Conservation biology, postmodern theory, and rhetoric in 'the great new wilderness debate': A case study in environmental rhetoric, the rhetoric of science, and public argument.

摘要

This dissertation explores the rhetorical dimensions of the Great New Wilderness Debate. It argues that the critique of the idea of wilderness, which is inspired by postmodern theories of language and multiculturalism, is misguided. Critics of wilderness argue that the idea of wilderness is scientifically unsound, and ideologically detrimental to environmental protection efforts. The main reason given, is that the discourses, myths and ideologies of wilderness and the wilderness preservation movement are instrumental components of the ideology of the domination of nature. Two alternatives to the idea of wilderness have been proposed. The first alternative attempts to replace conservation strategies grounded in the idea of wilderness with scientifically grounded strategies of ecosystem management. The second attempts to transcend the mythic and ideological attributes of wilderness by positing a postmodern philosophy of wilderness.; The first chapter describes the critique of wilderness and situates it theoretically, as a product of the critique of the ideology of the domination of nature, and historically, as a product of the “Age of Ecology.” The second chapter analyzes contemporary theories of environmental rhetoric, and posits a sophistical theory of rhetorical invention as a corrective supplement to these rhetorical theories. The third chapter critiques the first of the two alternatives to the idea of wilderness. It argues that the scientific alternative to wilderness is simply another manifestation of the ideology of the domination of nature. The fourth chapter addresses the ethical alternative to the received idea of wilderness: the postmodern philosophy of wilderness. It argues that while the postmodern philosophy of wilderness contains the seeds of an ideological alternative to the idea of wilderness, it is not in itself an alternative to the ideology of the domination of nature. The final chapter argues that the critique of wilderness fails to produce an adequate ideological alternative to the idea of wilderness because its postmodern theories of language and multiculturalism are naive and over-simplistic. It concludes by contending that a better way to resist the ideology of the domination of nature is by linking the rhetoric of wilderness preservation to a rhetoric of post-humanist democracy.