Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
constructed as Aborigines with an innate set of responsibilities and
rights in relation to the land, nature as a discrete entity, and Europeans,
constructed as bearing guilt and blame. While Aborigines are viewed as
being in tune with the 'natural rhythms of life' and intrinsically seeking
to preserve the land, Europeans are constructed as destructive towards
nature and operating in pursuit of economic proi t. These constructions
support the story-line gleaned from a Hajerian analysis of the text. The
Dryzekian analysis adds little in this case largely because there is little
use of metaphors or other rhetorical devices. This in turn is because the
Aboriginal voices are largely reported or represented. Indeed, both the
Aboriginal representations at the seminar were made by white academics.
There is little active voice in this discourse and the resulting tone is rather
'l at'. The only discursive colour can be found in the references to caring
for the land by referring to burning as 'cleaning up' land that would
otherwise be 'neglected' (p. 23). Love for and care of the land is equated
with burning it; a connection that is also made by the government scien-
tists (p. 34).
By contrast, the analysis of the government scientists' discourse from
this perspective is very revealing. The main constructed entities are
scientists - constructed as responsible, knowledgeable but also realistic
- and ecosystems, which are a scientii c category. This combination of
constructions gives considerable authority to the government scientists.
They constitute the main means of accessing knowledge about ecosystems.
'Experience of over 50 years of research' (p. 37) is referenced to support
government pro-burning policy. It is stated by one representative that the
government position on the use of i re is 'so clearly established factually'
that anyone disputing it should 'go and read the literature' (p. 35).
But the government scientists also present themselves in a range of
moral terms: they are responsible: they recognize the limitations of sci-
entii c knowledge in terms of uncertainty - 'we are never going to have
perfect knowledge' (pp.12 and 14). They also refer to the importance
of local knowledge and of cultural heritage, therefore enabling the link
between their discourse and that of the Aborigines. This is taken further
in how the key relationships are constructed. Scientii c knowledge is seen
as justifying the kind of traditional practices undertaken by Aborigines.
Intertextual reference is made to carbon dating evidence that suggests a
40 000-year history of the use of i re in Australia to justify an accusation
of 'supreme arrogance' on behalf of those opposed to burning as they are
'denying the ancient order' (p. 34). Science can work with tradition within
the context of an overall assumption of the possibility of positive human
engagement with nature that enables management. Furthermore, such
human management is inevitable and has always happened: 'There is no
