Language is the expression of our thoughts and perceptions of the world in which we live. Through language, we speak to other human beings about our surroundings and the events that occur within them. This powerful communication tool shares our ideas, values, and beliefs. It connects individuals to other individuals and larger communities where their feelings and opinions can potentially influence and change the feelings and opinions of others. Within the current scientific community, there is much contentious discussion about the language we use when discussing invasive species. An invasive species is defined as “a widespread non-native species that hurts a native ecosystem” (Mungi & Qureshi 2). Notice the two subjective terms in the definition: non-native and negative. The implication is that invasive species are bad. Frequently, terms that characterize invasive species are metaphorical. Metaphors are literary techniques that connect hard-to-understand, complex, and abstract ideas to simple, familiar, and easily understood ideas. For example, invasive species are characterized as “aggressive, uncontrollable, prolific, invasive, and expanding” (Subramaniam 30). These metaphors are associated with oncology and cancer and inspire thoughts that are unpleasant, dangerous, or deadly; thoughts which are then associated with invasive species. Additionally, terms that describe ways of dealing with invasive species are metaphorical. For example, “beachhead, battle, kill, eradicate, overrun, [and] explode” (Larson 495). These metaphors are associated with war and the military and inspire thoughts of destruction rather than management: thoughts which are then associated with invasive species. As challenging as these characterizations of invasive species are, broader ramifications regarding the discussion and perception of invasive species exist.
Currently, scientists have charged that not only language but the perception of an invasive species is xenophobic. This criticism arises from a feminist philosophy that proposes that nature and culture are interconnected. They theorize that a conception of nature is being affected by the political, economic, and cultural situations within which nature exists, and the “recent hyperbole” and “national rhetoric surrounding alien and exotic plants” are “in response to changing racial, economic, and gender norms in the country” (Subramaniam 28). An example of social anxiety regarding mass immigration can be found in this metaphorical definition of an invasive species. “A species that enters the country for the first time is called an ‘alien’ or an ‘exotic’ species: after an unspecified passage of time they are considered residents; after a greater unspecified passage of time they are considered naturalized species” (Subramaniam 27). Six xenophobic rhetorical parallels regarding immigrants and plants are proposed: aliens as the “other,” aliens are everywhere and taking over everything, aliens are growing in size and number, aliens are difficult to destroy and can withstand extreme conditions, aliens are aggressive and reproduce rapidly, and aliens are never going to leave (Subramaniam 29-30). The essential problem with xenophobic rhetoric is that it promotes poor science. Rather than researching all possibilities for degrading habitats and considering all possible solutions, invasive plants are blamed. “As long as exotic/alien plants know their rightful place as workers, laborers, providers, and controlled commodities, their positions are manipulated and controlled by natives, and their presence is tolerated. Once they are accused of unruly practices that prevent them from staying in their subservient place, they threaten the natural order of things” (Subramian 35). In contrast to humans, no specific plant is blamed, rather all invasive species are at fault. The reason this is a problem is because it affects how we manage invasive species and conduct conservation efforts. According to Larson, invasion biologists and conservation managers depend on rhetoric or militaristic language to provoke a response against invasive species. This is problematic for several reasons. First, invasive species are inaccurately perceived. When using military metaphors in discussions of invasive species we presuppose that they are our enemy and we are on opposing sides. It is more likely that human consumerism and global patterns of travel are responsible for invasive species arrival and our biological solutions will most likely be ineffective against a largely social issue. Second, militaristic language contributes to social misunderstanding, charges of xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility. When using military metaphors, we imagine a successful outcome in which entire invasive species are eradicated. Should the expected outcome not occur, critics may question whether military tactics against environmental problems are a feasible solution or even if the environmental problems are problems at all. Additionally, militaristic language can be misperceived by many people. Although emotional and persuasive, it has a xenophobic quality. Indigenous people are offended because militaristic language diverts attention away from their historical environmental impacts. Restoration programs that have removed invasive species are perceived to have advantaged the upper and middle class, making invasion removal activities appear class-based. Lastly, militaristic language is emotional and may contribute to the public’s distrust of scientific objectivity. People depend on science for factual information to help them understand the problem and form an opinion or make a decision. Militaristic language implies a commitment to a specific action and may prompt questions regarding a scientist’s intentions. Third, militaristic metaphors are counterproductive to conservation. Militaristic language incites conflict between opposing sides. Scientists with alternative views may be reluctant or even refuse to collaborate in activities that promote restoration and conservation (Larson 496-97). To more fully understand the debate regarding invasive species and the use of xenophobic rhetoric, the thoughts of two prominent scientists will now be presented.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
There appear to be two schools of thought regarding invasion science and the perception of non-native species and their effects: one which takes a conservation approach to non-native species and views them as a threat to ecosystems and one which takes a theoretical approach to non-native species and does not view them as particularly threatening or problematic. Mark Sagoff, a prominent critic of invasion science, is in the latter school of thought. Sagoff supports the viewpoints of Subramaniam regarding the use of xenophobic language to characterize non-native species and their effects. For example, “Those who seek funds to exclude or eradicate non-native species often attribute to them the same disreputable qualities that xenophobes have attributed to immigrant groups’ including fecundity, aggressiveness, and tolerance for degraded conditions” (Riccardi & Ryan 2732). Sagoff also supports the viewpoints of Larson regarding the use of xenophobic language to characterize non-native species and their effects. For instance, “Biologists have also written that exotic that exotic species pollute, harm, meltdown, disrupt, and destroy and degrade natural ecosystems” (Sagoff 228). Sagoff finds the current terminology in invasion science xenophobic. He does not believe the use of such rhetoric is justified primarily because there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the effects of non-native species and because the vocabulary that refers to “aesthetic, moral, or spiritual judgments” (Sagoff 228) is not defined operationally and has no scientific meaning.
Stuck on your essay?
