绿色殖民主义的争论:对美洲采掘主义的后辩证解读

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2022-10-02 DOI:10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173
Nicholas S. Paliewicz
{"title":"绿色殖民主义的争论:对美洲采掘主义的后辩证解读","authors":"Nicholas S. Paliewicz","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Through two of the largest mining companies in the world, Rio Tinto and BHP, this article traces arguments of green colonialism that use techno-determinist environmental rhetoric for extraction purposes. Contributing to environmental communication, de/coloniality studies, and Indigenous research, I argue for a more expansive approach to argument that accounts for situated knowledge, place, and affect as ontological argumentative forces. I introduce a series of case studies on Rio Tinto’s and BHP’s resource colonialisms at different sites of extraction throughout the Americas, particularly in South America, to show how “good” arguments are determined by the modern/colonial matrix power and how decolonial actors speak back. The Argumentation Network of the Americas (ANA) is in a unique position to resist argumentative logics of resource colonialism in the Americas, but argumentation must first address its own extractive models rooted in European ideals of modernism/colonialism.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arguments of green colonialism: a post-dialectical reading of extractivism in the Americas\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas S. Paliewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Through two of the largest mining companies in the world, Rio Tinto and BHP, this article traces arguments of green colonialism that use techno-determinist environmental rhetoric for extraction purposes. Contributing to environmental communication, de/coloniality studies, and Indigenous research, I argue for a more expansive approach to argument that accounts for situated knowledge, place, and affect as ontological argumentative forces. I introduce a series of case studies on Rio Tinto’s and BHP’s resource colonialisms at different sites of extraction throughout the Americas, particularly in South America, to show how “good” arguments are determined by the modern/colonial matrix power and how decolonial actors speak back. The Argumentation Network of the Americas (ANA) is in a unique position to resist argumentative logics of resource colonialism in the Americas, but argumentation must first address its own extractive models rooted in European ideals of modernism/colonialism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation and Advocacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation and Advocacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation and Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

通过世界上最大的两家矿业公司——里约热内卢Tinto和必和必拓,本文追溯了绿色殖民主义的论点,这些论点使用技术决定论的环境修辞来实现开采目的。在环境交流、de/殖民化研究和土著研究方面,我主张采用一种更广泛的论证方法,将情境知识、地点和影响作为本体论的论证力量。我介绍了一系列关于里约热内卢Tinto和必和必拓在整个美洲(特别是南美洲)不同开采地点的资源殖民主义的案例研究,以展示“好”的论点是如何由现代/殖民矩阵权力决定的,以及非殖民行为者是如何反驳的。美洲论证网络(ANA)在抵制美洲资源殖民主义的论证逻辑方面处于独特的地位,但论证必须首先解决其植根于欧洲现代主义/殖民主义理想的自己的采掘模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Arguments of green colonialism: a post-dialectical reading of extractivism in the Americas
ABSTRACT Through two of the largest mining companies in the world, Rio Tinto and BHP, this article traces arguments of green colonialism that use techno-determinist environmental rhetoric for extraction purposes. Contributing to environmental communication, de/coloniality studies, and Indigenous research, I argue for a more expansive approach to argument that accounts for situated knowledge, place, and affect as ontological argumentative forces. I introduce a series of case studies on Rio Tinto’s and BHP’s resource colonialisms at different sites of extraction throughout the Americas, particularly in South America, to show how “good” arguments are determined by the modern/colonial matrix power and how decolonial actors speak back. The Argumentation Network of the Americas (ANA) is in a unique position to resist argumentative logics of resource colonialism in the Americas, but argumentation must first address its own extractive models rooted in European ideals of modernism/colonialism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Cicero’s maledicta : the darker side of Cicero’s arguments The impact of normative argument quality variations on claim acceptance: empirical evidence from the US and the UK Can high school competitive debating facilitate political participation? The role of political knowledge and identification with a politically active group Nonverbal communication as argumentation: the case of political television debates The unnerved and unhoused: a rhetorical analysis of save Austin now’s campaign to disband unhoused individuals from Austin, Texas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1