THE  CURIOUS  CASE  OF  THE  ASIAN  CARP   SPATIAL  PERFORMANCES  AND  THE  MAKING  OF  AN  INVASIVE  SPECIES     By     Donnie  Johnson  Sackey                               A  DISSERTATION     Submitted  to     Michigan  State  University     in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements     for  the  degree  of     Rhetoric  and  Writing  —  Doctor  of  Philosophy     2013           ABSTRACT   THE  CURIOUS  CASE  OF  THE  ASIAN  CARP   SPATIAL  PERFORMANCES  AND  THE  MAKING  OF  AN  INVASIVE  SPECIES     By     Donnie  Johnson  Sackey     The  Curious  Case  of  the  Asian  Carp:  Spatial  Performances  and  the  Making  of  an   Invasive  Species  is  a  theoretical  argument  for  how  species  are  rhetorically  made   invasive  and  builds  a  methodological  relationship  between  actor-­‐network  theory  and   cultural  rhetorics.  In  this  dissertation,  I  speak  to  scholars  of  actor-­‐network  theory   (ANT)  and  environmental  rhetoric  (ER).  For  ANT  scholars,  I  present  cultural   rhetorics  as  useful  because  it  marks  actor-­‐networks  as  performing  their  work  by   enacting  rhetorics.  For  ER  scholars,  I  argue  that  ANT  offers  a  meaningful   methodology  that  allows  for  understanding  environmental  crises  with  greater   complexity  by  making  an  analytical  turn  toward  ontology  rather  than  epistemology.                       TABLE  OF  CONTENTS       LIST  OF  TABLES..............................................................................................................................                          v   LIST  OF  FIGURES............................................................................................................................                        vi     CHAPTER  1.   INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................                  1     Research  site:  Scope  &  topic............................................................................................                  10     Overview  of  this  dissertation..........................................................................................                  10     CHAPTER  2.   METHODOLOGY  &  METHODS:  TOWARD  A  CULTURAL  ENVIRONMENTAL   RHETORICS........................................................................................................................................                    14     Building  a  methodology:  Bridging  ANT  and  CR,  or  some  considerations       from  theory.............................................................................................................................                  22         1.  Non-­‐human  subjectivity  &  multiplicity...........................................                  25         2.  Place  matters..............................................................................................                    29         3.  Practices  and  performances................................................................                    31         4.  The  role  of  the  researcher...................................................................                      34     Methodological  precedent................................................................................................                  36             Method......................................................................................................................................                  39               Conclusion/Beginning.......................................................................................................                    44     CHAPTER  3.   CARPTOLOGIES,  PART  I:  CONSTELLATING  REALITIES  OF  BIOINVASION............                  46   Introduction............................................................................................................................                  46   Carptologies............................................................................................................................                    48   A  separate  ecology...............................................................................................................                    54   Emerging  worlds...................................................................................................................                  57   Looking  forward:  Exploring  common  worlds...........................................................                  62   Conclusion................................................................................................................................                  64     CHAPTER  4.   CARPTOLOGIES,  PART  II:  UNTANGLING  COMPLEXITY,  MULTIPLE   PERFORMANCES..............................................................................................................................                  66    Asian  carp  as  invasive  through  scientific  classification.......................................                  68   Enacted  through  eDNA.......................................................................................................                  72   Performing  Asian  (American)  identity........................................................................                  74   Papers  please?:  Undocumented  immigrants............................................................                    79   Asian  carp  as  an  economically  invasive  construction...........................................                  82   Asian  carp  acting  invasive.................................................................................................                  86   Conclusion:  Making  ontology...........................................................................................                  88             iii       CHAPTER  5.   (IL)LEGAL  ACTS:  RULEMAKING  AND  RULEBREAKING..................................................                  92     Prologue....................................................................................................................................                  92     Dramatis  personae...............................................................................................................                    96   Act  I.............................................................................................................................................                    98     Act  II...........................................................................................................................................                110     Act  II...........................................................................................................................................                113     Carptology  no.  1:  Aquaculture—Mike  Freeze,  KEO  Fish  Farm.........................                116     Carptology  no.  2:  The  Great  Lakes—Bernard  Hansen,  Great  Lakes       Fishery  Commission............................................................................................................              121       De-­‐linking/Linking...............................................................................................................              126     CHAPTER  6.   MAPPING  COMPLEXITY:  RE-­‐TOOLING  ENVIRONMENTAL  RHETORICS.................            129     APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................................            148   Appendix  A:  Research  Participant  Information  and  Consent  Form................            149     Appendix  B:  Preliminary  Interview  Questionnaire................................................            153   Appendix  C:  Request  for  Documents  from  the  United  States  Fish  and     Wildlife  Service  under  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA)  ......................            156   Appendix  D:  List  of  Documents  Received  from  FOIA  Request  and     Documents  Received.  ..........................................................................................................          159     REFERENCES…...................................................................................................................................          180                                                     iv       LIST  OF  TABLES       Table  1:  Catalogue  of  letters  written  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife          Service’s  2003  Notice  of  Inquiry  for  Review  of  Information          Concerning  Bighead  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  nobilis)…………………...                160         Table  2:  Catalogue  of  letters  written  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife          Service’s  2003  Notice  of  Inquiry  for  Review  of  Information                                    Concerning  Silver  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  molitrix)  and                                    Largescale  Silver  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  harmandi)………………........              166       Table  3:  Catalogue  of  letters  written  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife                  Service’s  2007  Final  Rule  on  Listing  Silver  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys                                      molitrix)  and  Largescale  Silver  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys                                      harmandi)  as  Injurious  Wildlife………………………………………………………                169                                                                 v       LIST  OF  FIGURES       Figure  1:  Political  cartoon:  “Freshwater  sashimi.”  Regional  borders     hold  both  physical  and  symbolic  importance.  Therefore,  it  should  not     be  a  surprise  that  the  ways  in  which  we  talk  about  “illegal  aliens”  in  the     form  of  people  and  emergent  aliens  in  the  form  of  flora  and  fauna  are     rhetorically  parallel  as  they  both  raise  anxiety  with  regards  to  foreign     cultural  invasions  that  threaten  not  only  the  nation  state  but  how  we     collectively  perform  the  nation  state  in  a  variety  of  spaces..........................................                  76         Figure  2:  Political  cartoon:  “Which  foreigner  is  a  real  threat  to  our  way     of  life?”  Another  political  cartoon  that  makes  use  of  not  only  race  but     also  popular  notions  of  how  foreigners  participate  within  the  economy.     For  interpretation  of  the  references  to  color  in  this  and  all  other  figures,     the  reader  is  referred  to  the  electronic  version  of  this  dissertation..........................                  82                                                         vi       CHAPTER  1.  INTRODUCTION     “And  what  we  often  uncover  is  not  merely  the  way  that  nature  influences  and   constrains  human  actions,  but  also  the  way  that  particular  environments  shape   human  intentions.”     Linda  Nash,  “The  Agency  of  Nature  or  the  Nature  of  Agency?”       What  I  hope  to  do  with  this  dissertation  is  create  a  series  of  thought,  which   hopefully  will  put  us  in  the  space  of  considering  our  ontological  relationships  as   these  frameworks  relate  to  or  potentially  displace  those  of  others  in  the  process  of   public  deliberation.  So,  I  begin  where  most  research  projects  begin,  in  an  archive.   Because  as  Taylor  (2003)  quite  succinctly  contends  archives  and  their   accompanying  repertoires  “of  selection,  memorization  or  internalization,  and   transmission”  constitute  the  conduction  of  “communal  memories,  histories,  and   values  from  one  group/generation  to  the  next”  (p.  21).    Archives  do  indeed   “generate,  record,  and  transmit  knowledge”  and  serve  as  heuristics  whereby  we   understand  the  world  and  our  place  within  it.  Not  that  there  is  a  single  origin  story   for  a  research  project,  but  my  project  began  in  Toronto.  The  Life  in  Crisis:  Schad   Gallery  of  Biodiversity  located  in  the  Royal  Ontario  Museum  is  an  archive  of  sorts.   Opened  to  the  public  in  May  of  2009,  the  gallery  serves  the  ROM’s  mission  as  an   advocate  for  science  in  the  study  of  nature.  The  interactive  gallery  combines  seven   ecosystem  experiences  with  approximately  2,500  living  and  preserved  animal   specimens.     The  Schad  Gallery  offers  a  unique  platform  to  engage  individuals  in  the   fundamental  relationships  between  nature  and  humanity  albeit  through  taxidermy,         1       dioramas  and  stationary  cyberdocents.    As  a  natural  history  archive,  the  gallery   explores  our  world’s  biodiversity  and  the  many  factors  affecting  its  survival  through   three  core  themes.  First,  “Life  is  diverse,”  which  illustrates  the  astonishing  number   and  variety  of  species  on  Earth;  second,  “Life  is  Interconnected,”  which   demonstrates  how  species  and  habitats  are  so  tightly  interwoven  that  any  impact  on   one  of  them  necessarily  affects  the  whole  ecosystem;  and,  finally,  “Life  is  at  Risk,”   which  highlights  that  the  "web  of  life"  is  threatening  to  unravel  due  to  human   activities.  I  have  visited  the  ROM  twice  in  the  past  year.  During  my  trips  to  the   museum  I  spent  a  majority  of  my  time  dwelling  in  the  exhibit  in  an  attempt  to   understand  its  epistemological  aims  and  conceptions  of  reality  through  these  three   themes.    If  you  take  these  themes  and  the  accompanying  exhibits  for  what  they  are,   you’ll  see  them  as  stories  that  associate  people  to  places,  animals  to  people,  the   human  to  the  nonhuman.  They  are  indeed  socio-­‐technical  networks  on  display.  Yet,   when  we  speak  of  “crisis”  or  “risk”  through  the  lens  of  activities  and  relationships   what  exactly  do  we  mean?  Whose  story  are  we  telling?  Whose  presence  is   abstracted  in  these  narrative  accounts?  What  actors’  intentions  are  made  known?   These  questions  make  me  think  of  Thomas  King,  who  writes,  “a  story  told  one  way   could  cure,  that  the  same  story  told  another  way  could  injure.”   These  questions  suggest  that  there  should  be  a  certain  level  of  care  in  the   writing  of  history—especially  environmental  history.  This  care  comes  in  the  way  of   taking  critical  social  scientists’  regard  in  recognizing  the  multiple  variables  that   factor  in  the  production  of  historical  and  contemporary  environments.  Post-­‐ constructivist  science  has  had  much  influence  on  the  sub-­‐discipline  of         2       environmental  history  within  the  past  ten  years.  The  work  of  scholars  such  as  John   Law,  Bruno  Latour,  and  Donald  Worster  challenged  the  way  environmental   historians  have  recapitulated  the  nature-­‐culture  dichotomy,  which  has  rested   agency  entirely  in  the  hands  of  humans.  Both  actor  network  theorists  (ANT)  and   ANT-­‐oriented  environmental  historians  have  paved  the  way  for  a  radical  alteration   of  doing  history  that  brings  nonhumans  into  the  fold  to  complicate  our   understanding  of  historical  events  and  actors.  I  am  interested  environmental   historians’  ANT-­‐style  approach  because  they  engage  with  complexity  by  situating   their  subjects-­‐of-­‐inquiry  within  larger  ecologies.  Their  fixation  with  complexity   brings  human  and  nonhuman  together  in  a  way  that  position  objects  as  situated   within  intricate  networks  to  produce  composite  accounts  of  either  how   environmental  phenomena  occurs  or  how  technical  innovation  transpires  (Law,   1989;  Cronon,  1991;  Taylor,  1999;  Hayden,  2003;  Sellers,  2004;  Nash,  2005;  Allen,   2006;  Sutter,  2007;  Hoag  &  Ohman,  2008).  For  example,  Sellers  (2004)  was   concerned  with  fluoridated  water  and  the  seemingly  dominant  U.S.  scientific   perspective  that  drove  its  use  in  municipal  water  supplies  around  the  world.   Historians  have  largely  positioned  scientists  as  the  central  actors  responsible  for   shaping  the  history  of  fluoride  around  the  world.  For  Sellers,  this  was  a  problem   because  it  was  a  one-­‐dimensional  history  that  did  not  account  for  the  fact  that  there   were  people  in  other  spaces  whose  differing  experiences  were  equally  influential  in   the  shaping  the  use  of  fluoride.  While  these  perspectives  were  never  dominant,   Sellers  argues  that  they  are  just  as  important  because  the  dominant  American   scientific  ontology  of  fluoride  would  have  had  to  encounter  and  destabilize  others  in         3       order  to  assume  its  position.  His  study  of  fluoride  is  a  history  of  a  material  object   shaped  by  transnational  flows  of  knowledge  among  groups  of  experts  and  the  lay   public.   In  a  different  vein,  historian  Taylor  (1999)  was  interested  in  understanding   the  historical  development  of  salmon  management  and  the  crisis  stemming  from   their  modern-­‐day  population  decline.  Popular  theories  regarding  the  decline  of   salmon  populations  often  point  to  “overfishing”  as  a  cause.  His  argument,  however,   is  that  this  popular  theory  is  a  one-­‐dimensional  view  of  causality,  which  excludes   space  and  subsequently  the  range  of  different  relations  people  had  of  salmon.  His   argument  lies  primarily  and  against  historians  and  their  practice,  which  has  the   tendency  to  not  consider  space  and  place  in  the  construction  of  their  histories—or   depict  the  past  “as  if  people  were  packed  solidly  on  the  head  of  a  pin.”  Wading   through  the  archives  that  compose  the  history  of  salmon,  he  uses  space  to  reject   “overfishing”  as  an  explanation  for  decline  as  he  reveals  the  different  relationships   people  held  with  salmon  through  their  cultural  practices.  These  geographies  are   complex  in  that  they  mark  the  story  of  salmon  as  not  simply  about  “overfishing.”   The  story  is  an  assemblage  of  accounts  that  mixes  narratives  of  economics,  racism,   nationalism  and  scientific  progress  that  transpire  over  a  range  of  spaces.  In  many   ways  we  might  uses  these  cases  as  essential  reminders  of  how  practices  around   archives  can  veil  important  stories  and  flatten  relationships.  This  would  only   highlight  the  extent  to  which  we,  as  researchers,  have  responsibilities  not   necessarily  to  our  disciplines  but  also  to  countless  others  when  working  within   archival  spaces.           4       Writing  histories  in  this  manner  is  an  ontological  project  that  forces  us  to   reconsider  the  concept  of  agency  as  it  is  practiced  along  the  nature  versus  culture   divide.  There  has  been  much  interest  on  the  part  of  environmental  historians  to   document  culture’s  affect  on  nature,  culture’s  “embrace  of  nature  as  naïve  reality,   and  ecology  as  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  that  reality”  (Dann  and  Mittman,  1997:  p.   292).  In  the  past,  there  was  more  emphasis  on  documenting  culture’s  effect  on   nature  and  the  sciences’  role  in  knowing  nature,  but  regardless  of  the  sciences   presence  humans  have  always  served  as  the  actors  within  environmental  histories.   Dann  and  Mittman  (1997)  have  noted  that  environmental  historians  have  largely   assigned  mostly  “negative  agency  to  human  beings.”  For  example,  White  (1996)   provides  and  exploratory  account  of  the  relationship  between  humans  and  nature  as   he  documents  how  the  Columbia  River  came  to  exist  in  its  present  form  over  time.   He  does  not  exclusively  focus  on  humans.  Instead  he  conceives  of  body  and  agency   as  the  links  between  humans  and  nature.  His  purpose  for  doing  so  was  to  get  away   from  accounts  of  knowing  nature  that  “privileg[e]  the  eye  over  the  hand”  (Dann  and   Mittman,  1997:  p.  299).  He,  however,  privileges  a  confluence  of  “labor”  that  makes   the  Columbia  River  into  an  “organic  machine,”  through  engineers,  fisherman,   damworkers,  etc.  Environmental  histories  of  this  caliber  unseat  Science  as  the  only   actor  in  constructing  environmental  knowledge  and  reality.  In  using  this  as  an   example,  I  am  resurrecting  the  problem  of  Science  standing  as  the  representative   figure.  Nature  can  only  speak  through  Science,  which  to  some  extent  places  agency   into  question  because  nature  doesn't  speak  on  its  own  accord.  Instead,  nature  exists   through  arbiters.           5       Some  environmental  historians  have  taken  the  step  to  define  nature  as   having  agency  by  positioning  nature  as  a  nonhuman  actor  through  Latour  (2004),   Callon  and  Law’s  (1995)  understanding  of  agency  (e.g.  agency  as  being  dispersed   throughout  actor-­‐networks  rather  than  self-­‐contained)  (Nash,  2005).  The  biggest   roadblock  to  assigning  agency  to  nature  is  that  the  concept  of  agency  in  relation  to   humans  has  always  been  tied  to  cognitive  functions  that  nature  lacks.  For  example,   example,  one  of  the  primary  characteristics  that  feeds  into  how  we  understand   agency  regards  the  ability  to  cognitively  think  about  an  act  before  it  takes  place.   Accordingly,  this  is  what  separates  us  from  nature.  While  nature  is  dynamic  and  in   some  ways  can  be  considered  an  agent,  it  just  carries  out  processes  as  if  they  are  a   part  of  a  continuous  chain  of  events  (e.g.  no  thinking  is  necessary  for  things  to   occur).  Nash,  Latour,  Callon  and  Law’s  conception  of  agency  moves  outside  of  this   definition.  They  argue  that  while  nature  does  not  act  in  the  way  humans  act,  it  does   act  in  ways  that  influence  how  organism  relate  to  their  environments  and  each   other;  thus,  agency  can  only  be  understood  as  a  linked-­‐social  phenomenon  that   occurs  “through  practical  engagement  with  the  world,  not  disembodied   contemplation”  (Nash,  2005  p.  68).1  Recognizing  nature’s  agency  furthers  the  goal   of  writing  better  environmental  histories  by  taking  all  humans  and  nonhumans  into   account  for  the  purpose  of  building  a  better  story  for  how  knowledge  and  practices   surrounding  nature  came  into  existence  rather  than  just  a  story  of  the  unfolding  of   reason  within  the  human  mind  coupled  with  action.                                                                                                                   1  “And  what  we  often  uncover  is  not  merely  the  way  that  nature  influences  and   constrains  human  actions,  but  also  the  way  that  particular  environments  shape   human  intentions”  (Nash,  2005  p.  68).         6       Returning  to  the  Schad  Gallery,  I  use  this  archive  as  a  means  to  theorize  and   think  through  a  current  project,  which  is  the  subject  of  this  dissertation  (e.g.  What  is   Asian  carp?  And  how  does  it  materialize  as  an  invasive  species?)  It  is  the  story  of   crisis  over  the  loss  of  biodiversity  told  through  the  terministic  screen  of  science  that   I  find  peculiar.  If  we  take  the  theme  “Life  is  Interconnected”  as  a  representation  that   species  interact  with  each  other  in  complex  ecosystems  and  dig  deeply,  is  science   really  the  only  way  in  which  we  should/can  understand  this  emergency?  One  aspect   of  this  crisis,  as  defined  by  the  exhibit,  regards  the  presence  of  invasive  species   within  ecosystems.  For  the  most  part,  we  are  asked  to  define  invasive  species   primarily  through  science  and  economics,  with  science  having  the  largest  influence.   Yet  much  like  Taylor  and  Sellers,  I  find  myself  to  be  skeptical  of  these  two  frames   ability  to  account  for  the  full  range  of  relations  that  people  may  have  with  invasive   species.  Quite  frankly,  I  am  curious  if  there  are  other  frameworks  at  play,  which  are   concealed  behind  scientific  and  monetary  understandings.  These  ontological   positions  bear  meaningful  affordances  to  how  we  understand  invasibility  and  make   policy  regarding  it.  We  must  engage  with  them.     My  time  within  this  archive  also  raises  scholarly  questions  around  how   environmental  rhetoric  as  a  tradition  makes  knowledge  about  the  world.  And  so  I   ask  myself,  how  does  someone  begin  to  understand  the  making  of  invasive  species   within  the  tradition?  The  answer  has  been  to  turn  toward  texts.  This  is  a  result  of   the  fact  that  our  discipline  (and  the  humanities  at-­‐large)  has  been  exclusively  text-­‐ centered.  There  have  been  in-­‐roads  made  with  cultural  composition  theory,  which   has  articulated  writing  as  situated  within  complex  cultural  systems.  These  positions,         7       however,  do  not  go  far  enough  in  that  they  still  treat  texts  as  representatives  or   containers  of  culture.  There  is  no  discussion  of  the  agentive  roles  texts  inhabit   within  dynamic  environments  of  multiple  networked  relations.  Sanchez  (2005)   noted  this  problem  with  how  composition  has  made  use  of  cultural  theory.  The   inability  to  examine  writing  as  networked  stems  from  the  field's  resistance  to  move   beyond  hermeneutical  approaches  in  understanding  rhetoric  production.  The   textual  approach  traps  us  within  a  system  where  meaning  is  embedded  within  texts   rather  than  generated  throughout  the  network  influencing  production.  By  focusing   on  text  we  tend  to  screen  out  other  important  units  that  contribute  to  the   assembling  of  a  rhetoric.  Consider  practice  as  an  example.  By  practice  I  mean   various  elements  that  could  be  classified  as  contributing  to  a  rhetoric  but  cannot   immediately  be  textualized.  These  are—in-­‐the-­‐act,  or  embodied  cultural   performances,  situated  within  institutions  and  framed  by  infrastructural  elements.   The  same  could  be  said  for  material  units  that  are  left  out  of  analysis  because   researchers  deem  them  not  to  be  integral  to  the  production  of  phenomena  that  they   are  focusing  on  at  a  particular  site.     As  a  tradition,  environmental  rhetorics  has  accessed  and  studied  the   relationship  between  rhetoric  and  the  environment  from  the  standpoint  of   epistemology.  This  is  to  say  that  explorations  in  environmental  rhetoric  have   primarily  focused  on  how  knowledge  functions  among  stakeholders  within   environmental  debates.  There,  however,  is  very  little  concern  for  how  knowledge   becomes  policy  or  procedures  that  regulate  action  and  transform  the  land).  Here  I   posit  that  environmental  disputes  cannot  be  solely  understood  by  examining  what  is         8       believed  or  immediately  textualized.  Instead,  environmental  rhetoricians  should   position  themselves  to  consider  how  multiple  knowledges  about  an  object  in   dispute  are  the  result  of  multiple  realities.     As  a  corrective,  I  argue  that  environmental  rhetorics  has  to  rethink  the  way  it   understands  environmental  issues  through  three  methodological  recommendations.   First,  there  has  to  be  a  reconsideration  of  subjectivity.  This  entails  moving  away   from  an  object-­‐view  of  texts  and  adopting  an  understanding  of  texts  as  actors  that   participate  with  people  and  other  nonhumans  in  order  to  make  reality.  For  example,   we  might  ask  questions  regarding  agency  with  respect  to  how  texts  create  spaces?   Second,  there  is  a  need  to  engage  with  the  multiple  knowledges  or  realities   associated  with  a  particular  subject.    Rather  than  producing  “flat-­‐world”  accounts,   environmental  rhetoric  should  engage  with  complexity  to  create  multi-­‐dimensional   accounts  of  our  subjects  of  study.  This  would  also  entail  adopting  my  final   recommendation,  which  regards  arrangement  and  location.  This  entails  engaging   with  questions  of  how  varying  arrangements  across  disparate  spaces  coordinate  to   produce  reality  in  the  multiple.     There  is  a  need  for  environmental  rhetorics  to  engage  with  complexity  and   ontology  as  a  means  of  both  understanding  the  nature  of  a  problem  and  providing   meaningful  solutions  to  that  problem.  This  is  not  to  say  that  environmental   problems  are  solely  an  issue  of  bad  communication  (this  is  a  nod  back  to   complexity).  Instead,  this  is  recognition  that  communication  plays  a  role  and  moves   rhetoricians  closer  into  the  circle  of  advocacy  and  engagement.  Rhetoric  here   becomes  a  deliberative  mechanism  whereby  citizens  can  do  work  and  enact  change         9       through  a  deep  understanding  and  reordering  the  relations  that  give  birth  to   environmental  problems.     Research  site:  Scope  &  topic   With  respect  to  this  project,  I  am  interested  in  answering  many  of  the   following  questions  regarding  ontology  through  a  study  of  invasive  species— specifically,  Asian  carp.  How  is  it  that  something  becomes  invasive?  Where  are  they   invasive?  To  whom  are  they  invasive?  Moreover,  how  long  is  it  before  all   stakeholders  agree  that  they  are  invasive?  In  short,  I  am  interested  in  the  historical   narratives  and  practices  that  surround  Asian  carp  as  an  “introduced  species”  now   labeled  “invasive.”  Asian  carp  have  become  somewhat  of  an  issue  within  the   imagined  community  of  the  Midwest  and  Great  Lakes  region.  Yet,  the  use  of  the   word  “invasion”  to  describe  the  presence  of  the  species  presents  an  interesting   opportunity  for  historical  analysis.  At  what  point  did  it  become  politically  expedient   to  use  “Asian  carp”  rather  than  silver  or  bighead  to  describe  a  group  of  actors’   collective  movement  through  space  as  “invasion?”  Specifically,  how  was  it  possible   for  an  ontology  to  displace  another  and  help  to  institute  a  new  set  of  practices   around  several  actors  grouped  as  a  single  entity?   Overview  of  this  dissertation   In  Chapter  2,  I  introduce  a  theoretical  framework  for  studying  the  complexity   of  environmental  problems.  Here  I  oscillate  between  Actor-­‐network  theory  and   Cultural  rhetorics  as  a  means  of  producing  a  methodology  to  re-­‐tool  environmental   rhetorics.  I  draw  upon  the  work  of  ANT  scholars  such  as  Michel  Callon,  Annemarie   Mol,  John  Law  and  Bruno  Latour  who  each  provide  a  way  of  documenting  and         10       spatializing  the  complexity  of  social  situations.  I  also  make  use  of  CR  scholars  like   Angela  Haas  and  Malea  Powell  who  mark  rhetorics  as  emerging  from  constellated   rhetorical  traditions  and  call  attention  to  the  researcher’s  positionality  in  collecting   data  and  making  meaning.  I  put  these  theorists  in  conversation  to  produce  a   framework  that  spatializes  environmental  problems  so  that  we  are  not  focusing  on   stakeholders’  contestation  of  knowledge—epistemology—but  what  knowledge   represents—ontology—  and  the  possibilities  that  come  with  this  shift  in  attention.   Chapter  3  brings  my  methodology  into  sharper  focus.  Here  I  introduce  the   architectonic  statement.  This  term  is  borrowed  directly  from  Lakota  architect  Craig   Howe’s  notion  of  “ethnoarchitectonics,”  which  identifies  architectures  as  bounded   spaces  that  produce  reality.  Asian  carp’s  invasibility  emerges  as  multiple  ontologies   (or  carptologies)  that  are  the  result  of  the  statements  (and  other  networked   performances)  of  human  and  nonhuman  actors  like  scientists,  political  agencies,  and   technical  devices.  These  performances  work  doubly  to  render  definitions  that   constitute  Asian  carps’  status  as  an  invader  species  and  maintain  the  identity  of   human  collectives.  Carptologies  then  are  powerful  spaces  of  dependence  that  actors   preserve  to  advance  their  essential  self-­‐interests.  These  ontologies  also  afford  actors   a  position  from  which  they  can  engage  with  others  on  their  own  terms.  To  better   contextualize  the  architecture  of  carptologies,  I  walk  readers  through  one  of  many   economic  controversies  that  present  carp  as  invasive.  It  is  in  this  section  that  I   foreshadow  a  major  implication  of  this  study.  While  actors  actively  order  spatial   relations  for  their  self-­‐  interests,  technical  communicators  might  take  notice  of         11       spatial  relations  and  think  of  alternative  ways  of  arranging  space  that  allow  actors   to  engage  with  each  other  rather  than  against.   In  Chapter  4,  I  depict  the  many  ways  Asian  carp  act  and  are  made  invasive   through  assembled  networks  of  human  and  nonhuman  agents.  We  cannot  always   directly  see  Asian  carp  as  invasive.  Instead,  we  have  to  untangle  the  many   performances  in  which  carp  factor  in  order  to  understand  the  nature  of  their   invasibility.  A  slightly  different  Asian  carp  is  performed  in  each  carptology.  The  final   product  is  an  “Asian  carp  multiple.”  This  is  an  appropriate  description  because  there   is  no  such  thing  as  an  Asian  carp.  Asian  carp  starts  as  at  least  two  separate  species;   however,  they  are  treated  as  one.  Seeing  carp  as  a  single  species  inhibits  our  ability   to  fully  understand  the  multiple  ways  in  which  identity  is  performed  and  the  varied   affordances  and  consequences  tied  to  performance.   In  Chapter  5,  I  trace  the  ways  in  which  an  important  piece  of  legislation   passed  at  the  turn  of  the  previous  century,  the  Lacey  Act,  influences  actors’   constructing  spaces  of  dependence  and  engagement.  To  explore  the  creation  of   space,  I  assembled  a  case  study  using  letters  written  to  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife   Service  and  interviews  with  officials  from  government  and  non-­‐governmental   institutions.  These  letters  were  written  in  response  to  three  public  commenting   periods  regarding  the  listing  of  bighead,  silver  and  large-­‐scale  silver  carp  as   invasive.  I  used  the  letters  and  conversations  to  map  ontological  positions  that   reveal  relationships  between  human  and  nonhuman  actors.  Location  on  the  maps   revolves  around  concerns  for  economies,  human  safety,  environmental  health,  and   cultural  preservation.  While  the  maps  illustrate  how  relations  determine  identities         12       for  carp  and  humans,  they  also  indicate  spaces  wherein  environmental  policy-­‐   makers  might  re-­‐think  the  design  of  policies  that  govern  deliberative  civic   engagement.   In  Chapter  6,  I  illustrate  implications  for  the  use  of  my  framework  for   environmental  rhetoricians.  I  emphasize  that  a  turn  toward  ontology  affords   environmental  rhetoricians  not  only  the  opportunity  for  understanding   environmental  issues  with  greater  complexity  but  also  places  us  in  the  position  to   engage  with  others  and  act  as  advocates  in  the  creation  of  space.  The  concern  for   multiplicity  within  environmental  disputes  raises  a  rhetorical  problem.  How  can  we   represent  and  respect  the  fractional  worlds  that  actors  call  home  while  moving   toward  a  singularity  that  would  allow  us  to  best  resolve  a  crisis.  If  there  is  one  thing   that  we  can  say  definitively  about  architectonic  statements,  it  is  that  they  are   metaphorical  bridges  between  textual  and  physical  worlds.  They  are  performances   of  reality.  Writing  performs  reality,  but  it  also  has  the  ability  to  adjust  the  relations   that  produce  reality.  Here  I  am  actively  advocating  that  we  consider  ways  in  which   acting  rhetorically  can  make  and  remake  the  physical  world.                                     13         CHAPTER  2.  METHODOLOGY  &  METHODS:   TOWARD  A  CULTURAL  ENVIRONMENTAL  RHETORICS   I  use  this  chapter  as  a  way  of  sketching  out  my  approach  to  solving  the   problems  with  environmental  rhetoric  that  I  raised  in  the  previous  chapter.  The   most  explicit  attempt  to  address  complexity  within  environmental  rhetorics  has   been  ecocomposition.  As  a  moment  within  rhetoric  and  composition  studies’  post-­‐ process  movement,  ecocomposition  holds  that  we  must  take  into  account  the   environmental  conditions  that  envelope  textual  production.  Ecocomposition  draws   primarily  from  disciplines  that  study  discourse  (chiefly  composition,  but  also   literary  studies,  communication,  cultural  studies,  linguistics,  and  philosophy)  and   merges  their  perspectives  with  work  in  disciplines  that  examine  environment  (these   include  ecology,  environmental  studies,  sociobiology,  and  other  ‘hard’  sciences).  As   a  result,  ecocomposition  attempts  to  provide  a  more  holistic,  encompassing   framework  for  studies  of  the  relationship  between  discourse  and  environment”   (Dobrin  and  Weisser,  2002:  p.  6).  In  this  sense,  ecocomposition  itself  mirrors   ecology  (the  scientific  study  of  interactions  between  organisms  and  their  natural   environment)  since  it  propels  us  to  inquire  into  the  spaces  in  which  discourse   transpires,  as  most  inquiries  into  these  relationships  do  not  explore  how  discourse   and  writing  are  influenced  by  place  (As  a  contrast,  it  is  also  important  to  note  that   ecocomposition  stops  short  of  exploring  how  discursive  relations  constitute  and   shape  the  natural  world,  which  is  a  contribution  that  my  work  offers).    The  post-­‐ process  movement  was  interested  in  moving  away  from  focusing  on  individual   writers’  composition  processes  toward  a  social  constructionist  politic  that   addressed  the  social  forces  that  surrounded  the  writing  process  (Dobrin,  2009).         14       Ecocomposition  frames  environment  as  an  important  force,  so  important  that   environment  precedes  race,  gender,  and  culture,  which  ecocompositionists  believe   are  effects  of  environment.  