The notion of wildness as a concept that is essentially intractable to definition has profound linguistic and ethical implications for wilderness preservation and environmental education. A survey of the ways in which wilderness value is expressed through language reveals much confusion and repression regarding our understanding of the autonomy of nature. By framing discussions of wilderness through fact-driven language games, the value of the wild autonomy in nature becomes ineffable. In removing wildness from the discourse on wilderness we convert wilderness value from an intrinsic value into a distorted instrumental value. If we want to teach others that wilderness value means something more than a recreational, scientific, or economic opportunity, we need to include other ways of articulating this value in our education programs. Through linking the wildness of natural systems with the wild forms in human language games, I examine the conceptual freedom required for valuing autonomy in nature. The focus on what is required of language in expressing the intrinsic value of wilderness reveals that wilderness preservation and environmental education need complementary approaches to the current science-based frameworks, such as those used by the National Park Service. The disciplines of poetry, literature, ethics, and aesthetics offer alternative language games that allow for a more fluid, imaginative, and open-ended understanding of the autonomy of nature, and a means for articulating the value of this wildness that implies an ethical position of humility.

Over the last thirty years the meaning of the word 'wilderness' has changed in Australia, and it has come under sustained attack on philosophical, cultural, political and ‘justice’ grounds. This thesis investigates the 'Wilderness Knot’ – the confusion and tangled meanings around ‘wilderness’. In the literature this ‘knot’ is comprised of at least five strands; philosophical, political, cultural, justice and exploitation. Normally people focus only on the last of these strands, its economic exploitation. The methodology is qualitative, involving participatory action research (PAR) and hermeneutic phenomenology. The PAR was done with the Blue Mountains Wilderness Network near Sydney, which investigated the confusion around ‘wilderness’, and sought to reduce this by entering into dialogue with supporters, critics and community members interested in wilderness issues, notably the local Aboriginal Traditional Owners (TOs). Eleven in-depth interviews with scholars (including critics) of wilderness were carried out to feed into this PAR. The hermeneutic phenomenology made use of the wilderness journals of five of the Network, and sought to gain a deeper understanding of the experience of wilderness itself, and also the lived experience of encountering the wilderness knot. The PAR provided many insights into the knot, especially regarding the need for dialogue to reduce the confusion. It demonstrated the delicacy needed to gain meaningful dialogue over an issue which raises real passions about social and environmental justice. It took three years to develop meaningful dialogue between TOs and conservationists. The spectra of issues entangled in ‘the land’ and ‘wilderness’ are presented textually and diagrammatically, as are the ways forward to untangle meanings and reduce confusion. The political naivety of academia is discussed in regard to ‘wilderness as lanai’ (considering increasing threats). There is a need for greater rigour in identifying which meaning of ‘wilderness’ is actually being referred to. There is also merit in promoting recognition that ‘wilderness’ is in fact a tribute to past indigenous land practices, not a disregard of indigenous history. The idea of shared ‘custodianship’ or stewardship is suggested as a way forward. The wilderness knot can indeed be loosened, as this thesis demonstrates. However, it will be an ongoing project for all those involved. The art to keeping ‘wilderness as lanai’ is not just ‘eternal vigilance’ it is an eternal ongoing dialogue about its meaning and values. / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Montana, 2006. / Title from title screen. Description based on contents viewed Mar. 30, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 142-151).

Thesis (M.A.)--Boise State University, 2009. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-143).

Thesis (M. Env. Studies)--University of Adelaide, 1981. / Includes appendices. Includes bibliographical references (p. 141-147).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Tasmania, 1992. / Library has additional copy on CD-ROM. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 183-199).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1992. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 155-170). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1965. / Typescript. Vita. Abstracted in Dissertation abstracts, v. 25 (1965) no. 10, p. 5894-95. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 268-305).

Thesis (Ph. D.) -- Lincoln University, 2008. / Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 1991. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 76-82). Also available on the World Wide Web.