Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
such thing as natural management' (p. 13). This places modern scientii c
management on a par with traditional Aboriginal management. The ethos
of scientii c rationality that is relied on here, therefore, does not undermine
the potential for an alliance with the Aboriginal discourse.
As well as adding such detail to the workings of a discourse coalition
between the government scientists and the Aborigines, the rhetorical
analysis provides an insight into the emotional appeal of such a discourse.
The government scientists' discourse is a rhetorically rich discourse. In
particular, there is very active rhetorical engagement with the key term of
'i re'. As they say, colloquially, 'Fire ain't i re' (p. 13). Instead the discourse
describes i re in terms of a 'management tool', a 'traditional practice', a
form of 'rejuvenation' (p. 12), and as having an 'evolutionary' role (p. 15).
Fire is not a negative thing when discussed in such language. It makes it
possible to combine positive reference to 'i re' in a discourse that also talks
of having 'love' for the land (p. 34).
And yet the negative ef ects of using i re are acknowledged. There is
reference to individual birds and animals killed by i re. This is, however,
set against a synecdochical account of how burning can save the habitat
of two key species - the malleefowl and ground parrots (pp. 12-13). The
extent of the intended burning is also i rmly set in context by invoking the
extremely emotive term 'the holocaust'. What the government scientists
are doing is making 'choices' (p. 14) or 'playing God' (p. 16) in order to
avoid 'policies of inaction' that would result in a 'holocaust of extinction'
(p.38). The i re of government scientists prevents the i re of complete
annihilation.
The third party to the dominant discourse coalition, the pastoralists, has
a similar discourse in the sense of mixing scientii c and emotive rhetoric.
The pastoralists' discourse again constructs the key entities in terms of, on
the one hand, nature described in scientii c terms - botanical communities
with scientii c names for species - and, on the other hand, humans as indi-
viduals who are able to act responsibly (although this is acknowledged as
an individual choice, not as inevitable). The relationship assumed between
nature and humans is seen in terms of the kind of win-win scenarios that
are typical of the broader sustainability discourse. The value that this dis-
course adds over the scientii c/traditional management discourses of the
government scientists and the Aborigines is its suggestion that economic
proi t can also be harnessed to the goal of conservation. As a result, the
combination of the three discourses is rhetorically very strong indeed.
Similar to the government scientists' discourse, there is also a rich use
of emotive rhetoric within the pastoralists' discourse, combining scientii c
terminology with moral imagery. Pastures are portrayed as biotic commu-
nities with 'stability' and 'integrity', both moral and eco-scientii c terms.