This  emphasis  on  space  and  place  occurs  as  a  result  of   ecocompositionists  believing  that  most  inquires  into  discourse  in  rhetoric  and   composition  studies  do  not  consider  space  as  a  factor.     Ecocomposition  does  not  engage  in  Cartesian  dualism,  which  characterizes   most  of  environmental  rhetorics.  It  acts  outside  of  the  western  rationalist  tradition  à   la  Descartes  and  Sir  Francis  Bacon  that  and  successfully  and  erroneously  instituted  a   separation  between  nature  and  culture.  Ecocomposition’s  ontological  politics   acknowledges  two  meta-­‐spaces  that  humans  occupy—a  biosphere,  consisting  of  the   Earth  and  its  atmosphere  that  ensure  life,  and  a  semiosphere,  consisting  of   discourse  that  provides  meaning  to  life  in  the  biosphere.  Ecocomposition   acknowledges  these  two  spaces  as  mutually-­‐dependant.  The  biosphere  can  be   segmented  into  multiple  realms  (realities)—political  environments,  electronic   environments,  economic  environments  and  natural  environments,  but  analysis  of   these  spaces  are  rarely  seen  in  relation  to  each  other.  This  signals  that   ecompositionists’  analyses  of  environment  often  fails  to  engage  in  complexity  that   moves  beyond  sites  and  make  inquiries  into  how  other  spaces  also  affect  how  a  text   develops  (Drew,  2001  is  a  notable  exception  to  this).  Furthermore,  there  is  another   object  of  analysis  that  emerges  from  ecocomposition  practice.  Humans  and  texts  sit   at  the  center  of  analysis  within  ecocomposition  accounts.     For  me,  this  is  a  problem  not  only  because  ecology  as  a  discipline  is  a  whole   systems  approach  rather  than  a  study  of  central  figures  (see  Dobrin  and  Weisser,         15       2001;  2002;  Marx,  2008  for  further  examples  of  this)  but  also  because  it  cements  a   constitution  that  treats  humans  as  subjects  and  nonhumans  as  representational   objects.  Therefore,  agency  is  not  seen  as  a  relational  effect  but  rather  power   possessed  solely  by  people  who  order  environments  through  discourse  and   subsequently  construct  texts  that  assume  the  character  of  being  representative  of   the  contexts  in  which  they  develop.    A  good  way  of  thinking  about  this  way  of  seeing   comes  from  a  rather  mundane  example:  People,  not  guns,  kill  people.  The  decision  to   grant  subjecthood  versus  object  status  depends  upon  one’s  political  allegiances.   Nevertheless,  selection  of  one  or  the  other  view  presents  certain  avenues  for  action.   It  could  be  that  guns  kill  people  as  well,  but  I  am  more  apt  to  argue  that  guns  and   people  kill  together  (Sometimes  people  hear  voices  in  their  heads  that  tell  them  to   kill,  but  that  adds  another  layer  of  complexity).  This  type  of  example  even  occurs   with  respect  to  environmental  controversies:  Global  climate  change  is  a  result  of   Nature  and  its  processes;  People  are  responsible  for  global  climate  change.  As  with   the  former  example,  choosing  a  subject  is  an  ideological  commitment  to  draft   legislation  that  would  curb  human  activity  or  leave  the  problem  untouched.  A  strong   commitment  toward  exploring  ontology  provides  the  foundation  by  which   ecocomposition  can  begin  to  understand  how  the  “social”  functions  during   composition  by  documenting  the  amount  of  relations  that  can  be  said  to  exist.  This   presents  several  questions  for  consideration—What  roles  do  texts  (and  other   nonhumans)  play  in  creating  environments?  How  do  they  create  environments  (or   reality)  rather  than  merely  being  containers  of  a  reality?  How  do  they  work  in   concert  with  other  subjects  to  create  realties?  Furthermore,  how  do  these  realities         16       co-­‐ordinate  (relate)  with  others?  These  questions  that  profess  the  more  agentive   roles  that  texts  and  other  nonhumans  assume  highlight  that  they  are  not  containers   (or  representatives)  of  culture.  Their  identities  are  one  and  many.  They   simultaneously  participate  with  others  in  the  creation  of  cultures  and  they  are   composed  of  assemblies  of  other  actors  at  macro  and  micro  levels  of  abstraction.   The  push  against  containerization  in  favor  of  greater  subjectivity  is  nothing   new;  in  fact,  it  is  deeply  rooted  in  a  methodological  polemic  that  surrounds   rhetorical  hermeneutics.  In  making  this  statement,  I  am  placing  two  rhetoric  &   composition  scholars  in  direct  opposition  to  each  other  with  respect  to  their  work.   Mailloux  (2006)  explored  the  relations  and  disciplinary  trajectories  of  English   literary  studies,  speech  communication,  and  rhetoric  &  composition  and  raised   hermeneutics  (“rhetorical  hermeneutics”  in  our  case)  as  a  useful  method  that  unites   several  disciplines  under  the  umbrella  of  “English  studies”  because  it  sustains  the   same  subject-­‐object  orientation  of  the  world.  Objects  (or  texts)  are  representational   and  exist  to  be  analyzed.  The  emphasis  on  a  text-­‐centered  rhetoric  has  created  a   system  of  analysis  wherein  people  merely  read  a  text,  analyze  it,  and  then  make   claims  about  rhetoric  at-­‐large  based  upon  a  document  or  collection  of  documents.   What  this  does  not  account  for  are  the  various  units  that  help  to  make  a  rhetoric  but   cannot  immediately  be  textualized  (Sackey,  2011;  Sackey  and  DeVoss,  2012).   Following,  Sanchez’s  (2005)  lead,  we  need  to  realize  that  “the  category  of  writing   alone  cannot  describe  the  theoretical  and  cultural  situations”  that  comprise  the   everyday  (p.  9).  Therefore,  if  we  want  to  make  claims  about  rhetoric,  then  we  are         17       going  to  have  to  not  focus  exclusively  on  texts  as  representational  units  and   consider  other  units  that  exist  in  relation  to  the  texts  to  create  meaning  as  an  effect.   Sanchez  (2005)  has  produced  one  of  the  most  comprehensive  and  important   pieces  on  composition  theory  to  date.  Central  to  his  work  regards  the  question  of   how  can  we  leverage  cultural  theory  to  improve  our  knowledge  of  writing  and  move   away  from  representational  theories  that  displace  the  act  of  writing  and  the   speaking-­‐subject  from  the  purview  of  our  research.  My  reading  of  Sanchez  is  that   composition  theorists  have  used  cultural  theory  as  a  packaged  set  of  ideas  to  be   applied  to  texts  rather  than  understanding  it  as  a  discourse  that  overlaps  with   composition  theory.  As  a  field  we  have  entered  a  moment  where  we  see  and   understand  writing  as  being  situated  within  complex  cultural  systems  (Sanchez,   2005);  however,  our  understanding  of  writing  is  limited  because  our  faulty  reading   of  cultural  theory  enables  us  to  treat  writing  as  representative  (or  containers  of   culture).  Instead  Sanchez  argues  against  containerization  by  deploying  Bhabha’s   essay  “The  Postcolonial  and  the  Postmodern,”  in  which  Bhabha  argued  that  texts  are   not  representative  of  culture  but  rather  culture  is  an  effect  of  textual  and  non-­‐ textual  practices.  Bhabha  raises  the  idea  of  colonial  textuality  as  it  increases  the   contingency  of  diasporic  ontologies  with  social  marginality,  which  arise  in  non-­‐ canonical  modes  and  requires  that  we  retool  our  critical  strategies  for  reading  and   understanding.  Colonial  textuality  is  the  space  where  signifiers  of  value  and  power   meet,  parley  and  become  entrenched  within  colonial  discourse.  This  negotiation   space  is  where  value  systems  materialize  to  instruct  us  to  recognize  or  ignore  forms   of  cultural  performance.  Bhabha  (1994)  notes  that  such  marginality  “forces  us  to         18       confront  the  concept  of  culture  outside  of  objets  d’art  or  beyond  the  canonization  of   the  “idea”  of  aesthetics,  to  engage  with  culture  as  an  uneven,  incomplete  production   of  meaning  and  value  often  composed  of  incommensurable  demands  and  practices,   produced  in  the  act  of  social  survival”  (p  172).  While  the  postcolonial  tensions   inherent  in  the  case  of  Asian  carp  are  not  the  focus  of  this  study,  I  find  that  Bhabha   provides  a  thorough  map  into  how  culture  means.  He  pushes  against  the  idea  of   containerization  within  artifacts  and  instead  asks  that  we  see  culture  and  agency  as   distributed  across  networks  people,  places,  and  things—as  he  notes  that  culture  is   transnational  and  translational.2  If  we  extend  the  idea  of  “social  survival”  to  rhetoric   in  general  and  define  rhetoric  as  social  in  nature,  then  this  provides  credence  to  the   idea  that  any  rhetoric  relies  upon  a  complex  infrastructure  that  assembles  varying   units  to  mean.  The  fact  that  we  live  in  an  increasingly  networked  world  (on  account   of  globalization  and  technological  development)  requires  that  we  develop  a  theory   of  composition  that  understands  the  complexity  that  surrounds  the  process  of   writing,  the  writing  subject,  the  products  of  writing  and  how  they  link  together  in   various  ways  to  create  culture  or  social  conditions.                                                                                                                     2  I  do  not  intend  to  explore  this  within  this  chapter  or  dissertation;  however,  this  is   a  moment  where  we  can  begin  to  see  commonalities  between  actor-­‐network  theory   and  cultural  rhetorics.  Although  he  operates  from  a  different  tradition,  Bhabha’s   understanding  of  cultural  translation  is  quite  similar  to  (and  may  even  extend)   actor-­‐network  theory’s  conception  of  translation  in  that  it  emerges  from  the  notion   of  hybridity  or  what  happens  when  multiple  cultures  interact.  For  Bhabha,  cultural   translation  is  a  heuristic  for  theorizing  how  cultures  “are  transported,  transmitted,   reinterpreted  and  re-­‐aligned  through  local  languages,  and  more  broadly  through   other  cultures  with  which  migrants  come  into  contact,  as  well  as  articulating  the   realities  of  how  individuals  on  both  sides  experience  and  interpret  such  encounters   in  the  ‘contact  zones’  between  different  cultures”  (Young,  2012,  p  156).             19       Perhaps  the  aforementioned  questions,  which  I  put  forth  above  about  how   texts  (and  other  nonhumans)  function  in  environmental  rhetoric  and   ecocomposition,  are  an  attempt  to  answer  the  call  that  Dobrin  and  Weisser  issued   during  their  2009  Conference  on  College  Composition  and  Communication  session.   The  two  presented  an  address  in  which  they  charged  that  ecocompositionists  have   done  very  little  to  move  beyond  Cooper’s  (1986)  article  on  the  “ecology  of  writing.”   Accordingly,  ecocompositionists,  despite  their  understanding  of  the  complexity  of   writing,  still  hold  true  to  composition’s  persistent  study  of  the  individual  and  their   text  in  relation  to  the  system  rather  than  the  system  itself  (Dobrin,  2009;  Weisser,   2009).  Both  Dobrin  and  Weisser  believe  that  a  turn  toward  systems  theory  or   complexity  theory  might  rescue  ecocomposition  from  focusing  solely  upon  the   writer  because  these  transdisciplinary  theories  are  more  sensitive  toward   understanding  how  social  life  unfolds  more  than  a  borrowed  term,  turned  metaphor   (e.g.  “ecology”).           It  might  be  that  there  has  to  be  a  deep  engagement  with  systems  theory,   complexity  theory  or  some  other  theoretical  body  in  order  to  build  a  less   conservative,  more  inclusive  ontology.  This  would  present  a  way  of  researching   sites  that  do  more  than  illustrate  how  the  process  of  writing  are  limited  to  the  scene   where  writing  takes  place  or  that  texts  are  stable  objects  with  no  agency  or  that  no   other  nonhuman  beyond  the  writer  and  the  text  helps  to  produce  the  social  scene.   What  appears  to  be  missing  from  ecocomposition  or  environmental  rhetoric  is  a   deep  engagement  with  ontology,  which  would  fundamentally  alter  not  only  the  what   of  research  (e.g.  What  lies  at  the  center  of  our  research?  What  should  we  be         20       considering?)  but  also  the  how  (e.g.,  How  do  we  account  for  more-­‐than-­‐human   participation  to  produce  reliable  accounts  and  possibly  bring  about  better  solutions   to  environmental  problems?).  The  last  question  exposes  my  particular  allegiance  in   seeing  rhetoric  as  a  useful  tool  that  can  aid  in  public  deliberation.  Nevertheless,  the   program,  which  I  have  sketched,  would  be  a  multi-­‐site,  more-­‐than-­‐human,  relational   and  nonrepresentational  ontological  politic  that  would  bring  environmental   rhetorics  and  ecocomposition  closer  to  the  type  of  complexity  Dobrin  and  Weisser   request.       Before  continuing,  I  must  do  an  important  piece  of  defining.  You  have  seen   me  use  the  word  ontology  in  various  forms  and  explain  it  as  it  relates  to   environmental  problems.  I  understand  that  term  has  many  different  applications,  as   it  is  deploy  within  many  fields  (e.g.  computer  science  and  information  science).  My   use  of  ontology  stems  from  the  tradition  of  metaphysics,  which  is  the  study  of   existence  in  the  world.  Ontological  studies  ask  questions  such  as:  What  can  be  said   to  exist?  (e.g.  humans  and  nonhumans);  What  categories  can  we  sort  existence?  (e.g.   actors,  actants,  calculating  devices);  How  do  entities  relate  to  themselves  and  others   to  make  their  own  and  other’s  identities?  (e.g.  Is  identity  a  product  of  social  activity   or  is  it  self-­‐contained  within  the  actor?);  or  What  bearing  does  materiality  have  on   defining  existence  and  understanding  social  relations?  (e.g.  Can  a  non-­‐physical  entity   exist?  If  so,  how  does  it  perform  its  existence?).  These  questions  do  not  encompass   the  full  breadth  of  ontological  projects;  however,  they  do  provide  a  snapshot  of  the   type  of  intellectual  work  these  projects  perform.  Another  important  point  of   distinction  regards  another  ontological  tradition  that  I  am  not  following.  When  I  use         21       ontology  I  am  not  connecting  with  the  tradition  of  object-­oriented  ontology  (also   referred  to  as  "OOO"  for  short).  OOO  is  incompatible  with  the  methodology  that  I   assemble  in  this  project  in  that  it  moves  away  from  anthropocentricity  and  places   things  at  the  center  of  analysis.  Again,  I  am  interested  in  the  study  of  humans  and   nonhumans  working  together  or  against  each  other.     Building  a  methodology:  Bridging  ANT  and  CR,  or  some  considerations  from   theory   A  question  remains  as  to  how  can  we  assemble  such  a  methodology  for   engaging  with  complexity  in  the  study  of  environmental  rhetorics  that  Dobrin  and   Weisser  request.  The  critical  step  that  lies  ahead  of  construction  of  complex   accounts  requires  that  environmental  rhetoric  make  certain  methodological   considerations.  These  considerations  include:     1. Acknowledging  nonhuman  subjectivity  and  the  instability  of  their   identities;     2. Attending  to  place  as  neither  stable  nor  separate  from  other  locales;     3. Reflecting  on  how  our  spatial  practices  are  important  because  they   are  meaningful  performances  of  reality  that  often  work  to  create   places;     4. And  contemplating  and  making  explicit  the  role  of  the  researcher   plays  in  ordering  an  account.     The  final  consideration  is  a  nod  that  acknowledges  the  limitations  and  consequences   of  research—our  scholarly  writing  not  only  performs  realities  but  also  executes   cultural  tasks  (White,  1987;  Lyotard,  1984;  Spivak,  1985).  I  oscillate  between  the         22       traditions  of  actor-­‐network  theory  (ANT)  and  cultural  rhetorics  (CR),  in  order  to   build  this  ontological  program.   ANT  is  an  approach  to  social  theory  born  out  of  the  sociology  of  scientific   knowledge  that  uses  analysis  of  networked  relations  and  interactions  between   human  and  nonhuman  actors  as  a  means  of  understanding  the  creation  of   knowledge  within  communities,  particularly  communities  of  science  (Callon  and   Vignolle,  1977;  Callon,  1980;  Callon  and  Law,  1980;  Latour,  1987;  2005;  Law,  1992).   The  identities  that  actors  and  actants  assume  within  networks  emerge  via  complex   negotiations  between  human  and  nonhumans  where  roles  are  delegated  and   interests  translated.  The  primary  purpose  of  this  method  of  inquiry  regards   answering  the  question,  what  is  the  “social?”  With  this  question,  scholars  like   Latour,  Callon,  Mol,  and  Law  push  against  traditional  sociology,  which  threats  the   “social”  as  a  specific  domain  of  reality  that  only  sociologists  hold  the  power  to  make   visible.  Accordingly,  the  social  sciences  has  used  the  “social”  as  a  lens  toward   describing  any  given  situation;  however,  the  cost  of  deploying  this  within  research   has  brought  about  the  conditions  wherein  the  “social”  has  very  little  meaning.  In   fact,  Latour  (2005)  accused  sociology  of  falling  into  the  trap  of  using  the  social  to   explain  the  social  having  said,  “A  given  trait  was  said  to  be  ‘social’  or  to  ‘pertain  to   society’  when  it  could  be  defined  as  possessing  specific  properties,  some  negative  –   it  must  not  be  ‘purely’  biological,  linguistic,  economical,  natural  –  and  some  positive   –  it  must  achieve,  reinforce,  express,  maintain,  reproduce,  or  subvert  the  social   order”  (p.  3).  Although  it  has  traditionally  been  treated  as  a  singular  unit,  the   “social”  is  actually  a  “trail  of  associations  between  heterogeneous  entities.”         23       Therefore,  what  we  would  call  the  “social”  is  not  a  specific  entity  like  a  human  or  a   book;  instead,  social  is  used  to  describe  the  type  of  connection  that  exists  between   various  units.  This  understanding  of  social  transforms  sociology  into  the  study  of   aggregates  that  are  constantly  reshuffled  to  become  something  different  as  events   unfold.   CR  is  a  methodological  way  of  understanding  rhetoric’s  relationship  to   culture  through  the  metaphor  of  constellation  (Mao,  2005;  Powell,  1999;  2008;   Villanueva,  2004;  Haas,  2008).  Rhetoric  has  traditionally  been  understood  and   practice  along  a  single  trajectory  where  all  cultures  and  their  traditions  have  been   made  to  fit  into  a  single  linear  trajectory  (Aristotle—present).  CR  scholarship  takes   on  the  politics  of  symmetry  by  decentering  the  narratives  that  compose  a  solitary   rhetorical  genealogy  (Agnew  et  al.  2011).  Rather  than  a  one  size  fits  all  approach  to   a  rhetorical  tradition,  rhetoric  exists  as  constellated  in  the  form  of  traditions.   Through  the  metaphor  of  constellations,  a  rhetoric  is  specific  to  a  culture.  This   approach  begins  with  a  focus  on  power  and  its  relation  to  social  location.  That  is,  the   discipline  begins  where  one  stands  as  a  scholar.  And  with  the  knowledge  of  location,   one  can  practice  a  place  into  a  space.  The  idea  of  cultural  rhetorics  as  genealogies  is   not  a  step  toward  discrediting  the  use  Greco-­‐Roman  tradition.  Instead,  it  is  a  way  of   practicing  based  upon  relational  accountability.  In  discussing  indigenous  axiology,   Wilson  (2009)  raised  the  idea  that  there  is  a  difference  between  review  and  critique.   This  is  a  useful  distinction  in  discussing  cultural  rhetorics  asymmetry  because  too   often  it  is  easy  to  fall  into  the  scholarly  tradition  of  critique,  which  asks  that  we   evaluate  a  work  based  upon  an  epistemological  foundation  usually  believed  to  be  a         24       benchmark  for  what  is  good.  Critique  allows  researchers  to  completely  disregard   and  discount  another’s  epistemology  and  believe  that  their  own  positions  are,  at  the   very  least,  neutral,  and/or,  at  worst,  better.  Instead,  relational  accountability  is   about  creating  responsible  spaces  for  scholarly  practice  that  treats  the  space   between  people  (i.e.,  their  work  and/or  knowledge)  as  sacred-­‐-­‐where  reviewing   rather  than  critiquing  is  a  move  to  close  space  and  create  new  relationships  with   others.   For  me,  these  are  both  ways  of  seeing  the  world  and  practicing  as  a  scholar.   ANT  is  a  way  of  documenting  and  spatializing  the  complexity  that  emerges  during   environmental  disputes.  CR  is  a  means  of  marking  ontologies  as  cultural,  and   interrogating  data  collection  practices  that  point  to  the  researcher’s  positionality.   Both  share  a  concern  with  describing  and  accounting  -­‐  assembling  accounts  -­‐  as   opposed  to  (or  at  least  prior  to)  evaluating.  What  follows  is  an  explication  of  the  four   elements  I  listed  above,  which  are  integral  to  a  methodology  that  engages   complexity.  As  mentioned  before,  this  methodology  is  built  entirely  from  my   readings  in  ANT  and  CR.  You  will  see  me  practiced  this  methodology  through  the   following  chapters.  I,  however,  want  to  use  this  time  to  further  articulate  what  each   of  these  components  mean.     1.  Nonhuman  subjectivity  &  multiplicity   Both  CR  and  ANT  are  clear  in  that  our  understanding  of  social  life  can  be   reduced  to  the  social  orders  that  form  its  composition.  While  we  can  easily  attribute   the  “social”  to  being  an  effect  of  human  activity,  such  a  move  would  be  unfavorable.   What  forms  a  social  scene  is  the  arrangement  of  people,  living  organisms,  artifacts         25       and  other  things  that  are  intricately  woven  together  to  produce  meaningful   relations  or  what  we  might  call  “social  life”  (Latour,  2005).  To  elevate  humans  as  the   sole  agents  in  any  scene  immediately  reduces  the  importance  of  other  units  that   help  to  make  the  social  happen.  In  making  a  case  for  nonhuman  subjectivity,  ANT   and  some  human/cultural  geography  theorists  have  demonstrated  the  importance   of  nonhumans  in  the  production  of  reality.  The  notion  of  a  subject-­‐world  populated   by  people  and  an  object-­‐world  composed  of  things  is  an  idea  that  stems  from  what   we  have  come  to  understand  as  the  “modern  constitution,”  which  places  agency   firmly  in  the  hands  of  people  (Latour  and  Woolgar,  1979;  Latour,  1993b;  Whatmore,   2001;  Latour,  2004).   Much  of  contemporary  theory  has  not  reassessed  itself  completely  to   consider  extending  agency  beyond  humans  as  it  has  moved  from  modernism  to   postmodernism.  Latour’s  We  Have  Never  Been  Modern  (1993a),  which  is  chiefly  a   critique  of  the  idea  that  we  have  ever  severed  a  link  with  the  past  through  an   exploration  of  modernism  (e.g.  What  is  modernism?  How  did  it  develop?  And  what  are   the  effects  of  its  existence?).  For  Latour,  modernism  is  largely  a  political  arrangement   where  “moderns”  organize  through  the  practice  of  “purification,”  which  designates   two  distinct  ontological  zones—human  and  nonhuman.  Accordingly,  he  uses  Shapin   and  Schafer  (1985)  to  argue  that  the  roots  of  such  a  practice  emerge  around  the   time  of  Hobbes’  and  Boyle,  who  place  the  knowledge  of  people  within  the  realm  of   politics  and  knowledge  of  things  within  the  realm  of  science,  respectively.  This   demarcation  ultimately  seals  who  is  deemed  subject  and  what  is  deemed  object.   Latour,  however,  argues  for  a  different  ontological  framework,  similar  to  his         26       empirical  laboratory  studies  in  Laboratory  Life  (1979)  and  The  Pasteurization  of   France  (1993b),  where  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  natural  object  or  a  social  subject,   but  instead  hybrids  (or  quasi-­‐objects/subjects)  that  circulate  through  networks  by   way  of  translation  and  mediation.  His  ultimate  purpose  in  rejecting  the  foundations   of  modernism  (and  even  postmodernism)  was  an  attempt  at  creating  a  political   platform  wherein  humans  and  nonhumans  work  together  through  manufactured   collectives.  What  emerges  as  important  from  Latour’s  earlier  work  is  that  it  moves   away  from  a  critical  tradition,  which  argues  that  knowledge,  justice,  power,  humans   and  nonhumans  are  separate  and  arranged  along  a  dichotomous  scale  by  offering   the  idea  that  these  units  mean  together  through  relationality.     Callon  and  Law  (1995)  both  touch  upon  Latour’s  position,  but  go  further.  For   them,  the  idea  of  human  and  non-­‐human  agency  exists  as  a  bit  of  a  contradiction  as   it  immediately  conjures  and  plays  into  a  Cartesian  paradigm,  which  separates  the   cultural  from  the  natural  and  limits  the  possibility  for  agentive  action  on  the  part  of   non-­‐speaking  subjects  (see  also  Latour,  2004).  The  hunt  for  agency  often  centers   upon  the  roles  of  agents  who  perform  themselves  and  intentions  as  subjects  through   the  manipulation  of  linguistic  systems.  Nevertheless,  these  performances  cannot   happen  without  the  existence  of  other  networked  entities  whose  presence  makes   activity  happen  and  mean.  For  example,  a  text  can  do  specific  organizing  work  as  it   can  create  discretionary  spaces  for  activity  amongst  a  variety  of  actors.  Texts  carry   their  own  “logics  of  action”  and  can  enroll  humans  and  other  texts  into  their  fold   long  after  their  authors  have  died  (Callon  and  Vignolle,  1977;  see  also  Winner,  1989;   Foucault,  2003;  Derrida,  1980).  As  a  corrective  to  the  problem  of  agency,  Callon  and         27       Law  introduce  the  idea  of  collectif  as  a  means  of  rethinking  agency.  Now,  there  is  a   difference  between  collectif  and  collective.  With  collectif,  there  is  a  huge  emphasis  on   relations  and  actors’  heterogeneity,  which  make  up  a  network  and  create  positions   from  which  an  actor  or  many  actors  can  perform.  This  portends  that  agency  is  an   emergent  property  of  relationships  rather  than  contained  within  speaking  subjects.   It  is  important  to  note  that  this  understanding  of  subjectivity  collapses  scale  so  that   a  subject  is  always  an  individual  and  a  network  simultaneously;  thus,  it  makes  a  case   for  considering  that  any  actor’s  identity  within  networked  space  is  never  stable.    In   fact,  Law’s  (2000)  re-­‐conception  of  network-­‐space  positioned  nonhuman  actors  as   topologically  multiple  as  they  are  the  intersections/interferences  between  different   topoi  (networks  and  regions)  and  shifting  reconfigurations  of  relations.  This  holds   that  their  identities  are  never  stable;  in  fact,  they  are  fluid  or  variable,  as  they  exist   across  spaces.  While  an  actor  might  retain  the  same  form  or  shape  to  the  naked  eye,   as  space  shifts  from  one  region  to  another  the  actor  becomes  something  else.  For   example,  a  Haitian  composting  toilet  can  be  defined  as  a  mechanism  for  sewage   removal,  a  community-­‐building  tool  or  a  resource  for  local  farmers  depending  upon   its  network  topology.  Each  of  these  descriptions  depends  upon  network  and   Euclidean  space  simultaneously.  It  may  be  best  to  conceive  of  non/human  identity   by  way  of  the  actor  shuttling  back  and  forth  between  spaces.     So,  what  does  this  extension  of  subjectivity  hold  for  those  falling  under  the   umbrella  of  environmental  rhetoric?  The  decision  to  grant  subjectivity  is  always   political  and  often  bears  a  number  of  affordances  and  consequences.  Consider  the   case  of  Mazda  recalling  nearly  65,000  cars  from  its  Mazda6  line  in  early  March  of         28       2011.  Yellow  sac  spiders  were  entering  fuels  systems  and  nesting  in  the  tiny  rubber   hoses  that  connected  the  fuel  tank  to  the  engine.  The  problem  for  Mazda  (and  car   owners)  was  that  the  spiders’  webs  caused  blockages,  which  led  to  cracks  in  fuel   tanks  that  ultimately  led  to  pressurization  and  ventilation  problems.  Cars  were   exploding.  Do  we  focus  on  the  spiders  as  a  subject  and  inquire  as  to  how  they  are   getting  into  fuel  systems?  Or  do  we  hold  that  this  is  merely  the  result  of  a  design   team  error;  thus,  the  spiders  are  an  ancillary  concern?  One  question  pits   entomologists,  who  argue  that  spiders  are  invading  vehicles  due  to  an  infestation  at   the  Flat  Rock,  MI  plant,  against  Mazda,  which  does  not  see  spiders  as  a  problem  and   is  more  likely  to  focus  on  human  error.  A  solution  might  be  to  consider  both  as   contributing  to  the  problem  simultaneously  rather  than  arguing  for  one  or  the  other.   This  brief  case  highlights  that  the  selection  of  topoi  is  inherently  political  because   these  choices  make  objects,  subjects  and  spaces.    Furthermore,  these  decisions  limit   what  something  can  or  cannot  be,  which  dictates  the  politics  it  (and  its  network)  can   perform.   2.  Place  matters   As  I  noted  earlier,  place  factors  heavily  within  both  environmental  rhetorics   and  ecocomposition’s  frame  of  analysis.  Yet,  there  are  still  limitations  to  how  space   is  understood  and  this  subsequently  affects  how  we  might  make  meaning  of  what  is   taking  place  through  our  analytical  lenses.  There  is  a  tendency  for  researchers  to   rope-­‐off  their  sites  of  study  from  others.  They  often  fail  to  move  beyond  sites  of   study  and  inquire  into  how  other  sites  work  to  influence  what  they  may  seen  in  the   specific  environment  that  serves  as  the  context  of  their  research.  Through  a  study  of         29       space  and  spatial  performance  we  are  offered  a  window  into  how  spaces  are   discursively  linked.  Therefore,  my  preoccupation  with  space  mandates  that  we   consider  the  following:  How  do  spaces  link  together?  How  do  practices   make/maintain/destabilize  spaces?  How  do  spaces  make/maintain/destabilize   practices?  These  are  the  very  questions  that  are  and  should  operate  as  central  to  any   methodology  that  looks  at  relationships  between  humans  and  nonhumans  as  they   exist  within  space  and  shuttle  between  spaces.     The  idea  of  multiplicity  undoubtedly  raises  concerns  regarding  the  ordering   of  sites  along  arbitrary  scales.  Assemblage  theory  and  post-­‐structuralism  are  most   helpful  in  this  regard.  Schatzki  (2002)  focuses  on  the  site  of  the  social,  which  he   describes  as  the  specific  contexts  that  define  human  life  and  coexistence  with   various  entities.  His  argument  is  that  site-­‐contexts  are  composed  of  a  mesh  of   practices  (defined  as  organized  activities)  and  orders,  which  are  arrangements  of   entities  (e.g.  people  and  artifacts).  In  fact,  this  is  best  characterized  as  a  “site   ontology”  that  shares  much  in  common  with  the  work  of  Pierre  Bourdieu,  Ernesto   Laclau,  and  Chantal  Mouffe;  however,  it  differs  in  the  sense  that  Schatzki  resists   totalization  by  giving  credence  to  the  idea  of  a  fragmented  reality  and  by   recognizing  the  contribution  of  nonhuman  entities  in  providing  substance  to  the   organization  of  social  life.  Thus,  he  places  himself  more  in  dialogue  with  Foucault   (dispositifs),  Deleuze  and  Guattari  (agencements)  and  Latour  and  Callon  (réseaux)   through  his  conception  of  arrangement.  Schatzki’s  usefulness  lies  in  what  he  offers   to  the  particular  methodological  considerations  I  have  put  forth.  He  speaks  of  orders   rather  than  ordering  (see  also  Law,  2002)  because  he  is  not  so  much  interested  in         30       the  practice  of  arranging  on  the  part  of  the  observer  as  much  as  he  is  interested  in   the  types  of  sites  that  he  believes  exists  simultaneously.  From  this  position  emerges   a  set  of  methodological  corollaries  for  canvassing  social  order:  1)  recognition  of   irregularity,  2)  toleration  of  instability,  and  3)  willingness  to  document  the  full   range  of  relations  among  entities  that  give  structure  to  social  order,  which  may   arrange  through  1)  causal  relations,  2)  spatial  relations,  3)  intentionality,  or  4)   prefiguration.   3.  Practices  and  performances   The  aforementioned  questions  can  be  addressed  directly  through  a  focus  on   performance.  Networks  require  the  performance  of  all  enrolled  actors  in  order  to   function.  What  comprises  social  life  is  the  arrangement  of  people,  living  organisms,   artifacts  and  other  things  that  are  intricately  woven  together  to  produce  meaningful   relations.  The  actors’  substantive  actions  in  effect  are  performances  of  realities  or   variable  ontologies.  Mol  (1999)  addressed  the  notion  of  performing  ontologies   through  her  account  of  ANT’s  legacy  along  with  other  bodies  of  knowledge  in   shaping  the  politics  of  ontology.  In  practice,  ANT  has  argued  that  reality  is   historically,  culturally  and  materially-­‐situated;  therefore,  it  gives  much  credence   toward  understanding  how  individuals  see  the  world.  This  leads  to  the  idea  of  an   ontological  politics  that  recognizes  multiple  ontologies.  Still,  Mol  distinguishes   between  multiple  and  plural  on  account  of  ANT’s  ontological  politics  being  informed   slightly  by  perspectivalist  and  constructivist  traditions.  In  her  opinion,   perspectivalism  did  not  truly  multiply  reality;  instead,  it  merely  increased  our   understanding  of  a  situation  by  recognizing  the  various  standpoints  actors  inhabit         31       and  how  they  attempt  to  represent  their  positions,  which  are  held  in  equal  value.   Constructivism,  as  another  iteration  of  pluralism,  isolates  a  single  truth  claim  and   traces  how  it  becomes  fact.  What  these  bodies  of  knowledge  fail  to  discuss  is  how   other  understandings  of  reality  exist  as  meaningful.  Instead,  these  accounts  treat   displaced  alternatives  as  immaterial  for  analysis.  Mol’s  understanding  of  ontology   exists  as  performance,  which  lies  at  the  intersection  of  construction  and  perspective.     The  relationship  between  performance  and  multiplicity  emerges  from  the  idea  that   reality  is  manipulated  by  tools  that  correspond  to  various  practices  and  sites.  Tools   work  to  create  different  versions  of  an  object.  These  versions  still  relate  to  each   other  as  part  of  a  network  despite  their  differences.  For  example,  Mol  (1999)  offers   anemia  as  an  example  where  three  performances  of  anemia  (between  doctors,   patients  and  tools)  emerge  (e.g.  consultation  room,  laboratory,  pathophysiological).   It  is  easy  to  see  the  performances  and  their  modalities  as  being  separate  and  in   conflict,  but  that  is  not  necessarily  the  case.  Depending  upon  the  situation,  specific   units  exist  to  bind  these  areas  together.     This  is  best  illustrated  in  a  case  study  that  documents  the  complex   connections  between  politics  and  science  found  within  an  environmental  dispute   regarding  elephants  standing  as  competing  philosophies  of  nature  and  how  these   representations  elucidate  disputes  in  science,  epistemology,  environmental  justice,   and  governance.  Thompson’s  (2001)  account  of  complexity  focused  on  events  that   surrounded  a  scientific  workshop  on  elephants  that  convened  in  Kenya  in  1995  and   how  these  events  ultimately  affected  elephant  populations  within  the  Amboseli   National  Park.  At  the  center  of  this  controversy  lay  differing  groups  of         32       conservationists  who  each  had  their  own  ideas  for  conserving  the  elephant   population  and  encouraging  biodiversity  within  the  park.  Their  ideas  represent   different  ontologies  of  elephants.  Each  comes  with  varying  complexity  and  presents   their  own  political  ends  through  the  construction  of  various  linkages  between   academic  disciplines  (e.g.  ecology,  conservation  biology,  zoology),  stakeholders  (e.g,   elephant  herds,  grass,  trees,  scientists,  Masai  people,  etc.),  political  spheres  of   influence  (e.g.,  local,  national,  and  global)  and  spaces  (e.g.  inside  parks,  outside   parks,  academic  journals  and  deliberative  forums,  etc.).     Thompson  admits  his  inability  to  capture  complexity  in  toto  due  to  his   involvement  in  the  situation  as  an  ethnographer.  Therefore,  he  cannot  offer  to  his   audience  a  "symmetrical  account"  where  he  provides  equal  treatment  to  each  side.   Still,  his  understanding  of  complexity  is  useful  as  a  methodology  because  he  unpacks   ontologies  or  "iterations  of  elephants"  as  they  emerge  from  the  competing   stakeholders’  values  that  lie  at  the  heart  of  this  dispute  concerning  conservation  and   biodiversity.  What  stands  out  about  this  account  is  that  it  is  not  "neat"  (Law,  2004).   This  diverges  from  what  we  would  deem  to  be  a  typical  "reductionist  narrative   account."  Instead,  it  is  a  narrative  of  how  episodes  of  technoscientific  practice  link   many  spaces,  things  and  people;  it  is  a  narrative  that  invites  multivocality.   