Oh, my poor brain
I have been laboring over this essay in my head and my computer for so long. centuries it seems and whenever i feel like i 'Got It' i don't.
my last post was a sigh of relief, a triumphant declaration of success; breaking through the wall -- 'i'm on my way , baby!' and, perhaps i am. yet my brain will not work. i stare and i stare at my computer i read and i read trying to absorb, trying to take helpful notes and still i cannot make form out of air. right now, i am wondering about my thesis. i don't seem to have one and i am not sure where to find one. perhaps craigslist could be of help.
I have two documents. Both are utilizing the same or similar rhetorical elements of ethos and logos. Both writers are utilizing data and opinion/analysis to support their claims. One article is written by scientists addressed to US Senators and is supporting the ESA and offering opinions about why it should remain as is and how it can be improved/strengthened. The other article is written by a non-scientist and is addressed to an undetermined audience that is arguing that the ESA is a failure. I will apply Aristotelian rhetorical theory to analyze and understand the arguments and discern the effectiveness of each argument.
this is what i have. this is giving me fits. i need a thesis it seems.
should my thesis be arguing for the more successful argument? could i write minus a thesis and just deliver the analysis on a platter for the reader to absorb and make their own determination?
i really don't know
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Endangered Species Me pt. 2
Alrighty,
My goal for the week is to have a completed rough draft of my essay by Friday-ish. The hardest part about this essay, for me, has been organizing my thoughts and information and then figuring out how to organize my paper. Up until this past Saturday evening whilst watching my beloved Hockey Night in Canada broadcast (you tell 'em Barry! stupid lightning are stupid...) I was hopelessly confused, doubtful about what i was writing about and how i was going to write it. thankfully my gf helped me out. i am feeling much better about writing this thing now. so indulge me as i write out my thoughts here.
my plan for this essay, as of now, is to analyze the the rhetorical elements of two documents. The first document is a letter written and signed by a whole bunch of individual biologists and other scientists and 900 relevant organizations arguing for the support of the Endangered Species Act, that congress should not weaken it, and that they should provide more financial and legislative support for the ESA. Since this letter is written by scientists i thought it would be interesting to analyze it through the lens of Aristotle. I have identified usage of ethos, logos, and pathos, but mostly ethos. It is possible that I might find some other something to analyze this letter with if i need to.
Next, i will analyze a document that argues against the ESA, and just like before i will find a theory or theorist to be my primary tool for study. I have found a letter that has been written by a guy named Peyton Knight who works for a conservative think tank that i think will work. it was written in response to some legislation that he disagreed with (of which i also have available) and as he argues against the legislation he is also arguing against the ESA. (Alternatively, i could just contrast the legislative article with the response letter but only if it is advised).
Finally, i will conclude the essay by comparing and contrasting the two documents. i will discuss how each document was successful or not, and why as well as explore why each document chose to use the rhetorical elements that it did.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Theories of Technical Dysfunction
It makes sense that within an organization there is social activity, and so being, that there is a rhetorical context within an organization. If we are in agreement that knowledge is part of a social contract – that “social communities frame contexts for knowing,” then it should be of the utmost importance for organizations, groups, businesses and schools to acknowledge that and educate those workers, members and students how to engage in these environments successfully.
Teresa Harrison, in her article “Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts,” even proposes the idea that organizations are systems of knowledge. “An organization is constituted in part because its members share in a potentially unique worldview…the content and structure of a knowledge or cognitive system is generated by individuals interacting with each other and with their environments.” The focus of recent articles I’ve read are exploring the relationship between technical communication and rhetoric within organizations, how knowledge in generated or shared, and how educators should approach teaching their students. What I’ve come away with after reading these articles, among them Harrison’s above mentioned piece and “Writing Technologies at White Sands” by Powell Henderson is a strong sense that there are problems with the relationships between people and people with technology.
Whereas I am not wholly surprised by the apparent confusion and conflicts found in the workplace -- within groups and organizations, what do surprise me, though, is the consistent documentation of it over several decades. As far back as the sixties you have people such as Lloyd Bitzer making inroads as to the nature of rhetoric and few, if any, of the aforementioned articles I’ve read recently were written within this century. This makes me curious as to why there is so much past theory, observation and documentation on technical communication within the classroom and workplace environments, the various problems that exist in the workplace and how it relates to technical communication but yet there are no solutions referenced. With so much apparent dysfunction within organizations, et al, with so much apparent need for better, particular education for technical communicators we are reading study after study, article after article documenting and expressing these sentiments. Has no progress been made over the years? Should we expect that there will be any progress any time soon?
What’s the point of reading and analyzing such theoretical articles about things that I agree are interesting and important, yet there is a lack of evidence that any positive changes have happened in industry and education? The same set of questions arises in these studies as do the same observations of conflicts and problems. How are we supposed to respond to all of this?
Teresa Harrison, in her article “Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts,” even proposes the idea that organizations are systems of knowledge. “An organization is constituted in part because its members share in a potentially unique worldview…the content and structure of a knowledge or cognitive system is generated by individuals interacting with each other and with their environments.” The focus of recent articles I’ve read are exploring the relationship between technical communication and rhetoric within organizations, how knowledge in generated or shared, and how educators should approach teaching their students. What I’ve come away with after reading these articles, among them Harrison’s above mentioned piece and “Writing Technologies at White Sands” by Powell Henderson is a strong sense that there are problems with the relationships between people and people with technology.
Whereas I am not wholly surprised by the apparent confusion and conflicts found in the workplace -- within groups and organizations, what do surprise me, though, is the consistent documentation of it over several decades. As far back as the sixties you have people such as Lloyd Bitzer making inroads as to the nature of rhetoric and few, if any, of the aforementioned articles I’ve read recently were written within this century. This makes me curious as to why there is so much past theory, observation and documentation on technical communication within the classroom and workplace environments, the various problems that exist in the workplace and how it relates to technical communication but yet there are no solutions referenced. With so much apparent dysfunction within organizations, et al, with so much apparent need for better, particular education for technical communicators we are reading study after study, article after article documenting and expressing these sentiments. Has no progress been made over the years? Should we expect that there will be any progress any time soon?
What’s the point of reading and analyzing such theoretical articles about things that I agree are interesting and important, yet there is a lack of evidence that any positive changes have happened in industry and education? The same set of questions arises in these studies as do the same observations of conflicts and problems. How are we supposed to respond to all of this?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Emerging Organizational Conflict
...And because of collaborative writing peace was brought to the land. Bunny rabbits and all of the other woodland creatures came together, drank apple juice and rejoiced.
in a way, this is how the Donehy-Farina article "Writing in an Emerging Organization" comes across as he tells the story of Microware. All because of collaborative writing the company was able to begin the process for business success. you know, for all the attention to the process of an emerging organization. i don't recall any reporting on what eventually happened to Microwave. did it survive? was it successful overall? if so, what role did the writing & rhetorical processes play in the future of the company.
i still kinda wish that an article like this were available that is more contemporary than the earl 1980s. for me, personally, it would help put the role of writing in modern careers & industries in perspective, it would help me understand how important writing is nowadays.
his ideas for how collaborative writing refines the focus of 'reality' & rhetoric seems to make sense. he definitely wants to emphasize the social aspect of writing & the writing process which i can agree with. what i found interesting was his thoughts about oral discussions & interactions with co-workers as a vital part of the social aspect of the writing process. i know that employers are not going to like the argument that social time, 'goofing off' is actually work when it comes to writing.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Writing On The Job
The Faigley, Miller article was an interesting one to read, mostly because I am always curious to know how reading and writing influence the economy and the workplaces of the country. Since it was written in 1982 I am not quite as certain how to respond to the conclusions set out in the article -- I am certain things have changed somewhat. Certainly the idea that persons do not dictate anymore and do have their own computers with word processing to write their own letters exists now. It was nice though to see how technology has advanced within my lifetime (born: 1980) and to see that even then their was but a modest emphasis within the culture on writing and communication skills -- reflected perhaps in the colleges and universities that led to the "literacy crisis" of the mid-seventies.
My own experiences with communication skills bumping against the disinterested technology students has lead me to believe in the fundamental necessity of reading and writing and critical analysis skills. I am not certain how to respond to the article because of its age -- I want to be able to read something late enough that I can apply it to the realities of the present. if for only my own sake, as I ponder why I even decided to study Professional Writing in the first place. But what I can readily take from this article is that there still is a difference between on the job writing and off the job writing.
The ways in which we write, as are the motivations and the means in which we do it. Many people write just the same as anyone in the past might have, with journals and lists and as entertainment. But there are more ways to write with new computer technologies (E-Mail, IM) and it seems like we are in an even greater "literacy crisis" now than any time before within the time of the industrial revolution. I am inclined to believe that communication, as viewed as a tool, rightly evolves and changes as technology does. So in that sense, as long as we effectively communicate then all is good, yet I can't get past the idea of proper "effectiveness" and "proper writing." As in there is a "correct" way of writing, spelling, audience, etc. that needs to be taught and emphasized more in school and in the work force.
