from PART II - Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
When I speak to conservation science audiences about the social dimensions of conservation, I am often asked why, as a social scientist, I am so intent on ‘making conservation political’. The implication is that politics has no place in conservation research, is unhelpful to conservationists, and even reflects a deliberate attempt to attack or weaken conservation. Conservation scientists (and most conservationists are trained as scientists) seem to feel that conservation of itself is inherently apolitical.
I think that such questions reflect three things. First, my questioners see the conservation of living diversity as a moral necessity, something that is self-evidently right and just has to be done. In the language of conservation biology, conservation is a ‘mission’ (Meine et al., 2006). Anything that detracts from that mission, or contextualises it as just one among other competing ideas or interests, is therefore inherently suspicious. Second, they feel that conservation is scientific, and therefore its actions, if properly based on scientific evidence (Pullin and Knight, 2001), are not the outcome of mere political choices, but the result of scientific conclusions from impartial data, which should be above dispute (except when new data become available). Third, they believe conservation can be done in a way that is essentially neutral, so that while there may be problems with what might be called ‘actually existing conservation’ in particular places (especially where the science is weak), these can be ironed out, and win–win solutions identified.
Some conservationists certainly feel that those speaking about conservation conflicts, or the negative impacts of projects like protected areas on local people, are troublemakers. An example of this is Spinage's hostile review of the book Social Change and Conservation (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997), a volume he dismissed as ‘cloaked in Marxist and neo-populist dogma’ (Spinage, 1998: 265). If change is to come in conservation, Spinage argued, ‘it should be based on ecological criteria and not political ideology’ (Spinage, 1998: 274).
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.