Nevertheless,  the  lesson  that  emerges  from  his  work  is  that  documenting  complexity   requires  that  we  attend  to  linkages  while  “avoiding  reductionism  or  holism”  so  that   we  have  a  multidimensional  view  of  a  situation  (Thompson,  2001,  p.  186).   Thompson  refers  to  linkages  as  "ordering  devices."  These  units  are  important   because  they  are  the  sinews  that  hold  a  world  together.  Ordering  devices  can  be         33       published  reports,  fences,  conversations,  conferences,  and  statements.  We  should   essentially  understand  them  as  the  apparatuses  stakeholders  use  to  build  their   arguments.  I,  however,  see  these  "units"  as  locations  where  conflict/resolution  can   take  place.  I  shall  develop  this  idea  further  in  the  succeeding  chapter.     4.  The  role  of  the  researcher   Like  other  works  written  under  the  banner  of  cultural  rhetorics  and  actor-­‐ network  theory,  storytelling  sits  at  the  core  of  this  methodology.  There  are  two   halves  to  how  story  factors  in  thinking  about  how  we  as  researchers  relate  to  our   subjects  of  study  and  produce  knowledge.  First,  we  have  to  disengage  with  how  we   have  been  trained  to  understand  story.  Second,  we  have  to  engage  with  not  only   how  we  tell  story  but  also  how  our  telling  makes  us  a  part  of  the  phenomenon  with   which  we  study.  As  I  have  said  earlier,  a  study  of  ontology  is  about  making  and  being   made.  I  am  not  asking  that  people  continue  the  tradition  of  having  a  sentence  in   their  work  where  they  list  off  all  of  their  subjectivities  and  positionalities.  We  must   go  further  than  that.  Instead,  I  am  talking  about  how  people  come  to  a  subject.  How   researchers  relate  to  others.  How  they  become  a  part  of  their  subjects’  lives.  How   they  make  things  with  them.  This  adds  another  layer  of  dimension  to  scholarship  we   read  as  an  audience—it  is  engagement  with  complexity.  A  tension  also  exists  in  that   the  academic  understanding  of  story  has  traditionally  been  seen  in  opposition  to   theory.  We  have  been  trained  and  train  others  to  think  that  theories  help  us   understand  stories,  rather  than  thinking  about  how  stories  function  with  the  same   explanatory  purpose  as  theory.  In  fact,  theory  is  often  presented  in  a  complicated   language  in  which  the  writer  retains  authority  “and  the  power  to  make  decisions  on         34       behalf  of  others”  (Maracle,  1990  p.  11).  There  is  a  theory  in  every  story.  And  as   Maracle  (1990)  quite  succinctly  articulated,  “Words  are  not  objects  to  be  wasted.   They  represent  the  accumulated  knowledge,  cultural  values,  the  vision  of  an  entire   people  or  peoples.  We  believe  the  proof  of  a  thing  or  idea  is  in  the  doing.  Doing   requires  some  form  of  social  interaction  and  thus,  story  is  the  most  persuasive  and   sensible  way  to  present  the  accumulated  thoughts  and  values  of  a  people”  (p.  3).   Stories  in  many  ways  are  the  ties  that  bind.  They  help  to  tie  spaces  together.  They   are  the  in-­‐between  areas  in  networks.  They  are  meaningful  moments  of  engagement   with  others.  The  decisions  to  omit  stories  are  acts  of  tailoring  meaning  to  suit   certain  interests.  Certainly,  we  cannot  tell  every  story;  however,  we  should  be  open   to  explaining  what  and  why  we  omit.     I  also  do  not  mean  to  suggest  that  there  is  complete  authenticity  in  providing   an  account.  There  is  a  little  fiction  telling  a  lived  experience.  However,  when  I  talk   about  the  seemingly  fictional  nature  of  stories  connected  to  lived-­‐experiences,  my   intent  is  to  not  discredit  the  stories  that  others  provide.  I  am  merely  stressing  that   these  experiences  take  on  fictional  quality  as  we  (researchers)  bound  them  in  ways   that  we  think  others  might  better  understand  what  they  mean.  I  recall  King’s  (2008)   story  of  his  father’s  discovery,  specifically  when  he  wrote,  “My  brother  took  a  long   time  in  telling  this  story,  drawing  out  the  details,  repeating  the  good  parts,  making   me  wait”  (p.  7).  There  is  an  underlying  sense  of  urgency  wherein  King  wants  his   brother  to  get  to  the  story.  Yet,  as  we  know,  “get  to  the  story”  in  many  ways  is  really   “leave  out  the  details  that  are  unimportant.”  I  cannot  help  but  think  about  the   possible  implications  this  poses  for  researchers.  How  do  we  decide  what  is         35       important  and  unimportant  in  telling  a  story  after?  What  are  the  responsibilities   that  stem  from  constructing  stories  about  people’s  lives  and  subsequently  their   cultures?  Here  I  repeat:  “a  story  told  one  way  could  cure,  that  the  same  story  told   another  way  could  injure.”  In  many  ways  this  drives  home  the  responsibilities  that   come  with  doing  research  that  environmental  rhetoricians  must  attend—with  story   come  responsibilities.         Methodological  precedent   The  study  of  environmental  ontology  is  not  without  precedent,  if  we  step   outside  the  field  of  rhetoric  and  composition.  There  have  also  been  other  studies   that  have  address  how  subjects  cannot  be  understood  as  coherent  wholes  but  rather   multiple  networked  assemblages  (Law,  1989;  Cronon,  1991;  Hayden,  2003;  Nash,   2005;  Allen,  2006).  I  mentioned  Sellers  and  Taylor’s  studies  in  the  introduction;   however,  there  exists  other  compelling  scholarship.  And  many  of  these  studies   provide  a  foundation  for  how  environmental  rhetorics  can  begin  to  engage  with   complexity.  For  some  time,  environmental  historians  and  environmental  justice   activist  scholars  have  addressed  the  multiple  forces  at-­‐play  that  help  to  shape   environmental  phenomena,  but  are  often  omitted  from  the  realm  of  analysis.  This   lack  of  consideration  has  been  the  result  of  selecting  certain  factors  in  favor  of   others  or  simply  not  recognizing  that  there  are  multiple  forces  present.  For  example,   Worster  (1992)  offered  a  historical  study  that  showed  how  the  transformation  of   hydraulic  and  ecological  regimes  as  key  in  the  development  of  the  American  West  as   a  powerful  seat  of  empire.  His  study  positioned  water  and  the  building  of   monumental  water  works  as  a  useful  category  of  historical  analysis.  In  fact  a  central         36       tenet  was  that  we  cannot  study  the  growth  of  empire  through  social  evolution   without  considering  ecological  change  as  part  of  the  equation.     Hoag  and  Ohman  (2008)  brought  to  light  the  forces  that  shaped  both  the   collection  and  use  of  geographical  data  for  hydropower  projects  in  Tanzania’s  Rufiji   Basin.  It  was  suggested  that  colonial  engineers  were  more  focused  on  exploiting  the   regions  resources  rather  than  creating  projects  that  suited  the  regions  ecology  that   incorporated  local  pre-­‐colonial  knowledge.  Therefore,  the  understanding  of  local   environmental  knowledge  has  consistently  been  positioned  as  historically   “colonial.”  Hoag  and  Ohman’s  purpose  is  to  discredit  this  particular  view  of  history   and  present  another  way  of  understanding  the  production  of  local  environmental   knowledge.  They  argued  that  some  colonial  agents  “attempted  to  understand  the   region’s  ecology  prior  to  the  implementation  of  large-­‐scale  irrigation  and   hydropower  projects”  through  surveys  that  helped  to  incorporate  local  knowledge   into  planning.  In  their  opinion,  these  agents  should  not  be  lumped  into  the  same   category  as  those  researchers  (defined  as  “outsiders”)  who  explicitly  worked  within   a  colonial  model  that  purposefully  excluded  indigenous  knowledge.  Moreover,  Hoag   and  Ohman  note  that  foreign  and  urban-­‐based  researchers  and  planners  also  played   vital  roles  in  the  construction/application  of  a  local  environmental  knowledge.   Therefore,  if  we  want  to  understand  how  hydroelectric  power  developed  in  the   Rufiji  Basin,  then  we  are  going  to  have  to  think  about  how  the  knowledge  systems   from  these  various  groups  coalesced.     Popular  accounts  of  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  raise  it  as  a  feat  of   United  States  ingenuity—that  the  reason  the  U.S.  was  successful  where  other         37       countries  had  failed  was  our  technological  prowess.  Sutter  (2007)  was  concerned   with  the  overlooked  role  that  entomological  workers  played  in  the  construction  of   the  Panama  Canal,  deliberation  over  U.S.  public  health  policy,  and  the  maintenance   of  U.S.  imperialism.  It  was  initially  believed  that  conditions  that  created  malaria   where  intrinsic  to  tropical  locations.  Scientists  believed  there  was  a  special  synergy   between  the  locations  and  their  indigenous  inhabitants  (or  non-­‐white  groups)  that   protected  them  from  malaria  but  left  White  vulnerable.  Through  the  study  of   mosquito  vectors,  however,  entomological  workers  were  able  to  determine  that   rises  in  malaria  resulted  from  the  creation  of  mosquito  vectors  as  a  result  of  decades   of  human-­‐related  environmental  disturbances  attributed  to  attempts  to  construct  a   canal.  Once  this  knowledge  was  available,  malaria  became  a  non-­‐issue  and   construction  could  proceed.  Sutter’s  account  positioned  entomological  workers  as   important  nodes  in  the  construction  of  the  canal  but  also  advancing  U.S.  imperialism   by  making  the  tropics  safer  for  White  people.     What  I  find  interesting  is  that  Sutter’s  account  moves  toward  offering  a   better  understanding  of  agency  within  environmental  historical  writing.   Accordingly,  history  needs  to  be  understood  from  a  variety  of  angles  in  order  to   paint  an  accurate  account  of  how  the  Panama  Canal  came  into  existence.  Sutter   looks  at  the  series  of  relationships  that  come  to  produce  an  artifact  or  a  set  of   practices  around  that  artifact.  Agency  is  positioned  as  relational  between  nature  and   humans.  It's  a  discursive  relationship  and  historical  writing  should  account  for  that.   So  when  providing  a  particular  account,  the  environmental  historian  must  take  care   not  to  frame  it  as  if  science/people  are  controlling  nature,  but  should  consider  the         38       extent  to  which  nature  affects  people  and  scientific  practice.  Moreover,  historians   take  care  to  problematize  agency  amongst  people.    In  terms  of  looking  at  the  social   relations  surrounding  the  creation  of  the  Panama  Canal,  "entomological  workers"   occupy  fairly  important  positions  as  actors  within  a  complex  network.  Although   they  do  not  have  as  much  perceived  influence  and  power  as  "imperial  actors,"  their   knowledge  does  have  a  powerful  affect  upon  how  knowledge  is  transferred  and   deployed  to  affect  policy  and  influence  technological  advancements.   Method   It  is  difficult  to  document  complexity  without  knowing  the  full  range  of   relations  that  help  to  make  Asian  carp.  Depending  on  identity,  location  and  interest,   the  term  Asian  carp  will  not  render  the  same  understanding.  The  best  means  for  me   to  begin  the  task  of  spatializing  how  carp  is  realized  required  an  archival  trace.  I   started  with  a  scan  of  news  indices.  The  purpose  was  to  identify  events,  issues,  and   actors  associated  with  the  Asian  carp  crisis  in  any  capacity.  Since  Asian  carp  is  a   somewhat  popular  topic  amongst  the  public  within  the  Mississippi  River  basin,  I   searched  for  articles  covering  news  around  this  geographical  area.  This  is  a  concern   for  place  matters,  which  addresses  the  multiple  ways  in  which  a  site  is  linked  to   other  sites  to  produce  social  relations.  Here  I  wanted  to  pick  a  particular  point  that   actors  assemble  around  and  branch  outward  toward  other  sites  based  upon  actor’s   activities.    I  specifically  search  for  articles  from  1970  to  the  present.  My  reason  for   choosing  1970  was  influenced  by  the  fact  that  several  scientific  reports  place  Asian   carp’s  arrival  into  the  United  States  somewhere  between  1970  and  1974.  Every  one   agrees  that  Silver  carp  was  the  first  introduced  into  the  US,  they  simply  disagree         39       when  and  where  they  were  introduced  (especially  who  introduced  them;  see   Chapter  5).  Moreover,  I  was  deliberate  in  my  use  of  search  terms.  Asian  carp  have   not  always  been  known  as  “Asian  carp.”  Recall  my  earlier  discussion  of  performance.   Here  I  am  concerned  with  the  multiple  performances  of  carp  that  constitute  various   realities  of  the  species.  My  scan  of  archives  showed  that  term  does  not  emerge  in   any  literature  until  2002,  which  is  five  years  before  the  United  States  Fish  and   Wildlife  Service  listed  silver  and  bighead  carp  as  injurious  wildlife.  Therefore,  rather   than  using  terms  such  as  Asian  carp,  invasive  Asian  carp,  or  invasive  carp,  I  opted  to   stick  closely  to  scientific  terminology  using  bighead  carp,  hypophthalmichthys   nobilis,  aristichthys  nobilis,  silver  carp,  and  hypophthalmichthys  molitrix.     I  discovered  that  from  the  1970s  to  1980s,  communities  of  science  and   scientists  working  in  governmental  organizations  were  the  only  bodies  to  complain   about  silver  carp.  This  was  the  same  for  bighead  carp.  In  fact,  fisheries  and   recreational  fishers  actually  were  interested  in  them  both  for  sport  and  a  food   source  (Recall  my  initial  discussion  of  place  matters  regarding  orders  versus   ordering.  I  am  not  interested  in  creating  a  hieracrchy  of  sites  as  much  as  I  am   interested  in  getting  to  the  root  of  what  and  how  many  sites  exist  simultaneously.).     Silver  carp  did  not  emerge  as  a  problem  for  boaters  until  2001  when  they  are   described  as  a  "nuisance."  However,  since  1994  when  they  turned  up  in  the   Kaskaskia  River,  a  tributary  to  the  Mississippi,  they  were  affectionately  referred  to   as  "Kaskaskia  River  Dolphins"  (Britt,  2001).  Nevertheless,  something  happens  in   2002  when  a  bulk  of  news  stories  among  all  groups  (boaters,  local  and  state   government  agencies,  and  scientists)  begins  characterizing  them  as  a  problem.  This         40       led  to  the  development  of  a  list  of  interest  groups  that  aligned  stakeholders  who   were  responsible  for  creating  and  performing  realties  of  Asian  carp.  These   categories  included  political  interests,  scientific  interests,  recreational  interests,  and   farming  interests.  This  initial  archival  trace  helped  not  only  to  establish   stakeholders  but  also  directed  me  to  additional  archives  belonging  to  Federal  and   State  government  agencies  and  public  interest  groups.  Here  the  multiple  orders   begin  to  solidify  into  socio-­‐political  spheres  recognizable,  also,  for  their  unique  and   relatively  stable  discursive  practices.     There  was  no  way  for  me  to  know  definitively  what  other  sources  were  out   there  that  would  aid  in  my  tracing  variable  ontologies,  so  in  the  next  phase  of  the   project,  I  had  to  rely  heavily  upon  archival  informants  who  both  directed  me  to   sources  and  constructed  paths  that  helped  me  make  sense  of  connections  with   respect  to  how  entities  realized  carp.  Here  I  am  following  the  most  basic  of  ANT   principles  by  “just  follow[ing]  the  actors”  (Latour,  2005,  p  237).    Therefore,  research   participants  in  this  project  were  not  treated  as  data  but  instead  collaborators.  This   list  of  agents  I  generated  was  rather  large.  It  included  a  collection  of  20  individuals   and  organizations.  I  knew  that  it  was  near  impossible  to  talk  to  most  of  them  due  to   time  and  availability.  Nevertheless,  I  specifically  tried  to  find  individuals  and   organizations  whose  names  were  referenced  multiple  times  by  others  in  media   reports  or  published  research  (e.g.  Kevin  Irons  at  Iowa  Department  of  Natural   Resources  and  Dr.  Henry  Regier  at  the  University  of  Toronto).  Speaking  to  all  of   them  was  unnecessary  at  this  stage  of  the  project.  The  purpose  of  these  interviews   was  to  get  a  sense  of  how  a  plurality  of  stakeholders  understood  the  crisis.  This  was         41       an  attempt  to  help  me  further  narrow  my  frame  of  analysis  in  a  project  that  was   already  quite  big  in  the  beginning  stages.  I  conducted  a  total  of  seven  preliminary   interviews.  When  I  spoke  with  these  individuals  I  tried  to  get  a  sense  of  their  level  of   familiarity  with  invasive  species,  their  relationship  to  the  Asian  carp  crisis  and  their   relationship  and  perception  of  other  actors’  roles  in  the  crisis.  I  used  these  accounts   to  structure  much  of  the  work  in  Chapter  4  with  respect  to  outlining  multiple   performances  of  Asian  carp.  I  do  not  intend  to  suggest  that  chapter  to  be  a  complete   sketch  of  every  performance  of  carp.  Instead,  it  exists  only  to  provide  a  sense  of   what  multiple  performances  look  like.     Moreover,  these  discussions  were  revealing  in  that  they  supported  things  I   found  during  my  initial  archival  trace  that  pointed  to  a  space  wherein  I  could  begin   to  assemble  an  account  of  how  carp  are  made  invasive.  There  was  a  single   connecting  thread  that  traced  through  several  interviews.  Each  informant  in  some   form  raised  the  Lacey  Act  and  its  rulemaking  process  for  determining  and  listing   injurious  wildlife  as  a  matter  of  concern.  Their  objections  to  the  Lacey  Act  and  the   rulemaking  process  covered  questions  such  as:  Is  the  process  a  scientific/economic   process?  How  can  we  characterize  the  data  used  to  make  decisions  regarding   invasibility?  Who/what  participates  (and  who/what  remains  or  is  forced  to  be   silent)?  How  does  the  process  deal  with  multiple  species  joined  together  under  a   common  name?  And  most  importantly,  while  the  rule-­‐making  procedure  dictated  by   the  Lacey  Act  most  definitely  makes  a  species  invasive  in  a  formal  manner,  are  there   other  elements  in  the  process  that  indirectly  does  so  as  well  (i.e.,  does  the  existence   of  the  Lacey  Act  and  absence  of  other  controls  make  matters  worse?).  This  final         42       question  is  a  bit  tricky  because  it  points  to  the  problem  that  what  makes  carp   invasive  has  little  to  do  with  their  physical  activity  or  how  we  realize  them  in  our   worldviews,  but  more  to  do  with  the  fact  that  we  are  using  a  hundred-­‐year  old   document  to  deal  with  late  20th  century  environmental  problems  that  are  the  result   of  global  capitalism.  Therefore,  I  dedicated  a  chapter  of  the  dissertation  toward   investigating  the  Lacey  Act  and  its  accompanying  regulatory  and  legislative   procedures.         In  order  to  investigate  these  questions,  I  wrote  a  request  under  the  Freedom   of  Information  Act  (FOIA)  to  the  United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  requesting   material  not  limited  to  but  also  encompassing  comments  and  letters  written  to  the   agency  during  three  public  comment  periods  regarding  bighead,  silver,  and  larger-­‐ scale  silver  carp.  The  agency  responded  by  sending  me  162  letters  with  attachments   that  accompanied  a  few  letters  (306  pages  in  total).  I  did  an  initial  pass  of  the  letters   just  to  get  a  sense  of  their  content.  Thereafter,  I  did  a  second  pass  wherein  I  tried  to   characterize  each  letter  in  terms  of  how  the  carp  crisis  presents  itself  as  a  problem   to  the  writer/organization.  I  constructed  social  worlds/arena  maps.  Social  worlds   are  best  understood  as  “universes  of  discourse”  (Strauss,  1984;  Clarke,  2005).  These   worlds  are  actor-­‐defined.  They  are  a  means  of  visualizing  how  actors  as  individuals   or  members  of  collectives  act  in  relation  to  the  social  worlds  of  others,  the  regimes   of  practice  that  come  with  those  worlds,  and  discourses  produced  and  circulated   within  them.  The  analysis  and  construction  of  social  worlds  through  mapping   requires  asking  questions  such  as  (Clarke,  2005):     a. What  are  the  patterns  of  collective  commitment  and  what  are  the  salient   social  worlds  operating  here?         43       b. What  are  their  perspectives  and  what  do  they  hope  to  achieve  through   collective  action?     c. What  non/humans  are  characteristics  of  each  world?       d. What  is  the  work  of  each  world?   e. What  are  the  commitments  of  a  given  world?   f. How  do  participants  believe  they  should  go  about  fulfilling  them?   g. How  does  the  world  describe  itself—present  itself—in  it  discourse?   h. How  does  it  describe  other  worlds  within/outside  its  arena?   i. What  actions  have  been  taken  in  the  past  and  are  anticipated  in  the   future?   j. How  does  this  further  the  social  world’s  agenda?   k. What  technologies  are  used?   l. What  are  the  sites  where  action  happens  and  is  organized?     m. What  worlds  are  not  present  in  relation  to  those  that  are  present?   n. Are  there  silences?     o. What  controversies  emerge  between  worlds?     The  social  worlds/arena  map  documenting  commitments  to  space  is  the  basis  for   Chapter  five.  I  constructed  the  maps  from  44  letters  written  during  the  comment   period  for  listing  bighead  carp  as  injurious  wildlife.  Thereafter,  I  selected  two  actors   to  write  cases  around.  The  cases  are  built  in  part  through  my  rhetorical  analyses  of   the  letters  content  with  respect  to  how  actors  talk  about  carp  and  through   interviews  conducted  with  the  actors  who  wrote  the  letters.  The  result  was  the   construction  of  socio-­‐technical  maps  that  position  people,  institutions,  documents   and  various  other  actors  at-­‐play  in  relation  to  each  other  to  get  a  sense  of  what   constitutes  a  reality  of  carp.       Conclusion/Beginning     In  my  view,  Dobrin  and  Weisser  have  issued  a  challenge  for   ecocompositionists  (and  even  those  interested  in  environmental  rhetorics)  to   engage  with  complexity  that  would  move  us  beyond  the  writer,  their  product,  and   the  immediate  scene  that  serves  as  the  context.  For  me,  a  possible  solution  to  this   problem  means  a  deep  engagement  with  ontology  as  it  relates  to  methodology.         44       What  I  have  presented  above  seeks  complexity  in  a  way  that  requires  environmental   rhetoric  research  to  be  multi-­‐site  and  nonrepresentational  by  focusing  on  the  range   of  relations  that  exists  between  humans  and  nonhumans  as  they  act  within  and   across  spaces.  This  dissertation  is  part  of  a  long  line  of  theoretical  thinking  that  I   have  considered  from  my  coursework  through  my  exams.  The  work  that  lies  ahead   centers  upon  how  ontologies  come  into  existence.  Here  I  am  researching  this  from  a   specific  environmental  issue—invasive  species.  How  is  it  that  invasive  species   become  invasive?  Where  are  they  invasive?  To  whom  are  they  invasive?  Moreover,   how  long  is  it  before  all  stakeholders  agree  that  they  are  invasive?  This,  in  fact,  is  an   investigation  into  historical  ontology.  The  work  that  is  present  here  should  be  seen   as  a  contribution  not  exclusively  to  the  field  of  rhetoric  and  composition  but  also  to   the  tradition  of  environmental  history,  which  is  best  evidenced  through  the   precedent  setting  works  that  I  highlighted  earlier.  Like  Sutter,  Hoag,  Ohman  and   countless  others,  I  am  interested  in  contributing  to  histories  of  environment  that   untangle  complexity  to  bring  forth  the  vital  roles  in  the  construction/application  of   environmental  knowledge  by  multiple  agents.  If  we  want  to  get  to  the  heart  of  the   “what”  and  “why”  of  environmental  phenomena  as  they  relate  to  the  interests  of   rhetoric,  then  we  are  going  to  have  to  think  about  how  such  phenomena  emerge   from  the  converging  of  many  actors  and  groups  rather  than  a  select  few  in  isolation.                             45         Introduction     CHAPTER  3.  CARPTOLOGIES,  PART  I:   CONSTELLATING    REALITIES  OF  BIOINVASION   In  the  previous  chapter,  I  put  forward  a  theoretical  framework  for   understanding  environmental  crises  through  a  study  of  ontology  rather  than   epistemology.  This  framework,  if  you  remember,  presents  environmental  crises  as   arenas  that  contain  multiple  ontologies  and  marks  these  formations  as  cultural  and   ripe  for  rhetorical  analysis.  In  this  chapter,  I  return  my  analytical  focus  to  my   subject-­‐of-­‐inquiry—Asian  carp—and  its  evolving  status  of  invasibility.  Such   preoccupation  stems  from  the  following  questions:  What  is  the  nature  of  carp’s   existence?  How  many  ontological  formations  can  be  said  to  make  themselves   visible?  Where  does  its  identities  lay  within  the  subject-­‐object  binary?    What  actors   are  present  and  compulsory  for  existence?  When  and  where  does  carp  exist  as  an   invasive  entity?  When  and  where  does  that  identity  fall  apart?  Finally,  there  is  also  a   deep  concern  for  power.  Cultural  rhetorics  always  mark  rhetoric  as  a  process  of   making.  And  when  we  make,  we  are  also  complicit  in  creating  meaning  and  value  in   relation  to  and  at  the  expense  of  others.  Therefore,  in  focusing  on  carp  ontologies   (carptologies,  in  shorthand),  I  also  have  regard  for  how  power  flows  through   assembled  networks  to  make  a  single  identity  assume  more  authority  than  others?     In  writing  this  chapter,  I  am  reminded  of  Shakespeare’s  tragedy  Coriolanus   on  account  of  its  focus  not  only  on  power  with  respect  to  those  who  possess,  seek,   and  lack  it  but  also  with  regard  for  what  is  necessary  for  power  to  exist—alliances.   Sicinius  Velutus,  tribunus  plebis,  responds  angrily  to  Coriolanus’  contempt  for   Roman  citizens,  whom  he  disconnects  from  the  power  he  seeks,  by  asking,  “What  is         46       the  city  but  the  people?”  (Shakespeare,  2002,  3.1.200).  Such  anxiety  for  composition   parallels  the  tensions  present  in  discussing  Asian  carp’s  identity.     What  is  Asian  carp  other  than  Asian?  Is  it  not  its  nature  alone  that  answers   the  question  of  invasibility?  It  would  be  simple  to  reduce  identity  to  a  theory  of   containerization,  but  that  discounts  the  many  non/agentive  roles  that  actors  assume   in  helping  carp  become  Asian  carp.    Agents  appealing  in  favor  of  either  invasibility   or  non-­‐invasibility  provide  storied  realities  based  upon  networks  of  various   non/human  actors  that  inhabit  their  worlds  and  support  their  epistemes.   In  this  chapter,  I  focus  on  the  idea  of  complexity  in  environmental   controversies.  I  present  an  argument  of  how  actors  (scientists,  political  agencies,   fisheries  and  outdoor  enthusiasts)  perform  their  identities  within  civic  deliberative   forums  established  by  public  policy.  These  performances  serve  to  maintain  their   identities  and  render  definitions  that  constitute  Asian  carps’  status  as  an  invader   species.  Moreover,  performances  construct  a  series  of  spaces  that  actors  preserve   for  their  essential  self-­‐interests  and  spaces  that  policy-­‐makers  can  potentially  make   use  of  to  bridge  differences  between  divergent  collectives  within  the  actor-­‐network.   My  object  of  analysis  is  the  architectonic  statement.  The  idea  for  this  term  is   borrowed  directly  from  Lakota  scholar  Craig  Howe’s  (1995)  notion  of   “ethnoarchitectonics,”  which  rightly  identifies  architectures  as  bounded  spaces  that   are  productions  of  reality.  I  am  interested  in  how  these  statements  build   relationships  and  subsequently  worlds  that  constitute  an  identity  for  carp  and  for   humans.  The  spaces  that  emerge  between  the  boundaries  of  these  edifices  are   spaces  of  dependence  and  spaces  of  engagement.  The  former  are  spaces  that  people,         47       institutions,  and  collectives  establish  to  secure  their  identities.  The  latter  are  spaces   of  possibility  that  actors  use  for  their  interests  and  influence  by  working  with  other   seats  of  power.  These  spaces  (or  arenas)  are  iterations  of  identities  for  carp  (i.e.,   carptologies).    Asian  carp  is  a  real  actor  with  a  corporeal  form,  but  its  material   presence  is  consistently  deferred  as  agents  tender  varying  discursive  accounts  that   shuttle  between  geographic  and  textual  space.     Still,  carptologies  also  bear  consequences  for  people  as  well.  These   architectonic  constructions  represent  distinct  worldviews  that  are  tied  to  material   effects.  The  ability  of  certain  actors  to  use  their  definitions  to  destabilize  the   definitions  of  others  (and  subsequently  worlds)  bears  material  consequences  (e.g.   economic,  environmental,  preservation  of  cultural  traditions,  human  health,  etc.).   Theorizing  invasibility  is  not  a  rhetorical  game;  it  is  an  examination  of   realontopolitik.  In  attempt  to  help  my  readers  understand  the  type  of  rhetorical   work  that  architectonic  statements  accomplish,  I  work  with  a  mini-­‐case  that   presents  two  competing  economic  ontologies  of  carp.  Rather  than  taking  these   ontologies  as  pre-­‐existing  entities,  I  build  them  from  statements  contained  within   public  documents.  Thereafter,  I  describe  the  nature  of  the  spaces  that  emerge  and   attempt  to  provide  an  alternative  ordering  of  space  that  might  denote  another  way   of  performing  environmental  politics.  This  serves  as  a  preview  for  analytical  work   for  the  larger  case  study  found  in  chapter  five.   Carptologies   I  open  with  a  simple  corollary:  It  is  the  practices  of  actors,  human  and   nonhuman,  that  create  geopolitical  spaces,  maintain  them,  make  connections  and         48       ultimately  dismantle  them  in  favor  of  others.  By  making  this  claim  I  am  working   from  the  seemingly  divergent  but  connected  disciplines  of  physical  and  human   geography.  Landforms  often  shape  how  we  move  about  the  world  and  engage  with   others,  but  humans  also  exert  influence  that  physically  and  discursively  changes  the   land  to  affect  performance  as  well.  Here  I  am  extending  subjectivity  to  the  land  as   well  as  its  inhabitants  to  establish  a  more  than  human  hybrid  geography.     Returning  to  the  carp  drama,  Asian  carp  is  real  and  unreal,  material  and   immaterial.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  “Asian  carp.”  What  we  understand  as  Asian   carp  is  at  least  two  separate  species—bighead  and  silver—that  have  been  linked   together  under  a  single  name.    On  the  other  hand,  Asian  carp  is  very  real.  What  does   not  exist  as  a  real  singular  species  in  the  wild  is  a  political  issue  that  manifest  itself   as  very  real  in  the  material  world.  This  dissertation  presents  the  real  and  imagined   ways  in  which  carp  emerge  as  invasive  within  numerous  actor-­‐networks.         When  I  speak  of  carpotologies,  I  am  neither  asking  that  we  recognize   different  perspectives  of  the  same  thing  nor  am  I  stating  that  we  should  focus  on  a   dominant  or  subordinate  viewpoint  and  ask  how  it  establishes  itself  as  truth  and   others  as  counterfeit.  Such  conception  of  worlds  fragments  relationships  so  that   worlds  exist  onto  themselves  with  no  connection  to  others.  No  matter  how  hard  we   may  try  or  believe  we  are  never  independent  from  others.  Our  worlds  often  spill   over  into  other  worlds  at  places  where  we  find  mutual  interest.  Here  I  am  concerned   with  connections,  because  the  nodes  that  connect  worlds  provide  avenues  whereby   we  can  begin  to  rethink  relationships,  performances,  and  develop  meaningful   strategies  to  environmental  crises.  My  argument  here  is  that  worlds  themselves  are         49       connected  by  boundary  subjects  and  objects  (actors),  what  we  might  refer  to  as   spaces  of  dependence.  The  places  where  worlds  come  into  conflict  and  become   fragile  are  spaces  of  engagement.  Still,  it  is  important  to  focus  on  the  structures  that   provide  these  spaces  with  their  shape  before  discussing  their  effects.  This  helps   answer  the  question,  how  does  carp  become  invasive  to  an  agent.     Carp  occupy  physical  and  textual  geographies.  What  link  these  individual   domains  and  the  spaces  within  them  are  what  I  call  “architectonic  statements.”  In   his  unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  Lakota  scholar  and  architect  Howe  (1995)   provided  an  image  of  architectural  design  processes  as  analogous  to  communication   systems.    At  the  core,  most  communication  systems  feature  the  following  basic   components:  (1)  sender/s,  (2)  message/s,  (3)  receiver/s,  (4)  system  of  codes  that   organize  relationships  and  the  medium/s  that  send  and  the  messages.  Howe  (1995)   wrote:     Communication  takes  place  when  a  sender  transmits  a  message  by   way  of  some  medium  to  someone.  The  message  refers  to  something,   and  the  relationship  between  that  something  and  the  message  is   codified.  In  the  case  of  tribal  architecture,  the  architecture  itself  must   embody  the  resultant  code.  In  other  words,  architecture  embodies  the   code  that  organizes  the  relationships  between  messages  and  their   referents.  (p.  34)       Here  the  meaning  of  architecture  is  operationalized  to  mean  not  just  the  façade   (form),  which  is  the  focus  of  traditional  architectural  practice,  but  the  interior   spaces  (content)  and  the  organizing  work  they  do  to  create  the  message  and   relationships  between  sender  and  receiver.  Architecture  consists  of  spaces  and  their   defining  surfaces.  While  the  built  forms  (i.e.  walls,  ceiling,  floor)  are  typically  seen  as   what  composes  architecture,  it  is  really  the  spaces  that  emerge  between  boundaries         50       that  give  meaning  to  the  entire  structure.  Therefore,  Howe’s  argument  about   indigenous  architectures  is  that  the  process  of  building  and  the  resulting  spaces  and   edifices  should  represent  the  worldview  (or  codes)  of  a  tribal  community;  this  is   encompassed  in  his  term  “ethnoarchitectonics.”  Howe’s  understanding  of   architecture  is  useful  in  theorizing  how  carptologies  are  built.  Statements  are   architectonic  tools  that  provide  a  form  for  reality.  The  “ethno”  prefix  may  not  matter   in  all  cases  regarding  carp’s  invasibility;  however,  the  term  in  its  entirety  points  to   the  very  real  fact  that  statements  are  acts  of  worlding  that  create  identity  spaces  and   room  for  actors  to  engage  with  others.               These  identity  spaces,  or  spaces  of  dependence,  are    “localized  social   relations  upon  which  we  depend  for  the  realization  of  essential  interests  and  for   which  there  are  no  substitutes  elsewhere”  (Cox,  1998,  p.  2).  They  also  delineate  the   necessary  parameters  for  our  material  well-­‐being.  Yet,  in  order  for  spaces  of   dependence  to  exist,  actors  have  to  protect  the  conditions  for  their  existence  by   engaging  with  other  actors.  The  movement  to  secure  these  spaces  with  other  bodies   of  social  power  (i.e.  government,  national  press,  etc.)  takes  place  within  spaces  of   engagement.  In  keeping  with  the  metaphor  of  architecture,  any  ontology  is   composed  of  units  that  help  to  provide  spaces  with  meaning.  The  same  units  may   exist  for  several  actors;  however,  their  arrangement  differs  from  actor-­‐to-­‐actor.  This   is  what  gives  birth  to  multiple  ontologies.     For  example,  consider  the  housing  market  and  how  units  align  or  do  not  align   in  a  network  as  people  seek  home  loans  (Cox,  1998).  Several  spaces  of  dependence   can  unite  for  an  agent  in  the  housing  market  through  the  circulation  of  capital.         51       Acquiring  a  home  loan  is  directly  attached  to  one’s  ability  to  secure  capital  in  a   variety  of  forms  within  various  spaces  of  dependence.  Capital  can  be  cash-­‐in-­‐hand,  a   credit  score,  a  house,  education,  and/or  marital  status.  Some  of  these  forms  are   stationary,  while  others  are  not.  The  way  capital  is  arranged  spatially  differs  among   actors  and  creates  material  realities  that  they  have  to  live  within.  Still,  an   individual’s  arrangement  is  not  independent  unto  itself  as  it  is  networked  to  the   arrangements  of  others  over  multiple  spaces.  One’s  local  neighborhood  can  serve  as   a  space  of  dependence,  because  divergent  orderings  of  capital  form  micro-­‐ geographies  that  coalesce  into  a  larger  space  through  linkages  to  different  units.   Actors  engage  in  scale-­‐jumping  (moving  from  local  to  global  and  vice-­‐versa)  to   construct  the  networks  that  compose  their  identities.  