Conversation Guide
Why talk about language?
What’s wrong with the language we use now?
Why should I/my community care about this?
This new language is ignoring how harmful these species are to biodiversity!
What words do I use instead?
Works cited & other examples
This guide is meant to serve as a reference tool for anyone exploring the current dialogue around invasive species and seeking an alternative. It is informed by questions that the Just Language in Ecology Education (Just Language) team frequently receives, with responses based on how our team has navigated them in the past. This is a living document, as language is always shifting and subject to change.
A note on “we” – When “we” or “our” is used in this document, it is not being used in an attempt to represent this movement entirely or speak on behalf of anyone other than the individuals on the Just Language team use the universal “we” as an invitation, in an effort to be expansive. We hope you begin thinking about how these talking points may impact your networks and your relationships to the land, and that you join us in considering yourself part of this work. Welcome!
Why talk about language?
Language is humanity’s shared framework for understanding and shaping how communities see and interact with the world. Linguists (people who study language) consider it a personal, political, cultural, and psychological phenomenon. They do not consider language neutral. Just Language sees language as a tool all of us can use to both disrupt systems of harm and bring people who care about the environment into greater shared understanding.
What’s wrong with the language we use now?
The linguistic approach “Invasion Ecology,” also known in Western science as “Invasion Biology,” frequently takes is one of fear (“the invasives will take over”), violence (“destroy the weeds”), and blame (“English Ivy killed this tree”). This language not only inaccurately places ill-intent on species that are incapable of such, it also takes responsibility away from the humans who introduced the beings to a new environment in the first place, intentionally or not.
Much of the language used in Invasion Ecology stems from Charles’ Elton’s 1958 book: The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Elton was a World War II-era British ecologist, and his wartime context is clearly reflected in the language he chose, such as invasions, takeovers, and waging war. Around the time of the book’s publication, a change in U.S. immigration policy also led to an increase of newcomers to the country. In contrast to previous waves of European immigrants, many of the people arriving at this time were from Asian and African countries and a culture of anti-migrant rhetoric and language formed in the public sphere. These exaggerated fears of “foreign invaders” bled into the field of Invasion Ecology. While our modern multicultural society is moving beyond these wartime schools of thought, ecology has been slower to confront the language that lingers.
What needs to change. Check out our Language Guide for more and specific examples of expired language and their alternatives.
Violent & fear-based language has historically been used to create a perceived common enemy and intimidate people into action or political alignment. In this context, it takes the accountability off of human beings and allows those who intervene to feel a sense of pride for protecting the environment from “evil” species. While the truth is that humans are responsible for introducing the majority of said species and need to take responsibility for their impact. These species are simply trying their best to survive in a new environment. By giving an accurate depiction of why species are behaving in specific ways, we are able to more effectively manage their impacts. It has been shown that more inclusive, caring language leads people to become more invested in solutions (#NatureForAll, 2018).
Nationalistic names (i.e., names that include a place of origin) put blame on both the organism and the region from which it evolved. This often aligns with xenophobic narratives and is fuel for justifying racist/xenophobic actions and/or blaming a specific group for the unintentional impact made by the species and further stigmatizing that culture in the broader discourse (Better Common Names Project, 2022).
Why should I/my community care about this? End patterns of harm → Increase inclusivity and intersectionality
Eurocentric science presents itself as objective; however, this science is not without bias. Ecology in particular has a history embedded in racist ideologies and violent, exclusionary, and extractive practices. If our goal is to encourage more nurturing, reciprocal relationships with nature and to increase environmental stewardship, it is important we change how we talk about and interact with these abundant species.
There are many examples of the language around displaced and abundant species causing active harm in people’s lives (some are linked at the end of this guide). Just Language aims to reduce and disrupt this harm. Shifting our language away from violence towards curiosity and compassion allows us to build stronger relationships with the world around us. Deeper connection to the natural world has proven to increase passion for sustainability (#NatureForAll, 2018, p. 21-24).
And, Why not? People in a place of privilege will often advocate for their comfort above all else. Changing the current language makes it safer for all voices to enter the conversation of environmental caretaking and does not have a significant negative impact. We prioritize safety over comfort. Ecological advocacy has direct connections to advocacy for social, cultural, and justice issues. These intentional conversations have the opportunity to connect people into broader movements.
This new language is ignoring how harmful these species are to biodiversity!
Moving away from blame to be more biologically accurate.
