The original intent of describing the controlling of invasive species in militaristic terms was to inspire action to help the problem. According to Brendon MH Larson, however, it has done nearly the opposite. In the article, “The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology,” Larson claims that despite the short term attention drawn from words such as combat or eradicate, the long term effects prove to be insufficient. In one instance, Larson cites the “‘boomerang’ effect, whereby ‘extremely intense language or images used for purpose of persuasion can have an opposite effect on the receiver,” as studied by Mio (1997). Despite Larson’s coherent argument, the warlike approach builds up an idea in the audience’s minds that invasive species are the enemies. In the end, creating a negative attitude against them may ultimately drive future decisions against them when given the opportunity.
One instance of the effectiveness of the combative approach is seen in Rejmanek et al. in 2002. The belligerentword, “eradication” is clearly labeled in the title, and 51 other times throughout the article. Other militaristic words such as “strategy” and “target” are coupled with “eradication” to describe the efforts against invasive species. The article itself argues that the “eradication” of a particularly invasive weed is feasible with possible biocontrol methods. Larson argues that the militaristic language is ”misleading” because it assumes “we can pit ourselves against invasive species.” As seen in the case of Rejmanek et al., we can in fact successfully rid an area of an invasive species, thus proving Larson wrong.
Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.
Rejmanek, M., M. J. Pitcairn. 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In Veitch, C. R. and Clout, M. N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group: 249-253
.
Brendon MH Larson’s article discusses the use of combative language when describing invasion biology. He claims in his paper that the militaristic metaphors used do not promote effective and appropriate responses to invasive species. Instead, such language leads to readers misunderstanding the invasive species, increase xenophobia, and promote militaristic thoughts towards the species rather than approaching the issue scientifically. He believes that aggressive language will promote short-term results but in the long term, it will not result in success in ecosystem conservation (Larsen 2005).
An example of such language can been seen in a British news site article on invading species that were colonizing Britain. Right away, the title uses the militaristic phrase, “Invasion of the aliens,” followed by, “colonising Britain.” (Clay-Jones and Bignell 2008) From the title, a person’s first impression would be that something foreign is taking over and living in Britain and that such an invader should be kicked out as soon as possible. The opening paragraph then states that the “poisonous false widow spider are booming and expanding as never before,” (Clay-Jones and Bignell 2008) which makes the reader think about alien poisonous spiders taking over a country, leaving a very misleading impression. Such an opening approach isolates the species from the reader’s world, making them feel as though the animals came from a different planet and must be stopped before the aliens take over the world.
While describing the spiders as dangerous is not bad, giving such a strong impression of them being alien invaders that must be stopped is a strong misinterpretation. Misunderstanding species in invasion biology may motivate the population into action faster by scaring them, but effective ecosystem conservation requires society to properly understand the species and approach the situation without unreasonable xenophobia clouding people’s judgment.
References:
Clay-Jones, Megan, and Paul Bignell. “Invasion of the Aliens: The Exotic Species That Are Colonising Britain – Nature, Environment - The Independent.” The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper. 31 Aug. 2008. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/invasion-of-the-aliens-the-exotic-species- that-are-colonising-britain-913932.html>.
Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.
Militaristic language is often used when discussing invasive species in many contexts, even scientific research papers. Larson (2005) argues that the use of such language shows that scientists are seeing invasive species as the enemy, and when they describe them as such, influencing their colleagues’ and readers’ perceptions as well. He has two main issues with calling the efforts against invasive species a “war”; the first being that we simply cannot face off against invasive species since most have reached their new habitats because of human actions, and the problem cannot be solved just by killing them; the second issue is that a war takes place with the assumption that good will triumph over evil, but invasive species cannot be classified as “bad” just because they are having some negative affects on new ecosystems. Larson (2005) says that loaded, militaristic language could even cause the public to lose their faith in the scientific community’s credibility if they sound like they are advocating for the “war” on invasive species. Larson (2005) suggests language that is more appropriate to the values of conservation, using example such as traditional Chinese medicine which describes disease using metaphors about balance and energy, rather than a fight. He feels that militaristic metaphors lead to militaristic action, which is quick and effective for a short time, but is not a long-term solution.
An example of the militaristic language that Larson (2005) is discussing comes from Mack et al. (2000). While discussing how invasive species may have a lag phase after they reach a new ecosystem, some populations eventually explode. They state, “This eruption often occurs rapidly, and there are many first-hand accounts of invasions that proceeded through this phase despite the concerted efforts of the public to control them” (Mack et al. 2000). This may not seem overly militaristic, but the fact that the paper repeatedly refers to invasive species as “invaders” enhances the imagery of an army of species invading a new ecosystem, even when the public attempts to take action against them.
