Wilderness in a time of increasing Antarctic nationalism

• Main Authors: Hemmings, Alan D., Chaturvedi, Sanjay, Leane, Elizabeth, Liggett, Daniela, Salazar, Juan Francisco (R11072)
• Other Authors: Institute for Culture and Society (Host institution), SCAR History, Humanities and Social Science Meeting (Event place)
• Format: Conference Object
• Language: English
• Published: U.S., Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 2015
• Subjects: 160507 - Environment Policy; 160605 - Environmental Politics; 970116 - Expanding Knowledge through Studies of Human Society; Antarctic; The Antarctic; Antarc*; Antarctica
• Online Access: http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/uws:32248; https://scarhistorysocialscience2015.wordpress.com/

The concept of wilderness in Antarctica is an intensely political construct. Drawing upon a nominally global framing of untrammelled nature and space, its roots are in a western reaction to the loss of domestic wild-ness consequential upon the industrial revolution. It also draws upon what was historically true in Antarctica: most of the place was in fact untrammelled. We reassured ourselves of our good intentions by construing the entire continent as a wilderness and, more recently, enabled it as a criteria for designating Antarctic protected areas. The “we” of this project were largely western, and the few “others” tended to say not very much. So, almost the whole construction of “wilderness” in Antarctica is western. The global, and Antarctic, order is changing. Not only are there now more “others”, but they are beginning to feel that the order should also reflect their views and interests. In turn, longer-established Antarctic states are becoming more concerned about their own supposed rights in the south. Nationalisms are thus invigorated in both ‘emergent’ and ‘reactive’ senses. We ask how the idea of large areas, perhaps the entire continent, perhaps including marine areas, preserved intact and unmodified (so far as anything is in the face of global climate change) – “wilderness” variously defined – fares in this new age of nationalism? It is surely challenged by the Genie in the nationalist lamp: Antarctic Resources. Easier to commit to wilderness if you are not doing much; more of a challenge where hydrocarbons, hard-rock minerals, associated routes, airstrips, camps and industrial plant, marine harvesting and mass tourism are in view. But what about the conception itself? Does wilderness have traction in all the states which operate in the Antarctic? Clearly, many have traditions of preserving wild-ness, even if not under the western wilderness rubric. But do all? And if there is indeed a common humanity which sees ethical, intrinsic or instrumental value in preserving large spaces as “a place unspoilt”, can the potentially problematical roots of Antarctic wilderness in western regional hegemony be overcome? Can wilderness, as something that can so easily be painted as culturally contingent or economically redundant by those with vested interests, greed and power, be rehabilitated and invested with authority in Antarctica? The answer to that question probably says something that goes beyond Antarctica.