreviousdraftsofthisarticle.
internetwithparentalguidanceratherthanwithsuppressionofdemocracyand innovation.(2008:1)
Inthiscase,Iexaminetheleadingroleofthe1975 film Jaws onthepoliticalconstructionofcertainthemesanddiscoursesinsharkbitepolicymakinginWestern Australia(WA).Followingsharkbites,thereareoftenpressuresplacedongovernmentstoact(Neff 2012;NeffandYang 2013).Thesehighlyemotionalissues presentuniqueandcomplexpublicpolicyquestions.Therearecircumstances whenoneeventmayresultinlittleornoresponse,yetthesameeventoccurring (orappearingtooccur)asecondorthirdtimeresultsinadramaticescalationof policyresponses.Often,thesesituationsmovefrom ‘normal’ conditionsto ‘crisis’ eventsonthebasisoftheirfrequencyorseverity(RochefortandCobb 1994). Eventhen,thefactorsthatinfluencepolicyresponsesarenotassured.Nohrstedt (2008:258)identifiesalingeringgapintheliteraturewhenhenotesthatthereis aninsufficientframeworkfordetermining, ‘whysomecrisesresultinmajorpolicy changeswhileothersdonot’.Iarguethatfamiliar filmnarrativescanserveasthe basisforpoliticaldiscoursewhentheyappeartomirrorwell-knownstories,blame marginalisedtargetpopulationsandprovidequickpolitical ‘solutions’ .
InAustralia,thequestionsaroundpolicyresponsestosharkbitesareparticularly importantbecausethreestatesmaintainsharkcontrolprograms.Theseincludetheuse ofsharknetsinNewSouthWalessince1937,thedeploymentofnetsanddrumlines inQueenslandbeginningin1962,andtherecent$22millioninvestmentinshark mitigationstrategiesinWA.Drumlinesarea fishingmethodthatinvolves connectingalargebaitedhooktoabuoyapproximatelyonekilometreoffabeach (WA 2014:6).Moreover,ofthe63reportedsharkbitefatalitiesaroundtheworld between2004and2013,15(24percent)tookplaceinAustralia.Sharkbitesare oneofthemostgloballydispersedhuman–wildlifeconflicts.Since1580,there havebeenareported2569sharkbiteincidentsoffsixofthesevencontinents (ISAF 2013).TheUS,AustraliaandSouthAfricaleadtheworldintotalincidents (Neff 2012).Publicpoliciesto ‘control’ sharksnearbeachescanaffectsharkconservationbykillingprotectedsharkspecies.
Thepublicisawareofsharkbitesandtheirinteresthasledtoacottageindustryof entertainmentandmediatoreinforceattentiontotheseevents.Inmotionpicturesand ontelevision,theportrayalofsharksisbigbusiness.Forinstance,aleading film websitelists Jaws (1975)astheseventhhighestgrossing filmofalltime(adjusted forinflation),atmorethan$1billion(BoxOfficeMojo 2014).Meanwhile,theDiscoveryChannel’s SharkWeek hasgenerated ‘hundredsofmillionsofdollarsinad revenue’ (Tapper 2013). Infact,nootheranimal,onlandorinthewater,generates theentertainmentincomethatsharkspeciesdo.Fromthebookandmotionpicture Jaws, whichmanufacturedapublicpanic,tothemorethan25televisionseasons of SharkWeek,whichkeepthefearsandfascinationalive,thehuman–sharkrelationshippresentsawell-knownstorypredicatedonaprimalbattleforsurvivalbetween humanandshark.
Thisarticleisdividedintofoursections.First,Ihighlightthewayfrequentdreaded eventsaregivenmeaninginpoliticaldiscoursethroughhistoricalanalogies.Second, Iproposeconsiderationofthe Jaws Effect(NeffandHueter 2013),where fictional narrativesofsharkbehaviourfrom filmareusedashistoricalanalogiestoframe real-lifesituations.The Jaws Effectfunctionsasablame-castingdevicethat informscausalstories.Third,Ireviewhowthese fictionalnarrativesareusedas
anchoringpointsfollowingreal-lifeeventsthroughacasestudyofWA.Idemonstrate howthe Jaws Effectcanbeseenasapoliticalinstrumentinpolicymakingthat reinforcesthreethemes:thatsharksareintentionallyhuntingpeople,thatshark bitesarefataleventsandthatkillingindividualsharkswillsolvetheproblem. Here,the ‘rogue’ sharktheory(Coppleson 1958)fromthebookandmovie Jaws (Benchley 1974)isusedtolegitimiseseveralrepeatedpolicyresponses.Last,I reviewwhythe Jaws Effectmaynotbesuccessfulineverypolicyenvironment.In all,thisanalysisdemonstratesthewaygovernmentsmayrelyon fictionalnarratives todeveloppublicpolicyinemotionalsituationsasameansofadvancingpolitical interests.Elaboratingontheroleofmoviemythsaspoliticaldevicehelpsshow howpoliticalactorsnegotiatethesesensitiveperiodstoinfluencepoliticalprocesses andtocontestevidence-basedscience.
Frequentdreadedeventsandhistoricalanalogies
Clustersofhighlyemotionaleventsareoftenthefocusofpolicyresponsesacrossa numberofissuedomains.Multiplehouse fires,schoolshootings, ‘kinghits’,highway deaths,constructionworkeraccidents,hurricanes,sharkbitesortruckcrasheswithin acertainareaortimeframemaybecomepolicyissues.Akeywaythattheseissues riseorfallontheagendaishowfrequentlytheyoccur,orappeartooccur,and whethertheyareframedasrandomeventsoralarmingproblemconditions(Neff 2013).Isuggestthattherealorperceivedfrequencyofcertainaffect-ladenevents andtheirdreadedoutcomesareprioritisedwithlowerthresholdsfortheiroccurrence inordertofacilitatepoliticalcontrol.RochefortandCobb(1994:20)notethatthe frequencyofperceivedproblemscanhelpshapeproblemdefinitions.The ‘frequency andprevalenceofahazardousorunjustsituationareapotenttriggertoitbeingconsideredasocialproblem’ (RochefortandCobb 1994).Similarly,Kingdon(1995) highlightstheimportanceoffrequency ‘indicators’ thatreportincreasesofproblems insociety.
