Pic: Rob Blakers, http://www.robblakers.com/
I’d like to comment of the use of military metaphor in describing the ongoing forest dispute (“war”) in Tasmania.
A metaphor is simply the instance of saying one thing is another, for example, “that dog is a horse”. Thereby all the attributes of a horse are inferred upon the concept of “dog” and the concept of “dog” takes on new meaning. This is how metaphors create meaning. The source domain, in this case, “horse”, infers upon the target domain, in this case, “dog”.
Or we can take the metaphor “the forest dispute is a war”. In this case the forest dispute, as target domain, receives attributes of “war”- the source domain. By describing the on-going forest dispute as a war, we are creating meaning within that forest dispute that is related to war and militancy. In understanding this metaphor further, it has been necessary to define war and conflict which is not war, such as non-violent direct action.
Of all the authors who define war, I believe philosopher Brian Orend (2000) defines it most comprehensively. He states: “war should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities … war is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states… all warfare is precisely and ultimately about governance … war is the ultimate means for deciding issues if a peaceful process or resolution can’t be agreed upon.
The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities does not suffice as indicators for war. The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes … do not count as war … there’s no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force … war is, indeed, governance by bludgeon”
War is not: peaceful protest, rioting or anarchist behaviour. To be defined as “war” a conflict must involve arms, injury and loss of human life, as well as conflict between political communities. I believe people who speak as though monopoles and treesits are “weapons” or “ammunition” in some kind of forest war are extending the military metaphor ubiquitous in the Tas forest dispute.
Often environmental news stories are crafted around a “fighting frame”. This is often a fairy-tale structure whereby there is a hero character and a villain character and war is justified because the villain is so demonic.
There is a wide body of literature on the role media and journalists play in shaping the conflicts on which they report. Media are participants in the conflict in that they shape the general public’s understanding of it. As Richards and King explain it: “even complex stories are simplistically reduced to a script of binary opposition” (2000: 483). Media critic Jonathan Alter beleives: “hyper-adversarialism … is now really corroding journalism” (2000: 480).,
Suzanne Romaine wrote extensively about military metaphor within environmental discourse in 1997. She is an American and traces the use of this metaphor in environmentalism to metaphorical wars fought by the American government such as wars on poverty, wars on AIDS, wars on drugs and wars on terrorism. She refers to news stories surrounding the Rio Summit of 1992, whereby the war metaphor was used extensively in the politics surrounding this international summit.
Another writer called Lori Hartmann-Mahmud explains three detrimental affects of declaring war on a concept, or labeling a conflict “war”:
1. It seeks to simplify the problem and thus prolong the inevitable confrontation with its complexity
2. It promotes an apolitical approach to the problem (it cannot be debated in the public realm)
3. it discourages a search for the root causes of the problem (2002: 430).
Hartmann-Mahmud believes that the war metaphor “narrowly demarcates acceptable speech: thus, again, the ‘mapping’ of political space transforms society” (2002: 430).
I encourage people to question why this metaphor is so ubiquitous and what is driving its continuation. My question is: “why must this dispute with a strong non-violence element be constantly described as war?
Whose politics does it serve?
I believe that in war, there is a demonization of the enemy. Continually referring to the forests dispute as a war demonizes both conservationists and forest workers, depending on whose position you take. If you choose to take neither side, you risk demonizing both.
Social constructionism is a realm of sociology described by social worker Christopher Beckett thus: “instead of language being seen as a representation of an outside reality, ‘reality’ becomes something that is created (‘socially constructed’) by language: a kind of story or narrative” (2003: 626).
This is the view I take of the forest war; the military language is not a true representation of what is actually an actively non-violent dispute, but is, rather, a narrative which has become sub-conscious to many commenting within Tasmanian environmental discourse. It is like the never-ending story. We have an IGA process which is an attempt to end a decades-long forest dispute but even Jonathon West is using the language of war.
In 1891 Oscar Wilde said: “only when we choose not to invoke the words of war to address social ills will we begin to solve the problems that lead to violence”.
We are at a crucial point in Tasmania’s environmental trajectory whereby we can choose our reality. We do not need to be at war, or even to play at being at war.
Groups like Still Wild Still Threatened lead the community in non-violent direct action, which I believe to be the opposite of war. Sometimes language can speak louder than actions. I encourage all Tasmanian environmentalists to continue not only their non-violent conservation activity but also non-violent language, which, in this case, means relinquishing the war metaphor.
Jade Price is a PhD student at the University of Tasmania. The article was part of a workshop at Camp Florentine on the weekend which sparked some very interesting discussion … which I’m hoping can continue via TT.
Refs:
Beckett, C., 2003: The language of siege: military metaphors in the spoken language of social work, British Journal of Social Work, 33, 625-639.
Hartmann-Mahmud, L., 2002: War as Metaphor. Peace Review, 14 (4), 427-432.
Orend, B., 2000: “War”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war (Accessed Feb 28th 2012).
Richards, T., and King, B., 2000: An alternative to the fighting frame in news reporting, Canadian Journal of Communication, 25, 479-496.
Romaine, S., 1997: War and peace in the global greenhouse: metaphors we die by, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(3), 175 -194.
Jonathon Alter in Richards and King.
Oscar Wilde, 1981.
• Carrie LaFrenz, AFR: Gunns eyes change of name, HQ
PUBLISHED: 10 Apr 2012 10:13:00 | UPDATED: 11 Apr 2012 02:40:34
Carrie LaFrenz
Gunns is considering a name change and a new head office in Melbourne as the troubled Tasmanian timber company looks to reinvent itself ahead of a critical $400 million equity raising.
The name Gunns Ltd has become synonymous with the Apple Isle through its stalled $2.3 billion pulp mill project in Bell Bay in the north of the state.
The controversial project, which the company has tried to build for the better part of a decade, has been fiercely opposed by green groups and divided the local community.
The Launceston-based company has not yet revealed any new name, and declined to comment yesterday. But it has lodged an application for at least one trademark, Enpax Australia, covering pulp for use in paper making, pulp, cardboard goods, paper, timber and timber products. It is understood Gunns is considering a rebranding as part of fresh start aimed at divorcing itself from Tasmania and the group’s rugged past.
Gunns sold its Lindsay Street head quarters in Launceston last year – although it continues to operate in the building – and market sources believe it is considering setting up an office in Melbourne. Many of the company’s investors are based on the mainland.
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings was unavailable for comment yesterday. A spokesman said it would be “inappropriate to comment on market speculation”.
• NO EVIDENCE FOR TREE SPIKING CLAIMS
Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
The Tasmanian Greens said that any future allegations linking environmentalists to suspected industrial sabotage should be treated with extreme scepticism, in light of confirmation by Tasmania Police that no evidence had been found to support the latest tree spiking claims.
“There has never been any proof that Tasmanian environmentalists have been involved in tree spiking, and these claims need to be treated with extreme suspicion whenever they are made,” Greens Leader Nick McKim said.
“These allegations always surface at critical points in the forestry debate, just when the industry wants to take the spotlight off its own failings or when critical decisions are looming.”
“Lessons need to be learned so that we don’t see another repeat of this kind of scapegoating.”
“Previously Tasmania Police has publicly rebuked people, including politicians, for pointing the finger without proof, saying that it was not helpful to the investigation.”
“Pointing the finger over this type of activity without evidence only fuels hysteria and anger in the community.”