Alterations  in  economic   geographies  at  either  macro  or  micro  ends  of  the  scale  threaten  local  relations.   Therefore,  while  spaces  of  engagement  help  to  secure  identity,  they  are  also  sites   where  relations  become  fragile  and  denote  critical  points  of  intervention.  In  the   forthcoming  section,  I  illustrate  how  arguments  over  the  construction  of  barriers   create  identity  spaces  for  carp  and  for  humans.       The  drama  of  Asian  carp’s  invasibility  directly  parallels  the  example   concerning  capital.  The  same  units  might  exist  for  each  actor  to  render  varying   understandings  of  carp.  Where  they  differ  regards  arrangement  of  the  composition.   As  mentioned  earlier,  I  am  interested  in  the  architectonic  statement.  These   statements  serve  as  natural  bridges  between  textual  and  geographic  spaces.  This  is   also  a  way  of  tracing  relationships  to  illustrate  how  worlds  emerge  as  meaningful.  It   is  through  architectonic  statements  that  spaces  of  dependence  and  engagement         52       materialize.  The  focus  on  space  centers  upon  the  rhetorical  questions  it  raises.   These  questions  are  both  about  carp’s  identity  and  the  affordances  and   consequences  tied  to  identity.  The  relationship  between  spaces  of  dependence  and   engagement  is  a  consideration  of  how  actors  perform  within  certain  discursive   arenas.  Yet,  in  scale-­‐jumping  (constructing  networks),  some  actors  exercise  more   control  over  the  tenor  of  discussion  found  in  deliberative  civic  arenas.  The  question   that  remains,  is  whether  there  are  alternative  ways  of  building  networks  that  can  be   composed  into  technical  frameworks  that  allow  actors  to  engage  on  equal  terms?   Focusing  on  how  statements  create  space  is  an  argument  about  how  carp  are  made   invasive  and  an  argument  about  scale  with  regards  to  how  we  perform  our  politics.   When  we  look  at  these  spaces  it  is  easy  to  see  them  as  disparate  or  connected  in   ways  that  serve  individual  interests.  This  does  not  engage  with  complexity.  My   position  is  that  focusing  on  the  spaces  that  emerge  and  the  ways  they  are  connected   provide  a  means  for  imagining  alternative  connections  (or  ways  of  performing   politics)  that  bring  actors  together  rather  than  allowing  them  to  remain  in  their  own   arenas  of  influence.  Subjects  and  objects  (…actors),  human  and  nonhuman,  material   and  immaterial  all  connect  worlds;  these  are  the  units  we  should  focus  upon.     So,  how  did  Asian  carp  become  invasive?  Any  investigation  into  the  rhetorical   construction  of  an  invasive  species  has  to  take  into  account  the  full  range  of   associations  with  actors  who  confer  its  identity.  Discussions  of  carp’s  invasibility   often  focus  on  their  presence  within  and  movements  throughout  bodies  of  water.   Yet,  the  story  of  carp  is  not  simply  about  carp.  We  could,  in  fact,  focus  on  their   invasibility  as  being  a  self-­‐contained  characteristic;  however,  this  would  deny  the         53       activity  and  existence  of  a  host  of  other  actors  that  either  directly  come  in  contact   with  carp  or  play  some  indirect  role  in  shaping  its  identity.  As  Eskridge  and   Alderman  (2010)  indicated,  “The  status  or  identity  ascribed  to  specific  organisms  is   particularly  instructive  of  the  moralistic  ways  in  which  environmental  discourses   and  metaphors  are  mobilized”  (p.  111).  Carps’  invasibility  is  a  mobilization  of   people,  things,  institutions,  and  spaces  in  the  form  of  complex  networks  that   function  to  conduct  specific  rhetorical  work.  This  position  further  suggests  that   carps’  identity  as  invaders  is  topologically  multiple.  Assemblages  of  different  actors   will  render  distinct  networks  that  help  to  explain  how  carp  emerge  as  invasive  or   not.  Therefore,  it  is  important  to  follow  the  statements  of  actors,  as  these  statements   serve  as  windows  opening  onto  different  realities.  The  manifestation  of  these   realities  and  actors’  abilities  to  make  their  worlds  factor  more  than  others  in   deliberative  processes  requires  consideration  as  well.  Why?  Because  defining  a   species  as  invasive  is  always  about  “who  is  authorized  and  not  authorized  to  make   what  kinds  of  knowledges  about  whom/what,  and  under  what  conditions?”  (Clarke,   2005,  p.  xxv).    As  a  means  of  providing  you  with  an  idea  of  how  statements  coalesce   to  build  worlds  that  denote  identities  for  carp  and  people,  let  us  turn  our  attention   to  a  dispute  regarding  carp’s  invasibility.  This  should  offer  more  clarity  to  the  ideas   that  I  have  introduced  regarding  ontology  and  the  complexity  of  environmental   crises.     A  separate  ecology     Humans  and  nature  have  had  quite  a  history  in  the  Chicagoland  area.  This   relationship  extends  from  indigenous  Americans  who  regularly  set  fires  to  the  tall         54       grass  prairies  as  a  form  of  land  management  to  the  present-­‐day.  The  most  drastic   reworking  of  the  landscape  came  by  way  of  white  settler  colonialism.  The  various   Europeans  who  settled  around  the  area  saw  nature  “as  a  force  to  be  controlled,  not   an  ecosystem  to  be  protected”  (Adelmann,  1998,  p.  56).  In  fact,  it  was  settlers’   intense  hunting  of  beavers  for  fashion  that  not  only  extirpated  the  species  within   Illinois  but  also  helped  to  create  the  characteristics  of  present-­‐day  Illinois  rivers.   The  establishment  of  a  viable  fur  trade  altered  the  populations  of  beavers,  thus   reducing  the  presences  of  beaver  dams.  The  absence  of  these  dams  helped  to   transform  many  shallow  rivers  and  streams  in  Illinois  into  broader  channels.  Much   of  this  change  can  be  found  in  the  eastern  portion  of  the  state.  This  objectification  of   nature  is  what  allowed  for  the  emergence  of  Chicago  as  a  major  industrial  center  in   the  Midwest.     It  was  mostly  the  technology  of  the  Nineteenth-­‐century  that  provided  the   tools  that  allowed  human  actors  to  alter  Chicago’s  natural  landscape  in  order  to   make  room  for  massive  growth  (see  also  Cronon,  1991).  Most  of  these  changes   involved  alterations  in  hydrology  for  potable  water,  waste  disposal,  and   transportation.  The  Chicago  River  served  dual  roles  as  a  sewer  and  source  of   drinking  water  ab  urb  condita.  This  resulted  in  many  environmental  problems,   which  included  periodic  outbreaks  in  cholera  (1849,  1854,  1866-­‐67,  1885)  and   typhoid  fever  (1885,  1902)  (Bacon  and  Dalton,  1968;  Platt,  2002).  To  combat  the   spread  of  disease  the  Illinois  legislature  created  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District  (now   The  Metropolitan  Water  Reclamation  District)  in  1889.  The  improvement  in   infrastructure  was  built  to  support  and  ultimately  replace  the  much  smaller  (and         55       more  polluted)  Illinois-­‐Michigan  Canal.  The  plan  called  for  civil  engineers  to  reverse   the  flow  of  the  Chicago  (via  Chicago  Sanitary  and  Ship  Canal)  and  Calumet  Rivers   (via  Cal-­‐Sag  Channel  in  1922)  in  order  to  carry  wastewater  away  from  Lake   Michigan  into  the  Illinois  and  Des  Plaines  Rivers  (Platt,  2002).  These  rivers  would   dump  the  waste  into  the  Mississippi  River,  which  would  eventually  dump  the  waste   into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  (to  view  an  image  of  the  CWS,  please  visit:     http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/WATERFLOW04G1.jpg).         This  technical  intervention  establishes  just  a  fraction  of  the  ontological   universe  that  frames  Asian  carp’s  invasibility  in  the  present.  The  construction  of  the   various  channels  created  new  points  of  access  to  Lake  Michigan  that  didn’t  exist   naturally.  Two  of  the  most  prominent  matters  of  concern  regard  (1)  whether  there   should  be  a  connection  between  the  Chicago  Area  Waterway  System  (CAWS)  and   Lake  Michigan;  and  (2)  whether  dismantling  the  points  of  entry  would  have  an  effect   on  economies  across  scale  (local  to  international).  The  former  is  a  question  of   science;  the  latter  is  a  concern  for  economics.  For  the  time  being,  let  us  divert  our   attention  to  the  issue  of  economics.     Professors  John  Taylor  and  James  Roach  were  commission  by  Mike  Cox,  the   state  of  Michigan  Attorney  General,  to  assess  the  impact  that  ecological  separation   between  the  Chicago  Waterway  System  and  Lake  Michigan  would  have  on   Chicagoland  and  surrounding  areas.  On  February  9,  2010,  they  release  the  results  of   their  study  titled,  “Chicago  Waterway  System  Ecological  Separation:  The  Logistics   and  Transportation  Related  Cost  Impact  of  Waterway  Barriers.”  This  study  was         56       widely  influential  among  groups  who  saw  closing  the  Chicago  and  O’Brien  locks  as   the  only  solution  for  keeping  Asian  carp  out  of  the  Lake  Michigan  and  other  Great     Lakes.  The  study  claimed  ecological  separation  would  provide  very  minimal   economic  shortcomings  for  the  region  (Taylor  &  Roach,  2010).  The  Illinois  Chamber   of  Commerce  subsequently  released  reports  from  three  independent  economists   (Savage,  2010;  Schwieterman,  2010;  Bronzini,  2010),  and  a  transportation  specialist   (Kruse,  2010),  who  they  commissioned  to  study  the  validity  of  Taylor  and  Roach’s   claims.       Emerging  worlds     Consider  the  following  statements:  “A  barrier  at  the  Chicago  Lock  will  have   little  effect  on  shippers  on  the  North  and  South  Branches  of  the  Chicago  River.  The   large  majority  of  cargo  to  these  shippers  passes  through  the  CSSC  and  would  be   unaffected  by  the  closure  of  either  the  Chicago  or  O’Brien  locks”  (Taylor  &  Roach,   2010);  and  “When  choosing  a  location  for  a  new  facility,  shippers’  choices  are  highly   sensitive  to  transportation  costs.  Closing  the  lock  would  certainly  hurt  any   industrial  development  efforts”  (Kruse,  2010).  These  statements  raise  the  CSSC  and   the  hypothetical  barriers  as  important  spaces  of  dependence  that  also  help  to  create   larges  spaces  that  stabilize  identities  for  carp  and  human  collectives.  I  want  to   emphasize  the  fact  that  spaces  of  dependence  and  engagement  are  not  necessarily   symbolic  theoretical  conceptions.  Often  times  these  spaces  take  the  form  of  human   and  nonhuman  actors.  Actors’  use  of  architectonic  statements  to  enroll  other  actors   into  their  networks  defines  how  nonhuman  actors  (e.g.  barriers)  should  be   understood.  This  process  of  network-­‐building  sets  the  stage  for  questions  regarding         57       who  has  the  authority  to  define,  what  governs  acts  of  definition,  why  those   performances  exist,  and  whether  they  are  valid.           “Michigan  economists,”  like  Taylor  and  Roach,  use  the  CSSC  to  seal  carp’s   identity  as  an  invader  species.  In  the  absence  of  this  route  of  transport,  carp  have  no   access  to  Lake  Michigan.  Their  rhetoric  seeks  to  connect  various  human  and   nonhuman  actors  to  lessen  the  importance  of  the  CSSC  and  subsequently  frame  it  as   causing  more  economic  harm  if  it  were  to  remain  open.  The  most  interesting  part  of   their  piece  is  that  they  paint  a  picture  of  invasibility,  without  really  focusing  on  carp.   In  fact,  the  words  “Asian  carp”  appear  only  twice  in  the  entire  23-­‐page  document.   This  is  an  assessment  of  transportation  logistics  and  costs  that  would  be  incurred  by   the  Chicago-­‐area  and  Illinois  upon  the  construction  of  two  physical  barriers  that   would  ecologically  separate  the  Chicago-­‐area  waterway  system  from  Lake  Michigan   in  order  to  stop  the  spread  of  the  Asian  Carp.  The  authors  were  very  strategic  in  the   way  of  not  directly  raising  carp  throughout  their  study.  Framing  the  debate  tightly   within  the  confines  of  economic  space  removes  concerns  for  science  from  the   purview  of  deliberation.  Taylor  and  Roach  (2010)  ventured  into  the  space  of  the   commercial  shipping  industry  in  assembling  their  network.  They  recognized  that   the  construction  of  the  barriers  would  be  disruptive  to  commercial  shipping  and   recreational  boating,  but  their  assessment  showed  that  the  construction  of  the   barriers  and  closing  of  the  Chicago  and  O'Brien  Locks  would  not  affect  the  economy   drastically.  One  notable  feature  of  their  study  was  the  authors'  use  of  data  from  the   U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  that  shows  traffic  by  commercial  and  recreational   vessels  has  steadily  declined  since  1994.  The  data  showed  that:           58       All  categories  of  traffic  have  been  declining  over  the  1994-­‐2008   period  shown  in  this  table.  Tonnage  is  down  dramatically  from  1.3   million  tons  to  about  100  thousand  tons.  Recreational  vessel  traffic  is   also  down  significantly  from  peak  years  of  1994-­‐95  when  levels  in  the   40,000  per  year  range  were  experienced.  (Taylor  &  Roach,  2010,  p.  5)       This  benchmark  year  was  the  most  powerful  architectonic  statement.  It  helped  to   set  the  tone  of  their  argument.  It  created  a  space  for  Michigan  economists  and  other   actors,  who  were  concerned  with  risk  Asian  carp  posed  to  Lake  Michigan,  to  engage   in  their  own  network-­‐building  within  their  spheres  of  influence  to  enroll  other   actors  into  this  ontology  (Egan,  2010;  Great  Lakes  United  et  al.,  2010).  In  fact,  this   was  the  one  statement  that  Illinois  economists  latched  onto  when  assembling  their   own  carptologies.  Moreover,  Taylor  and  Roach  paired  the  Corps’  data  with  "publicly   available  aerial  photos"  and  information  from  a  2006  Federal  Reserve  Bank  of   Chicago  Newsletter  to  paint  a  picture  of  an  industrial  economy  in  decline  as  "many   former  shipping  sites  [are]  now  vacant  lots  or  [have  been]  converted  to  other  non-­‐ industrial  uses"  (Taylor  &  Roach,  2010,  p.  17).  This  worked  to  augment  their  claim   that  while  there  will  be  some  impact  on  the  shipping  industry  from  the  construction   of  the  barriers  and  closing  the  locks,  it  would  not  drastically  alter  the  economic   environment  as  the  industry  has  already  been  in  decline.  Another  notable  aspect  of   this  study  is  that  the  authors  purport  that  the  closing  of  the  locks  will  spawn  job   creation  within  the  region.  Taylor  and  Roach  (2010)  argued  that  since  industries   could  not  rely  upon  shipping  to  get  their  goods  from  Point  A  to  Point  B  in  the  event   of  lock  closure,  they  would  need  to  build  loading  facilities  and  other  avenues  for  the   transportation  (pipelines,  railway,  trucking)  of  goods.  So  while  jobs  in  the  barge   industry  would  decline,  they  expected  an  increase  in  other  transportation  sectors.           59       “Illinois  economists,”  and  their  affiliates,  reframed  lock  closure  along  the   CSSC  as  presenting  more  harm  than  good.  They  tendered  constructions  of  the  CSSC   as  a  vital  route  of  transport  and  lock  closure  as  presenting  major  economic  and   environmental  concerns.  Like  Taylor  and  Roach,  they  do  not  focus  exclusively  on   carp;  however,  their  worldview  of  ecological  separation  connotes  an  understanding   of  carp  as  “a  serious,  but  manageable  threat  to  the  Mississippi  and  Great  Lakes”   (Unlock  Our  Jobs,  2012).  Their  rhetoric  works  doubly  to  re-­‐frame  a  competing   economic  understanding  of  carp  as  the  production  of  hysterical  discourse  and  turn   the  public’s  attention  toward  spaces  that  have  been  screened  out  of  deliberation   (see  Killingsworth  and  Palmer,  1995).  For  example,  Unlock  Our  Jobs,  a  consortium   composed  of  economists,  members  of  the  transportation  industry  and  fish  farmers,   (2012)  described  economic  arguments  for  lock  closure  as  “not  a  solution  to  the   threat  posed  by  Asian  Carp,  but  rather  a  politically  motivated  stunt  that  would   result  in  enormous  economic  consequences  for  the  region”  and  point  to  the  fact  that   the  “Illinois  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  recently  logged  34  days  on  the  water  in  an   exhaustive  search  for  any  Asian  Carp  specimen,”  but  found  none  “alive  or  dead.”   Their  rhetoric  also  makes  use  of  what  Lange  (1993)  termed  as  processes  of   vilification  and  ennobling.  This  is  a  rhetorical  technique  wherein  groups   characterize  their  opposition’s  motives  as  diabolical  in  nature  while  simultaneously   presenting  their  position  as  righteous  and  worth  consideration.  The  activities  to   stop  carp  materialize  as  a  matter  of  concern  because  they  would  hypothetically   destabilize  a  network  of  “approximately  19  million  tons  of  agricultural  products,   building  materials,  coal  and  other  industrial  products  and  raw  materials”  valued  at         60       $16  billion  per  annum  (Schwieterman,  2010;  Unlock  Our  Jobs,  2012).  In  assembling   this  competing  ontology,  the  actors  proffer  architectonic  statements  that  structure   various  economic  spaces  of  dependence.     Each  of  the  Illinois  economists  connected  to  Taylor  and  Roach’s  use  of  1994   as  a  standard  to  stabilize  their  worldview.  While  these  movements  to  constructed   spaces  of  dependence  occur  in  regional,  national  and  international  economic  arenas,   Illinois  economists  offered  a  more  “local”  rhetoric  via  statements  that  constructed   spaces  of  dependence  within  the  city  of  Chicago  itself.  As  he  criticized  Taylor  and   Roach  as  "intellectually  dishonest  and  manipulative,"  Savage  carefully  pointed  out   that  “[Taylor  and  Roach’s]  link  between  transportation  investments  (or   disinvestments)  and  surrounding  land  use  and  land  values”  was  curiously  non-­‐ existent  (Savage,  2010,  p.  7;  see  also  Bronzini,  2010).  Specifically,  they  left  out  of   their  analysis  the  existence  of  recreational  industries  and  allied  commercial   activities,  such  as  marina  services,  dining  venues,  and  residential  developments   (Savage,  2010,  p.  2-­‐3).  These  sections  of  the  Chicago  waterfront  were  particularly   important  because  they  were  once  “unsightly  waterways”  that  the  city  ignored  until   increased  access  drove  “redevelopment”  (read:  gentrification)  initiatives.   Accordingly,  closing  the  locks  would  affect  an  industry  that  is  primarily  associated   with  revitalizing  the  abandoned  industrial  properties  that  surround  the  riverfronts.   These  were  areas,  which  Taylor  and  Roach  referred  to  as  “nearly  abandoned”  and   would  be  unaffected  by  ecological  separation.  Schwieterman  (2010)  and  Kruse   (2010)  echoed  many  of  the  concerns  that  Savage  and  Bronzini  raised  concerning   Taylor  and  Roach's  methodology  and  use  of  statistics;  however,  they  continued         61       offering  statements  that  framed  the  economic  ontology  strictly  within  the  confines   of  Chicago.  This  included  statements  about  both  how  lock  closure  would   dramatically  increase  interstate  traffic  around  the  city  and  indirectly  affect   businesses  not  tied  to  the  water  or  shipping  industries.           Looking  forward:  Exploring  common  worlds       I  want  to  take  this  time  to  foreshadow  an  implication  that  stems  from  the   rhetorical  study  of  carptologies.  In  the  example  above,  it  is  best  to  look  at  each  text   and  their  assembly  of  statements  as  interferences  that  help  to  produce  an  ecology  of   disparate  spaces.  Still,  what  value  do  these  interferences  hold  for  environmental   rhetoric?  The  answer  lies  in  their  creation  of  new  forms  of  subjectivity  for  carp.  The   concern  for  multiplicity  within  environmental  disputes  raises  a  rhetorical  problem.   How  can  we  represent  and  respect  the  fractional  worlds  that  actors  call  home  while   moving  toward  a  singularity  that  would  allow  us  to  best  solve  an  environmental   crisis.  If  it  is  one  thing  that  we  can  say  definitively  about  statements  it  is  that  they   are  metaphorical  bridges  between  textual  and  physical  worlds.  They  are   performances  of  reality.  Writing  performs  reality,  but  it  also  has  the  ability  to  adjust   the  relations  that  produce  reality.  Here  I  am  actively  advocating  that  we  consider   ways  in  which  acting  rhetorically  can  make  and  remake  the  physical  world.  It  might   be  that  we  need  a  cultural  environmental  rhetoric  that  achieves  what  Law  (2002)   termed  “fractional  coherence.”  As  writers  advocate  for  solutions  to  environmental   problems,  they  might  consider  what  spaces  their  statements  create  for  public   deliberation.  We  might  venture  at  another  meta-­‐level  and  ask  bureaucrats  to   consider  what  spaces  their  own  statements  create  in  writing  the  policy  that         62       indirectly  structures  how  actors  perform  in  political  arenas.  There  is  space  to  create   a  sort  of  “intra-­‐group”  homogeneity  through  what  social  capital  theorists  refer  to  as   a  “bridging”  of  social  space  (Carolan,  2004;  Nan,  2002;  Granovetter,  1973).  This   work  is  mostly  accomplished  by  focusing  on  the  weak  ties  between  actors’  or  the   ignored  spaces.  Through  writing  these  bridges,  actors  residing  in  seemingly   separate  ontological  universes  are  encouraged  to  engage  in  an  exchange  of  ideas   and  values.  Spaces  of  engagement,  when  properly  arranged,  can  do  things  in  the   world.  This,  however,  only  works  if  we  build  trust  within  these  connectors  between   nodes.  We  have  to  find  ways  to  coordinate  actors’  performances  (create  new  spaces   of  engagement)  so  that  they  act  with  each  other  rather  than  within  their  own   spheres  of  influence.     Within  this  mini-­‐case  example,  I  am  curious  as  to  why  actors  have  to  issue   their  own  economic  impact  statements  rather  than  working  together  to  produce  a   more  coherent  document  that  engages  in  the  complexity  of  the  spaces  central  to   their  analyses?  Moreover,  why  are  actors  so  eager  to  exclude  environmental   considerations  from  the  purview  of  economic  analyses?  While  lock  closure  surely   has  economic  effects,  there  is  no  attention  provided  to  environmental  concerns,   which  may  include,  but  is  not  limited  to  flooding  and  reduction  of  habitat  for  native   species  living  within  the  waterway.  Flattening  complexity  through  their  statements   creates  the  heuristics  by  which  carp  emerges  as  a  certain  subject  “whose  seemingly   unintended  consequences  threatens  to  disrupt  all  orderings,  all  plans,  all  impacts”   (Latour,  2004,  p.  25).  In  making  this  argument  about  ontology,  I  am  crafting  a  role         63       for  environmental  rhetoric.  This  is  a  role  that  I  will  explain  with  greater  detail  in  the   final  chapter.           Conclusion     As  he  turns  his  back  to  the  citizens  and  politicians  of  Rome,  Coriolanus   exclaims,  “There  is  a  world  elsewhere,”  a  statement  that  irreverently  displaces  the   ontological  foundations  of  the  republic  (Shakespeare,  2002,  3.3.132).  Much  in  the   same  respects  I  am  concerned  with  other  worlds,  minus  the  contempt.  In  this   chapter,  I  put  forth  an  argument  for  understanding  how  actors  move  through  space   to  create  realities  and  the  possibilities  afforded  by  these  spatial  performances.   Through  actors’  statements  worlds  that  constitute  an  identity  for  carp  emerge.  The   decision  to  focus  on  statements  used  to  describe  carp  is  important,  as  language  is  an   “instrument  of  power”  that  “shapes  distorts  and  even  creates  realities”  (Harre  et  al.   1999,  ix;  MacDonald  2003,  155).  The  realities  that  have  emerged  here  are  important   and  worth  considering  as  we  seek  to  answer  questions  such  as:  What  makes  Asian   carp  invasive?  When  are  they  invasive?  Where  are  they  invasive?  And  to  whom  are   they  invasive?  These  are  questions  that  are  answered  only  by  focusing  on  what   actors  take  center  stage,  how  they  are  connected,  and  what  spaces  serve  as  the   foundations  for  their  activities.  In  Chapter  5,  I  continue  this  exploration  through  an   extended  analysis  of  how  carptologies  emerge  from  statements  generated  in   response  to  a  request  for  comments  regarding  the  listing  of  bighead,  silver  and   large-­‐scale  silver  carps  as  invasive  under  the  Lacey  Act.  One  way  of  labeling  carp  as   invasive  stems  from  procedures  dictated  by  policy.  Focusing  on  the  political   processes  designed  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  invasive  species  provide  insights  into         64       how  we  might  facilitate  the  manufacture  of  more  constructive  relationships  among   actors  performing  in  different  worlds.    In  Chapter  4,  however,  I  offer  a  catalogue  of   the  various  carptologies  worth  considering,  but  cannot  be  discussed  in  toto  due  to   the  limits  of  this  genre.                                                                                         65       CHAPTER  4.  CARPTOLOGIES,  PART  II:   UNTANGLING  COMPLEXITY,  MULTIPLE  PERFORMANCES     What  is  Asian  carp?  Answering  that  question  is  not  as  simple  as  looking  at  a   picture,  reading  a  book  or  even  going  fishing.  While  each  of  those  activities  help  to   construct  an  identity  in  the  public  imagination,  the  ways  in  which  they  are  attached   and  entangled  to  a  cluster  of  humans  and  nonhumans  ultimately  renders  different   identity  formations.  There  simply  is  no  one  answer.  What  forms  a  social  scene  is  the   arrangement  of  people,  living  organisms,  artifacts  and  other  things  that  are   intricately  woven  together  to  produce  meaningful  relations  or  what  we  might  call   “social  life.”  To  elevate  humans  as  the  sole  agents  in  any  scene  immediately  reduces   the  importance  of  other  units  that  help  to  make  the  social  happen.  In  making  a  case   for  nonhuman  subjectivity,  ANT  and  some  human/cultural  geography  theorists  have   demonstrated  the  importance  of  nonhumans  in  the  production  of  reality.  The  notion   of  a  subject-­‐world  populated  by  people  and  an  object-­‐world  composed  of  things  is   an  idea  that  stems  from  what  we  have  come  to  understand  as  the  “modern   constitution,”  which  places  agency  firmly  in  the  hands  of  people  (Latour  and   Woolgar,  1979;  Latour,  1993;  Whatmore,  2001;  Latour,  2004).  As  stated  repeatedly,   this  more  than  human  approach  is  the  basis  for  which  we  must  interrogate  and   mark  invasive  performances.       So,  how  do  we  realize  Asian  carp?  The  first  step  in  answering  this  question  is   locating  Asian  carp’s  emergent  invasibility.  This  necessitates  mapping  out  the   networks  that  compose  the  ontological  formulations,  which  give  rise  to  carptologies.   Mapping  these  relations  requires  that  we  attend  to  space  and  direct  our  focus  to  the   actors,  whose  networked  performances  comprise  social  life.  In  theatre,  it  is         66       customary  to  provide  audiences  with  a  list  traditionally  referred  to  as  a  dramatis   personae.  This  catalog  names  only  those  actors  who  take  center  stage  and  makes  no   mention  of  those  that  work  behind  the  scenes  to  make  the  production  happen.   Nevertheless,  anyone  who  attends  a  production  is  fully  aware  that  there  are  an   untold  number  of  actors  whose  offstage  presence  allows  for  the  show  to  go  on.  This   includes,  but  is  not  limited  to:  producers,  playwrights,  directors,  scene  designers,   costume  designers,  light  and  sound  board  operators,  makeup  artists,  and  stage   managers.  Even  the  audience  contributes  to  this  collaborative  effort.  In  this  chapter,   I  provide  snapshots  of  complexity  by  engaging  with  the  multiple  ways  in  which   Asian  carp’s  identity  as  invader  species  is  enacted.  There  is  no  way  that  I  can  deal   with  the  entire  complexity  of  this  issue  in  toto  within  the  space  of  this  dissertation.   Nevertheless,  I  want  to  I  provide  you  with  a  brief  picture  of  some  of  the  actors  that   make  up  this  drama  and  the  ontologies  that  emerge  as  actors  perform  their   obligations  to  space.   It  is  important  to  note  that  the  lines  between  ontological  controversies  are   not  neat.  In  fact,  ontological  matters  are  quite  messy—at  least  for  researchers.  Often   matters  of  concern  that  are  economic  bleed  into  scientific  arenas.  Sometimes   carptologies  that  emerge  around  legislative  agendas  converge  with  spiritual  realms.   Documenting  complexity  will  produce  these  tangled  relationships  and  also  call   attention  to  issues  that  we  would  otherwise  remove  from  analytical  purview,  which   ultimately  play  a  role  in  driving  the  entirety  of  network  dynamics.  There  is  a  limit  to   which  we  can  (and  should)  flatten  worlds  to  understand  the  dynamics  of  the  social.   Flat  ontology  replaces  ways  of  understanding  how  the  world  works  outside  of         67       verticality  and  horizontality  without  collapsing  the  two  into  a  new  whole  (Marston,   Jones,  &  Woodward,  2005).  We  should  always  be  mindful  of  complex  and  emergent   spatial  relations.  Therefore,  while  reading  these  carptologies  take  into  account  that   no  one  version  exist  by  itself.  Each  is  linked  to  other  versions  in  intricate  ways  to   produce  an  understanding  of  reality  that  is  “more  than  one  but  also  less  than  many”   (Law,  2002).  With  that  final  statement,  I  am  avoiding  the  some  of  the  analytical   trappings  of  postmodernism.  First,  there  is  a  limit  to  the  extent  to  which  we  can   multiply  reality.  Furthermore,  multiplication  is  not  a  game.  It  is  a  serious  project   concerned  with  getting  to  the  heart  of  complex  cultural  issues.  What  follows  is  a   catalogue  of  seven  ways  Asian  carp  are  performed.  These  enactments  include  but   are  not  limited  too:  (1)  scientific  classification  schemas,  (2)  environmental  DNA,    (3)   the  Asian  and  Asian  American  community,  (4)  the  language  of  immigration,  (5)   economics,  (6)  Asian  carp  themselves,  and  (7)  this  dissertation.  With  each  of  these   performances  Asian  carp  is  different.     Asian  carp  as  invasive  through  scientific  classification   Foremost,  Asian  carp  is  a  problem  of  science.  The  questions  here  regard  how   does  science  produce  ontologies  of  carp  and  what  are  the  effects  of  these   ontologies?  The  terms  and  concepts  relevant  to  invasion  ecology  theory  enter  into   public  deliberative  forums  by  way  of  science.    As  Lien  and  Law  (2010)  state  about   salmon,  we  can  best  understand  scientific  classification  of  Asian  carp  as  a  discourse   that  enacts  carp  "in  a  way  that  seeks  to  transcend  the  specialties  of  time  and  space:   [science]  is  a  universalising  [sic]  discourse"  (p.  4).  To  answer  the  former  questions,   we  must  inquire  as  to  how  does  science  shape  the  conditions  of  the  word  "invasive"         68       as  it  can  be  readily  applied  to  carp?    With  its  classification  schema,  Ecology  presents   a  dominant  field  of  vision  that  provides  us  with  a  universal  way  of  seeing  invaders   and  understanding  their  performances.  Classification  schemas  exist  to  simplify  the   world  by  bringing  order  to  chaos.  Yet,  there  is  a  problem  with  using  a  term  like   “invasive”  to  describe  species.  A  term  like  invasive  (in  addition  to  “transient,”   “foreign,”  “alien,”  “exotic,”  “nonnative,”  “non-­‐indigenous,”  “invasive  exotics”)   “include  qualities  that  are  open  to  subjective  interpretation”  (Colautti  and  MacIsaac,   2004,  135).  People  have  and  build  associations  between  these  “scientific”  terms   with  occurrences  in  the  everyday  and  the  rendering  of  these  descriptors  outside  the   realm  of  science  can  “cloud  conceptualization  of  the  processes  they  are  meant  to   describe”  (Colautti  and  MacIsaac,  2004,  135;  see  also  Peters,  1991;  Pysek,  1995;   Shrader-­‐Frechette,  2001).  What  word  is  the  best  word  for  describing  species  that   are  out  of  place?  The  use  of  any  of  these  terms  applied  to  Asian  carp  bridges  the   scientific  world  to  x=World  in  order  to  build  an  ontology  of  carp  that  differs  from   another  pairing.  If  you  are  wondering  why  I  am  spending  so  much  time  focusing  on   terminology,  it  is  because  the  way  in  which  we  label  actors,  even  if  we  already  deem   them  to  be  invasive,  will  produce  a  variety  of  orderings  that  carry  differing   affordances  and  consequences  with  there  varying  hybrid  assemblies  of  nonhumans   and  humans.     Still,  the  idea  of  multiple  carptologies  tied  to  Ecology’s  practice  is  not  simply   a  result  of  naming  and  the  emotive  responses  tied  to  names;  they  also  arise  in  light   of  how  we  articulate  those  names  in  the  form  of  formal  definitions.    There  are   several  ways  to  define  invasive  species.  One  definition  focuses  on  species  whose         69       activities  bear  negative  biological,  economic,  and  environmental  effects  because   they  reside  outside  their  native  spaces  due  to  either  direct  or  indirect  human   activities  (NISC,  2006).    Another  definition  targets  species  who  propagate   themselves  across  natural  boundaries  into  new  spaces  on  account  of  the  lack  of   natural  controls  (e.g.  decline  or  absence  of  predator  populations).  This  definition   would  include  species  such  as  the  Cattle  egret,  which  is  native  to  Africa  but   established  itself  in  North  America  in  1941  due  to  natural  transatlantic  migrations.   There  are  also  native  and  nonnative  invasive  species  that  have  neither  negative  nor   positive  impact  on  natural  environments.  For  example,  the  ring-­‐necked  pheasant  is   a  nonnative  species  from  Georgia  (the  country,  not  the  state)  that  was  established   throughout  much  of  the  Rocky  Mountain  and  Western  plains  states.  The  animal  was   so  harmless  that  South  Dakotans  extended  permanent  residency  to  the  bird  by   investing  the  pheasant  as  an  official  state  symbol  in  1943  (Coates,  2006).  A  more   “fishy”  example  is  the  goldfish,  which  is  an  Asian  carp  that  has  wide  distribution   throughout  much  of  North  America  but  bears  no  impact  on  the  environment.  It  is   important  to  note,  that  while  goldfish  originate  from  Asia,  they  are  not  part  of  the   grouping  that  is  colloquially  known  as  Asian  carp.  This  exclusion  only  adds  to   complexity  of  understanding  carptologies  that  emerge  from  scientific  classification.     Finally,  there  are  invasive  species  that  are  established  and  cultivated  in   controlled  habitats  to  suit  recreational  or  economic  purposes.  For  example,  the   salmon  fishery  in  the  Great  Lakes  is  a  manmade  industry  that  was  built  by   introducing  Chinook  salmon  into  Lake  Huron  (Payette,  2012a).  The  purpose  of  the   introduction  was  to  control  the  Alewife,  an  invasive  species,  and  to  increase         70       recreational  fishing.  Still  whether  you  consider  the  salmon  to  be  a  controlled   invasive  or  simply  invasive  depends  on  what  side  of  the  Straits  of  Mackinac  you  live   and  to  what  group  you  claim  membership.  Performances  of  Asian  carp’s  identity  are   parallel  to  this  scientific  definition.  While  bighead  carp  existed  in  the  wild,  until   2010  they  were  simultaneously  raised  in  controlled  conditions  in  fish  farms.  Their   status  as  invaders  depended  heavily  upon  how  stakeholders  understood  their  place   within  culture  and  within  natural  ecosystems.         For  example,  Iowa  ecologists  labeling  of  Asian  carp  as  invasive  due  to   potential  threats  against  native  species  in  Iowa  bodies  of  water  competed  with  Iowa   catfish  farmers  who  built  stable  networks  between  algae,  catfish,  bighead  carp,  and   national  and  international  consumer  markets.  While  the  scientific  application  of  the   term  results  from  their  understanding  of  carp  as  being  “out  of  place,”  catfish  farmers   see  carp  as  “in  place”  because  the  mutual  ways  in  which  the  farmers,  catfish  and   bighead  carp  benefit  each  other.  This  example  as  an  articulation  of  the  concern  for   definition  and  the  architecture  of  carptologies,  forces  us  to  consider  the  rhetoricity   of  the  phrases  “in  place”  and  “out  of  place”  as  denoting  divergent  notions  of  nativity.   Furthermore,  considerations  for  place  and  science  come  with  greater  complexity.   While  concerns  for  naming  Bighead  carp  as  invasive  within  Iowa  may  be  similar  to   those  of  Illinois  or  even  Arkansas,  other  places  produce  different  pairings  of  actors   and  ultimately  different  identity  spaces  for  carp  due  to  changes  in  environment  and   scientific  uncertainty  as  to  how  carp  will  perform  in  new  environments.             