I personally do not find the militaristic rhetoric used by many scientists discussing invasive species to be out of line. If we are putting time and energy into trying to control or eradicate invasive species that are damaging their new ecosystems, that effort can legitimately be called a fight. The term “invasive species” itself implies that the species are entering new areas with malign intents. This is obviously not true, as most are just spreading to areas that human activity takes them, but it is difficult to see them as benign while we refer to them as invaders. Perhaps Larson (2005) is right when he says that the metaphors can be taken too far, but I certainly don’t agree that they are “ineffective” because the problem of invasive species is a substantial one that we can fight against.
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, and Bazzaz FA. 2000. Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and Control. Ecological Applications 10(3): 689-710.
Brendon Larson in his paper, “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology,” argues that although using militaristic language when addressing invasive aquatic species, “perhaps…has been successful, given the tremendous amount of attention this issue has received recently,” it may have negative effects in the long run (Larson 2005). Larson expresses that the language implies there are two clear opposing sides, when in reality, the reason invasive species have become such a prevalent problem is due to humans themselves (Larson 2005). Larson also argues that strong language blinds people to the real scientific facts, that in turn prevents society from being able to deduce their own opinions, potentially turning them off in the long run and establishing wider interest in solving the problem (Larson 2005).
I both agree and disagree with Larson. I agree in the sense that militaristic language shouldn’t be used to depict invasive species as the enemy, considering the reason many species are such a problem is due to human transport. However, I disagree in the sense that it should not be used at all. I believe that militaristic language can be extremely effective for invasion biology if it is used against those responsible for spreading the species, rather than the species themselves.
An article entitled, “Texas launches war on invasive aquatic species,” on a Texas news’ website provides the perfect example of ineffective militaristic language. The reporter clearly establishes an “us against them” relationship that is clearly inaccurate. Giant Salvinia has spread itself, but the humans played a role as well. The article goes on to claim that, “[Texas is] under siege by a plant,” and a man even laments that “…the Texas we know and love will be changed forever and not for the better”. The semi comical part about this article is the article also provides the reader with the fact that “the fern was illegally brought to Texas 12 years ago by either the aquarium or gardening trade”. It directly shows the reader the human’s role in aiding the enemy they are apparently waging the war against.
Militaristic language can be very effective in solving a problem because it gives people a sense that immediate action is necessary. It can greatly help draw attention to an issue like invasive species that doesn’t receive as much attention as it should, as long as the language is directed against the actual enemy.
Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 3: 495-500.
Alberts, S. Texas Launches War on Invasive Aquatic Species. http://www.kvue.com/news/Texas-launches-war-on-invasive-aquatic-species-89731482.html. 1 April 2010. Viewed 11 October 2010.
In Brendon Larson’s paper “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology, Larson expresses his opinion on the diction used in recent journal articles on invasive species. Larson feels that the diction used is entirely too militaristic. The journal articles contains grasping metaphors that are intended to attract attention and cause people to want to take action immediately. Although this technique is effective, Larson feels that the use of militaristic metaphors is troublesome. This type of language causes the readers to misinterpret the invasive species problem and to oversimplify the problem. From this militaristic perspective, the language confuses the reader into thinking the problem that exists is a war-like situation involving the human population verses the invasive species with no other factors involved.
In my own blog post, I used the militaristic style and oversimplified an invasive species problem. While explaining the ongoing termite problem in New Orleans, I said, ”If more action is not conducted, the termites will eventually eat away at the building until it collapses causing the city of New Orleans to flood.” I created a man verses environment problem with this statement by saying that only human control could stop this problem from occurring, which could cause radical ideas and plans to be made, which could in effect cause even more problems. Based on the opinion of my own error, I personally agree with Larson’s opinion that militaristic language does not convey the entire picture of the invasive species problem. This linguistic style does oversimplify the problem and presents opportunities for immediate and impractical ideas to be formed and conducted. Larson goes on to say that instead of a militaristic analogy, a health analogy would be much more effective. I agree with Larson’s opinion that the health metaphor is more effective and allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the problem. With a health analogy, not only is the danger of the invasive species presented, but it is also expressed in a way that the human population is not the only cause of the problem and that the environment also has a large role in the situation.
http://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_f2010/2010/09/08/termitesfromtoky/