IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

An exploration of language for biodiversity and regeneration in Australian agriculture

Listed author(s):
  • Scott, Pennie
  • Watson, Geoff K.
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Australasian Farm Business Management Network in its journal AFBM Journal.

    Volume (Year): 03 (2006)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ags:afbmau:122524
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.