71       Enacted  through  eDNA     In  microbiology  Asian  carp’s  identity  as  an  invader  is  performed  much   differently.  Here  Asian  carp  exist  as  quantified  microbial  and  macrobial   environmental  DNA  (eDNA).  eDNA  comes  from  bits  of  an  organism  such  as  skin   cells,  waste  products,  and  feces,  which  are  shed  into  the  environment.  Scientists   collect  this  genetic  material  from  living  organisms  by  sampling  the  non-­‐living   environment  (soil,  air,  water)  in  order  to  locate  species  during  the  early  stages  of   invasion.  In  August  of  2011,  the  Ohio  and  Michigan  Departments  of  Natural   Resources  (MDNR)  collected  six  water  samples  from  Lake  Erie.  Four  of  the  samples   were  taken  from  Sandusky  Bay  in  Ohio  waters;  two  samples  were  retrieved  from   Maumee  Bay  in  Michigan  waters.  In  July  of  2012,  officials  from  both  agencies   reported  that  the  samples  tested  positive  for  the  presence  of  Asian  carp   environmental  DNA.  The  four  samples  from  Ohio  waters  indicated  the  presence  of   bighead  carp,  whereas  the  samples  from  north  Maumee  Bay,  in  Michigan  waters,   were  positive  for  silver  carp  eDNA.  Has  the  invasion  already  begun?  Is  it  too  late  to   stop  Asian  carp?  MDNR  (2012)  was  quick  to  point  out  that  while  the  findings   “indicate  the  presence  of  genetic  material  left  behind  by  the  species,  such  as  scales,   excrement  or  mucous,”  they  do  not  conclusively  point  to  “the  establishment  of  Asian   carp  in  Lake  Erie.”  Positive  eDNA  tests  are  an  indicator  of  recent  presence,  but  this   result  occurs  regardless  of  whether  an  organism  is  dead  or  alive.  Furthermore,  there   is  no  saying  that  macrobial  particles  did  not  travel  from  another  local  due  to  the   fluidic  properties  of  water.  In  2012  alone  there  have  been  80  positive  samples  of   silver  carp  eDNA  identified  in  Lake  Michigan  (MDNR,  2012).  Yet,  the  fish  have  not         72       been  physically  seen  in  Great  Lakes  waters  to  date.  Two  important  questions  arise:   (1)  Do  we  have  to  see  Asian  carp  for  them  to  be  invasive?  (2)  Do  the  quantified   sample  constitute  a  material  form  that  structures  a  reality  that  legitimizes  invasion?     Performing  Asian  carp  through  eDNA  is  a  way  of  marking  them  as  physically   present  and  helps  to  underline  their  imposing  threat.  What  distinguishes  Asian  carp   performed  through  eDNA  from  scientific  classification  schemas  is  that  carp  exist  as   collections  of  numerical  data  derived  from  trace  elements  of  their  bodies.  The   numbers  amass  into  a  collectivity  that  provides  policymakers  with  a  platform  upon   which  they  can  make  decisions.  Here  carp’s  eminent  threat  to  the  network  that   composes  the  Great  Lakes  is  based  largely  upon  the  proximity  and  distance  of  the   eDNA  from  borders  between  the  lakes  and  natural  and  unnatural  vectors.  Despite   the  inconclusivity  that  comes  with  eDNA,  some  argue  that  particles  are  enough  to   seal  carp’s  identity  and  spur  action.  For  instance,  in  response  to  several  positive   eDNA  samples  acquired  from  Chicago’s  North  Shore  Channel  in  late  September,   Henderson  (2012)  wrote,  “The  increased  rate  of  detection  in  distinct  places  beyond   the  [Wilmette  Pumping  Station]  implies  an  increased  threat  that  we  cannot  ignore.”   While  the  Great  Lakes,  specifically  Lake  Michigan,  materialize  as  spaces  of   dependence,  eDNA  is  the  keystone  in  the  arch  that  both  makes  the  pumping  station   a  space  of  engagement  but  also  stabilizes  a  network  that  denotes  carp  as  an  invader.   Still  this  is  not  the  only  point-­‐of-­‐entry.  Human  actors  also  point  to  positive  results   near  the  Chicago  Lock  &  Dam  and  T.J.  O’Brien  Lock  &  Dam,  thus  enrolling  the   Wilmette  Pumping  Station  into  a  larger  more  rhetorically  effective  network  (see   “MRRWG  Asian  Carp  eDNA  Surveillance  eDNA  Monitoring  Results”).  Collectively         73       performing  Asian  carp  via  these  three  locations  and  documenting  these   performances  through  writing  acts  like  numbers  and  maps  build  carp’s  materiality   and  spatializes  their  invasion  to  demonstrate  why  “delay  in  response  is  a  problem   and  why  more  aggressive  action  that  permanently  closes  pathway  [sic]  for  invasive   species  must  to  be  taken”  (Henderson,  2012).     Performing  Asian  (American)  identity     While  ontological  constructions  of  invasibility  occur  primarily  through   science,  they  are  also  enacted  in  other  spaces  to  produce  different  realities.  Live   carp  transported  from  fish  farms  pose  a  particular  level  of  risk  as  when  they  are   performed  by  members  of  Asian  and  Asian  American  communities.  Bighead  carp  are   food  fish  for  some  members  of  Asian  and  Asian  American  communities.  The  fish   were  available  to  be  purchased  live  at  markets  in  major  metropolitan  areas  such  as   Toronto,  Chicago,  New  York  and  San  Francisco.  Toronto,  where  it  has  been  illegal   since  2005  to  transport  or  sell  live  bighead,  black,  silver  or  grass  carp,  has   experienced  its  own  problems.  Bighead  carp  continues  to  be  a  popular  dish  in   Chinese  restaurants  throughout  the  Greater  Toronto  area.  They  were  sold  live  in   Asian  supermarkets  because  consumers  preferred  the  taste  of  fresh  fish  to  the   frozen  variety  (Adler,  2010).  Still,  within  the  past  two  years  several  supermarkets   have  been  fined  for  possessing  live  bighead  carp  (Hui,  2010;  Payette,  2012b).   Officials  were  quick  to  point  out  that  it  was  not  the  market  sale  that  concerned  them   most,  but  rather  how  the  fish  were  transported.  The  fish  often  make  their  way  into   Toronto  on  trucks  from  US  fish  farms.           74       The  level  of  concern  for  transportation  as  a  probable  gateway  was  so  serious   that  it  even  caused  an  officer  of  the  Lake  Ontario  Enforcement  Unit  to  offer  as  a   worst-­‐case  scenario  the  idea  of  a  tractor-­‐trailer  careening  off  a  road  and  landing  in  a   tributary.  (Hui,  2010).  Several  practices  are  at  work  here  to  define  carp:  selling  live   carp,  consuming  live  carp,  and  transporting  live  carp.  I  am  treating  these   performances  as  separate,  but  they  are  linked  in  various  ways  to  create  an  invasive   identity  linked  to  the  Asian  community.  For  actors  concerned  with  mitigating  carp’s   invasibility  transportation  and  supermarkets  are  important  spaces  of  engagement   that  have  an  affect  on  their  space  of  dependence—Lake  Ontario.  If  these  networks   for  selling  and  consuming  carp  remain  in  tact,  the  large  space  of  dependence  (or  the   networks)  that  makes  Lake  Ontario  into  a  meaningful  space  for  various  actors  is  in   peril.  Therefore,  actors  deploy  a  variety  of  calculating  devices  in  hopes  that  they   might  destabilize  invasive  networks  by  enrolling  actors  into  the  larger  networks   that  compose  Lake  Ontario.  These  calculating  devices  include  not  only  laws  that  ban   transportation,  but  also  routine  inspections  of  markets  and  fact  sheets  in  Mandarin   and  Cantonese  that  warn  against  the  possession  of  live  carp  (Adler,  2010).   Nevertheless,  consuming  carp  was  not  the  only  issue.  It  was  bighead  carp’s   participation  in  the  hojo-­e,  a  Buddhist  ceremony,  which  also  made  Asian  carp  a   matter  of  concern.           75         Figure  1.  Political  cartoon:  “Freshwater  sashimi.”  Regional  borders  hold  both   physical  and  symbolic  importance.  Therefore,  it  should  not  be  a  surprise  that   the  ways  in  which  we  talk  about  “illegal  aliens”  in  the  form  of  people  and   emergent  aliens  in  the  form  of  flora  and  fauna  are  rhetorically  parallel  as  they   both  raise  anxiety  with  regards  to  foreign  cultural  invasions  that  threaten  not   only  the  nation  state  but  how  we  collectively  perform  the  nation  state  in  a   variety  of  spaces.           On  June  23,  2010,  the  Illinois  Department  of  Natural  Resources  (IDNR)  issued   a  news  release  announcing  that  a  20-­‐pound  adult  bighead  carp  was  found  beyond   the  electric  barrier  just  a  couple  miles  from  Lake  Michigan  (IDNR,  2010).  How  did   the  fish  get  beyond  the  barrier?  The  first  plausible  explanation  was  that  the  barrier,   which  was  designed  specifically  to  keep  the  round  goby  at-­‐bay,  was  in  effective  at   stopping  carp.  Another  explanation  was  that  the  fish  could  have  made  it  into  the   waters  by  way  of  the  Des  Plaines  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Mississippi  River,  which  is         76       close  in  proximity  to  the  Chicago  Sanitary  and  Ship  Canal.  The  Army  Corps  of   Engineers  fixed  this  minor  breach  in  the  defense  system  with  a  $13  million  network   of  concrete  and  chain-­‐link  barricades  to  deter  fish.  There  was  also  the  possibility   that  the  fish  braved  the  electrified  water  and  swam  beyond  the  barrier;  however,   tests  on  the  fish  indicated  this  was  unlikely.  Researchers  at  the  Southern  Illinois   University  Carbondale  Fisheries  and  Illinois  Aquaculture  Center  analyzed  the   chemical  markers  in  the  inner  ear  bones  of  the  fish  (Garvey,  Ickes,  and  Zigler,  2010).   The  inner  ear  bones,  or  otoliths,  “incorporate  chemicals  into  their  structure  that  are   unique  to  the  environments  in  which  they  live.  They  have  been  used  in  recent  years   to  reconstruct  the  environmental  history  of  individual  fish  or  fish  stocks”  (IDNR,   2010).  The  tests  concluded  that  the  fish  spent  most  of  its  life  in  the  Illinois  River  and   only  a  small  portion  in  Lake  Michigan.  This  gave  evidence  to  the  likelihood  that  this   bighead,  in  addition  to  another  bighead  caught  a  month  earlier  in  Lake  Calumet,  may   have  been  placed  by  human  hands.  In  response  to  the  tests,  Assistant  Director  of   IDNR  John  Rogner  suggested  either  bait  bucket  transfer  or  ritual  cultural  release  as   vectors  that  only  underscored  “the  need  for  the  public  to  be  even  more  vigilant  and   educated  about  Asian  carp  and  the  importance  of  not  furthering  the  spread  of  these   invasive  species”  (IDNR,  2010).               The  idea  of  ritual  cultural  release  troubles  policymakers.  Asian  carp  have   been  discovered  in  isolated  public  ponds  throughout  the  Great  Lakes  region.  These   carp  sightings  have  been  linked  to  the  hojo-­e  ceremony  although  there  is  no   definitive  evidence  to  support  this.  Primarily  Buddhists  in  East  Asian  countries   perform  the  ritual,  which  originated  in  Japan.  It  involves  the  ceremonial  release  of         77       captive  animals  (birds,  turtles,  and  fish)  as  an  act  of  compassion  in  order  “to  accrue   merit  for  the  afterlife”  and  extend  the  life  of  the  practitioner  (Higbee  and  Glassner-­‐ Shwayder,  2004).  It  is  important  to  note  that  there  has  never  been  a  confirmed   account  of  ceremonial  release  of  bighead  or  silver  carp  in  the  United  States;   however,  some  actors  were  so  concerned  that  they  successfully  sought  to  ban  the   importation  and  transportation  of  live  bighead  carp  under  the  federal  Lacey  Act  via   the  Asian  Carp  Prevention  and  Control  Act  (Thompson,  2011).       While  the  real  and  imagined  spaces  in  which  Asian  and  Asian  Americans   perform  the  hojo-­e  ceremony  and  enact  a  carp  identity  serve  as  their  own  spaces  of   dependence,  they  also  exist  as  spaces  of  engagement  for  stakeholders  who  are   foremost  concerned  with  protecting  the  Great  Lakes  from  Asian  carp.  Still  there  is  a   salient  point,  which  we  should  consider.  What  is  the  role  of  Asian  and  Asian   American  communities  within  the  United  States  and  Canada  with  respect  to   participating  in  decision-­‐making  in  which  their  identities  are  enrolled  into  networks   that  cement  carp’s  invasibility?  The  discussion  of  carptologies  under  the  lens  of   invasibility  allows  certain  constructions  to  take  precedence  over  others.  There  is  a   power  differential  in  defining  the  species  as  invasive  in  relation  to  ritual.  I  noted   earlier  that  there  is  no  proof  of  people  performing  the  hojo-­e  ceremony  within  the   Great  Lakes  region.  The  idea  that  this  is  happening  is  speculation  fueled  by  actors   residing  within  their  own  spaces  of  dependence.  There  is  not  a  lot  of  dialogue   between  communities  that  would  reveal  validity  to  claims  of  how  cultural  traditions   are  practiced  or  how  to  best  write  cultural  policy  to  respect  others  identities   (people  and  carp).  Discussions  of  carp  in  relation  to  ritual  come  from  everywhere         78       except  Asian  and  Asian  American  communities.  There  is  rhetorical  baggage  that   comes  with  linking  an  “Asian”  species  with  and  “Asian”  ritual  to  produce  an  image  of   invasiveness.  A  rhetorical  read  of  such  network-­‐building  exposes  actors’  spatial   performances  as  not  simply  about  whether  ritual  can  be  performed  “out  of  place,”   but  the  connection  of  such  performances  to  larger-­‐circulating  discourses  of   nationalism  and  racism.                 Papers  please?:  Undocumented  immigrants     How  does  one  legally  perform  Asian  carp?  As  Goldstein  (2008)  noted,   “Invasive  species  policies  speak  the  language  of  immigration”  (p.  7).  One  cannot   understand  legislative  performances  of  carp  without  taking  into  account  such   performances  place  within  preexisting  networks  that  account  for  the  nationalization   of  nature  and  the  naturalization  of  nations.  To  label  Asian  carp  “invasive”  or  “alien”   would  connote  that  plants  and  animals  have  citizenship  under  the  law.  The  problem   here  is  that  plants  and  animals  cannot  have  citizenship  because  ecosystems  neither   respect  nor  acknowledge  governments,  borders,  or  “citizens.”  Legal  performances   require  the  Human  extension  of  metaphor  to  understand  nonhuman  performance  in   hybrid  networks.  Asian  carp  weakens  linkages  between  people  and  nonhumans  that   assemble  to  produce  networks  that  reinforce  the  structure  of  spaces  in  which   citizens  perform  their  sense  of  native  American-­‐ness  or  Canadian-­‐ness.  Threats   occur  as  realized  or  perceived  breakdown  of  national  borders  due  to  the  illegal   movement  of  foreigners  across  the  border.  In  legal  practice  the  carp  threatens   American  and  Canadian  lifeways  because  of  its  propensity  for  violence,  competitive         79       breeding  and  refusal  to  assimilate  into  the  natural  order  of  things.3  These   characteristics  should  sounds  familiar  because  they  are  the  same  descriptors  that   anti-­‐immigration  groups  use  to  describe  non-­‐natives  who  they  perceive  as   responsible  for  a  host  of  socioeconomic  problems  that  include  but  are  not  limited  to   poverty,  inner  city  crime,  and  environmental  degradation  (Coates,  2006).  As  a   means  of  mitigating  undesirable  immigration,  the  U.S.  government  has  sought  legal   remedies.     There  are  roughly  thirty  laws  that  deal  with  exotic  species  in  some  capacity.   Each  law  individually  and  collectively  affects  how  Asian  carp  is  performed  to   produce  an  invasive  identity.  We  might  consider  Executive  Order  13112  on  Invasive   Species,  which  was  signed  by  President  Clinton  in  1999  as  creating  a  certain   understanding  of  Asian  carp.  First,  it  nullified  a  pre-­‐existing  executive  order  issued   by  President  Carter,  which  banned  introducing  invasive  species.  Introduction  was   defined  as  “the  release,  escape,  or  establishment  of  an  exotic  species  into  a  natural   ecosystem;”  exotic  species  were  understood  to  be  “all  species  of  plants  and  animals   not  naturally  occurring,  either  presently  or  historically,  in  any  ecosystem  of  the   United  States;”  and  native  species  meant  “all  species  of  plants  and  animals  naturally   occurring,  either  presently  or  historically,  in  any  ecosystem  of  the  Untied  States”   (Executive  Order  No.  11,987,  1977).                                                                                                                     3  Violence  can  be  understood  in  multiple  ways.  There  is  economic  violence  that   potentially  threatens  businesses  tied  to  the  Great  Lakes.  Humans  are  the  direct   targets  of  silver  carp  who,  when  agitated  by  the  sound  of  boat  motors,  jump  out  of   water  and  strike  boaters.    Other  animals  are  also  the  indirect  targets  of  violence  as   Asian  carp  are  thought  to  outcompete  them  in  consumption  of  limited  food   resources.         80       It  is  important  to  note  that  President  Carter’s  Order  did  not  apply  to  the   introduction  of  exotic  species  in  the  event  that  either  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  or   the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  found  that  introduction  would  bear  no  adverse  effect  on   natural  ecosystems.  This  had  no  affect  on  carp  as  they  were  still  viewed  as  more   useful  than  an  economic  bane.  Carter’s  intent  was  to  minimize  the  economic  effects   exotic  species  would  have  on  the  US.  Clinton’s  Order  removed  economic  indicators   as  the  sole  determining  factor,  as  it  regarded  all  species  as  having  the  potential  of   invasibility  not  just  native  species.  Native  was  a  designation  provided  only  to  those   species  that  were  never  introduced  into  U.S.  ecosystems.  Furthermore,  the  order   defined  invasive  species  as  alien  species  whose  “seeds,  eggs,  spores,  or  other   biological  material  [are]  capable  of  propagating  that  species,  that  is  not  native  to   that  ecosystem  […and]  whose  introduction  does  or  is  likely  to  cause  economic  or   environmental  harm  or  harm  to  human  health”  (Executive  Order  No.  13,112,  1999).   More  importantly,  the  Order  created  and  solidified  relationships  between  species   and  people  by  providing  a  list  of  stakeholders  and  delegating  powers  to  federal   government  bodies.     These  human  actors  were  listed  as  “State,  tribal,  and  local  government   agencies,  academic  institutions,  the  scientific  community,  nongovernmental  entities   including  environmental,  agricultural,  and  conservation  organizations,  trade  groups,   commercial  interests,  and  private  landowners.”  Specifically,  it  enrolled  20  federal   agencies,  which  included  the  Department  of  Defense,  and  created  the  National   Invasive  Species  Council  (NISC)  in  order  to  monitor  impact,  make  recommendations   for  preventing  continued  migration  and  coordinate  efforts  among  government         81       agencies  (U.S.  General  Accounting  Office,  2002).  Under  these  conditions,  Asian  carp   became  invasive  not  simply  based  upon  its  activity,  but  in  fact  its  appearance  in  the   US.  The  act  made  possible  a  definition  that  allowed  for  other  actors  to  come  together   in  order  to  mobilize  against  carp.  This  is  just  one  example  of  how  a  text,  as  an  actor,   enrolls  others  and  affects  how  we  understand  carp  and  perform  around  the  species.       Figure  2.  Political  cartoon:  “Which  foreigner  is  a  real  threat  to  our  way  of  life?”   Another  political  cartoon  that  makes  use  of  not  only  race  but  also  popular  notions  of   how  foreigners  participate  within  the  economy.  For  interpretation  of  the  references   to  color  in  this  and  all  other  figures,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  electronic  version  of   this  dissertation.     Asian  carp  as  an  economically  invasive  construction     Carp  like  most  invasive  species  manifest  as  economic  performances.  I   provided  a  sample  of  one  economic  concern  in  the  previous  chapter  and  alluded  to   an  economic  relationship  between  catfish  and  Asian  carp  in  matters  of  concern  that   emerge  out  of  scientific  classification  schemas.  Here  I  offer  another  example.  On         82       November  3,  2005,  the  U.S.  House  of  Representatives  Subcommittee  on  Fisheries   and  Oceans  Oversight  held  a  hearing  on  the  “Growing  Problem  of  Invasive  Asian   Carp  in  the  Great  Lakes  and  Mississippi  River  System.”  The  hearing  assembled   officials  from  the  aquaculture  industry  to  independent  researchers.  Each  of  these   groups  came  to  offer  their  opinions  on  the  economic  effects  of  bighead  and  black   carps’  presence.  As  noted  earlier,  farmed  bighead  carp  are  economically  valuable   when  linked  to  foreign  markets  for  sale  and  consumption.  They  also  prove  valuable   when  they  are  enrolled  in  networks  that  include  catfish.  For  example,  Executive   Vice-­‐President  for  Catfish  Farmers  of  America  Hugh  Warren  (2005)  wrote:   Bighead  carp  constitute  an  important  aquaculture  enterprise  in  the   mid-­‐south.  Bighead  carp  are  grown  together  with  channel  catfish  in   ponds,  harvested  separately  from  the  catfish,  and  then  transported   alive  to  markets  in  the  northern  United  States  and  Canada.  This  can  be   an  important  source  of  revenue  for  fish  farmers  during  times  of  low   catfish  prices.     Catfish  farmers  decided  to  import  bighead  carp  to  eat  unwanted  elements  found  in   aquaculture  tanks  in  the  late  1970s.  The  relationship  between  bighead  carp  and   catfish  was  simple:  Carp,  a  voracious  filter  feeder,  consumed  blue-­‐green  algae  and   zooplankton  in  tanks  produced  by  catfish  activity;  and  catfish  subsequently  had   clean  and  livable  habitats  to  thrive.  But  it  was  not  just  bighead  carp  that  proved   economically  valuable.  Black  carp  were  also  employed  as  biological  control  agents   for  zebra  mussels  and  snails  that  served  as  hosts  for  parasites  that  are  known  for   killing  juvenile  fish  and  causing  disease  in  adult  populations  of  catfish,  hybrid   striped  bass,  and  baitfish  (Conover,  Simmonds,  and  Whalen,  2007;  Venable  et  al.   2000).  In  fact,  catfish  farmers  readily  stocked  triploid  black  carp  in  ponds  and  tanks   to  control  trematode  infections.    Furthermore,  black  carp  were  also  prized  for  their         83       ability  to  control  the  yellow  grub  parasite,  which  distinctively  affects  hybrid  striped   bass.  The  proposed  transportation  ban  of  each  carp  species  was  believed  to  lead  to   not  only  the  closure  of  farms  but  also  a  loss  of  $150  million  per  annum  and  a  loss  of   jobs  (Warren,  2005).  Some  estimates  projected  a  decrease  in  profits  by  41%,  36%,   31%  on  small,  medium-­‐sized,  and  large  hybrid  striped  bass  farms,  respectively.   These  projections  also  followed  a  University  of  Mississippi  study  that  linked   trematode  infections  to  an  annual  loss  of  $72  million  in  catfish  production  (Wui  and   Engle,  2004).     The  introduction  of  these  species  created  a  network  that  incorporated   university  research  facilities,  federal  and  state  agencies,  and  private  aquaculture   operations  that  rendered  carp  a  nonnative  helper  species  and  branded  as  invasive   attempts  to  redefine  carps’  subjectivity.  The  problem  for  aquaculturists  was  the   conflation  between  silver  carp  and  other  Asian  carp  species.    Industry  officials   charged  that  media  accounts  often  confused  some  carp  species,  particularly  bighead,   with  silver  carp.  The  press  has  often  failed  to  make  a  distinction  between  reports  of   carp  jumping  out  of  water  and  injuring  boaters  from  carp  raised  in  fish  farms.   Reports  from  media  outlets  led  people  to  believe  that  there  was  very  little  difference   between  carp  species.  They  all  made  their  way  into  the  Mississippi  River  from  farms   and  they  all  posed  a  threat.  Yet,  as  Warren  (2005)  noted,  “There  has  been  little   aquaculture  of  silver  carp  in  the  U.S.  in  the  last  20  years  due  to  the  difficulty  in   handling  and  transport  and  no  market  demand.”  This  articulation  of  a  single   economic  danger  of  carp  signals  that  from  the  perspective  of  those  in  aquaculture   (and  their  opponents)  what  christens  bighead  and  black  carp  as  invasive  have  little         84       to  do  with  the  fish  themselves  and  more  to  do  with  others’  associating  them  with  the   activities  of  silver  carp.  In  considering  carp’s  emergent  invasibility  one  must   consider,  it  is  never  a  single  species.  In  fact,  each  species  will  always  be  understood   only  in  the  contexts  of  other  carp  species—thus  bighead,  silver  or  black  carp  are   considered  invasive  by  network  association.     Numbers  make  Asian  carp  knowable  in  a  way  that  visualizes  invasion.  Lists   presenting  the  tonnage  of  dead  carp  resulting  from  a  targeted  fish  kill  serve  as   economic  performances  (Chick  and  Pegg  2001).  This  is  how  stakeholders  know  with   certainty  whether  they  are  winning  or  losing  against  the  invaders.    Numbers  also   manifest  in  the  form  of  maps  that  portray  spatial  distributions  of  known  invasive   spaces,  vectors  of  invasion,  and  regions  at  risk.  Some  maps  are  purely  hypothetical   as  they  make  use  of  the  best  evidence  available  to  offer  projections;  others  are   productions  of  relationships  between  carp  and  tracking  devices  (DeGrandchamp,   2003).  Whatever  form  they  assume,  these  nonhuman  actors  (or  calculating  devices)   often  serve  as  obligatory  passage  points  whose  statements  cannot  be  refuted.   Human  actors  enroll  them  into  their  fold.    Here  the  purpose  of  enrollment  is  to   design  networks  that  enact  carp  as  a  threat  against  carptologies  that  characterize   them  as  economically  valuable.     During  the  space  of  the  hearing  held  before  the  U.S.  House  Subcommittee  on   Fisheries  and  Oceans  Oversight  several  numbers  were  presented  as  a  means  of   heightening  carps’  threat.  There  were  architectonic  statements  such  as  the  “$116   billion-­‐a-­‐year  impact”  that  sportsfishing  has  on  the  national  economy  or  references   to  the  Great  Lakes  fishery,  which  records  revenue  of  more  than  “$7  billion  annually”         85       (Barnhart,  2005;  Robertson,  2005).  These  statements  are  representative  of   entangled  networks  of  value  across  multiple  scales.  They  are  performative  because   they  are  ontological  representations  of  the  identity  spaces  in  which  stakeholders   reside.  They  are  also  the  sinews  that  hold  different  worldviews  of  carp  together  (e.g.   recreational  boaters,  economists,  and  recreational  fishers)  to  render  a  single   network  that  makes  a  compelling  economic  case  as  to  why  Asian  carp  is  invasive   and  necessitates  an  immediate  response  to  address  the  matter  of  concern.     Asian  carp  acting  invasive   To  say  that  Asian  carp  are  performed  or  enacted  raises  a  problem.  As  Law   and  Mol  (2008)  write,  “The  English  language  makes  it  easy  to  write  sentences  that   are  active  or  sentences  that  are  passive.  But  writing  somewhere  in  between  ‘doing’   and  ‘being  done  to’  is  much  more  difficult”  (p.  66).  Carptologies  are  not  just  the   result  of  human  network  building.  Just  because  actors'  networked  performances   produce  multiple  ways  of  seeing  carps’  invasibility,  this  does  not  mean  that  carp  are   unacting  subjects.  They  do  act.  Still,  how  does  Asian  carp  agentively  aid  in  its  own   construction  as  an  invader  species?  I  have  listed  several  different  enactments  of   carp;  however,  carp  act  differently  with  each  of  these  performances.  In  fact,  a  more-­‐ than-­‐human  ontological  approach  necessitates  that  we  account  for  the  different   ways  carp  act  in  relation  to  the  ways  in  which  they  are  performed.     What  do  I  mean  by  this?  Consider  the  previous  example  concerning   economically  invasive  carp  on  the  catfish  farm.  Of  the  five  species  that  emerged  as   matters  of  concern,  grass  carp’s  ability  to  act  invasively  took  center  stage.  Grass  carp   like  other  carp  species  serve  as  “valuable  management  tools”  turned  actors  on  the         86       farm.  Grass  carp  collaborate  with  farmers  to  get  work  done.  They  spend  their  time   on  farms  removing  vegetation  and  detritus.  What  makes  them  so  useful  is  that  they   are  stocked  in  a  triploid  state.  Triploid  grass  carp  have  been  genetically  manipulated   to  have  three  sets  of  chromosomes  instead  of  the  normal  two.  This  process  sterilizes   the  fish,  thus  they  are  incapable  of  reproduction.  Fish  farmers  and  natural  resources   management  officials  rely  upon  this  process  as  an  important  precaution  just  in  case   stocked  fish  accidentally  enter  bodies  of  water  outside  controlled  settings.  Carp   must  reproduce  in  order  to  retain  their  title  as  economically  invasive  in  this  case.   The  sterilization  process  is  not  100  percent  effective.  There  have  been  reports  of   reproduction  among  grass  carp  thought  to  be  triploid.  Moreover,  there  is  no  way  to   easily  distinguish  between  sterile  and  viable  carp  (Robertson,  2005).  There  are   three  questions  worth  considering:  First,  are  grass  carp  really  undergoing   sterilization?  Next,  can  grass  carp  revert  from  triploid  back  to  their  diploid  status?   And  finally,  how  does  one  produce  certainty  in  an  uncertain  network?  It  is  not  as  if   grass  carp  communicate  their  intentions  or  coordinate  their  activities  with  us.  While   the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  service  does  not  dispute  that  sterilization  is  not  completely   effective,  they  have  pushed  back  against  claims  of  fish  changing  their  status   (Mudrak,  2011).  They  point  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  experimental  or   observational  data  that  exists  to  support  the  claim  of  fish  changing  their  status.  In   fact,  they  point  to  studies  that  downplay  risks  associated  with  grass  carp  (Fuller   2003;  Tillitt,  2003).  Still,  the  uncertainty  of  human  actions  coupled  with  the   uncertainty  of  nonhuman  acting  naturally—or  invasively—help  to  make  carp   invasive.           87       Conclusion:  Making  ontology   When  I  started  this  chapter  I  noted  that  my  purpose  was  to  outline  different   enactments  of  Asian  carp  that  point  to  their  emerging  invasibility  in  disparate  ways.   What  I  did  not  mention  is  that  this  dissertation  also  serves  as  a  performance  of  carp.   There  has  to  be  some  form  of  reflexivity  that  comes  with  engaging  complexity.  If  we   agree  that  discourses  run  through  humans  and  nonhumans  alike,  can  we  assume   that  a  researcher  on  site  is  unaffected?  Law  (2002)  asked  that  we  make   considerations  as  to  what  affect  the  “personal”  has  within  our  work.  Specifically  he   wrote,  “If  we  are  constituted  as  knowing  subjects,  interpellated,  in  ways  that  we  do   not  tell,  then  what  are  we  doing?  What  are  we  telling?  What  are  we  making  of  our   objects  of  study?  Or,  perhaps  better,  what  are  they  making  of  us?”  (64).  In  talking   about  his  research  on  the  TSR2  aircraft,  Law  addresses  a  predicament  that  many  in   technoscience  studies  often  press  against  as  they  write  accounts—what  is  the  role  of   the  “personal?”  Discourses  run  through  non/humans  alike;  and  since  this  is  already   recognized  by  semiotics  which  is  “the  study  of  relations,  including  the  relational   formation  of  the  distribution  between  the  knowing  subject  and  the  object  that  is   known,”  then  we  should  readily  assume  that  the  subject  writing  an  account  about   relations  is  interpellated  some  way  into  those  discourses  (49).     In  his  research  on  headhunting  in  Ilongot  culture,  Rosaldo  (1993)  made  the   case  as  to  why  contemporary  anthropology  should  do  away  with  classical   ethnographies  and  their  belief  in  detached  observation.  The  removal  of  the   “personal”  has  reduced  anthropologists’  ability  to  understand  and  represent  aspects   of  culture.  In  fact,  Rosaldo  acknowledges  that  it  is  an  absence  of  emotion  on  the         88       ethnographer’s  part  that  has  reduced  our  ability  to  understand  headhunting  as  an   act  of  rage  tied  to  processes  of  grieving  rather  than  simply  being  a  ritual.  It  took  the   death  of  his  wife  and  the  ensuing  grief/rage  for  Rosaldo  to  connect  to  what  the   Ilongots  had  been  telling  him  about  headhunting  throughout  the  years.  Still,  what   his  case  highlights  with  respect  to  the  researcher  documenting  complexity  is  that   sometimes  our  analytical  tools  have  the  potential  to  mask  certain  aspects  of  culture.   Therefore,  we  need  to  attend  to  the  ways  in  which  our  tools  remove  aspects  of  our   bodies  when  documenting  complexity,  because  such  removal  affects  how  we  see.   We  also  should  be  willing  to  tell  the  ways  our  bodies  are  made  (and  perform   making)  in  relation  to  our  objects/subjects  of  study.     My  fascination  with  invasive  species  actually  started  almost  ten  years  ago   during  my  senior  year  of  high  school.  For  four  years  I  participated  in  Envirothon,   which  is  a  national  high  school  science  competition  geared  at  building  an  interest  in   environmental  and  biological  sciences  among  high  school  students.  The  topics  of   focus  include  aquatic  ecology,  soils  and  land  use,  forestry,  wildlife  and  special  topics   (e.g.  urban  nonpoint  source  pollution,  protection  of  cultural  natural  resources,   wildfire  management).  Activities  ranged  from  measuring  the  dissolved  oxygen   content  of  water  to  identifying  animals  by  their  scat  and  tracks.  During  my  last  year   of  high  school,  “introduced  species  and  their  effect  on  biodiversity”  (or  “invasive   species)  was  chosen  as  the  special  topic.  I  have  been  fascinated  with  invasive   species  ever  since.  Even  outside  of  my  high  school  experience  with  invasive  species,   this  dissertation  makes  carp  and  my  identity  in  other  ways.  In  researching  and   writing,  I  try  to  remain  as  neutral  as  possible;  however,  this  does  not  mean  that  I  do         89       not  have  an  opinion.  Moreover,  it  also  does  not  mean  that  people  see  my  research   and  me  as  being  neutral.  Some  presume  that  I  have  an  agenda  aligned  with  those   who  want  to  ecologically  separate  the  Great  Lakes  from  the  Chicago  Waterway   System;  others  see  rhetorically  investigating  Asian  carp’s  construction  as  a   dangerous  political  activity  that  rejects  science.  And  some  think  this  project  is  just   ridiculous.  Whatever  their  position,  no  one  ever  asks  me  what  I  think  about  Asian   carp.  Still,  my  readings  and  interactions  affect  how  I  see  and  write  about  the  world.  I   am  unsure  about  how  I  feel  about  Asian  carp  at  this  point.  This  ambivalence  is   largely  due  to  my  attending  to  the  complexity  of  carp’s  ontological  status.  In  fact,   seeing  multiple  only  emphasizes  the  fact  that  any  policy  decision  on  Asian  carp   requires  hybrid  forums  that  gather  multiple  ways  of  seeing  carp.  I  address  this  issue   of  making  meaningful  use  of  multiple  relations  in  the  concluding  chapter.     In  the  next  chapter,  I  trace  the  ways  in  which  the  Lacey  Act  influences  actors’   constructing  spaces  of  dependence  and  engagement.  To  explore  the  creation  of   space,  I  assembled  a  case  study  using  letters  written  to  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife   Service  and  interviews  with  officials  from  governmental  and  non-­‐governmental   institutions.  These  letters  were  written  in  response  to  three  public  commenting   periods  regarding  the  listing  of  bighead,  silver  and  large-­‐scale  silver  carp  as   invasive.  I  used  the  letters  and  conversations  to  map  ontological  positions  that   reveal  relationships  between  human  and  nonhuman  actors  and  revolve  around   concerns  for  economies,  human  safety,  environmental  health,  and  cultural   preservation.  While  the  maps  illustrate  how  relations  determine  identities  for  carp         90       and  humans,  they  also  indicate  spaces  wherein  environmental  policy-­‐makers  might   re-­‐think  the  design  of  policies  that  govern  deliberative  civic  engagement.                                                   91         Prologue   CHAPTER  5.  (IL)LEGAL  ACTS:     RULEMAKING  AND  RULEBREAKING     I  open  with  a  simple  corollary:  all  rhetoric  emerges  from  and  relates  to   environment.  Eves  (2012)  noted  material  and  conceptual  places  and  their  attendant   rhetorics  factor  heavily  in  the  creation  of  concord  and  controversy  in  matters  of   public  deliberation.  Accordingly,  “rhetorical  persuasion  (the  move  toward  concord)   cannot  take  place  without  some  sort  of  shared  material  space”  (Eves,  2012,  p.  265).   Often  space  assumes  the  form  of  material  and  intangible  sites  that  occur  along  a   variety  of  scales.  For  example,  computer  technologies  present  a  series  of  layered   spaces.  There  are  the  physical  architectural  and  infrastructural  forms  that  come   with  keyboards  and  screens.  There  are  also  the  conceptual  networked-­‐information   spaces  such  as  the  Internet  or  interfaces  where  a  participant  engages  with  data.   