While reading Buell's “Toxic Discourse", I came across the term “preservationist”. A preservationist is quite obviously a person trying to preserve something. That “something” does mean, however, that the term in itself is very diverse and comes with a broad spectrum of different categories and connotations. E.g. one would perceive the agendas of language preservationists and preservationists of historical structures quite differently.
If this term is applied to the environmentalist agenda, it refers to a person who idealizes an ecocentric concept of nature and sees said entity only with value in itself (intrinsic), i.e. nature should be left alone and not be regarded in terms of use to mankind.
Posted by Christopher O'Sullivan
Yes, and many ecocritics will parse the differences between "preservationist" and "conservationist" rhetoric. On one hand, as you point out, preservationist rhetoric tends to idealize nature and find in it "intrinsic" value. Conservationist rhetoric, on the other hand, acknowledges the fact that we must live within nature, that we are, in fact, PART of it.
ReplyDeletePreservationists attack conservationists for what they see as a slippery-slope utilitarianism that allows for further damage to the environment. Conservationists attack the preservationists for what they see as "simple pastoral"--an unrealistic view of nature that discounts our place in it, particularly that of the lower class.
Oh, and you could then pair conservationism with environmental justice movements, and preservationism with environmental groups.
ReplyDelete