Hobbs Study

The two groups featured in Hobbs’ study (conservationists and developers) were from similar backgrounds, with similar beliefs and values. This underlying similarity rendered the theory of schismogenesis useful and applicable in examining “the ways in which public perceptions and knowledge of nature are contested, altered and reinterpreted through the process of dispute,” (Hobbs 2011, p. 111) to understand why groups with comparable knowledge and experience could generate such polarised dialogue. According to Hobbs, the schismogenetic process occurs where Stakeholder 1 puts forth an argument and Stakeholder 2 subsequently counter-argues this point using the very rhetoric utilised by Stakeholder 1, instead of putting forth an opposing viewpoint

For them, the 2011 nuclear crisis in Japan and the multiple radioactive water leakages from Ranger mine (Statham, 2011) constituted several recent examples of such dangers. They firmly held that scientific research denying the likelihood of nuclear waste contamination would be essentially biased (Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation,

Firstly, the term “wilderness” does not apply to the Kakadu area in the same way it does to Exmouth in Hobbs’ case study. The Mirarr peoples’ close historical and cultural connection with the land imbues it with a “special land-human spirituality,” a legitimate basis for land rights (Hintjens 2000, p.380). The only argument capable of counterbalancing such a connection is one that has been used in mining development proposals all over Australia: the promise of riches. Unfortunately, the various reports documenting the negative social impact of mining in Aboriginal communities (alcohol abuse, racial tensions between Indigenous Australian residents and their far-wealthier white counterparts, no documented achievement in reducing unemployment, to name a few) did not serve to further this dialogue (Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation,