Abstract
This paper analyses the use of metaphor in discourses around the “superweed” Palmer amaranth. Most weed scientists associated with the US public agricultural extension system dismiss the term superweed. However, together with the media, they indirectly encourage aggressive control practices by actively diffusing the framing of herbicide resistant Palmer amaranth as an existential threat that should be eradicated at any cost. We use argumentative discourse analysis to better understand this process. We analyze a corpus consisting of reports, policy briefs, and press releases produced by state extension services, as well as articles from professional and popular magazines and newspapers quoting extension specialists and/or public sector weed scientists or agronomists. We show how the superweed discourse is powered by negative metaphors, and legitimizes aggressive steps to eradicate the weed. This discourse reinforces the farmers’ techno-optimism master frame, contributes to deskilling of farmers and sidelines ethical concerns.
Highlights
The first evidence of herbicide resistant weeds emerged in the 1950s (Hilton 1957), and by 2018, 299 species had been reported to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate1
Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) (PA), which is native to the southern areas of North and Central America, including Mexico, California and Texas (Ward et al 2013), is one of these resistant species
Like some other herbicide-resistant weeds, herbicide-resistant PA (HRPA) has been identified in the media as a “superweed” (Dodrill 2015; Gallant 2013; Kistner 2018), a term that is commonly used to refer to weeds that have developed resistance to one or more major herbicides and are difficult to control
Summary
The first evidence of herbicide resistant weeds emerged in the 1950s (Hilton 1957), and by 2018, 299 species had been reported to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. We introduce the conceptual framework for our analysis of superweed discourse This includes a reflection on “framing” processes and storylines inspired by Argumentative Discourse Analysis (Hajer 2006), supplemented by a review of the use of rhetorical instruments of the metaphoric type, within political ecology (Larson 2014; Larson et al 2016; Tassin and Kull 2012). Following this we present the methodology for constructing and analyzing our corpus as well as the historical-political context in which the discursive material was produced. All these functions make metaphors “key framing devices” (ibid), which the analyst can use to illuminate hidden discursive structures, which is the core aim of discourse analysis (Hajer 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