Blame is not necessary to understand a species’ impact. Blame is a tool used to shift the responsibility of negative impact from one party to another, in this case from humans onto introduced species. When we blame the species, we project the belief that these plants and animals are capable of ill intent and project a perceived human innocence in the process. This is not scientifically accurate and ignores the significance of human accountability:
→
“To reproduce, ivy needs support, space, and sunlight; climbing trees provide all of this. While doing this, ivy stores carbon and provides thermoregulation. To make room for understory species, however, we are removing this ivy”
Invasive species are context-dependent, and the language should be too.
The harm overabundant species cause to biodiversity depends on the context, environment, and other species nearby. For example, plants or trees considered “weeds” in one setting can be helpful in urban settings where more sensitive plants cannot withstand existing conditions. While plants considered native may be preferred in this scenario, this may not be a realistic option due to barriers like limited access to funding, to native plant nurseries, or to time or labor to care for these places. Acknowledging that an introduced species may be helpful in this context is not to say that they are the best fit, ecologically, in other spaces, but that the impact is not universally negative (e.g., the introduced common reed, Phragmities australis, often grows in undiverse formations in New York City wetland habitats and can spread easily, but also offers nesting habitat for native species, refuge for shy shorebirds, and slows erosion of the shoreline).
The language we use to describe each situation should also be adaptable to the specific context. It is up to us to explain the severity of a species’ impact within individual contexts in a factual, appropriate, and inclusive way.
Acknowledgement beyond the constraints of Western/empirical science
Western science often favors the worldview that the biodiversity that matters is native, thereby reinforcing the dominant myth that nature is better unaltered by humans. This supports the idea that humans exist “outside” of nature. However, many Indigenous knowledge systems recognize that humans have a responsibility to exist in reciprocal relationship with the land, water, and its inhabitants, and in fact, many Indigenous tribes have purposely shaped their terrestrial landscapes for thousands of years. A worldview that only values native biodiversity also discounts the scientific understanding that ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing.
Native species that have co-evolved with the surrounding environment for millennia have value beyond our human understanding. It is important to ensure the health of these spaces, which is not objective or static, collectively with the people who care for these spaces. This may include specific species removal, which aligns with our understanding that humans have been altering the landscape since time immemorial. In some human-altered spaces the conditions will not allow for native flora and fauna to thrive, and overabundant species may be the only source of food or habitat for birds and other animals. These are just a few of many perspectives that are less often considered when talking about Invasion Ecology. By shifting our language, we are able to hold space for these points of view.
Evolving relationships with newly introduced or invasive species
As relationships with these species expand and shift away from demonization, there is more room to acknowledge their full scope. As mentioned above, this can be accomplished by how we speak about the species. It can also be addressed by the way we interact with them, such as removing them and using what we harvest. “Harvesting Invasive Species” may sound strange; however, after they are removed from an ecosystem, there are many needs these species can meet. Many abundant introduced species have rich histories of uses in herbal medicine, such as Lonicera japonica (Honeysuckle), Pueraria montana (Kudzu), and Albizia julibrissin (Mimosa).Traditional crafts such as basket weaving, cordage making and tool making can all be done with prolific vine material as well, and has been done for centuries. Imagine how your relationship with these plants may change if you knew you were extracting it for further use, not simply to discard!
What words do I use instead?
The Just Language team has developed a [link]language guide[/link] with some suggested alternative terms. There is no single agreed-upon term to replace “invasive,” since each species has a unique relationship with its environment. The guide is a starting point for conversations about species in question. It is up to you as the expert of your context to find the best fit! Coming up with one catch-all term would ignore the importance of relationship building that Just Language is emphasizing in biodiversity management.
Anderson, B. (2017). The Politics of Pests: Immigration and the Invasive Other. Social Research: An International Quarterly 84(1), 7-28. doi:10.1353/sor.2017.0003. Accessed online at https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/168817489/Bridget_Anderson_2C_The_Politics_of_Pests_immigration_and_the_invasive_other.pdf
Anderson argues that the association of vermin, waste, and threats to the home provides useful insights into the anxieties underpinning negative responses to asylum seekers.
Austin, Arrington. “Urban Foraging of Five Non-Native Plants in NYC: Balancing Ecosystem Services and Invasive Species Management.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 58, no. March 2021, Mar. 2021, p. 126896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126896.
The goal of this article is to help shift the knowledge and management strategies around non-native plants in urban environments, so that their potential socioeconomic value and provisioning services received through urban foraging are accounted for in urban ecosystem management approaches. .
