Skip to main content

The Language of Conservation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 689 Accesses

Abstract

The words we use define who we are and how we think about the world around us. Our language as we discuss problems of agricultural nonpoint source water pollution conveys our images and meanings of being a good farmer and socially acceptable farming practices. Re-languaging the conservation message and increased efforts to give consistent messages are important strategies in developing a culture of conservation and changing social norms about the value and urgency of protecting vulnerable land and water resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • NRCS technical specialist, 04040308.

    Google Scholar 

  • For the purposes of this paper, we will use the term “re-language,” since it occurred organically during a listening session. The use of “language” or “re-language” is better identified as “discourse,” the institutionalized way of thinking that is realized or made real through language. “Discourse” defines socially acceptable speech. Discourse is not limited to words but include all of the signs utilized by a society to communicate and direct our way of seeing issues and giving meaning to our actions and ourselves.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Discourse occurs whenever two or more people are gathered together around a given idea or social issue such as farming or agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Voloshinov, V. N., Matejka, L., and Titunik I. R. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerhoff, B. G. 1992. “Life History among the Elderly: Performance, Visibility, and Remembering.” P. 232 in Remembered Lives: The Work of Ritual, Storytelling, and Growing Older edited by M. Kaminsky. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basso, E. 1990. “Introduction: Discourse as an Integrating Concept in Anthropology and Folklore Research.” Pp. 3-10 in Native Latin American Cultures Through Their Discourse edited by Ellen Basso. Bloomington, IN: Folklore Institute, Indiana University. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Irvine, J. T. 1996. “Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles.” Pp. 131–159 in Natural Histories of Discourse edited by M. Silverstein and G. Urban. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L. R. 2000. “The One Who Created the Sea: Tellings, Meanings and Inter-Textuality in the Translation of Xavante Narrative.” Pp. 252–271 in Translating Native American Verbal Art: Ethnopoetics and Ethnography of Speaking edited by K. Sammons and J. Sherzer. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, Bruce, and Dennis Tedlock. 1995. “Introduction.” P. 7 in The Dialogic Emergence of Culture edited by D. Tedlock and B. Mannheim. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drewal, Margaret Thumpson. 1992. Yoruba Ritual: Performers, Play, Agency. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, Keokuk County listening session, keo020108.

    Google Scholar 

  • This group consisted of Iowa State University Extension agricultural professionals (such as field agronomists and program specialists), NRCS District Conservationists, watershed coordinators, teachers, county naturalists, and local Soil and Water Conservation District commissioners.

    Google Scholar 

  • This study was funded through the Iowa Learning Farms program. Heartland Regional Water Coordination Initiative paid for the transcription of the listening sessions.

    Google Scholar 

  • This was an area lawyer who was attending the meeting with his farmer father. Fay020808.

    Google Scholar 

  • It can be argued that this ambiguity does not rest with the part of the industry that promotes new products such as higher yielding seed, new chemical applications, or the latest in equipment.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRCS technical specialist, 0210908.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDNR field specialist, 03021609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldo Leopold in “The Land Ethic,” a chapter of A Sand County Almanac, writes: “Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.” Leopold felt it was generally agreed that more conservation education was needed; however, quantity and content were up for debate. Almost 60 years later, we would have to agree with him; Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press; Leopold, L. B. (ed). 1993. Round River; From the Journals of Aldo Leopold (Pp. 156–157). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRCS technical specialists, 02010908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Two farmers, Fay020208.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDNR field specialist, 05022009.

    Google Scholar 

  • In particular, it seems that IDNR, IDALS, NRCS, and ISU Extension need to work harder at listening to each other. Limited research and program dollars often place these groups in competition vying for power, credit, and dollars, with each group thinking they have the “best” solution for the state.

    Google Scholar 

  • For instance, Toyota has a commercial where they claim their cars are “green” and show an image of a car made of leaves and branches gently decomposing into the earth, eliminating their ecological footprint. This message is false and dangerous, implying that buying a Toyota is all one needs to do to “save the planet.”

    Google Scholar 

  • We were aided in this section on ILF from members of our communications team: Jerry DeWitt, Paul Lasley, Carol Brown, John Lundvall, Jamie Benning, Xiaobo Zhou, and Jean McGuire.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacqueline Comito .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Listening Session Prompts

Appendix: Listening Session Prompts

The Iowa Learning Farms (ILF) Program, in conjunction with Iowa State University Extension (ISUE), focuses on conservation management systems and water quality. To develop education and outreach to improve our soil and water quality, we need to get a better understanding of current practices and the real issues facing conservation. You will help us by sharing your experiences and opinions about conservation practices in your area. On [date], we will be at your area meeting to discuss these questions. Your participation is voluntary and the information you provide will be summarized by soil region so that your individual opinions are not disclosed.

  1. 1.

    What tillage and related soil conservation management changes have you seen on the land during (given period?): Positive? Negative?

    Do you think, in general, we are moving toward increased or decreased implementation of soil conservation practices?

  2. 2.

    Why do you think these changes have occurred?

  3. 3.

    What are the top three factors you think farmers base their land management decisions upon?

  4. 4.

    If you had a “conservation wish list,” what changes or enhancements to existing policy would you like to see implemented in your district, area, across Iowa, and why?

  5. 5.

    Can we prioritize those wishes? Who do we need to engage and how? How should the ILF team move forward in our campaign to build a “Culture of Conservation?”

  6. 6.

    Is there an effective way to “target” buffer strip and/or wetland reserve cost-share payments or land set-aside payments to maximize water quality enhancement?

  7. 7.

    What do you think are the characteristics of landowners and watershed residents’ conservation ethic that would get us to better water quality and soil protection? That is, what does a preferred conservation ethic look like and what are the subsequent actions that occur because of it? Give an example of a farmer in your district that you think has a conservation ethic you’d like to see replicated. What does he/she do?

  8. 8.

    What kinds of things do you do in your work to foster a conservation ethic in landowners/farm managers you work with? What kinds of tools or strategies would help you do this more effectively?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Comito, J., Helmers, M. (2011). The Language of Conservation. In: Wright Morton, L., Brown, S. (eds) Pathways for Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7282-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics