**2. Genealogy: The birth of biodiversity**

Before 1986 the term "*biological diversity*" or "biodiversity" is non- existent. This word was invented by a group of American conservation biologists in the conference "The National Forum on *BioDiversity*" held in Washington D.C. in 1986. Walter Rosen (who probably coined the term) organized the gathering with the support of Edward Wilson. The activity was under the joint auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institute. The group felt that a new catchword was needed to promote nature conservation and to make people aware of the lurking dangers of species extinction. The neologism apparently was created to replace several other terms, viz. ecosystem, endangered species, natural variety, habitat and even wilderness, that had been in circulation in promoting nature conservation (Nieminen 2001; Sarkar 2002).

#### **2.1 Biodiversity as a scientific activism**

As a rare example of scientific activism, biodiversity then was originally conceived to be a scientific tool aimed to achieve certain ends: to prevent worldwide loss of species diversity, to alert the world that species extinction was rapid and problematic and to catalyze and solicit public interests and action (Lane 1999). Biodiversity as an *organizing* concept was invented as a *communicative tool* in the broader political arena. It was conjured up from the need to communicate and act in a concerted effort (Norton 2003). While the history of the term is relatively short2, it already has sparked distinctive philosophical debates. Some of these are entangled in the very definition of 'biodiversity', an issue, which becomes the hallmark of some of the present political, environmental, and social aporia. To date there has been no universally approved definition of biodiversity within the community of scholars with the exception, of course, of the original one proffered by the organizers of the 1986 Washington convention.3 Since then, biodiversity as a concept becomes so stretchable a term there seem to be no chances of bringing it back to its original usage.

<sup>1</sup> Haas (1990) defines *epistemic community* as a "professional group that believes in the same cause and effect relationships, truth test to accept them, and shares common values; its members share a common understanding of the problem and its solution." Naess (2001) improves the concept by both limiting and expanding the category. He limits it by referring to scientists only and expands it by invoking the transnational networks of these scientists. As a network, epistemic community provides a "pool of expertise and authoritative knowledge which is necessary basis for collective action" (p.32). See also Bauhr's (2000) discussion on epistemic communities and international political co-ordination. However, as used in the present paper epistemic community is not limited to scientists and experts, but embraces knowledge claim-makers such as social movement, organization, or advocacy groups.

<sup>2</sup> According to Takacs (1996) the word "biodiversity" did not appear as a key word in Biological Abstracts, and "biological diversity" appeared once. In 1993, biodiversity appeared seventy-two (72) times and biological diversity nineteen (19) times. Now it would be hard to count how many times "biodiversity" is used everyday by scientists, policy-makers, and others.

<sup>3</sup> The conservation biologists may have crudely defined biodiversity as the number and variety of distinct organisms living on earth. The Convention on Biological Diversity in this light is just an *attempt*

#### **2.2 Biodiversity as feature of nature**

As if to lighten the vagueness of the term and the confusion it generates among its scientific users, two complementary schemes have been proffered the hub of which are the issues of (i) pinning down a precise definition (i.e. *definitional problem*) and (ii) operationalization of its indices (i.e. *application problem*).4 These schemes are complementary in the sense that the first served as the take off point of the second. The second approach, on the other hand, did not abandon the optimism of the search for categorical definition. Rather, it fleshed out the ethics and practicality of such process.

#### **2.3 Policy discourse**

4 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

action; while the latter documented how biodiversity as a political *tool* has been appropriated by and forms part of, the discursive armory of three grassroots epistemic

Before 1986 the term "*biological diversity*" or "biodiversity" is non- existent. This word was invented by a group of American conservation biologists in the conference "The National Forum on *BioDiversity*" held in Washington D.C. in 1986. Walter Rosen (who probably coined the term) organized the gathering with the support of Edward Wilson. The activity was under the joint auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institute. The group felt that a new catchword was needed to promote nature conservation and to make people aware of the lurking dangers of species extinction. The neologism apparently was created to replace several other terms, viz. ecosystem, endangered species, natural variety, habitat and even wilderness, that had been in circulation in promoting

As a rare example of scientific activism, biodiversity then was originally conceived to be a scientific tool aimed to achieve certain ends: to prevent worldwide loss of species diversity, to alert the world that species extinction was rapid and problematic and to catalyze and solicit public interests and action (Lane 1999). Biodiversity as an *organizing* concept was invented as a *communicative tool* in the broader political arena. It was conjured up from the need to communicate and act in a concerted effort (Norton 2003). While the history of the term is relatively short2, it already has sparked distinctive philosophical debates. Some of these are entangled in the very definition of 'biodiversity', an issue, which becomes the hallmark of some of the present political, environmental, and social aporia. To date there has been no universally approved definition of biodiversity within the community of scholars with the exception, of course, of the original one proffered by the organizers of the 1986 Washington convention.3 Since then, biodiversity as a concept becomes so stretchable a

1 Haas (1990) defines *epistemic community* as a "professional group that believes in the same cause and effect relationships, truth test to accept them, and shares common values; its members share a common understanding of the problem and its solution." Naess (2001) improves the concept by both limiting and expanding the category. He limits it by referring to scientists only and expands it by invoking the transnational networks of these scientists. As a network, epistemic community provides a "pool of expertise and authoritative knowledge which is necessary basis for collective action" (p.32). See also Bauhr's (2000) discussion on epistemic communities and international political co-ordination. However, as used in the present paper epistemic community is not limited to scientists and experts, but embraces

2 According to Takacs (1996) the word "biodiversity" did not appear as a key word in Biological Abstracts, and "biological diversity" appeared once. In 1993, biodiversity appeared seventy-two (72) times and biological diversity nineteen (19) times. Now it would be hard to count how many times

3 The conservation biologists may have crudely defined biodiversity as the number and variety of distinct organisms living on earth. The Convention on Biological Diversity in this light is just an *attempt*

term there seem to be no chances of bringing it back to its original usage.

knowledge claim-makers such as social movement, organization, or advocacy groups.

"biodiversity" is used everyday by scientists, policy-makers, and others.

communities1 as they advanced their respective political agenda.

**2. Genealogy: The birth of biodiversity** 

nature conservation (Nieminen 2001; Sarkar 2002).

**2.1 Biodiversity as a scientific activism** 

The first scheme has been advanced in a paper presented during the 2000 London 3rd Policies for Sustainable Technological Innovation in the 21st Century (POSTI) Conference on Policy Agendas for Sustainable Development. The approach divides biodiversity into two parts when analyzing its use in environmental policy namely: (i) biodiversity as a feature of nature (i.e. the variety of species, phenomena, and processes that exist in nature); (ii) biodiversity as a policy discourse (i.e. a concept and a discourse that is used to argue for the need of nature conservation, and in legitimating different conservation policies). As explicitly argued by Nieminen (2001: 2) "Biodiversity as the essential feature of nature is foremost the realm of scientists, it is the realm of scientific measuring, categorization and theorizing. Biodiversity as a discourse, on the one hand, is the realm of policy-making, administration and communication."

Biodiversity along the first divide refers to the pure objective status of the variety of living organisms, biological systems, and biological processes found on Earth. This bias is aptly captured by the following definition articulated by its staunchest supporter- Edward O. Wilson:

"*Biodiversity…is all hereditary-based variation at all levels of organization, from genes within a single local population, to the species composing all or part of a local community, and finally to the communities themselves that compose the living parts of the multifarious ecosystems of the world*." *(Wilson 1998: 1-3)*

As a policy initiative, biodiversity is embedded within the "rhetorical resources for identifying the responsibilities, characterizing social actors and groups, praising and blaming, criticizing conventional knowledge or accepting it, legitimizing courses of action or political strategies and for promoting the factuality of otherwise contestable claims" (Nieminen 2001: 3). In other words, biodiversity is a form of social standard that can be used to evaluate human actions in relation to utilization, conservation and management of the benefits of biodiversity.

to standardize or a result of a *compromise* between divergent but quite similar claims (i.e. the scientific claims).

<sup>4</sup> In relation to this, Sarkar (2002:132) inquires: "The term biodiversity has remained remarkably vague and its measurement equally capricious. Is allelic diversity part of biodiversity? Or only species? What about individual differences? Do we have to worry about community structures? Is the number of species appropriate measure? Do we have to take rarity and commonality into account? Or should we worry about differences between places?"

Biopolitics: Biodiversity as Discourse of Claims 7

guarantee that a cooperative discourse would ensue or that concrete actions will be taken. On the contrary, definitions may alienate, either by *silencing* or *relegating to the background*, the local 'voices' of those who may have equal and valid stakes on the very issues these

From the conservation biologists to policy makers to the general public the currency of the term biodiversity mutates in unimaginable forms. The concept has become a buzzword that serves to promote the various political, economic and cultural agenda of scientists and decision-makers as well as of individuals, communities, institutions and nations (Escobar 1999). With its usurpation by these new sets of articulators came newer modes of discourse, hence a whole new array of meanings and usage. Biodiversity has become a *masterframe* used by the epistemic communities of various stakeholders. As a masterframe from where all sides draw meanings, biodiversity looses its '*signature meaning'*.6 A fascinating consequence of this development is the blurring of the distinction between the scientific discourse (of the experts) and the popular discourse (of lay or non-expert) (Haile 1999;

*"Biodiversity becomes a collectively shared ideology undermining the hegemony of science and at the same time seriously weakening the position of traditional environmental organizations and* 

At this juncture I would like to showcase three of these epistemic communities – the ecofeminist group, indigenous ecology movement, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Each offers a distinctive perspective using equally distinctive sets of categories and claims. It is not my purpose to present an exhaustive description of each of these epistemic communities, except inasmuch as they relate to the purpose of current

Ecofeminism is an environmentalist version of feminism. Although a heterogeneous front in itself, ecofeminists are united by a common bond celebrating the *conceptual links* between domination of nature and the domination of women (Moyer 2001). Buhr and Reiter (2002) outlined three of these conceptual links between women and nature such as (i) historical connections (the effects of the Enlightenment and the death of nature; (ii) metaphorical connections (same value dualisms operate to subjugate women and nature); and (iii)

It is within the purview of the third mode of conceptual connection that ecofeminism launched its most radical claim in relation to biodiversity and women. Quoting Rocheleau

6 I define s*ignature meaning* here as the intended definition of biodiversity as conceived by those who coined the term, that is, by the group of American conservation biologists, who introduced the term in the 1986 Washington conference. Its signature meaning then was related to the promotion of nature

epistemological connections (challenges reason and rationality, ways of knowing).

conservation and to make people aware of the dangers of species extinction (Nieminen 2001).

(1995: 14) Martine and Villarreal (1997) contextualized the link:

definitions bring about.

discussion.

**3. Claimants: Biodiversity as political discourse** 

Nieminen 2001, Dwivedi 2001). As Eder (1996: 183) observed:

*movements as primary mouthpiece of the environment."* 

**3.1 Ecofeminism: Women/nature nexus** 

It must be noted though that whether conceived as an objective feature of nature or as an object of policy initiatives, biodiversity remains to be a '*discursive* (or linguistic) creation' of stakeholders - originally of the conservation biologists and later on of policy makers. It is difficult to pin down an exact definition of discourse. The works of Fairclough and Wodak (1997), van Djik (1997), Jaworski and Coupland (1999) and recently, of Wetherell, Taylor and Yates (2001) attest to this problematique. Generally speaking though, discourse refers to the actual practices of speaking and writing (Woodilla 1998, *see also* Gergen 1998). Hall (1992) posited that discourse is a group of statements which provided a language for talking about – i.e., a way of representing- a particular kind of knowledge about a topic. Hence, when *statements* about a topic are made within a particular context, the discourse makes it possible to construct the topic in a certain way and viewed this way, they are constitutive of identities (Hajer 2003; Norton 2003) as discourse allows something to be spoken of by limiting other ways in which the topic can be constructed (see Foucault 1987; Burr 1995; Parker 1992).

As the social history of biodiversity attests, conservation biologists who invented the term did not merely *describe* what they see as biological diversity; but the very act of description constitutes the object so described. The following quote from the book '*Making Nature, Shaping Culture'*, poignantly captured this strong constructivist theme:

*"Nature exists only through its description, analysis, mapping, and manipulation… What we call as objective reality is constituted by both the actual physical configurations of elements in things and in human conceptual frameworks (theories, definitions, and 'facts')… It is our ordering of the information received by our senses that constitutes the picture of 'all that is' and that we refer to as nature" (Busch et al 1995: 3-4).* 

The second scheme muses not so much on 'how' to define biodiversity. Rather it inquires as to 'why' define the concept in the first place. It bolstered the constructivist stance described above by stressing that words like biodiversity do not correspond to pre-existing objects, individuals and categories5 (cf. Hajer 2003). By act of (usually implicit) choice, the development of a vocabulary of terms to discuss observable phenomena 'constitutes' the objects and categories humans recognize and manipulate linguistically. According to Norton (2003) communicative '*usefulness'*, and not '*truth'* should determine our definitionsusefulness implies careful examination of our shared purposes toward which communication is directed, which ultimately leads us back to the subject of social values and commitments.