I think that maybe the best way to ensure the future of writing is to better educate ourselves and our students of the power, influence and necessity of writing. As well, as acknowledging writing in different contexts -- on the job vs. off the job writing so as to better work in both arenas of life. I know for myself, as good, or effective a writer as I believe I am or capable of being, I am ignorant of how to write "practically" and that might be of concern to me or a potential employer. But I'd like to think that I know enough and am capable enough to learn. A background that allows for that to happen is what we should hope for, at least for younger students, especially high school graduates.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
rosalind franklin looks like jimmy durante's sister
For starters, since I am currently reading articles about gender – basically feminist studies in technical communication – it is interesting to learn about a female scientist involved in the “discovery” of DNA. Rosalind Franklin was a biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer who contributed to the understanding of the molecular structure of DNA among other things. Her work making X-ray diffraction images of DNA (whatever that means) was the data used by Watson & Crick to develop their hypothesis “regarding the structure of DNA.” For whatever reasons she is lost or obscured in history while her male contributors are remembered and celebrated for their efforts. I don’t know anything well enough to form an opinion about this but I thought bringing it up would be interesting.
I’ll incredibly brief and generalized here. The feminist theorist would, according to Mary M. Lay, like to make known the gender biases inherent in science and technology. These biases, whether intentional or unconscious, give the power to the masculine entity which is thought to have the characteristics suited for science, namely: objectivity and reason. Maybe, had Rosalind Franklin been able to present herself in a more masculine way; write in the masculine language she might have been recognized more for her efforts.
More to the point of the article though, the discussion of kairos is an interesting way to view history for the purposes of rhetoric and technical writing. To be able to criticize Avery for his caution, and aversion to break from the standard of scientific thought comes only in hindsight after someone else has brought about new discovery. In this case, Watson & Crick nine years later. It is a fair argument to look at Avery and his decisions within the context of his time and the time in history. The chronos for him is his time in history and he does exhibit a kairos because he did publish the paper that mentioned DNA as the genetic transfer vehicle in bacteria. Just the same as you can make judgments about Watson & Crick being, perhaps, not cautious enough to appear scientifically prudent. Where Avery was hesitant to jump to conclusions Watson & Crick were more than willing to. Like Avery, Watson & Crick are representative of their time in history and their time in the history of their scientific community. Had they written their paper the same year as Avery what would the response have been? Again, context plays a large role in determining histories discoveries.
I’ll incredibly brief and generalized here. The feminist theorist would, according to Mary M. Lay, like to make known the gender biases inherent in science and technology. These biases, whether intentional or unconscious, give the power to the masculine entity which is thought to have the characteristics suited for science, namely: objectivity and reason. Maybe, had Rosalind Franklin been able to present herself in a more masculine way; write in the masculine language she might have been recognized more for her efforts.
More to the point of the article though, the discussion of kairos is an interesting way to view history for the purposes of rhetoric and technical writing. To be able to criticize Avery for his caution, and aversion to break from the standard of scientific thought comes only in hindsight after someone else has brought about new discovery. In this case, Watson & Crick nine years later. It is a fair argument to look at Avery and his decisions within the context of his time and the time in history. The chronos for him is his time in history and he does exhibit a kairos because he did publish the paper that mentioned DNA as the genetic transfer vehicle in bacteria. Just the same as you can make judgments about Watson & Crick being, perhaps, not cautious enough to appear scientifically prudent. Where Avery was hesitant to jump to conclusions Watson & Crick were more than willing to. Like Avery, Watson & Crick are representative of their time in history and their time in the history of their scientific community. Had they written their paper the same year as Avery what would the response have been? Again, context plays a large role in determining histories discoveries.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Proposal
Dude, I hope this came out alright. I was dealing with uncertainty at every turn. Bon Soir!
English 505
Justin Blumberg
Proposal
I have chosen to pursue a rhetorical analysis of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its purposes, and its benefits and its criticisms. The ESA was passed into law in 1973 with the intent that it would preserve those species of life that were in the most need for species survival. The benefits and successes of the ESA have competed with the controversies and oppositions that have developed because of it. It is a very complicated issue to unpack, one that has influential roots back to the earliest days of the US nation, including cultural implications founded by Native Americans, early European settlers, immigrants, myth and folklore, environmental concerns, religion, commerce and economies, the rights of citizens and landowners, corporate concerns, and of course, the ‘rights of nature.’ The ESA was born out of a collective national insight into the need for the government and the citizenry to take an active role in the stewardship of the animal and plant species of the country.
