IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploration of language for biodiversity and regeneration in Australian agriculture


  • Scott, Pennie
  • Watson, Geoff K.


The language of words is the most commonly used tool in person to person communication and this in turn, profoundly reflects and creates an individual’s belief systems and behaviours. In the arena of sustainable production systems for food and fibre and the ‘management’ of natural resources, there is a plethora of information provided by organisations dedicated to researching and communicating new land use methods for farmers to implement. However to date, the uptake of new methods has been frustratingly low resulting in the on-going degradation of Australia’s fragile landscapes while exploitative farming practices continue. A key issue is whether the language of current policies is appropriate to influence the belief systems of decision makers in exploitative agriculture in order to achieve a shift towards more sustainable and regenerative outcomes. Research is currently in the early stages to distinguish the different ‘languages’ present in Australian culture, especially in agri-culture. Initial evaluation reveals that the hegemonic language is economic rationalism (hereon known as ‘eco-rat’) emanating from neo-liberal economic policies. ‘Eco-rat’ is characterised by espoused masculinity, viz. competitiveness, control, reductionism, power and domination and is counter-productive to sustainable production practices. Conversely, the language of sustainability and regeneration is feminine - nurturing, holistic, supportive and nature-cyclical. An integral component of this research is to identify specific paradigms in Australia that characterise exploitative (industrialised) farmers and paradigms that characterise regenerative / conservation landholders. A key characteristic of such paradigms is the level and extent of each person’s vocabulary, building on Wittgenstein’s notion that 'the limits of my language are the limits of my mind'. Are there differences between the vocabularies of landholders engaged in regenerative farming compared to those who use more industrialised methods of production? For example when contemporary advertisements for high input agriculture are analysed, farming is commonly portrayed as a competitive ‘battle’. In polemic essay style, this paper explores and characterises the underlying belief systems and vocabularies that perpetuate the paradigms of ‘stubble-burners’ in broadacre cropping enterprises, and compares these to those of regenerative farmers – with the implication that these distinct paradigms can influence the development of very different land use practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott, Pennie & Watson, Geoff K., 2006. "An exploration of language for biodiversity and regeneration in Australian agriculture," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 3(2).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:afbmau:122524

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Makubate, Loeto Rabethu, 1999. "Strategic Planning For Agricultural Industries: A Case Study Of Industrial Situational Analysis Of The Michigan U.S. Tart Cherry Industry," Graduate Research Masters Degree Plan B Papers 11009, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Ricks, Donald J. & Woods, Timothy A., 1996. "Strategic Planning For Improved Competitiveness By Regional Commodity Industries," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(1), February.
    3. Lyford, Conrad P. & Ricks, Donald J. & Peterson, H. Christopher & Sterns, James A., 2002. "A Framework For Effective Industry Strategic Planning," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 20(2).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:afbmau:122524. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.