Theuseofproblemdefinitionsandcausalstoriesarecentraltodefiningtheterms ofthepoliticaldebate(Stone 1997),becausethepoliticsofcausalstoriesdetermines whenblamingsomeoneisappropriate.Acertainfrequencyofcertainfearfulissuesor eventscancreateexpectationsforactionandinducetheopeningofpolicywindows if theyareperceivedasintentional.Stone(1989)notesthattwoframesdominatethe blame-makingprocess:accidentsandintentionalactions.Politicalpowerresidesin thesetwocategoriesofcircumstance,becauseeventseitherareperceivedasaccidents thatareblamelessandungovernable,orintentionalandrequiringjustice(Stone 1989).Eachdomainissubjecttodisputeandcanbeadvocatedforbypolitical actorstoavoidblameandaccountabilityortoassignintent,whichhelpsmake eventsgovernableandblameable.Therefore,governmentsmayusefamiliarhistoricalanalogiestoascribeintenttocertaineventsasawaytolowerthethresholdfor policyactionandadvancesolutions,especiallyinthefaceofanincreasedfrequency fromungovernabledreadedevents.
t’Hartdefineshistoricalanalogiesas ‘instanceswhenapersonorgroupdrawsupon partsoftheirpersonaland/orcollectivememories,and/orpartsof “history” todeal withcurrentsituationsandproblems’ (2010:106).Brändström,Bynanderand t’Hart haveusedhistoricalanalogiestoreviewpolicybylookingat ‘theroleof “history” incontemporarygovernance’ (2004:191).Nohrstedthasalsonotedthe importantroleofanalogiesindecision-making,stating: ‘analogies,routinesand
otherheuristicsasameansofreachingsolutionstocomplexproblemsshouldnotbe omitted’ (2008:273).Missingfrompolicyanalysisliterature,however,isareviewof thewayfrequenteventscanbeexplainedusingmoviemythology.Iaddressthisgap byexaminingtheway fictional filmnarrativesareusedtoexplainthefrequencyof sharkbitesbyattributingblametoanindividualsharkinthegovernanceofsharkbitepolicymaking.Theselectionofcertainanalogiesisakeypoliticaltoolbecause theyallocateculpabilitytocertaintargetsandprejudicepolicyresponsesbasedon feelingstowardsthatspecies(SchneiderandIngram 1993).Importantly,theidentificationofhumanfeelingsandblametowardsanimalspeciesisdistinctfromgivingthe speciesthemselveshumanattributes.Stone(1989:283)notesthat ‘inthesocial world,weunderstandeventstobetheresultof will [sic],usuallyhumanbut perhapsanimal’.Inaddition,Czech,KrausmanandBorkhataria(1998)useSchneider andIngram’s(1993)socialconstructionmodeltoanalysehowpoliticalpowerand lawsareallocatedtoorganisationsthatworkinfavourofcertainanimals.
The Jaws Effect
The Jaws Effectisthewayinwhichpoliticalactorsuse fictionalrepresentationsin film(NeffandHueter 2013)asthebasisforexplainingreal-lifeevents.Thisanalysisreliesonanunderstandingofthewayhistoricalanalogiesinfluencethepublic andcanbeusedasanarrativethatdefinesthedebateandallocatesblame.t’Hart (2010:107)notesthattherearefourelementsthatcontributetotheireffectiveness: therealorperceivedrecencyofevents;thedegreetowhichpoliticalactorshave ‘personalexperiencesoftheevents’;whethertheeventinquestionhasproduced widespreadpsychologicalimpact;andwhethertheanalogyservesthepurposesof theactor.
The film Jaws fitsthisdescriptionineachofthefourelements.Theemotional natureandvividimagesenablespeopletocreateamentalshortcut(TverskyandKahneman 1973),wherethefrequencyandrecencyof fictionalstimuliinmoviesmake themseemlikereal-lifeevents.Cantornotestherealnessofthe filmexperience:
Ifweexperienceintensefearwhilewatching Jaws,ourimplicitfearreactions becameconditionedtotheimageofthesharks,tothenotionofswimming,to themusicalscore – mostlikelyacombinationofthestimuliinthemovie.Later, oneofthesestimuli – oreventhoughtsofthesestimuli – triggertheseunconscious reactions,evenafterourconsciousmindshavegottenpasttheproblem.(2004:301)
Thesocio-psychologicalsaturationofthe filmasbothasummerblockbusterand societalmemeiswidespread.Asaresult,politicianscanconnectwordsand imagesfromthis fictionalnarrativetoreal-lifeeventsmakingoneanalogoustothe otherandbringingalongwithitthesameemotionaltriggerstosymbolsand words.Thiseffectpreferencesunderstandingsofcertainsituationsandthewayto respondtothem.
Importantly,manymodernrepresentationsofsharksmirrorelementsfrom Jaws andcuethisanalogyinwaysthatsuggesthumansareonthemenu.ThreeHollywoodstorylinesfrom Jaws underpinthelastingstrengthofthe Jaws Effect:the attributionofintentionalitytotheshark;theperceptionthathuman–sharkinteractionsleadtofataloutcomes;andthebeliefthatthesharkmustbekilledto endthethreat.