I believe that the best course of action for this paper would be for me to explore the document that makes up the Endangered Species Act, and use whatever insights I may glean to establish a backdrop for further discussion. The breadth of the potential areas of rhetorical exploration makes me hesitant to take on a line of discussion that would prove to be too winding and thorny. It might be more useful for our purposes for me to focus my attention on the nature of the ESA and its causes and effects on the wildlife it serves and the causes and effects of the country it imposes itself on. There is great support for the ESA where people of all kinds, from government officials, environmentalists, scientists, and landowners believe there is a need for human intervention in the preservation of our natural resources – and would even claim that there is need for the ESA, and, as such, the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS/NMFS), to be granted greater powers. On the other hand, opponents of the ESA would argue that the ESA has too much power as it is, and is not serving the benefit of the human population in this country.
Opposing argumentation like this could be enough to frame my paper but I feel like it would be best if I included analysis and discussion of the ESA as a whole. I would like to specifically touch on: What is the Endangered Species Act? How does the ESA work? Include discussions on the listing and delisting process; discuss the support and opposition arguments toward the ESA; and possibly include as an example a particular animal or case as support.
What Is The ESA?
The Endangered Species Act was born out of earlier attempts by the US government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. It is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation. It was out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world which prompted the creation of this unique and influential law. Let us now look at some of the text that comprises the ESA.
The following is an excerpt from the Endangered Species Act Section 2:
(a) FINDINGS. – The Congress finds and declares that –
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction,…
The language in this text can be interpreted as an appeal to reason. There does not appear to be any overly demonstrative, or emotionally provocative language. It seems to me that it is written very clearly, succinctly and directed toward a large audience – speaking for a specific group of persons residing in a speech community that can understand the reasons for the Act. Despite the structure of the document being of a specific discourse community it still serves its purpose of explaining Congress’ rationale for the ESA.
I will follow next with an explanation of how the ESA works and an analysis of another section the ESA document.
How Does The ESA Work?
The ESA is enforced by two separate federal agencies who share administrative responsibilities. “The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting terrestrial and avian species and freshwater fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce takes responsibility for maritime species, including anadromous fish such as salmon” (Salzman 280). Either the FWS/NMFS can, of their own initiative, place a species on the endangered species list, or it may receive petitions from outside organizations or individuals.
These decisions are based on scientific data that are taken into consideration by the Department of the Interior. Whether a species is in danger of extinction and therefore should be listed, or if it is determined that populations of listed species has risen to healthy, recovered levels then that species can be removed from the list. Below is a section of the ESA document that details further how decisions to list a species are made.
SEC. 4
(a) GENERAL – (1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence…
Again, with the document here we have an instance of rational appeal. The need for articulation is apparent in that this document is spelling out for the reader or interpreter the process for determining what is an endangered or threatened species. There isn’t an argument here to be won or lost, but a presentation of a structure, an ideal, or a belief which needs to be received and understood by all relevant entities which would read this, or be prosecuted because of this.
Now that the ESA is presented and explained enough for our purposes I think it would be best to conclude the paper with a discussion of the benefits, or successes of the Act in contrast with its oppositions. I believe that the controversies that have dogged the ESA from its beginning provide an opportunity to analyse the rhetoric used by those on either side of support for the ESA.
Arguments In Support Of And Against The ESA
Much of the proponents for the ESA are made up of a wide-ranging cross-section of the US population, which include government officials, private citizens, landowners, environmentalists and scientists. There are numerous reasons for why persons choose to support the ESA and want to help it thrive. Some reasons include: belief that it is humankind’s natural position to be steward of the natural world; an intellectual understanding of how all of life fits together in a larger ecosystem – how all of life is, ultimately, interdependent; an emotional connection to the natural world and wildlife – the thought of impermanence is scary; the empathy for a fellow living creature suffering is strong and influential. These are persons who see the value in maintaining a healthy natural environment where all of nature’s creatures can co-exist to the other’s benefit.
