In his piece, “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology,” Brendon Larson describes the increased trend toward using militaristic language in literature about non-indigenous nuisance species.  He explains that dramatic metaphors are often used in an attempt to foster a sense of urgency about the non-native species, and rally efforts to control their spread.  He then lists the problems with this approach, specifically the fact that looking at invasion biology as if it were a war is a misguided point of view that can lead to false impressions, unwarranted labeling of species as “enemies”, and loss of scientific credibility.  He concludes by suggesting alternative metaphors that would raise awareness without the negative effects, such as likening invasive species to illnesses, which, as such, need to be treated – not “killed”.

Examples of such militaristic language are virtually ubiquitous in invasive species literature.  One such instance can be seen in a previous post on this blog, “Welcome to Weevil!” (Marks 2010).  The author writes, “Water hyacinth… causes many problems in the places where it invades… In order to combat this dangerous plant, weevils were introduced into Lake Victoria…” (Marks 2010). This employs a few different military themes.  First, although certainly not unique to this post, the very term “invasive species” has a militant tone, suggesting a conscious strike into an enemy territory.  The use of “dangerous” later in the quote serves to emphasize this theme.  Most notably, the verb “to combat” cements the militaristic nature of the post, suggesting a tactical battle between ecologists and water hyacinth.  Similar examples can be seen throughout numerous other pieces of literature in this field as well.

It would be hard to argue that there is no truth to Larson’s argument.  There certainly are plenty of military metaphors to be found in the literature of invasion biology, and it cannot be denied that the light in which something is presented influences how the audience receives it.  Particularly, it is essential that authors of scientific literature maintain their credibility if they wish to be taken seriously, and it is difficult to be entirely credible while using hyperbole and exaggerated metaphors.  However, it seems that in his criticism of others’ sensationalism, Larson gets somewhat sensationalistic himself.  At one point he goes so far as to assert that overly military language will raise fears of a “terrorist attack on the environment [with invasive species]” (Larson 2005), thus wasting scarce conservation funds on precautions for a near impossibility.  It seems highly unlikely that anyone is too worried about terrorists smuggling invasive species into the country.  Later in the article, he claims that “wars against invasive species indirectly contribute to veritable ones” (Larson 2005), an assertion that comes across as an exaggeration if not an outright absurdity.

As a whole, the article raises some important points, most of which should not be discounted.  Larson gets somewhat carried away in his effort to show the importance of demilitarizing invasion biology, but the essentials of his argument still ring true.  Scientists need to retain their credibility, and need to ensure that their literature will evoke positive conservation efforts, not destructive militaristic tendencies.

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Marks, Jonathan. Welcome to Weevils! (SW2). WordPress Blog. http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/01/28/welcome-to-weevil/

While military metaphors are quite common in everyday language, Brendan Larson argues in his article The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology that these metaphors are actually detrimental to the reputation of invasive species.  Larson argues that, because of the copious use of militaristic metaphors, many authors can inadvertently discredit an invasive species as being an “enemy” just because it is invasive.  Furthermore, he argues that scientists have the tendency to go overboard with their literary militarism for the sole reason of gaining public support to obtain funding.

An example of militaristic metaphors used to describe invasive species is seen in Lisa Foderardo’s New York Times article “Battling a Nasty Green Invader from the Deep”.  In it, Foderardo describes one man who is opposed to the spread of the Eurasian watermilfoil as “on the front lines of the fight against an invasive species”.  This metaphor is clearly militaristic because it describes milfoil as an enemy that is dangerous and must be destroyed (Foderaro 2007).

While it is certainly valid to say that militaristic metaphors can harm the reputation of invasive species, it is also quite a stretch.  Bashing military metaphors for making something sound like an enemy is like bashing cooking metaphors for making things sound like they are food.  The fact of the matter is that a metaphor is something that compares one thing to another thing in order to make a point.  It is not necessarily the intent to completely bash one type of literary style because it makes invasive species look bad, because the underlying purpose of the metaphor is to show that there is a problem.  Additionally, I do not see why it is so unheard of to classify an invasive species as “bad” in the first place.  I feel like it is fairly obvious that no creature is intrinsically “evil” and no type of metaphor is capable of convincing any educated person otherwise.  Finally, the fact of the matter is that invasive species are animals and their feelings are not getting hurt by authors bad-mouthing them.  I feel that defending them so passionately is a little ridiculous because the fact of the matter is that they are not native to the environments they are introduced to and are causing a problem, ergo speaking out against them is necessary.

