Paper short abstract:

This paper uses an amended form of the Orwellian concept of ‘doublethink’ to consider how we can explore and appreciate and the meaning and significance of multiple ethical positions within environmental conflicts.

Paper long abstract:

There are multiple axes of ethical tension surrounding the management of introduced wildlife. One is a longstanding question about the appropriate scale of moral concern: does this lie at an individual, population or species level? There are also deontological questions: to what (or whom) do humans owe a duty of care? Is there a human responsibility to atone for ancestral environmental blunders? Should one species be controlled to protect another, or to prevent future ecological disturbance?

This paper draws from fieldwork researching contemporary wildlife management conflicts to consider a persistent methodological and reflexive challenge: where (and whether) to position oneself in these debates.

Following a consideration of the possibilities and challenges of either attempting neutrality or adopting a position of advocacy, this paper employs an amended form of the Orwellian term 'doublethink' to describe an alternative approach. 'Doublethink', here, describes the power to simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs in order to better understand the meaning of each, and it is suggested that this reflexive, purposeful form of ambivalent thinking is both possible and productive when researching complex social controversies.