Abstract

This study posits that environmental rhetoric can be classified as ecocentric, which does not privilege any one interest, or anthropocentric, in which the human perspective is privileged. An examination of research in neuroscience, linguistics, and philosophy leads to the theory that all symbolizing is inherently objectifying. Objectification of the environment is shown to be the ground for anthropocentric argumentation. In order to make an ecocentric argument, it is necessary to use rhetorical figures such as metaphor that point towards non-objective ways of knowing--transcategoreal knowing. ;The investigation turns to the application of the theory of transcategoreal knowing to rhetorical criticism. The case study revisits the U.S. House and Senate debate over the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley of Yosemite National Park in 1913. Two men who tried to influence the debate are depicted. John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, is discussed as prototypical of the ecocentric perspective and is shown to use figures that promote transcategoreal knowing. Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester under President Theodore Roosevelt, is treated as prototypical of the anthropocentric position and makes a utilitarian argument. While ecocentric argument is seen to have power, it also has constraints, and Muir's side loses the Congressional battle. Implications of the understanding of transcategoreal knowing for policy debate and rhetorical criticism are suggested