The Wilderness Knot

摘要: "Over the last thirty years the meaning of the word 'wilderness' has changed in Australia, and it has come under sustained attack on philosophical, cultural, political and 'justice' grounds. Why has this happened? Why have wilderness campaigns drastically slowed? Why do some people no longer use the term? How has the term become so confused? What could be done to reduce this confusion? This thesis investigates the 'Wilderness Knot' - the confusion and tangled meanings around 'wilderness'. In the literature this 'knot' is comprised of at least five strands; philosophical, political, cultural, justice and exploitation. Normally people focus only on the last of these strands, its economic exploitation. 'Wilderness' as a term is in a unique philosophical position, being disliked by both modernists and many postmodernists alike. The methodology is qualitative, involving participatory action research (PAR) and hermeneutic phenomenology. The PAR was done with the Blue Mountains Wilderness Network near Sydney, which investigated the confusion around 'wilderness', and sought to reduce this by entering into dialogue with supporters, critics and community members interested in wilderness issues, notably the local Aboriginal Traditional Owners (TOs). Eleven in-depth interviews with scholars (including critics) of wilderness were carried out to feed into this PAR. The hermeneutic phenomenology made use of the wilderness journals of five of the Network, and sought to gain a deeper understanding of the experience of wilderness itself, and also the lived experience of encountering the wilderness knot. The PAR provided many insights into the knot, especially regarding the need for dialogue to reduce the confusion. It demonstrated the delicacy needed to gain meaningful dialogue over an issue which raises real passions about social and environmental justice. It took three years to develop meaningful dialogue between TOs and conservationists. Recognition of such sensitivities is an important part of understanding why dialogue often fails, and confusion remains. There was also insight into the complexities and difficulties of collaborative efforts to promote dialogue. All the scholars interviewed agreed that large natural intact areas ('lanais') should be protected, though some did not call them 'wilderness', but used other terms (for example; quiet country, core lands, wild country). Clearly some scholars do not know the formal definitions of wilderness as basically a large natural area, or if they do they prefer to use their own personal definition or meaning. Some of the confusion around 'wilderness' is actually a smokescreen when one finds out what people really mean. Although there are differences or sticking points between conservationists and TOs, none of these appear so great that both groups would not work together to protect 'wilderness as lanai'. The spectra of issues entangled in 'the land' and 'wilderness' are presented textually and diagrammatically, as are the ways forward to untangle meanings and reduce confusion. The political naivety of academia is discussed in regard to 'wilderness as lanai' (considering increasing threats). There is a need for greater rigour in identifying which meaning of 'wilderness' is actually being referred to. There is also merit in promoting recognition that 'wilderness' is in fact a tribute to past Indigenous land practices, not a disregard of Indigenous history. The idea of shared 'custodianship' or stewardship is suggested as a way forward. The wilderness journals demonstrated that the power of the wilderness experience is deeply felt, and many profound qualities were covered by the participants. They also expressed the loneliness of a wilderness advocate embedded in consumer culture, as well as the frustration, anger and despair around reconciling the reality of such places with what is said about 'wilderness', and the fanaticism involved in various positions on the issue. However, there is also the quality of dialogue as a positive response, where finding common ground reduces confusion and untangles some of the meanings - and brings hope for the future of such areas. The wilderness knot can indeed be loosened, as this thesis demonstrates. However, it will be an ongoing project for all those involved. The art to keeping 'wilderness as lanai' is not just 'eternal vigilance', it is an eternal ongoing dialogue about its meaning and values." [Taken from abstract].