Scholarlink

<p>The term <i>Human-Wildlife Conflict</i> (HWC) reflects a linguistically biased framework that privileges human interests while implicitly portraying wild animals as antagonistic agents. Its widespread use in conservation discourse simplifies the diverse interactions between humans and wildlife, often implying culpability on the part of non-human animals and legitimising retaliatory human responses. Such a framing obscures the ethical complexities of these interactions, particularly in the context of the Anthropocene, where human activity is accelerating biodiversity loss. This paper critically examines the implications of anthropocentric terminology and proposes a paradigm shift in conservation language. By interrogating the semantic foundations of terms like “problem animal,” it seeks to expose the embedded hierarchies and power dynamics that shape human perceptions of wildlife. Ultimately, a reconfiguration of conservation discourse is required—one that emphasises coexistence, deconstructs binary oppositions, and promotes more inclusive, ecologically sound approaches to interspecies relations. It is important to note that this paper describes a proto-ethical imperative as the foundational groundwork for an ethic, which serves as a precursor to an applied ethic. The proto-ethical imperative is referred to as a "blueprint" or "architectural drawing" of an ethical construction, aiming to prevent logocentric and anthropocentric pitfalls in any resultant applied ethic concerning (other) animals. Cruise (Delinearizing the insuperable line: Deconstruction as an animal ethic&#xa0;<CitationRef CitationID="CR4">2015</CitationRef>).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Terms of conflict: The language of dominance and power at the human-wildlife interface

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月29日

查看全文
  • Adam Cruise

摘要

The term Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) reflects a linguistically biased framework that privileges human interests while implicitly portraying wild animals as antagonistic agents. Its widespread use in conservation discourse simplifies the diverse interactions between humans and wildlife, often implying culpability on the part of non-human animals and legitimising retaliatory human responses. Such a framing obscures the ethical complexities of these interactions, particularly in the context of the Anthropocene, where human activity is accelerating biodiversity loss. This paper critically examines the implications of anthropocentric terminology and proposes a paradigm shift in conservation language. By interrogating the semantic foundations of terms like “problem animal,” it seeks to expose the embedded hierarchies and power dynamics that shape human perceptions of wildlife. Ultimately, a reconfiguration of conservation discourse is required—one that emphasises coexistence, deconstructs binary oppositions, and promotes more inclusive, ecologically sound approaches to interspecies relations. It is important to note that this paper describes a proto-ethical imperative as the foundational groundwork for an ethic, which serves as a precursor to an applied ethic. The proto-ethical imperative is referred to as a "blueprint" or "architectural drawing" of an ethical construction, aiming to prevent logocentric and anthropocentric pitfalls in any resultant applied ethic concerning (other) animals. Cruise (Delinearizing the insuperable line: Deconstruction as an animal ethic 2015).