Jaws
Mediaportrayalsofsharksinmovieshaveacrucialimpactonpublicperceptionsof sharkbehaviour.Tobeclear,negativeperceptionsofsharkspre-date films.AccordingtoArnold(2005),theconceptofthe ‘shark-monster’ datesbacktoOlmeciconography(1500BCE–400BCE).Atissueinthisanalysisisthewayinwhich fictional conceptionshaveimplicationsforpublicperceptionsandpolicyresponses.This analysisfocusesonthecentralroleof Jaws in1975.Inhisreviewofthe film Jaws,moviecriticRogerEbert(1975)statesthatthestory: involvesaseriesofattacksonswimmersbyagreatwhiteshark,theresponseofthe threatenedresortislandtoitslossoftouristbusiness,and, finally,theepicattempt bythreementotrackthesharkandkillit.
Theelementsof Jaws thatmadeitsoeffectiveincludedhauntingmusic,anadvertisingeffortdesignedtoprimepublicfears(Gottlieb 1975:93–94),andapowerful causalstory(Stone 1989)ofaserialkillershark.The firstpieceofthis fictionalnarrativewasthemotivesoftheshark.
Theattributionofintentionalitytotheshark
Jaws frameditsstorywithagiantwhitesharkwilfullyhuntinghumans.Thefeatures oftheintentionalityandterritorialityofoneshark,whichhasdevelopedatastefor humans,arenotedinthe filmscript(BenchleyandGottlieb 1975):
ChiefBrody:Nowthissharkthat,thatswimsalone Hooper:Arogue.
ChiefBrody:Rogue,yeah,nowthisguy,he – hekeepsswimmingaroundinaplace wherethefeedingisgooduntilthefoodsupplyisgone,right?
Hooper:It’scalledTerritoriality.That’sthetheory … AtheoryIhappentoagree with.
Theconceptofa ‘rogue’ sharkhasitsrootsinAustralia.Australiansurgeonand shark-biteresearcherVictorCopplesonsuggestedthebehaviourofroguesharksin the1950s.Thetheorymaintainedthathuman–sharkencountersoccurringinthe sameareaannuallyare ‘theworkofasingleshark – arogueshark – whichmaintains evenforyearsabeatalongalimitedstretchofshore’ (Coppleson 1958:45).The roguesharktheory findsavividvehiclein Jaws.Inthisportrayalofthesharkas anintentionalenemy,theoutcomeissevereandrequiresintervention.
Theperceptionthathuman–sharkinteractionsleadtofataloutcomes
Aclusteroffatalsharkbitesoccurinthe film Jaws overashortperiodandreinforce thenarrativethatasharkbiteisafatalevent.Inthe film,agirliskilledintheopening sequence,followedbyaboyplayingonaraftinthewateratabeach,followedbya fisherman,apersonrowingaboatand finallythesharkhunterQuint.Ineachcase,the murderousandfatalnatureoftheeventscreatesanessentialistelementtothenature ofhuman–sharkinteractions.Eveninaboat,asharkbitemaybefatal.Moreover, afterthereleaseof Jaws,theuseofsharksinthemediatoportraylifeanddeathsituationsbecamemorecommon.
Thebeliefthatthesharkmustbekilledtoendthethreat
In Jaws,theonlysolutionistokilltheshark.Itisexplainedthataroguesharkwill continuetohuntforprey(humans)inanareaunlessthefoodsupplystopsoritis killed.Peschaknotesthat Jaws wasa ‘seminalturningpointinthewaythepublic perceivedsharks’ (2006:160).Indeed:
[a]lmostovernightthewhitesharkwentfrombeingconsidered – atmost – an obscureoceandwellerthatfewhadeverheardoftoaman-eatingmonsterwitha lustforwantonkilling,andacreaturethatwasbesteradicatedfromourplanet forever.(Peschak 2006:160)
Thisentertainmentnarrativeoverwhelmedanddisplacedalternativescientificnarrativesaboutsharkbehaviourthatdiscountthetheory.The fictionfrom Jaws perpetuatedstereotypesaboutsharksasvillainsthatmadefalsehistoricalanalogies politicallyvaluable.AcasestudyreviewofWAresponsesfollowingsharkbites examinestheuseofthe Jaws Effectonthepolicyprocess.
Casestudy:WA
Theselectionofsharkbitesasanissue,andWAasthecase,helpsinformbroader policyquestions.First,thediscourseandresponsestosharkbitesillustratealingering questionofwhyeventscantriggerdifferentresponsesornoresponseatall.Shark bitesarealsotellingbecausetheycanrepresentsalientandemotionalmoments thatplacepressuresongovernmentstoact(Neff 2012;NeffandYang 2013).This approachisconsistentwithLodgeandHood’s(2002)researchondog-bitepolicymaking,AchenandBartels(2004)analysisofelectoralvotingandnaturaldisasters andthebroaderliteratureonrisk(SunsteinandZeckhauser 2011),aswellascrisis management(McConnellandStark 2002).
WApresentsauniquecasestudyfortworeasons.First,ithasexperiencedmore fatalsharkbites,inasmalleramountoftime,thanhaveeverbeenreportedinAustralianhistory. Table1 compilesalistofrecordedfatalsharkbitesinAustraliasince 2000,basedonmediareports,suchas AustralianGeographic (AG staff 2014).The tablealsoincludesthelocationandpresumedspeciesinvolved.WAhasexperienced 13fatalities,witheightoccurringsince2010(see Table1).Asaresult,policy responsesandpublicfeedbacktotheseeventshavemadeitacontemporarypolitical issue.Inparticular,twoepisodes(2000and2011),whenthreefatalsharkbites occurredinclosesuccessionandcloseproximity(includingtwoinSouthAustralia (SA)),arenotedasthetriggersfortheWApolicyresponses.Secondly,WApresents auniquecasegiventhenumberofpolicyresponsesthathavebeeninitiated,including scientificresearch,aerialpatrols,atrialofbaiteddrumlinesandan ‘imminentthreat’ policy(WA 2014).Thislastpolicystandsoutinparticularbecausemeasurestocatch andkillindividualsharkshavebeenakeyfeatureofWAresponsessince2000.The state’sinvestmentof$22millioninshark-bitemitigationefforts(WA2014)offersan importantopportunityforpolicyanalysis.Asaresult,publicstatementsandpolicy documentsarethemainevidenceinthisresearch,givenitsfocusoncomparing filmnarrativesandpolicydiscourse.
