{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/86606"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/86606","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Land Health as Culture and Law: A Challenge to the Contemporary Discourse on Private Property","abstract":"There are three parts to social theory: (1) what is ideal, (2) what gets in the way, and (3) how to get there. In the communication ethics literature, human flourishing is often cited as the ultimate goal. However, far too little is mentioned about how this flourishing is contingent upon our collective and individual interactions with the lands we inhabit, cultivate, and own. Today, there is a tension between contemporary American legal and cultural discourses of property and the way land functions ecologically in the real world of nature. In popular and legal culture a land parcel is an owner's separate enclave; in nature a land parcel is fully intertwined with all that surrounds it. This tension stultifies both human flourishing and a successful conservation agenda. As a piece of cultural criticism, this study explores the roots of our current legal and cultural understanding of property by drawing from the insights of key contemporary writers on property, conservation, and communication ethics as well as from three recent, and typical, case studies of private land-use disputes involving environmental harm. The conclusions of this study offer a wide-ranging critique of property rhetoric as it appears in journalist reporting, popular rhetoric, and in the policy stances of conservation organizations. The chief complaint is that too much rhetoric is shallow and incomplete with key issues being missed and key choices never identified. To meet these challenges, a moral imagination that draws from virtue-based, deontological, and environmental approaches to communication is required. A vision of ecologically responsible ownership like Aldo Leopold's land ethic.","abstract_html":"There are three parts to social theory: (1) what is ideal, (2) what gets in the way, and (3) how to get there. In the communication ethics literature, human flourishing is often cited as the ultimate goal. However, far too little is mentioned about how this flourishing is contingent upon our collective and individual interactions with the lands we inhabit, cultivate, and own. Today, there is a tension between contemporary American legal and cultural discourses of property and the way land functions ecologically in the real world of nature. In popular and legal culture a land parcel is an owner's separate enclave; in nature a land parcel is fully intertwined with all that surrounds it. This tension stultifies both human flourishing and a successful conservation agenda. As a piece of cultural criticism, this study explores the roots of our current legal and cultural understanding of property by drawing from the insights of key contemporary writers on property, conservation, and communication ethics as well as from three recent, and typical, case studies of private land-use disputes involving environmental harm. The conclusions of this study offer a wide-ranging critique of property rhetoric as it appears in journalist reporting, popular rhetoric, and in the policy stances of conservation organizations. The chief complaint is that too much rhetoric is shallow and incomplete with key issues being missed and key choices never identified. To meet these challenges, a moral imagination that draws from virtue-based, deontological, and environmental approaches to communication is required. A vision of ecologically responsible ownership like Aldo Leopold's land ethic.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Velez, Melba"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Communications","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Denzin, Norman K."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-28T15:15:48Z","date_published":"2015-09-28T15:15:48Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:27Z","subjects":["Environmental Philosophy"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI3395525"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI3395525","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/86606","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Denzin, Norman K."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Velez, Melba"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-28T15:15:48Z","10000-01-01","2009"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Communications"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Environmental Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/86606","(MiAaPQ)AAI3395525"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["There are three parts to social theory: (1) what is ideal, (2) what gets in the way, and (3) how to get there. In the communication ethics literature, human flourishing is often cited as the ultimate goal. However, far too little is mentioned about how this flourishing is contingent upon our collective and individual interactions with the lands we inhabit, cultivate, and own. Today, there is a tension between contemporary American legal and cultural discourses of property and the way land functions ecologically in the real world of nature. In popular and legal culture a land parcel is an owner's separate enclave; in nature a land parcel is fully intertwined with all that surrounds it. This tension stultifies both human flourishing and a successful conservation agenda. As a piece of cultural criticism, this study explores the roots of our current legal and cultural understanding of property by drawing from the insights of key contemporary writers on property, conservation, and communication ethics as well as from three recent, and typical, case studies of private land-use disputes involving environmental harm. The conclusions of this study offer a wide-ranging critique of property rhetoric as it appears in journalist reporting, popular rhetoric, and in the policy stances of conservation organizations. The chief complaint is that too much rhetoric is shallow and incomplete with key issues being missed and key choices never identified. To meet these challenges, a moral imagination that draws from virtue-based, deontological, and environmental approaches to communication is required. A vision of ecologically responsible ownership like Aldo Leopold's land ethic.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T15:15:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3395525.pdf: 2659021 bytes, checksum: 3cd872518e4d0f702bee363105ace4c9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 87887 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","223 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Land Health as Culture and Law: A Challenge to the Contemporary Discourse on Private Property"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Denzin, Norman K."],"dc:creator":["Velez, Melba"],"dc:date":["2015-09-28T15:15:48Z","10000-01-01","2009"],"dc:description":["There are three parts to social theory: (1) what is ideal, (2) what gets in the way, and (3) how to get there. In the communication ethics literature, human flourishing is often cited as the ultimate goal. However, far too little is mentioned about how this flourishing is contingent upon our collective and individual interactions with the lands we inhabit, cultivate, and own. Today, there is a tension between contemporary American legal and cultural discourses of property and the way land functions ecologically in the real world of nature. In popular and legal culture a land parcel is an owner's separate enclave; in nature a land parcel is fully intertwined with all that surrounds it. This tension stultifies both human flourishing and a successful conservation agenda. As a piece of cultural criticism, this study explores the roots of our current legal and cultural understanding of property by drawing from the insights of key contemporary writers on property, conservation, and communication ethics as well as from three recent, and typical, case studies of private land-use disputes involving environmental harm. The conclusions of this study offer a wide-ranging critique of property rhetoric as it appears in journalist reporting, popular rhetoric, and in the policy stances of conservation organizations. The chief complaint is that too much rhetoric is shallow and incomplete with key issues being missed and key choices never identified. To meet these challenges, a moral imagination that draws from virtue-based, deontological, and environmental approaches to communication is required. A vision of ecologically responsible ownership like Aldo Leopold's land ethic.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T15:15:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3395525.pdf: 2659021 bytes, checksum: 3cd872518e4d0f702bee363105ace4c9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 87887 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","223 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/86606","(MiAaPQ)AAI3395525"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Environmental Philosophy"],"dc:title":["Land Health as Culture and Law: A Challenge to the Contemporary Discourse on Private Property"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Communications"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:27Z"}