Nature is widely acknowledged to be a fluid, contested, material-semiotic construction, historically and spatially grounded. This is certainly the case for New Zealand, where a number of constructions of nature have been mobilized as a means to make judgments over the viability of particular biotechnologies that have entered into public debate. In this paper, we utilize Mikhail Bakhtin’s space-time matrix, the chronotope, to explore a series of complementary nature-narratives that have been mobilized as a moral basis for making judgments over the acceptability of a series of exemplars of novel biotechnologies that were presented to participants in eleven national focus groups. We argue that it is the specific space-time manipulations that characterize these sometimes overlapping narrative constructions that are used to justify reactions to novel biotechnologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, edited by M. Holquist , translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press .
2.
Beck, U. (1996) “World Risk Society as Cosmopolitan Society? Ecological Questions in a Framework of Manufactured Uncertainties,”Theory, Culture and Society13: 1-32 .
3.
Boulter, D. (1997) “Scientific and Public Perception of Plant Genetic Manipulation—a Critical Review,”Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences16: 231-251 .
4.
Clarke, N. (1997) “Panic Ecology: Nature in the Age of Superconductivity,”Theory, Culture and Society14: 77-96 .
5.
Cloke, P. and Perkins, H.C. (1998) “‘Cracking the Canyon with the Awesome Foursome’: Representations of Adventure Tourism in New Zealand,”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space16: 185-218 .
6.
Coyle, F.J. (1997) “Bargaining with Boundaries: the Social Construction of the Emergent Spaces of Complexity Theory,”Undercurrents9: 12-17 .
7.
Coyle, F.J. , Maslin, C. , Fairweather, J.R. and Hunt, L.M. (2003) Public Understandings of Biotechnology in New Zealand: Nature, Clean Green Image and Spirituality. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit Report, Lincoln University, New Zealand .
8.
Cronon, W. (1992) Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: Norton .
9.
Douglas, M. (1965) Purity and Danger. London: Routledge .
10.
Ellen, R. (1996) “Introduction,” in R. Ellen and K. Fukui (eds.) Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication, pp. 1-38. Oxford: Berg .
11.
Fitzsimmons, M. (1989) “The Matter of Nature,”Antipode21: 106-120 .
12.
Folch-Serra, M. (1990) “Place, Voice, Space: Mikhail Bakhtin’s Dialogical Landscape,”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space8: 255-274 .
13.
Franklin, A. (2002) Nature and Social Theory. London: SAGE .
14.
Frewer, L.J. , Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997) “Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit and Ethics,”Science, Technology and Human Values22: 98-124 .
15.
Gaskell, G. (2000) “Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes in the European Union,” AgBioForum. University of Missouri . URL: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/EU-Attitudes.htm
16.
Harvey, D. and Haraway, D.J. (1995) “Nature, Politics, and Possibilities: a Debate and Discussion with David Harvey and Donna Haraway,”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space13: 507-527 .
17.
Holquist, M. (1990) Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World. London: Routledge .
18.
Hopkins, P.D. (2002) “Protecting God from Science and Technology: How Religious Criticisms of Biotechnologies Backfire,”Zygon37: 317-343 .
19.
Horgan, J. (1995) “From Complexity to Perplexity,”Scientific American272: 104-109 .
20.
Langton, C.G. (1991) “Life at the Edge of Chaos,” in C. Langton (ed.) Artificial Life II: SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, pp. 41-59. Santa Fe: Addison-Wesley .
21.
Letts, G. (1996) “The Non-science of Complexity Theory: Towards a New Scientific Construction of Nature,”Undercurrents8: 20-24 .
22.
Liakopoulos, M. (2002) “Pandora’s Box or Panacea? Using Metaphors to Create the Public Representations of Biotechnology,”Public Understanding of Science11: 5-32 .
23.
Macer, D. (1994) “Perception of Risks and Benefits of in vitro Fertilization, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology,”Social Science and Medicine38(1): 23-33 .
24.
Macnaghten, P. (2001) Animal Futures: Public Attitudes and Sensibilities towards Animals and Biotechnology in Contemporary Britain. Report by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy for the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission , October 2001, 49 pp.
25.
Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998) Contested Natures. London: SAGE .
26.
Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1995) “Towards a Sociology of Nature,”Sociology29: 203-220 .
27.
Marris, C. , Wynne, B. , Simmons, P. and Weldon, S. (2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE Research Project. 113 pp. Lancaster: University of Lancaster .
28.
Merchant, C. (1989) Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press .
29.
Morson, G.S. and Emerson, C. (1990) Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
30.
Robertson, G. , Mash, M. , Tickner, L. , Bird, J. , Curtis, B. and Putnam, T. (1996) “Introduction: Look Who’s Talking,” in G. Robertson , M. Mash , L. Tickner , J. Bird , B. Curtis and T. Putnam (eds.) FutureNatural: Science/Nature/Culture, pp. 1-4. London: Routledge .
31.
Sandywell, B. (1998) “The Shock of the Old: Mikhail Bakhtin’s Contributions to the Theory of Time and Alterity,” in M.M. Bell and M. Gardiner (eds.) Bakhtin and the Human Sciences: No Last Words, pp. 196-213. London: SAGE .
32.
Sandywell, B. (2000) “Memories of Nature in Bakhtin and Benjamin,” in C. Brandist and G. Tihanov (eds.) Materializing Bakhtin: the Bakhtin Circle and Social Theory, pp. 94-118. London: Macmillan .
33.
Sanner, M.A. (2001) “People’s Feelings and Ideas about Receiving Transplants of Different Origins—Questions of Life and Death, Identity, and Nature’s Border,”Clinical Transplantation15: 19-27 .
34.
Schama, S. (1995) Landscape and Memory. Toronto: Random House .
35.
Schwarz, M. and Thompson, M. (1990) Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
36.
Shaw, A. (2002) “‘It Just Goes Against the Grain.’ Public Understanding of Genetically Modified (GM) Food in the UK,”Public Understanding of Science11: 273-291 .
37.
Shields, R. (1990) Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge .
38.
Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West. London: Routledge .
39.
Smith, N. (1996) “The Production of Nature,” in G. Robertson , M. Mash , L. Tickner , J. Bird , B. Curtis and T. Putnam (eds) FutureNatural: Science/Nature/Culture, pp. 35-54. London: Routledge .
40.
Soper, K. (1996) “Nature/Nature,” in G. Robertson , M. Mash , L. Tickner , J. Bird , B. Curtis and T. Putnam (eds.) FutureNatural: Science/Nature/Culture, pp. 22-34. London: Routledge .
41.
Straughan, R. (1992) Ethics, Morality and Crop Biotechnology. Occasional Publication. Bracknell, Berks: ICI Seeds .
42.
Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics, and Popular Culture. London: Yale University Press .
43.
Wark, M. (1994) “Third Nature,”Cultural Studies8: 115-132 .