Considered of great value with this is biodiversity “which constitutes the overall community of organisms within a habitat and the physical conditions under which they live” (Salzman 279). By having biodiversity we humans can benefit from “detoxification and decomposition of wastes, purification of air and water, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of harmful agricultural pests, support of cultural activities, and provision of aesthetic beauty and pleasure” (Salzman 280). Obviously, what benefits us makes us more inclined to promote that of which we benefit from. Put more simply, humans will be more supportive of preserving natural habitats if doing so proves a significant value to our lives.
A lot of the opposition seems to stem from persons who see the power of the FWS/NMFS as Big Government interfering with the lives and livelihoods of the citizenry. The ESA has the ability to restrict what landowners can do to or with their land if it is deemed that an endangered species’ habitat might be destroyed thus harming the endangered species. This could effect how a landowner, especially a farmer conducts business. For example, will they be able to till their land or fell trees on their property if doing so destroys habitat? This same power effects the government and corporate businesses too, preventing them from constructing things like dams, shopping centers or other business enterprises if it interferes with the ability of an endangered species to thrive. Moreover, there is concern from hunters and fisherman when they are unable to legally hunt for either personal or commercial purposes.
Through examples of documents and case studies that represent these different opinions about the Endangered Species Act it can make understanding why these arguments work, or if at all. Part of my consideration for this is to focus on Congressional hearings, cases brought to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, and choosing a particular species, for example the Brown Pelican who has had some attention from the FWS/NMFS in the past.
I will try to make the ESA connect to examples of FWS/NMFS in action, and hopefully in doing so I will be able to make connections to my audience. It is important that I am able to discover the rhetorical devices that have helped construct the attitudes behind the ESA and that promote its means and ends to a citizenry with sundry motivations and opinions about conservation or environmental degradation. Though those terms alone could be put under the microscope of rhetorical analysis. Those who oppose the ESA may not like to think that they are somehow ‘evil’ or anti-conservationists, but perhaps are promoting the welfare of the country in a different way. This course of discussion though may be best explored in a different paper. For now, I would like to confine my research to the topics outlined above.
Bibliography
Magoc, Chris J. Environmental Issues In American History: A Reference Guide With Primary Documents. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Salzman, James, and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2007.
English 505
Justin Blumberg
Proposal
I have chosen to pursue a rhetorical analysis of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its purposes, and its benefits and its criticisms. The ESA was passed into law in 1973 with the intent that it would preserve those species of life that were in the most need for species survival. The benefits and successes of the ESA have competed with the controversies and oppositions that have developed because of it. It is a very complicated issue to unpack, one that has influential roots back to the earliest days of the US nation, including cultural implications founded by Native Americans, early European settlers, immigrants, myth and folklore, environmental concerns, religion, commerce and economies, the rights of citizens and landowners, corporate concerns, and of course, the ‘rights of nature.’ The ESA was born out of a collective national insight into the need for the government and the citizenry to take an active role in the stewardship of the animal and plant species of the country.
I believe that the best course of action for this paper would be for me to explore the document that makes up the Endangered Species Act, and use whatever insights I may glean to establish a backdrop for further discussion. The breadth of the potential areas of rhetorical exploration makes me hesitant to take on a line of discussion that would prove to be too winding and thorny. It might be more useful for our purposes for me to focus my attention on the nature of the ESA and its causes and effects on the wildlife it serves and the causes and effects of the country it imposes itself on. There is great support for the ESA where people of all kinds, from government officials, environmentalists, scientists, and landowners believe there is a need for human intervention in the preservation of our natural resources – and would even claim that there is need for the ESA, and, as such, the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS/NMFS), to be granted greater powers. On the other hand, opponents of the ESA would argue that the ESA has too much power as it is, and is not serving the benefit of the human population in this country.
Opposing argumentation like this could be enough to frame my paper but I feel like it would be best if I included analysis and discussion of the ESA as a whole. I would like to specifically touch on: What is the Endangered Species Act? How does the ESA work? Include discussions on the listing and delisting process; discuss the support and opposition arguments toward the ESA; and possibly include as an example a particular animal or case as support.
What Is The ESA?
The Endangered Species Act was born out of earlier attempts by the US government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. It is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation. It was out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world which prompted the creation of this unique and influential law. Let us now look at some of the text that comprises the ESA.
The following is an excerpt from the Endangered Species Act Section 2:
(a) FINDINGS. – The Congress finds and declares that –
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction,…
The language in this text can be interpreted as an appeal to reason. There does not appear to be any overly demonstrative, or emotionally provocative language. It seems to me that it is written very clearly, succinctly and directed toward a large audience – speaking for a specific group of persons residing in a speech community that can understand the reasons for the Act. Despite the structure of the document being of a specific discourse community it still serves its purpose of explaining Congress’ rationale for the ESA.