Biermann, C., & Mansfield, B. (2014). Biodiversity, Purity, and Death: Conservation Biology as Biopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 257-273. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/d13047p
Biermann & Mansfield argues that conservation biology is political, and that in order to break down existing systems we can start by acknowledging the objective science that exists on this issue.
Bigelow, B. (n.d.). Let’s stop using metaphors that celebrate extraction, colonialism, and violence . Rethinking Schools, 37(1). Accessed online at https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/lets-stop-using-metaphors-that-celebrate-extraction-colonialism-and-violence/
Bigelow discusses the importance of metaphor in language, and the power it has in conveying more that we think, in harmful or beneficial ways.
Carter, N. (2019, January 17). Connecting to nature is a matter of environmental justice. Resilience. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-01-17/connecting-to-nature-is-a-matter-of-environmental-justice/
Carter connects racism, classism, sexism and the environmental crisis
Community Language Cooperative (Ed.). (2022, January 11). Language justice. Community Language Cooperative. https://communitylanguagecoop.com/language-justice/
Introduction to the concept of Language Justice
Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772-786. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963662517750072
This article explores science communication from the perspective of those most at risk of exclusion, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork
Ellis, E. C., Gauthier, N., Goldewijk, K. K., Bird, R. B., Boivin, N., Díaz, S., Fuller, D. Q., Gill, J. L., Kaplan, J. O., Kingston, N., Locke, H., McMichael, C. N. H., Ranco, D., Rick, T. C., Shaw, M. R., Stephens, L., Svenning, J.-C., & Watson, J. E. M. (2021). People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023483118
The authors challenge the false narrative of untouched nature by combining global maps of human populations and land use over the past 12,000 y with current biodiversity data.
ESA. (2022). Better Common Names Project. Entomological Society of America. https://www.entsoc.org/publications/common-names/better-common-names-project
Introduction to the better common names project, a project focused on rethinking common name species in the field of entomology with opportunities for action.
Liou, J. (2020, July 9). Am I an invasive species? High Country News, (Infectious Ideologies issue). Accessed online at https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.8/north-race-and-racism-am-i-an-invasive-species
Liou interrogates the intersection of ecology, her relationship with her father and pride in her heritage.
Miriti, M. N., Rawson, A. J., & Mansfield, B. (2022). The history of natural history and race: Decolonizing human dimensions of ecology. Ecological Applications, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2748
A peer reviewed article that addresses the racist history of natural history with a focus on Black ecological knowledge.
#NatureForAll. (2018, November). Home to Us All. iucn.org. https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/hometousall.pdf
A thorough report that analyzes the growing body of evidence that people’s relationship with nature profoundly influences their behaviors toward the Earth.Unique in that evidence is derived from Indigenous and ancient wisdom, contemporary science, academic research, and current practice.
Park, S. (2020, November 2). Language as an Essential Tool for Envisioning Change [web log]. Retrieved August 9, 2023, from https://blog.fracturedatlas.org/language-justice-language-access-essential-tool-change
Park highlights the political nature of language and its importance in the arts and social change.
Richardson, M. (2020, April 8). A new relationship with nature: What it means and what we can do. Finding Nature. https://findingnature.org.uk/2020/04/08/a-new-relationship-with-nature/
A summary of Richardson’s research findings on the importance of human-nature connections.
Santa Ana, Otto. (1999). Like an Animal I was Treated’: Anti-Immigrant Metaphor in US Public Discourse. Discourse & Society. 10. 191-224. 10.1177/0957926599010002004. Accessed online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233885203_Like_an_Animal_I_was_Treated’_Anti-Immigrant_Metaphor_in_US_Public_Discourse
Data driven analysis on the use of metaphor in anti-immigration politics in California.
Shashkevich, A. (2019, August 27). The power of language: How words shape people, culture. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/22/the-power-of-language-how-words-shape-people-culture/
Multiple studies show how language shapes how we share information, act and understand stereotypes.
Shinozuka, Jeannie. (2013). Deadly Perils: Japanese Beetles and the Pestilential Immigrant, 1920s–1930s. American Quarterly. 65. 831-852. 10.1353/aq.2013.0056. Accessed online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265808018_Deadly_Perils_Japanese_Beetles_and_the_Pestilential_Immigrant_1920s-1930s
Historical depictions of Japanese immigrants discussed through the lens of continuing practices of animalization and dehumanization and how that parallels with other groups today.
United Nations (Ed.). (2021). What is Ecosystem Restoration?. UN Decade on Restoration. https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/what-ecosystem-restoration
An introduction to ecosystem restoration.