Isuggestthatpoliticiansusedmoviemythstosupporttheirpoliciesinordertouse intent-basednarrativesthatarewellknownandblamesharksinordertolower
Table1. FatalsharkbitesinAustralia2000–14
DateLocationPresumedspecies
2000:24SepCactusBeach(SA)GreatWhite 2000:25SepBlackPoint(SA)GreatWhite 2000:06NovCottlesloe(WA)GreatWhite 2002:30AprSmokyBay(SA)GreatWhite 2002:16DecMiamiLake(QLD)Bullshark 2003:08FebBurleighLake(QLD)Bullshark 2004:10JulGracetown(WA)GreatWhite 2004:11DecOpalReef(QLD)Bullshark 2004:16DecAdelaide(SA)GreatWhite 2005:19MarAbolhosIslands(WA)GreatWhite 2005:24AugGlenelgBeach(SA)GreatWhite 2006:07JanNorthStradbrokeIsle(QLD)Bullshark 2008:08AprBallina(NSW)Bullshark 2008:27DecPortKennedy(WA)GreatWhite 2010:17AugGracetown(WA)GreatWhite 2011:17FebCoffinBay(SA)TigerShark 2011:04SepBunkerBay(WA)GreatWhite 2011:10OctCottlesloe(WA)GreatWhite 2011:22OctRottnestIsland(WA)GreatWhite 2012:31MarPortGeographerMarina(WA)GreatWhite 2012:14JulWedgeIsland(WA)GreatWhite 2013:23NovGracetown(WA)GreatWhite 2013:29NovCampbell’sBeach(NSW)Tigershark 2014:08FebYorkePeninsula(SA)GreatWhite 2014:30AprThatra(NSW)GreatWhite 2014:09SepByronBay(NSW)GreatWhite
Source: AG (2014).
thresholdsforpolicyactionandfavourquickpolicysolutions.Thisconstructionof sharksmatchesandreliesonitsconnectionto fictionalnarrativesfrom Jaws.At issueinthesecasesisthewaythatsharksareconstructedasacertaintypeoffamiliar problem(includingintentionalityandfataloutcomes)thatnecessitatesacertaintype offamiliarsolution(sharkhuntsandculling).Isuggestthatthiscanbeseeninfour shark-biteepisodesinWA,in2000,2003,2011and2014.
Policyconsiderationsin2000
DuringtheAustralianspringandsummerof2000,threefatalshark-biteincidents occurredwithinthreemonths.The firsttwooccurredinSA,wheretwosurfers werekilledwithintwodaysofeachother.OneswimmerwaskilledinWAtwo monthslater.On24September,CameronBayeswasbittenbyawhitesharkand diedwhilesurfingonhishoneymooninSA.On25September,17-year-oldsurfer JevanWrightdiedfollowingawhitesharkbiteatBlackfellowsPointnearthe townofElliston(Coroner’sInquest 2001).Therewerecallsfromthepublicto huntandkillthewhiteshark(s)involvedfollowingtheseincidentsandawidespread beliefthattheyweretheworkofonerogueshark.TheSAgovernmentmaintained thatfederallawsprotectingwhitesharksshouldbeobeyed,butothersdisagreed. Forexample,SAsharkhunterAndreGeorgescustated ‘Ifnotthereiseveryindicationtheywillkillagain’ (Hasan 2000)andformersharkhunterVicHislop
calledforendinglawsprotectingsharks,suggestingthattheseprotectionswould inevitablyleadtomorebites(Macfarlane 2000).
Twomonthslater,on6November,awhitesharkbittwoswimmersasthey returnedfromanearlymorningswiminwaist-deepwater.ThebitesoccurredatCottesloebeach,themostpopularinWA(TourismAustralia 2014).Oneoftheswimmers,KenCrew,diedonthebeachfrombloodlossinviewofbeachgoers.These eventscreatednationalconcern,communityfearandintensemediascrutiny. Peopledrewparallelsto Jaws almostimmediately.OneofCrew’srescuerswas reportedasstating, ‘Itwaslikethemovie Jaws’ (citedinSmith 2000). TheAustralian newspaperreportedthesamewitnessassaying, ‘itwas Jaws inrealaction,andI don’tsaythatlightly.Thiswasthemostsavage,powerful,killinglungeI’veever seen,notthatI’veseenalotofsharks’ (citedin Australian 2000).Anotherwitness noted, ‘Ialwaysthoughtthe film Jaws wasexaggerated,butnotafterwhatIsaw today’ (citedinDowdney 2002).Elliot(2000)reportedfor TheIndependent stated, ‘AbitlikeAmityville[sic]in Jaws,thebeachwasimmediatelyclosed.’ Poultney (2000)reportedforthe Herald–Sun aftertheincidentnoting, ‘Notsince1975, whentheblockbuster Jaws wasreleased,havethemonstersofthedeepbeenso feared.’ Indeed,the filmisnotedhereasactivelyinfluencingthemindsetofthose dealingwiththistragedy.