Whether  we  see  them  as  detached  or  linked,  their  design  facilitates  and  hampers   activity.  We  might  consider  as  an  example  Selfe  and  Selfe’s  (1994)  warning  of  how   software  applications  often  come  with  embedded  politics  that  negatively  structure   user  experiences  within  and  outside  of  virtual  environments.  Here  I  am  interested  in   the  design  of  technical  spaces,  whether  they  be  laboratory  environments  or  words   on  a  page,  and  what  concerns  for  space  mean  in  public  deliberation  of   environmental  issues.       Spaces  in  the  physical  world  unfold  onto  each  other  much  in  the  same  way   that  a  virtual  space  like  PowerPoint  maps  onto  the  space  of  the  classroom.  Yet,  there   is  neither  a  tangible  way  to  order  how  these  spaces  relate  to  each  other  nor  can  we   say  that  one  space  has  more  influence  upon  transpiring  activity  than  the  other.  In         92       thinking  about  how  spaces  are  layered  in  this  manner,  I  am  connecting  to  several   scholars  who  have  presented  horizontal  movement  and  networks  as  an  alternative   means  of  thinking  about  spatial  relations.  Latour  (1997)  found  much  interest  in   networks  because  their  “simple  properties”  allow  us  to  “get  rid  of  the  tyranny  of   distance”  (proximity),  “dissolve  micro-­‐macro  distinction[s]”  (size/scale),  and  like   Deleuze  (1994),  force  us  to  see  that  “a  network  is  all  boundary”  as  they  lack  the   spatial  distinction  of  interiority  or  exteriority  (inside/outside).  More  recently,   Schatzki  (2002)  called  for  us  to  regard  sites  as  occurrences  created  via  event   relations,  which  appear  as  agents’  activities  assemble  in  a  “cluster.”  Seeing  sites  as   layered  in  this  manner  is  a  way  of  understanding  how  “a  social  site  is  not  roped  off,   but  rather  that  it  inhabits  a  ‘neighbourhood’  (sic)  of  practices,  events  and  orders   that  are  folded  variously  into  other  unfolding  sites”  (Marston  et  al.,  2005  p.  426;  see   also  Delanda,  2006  for  another  take  on  social  complexity  and  assembly).  We  have  to   be  willing  to  see  how  activities  in  one  site  connect  to  those  of  another  without   readily  assuming  that  one  site  has  more  agency  than  the  other  or  is  more   independent.  This  is  easier  said  than  done  in  environmental  politics.  As  I  mentioned   in  Chapter  3,  for  many  reasons  sites  are  seen  as  disparate  and  disconnected   between  stakeholders.  The  real  rhetorical  work  comes  in  finding  commonalities   between  them  or  bridging  spaces.     In  this  chapter,  I  offer  a  story  of  bighead  carp.  I  focus  on  the  design  of  a  legal   document  and  how  its  design  helps  to  produce  two  carptologies.  Of  course  there  are   other  worlds  at-­‐play,  but  I  am  just  going  to  focus  on  two  within  the  larger  ecology  of   a  text  in  order  to  produce  an  account.  A  text  has  material  properties,  but  it  also         93       contains  many  nonmaterial  elements  (e.g.  words,  sentences,  chapters)  that   structure  the  ways  actors  perform.  Texts  perform  rhetorics  and  create  worlds.   Callon  (2002)  presented  writing  devices  as  critical  in  assembling  organizations,   "constructing  and  objectifying  services,  their  consumers,  and,  more  broadly,  the   collective  actions  that  make  it  possible  to  deliver  services"  (199).  In  short,  he   provides  an  approach  to  ontology  wherein  writing  devices  lie  at  the  "center"  as   integral  components  of  how  and  when  infrastructures  assemble.  While  human  actors   are  often  credited  with  inoculating  these  devices  with  their  own  ideologies  and   purposes,  these  nonhuman  actors  assume  lives  of  their  own.  This  raises  two  salient   questions:  1)  when  it  comes  to  collective  action  within  networks,  what  is  the   relationship  of  a  writing  device  as  an  individual  to  the  larger  coordinated  actions  (or   goals)  of  other  actors  that  form  the  collective?  And  2)  if  a  writing  device  can  be  said   to  act  in  rhetorical  ways  then  what  considerations  must  we,  as  sponsors,  make   during  the  activity  of  writing  before  dissemination?     I  answer  these  questions  by  tracing  the  processes  that  confer  to  bighead  carp   a  legal  invader  status.  The  central  questions  here  regard  when  does  bighead  carp   become  invasive,  who  is  responsible  for  such  a  declaration,  and  who  facilitated  the   invasion?  Specifically,  I  trace  the  ways  in  which  the  Lacey  Act  makes  spaces  of   dependence,  which  allow  actors  to  focus  on  the  conditions  of  their  own  material   well-­‐being  with  little-­‐to-­‐no  regard  for  others.  To  explore  the  creation  of  space  in  a   complex  environmental  problem,  I  assembled  a  case  study  using  congressional   testimony,  letters  written  to  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  (Service),  and   interviews  with  officials  from  government  and  non-­‐governmental  institutions.  I         94       used  the  letters  and  conversations  to  construct  socio-­‐technical  maps  that  revealed   relationships  between  human  and  nonhuman  actors  that  revolve  around  concerns   for  economies,  human  safety,  environmental  health,  and  cultural  preservation.   While  the  maps  illustrate  how  relations  determine  identities  for  carp  and  humans,   they  also  indicate  spaces  wherein  environmental  policy-­‐makers  might  re-­‐think  the   design  of  policies  that  fuel  deliberative  civic  engagement.       I  must  reiterate  that  I  am  providing  a  fraction  of  an  ontological  universe.  I   had  to  pick  a  point  in  time  from  where  I  could  tell  a  coherent  story  and  make  sense   of  how  bighead  carp  is  made.  The  archival  paper  trail  in  this  chapter  ends  in   December  18,  2003  (the  date  of  the  last  letter  submitted  to  the  Service);  however,   some  might  say  that  bighead  carp  did  not  legally  become  invasive  until  the  United   States  Congress  circumvented  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  (Service)  and  passed  the   Asian  Carp  Control  Act  2010.  I  have  also  make  the  decision  to  start  the  chapter  in   February  2012  with  one  of  my  initial  round  of  interviews,  but  I  venture  in  time  as   far  as  1900.  There  are  scenes  and  actors  that  compose  this  legislative  process,  which   I  have  omitted  or  do  not  develop  for  considerations  of  length  and  “neatness.”   Ontological  work  is  messy.  For  example,  parts  of  this  drama  map  onto  the  stories  of   silver  and  black  carp.  The  interconnectivity  of  these  stories  matter  to  actors  as  they   assemble  networks  that  give  meaning  to  bighead  carp.  Therefore,  this  story  is   neither  authoritative  nor  representative  of  a  single  reality,  but  multiple.  What   matters  here  is  it  offers  a  window  into  seeing  the  emergence  of  nascent  worlds— formations  of  ontologies,  if  you  will.  Nevertheless,  I  tried  to  leave  intact  some         95       architectonic  statements  that  would  allow  me  the  ability  to  trace  associations  in   order  to  provide  an  account  of  how  bighead  carp  is  said  to  have  become  invasive.   Dramatis  personae     Subjects  are  not  entities  onto  themselves  but  rather  accumulations  of   multiple  acting  and  acted  upon  subjects,  assemblages  if  you  will.  This  means  that   our  approach  to  understanding  environmental  controversies  via  the  relationship   between  identity  and  space  requires  a  movement  from  the  idea  of  a  subject  to  a  de-­ centered  subject.  One  way  to  counter  fixity  has  been  to  rely  upon  the  notions  of   movement  and  travel  (Lowe,  1996;  Pezzulo,  2009;  Whatmore,  2001).  I  understand   travel  as  being  both  a  physical  and/or  epistemological  activity  tied  to  conceptions  of   realities.  Travel  is  the  way  we  shuttle  between  spaces  to  perform  our  identities  and   build  understandings  relative  to  the  positions  of  others.  Here  I  am  once  again   making  use  of  the  metaphor  of  feeling  “in/out  of  place”  to  denote  the  strong  ties   between  who  we  are  and  where  we  are  located.  We  make  ourselves  and  things  from   locations.  Therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  think  of  place-­‐making  without  people-­‐ making  when  you  take  into  account  the  sacred  rhetorical  triad  of  identity,  place  and   power.  Still,  there  is  a  problem  with  the  idea  of  travel  because  very  little  has  been   accomplished  to  think  about  the  structures  that  make  mobility  difficult.  Therefore,   in  providing  this  cast  of  characters,  I  would  like  you  to  keep  in  mind  the  socio-­‐ material  complexities  that  frame  each  actor’s  performance.  As  stated  in  Chapter  3,   actors  may  share  network  elements  in  their  assemblies;  however,  what  is  an   advantage  to  one  may  prove  an  impediment  for  another.           96       The  characters  in  this  story  are  many  (see  Appendices  D-­‐I).  The  cast  includes   but  is  not  limited  to  fish  farmers,  state  and  government  agencies,  trade  associations,   citizen  scientists,  Asian  carp  species  (silver,  bighead,  grass,  and  black)  and  writing   devices  (Lacey  Act  of  1900,  notices  of  inquiry,  and  letters,  etc.).  Their  concerns  vary   with  great  complexity,  but  all  center  on  three  questions:  1)  what  should  be  the  legal   status  of  bighead  carp?  (Specifically,  should  we  list  this  species  as  invasive  under  the   Lacey  Act?);  2)  how  do  we  determine  this  legal  status?;  And  3)  when  can  we   establish  this  status?     Dramatis  personae  (selected  actors)       DJS,  a  researcher                   Bernard  Hansen               Document  No.  03-­‐23745,  a  notice  of  inquiry       John  F.  Lacey                 The  Lacey  Act                 Silver  carp                 Mike  Freeze                 MH,  a  representative  from  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service           This  is  a  legal  story  of  bighead  carp.                             97     David  McLeish   B.  Sachau   U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service   44  letters     Bighead  carp   John  D.  Hoskins     Dr.  John  Teem               Act  I     Act  I.  Scene  I.       SETTING:  East  Lansing,  MI.  Starbucks.  Fall  2012.       Microsoft  word  is  open.  Donnie  sits  at  his  desk  with  a  hot  cup  of  coffee.  There  is  a   tennis  match  on  the  television  in  the  background.  He  writes  an  account  of  how  bighead   carp  are  legally  made  invasive.     DJS:     We  can  also  see  invasive  species  as  the  result  of  legislative  processes  that   involve  the  synchronized  mobilization  of  political  entities,  which  exist  on  federal,   regional,  state  and  local  levels  of  scale.  In  fact,  the  most  activity  has  occurred  on  the   federal  level  through  the  Congress,  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service,  the  Army  Corps   of  Engineers,  the  Office  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  Supreme  Court.   Actors  on  the  federal  level  are  tasked  with  passing  legislation  and  coordinating   activities  between  local,  regional  and  state  governmental  bodies.  Political  entities   acting  within  and  beyond  the  federal  level  can  be  described  as  either  governmental   or  non-­‐governmental  organization.  These  include  regulatory  agencies  such  as  states’   Department  of  Natural  Resources,  attorney  generals,  legislative  assemblies  and   governors  that  exist  here  in  the  United  States  (primarily  upper-­‐Midwest)  and  in  the   Canadian  provinces  that  border  the  Great  Lakes.  Non-­‐governmental  organizations   include  conservations  such  as  the  Alliance  for  the  Great  Lakes,  American  Rivers,  the   Natural  Resource  Defense  Council  and  members  of  the  business  community  such  as,   the  Illinois  Black  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  Missouri  Dairy  Association  and   American  Water  Operators.         98       One  way  of  making  invasive  species  in  the  US  is  rulemaking.  Rulemaking  is   an  assemblage  of  many  activities,  people,  documents,  laboratory  procedures,  and   events  (to  name  a  few)  that  are  scattered  across  multiple  locations.  Its  primary   purpose  is  a  regulatory  effect.  Rulemaking  makes  regulations  not  laws  (USFWS,   2009).  A  regulation  is  either  a  requirement  or  set  of  requirements  that  are  put  forth   by  federal  agencies.  A  regulation  is  intended  to  have  the  effect  of  a  law,  but  it  is  not  a   law.  Congress  passes  legislation  that  authorizes  regulations  and  the  President  signs   regulations  into  law.  On  a  daily  basis  the  Office  of  the  Federal  Register  (housed   within  the  National  Archives  and  Records  Administration)  publishes  regulations  in  a   running  document  known  as  the  Federal  Register  (FR).  FR  is  the  official  journal  of   the  federal  government  of  the  United  States.  Annually,  all  the  regulations  published   in  a  given  year  are  codified  in  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  (CFR).  The  following  is   an  excerpt  from  CFR:     The  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  (Service)  adds  the  bighead  carp   (Hypophthalmichthys  nobilis),  a  large  fish  native  to  eastern  Asia,  to  the   list  of  injurious  fish,  mollusks,  and  crustaceans.  The  importation  into   the  United  States  and  interstate  transportation  between  States,  the   District  of  Columbia,  the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico,  or  any   territory  or  possession  of  the  United  States  of  all  forms  of  live  bighead   carp,  gametes,  viable  eggs,  and  hybrids  thereof  is  prohibited,  except   by  permit  for  zoological,  education,  medical,  or  scientific  purposes  (in   accordance  with  permit  regulation  at  50  CFR  16.22)  or  by  Federal   agencies  without  a  permit  solely  for  their  own  use.     This  abstracted  architectonic  statement  does  several  things.  It  lists  actors  of   importance;  it  names  spaces;  and  it  dis/connects  spaces  and  actors.  If  we  want  to   know  how  bighead  carp  became  legally  invasive,  we  have  to  move  backward  from   this  statement  (from  the  document)  and  trace  the  long  line  of  assemblies  that         99       authorize  its  existence.  This  necessitates  locating  the  source(s)—the  entities   responsible  for  publication  and  authorization.     My  trace  began  with  the  Service,  which  is  the  body  responsible  for  publishing   notices  regarding  invasive  species  in  FR.  Rulemaking  involves  a  series  of  notices— notices  of  inquiry,  notices  of  proposed  rules,  and  notices  of  final  rules.  Publication  of   each  of  these  notices  are  followed  by  more  writing  devices,  which  are  mostly  letters   but  also  statistical  analysts,  news  releases,  bibliographies,  and  scholarly   publications,  to  name  a  few.  In  order  to  get  a  sense  of  the  process,  I  conducted  an   interview  with  an  official  from  the  Service  who  I  will  refer  to  as  “MH.”  The  purpose   of  our  interview  was  to  get  a  sense  of  the  rulemaking  process  with  respect  to  types   of  solicited  information  and  how  the  service  uses  information  during  their   deliberations.  During  our  discussion  MH  noted  that  they  look  for  “more  science-­‐ based/technical-­‐based  information”  that  would  help  them  evaluate  issues  such  as   ecological  separation  and  the  impact  of  either  bighead  or  silver  carp  on  the  Great   Lakes  or  Mississippi  River  Basin.  One  aspect  that  was  clear  throughout  the  interview   was  that  the  Service  neither  actively  sought  economic  data  nor  went  out  of  their   way  to  consult  business  interests.  In  fact,  part  of  our  conversation  centered  on  the   2003  Aquatic  Invasive  Species  Summit  Proceedings  Conference  that  the  Service   sponsored  with  other  entities.  These  entities  included  representatives  on  behalf  of   the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  and  the  City  of  Chicago.  In  addition,   members  of  the  scientific  community  from  within  the  US  and  abroad  were  also  in   attendance.  The  Illinois  Chamber  of  Commerce,  however,  was  not  a  part  of  the   summit.           100       “We  were  looking  for  science-­‐based  input  at  arriving  at  solutions  to  the  issue   of  exchange  of  invasive  species  between  the  Great  Lakes  and  Mississippi  Basin,”  MH   said  when  I  inquired  as  to  why  the  meeting  excluded  economic  interests.  Still,  this   statement,  which  helped  to  define  the  reality  of  invasive  species  for  the  Service,   conflicts  with  the  fact  that  he  often  stated  that  the  issue  of  invasive  species  is  one  of   complexity  that  requires  a  robust  set  of  solutions  in  order  to  mitigate  negative   effects.  The  summit  produced  four  recommended  action  items  that  were  supposed   to  “deal  with  the  intricacies”  of  the  Chicago  Waterway  System.  All  of  these  solutions   were  science-­‐based  interventions.  Here  we  have  an  emergence  of  a  world  from  the   standpoint  of  the  Service.  Scientific  units  materialize  as  authorities  in  defining   invasive  actors  and  determining  how  to  deal  with  them.  Economic  analyses  are   appreciated,  but  factor  very  little.  Here  the  chief  rhetorical  constraints  in  assembling   and  maintaining  a  space  of  dependence  are  rhetorical  constructions  of  a  public  that   the  Service  is  answerable  to.  According  to  MH,  the  Service  understands  the  public  as   being  “stakeholders  that  are  interested  in  technical  problems  that  can  be  fixed  via   technical  solutions”  and  whose  primary  concerns  regard  “are  we  doing  enough  and   are  we  doing  it  fast  enough.”     Time  matters  a  great  deal.  In  fact,  while  the  Service  operates  from  a  scientific   sphere,  it  is  also  nested  within  the  space  of  the  federal  government,  whose   bureaucracy  (e.g.  paperwork,  statutes,  review  processes,  etc.)  limits  its  level  of   engagement  with  local,  state  and  regional  entities  outside  the  federal  government.   The  relationship  between  space  and  time  presents  the  question  of  whether  federal   intervention  through  rulemaking  is  an  effective  solution  or  whether  states  should         101       have  the  sole  power  to  make  invasive  species.  Here  the  guiding  document  that   governs  the  Service’s  activities  is  the  Lacey  Act.  “Our  Lacey  Act  is  cumbersome  and   slow,”  MH  noted  with  much  frustration.  “Our  process  for  listing  injurious  wildlife   under  the  Lacey  Act  takes  years.”  This  was  a  trend  that  I  noticed  across  all  of  my   preliminary  interviews.  Each  interview  in  some  form  raised  the  Lacey  Act  and  its   rulemaking  process  for  determining  and  listing  injurious  wildlife  as  a  matter  of   concern.  These  concerns  differed  among  stakeholders  with  respect  to  how  the   document  functions  in  relation  to  the  actions  and  actors  it  authorizes.  Therefore,  in   order  to  get  a  sense  of  how  this  writing  device  written  over  100  years  ago  affects   acting  in  the  present,  one  has  to  go  back  in  time.       Act  I.  Scene  II.       SETTING:  Washington,  D.C.  The  U.S.  House  of  Representatives.  Spring  1900.       The  House  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  having  under   consideration  the  bill  (H.R.  6634)  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  Department  of   Agriculture,  prohibit  the  transportation  by  interstate  commerce  of  game  killed  in   violation  of  local  laws,  and  for  other  purposes.  The  Hono.  John  F.  Lacey,  offers  a  speech   entitled,  “Let  Us  Save  the  Birds.”  (see  supplementary  appendix4  to  review  document   in  its  entirety)   Rep.  Lacey:  Mr.  Chairman,  This  bill  is  one  that  has  attracted  a  great  deal  of  interest   in  various  sections  of  the  country.  Horticulturists,  agriculturists,  and  lovers  of  birds   everywhere,  as  well  as  the  League  of  American  Sportsmen,  and  others  interested  in                                                                                                                   4  Due  to  the  Michigan  State  University  graduate  school’s  guidelines,  Appendix  E-­‐I   cannot  be  a  part  of  this  document  because  they  cannot  be  formatted  according  to   the  rubric.  If  you  would  like  to  have  access  to  these  documents,  please  contact  me  at   donniejsackey@gmail.com         102       game  and  the  protection  of  game  all  over  the  United  States,  have  been  strongly   enlisted  in  its  support.       Briefly,  the  bill  provides  for  a  few  purposes  only.  First,  it  authorizes  the  Secretary  of   Agriculture  to  utilize  his  department  for  reintroduction  of  birds  that  have  become   locally  extinct  or  are  being  so  in  some  parts  of  the  United  States.  There  are  some   kinds  of  insectivorous  birds  and  some  kinds  of  game  birds,  that  heretofore  were   abundant  in  may  localities,  which  have  become  very  scare  indeed,  and  in  some   localities  entirely  exterminated.  The  wild  pigeon,  formerly  in  this  country  in  flock  of   millions,  has  entirely  disappeared  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  Some  hopeful   enthusiasts  have  claimed  that  the  pigeon  would  again  be  heard  from  in  South   America,  but  there  seems  to  me  no  well  grounded  basis  for  this  hope.  In  some   localities  certain  kinds  of  grouse  have  almost  entirely  disappeared.  This  bill  gives   the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  power  to  aid  in  the  reintroduction,  which.  I  think,  will   prove  a  useful  adjunct  to  the  action  of  the  States  which  have  undertaken  the   preservation  of  the  native  wild  birds.       The  next  purpose  in  the  bill  is  to  allow  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to  control  the   importation  of  foreign  wild  birds  and  foreign  wild  animals.  If  this  law  had  been  in   force  at  the  time  the  mistake  was  made  in  the  introduction  of  the  English  sparrow,   we  should  have  been  spared  from  the  pestilential  existence  of  that  “rat  of  the  air,”   that  vermin  in  the  atmosphere…       Act  I.  Scene  III.       SETTING:  East  Lansing,  MI.  Wanderer’s  Teahouse.  Spring  2013.       Amid  the  bustling  noise  of  the  teahouse,  Donnie  addresses  the  Lacey  Act  and  the  actors   that  it  has  assembled  throughout  the  years.  He  details  how  it  performs  invasibility  and   establishes  spaces  for  actors.             DJS:     In  his  comments  to  the  House  floor,  Iowa  Congressman  John  F.  Lacey   introduced  the  Lacey  Act  of  1900.  The  act  reflected  Lacey’s  passion  for  game  birds  in   his  adopted  home  of  Iowa.  He  was  specifically  concerned  with  threats  to  native  bird   populations  that  came  through  excessive  hunting,  the  introduction  of  foreign   species,  and  millinery—an  industry  that  used  many  birds  to  make  hats  for  women   (Anderson,  1995).  The  Lacey  Act,  although  it  was  designed  to  both  protect  and   restore  native  avian  populations,  also  protected  other  animals  as  well.  It  was  a  bill         103       designed  to  support  agricultural  interests  by  protecting  those  species  that  were   seen  to  benefit  agriculture.  In  fact,  much  of  Lacey’s  speech  that  day  focused  on  how   threats  to  or  the  eradication  of  certain  species  had  brought  about  profound  impacts   on  U.S.  agriculture.  As  an  example  Lacey  cited  the  French  pink,  known  today  as  the   “French  broom,”  for  threatening  wheat  production  in  Oregon.  He  also  dedicated  a   large  amount  of  time  to  focus  on  the  issue  of  poaching.  The  original  act  sought  to   remedy  the  issue  of  trafficking  game  (“poaching”)  between  states.  States  had  limited   powers  to  control  the  number  of  game  killed  within  their  jurisdiction  that  were  then   brought  to  other  states.  In  fact,  hunters  either  would  often  kill  large  numbers  of   game  and  “fraudulently  mismarked  [goods]  to  avoid  detection”  as  they  transported   them  to  other  states  or  they  would  killed  game  during  a  state’s  closed  season  and   mark  the  game  as  if  they  came  from  another  state  (Anderson,  1995,  p  38).     Regardless  of  the  scenario  local  and  extra-­‐local  state  laws  were  powerless  to   prosecute  offenders  because  only  the  federal  government  holds  the  power  to   regulate  interstate  commerce.  The  act  has  been  amended  several  times  (1969,  1981,   1988,  2003  and  2008)  throughout  its  100-­‐year  history  to  extend  protection  to   amphibians,  crustaceans,  fish,  mollusks,  and  plant  and  plant  products.  Today  it  is   seen  as  the  nation’s  premier  defense  in  fighting  against  nonnative  species.  The   Secretary  of  the  Interior5  has  the  sole  authority  to  assert  species  as  “injurious  to   human  beings,  to  the  interests  of  agriculture,  horticulture,  forestry  or  to  wildlife  or   the  wildlife  resources  of  the  United  States”  (18  U.S.C.  §  42(a)(1)).  The  authority  for                                                                                                                   5  The  Department  of  Agriculture  formerly  housed  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey,   which  was  a  precursor  to  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wild  Life  Service.  The  Service  is  currently   housed  within  the  Department  of  Interior  and  carries  the  sole  responsibility  of   executing  the  Lacey  Act.             104       listing  is  conferred  upon  the  Service,  which  has  a  clear  procedure  for  listing  species   as  injurious  under  the  Lacey  Act.  The  Service  issues  a  public  notice  asking  for   information  to  determine  whether  the  species  is  injurious.  Once  it  has  acquired   enough  information  “it  will  issue  a  proposed  rule  and  conduct  a  notice  and  comment   proceeding  lasting  between  thirty  and  sixty  days  before  deciding  whether  to  issue  a   final  rule  listing  the  species  as  injurious”  (Boothe,  2008,  p.  415).  Violation  of  the  act   ranges  from  fines  to  prison  or  both.     The  Lacey  Act  both  performs  invasibility  and  creates  space  for  actors’   performances.  It  is  a  collection  of  statements  that  are  designed  to  stabilize  the   boundaries  between  nature  and  culture  in  order  to  preserve  culture.  In  addition  to   what  I  have  written  above,  the  act  lists  236  species  as  injurious  wildlife.  It  also   proffers  definitions  for  us  to  make  sense  of  others  and  ourselves  as  we  assemble   worlds:       As  used  in  this  subsection,  the  term  “wild”  relates  to  any  creatures   that,  whether  or  not  raised  in  captivity,  normally  are  found  in  a  wild   state;  and  the  terms  “wildlife”  and  “wildlife  resources”  include  those   resources  that  comprise  wild  mammals,  wild  birds,  fish  (including   mollusks  and  crustacea),  and  all  other  classes  of  wild  creatures   whatsoever,  and  all  types  of  aquatic  and  land  vegetation  upon  which   such  wildlife  resources  are  dependent.  (18  U.S.C.  §  42(a)(2))   The  term  "fish  or  wildlife"  means  any  wild  animal,  whether  alive  or   dead,  including  without  limitation  any  wild  mammal,  bird,  reptile,   amphibian,  fish,  mollusk,  crustacean,  arthropod,  coelenterate,  or  other   invertebrate,  whether  or  not  bred,  hatched,  or  born  in  captivity,  and   includes  any  part,  product,  egg,  or  offspring  thereof.  (16  U.S.C.  §   3371(a))     The  term  "person"  includes  any  individual,  partnership,  association,   corporation,  trust,  or  any  officer,  employee,  agent,  department,  or   instrumentality  of  the  Federal  Government  or  of  any  State  or  political   subdivision  thereof,  or  any  other  entity  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of   the  United  States.  (16  U.S.C.  §  3371(e))         105       In  addition  to  these  terms,  the  act  defines  import,  law,  plant/s,  prohibited  wildlife,   State,  taken,  and  transport.  Here  definition  works  to  demarcate  oppositional  worlds   and  spaces  between  human  and  nonhuman  actors.  Wild  is  in  opposition  to  domestic,   which  functions  along  a  long  chain  of  limiting  dichotomies  (e.g.  natural  vs.   unnatural,  nature  vs.  culture,  etc.)  that  structures  how  we  come  to  understand  the   natural  world.  The  discrimination  between  worlds  is  defined  almost  exclusively  by   physical  geography.  Still,  what  may  be  wild  or  uncontainable  in  one  region,  may  be  a   prized  resource  in  another  (e.g.  bighead  carp  in  the  Mississippi  River  vs.  bighead   carp  in  a  fish  farm).  Taxonomy  also  poses  a  quandary  when  we  consider  definitions   of  fish,  wildlife,  and  plant/s.  The  Lacey  Act  focuses  on  species  from  the  animal  and   plant  kingdoms.  What  are  we  to  do  in  the  case  of  Batrachochytrium  dendrobatidis,  an   invasive  chytrid  fungus  that  causes  the  disease  chytridiomycosis?  This  disease  has   been  responsible  for  dramatic  declines  and  extinctions  of  amphibian  populations   within  Australian,  the  Caribbean,  and  North,  South  and  Central  America.   Batrachochytrium  dendrobatidis,  however,  is  a  fungus  not  a  plant  or  animal.  The   Lacey  Act  only  allows  for  regulation  down  to  a  certain  taxa.  So  how  do  we  deal  with   Batrachochytrium  dendrobatidis?  It  only  makes  sense  to  ban  all  amphibians  that   carry  the  fungus  (78  FR  56975-­‐56976,  September  17,  2010)!     In  all  of  these  instances,  the  Lacy  Act  controls  the  relationship  between   subjectivity  and  space  by  linking,  creating,  and  authorizing  spaces,  actors,  and   activities.  “Injurious  wildlife”  are  not  permitted  to  be  imported  into  or  shipped   between  “the  United  States,  any  territory  of  the  United  States,  the  District  of   Columbia,  the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico,  or  any  possession  of  the  United         106       States”  unless  authorized  for  use  in  “zoological,  educational,  medical,  and  scientific”   spaces  pursuant  to  the  “continued  protection  of  the  public  interest  and  health”  (18   U.S.C.  §  42(a)(3)).  A  species  is  not  wild  or  injurious  if  its  transportation  networks   cannot  be  linked  to  the  US.  As  innocuous  as  some  of  these  terms  and  statements  may   seem,  they  each  advance  particular  interests  over  others.  Here  science  and   regulatory  agencies  have  interests  in  creating  and  maintaining  a  quasi-­‐  jus  solis   (“right  of  the  soil”)  and  jus  sanguinis  (“right  of  land”)  immigration  system  that   includes  a  pathway  to  biological  citizenship  for  some,  visas  for  others,  and  outright   entry  bans  for  a  few.  It  is  these  statements  that  the  Service  uses  to  guide  their   writing  of  notices  of  inquiry.         Act  I.  Scene  IV.       SETTING:  The  Federal  Register  –  The  Daily  Journal  of  the  United  States  Government.       July  23,  2003  –  September  22,  2003.       The  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  publishes  a  notice  of  inquiry.  They  seek  public  comment   on  silver  and  largescale  silver  carp  in  order  to  make  a  decision  on  whether  to  list  these   species  as  injurious  wildlife.  (see  supplementary  appendix  to  review  document  in  its   entirety)     Act  I.  Scene  V.       SETTING:  The  Federal  Register  –  The  Daily  Journal  of  the  United  States  Government.       September  17,  2003.       After  receiving  a  petition  from  25  politicians,  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  publishes   a  notice  of  inquiry.  They  seek  public  comment  on  bighead  carp  in  order  to  make  a         107       decision  on  whether  to  list  it  as  injurious  wildlife.  (see  supplementary  appendix  to   review  document  in  its  entirety)     Document  No.  03-­23745:  The  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  is  reviewing  available   economic  and  biological  information  on  bighead  carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  nobilis)   for  possible  addition  of  that  species  to  the  list  of  injurious  wildlife  under  the  Lacey   Act.  The  importation  and  introduction  of  bighead  carp  into  the  natural  ecosystems   of  the  United  States  may  pose  a  threat  to  agriculture,  horticulture,  forestry,  the   health  and  welfare  of  human  beings,  and  the  welfare  and  survival  of  wildlife  and   wildlife  resources  in  the  United  States.  Listing  bighead  carp  as  injurious  would   prohibit  their  importation  into,  or  transportation  between,  the  continental  United   States,  the  District  of  Columbia,  Hawaii,  the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico,  or  any   territory  or  possession  of  the  United  States,  with  limited  exceptions.  This  notice   seeks  comments  from  the  public  to  aid  in  determining  if  a  proposed  rule  is   warranted.     DATES:  Comments  must  be  submitted  on  or  before  November  17,  2003.     ADDRESSES:  Comments  may  be  mailed  or  sent  by  fax  to  the  Chief,  Division  of   Environmental  Quality,  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  4401  North  Fairfax  Drive,   Suite  322,  Arlington,  VA  22203;  fax  (703)  358-­‐1800.  You  may  send  comments  by   electronic  mail  (e-­‐mail)  to:  BigheadCarp@fws.gov.  See  the  Public  Comments   Solicited  section  below  for  file  format  and  other  information  about  electronic  filing.     SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:  On  October  16,  2002,  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife   Service  received  a  petition  requesting  that  bighead  carp,  black  carp,  and  silver  carp   be  considered  for  inclusion  in  the  injurious  wildlife  regulations  pursuant  to  the   Lacey  Act.  The  petitioners  expressed  concern  that  bighead  carp  could  invade  the   Great  Lakes  from  the  Mississippi  River  basin,  where  they  are  established,  through  a   manmade  ship  and  sanitary  canal.  The  petitioners,  25  members  of  Congress   representing  the  Great  Lakes  region,  are  concerned  that  bighead  carp,  because  they   are  voracious  eaters,  may  impact  food  supplies  available  to  native  fisheries  in  the   Great  Lakes,  which  are  already  struggling  against  other  invasive  species.  The   petitioners  also  noted  that  the  Great  Lakes  fisheries  are  valued  at  approximately  $4   billion,  and  resource  managers  have  spent  decades  trying  to  restore  and  protect   them.     Bighead  carp  are  native  to  southern  and  central  China.  They  feed  on  plankton  and   prefer  large  river  habitats.  They  can  grow  to  maximum  lengths  of  about  58  inches   and  reach  sexual  maturity  at  about  21.6  inches.  In  Asia,  bighead  carp  typically   spawn  between  April  and  June,  and  they  often  migrate  upstream  to  spawn.     Bighead  carp  were  imported  into  the  United  States  in  1972  by  a  fish  farmer  who   wanted  to  use  them  in  combination  with  other  phytoplankton-­‐eating  fish  to  improve   water  quality  and  increase  fish  production  in  culture  ponds  (Fuller,  et  al,  1999).         108       They  have  been  used  in  many  parts  of  the  world  as  food  fish.  Bighead  carp  have   been  recorded  from  within  or  along  the  borders  of  at  least  18  States…     This  notice  is  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  Lacey  Act  (18  U.S.C.  42).     Act  I.  Scene  VI.     SETTING:  Lansing,  MI.  The  Foster  House.  Spring  2013.       Donnie  begins  the  next  phase  of  his  trace  by  focusing  on  the  notice  of  inquiry   (Document  No.  03-­23745)  published  by  the  Service  in  the  Federal  Register.       DJS:   Document  No.  03-­‐23745  is  an  important  actor  in  making  bighead  carp   invasive.  It  operates  as  a  gatekeeper  through  which  other  actors  accomplish  their   rhetorical  work.  It  is  a  boundary.  If  you  remember  from  chapter  3,  boundaries  are   the  material  and  immaterial  points  between  multiple  spaces  where  at  social   practices,  objects  and  actors  are  mediated.  They  manifest  in  the  form  of  “stuff  and   things,  tools,  artefacts  and  techniques,  and  ideas,  stories  and  memories”  and   perform  different  roles  within  networks  (Bowker  and  Star,  1999,  p.  298).  The   Service  cannot  make  rules  without  public  comment.  The  public  cannot  comment   without  the  notice  of  inquiry.  Bighead  carp  cannot  be  declared  invasive  without   these  actions.  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  joins  actors  residing  over  disparate  spaces   and  assembles  their  comments  into  a  useful  form  that  subsequently  makes  an   invader.  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  is  a  space  of  dependence  due  to  its  position.   Translation  occurs  through  this  actor.  Callon  and  Latour  (1981)  described  the   process  of  translation  as  “negotiations,  intrigues,  calculations,  acts  of  persuasion   and  violence  thanks  to  which  an  actor  or  force  takes  or  causes  to  be  conferred  on   itself  authority  to  speak  or  act  on  behalf  of  another  actor  or  force.  ‘Our  interests  are   the  same,’  ‘do  what  I  want,’  ‘you  cannot  succeed  without  going  through  me’”  (p.  40).         109       In  fact,  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  facilitates  a  long  line  of  network-­‐building.  Actors   perform  their  roles  within  their  networks  through  enrollment  of  other  actors.  They   assemble  their  carptologies  within  and  around  persuasive  documents.  