Within the context of second scheme, we could neither find nor create any '*correct'* definition of biodiversity, for virtually there is none. What we could and must strive for, instead, is to look for a definition that is '*useful'* in deliberative dialog regarding how to protect and preserve biological diversity, however defined. Our categories including biodiversity must be developed from the need to '*communicate'* and to '*act'* together within the broader political ethos (Norton 2003).

Quite obviously, the second scheme interrogates both the possibility and utility of precise definitions. It sensitizes us to the fact that carefully worded definition is not a necessary

<sup>5</sup> This position is quite similar to that of Escobar (1999) who argues against the possibility of prediscourse reality.

It must be noted though that whether conceived as an objective feature of nature or as an object of policy initiatives, biodiversity remains to be a '*discursive* (or linguistic) creation' of stakeholders - originally of the conservation biologists and later on of policy makers. It is difficult to pin down an exact definition of discourse. The works of Fairclough and Wodak (1997), van Djik (1997), Jaworski and Coupland (1999) and recently, of Wetherell, Taylor and Yates (2001) attest to this problematique. Generally speaking though, discourse refers to the actual practices of speaking and writing (Woodilla 1998, *see also* Gergen 1998). Hall (1992) posited that discourse is a group of statements which provided a language for talking about – i.e., a way of representing- a particular kind of knowledge about a topic. Hence, when *statements* about a topic are made within a particular context, the discourse makes it possible to construct the topic in a certain way and viewed this way, they are constitutive of identities (Hajer 2003; Norton 2003) as discourse allows something to be spoken of by limiting other ways in which the topic can be constructed (see Foucault 1987; Burr 1995;

As the social history of biodiversity attests, conservation biologists who invented the term did not merely *describe* what they see as biological diversity; but the very act of description constitutes the object so described. The following quote from the book '*Making Nature,* 

*"Nature exists only through its description, analysis, mapping, and manipulation… What we call as objective reality is constituted by both the actual physical configurations of elements in things and in human conceptual frameworks (theories, definitions, and 'facts')… It is our ordering of the information received by our senses that constitutes the picture of 'all that is' and* 

The second scheme muses not so much on 'how' to define biodiversity. Rather it inquires as to 'why' define the concept in the first place. It bolstered the constructivist stance described above by stressing that words like biodiversity do not correspond to pre-existing objects, individuals and categories5 (cf. Hajer 2003). By act of (usually implicit) choice, the development of a vocabulary of terms to discuss observable phenomena 'constitutes' the objects and categories humans recognize and manipulate linguistically. According to Norton (2003) communicative '*usefulness'*, and not '*truth'* should determine our definitionsusefulness implies careful examination of our shared purposes toward which communication is directed, which ultimately leads us back to the subject of social values and

Within the context of second scheme, we could neither find nor create any '*correct'* definition of biodiversity, for virtually there is none. What we could and must strive for, instead, is to look for a definition that is '*useful'* in deliberative dialog regarding how to protect and preserve biological diversity, however defined. Our categories including biodiversity must be developed from the need to '*communicate'* and to '*act'* together within the broader

Quite obviously, the second scheme interrogates both the possibility and utility of precise definitions. It sensitizes us to the fact that carefully worded definition is not a necessary

5 This position is quite similar to that of Escobar (1999) who argues against the possibility of pre-

*Shaping Culture'*, poignantly captured this strong constructivist theme:

*that we refer to as nature" (Busch et al 1995: 3-4).* 

Parker 1992).

commitments.

discourse reality.

political ethos (Norton 2003).

guarantee that a cooperative discourse would ensue or that concrete actions will be taken. On the contrary, definitions may alienate, either by *silencing* or *relegating to the background*, the local 'voices' of those who may have equal and valid stakes on the very issues these definitions bring about.