AftertheincidentatCottesloebeach,therewereimmediatecallsforhuntingand killingtheshark.WAFisheriesMinisterMontyHouseissuedaspecialorderafterthe eventtohavethesharkfoundandkilled,stating, ‘[t]hecommunity’ssafetyisparamount.Iknoweveryonewon’tagreewiththedecision,butit’sadecisionwe’ve made’ (citedinMartinandBrook 2000). WAPremierRichardCourtstatedthat thesharkmustbekilled,saying ‘Ifthatsharkisgoingtoendangerpublicsafety;if it[thesameshark]comesbacknearthebeaches,inthiscaseIbelievewehavea responsibilitytoputpublicsafety first’ (citedinKeenan 2000).However,publicreactiontotheweeklong,ultimatelyunsuccessful,huntforthesharkwasnotunanimous insupportofkillingtheshark.Newspaperreportsfrom TheAustralian wrotethat ‘the deathofMrCrewandthesharkhunthassparkedalmostunprecedentedreactionon localtalkbackradio,withtwo-thirdsofcallersagainstdestroyingthewhitepointer’ (Keenan 2000).TheCSIRO(CommonwealthScientificandIndustrialResearch Organisation)sharkbiologistJohnStevensnotedthathumansarenotnormalprey itemsforsharks,saying, ‘iftheydid,Icanassureyouwewouldbehavingrather moreattacksthanwedo’ (citedinBrook 2000).Thesemessages,however,didnot resonatewithpolicymakersandattentionremainedontheentrenchedrogueshark frame.
TherewassomuchattentiondrawntotheseincidentsinWAandtheideathatone sharkwasresponsible,that Jaws authorPeterBenchleycommentedonthestoriesand publicconcern.HewroteanopenlettertoAustraliansin TheGuardian newspaper:
WhileIcannotpretendtocomprehendthegrieffeltbyKenCrew’sfriendsand family,andwouldnotconceiveofdiminishingthehorroroftheattack,Iplead withthepeopleofAustralia – wholivewith,understandand,ingeneral,respect sharksmorethananyothernationonearth – torefrainfromslaughteringthismagnificentoceanpredatorinthehopeofachievingsomecatharsis,some fleetingsatisfaction,fromwreakingvengeanceononeofnature’smostexquisitecreations. (Benchley 2000:G22)
Benchley(2000)added, ‘Thiswasnotarogueshark,tantalisedbythetasteofhuman fleshandboundnowtokillandkillagain.Suchcreaturesdonotexist,despitewhat youmighthavederivedfrom Jaws. ’
Yetthe ‘specialorder’ issuedinWAbecameaformalpolicyandwasadopted intotheSharkResponsePlan,detailedintheSharkHazardReportWesternAustraliaof2001: ‘TheResponsePlanprovidesthatintheeventofasharkattacking,or attemptingtoattack,aperson, fisheriesofficerswould,uponverificationofthe identityoftheanimal,immediatelyattempttokilltheshark’ (EA 2002).This policywasanexemptionfromcurrentprotectionsextendedtovulnerablesharks, suchasgreynurseandwhitesharks,andthereforeonlyappliedtoitsstate waters(threenauticalmilesfromshore).TheordercomesfromtheMinisterfor Fisheries ‘whichauthorisesWesternAustralianPoliceandDepartmentofFisheries officers,intheeventofanattack,orattemptedattack,toimmediatelykilltheshark responsiblefortheattack’ (EA 2002).
Policyconsiderationsin2003
Inasecondillustrationofthe Jaws Effect, thesethemesemergedagaininWAin 2003.Inthisepisode,theissueofwhattodoaboutsharkswasraisedfollowinga sharkencounterthatresultedinnoinjury.ItreferencedthefatalsharkbiteonKen CrewandaddressedsharksasamenacetotheWAcommunity.ThenOpposition Leader,ColinBarnett,suggestedthatthewhitesharkinthe2000incidentshould havebeenkilled,andthatarecentsharkseennearCottesloebeachwasthesame sharkthatfatallybitKenCrew.Henoted:
[t]hereisnodoubtintheviewofmostpeoplewhousethebeach,inparticularsurf clubmembers,thatitismostlikelythesamesharkreturningtothatplace.Ibelieve thatsharkwillreturnagainandthatitposesathreattopeopleusingthebeach.
(Citedin Hansard,WesternAustralianStateParliament 2003)
HethendiscussedcurrentpoliciesforkillingsharksnearbeacheswithMark McGowan,speakingforthegovernmentandpremier,whonoted, ‘[p]rotocolshave beenputinplacetoensureamuchquickerchainofcommandtotakestepsto destroytheshark.Iagreethatthatparticularsharkshouldhavebeendestroyed’ (citedin Hansard,WesternAustralianStateParliament 2003).
Policyconsiderationsin2011
In2011,adecadeaftertheKenCrewincident,WAwouldagainexperiencetragicshark fatalities,withthreenearPerthbeachesoveratwo-monthperiod(see Table1).The policyresponsesfromthegovernmentfollowingthesharkbitesonceagainusedthe Jaws Effect.
Immediatelyfollowingthethirdincident,thegovernmentissuedits firstkillorder basedonthepolicyestablishedin2000aftertheKenCrewtragedy.Thisorderwas groundedintheassumptionthatone ‘rogue’ sharkmayhavebeenresponsibleforall oftheincidents.ThestatedispatchedaDepartmentofFisheriesboattotrytokillthe shark,butitwasnotsuccessful.FisheriesMinisterNormanMoorejustifiedtheshark hunt,saying:
Itooktheviewthatwehavehadtwofatalitiesinroughlythesameareathatpeople wouldexpectustotakesomeactionintheeventthatit’sbeen thesame sharkthat hasbeenresponsiblefortwopeoplebeingkilled.(CitedinMiller 2011,emphasis added)
Thepremier,ColinBarnett,stated, ‘Iamveryconcernedthatwehavehadthreefatalitiesinsuchashortperiodoftime’ (citedinVaughan 2011).
