Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation
View graph of relations

Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation. / O'Neill, John.

In: Philosophy and Geography, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2002, p. 35-50.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

O'Neill, J 2002, 'Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation', Philosophy and Geography, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770120116822

APA

Vancouver

O'Neill J. Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation. Philosophy and Geography. 2002;5(2):35-50. doi: 10.1080/10903770120116822

Author

O'Neill, John. / Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation. In: Philosophy and Geography. 2002 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 35-50.

Bibtex

@article{1b2d8990a251486fba7ea2705ad4f1c6,
title = "Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation",
abstract = "{"}Nature{"} and {"}wilderness{"} are central normative categories of environmentalism. Appeal to those categories has been subject to two lines of criticism: from constructivists who deny there is something called {"}nature{"} to be defended; from the environmental justice movement who point to the role of appeals to {"}nature{"} and {"}wilderness{"} in the appropriation of land of socially marginal populations. While these arguments often come together they are independent. This paper develops the second line of argument by placing recent appeals to {"}wilderness{"} in the context of historical uses of the concept to justify the appropriation of land. However, it argues that the constructivist line is less defensible. The paper finishes by placing the debates around wilderness in the context of more general tensions between philosophical perspectives on the environment and the particular cultural perspectives of disciplines like anthropology, in particular the prima facie conflict between the aspirations of many philosophers for thin and cosmopolitan moral language that transcends local culture, and the aspirations of disciplines like anthropology to uncover a thick moral vocabulary that is local to particular cultures.",
author = "John O'Neill",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1080/10903770120116822",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "35--50",
journal = "Philosophy and Geography",
issn = "1090-3771",
publisher = "Carfax Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wilderness, cultivation and appropriation

AU - O'Neill, John

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - "Nature" and "wilderness" are central normative categories of environmentalism. Appeal to those categories has been subject to two lines of criticism: from constructivists who deny there is something called "nature" to be defended; from the environmental justice movement who point to the role of appeals to "nature" and "wilderness" in the appropriation of land of socially marginal populations. While these arguments often come together they are independent. This paper develops the second line of argument by placing recent appeals to "wilderness" in the context of historical uses of the concept to justify the appropriation of land. However, it argues that the constructivist line is less defensible. The paper finishes by placing the debates around wilderness in the context of more general tensions between philosophical perspectives on the environment and the particular cultural perspectives of disciplines like anthropology, in particular the prima facie conflict between the aspirations of many philosophers for thin and cosmopolitan moral language that transcends local culture, and the aspirations of disciplines like anthropology to uncover a thick moral vocabulary that is local to particular cultures.

AB - "Nature" and "wilderness" are central normative categories of environmentalism. Appeal to those categories has been subject to two lines of criticism: from constructivists who deny there is something called "nature" to be defended; from the environmental justice movement who point to the role of appeals to "nature" and "wilderness" in the appropriation of land of socially marginal populations. While these arguments often come together they are independent. This paper develops the second line of argument by placing recent appeals to "wilderness" in the context of historical uses of the concept to justify the appropriation of land. However, it argues that the constructivist line is less defensible. The paper finishes by placing the debates around wilderness in the context of more general tensions between philosophical perspectives on the environment and the particular cultural perspectives of disciplines like anthropology, in particular the prima facie conflict between the aspirations of many philosophers for thin and cosmopolitan moral language that transcends local culture, and the aspirations of disciplines like anthropology to uncover a thick moral vocabulary that is local to particular cultures.

U2 - 10.1080/10903770120116822

DO - 10.1080/10903770120116822

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

SP - 35

EP - 50

JO - Philosophy and Geography

JF - Philosophy and Geography

SN - 1090-3771

IS - 2

ER -