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Foderaro W. L. 2010.  Battling a Nasty Green Invader from the Deep. New York Times

War metaphors are pervasive in our society.  They are used to discuss everything from financial markets to sporting events to the spread of invasive species.  Brendon Larson of the University of California-Davis takes issue with this latter trend in a recent article in Frontiers in Ecology.  He argues that the use of militaristic language in discussing invasive species is actually harmful to conservation efforts as it confuses the public and discredits scientists.  An example of such language can be seen in the blog post “Foiled by Milfoil,” which concludes a discussion of milfoil’s harmful ecological effects with the following statement: “The battle of whether to kill off milfoil or to try and control it for human use is currently underway” (clr26 2010).  This phrase depicts milfoil as an enemy that must be either annihilated or harnessed, both militaristic ideas that Larson would find troublesome.

The pervasiveness of militaristic metaphors in discussions of invasive species is hardly debatable, however I disagree strongly with Larson that it is problematic.  Military metaphors are well understood by the general population and so they often serve as an effective way of communicating ecological concepts that may be somewhat abstract.  An example is the use of the term dud to describe an invasive species that fails to spread or have a profound ecological impact.  I think this metaphor is clear and effective and do not understand how it can be construed as discrediting the scientists who use it.  In conclusion, Larson fails to provide any evidence of public opinion for or against the use of military metaphors in the scientific literature and so his argument lacks a serious foundation.

Link to “Foiled by Milfoil?”: http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/01/23/foiled-by-milfoil/

Ben Berg
Larson’s article,  “The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology”, attempts to highlight the problematic aspects of framing invasion ecology with warlike metaphors.  He argues that the strong, belligerent language often used when describing an invasive species has adverse effects for the cause as a hole.  Larson describes how the militarized fashion in which we describe these species misrepresents the complex, multi-faceted issue of alien species as a two-sided battle, ending only in the destruction of one of the actors.  He also argues that language familiar to human immigration debates and other current affairs may serve to bias people on the basis of their opinions about these clearly disjoint matters.

Larson’s argument seems undeniably accurate in its portrayal of the language used in invasive ecology texts.  One of my classmates, for example, wrote in a blog post, “It is therefore surprising to find that the mute swans are an invasive species to the area and are on a warpath of destruction that is reaping havoc on the habitats of indigenous species.” (Primrose, 2010).  While it should be noted that the author was attempting to juxtapose the serene appearance of the swan with its ecological effects, Larson’s point is nonetheless clear.  Many texts use similar language to describe invasive species in the most dire and dramatic way possible.

While Larson does attempt to argue an interesting position, his defense is ultimately unsuccessful.  The first major problem with Larson’s argument lies in that he provides no viable alternative.  Strong, militaristic language is used to attract attention from the less scientific audience that reads about invasive ecology.  He provides some alternative ideas on language to frame the subject in his conclusion, but it is immediately clear that these would not appeal to this audience in a remotely similar fashion.  Another, and perhaps larger problem lies in the support of Larson’s argument.  He attempts to validate broad sociological claims about the reception of invasive species with anecdotal and individual evidence.  Sometimes dipping into the realm of hypothetical situations in which a reader is offended by certain language, Larson declines to provide any systematic approach to justifying his position.

Finally, it is ironic that while Larson argues about the manner in which militaristic language dilutes the scientific process, he himself ignores a fundamental concept of research.  He fails to control for the varied intended audiences across several types of articles.  It was illuminating to me, for example, that the above quote came from a classmate’s blog post.  I began looking for quotes in sources to be cited in my literature review.  I slowly realized that I had been looking in the wrong place.  As I made my way towards progressively more casual writings, it was not until I looked at the most informal of sources before I found a satisfactory passage.  Larson recognizes that militaristic language is used when describing the issues to a more informal audience, and decides to apply this to the scientific community at large.  This seems to ignore the stratification of language across sources, a variable that clearly plays a critical role in how descriptive language is used.

Quote from the swan article found here:

The main argument of Larson’s papers is that the current metaphors used when describing invasive species are actually hindering conservation goals.  The militaristic pattern of thinking utilized by many authors is inaccurate and ultimately portrays invasive species in a light that causes confusion and misunderstanding amongst the majority of the population, as well as environmentalists.  Some of the examples proposed by Larson of how militaristic analogies harm conservation include that the idea of waging war against a species requires us pitting ourselves against the species and favoring biological solutions as well as that these analogies create false ideals that we can complete eliminate invasive species as triumph over their “evil.”  Larson proposes the adoption of alternative metaphors and analogies that actually consider the relationship between people and the environment.  One example given is describing invasive species as a “disease” that is harming our quality of life.

An example of the military language Larson is arguing against comes from a NASA article that discusses the proliferation of the water hyacinth throughout Africa.  When discussing the invasive nature and attributes of the plant, the article stated that, “water hyacinth…is amongst the world’s most noxious invaders…Water hyacinth can also sap oxygen from the water until it creates a ‘dead zone’ where plants and animals can no longer survive.  Typically, only aggressive measures can control the fast-growing plant” (Przyborski and Remer 2009).