Policyconsiderationsin2013–14
In2013and2014,theWAgovernmentannouncedadditionalmeasures,includinga changeinpolicythatallowedforpre-emptivelykillingindividualsharksthatwere judgedtoposean ‘imminentthreat’ (WA 2013a).Thegovernmentassertedthat sharksincloseproximitytopeoplewerebydefinitionathreatbecause,evenafter peoplewereoutofthewater,thatsameindividualsharkmightreturnlaterand injureabather.Here,theimminentthreatisnotbasedonthedangerofaminor sharkbitebutofafataleventinwhichonesharkisresponsible,mayreturnand shouldbekilled.Thispolicypositionembodiesallthreethemesfrom Jaws. Scientists withinthegovernmentunsuccessfullycontestedthe filmnarrativeofroguesharkbehaviour.AfreedomofinformationrequestfromtheHumaneSocietyInternational, releasedon1May2014,includedadocumentfromtheDepartmentofFisheriesin the ‘Imminentthreatpolicyreviewnotes’ (WA 2013b),whichstatedthatthereare anumberofreasonstoalterprojectedplans.Itaddressedtheimminentthreat issue,stating:
Thepolicyassumesthattheactionsaretopreventanimminentthreatofattack.This cannotbeproveninanycase.Thereisabundantevidencetoprovethatnotall sharks,eventhoseknowntobedangerous,areabouttoattackjustbecausethey areintheimmediatearea/vicinitywherepeoplearepresent.Thisagainmakes thepolicysubjecttocriticism.(WA 2013b:10)
Thedocumentconcludes: ‘Theremovalofanylinkto “imminent” needstooccur’ (WA 2013b:10).Nevertheless,theWAgovernmentadvancedtheimminentthreat policy.
Inshort,followingaseriesofemotionaleventstheWAgovernmentusedawellknowncausalstorytodirectblameatanindividualshark,whichmadetheissueagovernableoneforstateauthoritiesanddirectedthesolution:killingtheshark.Barnett spokeoutonthisissueusinga ‘toughonsharks’ approach,stating: ‘Iamonthe sideofbeingalittlemoreaggressiveabouttakingsharks.Thereissomehesitancy throughoutthecommunity – Iamnotthathesitant’ (TheWesternAustralian 2013).
In2014,followingseveralfailedattemptstocatchwhitesharks,theWAgovernmentadoptedanewpolicyusingbaiteddrumlinestotargetsharksincertainpopular localities.WithCommonwealthapproval,theprogramwastrialledwiththegoal beingthe ‘captureofasignificantnumberoflargesharksclosetohighuseswimming andsurfingareas[to]reduc[e]theriskofsharkattacks’ (WA 2014:7).Inaddition,the governmentwouldcontinueattemptstocatchandkillindividualsharksthatwere identifiedasan ‘imminent’ threat(WA 2014:65).
InSeptember2014,Barnettillustratedthepoliticalvalueofthe Jaws Effectframe asapoliticaldevicetolowerpolicythresholdsforemotionalissuesandenable
governmentaction.FollowingaWAEnvironmentalProtectionAuthorityrecommendationagainstanextensionofthedrumlineprogram(EPA 2014),effectivelyending theprogram,Barnettstated:
Ithinkourfocuswillbenowwhatdoyoudowithperhapsaroguesharkthatstays intheareaandisanimminentthreattobeachgoersandIthinkthatsharkhastobe destroyedandmoved,Idon’tthinkit’sacceptable.(CitedinOrr 2014)
Indeed,followingaserioussharkbiteincidentinEsperance,WAinOctober2014,a sharkhuntundertheimminentthreatpolicyresultedinthekillingoftwoprotected greatwhitesharks(Perpitch 2014).
TheseexamplesinWAhighlighthowa fiction-basedpolicymayservepolitical goals.Tellingthestoryofaserialkillingsharkhelpedtwodifferentgovernments, fromtwoopposingparties,maintaincontrolofthenarrativeandachievetheir policyoutputs.Itmayalsohaveprovidedaneasierpathbecauseamorescientificbasednarrativemeanttellingthepublicthatnothingcanbedoneorthatthegovernmentdidnotknowwhatwasgoingon.Yet,theconditionsunderwhichtheuseof thesenarrativesmayworkarespecificanddependonseveralfactors.
Examiningwhenthe Jaws Effectdoesnotwork
Aremainingquestionfromthisanalysisis:whendomoviethemesnotsupportpolicy responses?Isuggestthatthe Jaws Effecthasbeensuccessfulasapoliticaltool becauseitkeepstheseeventscentredonahuman–sharkconflictasawaytomaintain controlandexcludeothers,butthisisnotalwayspossible.Thiscanbeseenina numberofcircumstances.
First,the Jaws Effectmaynotworkifsharkswerenotamalignedgroupwitha negativesocialconstructionandalackofapowerfulpoliticalconstituency(Neff 2012).Inthiscase,punishingsharkswasperceivedaspoliticallyadvantageous. Second,moviemythsmaynotworkifthenarrativeprojectedadifferentpictureof theoutcome.Thereisadiscursivemonopolyonshark ‘attack’ labellingthat appearstoprovidecontextandmeaning.Thediscursivepowerofthephrase ‘sharkattack’ presentsanimageandoutcomefrom filmsthatcreatetheperception ofafatalevent.Thisphrasethereforepresentsaone-dimensionalrepresentation thatmayofferafalsenarrativeandimageryofreal-lifesharkbiteincidents(Neff andHueter 2013).Inaddition,thelackofamorerobustcontestationofthisterminologybyscientistsisalsoakeyfactorinthestrengthofthe Jaws Effect.Itmaybeless commonforpoliticiansandthepresstousealternativesto ‘attack’ verbiage(Neffand Hueter 2013),buttheuseofthesametermbyscientistsandconservationistsalike sendsamessagethataffirmsastereotypicalandoftenfalserepresentativeofreallifeevents.Last,movienarrativesaboutsharkbehaviourmaynotworkifthereis arobustoppositionfromscientists,conservationistsorthepublic.Theuseof moviesymbolismtoportraysharksasrogue,serialkillersadvantagesthegovernment andkeepsoutotherstakeholders.
