Wild
It's been pointed out numerous times that the language used by the conservation managers often contrives to be meaningless nonsense. Notoriously so when they use the words 'wild' and 'wilderness'. They get away with it because the people it's aimed at, often in official documents, are mostly low status politicians who haven't got the savvy or gumption to question their use. And it achieves its purpose in giving them control over what they should have no role in.
They have an awareness of their deception which leads them to use phrases like a sense of wilderness or a quality of 'wilderness'. Often putting the false word in quotes as if “it wasn't me that said it guv”.
It's acceptable to use terms that are subjective when they have no accepted and approved scientific definition especially when a general consensus has been largely agreed. But wild and wilderness are words with a specific meaning which describes something quite opposite to the landscapes they are applying the terms to. So to continue to use them is to try to deceive those with a limited knowledge and understanding of the subject. To describe as wild the character of landscape that is currently continuing under human control is utterly inexcusable and tantamount to fraud. There are other words and phrases they could have used but they choose not to. So one’s left with the impression that there is clear intent to deceive behind what’s happening. I call it corruption. Corruption of language is ultimately worse than, say, financial corruption because language conveys trust across all human affairs.
An excellent piece on the meaning of 'wild' is in the middle of the home page of Mark Fisher's brilliant website, Self-Willed Land.
No comments:
Post a Comment