I will follow next with an explanation of how the ESA works and an analysis of another section the ESA document.
How Does The ESA Work?
The ESA is enforced by two separate federal agencies who share administrative responsibilities. “The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting terrestrial and avian species and freshwater fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce takes responsibility for maritime species, including anadromous fish such as salmon” (Salzman 280). Either the FWS/NMFS can, of their own initiative, place a species on the endangered species list, or it may receive petitions from outside organizations or individuals.
These decisions are based on scientific data that are taken into consideration by the Department of the Interior. Whether a species is in danger of extinction and therefore should be listed, or if it is determined that populations of listed species has risen to healthy, recovered levels then that species can be removed from the list. Below is a section of the ESA document that details further how decisions to list a species are made.
SEC. 4
(a) GENERAL – (1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence…
Again, with the document here we have an instance of rational appeal. The need for articulation is apparent in that this document is spelling out for the reader or interpreter the process for determining what is an endangered or threatened species. There isn’t an argument here to be won or lost, but a presentation of a structure, an ideal, or a belief which needs to be received and understood by all relevant entities which would read this, or be prosecuted because of this.
Now that the ESA is presented and explained enough for our purposes I think it would be best to conclude the paper with a discussion of the benefits, or successes of the Act in contrast with its oppositions. I believe that the controversies that have dogged the ESA from its beginning provide an opportunity to analyse the rhetoric used by those on either side of support for the ESA.
Arguments In Support Of And Against The ESA
Much of the proponents for the ESA are made up of a wide-ranging cross-section of the US population, which include government officials, private citizens, landowners, environmentalists and scientists. There are numerous reasons for why persons choose to support the ESA and want to help it thrive. Some reasons include: belief that it is humankind’s natural position to be steward of the natural world; an intellectual understanding of how all of life fits together in a larger ecosystem – how all of life is, ultimately, interdependent; an emotional connection to the natural world and wildlife – the thought of impermanence is scary; the empathy for a fellow living creature suffering is strong and influential. These are persons who see the value in maintaining a healthy natural environment where all of nature’s creatures can co-exist to the other’s benefit.
Considered of great value with this is biodiversity “which constitutes the overall community of organisms within a habitat and the physical conditions under which they live” (Salzman 279). By having biodiversity we humans can benefit from “detoxification and decomposition of wastes, purification of air and water, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of harmful agricultural pests, support of cultural activities, and provision of aesthetic beauty and pleasure” (Salzman 280). Obviously, what benefits us makes us more inclined to promote that of which we benefit from. Put more simply, humans will be more supportive of preserving natural habitats if doing so proves a significant value to our lives.
A lot of the opposition seems to stem from persons who see the power of the FWS/NMFS as Big Government interfering with the lives and livelihoods of the citizenry. The ESA has the ability to restrict what landowners can do to or with their land if it is deemed that an endangered species’ habitat might be destroyed thus harming the endangered species. This could effect how a landowner, especially a farmer conducts business. For example, will they be able to till their land or fell trees on their property if doing so destroys habitat? This same power effects the government and corporate businesses too, preventing them from constructing things like dams, shopping centers or other business enterprises if it interferes with the ability of an endangered species to thrive. Moreover, there is concern from hunters and fisherman when they are unable to legally hunt for either personal or commercial purposes.
Through examples of documents and case studies that represent these different opinions about the Endangered Species Act it can make understanding why these arguments work, or if at all. Part of my consideration for this is to focus on Congressional hearings, cases brought to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, and choosing a particular species, for example the Brown Pelican who has had some attention from the FWS/NMFS in the past.
I will try to make the ESA connect to examples of FWS/NMFS in action, and hopefully in doing so I will be able to make connections to my audience. It is important that I am able to discover the rhetorical devices that have helped construct the attitudes behind the ESA and that promote its means and ends to a citizenry with sundry motivations and opinions about conservation or environmental degradation. Though those terms alone could be put under the microscope of rhetorical analysis. Those who oppose the ESA may not like to think that they are somehow ‘evil’ or anti-conservationists, but perhaps are promoting the welfare of the country in a different way. This course of discussion though may be best explored in a different paper. For now, I would like to confine my research to the topics outlined above.
Bibliography
Magoc, Chris J. Environmental Issues In American History: A Reference Guide With Primary Documents. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Salzman, James, and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)