Conclusion
Thisarticlehasexaminedtheconceptofthe Jaws Effectandexaminedtheway fictionalnarrativesfromaHollywoodmoviecanbeusedaspoliticaltoolsin
policymaking.IntheWAcasestudy,policydiscoursewasmorecloselyalignedto moviemythologythanevidence-basedscience.Indeed, fictionwasusedtooverwhelmcompetingscientificevidence.Unpackingthepoliticsofsharkbites,orany publicpolicyissue,involvesaddressingthewaywordsandimagesareusedto paintapictureforthepublicandinformpolicychoices.Thisresearchtherefore offersbroaderimplicationsforpolicyanalysis.The Jaws Effectisaboutmorethan onemovieortheissueofsharkbites.Inagloballyconnectedworld,aperception ofmultiple,frequentorclusteredemotionaleventsisunlimited.Socialmedia increasesperceptionsoffrequencyandintentionalityasproblemsarelinkedtogether. Theresultisaddeddistressonthepublicandmorepressureongovernmentsatall levelstogivemeaningtoevents.Thesearchforanswersduringtheseperiodscan leadgovernmentsdownmanypaths,including fictional films.Inall,thisresearch identifiesaworryingstyleofpolicymakingwherewidelyknown fictioncanbe usedtonavigatetheattributionofblameandtoprescribepolicyresponses.
References
Achen,C.H.andBartels,L.M.2004.Blindretrospection.Electoralresponsestodrought, flu,andshark attacks.Estudios/WorkingPapers(CentrodeEstudiosAvanzadosenCienciasSociales)199:1. AG staff.2014.SharkattacksinAustralia:Atimeline. AustralianGeographic 9September.URL:<http:// www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2014/09/shark-attacks-in-australia-atimeline>.Consulted11August2014. Arnold,P.J.2005.Theshark-monsterinOlmeciconography. MesoamericanVoices 2:1–31. Australian.2000.Sharkhunterslicensedtokill. Australian 7November. Benchley,P.1974. Jaws.NewYork:BantamBooks. Benchley,P.2000.Withoutmalice:Indefenceoftheshark. Guardian 9November. Benchley,P.andGottlieb,C.1975. Jaws.UniversalCity,CA:UniversalPictures. BoxOfficeMojo.2014.Alltimeboxoffice,23June.URL:<http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted. htm>.Consulted14November2014. Brändström,A.,Bynander,F.andt’Hart,P.T.2004.Governingbylookingback:Historicalanalogies andcrisismanagement. PublicAdministration 82:191–210. Brook,S.2000.Inthewayofakillingmachine. Australian 11November. Cantor,J.2004. ‘I’llneverhaveaclowninmyhouse’– whymoviehorrorliveson. PoeticsToday 25: 283–304. Coppleson,V.1958. Sharkattack.Sydney:Angus&Robertson. Coroners,I.2001. SouthAustraliaCourt:JevanWright.Adelaide,SouthAustralia. Czech,B.,Krausman,P.R.andBorkhataria,R.1998.Socialconstruction,politicalpowerandtheallocationofbenefitstoendangeredspecies. ConservationBiology 12:1103–12. Dowdney,D.2002.18ftbeachkiller. Mirror 7November. EA[EnvironmentAustralia].2002. Whitesharkrecoveryplan.URL:<http://www.environment.gov.au/ coasts/publications/gwshark-plan/pubs/greatwhiteshark.pdf>.Consulted27September2007. Ebert,R.1975.Reviews. Jaws.1January.URL:<http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/jaws-1975>. Consulted14November2014.
Elliot,K.2000.Fishinglines – Australiainsearchofgreatwhitehope. IndependentonSunday 12November. EPA[EnvironmentalProtectionAuthority].2014.EPArecommendssharkhazardmitigationdrumlineproposalshouldnotbeimplemented.11September.URL:<http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/News/mediaStmnts/ Pages/EPArecommendsSharkHazardMitigationDrumLineproposalshouldnotbeimplemented.aspx>. Consulted11September2014.
Gamson, W.A.andModigliani,A.1989.Mediadiscourseandpublicopiniononnuclearpower:Aconstructionistapproach. AmericanJournalofSociology 95:1–37. Gottlieb,C.1975. TheJawslog.NewYork:NewmarketPress. Hasan,P.2000.Thesharkattacksdebate. SundayMail 19November. Hollinger,R.C.andLanza-Kaduce,L.1988.Processofcriminalization:Thecaseofcomputercrime laws. Criminology 26:101–26. ISAF.2013. ISAFstatisticsfortheworldlocationswiththehighestsharkattackactivity(2001–2012). 18August.URL:<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statsw.htm>.Consulted1 September2014.
Keenan,A.2000.Citydividedoverthefateofman-eatingshark. Australian 8November. Kingdon,J.W.1995. Agendas,alternatives,andpublicpolicies.NewYork:Longman.
Kingdon,J.W.andThurber,J.A.1984. Agendas,alternativesandpublicpolicies.Boston,MA:Little, Brown.
Lodge,M.andHood,C.2002.Pavlovianpolicyresponsestomediafeedingfrenzies?Dangerousdogs regulationincomparativeperspective. JournalofContingenciesandCrisisManagement 10:1–13. Macfarlane,D.2000.Weshouldtrackdownandkillman-eaters. Australian 27September. Marsh,D.,Hart,PandTindall,K.2010.Celebritypolitics:Thepoliticsofthelatemodernity? Political StudiesReview 8:322–340.
Martin,R.andBrook,S.2000.Air,seahuntforman-eater. Australian 7November.
Martin,R.andKeenan,A.2000.Ascream,andbloodinthesea. Australian 7November. McConnell,A.andStark,A.2002.Foot-and-mouth2001:Thepoliticsofcrisismanagement. ParliamentaryAffairs 55:664–81.
