Search

Analyzes the rhetoric of agricultural conservationists focusing on the 1930s Dust Bowl, revealing that its potential for promoting environmentally sound land-use practices was limited. Argues that the vulnerability of conservation efforts to competing forces was largely a function of the hierarchy of motives associated with land use. (SRT)

Explores rhetorical strategies that construct institutional authority by analyzing discourse from a Senate subcommittee hearing. Argues that, although domination is basic to human organization, all structures are vulnerable to strategic alteration through effective participation. (MS)

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy options for mitigating climate change have been severely limited in the USA by the clash of competing ideologies. People who oppose policies to mitigate climate change have successfully framed climate change as existing outside the realm of fact and empirical reality. Instead, opponents frame the issue as a melodramatic struggle between good and evil. While scientists and engineers tend to be uncomfortable with melodramatic framing, we argue that melodrama resonates with people. Constructing a different melodramatic frame can tap into people's tendency to conceptualize issues in terms of heroes and villains and assist in creating a shift in the political controversy from debating the factuality of climate change to a focus on mitigation. We developed an educational video game that uses this frame to teach students about climate change and carbon capture, and sequestration, to create an understanding of CO2 as the villain and humans as heroes through participation in mitigation strategies. The hero of this melodrama is aided by science and technology to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. We analyze The Adventures of Carbon Bond© as a medium for educating students about climate change and shifting framing. We begin with a discussion of melodrama and the rhetorical nature of video games. Then, through statistical analysis of surveys completed by students who played the game, we demonstrate that students experienced a knowledge increase as a result of game play. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for productively reframing climate change towards an emphasis on technological mitigation. © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human–wildlife conflict has emerged as the central vocabulary for cases requiring balance between resource demands of humans and wildlife. This phrase is problematic because, given traditional definitions of conflict, it positions wildlife as conscious human antagonists. We used content analysis of wildlife conservation publications and professional meeting presentations to explore the use of the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, and compared competing models explaining its usage. Of the 422 publications and presentations using human–wildlife conflict, only 1 reflected a traditional definition of conflict, >95% referred to reports of animal damage to entities human care about, and <4% referred to human–human conflict. Usage of human–wildlife conflict was related to species type (herbivores with human food, carnivores with human safety, meso-mammals with property), development level of the nation where the study occurred (less developed nations with human food and more developed nations with human safety and property damage), and whether the study occurred on private lands or protected areas (protected areas with human–human conflict and other areas with property damage). We argue that the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, is detrimental to coexistence between humans and wildlife, and suggest comic reframing to facilitate a more productive interpretation of human–wildlife relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The appearance of Steven Schwarze's essay, “Environmental Melodrama” (Schwarze, 2006) as the lead article in a recent issue of The Quarterly Journal of Speech marks an important moment of recognition for environmental communication scholarship. Schwarze's essay demonstrates how studies of environmental rhetoric can contribute to rhetorical theory more generally, while addressing practical questions regarding the rhetorical aspects of environmental conflict. The contributors to this forum respond to Schwarze's arguments, drawing in part upon their own case studies of rhetorical action and narrative in environmental conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This analysis considers the rhetoric of the Texas-based American Ethnic Coalition, and details the AEC's Attempt to achieve legal protection of English as the official language of the U.S. AEC rhetoric aligns itself with key metaphors, and uses the metaphors to exclude its opponents. Further, the AEC seeks legitimacy by posing as spokesman for the English language movement at a time when such languarge issues find currency. The constructs of freedom and unity are used to ethnocentrically justify support for Official English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the importance of book `Legitimating the Chinese Economic Reforms: A Rhetoric of Myth and Orthodoxy,' by Alan R. Kluver on Chinese rhetoric. Management of the economic reform program of Deng Xiaoping by the Communist Party; Symbolic recreation of Mao Zedong; Justification on the move toward market socialism by mythic narratives and character.