While I completely support Larson’s attempt to analyze literature about invasive species in order to increase the efficacy of how writing encourages conservation efforts, I do not agree with his conclusions.  First of all, I feel that Larson makes statements without clarifying their meaning or supporting them with details.  He merely states that militaristic metaphors contain inaccuracies, which confuse the public but gives no explanation of this trend.  I personally do not feel confused when reading invasive species articles with militaristic tones.  Additionally, I agree with Larson that militaristic metaphors create two opposing sides (the species and humanity), but this is true of any argument; there are always two sides.  This fact is not limited to language discussing invasive species.  One of the most confusing parts of Larson’s argument is when he states that removing invasive species tends to benefit the upper-middle classes rather than poor people.  I do not understand this conclusion at all, and I feel that it makes his argument confusing and unclear.  My final opposition to Larson’s article is that he centers many of his arguments on comparing the environment to social and political situations.  He compares invasive species issues to events like the September 11^th terrorist attacks, and I just do not feel like these two fields are on the same level at all.

Przyborski, Paul and Remer, Lorraine. Water Hyacinth Re-invades Lake Victoria. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7426.  Viewed 25 January 2010.

SW6

By: David Lung

Larson criticizes the militaristic language that biologists use in order to inform the public. Doing so would ultimately describe invasive species wrongly, cause a backlash from the people because we were at fault to begin with for bringing in these invasive species and create a fear of these plants that might be counterproductive to conservation. He argues that waging war is not a good description for controlling invasive species because they are a part of our lives now and we were the ones that gave them the opportunity to live in foreign environments. Also, he states that it is impossible to completely get rid of these species from ecosystems they have already invaded and the methods to restore a particular ecosystem might cause further problems. Larson states that the rhetoric should be toned down considerably and we should work on preventing the spread of invasive species and accept that they are a part of the ecosystems they now inhabit based on our own actions

“Cyrtobagous Salviniae destroyed terminal and lateral buds on the parent plant which partially compensated for this loss by producing new buds of higher order rank, some of which were also attacked by adults and larvae.” (Forno and Semple 1987)

I saw this quote on a study of the salvinia weevil as a potential biocontrol agent of giant salvinia (salvinia molesta). Using terms like “destroyed” and “attacked” gave this sentence a militaristic tone. The authors could have stated that the salvinia weevil ate the terminal and lateral buds or simply that the insect controlled the giant salvinia by doing so. I somewhat disagree with Larson’s argument though. In my opinion it is obvious that we were the main agents that brought invasive species, but to allow these invasive species to live with us when they already do so much damage to the ecological services native organisms provide, it does not make sense to live peacefully with them. The damage these invasive species do is not overexaggerated for the most part. They are essentially parasites, outcompeting native species that have already reached an equilibrium with their ecosystem and also disrupting the overall balance of the ecosystems they now inhabit. The backlash he talks is somewhat probably because these invasive species such as the Sitka black-tailed deer that help people with a lower socioeconomic status. Overall, I do believe the militaristic tone is necessary and effective for preserving what is left of pristine ecosystems from invasive species, but also to restore invaded ecosystems to the best of our ability because we are at fault for disrupting those ecosystems and should be reminded in the urgency of the problem we’re responsible for.

References:

Larson, B.M.H. 2005. “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Forno, I.W. and J.L. Semple. 1987. “Response to Salvinia Molesta to insect damage: changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content.” Oecologia. 73: 71-74.

Larson discusses the many downsides to using militaristic metaphors when writing about invasive species. HE states that although militaristic language used can be effective in drawing attention to invasive species, it can also carry unwanted connotations. There are two main problems with using militaristic language the first is that it implies that there are two different sides and that we humans are not part of the problem but a lot of the time we are. War metaphors also lead to the assumption that invasive species can be completely defeated and this is not usually the case. These metaphors could interfere with conservation efforts. Also, after time these metaphors can lose their efficacy if they are used too often and for less problematic situations. According the Larson, by using militaristic metaphors biologists create an artificial feeling of war. Larson advocates using alternative language when writing about invasive species. He suggests that maybe a medical or disease metaphor could be more effective when talking about invasive species.

I found a lot of examples of the type of language Larson was talking about in new articles. When describing an ecologist looking for watermill foil the writer uses “an unusual reconnaissance mission” (Foderaro 2007). He is also described as being “on the front lines of the fight against invasive species” (Foderaro 2007). The writer also uses the phrase “the Adirondacks is girding for war” (Foderaro 2007). I can definitely see what Larson is talking about. I think that metaphors are definitely effective at grabbing attention, however I agree with his argument that they are overused. I do not necessarily agree that they are ineffective, but I think they can overshadow the issues and become problematic.

Foderaro LW. 2007 Battling a Nasty Green Invader From the Deep. New York Times.