Miller,B.2011.WAgovernmentdefendssharkkillorder. ABCNews 24October.URL:<http://www. abc.net.au/news/2011-10-24/wa-government-defends-shark-kill-order/3597664>.Consulted13 December2013.
Neff,C.2012.Australianbeachsafetyandthepoliticsofsharkattacks. CoastalManagement 40:88–106. Neff,C.2013. Thepoliticsofsharkattacks:Explainingpolicyresponsesfollowingsharkbitesin Florida,CapeTownandNewSouthWales.PhDthesis,UniversityofSydney. Neff,C.andHueter,R.2013.Science,policyandthepublicdiscourseofshark ‘attack’:Aproposalfor reclassifyinghuman–sharkinteractions. JournalofEnvironmentalStudiesandSciences 3:65–73. Neff,C.L.andYang,J.Y.2013.Sharkbitesandpublicattitudes:Policyimplicationsfromthe firstbefore andaftersharkbitesurvey. MarinePolicy 38:545–47.
Nohrstedt,D.2008.Thepoliticsofcrisispolicymaking:ChernobylandSwedishnuclearenergypolicy. PolicyStudiesJournal 36:257–78. Orr,A.2014.ColinBarnett’s ‘rogueshark’ theoryisfearmongering:Opponents. WAToday 12 September.URL:<http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/colin-barnetts-rogue-shark-theory-isfearmongering-opponents-20140912-10g3bl.html#ixzz3ExSzc8o3>.Consulted12September2014. Perpitch,N.2014.WAsharkattack:Bitemarksindicate ‘attackinvolvedsinglegreatwhite’ ABCNews 5October.URL:<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014–10–04/bite-marks-indicate-single-great-whiteattacked-surfer/5790290>.Consulted5October2014. Peschak,T.2006.Sharksandsharkbiteinthemedia.InD.C.NelandT.P.Peschak,eds. Findinga balance:WhitesharkconservationandrecreationalsafetyintheinshorewatersofCapeTown, SouthAfrica CapeTown:WorldWildlifeFoundation. Poultney,M.2000.Bluewater,whitedeath. Herald-Sun 11November. Rochefort,D.A.andCobb,R.W.1994. Thepoliticsofproblemdefinition:Shapingthepolicyagenda Lawrence,KS:UniversityPressofKansas.
Schneider,A.andIngram,H.1993.Socialconstructionoftargetpopulations:Implicationsforpolitics andpolicy. AmericanPoliticalScienceReview 87:334–46. Schulte,S.R.2008.TheWarGamesscenario:Regulatingteenagersandteenagedtechnology(1980–1984). Television&NewMedia 9:487–513.
Smith,R.2000.Survivortellsofsharkterror. DailyTelegraph 12November. Stone,D.1989.Causalstoriesandtheformationofpolicyagendas. PoliticalScienceQuarterly 104: 281–300.
Stone,D.A.1997. Policyparadox:Theartofpoliticaldecisionmaking.NewYork:WWNorton. Sunstein,C.R.andZeckhauser,R.2011.Overreactiontofearsomerisks. EnvironmentalandResource Economics 48:435–49. Tapper,J.2013.Why ‘SharkWeek’ issosuccessful.CNN 5August.URL:<http://thelead.blogs.cnn. com/2013/08/05/why-shark-week-is-so-successful/>.Consulted14November2014.
t’Hart,P.2010.Politicalpsychology.InD.MarshandG.Stoker,eds. Theoryandmethodsinpolitical science.3rdrevisededition.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
t’Hart,P.andTindall,K.2009.Leadershipbythefamous:Celebrityaspoliticalcapital.InMarsh,D., Patapan,H.andt’Hart,P.eds. Disperseddemocraticleadership:Origins,dynamics,andimplications.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
TourismAustralia.2014.CottesloeBeach,WesternAustralia.URL:<http://www.australia.com/ explore/cities/perth/wa-cottesloe-beach.aspx>.Consulted14November2014. Tversky,A.andKahneman,D.1973.Availability:Aheuristicforjudgingfrequencyandprobability. CognitivePsychology 5:207–32. Vaughan,O.2011.Goingrogue:Hasthissharkkilledthreepeopleintwomonths?news.com.au24 October.URL:<http://www.news.com.au/national-news/shark-attack-in-rotto/story-e6frfkvr1226174015981>.Consulted14November2014.
WA[WesternAustralia].2013a. Guidelinesfor fishingforsharksposinganimminentthreattopublic safety.Perth:GovernmentofWesternAustralia,DepartmentofFisheries.URL:<http://www.dpc.wa. gov.au/Consultation/Documents/Appendix%203%20Guidelines%20for%20fishing%20for%20sharks %20posing%20an%20imminent%20threat.pdf>.Consulted14November2014.
WA[WesternAustralia].2013b. Imminentthreatpolicyreviewnotes.Perth:GovernmentofWestern Australia,DepartmentofFisheries.URL:<http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1398844305189/WA-SharkPolicy-FOI.pdf?guni=Article:in%20body%20link>.Consulted14November2014. WA[WesternAustralia].2014. WesternAustraliansharkhazardmitigationdrumlineprogramreview 2013–14.Perth:GovernmentofWesternAustralia,DepartmentofPremierandCabinet.URL:<http:// www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Pages/WesternAustraliaSharkHazardMitigationDrumLineProgram 2013–14.aspx>.Consulted14November2014. WesternAustralianStateParliament.2003.Sharkattacks. AssemblyParliamentaryDebates,official Hansard,30October,12822c–12824a.URL:<http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard. nsf/0/6ab578f3f102fb93c8257570007fccf0/$FILE/A36+S2+20031030+p12822c-12824a.pdf>. Consulted2December2014.