Still  of  all  the   spaces  of  dependence  that  emerge  in  making  invasive  bighead  carp,  Document  No.   03-­‐23745  might  be  the  most  important.  What  identity  performances  can  it  be  said  to   support?  Literally,  what  spaces  for  performative  activity  does  Document  No.  03-­‐ 23745  and  its  sponsors  (e.g.,  the  Service  and  the  Lacey  Act)  create  and  exclude?  This   question  can  only  be  answered  by  looking  at  how  actors  respond  to  its  architectonic   statements.     Act  II     Act  II.  Scene  I.       SETTING:  Arlington,  VA.  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  Headquarters.    July  16,  2003  –       December  3,  2003.         The  Service  slowly  receives  letters  from  the  public  that  offer  recommendations  on   bighead  carps’  status  in  relation  to  the  Lacey  Act.  (see  supplementary  appendix  to   review  documents  in  their  entirety)   Mike  Freeze:  I  am  a  private  fish  farmer  that  raises  bighead  carp  on  my  farm,  Keo   Fish  Farm,  Inc.,  and  would  like  to  comment  on  the  proposed  rule  to  place  bighead   carp  on  the  list  of  injurious  species  under  the  Lacey  Act.  Although  I  am  not   surprised,  I  am  disappointed  that  the  Service  is  once  again  ignoring  their  own   protocol  by  proposing  to  add  another  fish  species  to  the  injurious  list  without  a   formal  risk  assessment  as  was  conducted  for  black  carp  […]  The  negative  economic   impact  of  listing  the  bighead  carp  as  injurious  is  enormous  and  will  not  prevent  a   single  bighead  carp  from  swing  up  the  Mississippi  Ricer  through  the  man-­‐made   Chicago  ship  canal  and  into  the  Great  Lakes  […]  If  bighead  carp  are  listed  as   injurious,  will  a  commercial  fisherman  be  allowed  to  harvest  bighead  carp  on  the   Iowa  side  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  transport  these  live  fish  to  the  Illinois  side  of   the  river?  Can  bighead  carp  harvested  in  one  state  be  transported  live  to  a   processing  facility  in  another  state?             110       B.  Sachau:  I  do  not  know  why  it  took  so  long  to  get  this  proposal  out  to  people.  I  also   think  it  is  time  to  put  a  moratorium  on  all  of  the  various  species  of  animals  that   USFW  allows  to  be  imported.  We  need  quarantines  back.  The  recent  SARs  epidemic,   as  well  as  potential  for  foot  and  mouth,  chronic  wasting  disease,  and  hemorrhagic   disease  means  that  we  should  stop  the  import  of  all  birds,  mammals  or  fish  for  a  few   years.  We  are  living  in  terror  filled  times.       Dr.  John  Teem:  If  bighead  carp  enter  the  Great  Lakes,  it  will  most  likely  be  through   the  Chicago  Sanitary  and  Ship  canal,  despite  the  presence  of  the  electrical  barrier   (and  despite  listing  of  the  bighead  carp  as  an  injurious  species).  It  may  alternatively   be  argued  that  bighead  carp  shipped  from  the  US  to  Toronto,  Canada,  may  enter  the   Great  Lakes  through  the  live  market  trade.  However,  if  the  supply  of  bighead  carp  to   Toronto  is  eliminated  from  the  US,  it  will  simply  be  substituted  with  foreign   suppliers.  Listing  of  bighead  carp  will  thus  have  no  practical  consequence  to  limiting   its  spread.  Because  scientific  data  regarding  the  environmental  impact  of  bighead   carp  on  native  species  is  lacking,  it  is  not  even  clear  to  what  extent  these  fish  pose  an   environmental  threat.       John  D.  Hoskins:  Consequently,  we  are  beginning  to  encourage  commercial  fishers   and  corporate  interests  to  evaluate  the  profit  potential  in  harvesting  Asian  carp.  If   such  a  capital  venture  were  to  occur,  transportation  of  live  or  dead,  harvested  fish   for  processing  would  be  common  place  along  the  interstate  corridors  of  the   Missouri  and  Mississippi  rivers.  Therefore,  the  proposal  to  list  bighead  carp  as   injurious  wildlife  poses  a  dilemma  for  natural  resource  managers  in  Missouri.       David  McLeish:  I  am  writing  on  behalf  of  the  Council  of  Lake  Committees  (CLC)  to   support  the  listing  of  bighead  carp  (Hypothalmichthys  nobilis)  as  an  injurious  species   under  the  Lacey  Act.  The  CLC  represents  the  interests  of  all  state,  tribal,  and   provincial  fisheries  management  agencies  on  the  Great  Lakes  […]  Unless  listed  as  an   injurious  species,  bighead  carp  will  inevitably  find  their  way  into  the  Great  Lakes   and  contiguous  waters.  The  CLC  trusts  that,  once  completed,  the  barriers  on  the   Chicago  Ship  and  Sanitary  Canal  will  block  migrating  Asian  carp  from  entering  our   waters  from  the  Mississippi  River.  Nevertheless,  the  Great  Lakes  remain  vulnerable   to  bighead  carp  invasion  through  other  vectors,  such  as  live  transport  for  food,   baitfish  and  the  aquaculture  industry—directly,  and  as  contaminants  in  shipments   of  other  species.                 Act  II.  Scene  II.       SETTING:  Washington,  D.C.  1334  Longworth  House  Office  Building.  November  3,       2005.       The  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  has  not  made  a  decision  on  whether  or  not  to  list   bighead  carp.  For  many  the  situation,  especially  in  relation  to  silver  carp,  seems  dire.         111       The  109th  U.S.  Congress’  Natural  Resource  Committee’s  Subcommittee  on  Fisheries  and   Oceans  Oversight  holds  a  hearing  on  the  "Growing  Problem  of  Invasive  Asian  Carp  in   the  Great  Lakes  and  Mississippi  River  System."  The  hearing  features  testimony  from   representatives  of  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service,  International  Association  of  Fish  and   Wildlife  Agencies,  Great  Lakes  Fishery  Commission,  Wisconsin  Commercial  Fisheries   Association,  Catfish  Farmers  of  America,  and  American  Sportfishing  Association.  They   offer  their  statements.  (see  supplementary  appendix  to  review  documents  in  their   entirety)     Act  II.  Scene  III.       SETTING:  The  Federal  Register  –  The  Daily  Journal  of  the  United  States  Government.       September  5,  2006  –  November  6,  2006.       The  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  publishes  a  proposed  rule  to  add  all  forms  of  live  silver   and  largescale  silver  carp  to  the  list  of  injurious  fishes  under  the  Lacey  Act.  In  response   to  their  rule,  they  receive  116  “pertinent”  letters.  (see  supplementary  appendix  to   review  document  in  its  entirety)   Act  II.  Scene  IV.       SETTING:  The  Federal  Register  –  The  Daily  Journal  of  the  United  States  Government.       July  10,  2007.       The  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  publishes  a  final  rule  that  adds  all  forms  of  live  silver   carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  molitrix),  gametes,  viable  eggs,  and  hybrids;  and  all  forms   of  live  largescale  silver  carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  harmandi),  gametes,  viable  eggs,   and  hybrids  to  the  list  of  injurious  fish,  mollusks,  and  crustaceans  under  the  Lacey  Act.   (see  supplementary  appendix  to  review  document  in  its  entirety)         112       Act  II.  Scene  V.       SETTING:  Washington,  D.C.  The  U.S.  Senate.  July  9,  2009.       This  follows  his  testimony  before  the  joint  hearing  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Water  and   Wildlife  and  the  the  Subcommittee  on  Oversight  of  the  Environment  and  Public  Works   Committee.    The  Hono.  Sen.  Carl  Levin,  D-­Michigan,  has  introduced  the  Asian  Carp   Prevention  and  Control  Act  (S.  1421),  legislation  that  would  amend  the  Lacey  Act,  to   prohibit  the  importation  and  shipment  of  bighead  carp  within  the  United  States.  (see   supplementary  appendix  to  review  documents  in  their  entirety)   Act  II.  Scene  VI.       SETTING:  Washington,  D.C.  White  House.  Oval  Office.  December  14,  2010.       In  the  Background,  President  Barack  Obama  signs  the  Asian  Carp  Prevention  and   Control  Act  as  reporters  and  Council  on  Environmental  Quality  Chair  Nancy  Sutley   watches  to  his  left.     Act  III     Act  III.  Scene  I.       SETTING:  Lansing,  MI.  Foster  House.  Spring  2013.           Donnie  sits  at  his  computer  with  Microsoft  Word  open.  He  writes  a  summative  analysis   of  the  letters  he  received  from  his  FOIA  request  from  the  U.S.  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service.  It   is  freezing  in  his  house.     DJS:   Ultimately  what  made  bighead  carp  invasive  was  the  US  Congress  and   President  Obama  through  the  Asian  Carp  Prevention  and  Control  Act.  The  legislation   added  bighead  carp  to  the  list  of  injurious  wildlife  covered  under  the  Lacey  Act.   Their  actions  might  seem  disconnected  from  the  rulemaking  process;  however,  it         113       was  their  frustration  with  the  process  altogether  that  inspired  their  movement.  Still,   let  us  keep  our  focus  on  rulemaking.  There  were  several  questions  that  I  had   regarding  Document  No.  03-­‐23745’s  connection  to  the  Lacey  Act  and  how  decisions   are  made  within  the  complexity  of  spaces  that  fall  within  the  arena  of  rulemaking.  Is   the  process  a  scientific  or  economic  process  or  a  combination  of  both?  How  can  we   characterize  the  data  used  to  make  decisions  regarding  invasibility?  And  who/what   participates  (and  who/what  remains  or  is  forced  to  be  silent)?     In  order  to  investigate  these  questions,  I  wrote  a  request  under  the  Freedom   of  Information  Act  to  the  Service  requesting  material  not  limited  to  comments  and   letters  written  to  the  agency  during  three  public  comment  periods  regarding   bighead,  silver,  and  larger-­‐scale  silver  carp  (see  Appendix  C).  The  agency  responded   by  sending  me  162  letters  with  attachments  that  accompanied  a  few  letters  from  the   three  public  comment  periods  regarding  bighead,  silver,  and  larger-­‐scale  silver  carp.   44  of  those  letters  were  connected  to  the  bighead  carp  commenting  period.  A  quick   textual  rhetorical  analysis  of  the  documents  reveals  a  stark  contrast  between  the   tenure  of  the  conversation  in  comparison  to  the  silver  carp  commenting  periods.   There  was  not  a  lot  of  support  for  listing  bighead  carp  as  an  invasive  species.  In  fact,   overwhelming  support  leaned  in  favor  of  not  listing  the  species.  Furthermore,  there   were  no  gray  areas;  actors  were  either  for  listing  or  against.     It  is  important  to  consider  how  human  and  nonhuman  actors  organize   themselves  in  relation  to  social  situations  when  looking  at  these  letters  collectively.   This  necessitates  marking  patterns  of  collective  commitment  born  from  actors’   perspectives  and  what  they  hope  to  achieve  through  collective  action  via  their         114       dedications  to  space.  During  the  comment  period  regarding  the  listing  of  bighead   carp,  two  distinct  oppositional  spaces  emerge  as  important  in  defining  bighead   carp’s  identity,  the  “Aquaculture  Industry”  and  the  “Great  Lakes”  (see  Figure  3:   Social  World/Arena  Map:  Arena  map  displaying  actors  in  relation  to  their  spatial   commitments  during  the  bighead  commenting  period.  This  image  does  not  conform   to  the  Michigan  State  University  graduate  school’s  guidelines;  therefore,  I  had  to   remove  it  from  the  dissertation.  Please  contact  me  at  donniejsackey@gmail.com  in   order  to  receive  a  copy  of  the  image.).  The  former  comprises  entities  with   attachments  to  various  southern  states  (Arkansas,  Missouri,  Mississippi,  and   Florida)  and  bodies  of  water  (Mississippi  River  and  Missouri  River).  The  latter   includes  entities  associated  with  Great  Lakes  through  either  states  surrounding  the   region  or  bodies  of  water.  A  single  boundary  space  emerges  between  the  two  as  a   quasi-­‐space  of  dependence  and  engagement  in  relation  to  bighead  carp—the   Mississippi  River  Basin.  Here  the  actors  refer  either  to  the  Mississippi  River  or  more   abstractly  as  the  area  below  the  Chicago  Sanitary  and  Ship  Canal  or  both.     Through  the  analysis  of  letters  and  my  discussions  with  various  actors   involved  in  the  Service’s  rulemaking  process,  the  most  interesting  network-­‐building   occurs  via  the  aquaculture  industry  and  the  Great  Lakes.  The  primary  matters  of   concern  within  these  spaces  of  dependence  regard  1)  whether  aquaculturists  can   safely  farm  bighead  carp;  and  2)  whether  bighead  carp  actually  pose  a  threat  to  the   Great  Lakes  via  transportation  vectors.  Rather  than  focusing  on  every  letter  written   during  the  public  commenting  period,  I  want  to  focus  on  two  letters  that  best   represent  each  space  with  respect  to  the  matters  of  concern  that  I  highlighted  above.         115       Let  us  consider  two  actors  and  how  they  assemble  their  carptologies  in  relation  to   their  commitments  to  space.  I  will  try  my  best  to  treat  them  as  separate;  however,  I   will  periodically  note  the  critical  (and  unexamined)  nodes  where  they’re  linked.     Carptology  no.  1:  Aquaculture—Mike  Freeze,  KEO  Fish  Farm     How  do  fish  farmers  understand  bighead  carp?  How  is  this  represented  in   the  networks  they  construct?  What  relations  seek  to  disrupt  and  destabilize  fish   farmer  understanding  of  bighead  carp?  Consider  the  following  statements:  “The   negative  economic  impact  of  listing  the  bighead  carp  as  injurious  is  enormous  and   will  not  prevent  a  single  bighead  carp  from  swimming  up  the  Mississippi  River   through  the  man-­‐made  Chicago  ship  canal  and  into  the  Great  Lakes”  and  “If  bighead   carp  were  listed  as  injurious,  will  a  commercial  fisherman  be  allowed  to  harvest   bighead  carp  on  the  Iowa  side  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  transport  these  live  fish   to  the  Illinois  side  of  the  river?  Can  bighead  carp  harvested  in  one  state  be   transported  live  to  a  processing  facility  in  another  state?”     I  chose  the  excerpted  statements  from  his  letter  because  they  best  represent   the  complexity  of  the  argument  that  originates  from  the  space  of  aquaculture  in   terms  of  how  we  should  understand  making.  Mike,  like  most  aquaculturists,  frame   bighead  carp’s  identity  solely  within  the  purview  of  economic  understandings.   Bighead  carp  are  not  a  problem  for  him.  The  real  problem  regards  regulatory   procedures  and  legislation.  Of  concern  are  both  the  ways  in  which  bureaucratic   actors  link  to  the  spaces  of  dependence  of  fish  farmers  and  the  many  levels  at  which   they  fail  to  make  connections.  To  bolster  the  case  of  why  bighead  carp  is  not  an   invader,  he  gathers  a  network  that  features  writing  actors  such  as  the  Lacey  Act  and         116       Document  No.  03-­‐23745    (see  Figure  4:  Actor-­‐network  map:  A  network  map  of  how   Mike  realizes  bighead  carp’s  non/invasive  identity.  This  image  does  not  conform  to   the  Michigan  State  University  graduate  school’s  guidelines;  therefore,  I  had  to   remove  it  from  the  dissertation.  Please  contact  me  at  donniejsackey@gmail.com  in   order  to  receive  a  copy  of  the  image.).  Here  we  have  a  fiscal  carptology  built  from   legal  frames  works  that  denote  why  bighead  carp  are  not  invasive  and  why  actions   to  label  them  as  invasive  emerge  as  problems.  I  will  walk  you  through  this  network,   which  is  based  both  on  my  conversation  with  Mike  and  his  letter.     Let  us  begin  from  the  position  of  Mike’s  reality.  This  means  acknowledging   the  links  that  stabilize  carp  as  non-­‐invasive.  Although  he  does  not  state  this  directly,   Mike  distinguishes  between  wild  and  farm-­raised  bighead  carp  in  both  our   conversation  and  his  letter.  The  distinction  between  the  two  is  important  and  gets   to  the  heart  of  the  aquaculture  industry’s  concern  with  listing.  Farm-­‐raised  bighead   carp  exist  within  containers.  As  stated  in  the  previous  chapter,  they  are  a  helper   species  used  to  control  the  taste  of  catfish  bound  for  markets  and  they  are  also  sold   as  food  here  in  the  US  and  abroad.  If  there  is  legitimate  risk  regarding  invasion  of   the  Great  Lakes,  it  is  not  from  these  actors.  They  do  not  exist  within  the  main   waterway  networks  that  connect  to  the  Great  Lakes.   For  actors  who  use  the  Lacey  Act  to  frame  these  carp  as  invaders,  their   spaces  of  dependence  lie  between  the  markets  and  the  farms.  Trucks,  roads,  boats   and  other  vessels  located  near  bodies  of  water  become  an  unnecessary  risk.  Disrupt   these  networks  and  you  suspend  the  invasion.  Still,  what  does  this  do  for  wild   bighead  carp,  which  are  also  fished  for  sale  at  markets?    Wild  carp  have  freely         117       roamed  the  waters  below  the  Great  Lakes  for  decades.  While  listing  would  most   definitely  stop  the  unlikely  transit  from  the  aquaculture  industry,  it’s  not  as  if  wild   carp  will  automatically  become  regulation  abiding  entities.  They  remain  free  to   travel.  Disrupting  transportation  also  presents  the  consequence  of  making  a  legal   business  practice  (constitutionally-­‐protected  through  interstate  commerce  law)   illegal  with  the  issuing  of  a  final  rule.       At  this  point,  statements  become  critical  with  respect  to  how  the  Service  will   write  the  final  rule  on  bighead  carp.  Both  the  Lacey  Act  and  Document  No.  03-­‐23745   take  center  stage  for  Mike  and  other  fish  farmers.  I  have  written  about  the   significance  of  the  distinction  between  wild  and  farm-­‐raised;  however,  alive  and   dead  add  a  new  layer  of  regulatory  complexity.  This  is  best  illustrated  in  Mike’s   second  statement  I  excerpted  above.  Most  fishing  boats  in  the  Mississippi  River   Basin  are  not  factory  ships.  Instead,  commercial  fishers  are  largely  dependent  on  kill   facilities.  Yet,  a  condemned  Illinoisan  fish  traveling  the  last  mile  to  a  death  chamber   in  Missouri  is  a  serious  matter  of  concern.  The  problem  is  not  transporting  the  fish   from  water  to  land  where  it  may  potentially  find  uninvaded  spaces.  It  is  actually   transportation  across  the  invisible  boundary  that  Missouri  and  Illinois  share  along   the  Mississippi  River.  Any  bighead  carp  caught  in  Illinois  must  be  dead  before  it   arrives  in  Missouri;  otherwise  a  fisherman  has  committed  a  misdemeanor  or  felony.   This  may  sound  arbitrary  and  highly  unlikely;  however,  I  can  assure  you  that  it   represents  a  legitimate  level  of  concern,  especially  when  penalties  for  violating  the   Lacey  Act’s  authority  can  amount  to  a  felony  conviction  with  a  possible  prison   sentence  of  up  to  five  years  and/or  a  $250,000  fine  for  an  individual.                 118       Additional  statements  from  the  Lacey  Act  affect  how  fishermen  perform  their   identities  and  bighead  carp.  The  difference  between  a  misdemeanor  and  a  felony   hinges  upon  two  words—knowingly  and  should  know.  When  Congress  amended  the   Lacey  Act  in  1969  to  broaden  its  scope,  liability  covered  violations  committed   knowingly  and  willfully.  In  1981,  Congress  removed  willfully  when  they  joined  the   Black  Bass  Act  of  1926  with  the  Lacey  Act.  The  change  in  language  occurred  to  ease   prosecutorial  efforts  (Anderson,  1995).  While  Congress  would  amend  the  act  in   1988  and  2003,  they  acted  to  amend  it  again  in  2008  to  address  the  mislabeling  of   protected  plants.  Part  of  this  amendment  involved  a  minor  tweaking  of  language   that  read  as  follows:     knowingly  engages  in  conduct  prohibited  by  any  provision  of  this   chapter  […]  and  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  should  know  that  the  fish  or   wildlife  or  plants  were  taken,  possessed,  transported,  or  sold  in   violation  of,  or  in  a  manner  unlawful  under,  any  underlying  law,  treaty   or  regulation.     According  to  Mike,  this  was  a  change  that  the  Service  made  in  conjunction  with   Congress  without  alerting  the  aquaculture  industry.  “It’s  one  of  the  things  that  we’d   like  to  get  changed  back  is  the  language  that  said  that  the  perpetrator  who  was   doing  this  [transporting  banned  species]  had  to  knowingly  violate  the  law   [inaudible]  and  now  it  says  should  have  know  that  he  was  violating  the  law,”  Mike   said.  “That’s  a  huge  legal  difference,  because  what  we  used  to  tell  people  in  the  80s   and  90s…is  that  ignorance  was  excused”  (my  emphasis).  For  example,  prior  to  the   2008  amendment,  if  a  catfish  farmer  had  a  bighead  carp  in  his  truck  and  he  was   unaware  of  it  before  officials  had  discovered  it,  then  the  burden  of  proof  would  be   on  the  official  to  prove  that  the  farmer  knew  he  was  violating  the  law.  What  seems         119       like  a  minor  change  in  language  switches  the  burden  upon  the  farmer.  Fishing   bighead  carp  and  farming  catfish  through  catfish-­‐bighead  polyculture  become  very   difficult.  Here  an  actor’s  statement  composed  to  regulate  the  spaces  of  the  logging   industry  enrolled  aquaculture  (and  other  spaces)  with  the  consequence  of   transforming  farmers  into  criminals  or  potential  criminals.  For  aquaculturists,  the   stability  of  their  spaces  of  dependence  looms  largely  on  key  terms  within  the  Lacey   Act,  which  also  serve  as  spaces  of  dependence  for  actors  wanting  to  list  bighead  carp   as  injurious.     So  far  I  have  focused  on  actors  that  are  present  and  actively  writing  to  affect   realities.  There  are  others  who  have  not  been  enrolled  into  networks  that  denote   bighead  carp’s  invasibility.  For  aquaculturists,  if  these  network  elements  are  not   enrolled  then  the  species  is  not  legally  invasive.  In  his  letter,  Mike  lists  four  technical   objects  that  are  necessary  in  bringing  together  the  heterogeneous  networks  that   would  form  an  invasive  identity:  1)  an  environmental  impact  assessment,  2)  a  cost-­‐ benefit  and  economic  analysis,  3)  an  analysis  as  dictated  by  the  Small  Business   Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  (SBREFA)  and  4)  a  Regulatory  Flexibility   analysis  as  defined  under  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act.  I  will  not  go  into  a  long   explanation  of  what  each  of  these  actants  do.  What  I  will  say  is  that  they  each  work   independently  to  modify  our  understanding  of  bighead  carp;  however,  it  is   necessary  for  the  Service  to  join  them  into  a  single  network  through  Document  No.   03-­‐23745.  This  is  mandated  by  the  rulemaking  procedure.  Yet,  the  service  issued   the  notice  of  inquiry  without  these  nonhumans.  “Is  the  addition  of  a  species  to  the   injurious  list  without  a  formal  risk  assessment  going  to  become  a  ‘normal         120       procedure’  for  the  [Service],”  Mike  said.  “This  rule  will  have  a  significant  economic   effect  on  a  substantial  number  of  small  entities.”  Through  his  network  building,   Mike  illustrated  that  in  rulemaking,  the  Service  broke  its  own  rules  and  this  puts  fish   farmers  at  a  disadvantage  in  the  rulemaking  process.     Carptology  no.  2:  The  Great  Lakes—  Bernard  Hansen,  Great  Lakes  Fishery   Commission   While  fish  farmers  position  bighead  carp  as  a  non-­‐issue  and  regulatory   procedures  as  invasive,  other  entities  work  from  their  own  space  to  construct  an   invader  identity  for  the  species.  Mull  over  the  following  statements:  “Bighead  carp   pose  a  significant  threat  to  aquatic  communities  and  to  fisheries  of  the  Great  Lakes”   and  “The  Great  Lakes  remain  vulnerable  to  bighead  carp  invasion  through  other   vectors,  such  as  live  transport  for  food,  baitfish,  and  the  aquaculture  industry— directly  and  as  contaminants  in  shipments  of  other  species.”  These  statements   position  spaces  contained  within  the  Great  Lakes  as  important  spaces  of   dependence.  They  also  rhetorically  construct  the  space  of  aquaculture  as  a  harmful   set  of  heterogeneous  relations  that  can  destabilize  the  network  that  composes  the   Great  Lakes.  Literally  aquaculture  makes  bighead  carp  invasive  (see  Figure  5:  Actor-­‐ network  map:  A  network  map  of  how  realizes  the  Great  Lakes  Fisheries  Commission   understands  bighead  carp’s  non/invasive  identity.  This  image  does  not  conform  to   the  Michigan  State  University  graduate  school’s  guidelines;  therefore,  I  had  to   remove  it  from  the  dissertation.  Please  contact  me  at  donniejsackey@gmail.com  in   order  to  receive  a  copy  of  the  image.  ).           121       Still,  how  does  Bernard  as  a  representative  of  not  only  the  Great  Lakes   Fishery  Commission  (GLFC)  but  also  the  larger  imagined  community  of  the  Great   Lakes  convey  this  reality  of  an  invasive  species?  The  rhetoricity  of  this  network   hinges  on  value,  the  value  of  the  Great  Lakes  to  be  exact.  Whether  it  is  this  letter,   statements  from  other  entities  responding  to  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  or  his   statements  to  me,  the  monetary  worth  of  the  region  (estimated  anywhere  from  $4-­‐7   billion)  and  the  ecological  sensitivity  of  the  region  is  often  touted.  These  two   descriptors  serve  as  heuristics  for  human  and  nonhuman  writing  actors.  Even  Mike   raised  this  figure  as  an  issue  for  aquaculture  during  our  interview  saying,  “People     will  throw  out  these  grandiose  numbers  of  hundreds  of  millions  or  billions  of   dollars,  and  they  really  don’t  have  the  data  to  back  it.  It’s  not  peer-­‐reviewed  data.”   Mike  did  not  read  GLFC’s  letter,  but  his  statement  is  a  perfect  illustration  of  the   rhetorical  work  that  these  writing  objects  do  upon  disembarking  from  their   sponsors.     There  is  no  exact  monetary  value  for  the  region.  In  fact,  the  final  appraisal   depends  upon  what  actors  incorporate  within  their  ontological  frameworks.  For   example,  some  include  recreational  boating,  sportsfishing,  swimming,  and   aesthetics;  others  focus  exclusively  on  commercial  fishing.  For  GLFC,  the  region’s   significance  is  wholly  associated  with  the  “fishery,”  which  includes  commercial  and   recreational  fishing.  Bernard  states  without  equivocation,  “Bighead  carp  have  little   economic  or  sport  value  compared  to  Great  Lakes  fishes,  which  support  a  fishery   valued  up  to  $4  billion.”  Allowing  the  vectors  that  create  stable  links  to  the  Great   Lakes  to  exist  is  a  tacit  devaluing  (or  lack  of  value  recognition)  of  the  space.  Here         122       what  make  bighead  carp  invasive  are  the  associations  in  space  between  the  Chicago   Sanitary  and  Ship  Canal  and  the  aquaculture  industry.  While  ecological  separation   will  physically  stop  carp  trafficking,  how  aquaculture  performs  bighead  carp  needs   to  be  made  illegal.  With  a  simple  statement,  the  Lacey  Act  can  separate  this  portion   of  the  industry’s  network  from  the  Great  Lakes.   Ecological  sensitivity  weighs  heavily  in  performing  bighead  carp.  For  actors   that  reside  in  Bernard  and  GLFC’s  space,  one  cannot  understand  bighead  carp   without  taking  into  account  “illegals”  that  have  made  a  home  in  the  Great  Lakes  and   the  associations  that  they  have  brought  with  them.  “If  bighead  carp  are  allowed   entry  into  the  Great  Lakes  and  connecting  waters,  we  expect  that  the  species  will   quickly  and  extensively  establish  itself  in  the  Great  Lakes  and  connected  waters,  as   have  other  invasive  species  such  as  zebra  mussels,  gobies,  sea  lampreys,  and   alewife,”  Bernard  stated.  “[They]  exacerbate  the  ecological  damage  now  being   exacted  […]  by  recent  invaders—in  particular  the  filter-­‐feeding  dreissenid  mussels   and  the  predaceous  cladocerans,  Bythorephes  and  Ceropagis”  (“predacious,”  my   emphasis  on).  We  should  just  call  this  guilt  by  association.  Think  of  this  as  gathering   enough  relations  of  other  invasive  actors  to  make  a  convincing  case  of  why  bighead   should  be  listed  as  invasive.     Do  we  have  enough  room  for  this  species?  There  is  a  limited  amount  of   resources  and  these  resources  have  to  be  shared  between  foreign  species  that  will   not  leave  and  natives.  Now  does  this  mean  that  if  these  actors  were  not  present,   would  GLFC  be  against  listing?  Not  necessarily.  There  are  other  associations  that   threaten  the  Great  Lakes’  value  and  raise  bighead  carp  as  an  issue,  spring  viremia  to         123       be  exact.  “While  bighead  carp  itself  would  constitute  an  undesirable  addition  to   Great  Lakes  fauna,  its  continuing  importation  also  can  introduce  pathogens  as   ‘contaminants”  Bernard’s  letter  reads.  Spring  verimina  is  a  viral  disease  caused  by   the  RNA  Rhabdovirus  carpio,  which  has  been  responsible  for  significant  mortality  in   carp  species.  The  first  confirmed  discovery  of  the  virus,  “apparently  an  Asian   genotype,”  in  North  America  in  2002  was  a  source  of  unease  for  GLFC.  The  concern   was  for  the  affect  bighead  carp  would  have  on  “native  species  such  as  northern  pike   and  cyprinids,  including  threatened  and  endangered  species.”6  Its  one  thing  to   destabilize  space  by  using  resources  intended  for  others  and  displacing  natives  to   make  space  for  oneself,  but  to  bring  a  disease  is  another  matter  of  concern  entirely.   If  the  presence  of  spring  verimina  is  a  concern,  then  why  list  only  bighead?  Why  not   common  carp?  Do  northern  pike  also  become  an  issue  because  they  are  not  only   affected  but  also  transmit  the  virus?  While  the  Lacey  Act  can  indeed  limit  carp’s   movement  by  way  of  aquaculture,  it  does  little  to  stop  spring  verimina.     This  weak  linkage  between  the  virus  and  other  actors  is  critical.  It  is  at  this   point  that  we  can  begin  to  answer  the  question  of  what  makes  bighead  carp   invasive.  Bernard  writes,  “While  we  appreciate  the  Service’s  current  solicitation  of   information  about  threats  posed  by  bighead  carp,  we  believe  that  such  information   is  more  effectively  deployed  as  a  screening  process  prior  to  importation  rather  than                                                                                                                   6  There  is  an  interesting  rhetorical  construction  occurring  with  this  statement  that   you  would  not  realize  if  you  were  not  a  scientist.  Cyprinids  (or  cyprinidae)  are  a   large  family  of  freshwater  fishes.  There  are  some  that  are  native  to  North  America,   but  most  members  reside  in  Asia.  The  name  comes  from  the  Greek  kyprînos,  which   means  “carp.”  In  fact,  all  the  cyprinids  in  North  America  listed  as  affected  by  spring   viremia  are  not  native.  This  includes  bighead  and  silver  carp.         124       in  declaring  a  species  injurious  once  here.”  It’s  the  absence  of  a  technical  object—a   screening  process—that  makes  GLFC’s  reality  of  carp  possible.  Bighead  carp  with  its   associations  cannot  become  invasive  if  we  have  a  mechanism  in  place  to  prevent  its   enrollment  into  various  networks.  Once  again,  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  and  the   Lacey  Act  take  center  stage.  The  only  tool  that  actors  have  at  their  disposal  to  deal   with  invasive  species  like  bighead  carp  is  the  Lacey  Act.  The  act  and  the   accompanying  rulemaking  process  exist  to  addresses  matters  of  concern,  but  they   are  actually  responsible  for  making  bighead  carp.  Here  I  mean  making  not  by  the   issuing  of  a  final  rule  declaring  their  status.  Instead,  I  mean  making  by  not   preventing  them  for  entering  the  U.S.  I  noted  with  aquaculture  how  the  Lacey  Act  is   a  matter  of  concern.  It  is  also  an  issue  for  GLFC  and  other  actors  who  reside  in  the   space  of  the  Great  Lakes.       I  also  want  to  speculate  on  the  fundamental  question  of  value  between   networks.  We  have  actors  with  dedications  to  disparate  spaces  fighting  for  the   primacy  of  the  value  of  bighead  carp  in  relation  to  aquaculture  versus  the  value  of   the  Great  Lakes  in  relation  to  bighead  carp.  How  is  public  deliberation  supposed  to   successfully  occur  when  actors  fail  to  acknowledge  each  others’  understanding  of   value?  Is  it  the  fault  of  the  Service,  which  did  not  design  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  to   goad  actors  to  engage  in  meaningful  discussions  of  value?  Or  is  it  the  Lacey  Act  that   does  not  make  such  considerations  part  of  the  rulemaking  process?  This  all  hinges   on  a  single  statement  from  Document  No.  03-­‐23745  that  states  the  “Service  is   reviewing  available  economic  and  biological  information  on  bighead  carp.”  The   communication  channels  during  the  rulemaking  process  are  a  many-­‐to-­‐one         125       relationship.  The  Service  has  to  take  on  the  task  of  weighing  actors’  sense  of  value   and  translating  that  value  into  new  networks  that  denote  why  carp  is  or  is  not   invasive.  There  are  no  additional  conversations  that  happen  around  the  letters.  They   simply  speak  for  themselves  and  as  representatives  of  their  organizations.  The   bridging  of  space  occurs  via  letters  and  supplemental  documents.  This  is  the   moment  when  the  Service’s  regulatory  power  becomes  an  issue  for  aquaculture  and   the  Great  Lakes.     De-­linking/Linking     Should  we  really  be  concerned  with  bighead  carp?  The  exploration  of  two   competing  versions  of  reality  and  seemingly  disconnected  spaces  raises  a  single   point  of  importance  between  actors.  Through  the  exploration  of  space,  the  Lacey  Act   emerges  as  a  space  of  engagement.  It  is  literally  the  location  where  a  bridge  between   two  competing  realities  can  be  made.  Still,  despite  actors  either  directly  or  indirectly   pointing  to  the  act  as  being  an  issue  with  respect  to  how  they  understand  carp,  why   does  the  connection  between  spaces  remain  unrecognized?  Social  groups  construct   boundaries  around  themselves  to  sustain  their  own  conditions  of  place,  which  is  co-­‐ terminus  with  identity.  It  is  only  natural  that  they  erect  boundaries.  The  formation   of  boundaries  around  places  whether  physical  mental  or  psychological  is  linked  to   reactionary  politics  that  authorize  actors  to  dwell  only  within  their  ontological   space  and  exclude  and  devalue  others  (Escobar,  2001).  How  can  we  construct   spaces  through  a  non-­‐reactionary/non-­‐exclusionary  politics?     We  could  do  away  with  the  Lacey  Act  and  replace  it  with  a  screening  process   that  looks  similar  to  the  current  rulemaking  process.  Still,  that  does  nothing  to  bring         126       actors  together—to  make  them  encounter  each  other’s  realities  and  coordinate  their   activities.  It  might  be  best  to  rethink  how  rulemaking  takes  place.  Rather  than   having  the  current  system—a  many-­‐to-­‐one  relationship—where  the  service  is  in  the   position  of  receiving  and  processing  information,  it  might  be  best  to  facilitate   conversations  in  which  stakeholders  must  engage  with  each  other.  This  many-­‐to-­‐ many  configuration  raises  story  as  a  means  of  linking  units  and  creating  new   associations  across  space.     Any  method  that  focuses  on  the  relationships  between  various  entities  has  to   be  attentive  to  location  and  how  spaces  and  places  often  affect  the  nature  of   relationships.  In  my  opinion,  Michel  de  Certeau  provides  a  way  of  navigating   locations  and  connecting  disparately-­‐fragmented/seemingly-­‐unconnected  spaces.     In  speaking  about  place  he  writes:     Places  are  fragmentary  and  inward-­‐turning  histories,  pasts  that  others  are   not  allowed  to  read,  accumulated  times  that  can  be  unfolded  but  like  stories   held  in  reserve,  remaining  in  an  enigmatic  state,  symbolizations  encysted  in   the  pain  or  pleasure  of  the  body.  “I  feel  good  here”:  the  well-­‐being  under-­‐ expressed  in  the  language  it  appears  in  like  a  fleeing  glimmer  is  a  spatial   practice.  (de  Certeau,  2002:  p  108)     The  notion  that  places  are  fragmentary  is  another  way  of  saying  that  place  exists  a   multiple  depending  upon  the  perspective  of  an  agent.  Stories  can  be  the  structures   that  serve  as  meeting  points  between  spaces.  In  providing  the  metaphor  of  the  train,   de  Certeau  talks  about  the  window—“the  partition  [that]  makes  noise”  yet  “creates   two  inverted  silences”  (112).  With  this  he  signals  that  spaces  often  exist  as   fragmentary  and  separate,  but  it  is  the  stories  (spatial  stories)  that  exist  to  connect   these  spaces.  It  is  difficult  not  to  think  of  Guinsatao  Monberg’s  work  on  listening  and   Lowe’s  notion  of  sedimented  space  in  relation  to  de  Certeau’s  idea  of  the  partition.         127       These  interstices  are  the  locations  where  meaning  exists  for  users/travelers.  How   people  (physically/cognitively)  move  within  and  between  spaces  can  reveal  how   they  relate  to  spaces,  other  people,  and  things.  We  have  to  make  use  of  these   relations  to  allow  for  better  deliberation  around  environmental  issues.                                                                                       128       CHAPTER  6.  MAPPING  COMPLEXITY:       RE-­TOOLING  ENVIRONMENTAL  RHETORICS     I  want  to  end  this  dissertation  where  I  began—in  a  museum.  In  Fall  2012,  I   taught  a  course  entitled,  “Nature,  Environmental,  and  Travel  Writing.”  The  course  is   housed  in  the  Professional  Writing  program  but  it  is  also  cross-­‐listed  as  an  intensive   reading/writing  experience  for  Fisheries  and  Wildlife  students.  I  was  given  free   reign  to  completely  revamp  the  syllabus.  Since,  my  dissertation  is  very  conscious  of   writing  space  and  how  we  write  in  space,  I  wanted  to  re-­‐design  the  course  so  that   my  students  and  I  could  trouble  what  environmental,  nature  and  travel  writing  are   as  genres,  but  also  interrogate  the  often  unexamined  cultural  epistemologies  and   ontologies  that  these  writers  rely  upon.  Earlier  constructions  of  the  course  focus  on   traditional  nature  writers  like  Aldo  Leopold,  Charles  Darwin,  and  John  Muir.  I  did   not  want  to  make  a  course  where  we  simply  stylistically  analyzed  these  writers’  text.   Instead,  I  wanted  to  design  a  course  that  would  allow  students  to  interrogate  how   writers  like  these  are  designing  an  experience  for  their  audience  that  is  reliant  upon   distinct  cultural  positions  be  they  tacit  or  acknowledged.  This  worked  doubly   because  it  also  forced  them  to  consider  the  systems  that  they  use  while  writing.   Whether  we  read  non-­‐fiction,  travel  guides  or  environmental  impact  statements,  I   consistently  repeat  that  professional  writing  (especially  in  relation  to   environmental  issues)  is  about  designing  space  and  there  are  affordances  and   consequences  that  come  with  our  spatial  practices  as  writers.  Aside  from  the  course   being  a  survey  of  genres,  my  vision  was  to  encourage  students  to  realize  that  as   professional  writers  they  are  designing  experience.         129       For  one  unit,  I  took  my  students  to  an  exhibit  at  the  MSU  museum’s  Heritage   Gallery  titled,  “Echoes  of  Silent  Spring:  50  Years  of  Environmental  Awareness.”  We   had  just  read  a  couple  chapters  from  Carson’s  book,  as  well  as  writing  from  her   critics,  and  the  work  of  others  who  had  analyzed  the  entire  controversy  surrounding   the  book.  The  purpose  of  the  exhibit  was  to  examine  the  larger  ecology  of  Silent   Spring  by  situating  it  within  the  context  it  was  written  and  its  affects  subsequent  to   publication.  Adding  another  layer  of  complexity  to  the  exhibit  is  the  connection   between  the  book’s  content  and  Michigan  State  University.  Her  most  famous  case   study  examined  how  dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane  (DDT),  which  was  used  on   campus  to  fight  the  spread  of  Dutch  elm  disease,  indirectly  caused  the  deaths  of   birds,  particularly  robins.  This  was  primarily  facilitated  by  the  efforts  of  MSU   ornithologist  George  Wallace  and  his  students,  who  collected,  documented,  and   tested  dead  and  dying  birds  for  the  insecticide.     There  was  a  rich  layering  of  stories  within  the  exhibit.  Within  the  confines  of   this  space,  multiple  actors  and  their  worlds  emerged  to  connect  and  either  bolster   particular  realities  or  lay  waste  to  them.  This  presented  a  great  opportunity  for  the   students  to  reflect  upon  the  relationship  between  the  spaces  of  texts  to  the  physical   world.  Literally,  how  is  it  that  designers  make  bridges  to  create  meaning  and   facilitate  understanding  especially  as  they  must  navigate  complexity?  The  ultimate   goal  was  twofold:  1)  to  recognize  that  we  can  critique  constructions  of  place  at   multiple  levels  of  abstraction  and  that  such  analytical  moves  are  a  necessity;  and   most  importantly,  2)  to  make  inferences  into  how  writing  can  allow  us  to  remake   place  and  offer  new  possibilities  for  travel  between  realities.  If  the  act  of  questioning         130       space  and  arrangement  is  the  analysis  of  the  dynamics  of  culture  through  the   understanding  of  power  via  race,  gender,  economic  and  ableist  privilege,  then   attempts  to  reorder  relations  through  rhetoric  and  writing  become  the  work  of   justice—environmental  justice.     This  might  sound  weird,  but  I  had  to  teach  this  class  in  order  to  understand   and  assemble  ideas  about  the  environmental  rhetoric  tradition,  which  I  had  been   wrestling  with  for  quite  some  time.  Here  I  am  talking  about  disciplinarity,  theory,   methodology,  and  pedagogy.  I  offered  in  the  introduction  three  issues  with  which   environmental  rhetoric  scholars  should  concern  themselves.  This  entails  a  turn   toward  ontology,  engagement  with  complexity,  and  a  shift  from  analyzing  rhetorical   practice  toward  envisioning  rhetoric  as  a  corrective  to  solving  environmental  crises.   You  have  seen  me  practice  these  things  within  the  spaces  of  this  dissertation.  For   me,  rhetoric  is  an  assembly  of  texts,  nontexutal  practices,  people,  institutions,  and   objects  that  exist  in  complex  networks  that  transpire  across  multiple  geographies.   We  have  to  situate  texts  within  the  networks  and  orders  they  exist  in  order  to  make   claims  about  rhetoric.  This  also  means  that  we  have  to  be  willing  to  consider  the   multiple  roles  that  texts  and  other  artifacts  assume  in  forming  the  social.  Sometimes   they  are  objects  (e.g.  Consider  how  any  actor’s  letter  in  the  previous  chapter   functions  as  an  intellectual  technology  for  rhetorical  purposes.  Actors  compose   these  technologies  using  a  variety  of  calculating  devices  which  includes  but  is  not   limited  to  instruments,  measurements,  and  other  accounts.);  sometimes  they  are   actors  (e.g.  Consider  how  the  same  letters  assume  lives  of  their  own  and  either   practice  their  authors’  politics  long  after  their  authors  have  gone  or  seemly  adopt         131       new  characters  as  they  move  through  new  spaces.).  Nevertheless,  we  should  not  be   in  the  business  of  favoring  one  view  of  a  thing  over  another.  We  should  commit   ourselves  toward  exploring  the  multiple  identities  of  a  thing  and  investigate  how   these  realities  coalesce  to  produce  the  thing  itself.  Seeing  a  letter  as  an  actor  and   actant  simultaneously  is  important  because  each  identity  renders  a  different   analysis  and  fundamentally  provides  alternative  ways  of  addressing  a  problem  (e.g.   Do  we  make  interventions  at  the  point  at  which  actors  are  writing  letters  to   encourage  actors  to  make  certain  design  considerations?  Or  do  we  make   interventions  after  letters  are  written  by  augmenting  the  systems  that  facilitate   engagement  with  the  realities  of  others  where  documents  are  made  to  speak  for   others?  ).     Therefore,  incursions  into  ontology  should  speculate  1)  how  nonhumans  (e.g.   texts)  create  environments;  2)  how  they  work  in  concert  with  other  subjects  to   create  realties;  and  3)  how  multiple  realities  co-­‐ordinate  (relate)  with  others?  These   ideas,  which  I  have  wrestled  with  for  some  time,  are  principally  about  a  different   orientation  to  scholarly  practice  within  the  environmental  rhetoric  tradition.  I  want   to  articulate  further  what  I  means  with  those  sentiments:     i. There  has  to  be  a  reconsideration  of  subjectivity.  This  entails  moving   away  from  an  object-­‐view  of  nonhumans  that  indirectly  assigns   agency  to  people  and  adopting  an  understanding  of  nonhumans  as   actors  that  participate  with  people  and  other  nonhumans  in  order  to   make  reality.  Once  again,  I  am  asking  that  we  rethink  arguments  such   as  guns  kill  people  versus  people,  not  guns,  kill  people  and  opt  for         132       considering  the  ways  in  which  people  and  guns  kill  together.  Agency  is   not  a  property  that  lies  squarely  in  the  hands  of  humans  acting  as   subjects.  Instead,  agency  is  distributed  amongst  multiple  actors  in  a   network.  The  performance  of  one  actor  cannot  take  place  unless   others  perform  their  roles  accordingly.  Consider  Kohler’s  (2002)   study  of  people,  places,  and  practices  of  field  biology  during  the  early   20th  century  as  an  example  of  not  only  how  humans  made  knowledge   through  manipulation  of  the  nonhuman  environment  but  also  how  the   nonhuman  environment,  as  an  intrusive  agent,  has  interrupted  and   altered  scholarly  practice  to  produce  knowledge.  It  is  a  discursive   process  and  our  writing  research  should  account  for  that.  So  when   providing  a  particular  account,  environmental  rhetoricians  (especially   those  of  us  interested  in  environmental  history)  must  take  care  not  to   frame  scenes  as  if  science/people  are  controlling  nature,  but  should   consider  the  extent  to  which  nature  affects  people  and  scientific   practice;  let’s  stop  reproducing  narratives  of  anthropocentric   triumphalism  over  nature.     ii. My  second  and  third  claims  are  deeply  interrelated,  so  I  have  merged   them  here.  Environmental  rhetoricians  must  engage  with  the  multiple   knowledges  or  realities  associated  with  a  particular  subject.  Rather   than  producing  “flat-­‐world”  accounts,  we  should  engage  with   complexity  to  create  multi-­‐dimensional  accounts  of  our  subjects  of   study.  This  is  a  call  to  move  away  from  monolithic  analyses  of         133       environmental  issues  and  consider  how  agents  and  events  that  are   located  either  in  other  spaces  or  on  the  periphery  of  what  may  seem   like  the  center  of  our  research  focus  contribute  in  meaningful  ways  to   shape  an  environmental  issue.  The  ontological  politics  of   environmental  rhetorics  acknowledges  two  meta-­‐spaces  that  humans   occupy—a  biosphere,  consisting  of  the  Earth  and  its  atmosphere  that   ensure  life,  and  a  semiosphere,  consisting  of  discourse  that  provides   meaning  to  life  in  the  biosphere.  Within  the  tradition,  only   ecocomposition  has  acknowledged  these  two  spaces  as  mutually-­‐ dependant.  The  biosphere  can  be  segmented  into  multiple  realms   (realities)—political  environments,  electronic  environments,   economic  environments  and  natural  environments,  but  analysis  of   these  spaces  are  rarely  seen  in  relation  to  each  other.  This  signals  that   ecompositionists’  analyses  of  environment  often  fail  to  engage  in   complexity  that  moves  beyond  sites  and  make  inquiries  into  how   other  spaces  also  affect  how  a  text  develops  or  why  positions  in   environmental  phenomenon  vary  greatly  among  stakeholders.     The  shift  toward  moving  away  from  epistemology  (e.g.  what  is   knowledge)  toward  ontology  (e.g.  what  knowledge  represents)  is  a   crucial  shift  in  solving  environmental  problems.  I  have  offered  a  few   accounts  of  how  Asian  carp  exist  in  multiple  within  this  dissertation.   Telling  these  stories  is  a  means  of  accounting  for  realities  that  are         134       purposefully  not  made  a  part  of  the  official  narrative  regarding  what  is   Asian  carp  or  are  often  treated  as  separate  issues  entirely,  but   nevertheless  contribute  to  the  complexity  of  the  issue  we  face  in  the   present.  Why  should  we  understand  Asian  carp  as  invasive  purely   through  the  lens  of  science,  without  attending  to  the  ways  in  which   science  makes  use  of  legal  institutions  to  do  its  work?  Alternatively,   how  can  we  understand  carp  as  being  economically  invasive  without   considering  the  work  scientists  and  aquaculturists  accomplished  in   the  1970s  to  make  to  construct  carp  as  economically  and   environmentally  beneficial?  Ontological  work  is  messy,  but  I  am   skeptically  of  neatness  to  the  extent  that  I  am  concerned  with  what  is   not  accounted  for.  By  telling  and  engaging  with  these  multiple   accounts  of  carp,  we  can  begin  to  practice  an  environmental  rhetoric   of  possibilities.  Here  we  can  assemble  the  full  range  of  relations  in  all   their  complexity  and  consider  rhetorically  responsible  ways  in  which   we  can  engage  with  the  worlds  of  others  and  devise  solutions  that   benefit  stakeholders  in  a  way  where  there  are  not  winners  and  losers   in  rhetoric.  I  tell  these  stories  about  carp  not  as  some  postmodern   exercise,  but  to  explicate  the  problem  of  what  happens  when  we   elevate  certain  realties  and  screen  out  others.       The  first  step  toward  achieving  this  vision  regards  deliberation  over  the  definition   of  what  constitutes  an  environmental  problem  (e.g.  what  is  Asian  carp).  How  we  see   environmental  problems  is  the  result  of  distance.  This  is  an  issue  for  researchers         135       and  stakeholders.  Environmental  problems  often  present  themselves  (or  we  present   them)  in  the  form  of  local  versus  global  concerns.  Distance  through  this  dichotomy   is  important.  The  assumption  has  always  been  the  more  global  the  greater  the   complexity  of  the  problem;  the  more  local  the  simpler  the  problem  and  the  easier  it   is  to  address.  A  good  example  would  be  littering  versus  global  climate  change.  A   person  in  New  York  may  not  care  about  trash  lying  on  the  sidewalk  in  Detroit,   because  of  distance  and  a  feeling  that  the  trash  does  not  affect  his  or  her  space.   Alternatively,  a  New  Yorker  is  likely  to  have  a  dissimilar  response  if  he  or  she   believes  a  new  trash  incinerator  in  Detroit  contributes  to  the  climate  phenomenon   that  has  seen  warmer  than  usual  temperatures.  The  carp  drama  recapitulates  the   local  vs.  global  conundrum  in  many  ways  within  this  project  itself.  For  example,  for   years  carp  have  been  a  nuisance  species  in  the  lower  Mississippi  Basin.  There  has   never  been  enough  attention  focused  on  efforts  to  mitigate  the  problem  in  the  lower   Mississippi  Basin.  Now  that  carp  are  said  to  be  at  the  door  of  the  Great  Lakes,  there   is  very  little  incentive  for  actors  residing  in  spaces  such  as  Mississippi,  Louisiana  or   Arkansas  to  stop  the  movement  of  carp,  especially  if  the  effort  does  nothing  to   mitigate  the  problem  within  their  own  spaces.  Their  response  is  also  partial  to  Great   Lakes  actors’  success  at  defining  carp  as  a  local  concern  to  them  rather  than  a  global   concern  that  affects  all.  In  his  thoughts  on  the  politics  of  historiography,  Mao  (2010)   asked  us,  as  a  discipline,  to  consider  how  our  choice  of  study  is  indicative  of  our   ideology.  Following  Mao’s  recommendations,  I  am  moved  to  consider  how  this   dichotomy  serves  to  limit  scholarly  practice  as  it  plays  out  within  the  environmental   rhetoric  tradition.  If  we  are  going  to  deal  in  the  ontology  of  environmental  problems         136       through  the  lens  of  complexity,  then  we  have  to  address  how  our  use  of  scale  affects   the  ways  we  see  and  act.  The  point  here  is  that  we  cannot  see  an  environmental   problem  as  limited  to  a  particular  space.  In  fact,  we  have  to  venture  beyond  the   initial  site  to  other  spaces  in  order  to  understand  the  practices  we  see.  Why  is  it  that   carp  only  becomes  an  issue  when  we  see  it  as  a  Great  Lakes  concern  rather  than  a   concern  for  other  spaces?  The  problem  here  is  that  when  we  define  the  issue  so   locally,  we  make  design  decisions  that  that  are  tied  exclusively  to  local  concerns  that   do  not  adequately  address  the  ways  in  which  multiple  stakeholders  hold  interests  in   a  single  space  (e.g.  the  Chicago  Waterway  System)  across  scale.  Ecological   separation  between  the  Chicago  Waterway  System  and  the  Great  Lakes  is  a  solution   that  benefits  the  Great  Lakes  community;  however,  it  ignores  entirely  the  fact  that   commercial  shippers  and  a  host  of  other  industries  are  reliant  upon  the  waterway   system  to  move  goods.  As  researchers,  just  because  Asian  carp  are  defined  as  an   issue  that  affects  the  Great  Lakes,  does  not  mean  that  space  should  be  the  center  of   our  analysis.  Roping  off  the  scene  of  the  social  to  specific  areas  reduces  complexity   and  simplifies  solutions  in  a  way  that  benefits  a  few  rather  than  many.  The   reconsideration  of  how  we  deploy  scale  as  unit  of  measure  definitely  would  affect   how  we  approach  the  analysis  of  environmental  problems,  but  it  might  also  present   avenues  through  which  we  can  transform  even  the  way  we  teach  environmental   rhetoric—specifically,  as  it  relates  to  civic  engagement.     It  is  easy  to  see  how  scale  works  within  and  outside  environmental  rhetoric   with  respect  to  how  we  think  about  green  culture.  The  collective  understanding  of   local  is  best  understood  via  the  slogan  “Think  globally,  act  locally.”  This  is  the  idea         137       that  small  activities  in  your  place  essentially  add  up  to  global  change.  Environmental   rhetoric  has  made  use  of  this  idea  and  deployed  it  through  its  study  of   environmental  issues.  In  contrast  to  local,  environmental  rhetoricians  have  used   global  to  denote  problems  that  permeate  outside  of  local  and  national  (or  regional)   boundaries  and  attempt  to  connect  with  a  larger  culture  comprised  of  several  large   and  small  cultures.  Killingsworth  and  Palmer  (1992)  provide  an  insightful  heuristic   toward  understanding  global  as  a  categorical  distinction  by  locating  a  definition   within  the  circles  of  economists  and  social  ecologists.  Accordingly,  globally  effective   discourse  promotes  “universally  acceptable  values”  has  “strong  inducements  to   constructive  action”  and  always  targets  what  would  benefit  the  “global  ecosystem”   (Killingsworth  &  Palmer,  1992,  p  240).  As  I  have  said  in  the  introduction,  this  is  why   I  find  a  study  of  Asian  carp  so  compelling.  Asian  carp  as  invasive  species  cannot  be   understood  solely  through  the  lens  of  science,  legal  apparatuses  or  aquaculture.  As   an  environmental  problem  they  are  a  collection  of  constellated  performances.  To   flatten  space  and  take  a  more  global  or  local  approach  to  studying  this  crisis  does   not  responsibly  attend  to  the  multiple  ways  in  which  carp  materialize  and  the  full   range  of  possibilities  for  solutions  that  attend  those  realities.     When  I  use  scale,  I  am  leveraging  a  term  that  in  many  ways  serves  as  a   component  within  the  foundation  of  geography  as  a  discipline.  Scale  refers  to  a   theoretical  system  of  measurement  within  geography  in  which  differentially  sized   and  bounded  units  (e.g.,  local,  regional,  global  etc.)  are  arranged  within  a  set   hierarchy  (e.g.,  big  to  small:  local  to  global)  as  a  means  of  describing  relationships   and  the  flows  of  power  between  agents  residing  within  oppositional  units  (Agnew,         138       2003;  Brenner,  2005).  Scale  and  its  value  within  geography  has  been  the  subject  of   theoretical  discussion  as  it  has  continued  to  place  geographers  at  odds  with  each   other  for  the  past  two  decades.  While  there  are  some  who  have  argued  for  and   demonstrated  the  necessity  of  scale  (Jonas,  1988,  1994,  2006;  Jones  and  MacLeod,   2004;  Harvey,  1998;  Massey,  1994;  McDowell,  1999;  Smith,  1984,  1992,  1993;   Swyngedouw,  1997,  2000,  2004),  others  have  regarded  scale  as  nothing  more  than   an  operationalized  measure  or  “intuitive  fiction”  made  fact  (Escobar,  2007;  Howitt,   2002,  2003;  Jones,  1998).  What  my  study  does  is  make  an  argument  for  studying  the   interactions  between  human  and  nonhuman  actors  across  multiple  sites.  I  do  not   make  any  assumptions  about  how  spaces  are  ordered.  Employing  hierarchies  in  the   study  of  spatial  relations  (e.g.  decisions  regarding  which  sites  matter  and  which  do   not,  or  excluding  certain  units  within  sites  from  the  purview  of  analysis)  limit  the   possible  of  entry  points  for  practicing  progressive  politics.  My  focus  on  the  rule-­‐ making  process  in  the  previous  chapter  stands  as  an  example  of  this.  Studying  how  a   solitary  actor  (e.g.  Lacey  Act  or  Document  No.  03-­‐23745)  functions  as  it  shuttles   between  spaces  within  individual  realities  presents  the  possibility  for  making  new   connections  across  social  sites  that  proffer  solutions  to  problems  that  satisfy  the   concerns  of  multiple  stakeholders.  I  have  found  much  value  in  the  work  of   geographers  who  position  themselves  in  opposition  to  scalar  measures,  because   they  question  the  use  of  a  measure  that  predetermines  relationships  between   agents  and  their  respective  spaces  before  one  arrives  at  a  site  of  study  rather  than   theorizing  alternative  movement  that  adequately  accounts  for  how  power  travels   across  geographies  through  horizontal  flows  via  networks.           139       The  move  to  envision  networked  accounts  of  travel  across  locations  within   human  and  cultural  geography  is  a  step  toward  rethinking  scale  and  its  relationship   to  scholarly  practice.  This  is  predicated  on  the  belief  that  it  is  impossible  to  define   scalar  units,  that  is  to  say,  scale  is  unreliable  and  therefore  not  a  useful  metric  for   theorizing  how  the  world  works.  Specifically,  we  can  best  understand  this  point-­‐of-­‐ view  by  raising  a  question,  what  is  local/global,  which  has  never  been  answered  in  a   way  that  does  not  appear  to  operationalize  definitions  within  the  scholarship—at   least  that  is  how  Marston,  Jones  and  Woodward  (2005)  understood  it  in  their  read   of  geography  as  a  discipline.  Similarly,  I  find  that  I  am  skeptical  of  how   environmental  rhetoricians  employ  scale.  The  problem  with  definitions  like  what   Killingsworth  and  Palmer  offer  (e.g.    global  =  “universally  acceptable  values”  or  “act   locally,  think  globally”)  is  the  fact  that  they  lack  a  sense  of  cultural  and  social   sensitivity.  They  elevate  global  over  local  by  instituting  a  hierarchal  ordering  of   scales  that  denotes  a  certain  sense  of  importance  of  global  concerns  over  local   concerns.  Moreover,  they  also  assume  that  local  can  be  measured  in  material  actions   (e.g.  recycling,  campaigning,  letter  writing)  that  build-­‐up  over  time  to  create   universal  (or  global)  change.  Here  local  serves  as  action-­‐space  whereas  global   becomes  thinking-­‐space.  What  definitions  like  this  ignore  is  the  extent  to  which  a   local  site  is  an  amalgamation  of  many  sites.  They  also  keep  our  attention  on  vertical   flows  of  power  rather  than  allowing  us  to  look  horizontally  to  ask  and  see  how  other   localities  affect  what  is  happening  on  the  ground.  There  has  never  truly  been   interest  in  defining  what  makes  a  location  local  or  pulling  at  the  complexity  of  sites   that  would  force  us  to  think  of  multiple  geographies  and  alternative  relationships         140       within  and  outside  of  the  local  or  global  contexts  in  which  we  situate  our  work.  It   merely  appears  that  its  standard  practice  to  use  local  and  global  because  they  are   forms  that  have  been  handed  down  for  us  to  deploy  without  question.  The   underlying  mantra  here  is  “have  scale,  will  travel.”  There  is  little  thought  of  how  the   form  and  how  our  reliance  upon  form  can  be  an  impediment  toward  either   understanding  environmental  phenomena  and  their  constitutive  practices.  We   merely  trust  that  the  form  will  generate  the  appropriate  content  (White,  1990;   Marston  et  al.,  2005).   We  need  to  approach  the  study  of  environmental  rhetoric  through  site   ontology.  This  in  itself  would  move  us  away  from  scale  as  it  asks  us  to  think  about   what  defines  a  space  without  applying  a  preconceive  descriptor  to  that  area  (i.e.   naming  a  site  local  without  knowing  what  makes  it  local  or  even  having  to  rely  upon   the  term).  Thus  we  are  not  recapitulating  ideas  of  top-­‐down/bottom-­‐up  movement   (i.e.  arguing  that  the  global  affects  the  local  or  vice-­‐versa)  or  the  idea  that  certain   boundaries  exists  to  partition  specific  geographies  from  others;  instead  we  are   recognizing  how  power  moves  across  spaces  in  constantly  changing  horizontally   linked  networks  of  certain  and  uncertain  connectivity.  This  work  begins  when   environmental  rhetorics  more  formally  solidifies  its  relationship  not  only  with   rhetorics  of  space  and  place  but  also  the  discipline  of  geography.  It  has  taken  me   some  time,  but  I  have  come  to  appreciate  Reynolds’s  Geographies  of  Writing  (2004)   because  it  is  the  first  stab  at  breaking  down  the  boundaries  between  the  three.       It  has  provided  me  with  the  room  to  think  about  how  spaces  are  layered  to   inhibit  or  promote  activity  in  a  variety  of  ways.  I  am  talking  specifically  about  the         141       many  spaces  nested  within  and  around  a  single  site  of  focus  that  affect  the  activity   we  see  in  a  sight.  This  also  encompasses  the  many  units  (actors  and  actants)  within   those  spaces  that  are  arranged  in  a  variety  of  ways  that  structure  how  actors   understand  the  world.  For  example,  consider  the  space  of  the  rulemaking  process.   How  can  we  make  sense  of  actors’  activity  in  this  space  without  venturing  back  in   time  to  make  sense  of  the  Lacey  Act  and  how  it  has  come  to  mean  across  time  and  a   variety  of  spaces.  Depending  on  space  and  how  others  are  arranged  around  it,  the   Lacey  Act  assumes  a  different  character.  For  me,  the  question  of  how  spaces  are   layered  to  produce  their  own  sets  of  relations  is  a  resurrection  and  reconsideration   of  the  rhetorical  canon  of  arrangement  (dispositio).  Here  we  can  better  theorize  how   acts  of  composition  in  textual  worlds  affect  the  physical  world  and  vice-­‐versa.  From   alternating  vantage  points,  we  researchers  might  observe  all  the  assemblages  and   paths  for  travel  in  our  spatial  analyses  and  make  in  roads  into  practicing  a  different   kind  of  environmental  politics—one  that  is  more  inclusive.  All  of  this  is  built  from   my  critique  of  Reynolds’s  treatment  of  spaces  as  unconnected.  The  “no  go  zones”  of   Leeds  remain  separate  spaces  where  students  must  go  to  “dwell  a  little  more”  in   order  to  understand  difference  (Reynolds,  2004).  Neither  Reynolds  nor  the  students   consider  the  ways  in  which  “no  go  zones”  and  “safe  zones”  are  connected  to   reinforce  each  other  and  the  activities  of  their  respective  agents.  If  we  follow   Reynolds’s  lead  and  treat  spaces  as  separate  then  we  run  the  risk  of  not  truly  being   able  to  understand  how  the  activity  we  see  in  the  everyday  is  a  result  of  how  spaces   are  arranged  to  support  or  inhibit  practices.  When  we  do  this  we  then  run  the  risk  of   making  assumptions  about  spaces  and  subsequently  people.  This  happens  within         142       Reynolds’s  book  even  though  her  focus  on  difference  is  the  result  of  not  wanting  to   make  assumptions  about  people  and  the  spaces  they  inhabit.   If  place  is  always  seen  as  local,  then  we  can  readily  ignore  how  forces  beyond   the  local  affect  how  the  local  should  be  understood.  For  example,  framing  the  Asian   carp  crisis  squarely  within  the  local  contexts  of  the  Great  Lakes’  lucrative  fishery  is   an  issue  in  that  it  excludes  how  spaces  within  the  Chicago-­‐area  and  the  lower   Mississippi,  which  utilize  the  waterway  system,  regularly  contribute  to  the  fishery  in   recognized  and  unacknowledged  ways.  Stakeholders  raise  ecological  separation  as   the  best  solution  to  protect  the  fishery;  however,  they  fail  to  consider  or  downplay   the  affects  such  an  action  will  have  on  other  economic  spaces  (e.g.  an  Arkansas   catfish  farm  or  commercial  shippers).  These  spaces  are  tied  to  each  other  in  a   complex  set  of  relations.  Analysis  of  one  space  cannot  happen  without  considering   how  others  are  tied  to  it  to  create  the  characterization  we  witness.  Engaging  in  this   politics  of  scale  is  an  argument  that  all  places  are  local  and  are  networked  to  each   other.  Doing  this  allows  us  a  foundation  to  critique  power  dynamics.  In  this  light,   critiques  of  how  we  tour  the  spaces  of  others,  be  they  in  an  exhibit,  a  city,  or  a  letter   about  carp  become  meaningful.  I  closed  the  previous  chapter  by  talking  about   connections.  This  was  the  idea  that  we  must  think  about  the  many  ways  in  which   seemingly  disconnected  spaces  are  actually  connected.  I  raised  the  use  of  stories  or   memories  of  events  as  one  particular  means  of  bridging  space.     I  find  memory  to  be  interesting  because  of  the  multiple  forms  it  can  take   within  assemblies  of  actors.  Memory  can  be  an  artifact,  an  institution,  or  an  event  at   any  given  time;  however,  we  are  conditioned  to  regard  memory  as  a  stable  artifact,         143       which  we  can  recall  from  our  minds  for  the  purposes  of  recollecting  events.  This   positionality  reifies  memory  to  the  point  where  we  are  led  to  believe  that  the  act  of   remembering  is  an  objective  activity  that  maps  onto  how  the  event  may  have  been   experienced  by  others  within  a  community.  Hoang  (2009)  posited  an  alternative   way  of  thinking  about  memory.  She  presents  memory  as  an  artifact,  an  event,  and  a   tool.  For  her,  the  idea  of  memory  as  tool  means  that  to  remember  is  to  analyze  and   recompose  an  artifact  (a  memory)  so  that  it  has  performative  capabilities  that  can   be  liberating  and  empowering  for  community  members.  The  act  of  recomposition  is   a  move  to  destablize  a  memory  (dominant  cultural  narrative)  and  allow  for  other   memories  to  circulate  and  define  the  boundaries  of  any  given  cultural  experience.   The  locations  of  these  countermemories,  which  “haunt”  the  dominant,  reside  in  the   “sedimented  spaces”  that  exist  as  fissures  in  the  surface  of  cultural  memory  (Lowe,   1996;  Braun  &  Wainwright,  2001).  Any  event  is  haunted  by  memories.  These   hauntings  emerge  in  the  ways  people  arrange  other  actors,  institutions  and  various   spatial  elements  contained  within  an  event.  The  memories  attached  to  a  single  event   in  a  space  are  often  tied  to  other  spaces—and  other  events.  As  individuals  narrate   their  experiences,  spaces  unfold  as  they  travel  throughout  their  networks.  The   forms  that  memory  assumes  within  a  community  point  to  the  varying  spaces  of   dependence  among  agents.  Thus  the  bridges  we  build  in  the  study  of  space  create   multiple  constellative  sites.       A  good  example  would  be  a  story  not  captured  in  this  dissertation.  This  is  the   story  of  how  carp  came  to  the  US.  Depending  on  to  whom  you  speak,  you  will  get  a   different  account.  Some  say  it  was  the  sole  efforts  of  an  Arkansas  fish  farmer  named         144       Jim  Malone;  others  say  Jim,  who  preferred  another  species  for  cleaning  aquaculture   tanks,  was  convinced  to  consider  to  use  bighead  and  silver  carp  instead  by  the   United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  Then  there  is  the  fact  that  Jim  was  not  the   only  person  in  possession  of  these  carp  species  during  the  time.     My  archival  trace  indicated  that  it  was  initially  a  commercial  fish  producer,   who  was  responsible  for  importing  silver  and  bighead  carp  into  the  U.S.  in  1973;   however,  all  of  the  fish  were  transported  from  the  producer  to  the  Arkansas  Game   and  Fish  Commission  (AGFC)  for  a  period  of  three  years  (Kelly  et  al.  2011;  Mike   Freeze,  personal  communication,  January  8,  2012).  This  was  a  result  of  a  formal   agreement  between  the  producer  and  the  AGFC  for  the  purposes  of  water  quality   research.  In  fact,  the  AGFC  was  the  first  among  public  and  private  institutions  to   reproduce  these  two  species  through  captive  breeding  directed  toward  research.  I   would  argue  that  it  is  not  necessarily  Arkansas  fish  farmers  that  we  should  direct   our  attention  toward,  but  the  AGFC.  From  1972  to  1982,  the  AGFC  was  principally   responsible  for  all  research  on  bighead  and  silver  carp’s  value  to  aquaculture.  This   was  a  period  of  time  in  which  they  not  only  stocked  four  different  sites  with  carp,   but  also  provided  carp  to  universities,  research  stations  and  state  and  federal   agencies.  From  the  mid-­‐70s  to  the  80s,  there  were  several  universities,  state  and   federal  agencies  that  were  conducting  studies  involving  bighead  and  silver  carp.   Among  institutions  Auburn  and  the  Illinois  Natural  History  Survey  both  received   carp  from  AGFC  in  1974  (Buck  et  al.,  1978;  Burke  and  Bayne,  1990;  Kelly  et  al,   2011).  These  studies  ranged  from  assessing  the  value  of  silver  carp  in  polyculture         145       and  sewage  treatment  systems  to  assessing  bighead  and  silver  carps  growth  rates   (Cremer  and  Smitherman,  1980;  Henebry  et  al.,  1988).   The  relationship  between  Jim  and  the  Service  never  makes  it  into  the  official   stories  told  by  the  United  States  government.  In  fact,  even  Document  No.  03-­‐23745   states:  “Bighead  carp  were  imported  into  the  United  States  in  1972  by  a  fish  farmer   who  wanted  to  use  them  in  combination  with  other  phytoplankton-­‐eating  fish  to   improve  water  quality  and  increase  fish  production  in  culture  ponds.”  Moreover,   statements  similar  to  the  aforementioned  quote  flatten  space  and  deny  us  the  ability   to  understand  the  many  sites  outside  of  Jim’s  farm  where  researchers  and   environmental  activists  were  busy  creating  knowledge  about  carp  in  order  to   position  it  as  a  helper  species.  Disassemble  these  bridges  and  it  becomes  easier  to   lay  blame  and  to  make  the  case  for  invasibility.  The  origin  story  of  the  curious  case   of  the  Asian  carp  becomes  the  result  of  error  on  the  part  of  a  careless  farmer  rather   than  the  collective  effort  between  a  farmer,  aquaculture,  university  researchers,  and   the  government.  Jim  stopped  speaking  to  the  media  and  researchers  a  while  back.  In   fact,  he  is  likely  to  never  speak  to  anyone  about  the  incident  ever  again  now  that  he   is  in  the  later  stages  of  Alzheimer's  disease.  His  son,  who  has  taken  over  the  family   business,  also  refuses  to  speak  to  anyone  about  the  farm’s  relationship  to  Asian   carp.  I  was  told  that  he  is  incredibly  protective  of  his  father  and  remains  upset  with   how  blame  for  the  introduction  has  been  place  squarely  on  Jim’s  shoulders.     Focusing  on  how  differing  memories  haunt  an  event  and  subsequently  a  site   (a  community)  provides  a  window  into  understanding  the  dynamics  and  complexity   of  why  we  cannot  regard  an  event  as  exclusively  local.  Events  are  given  meaning         146       through  the  links  that  exist  within  an  agent’s  network.  What  happens  to  create   meaning  for  an  event  requires  a  person’s  unfolding  of  space  and  time  as  they  travel   through  that  network  of  experience  by  way  of  memory.  Still,  memory-­‐work  comes   with  a  caveat.  We  must  be  careful  that  countermemories  not  replace  older   narratives  in  order  to  establish  new  dominant  narratives.  We  must  remember  that   an  event  is  experienced  by  multiple  people  and  is  likely  to  be  valued  in  varying  ways   that  depend  upon  how  people  choose  remember.  In  closing,  I  offer  these  questions   from  my  study  of  ontology  for  us  to  consider  that  appear  as  both  environmental  and   social  challenges,  assuming  that  we  can  make  definitive  demarcations  between  the   two.    First,  how  might  we  relate  with  our  environments  in  other  ways  and  make   meaningful  use  of  those  relations?  Moreover,  how  might  we  relate  with  each  other   on  more  just  terms?  And,  finally,  how  do  we  consciously/unconsciously  maintain   networks  through  our  everyday  practices?  With  that  final  question,  I’m  revisiting   Taylor’s  understanding  of  embodiment  and  practice  with  respect  to  the  archive  and   the  repertoire.                                         147                                                         APPENDICES                                                 148                                                         Appendix  A:     Research  Participant  Information  and  Consent  Form                                               149       MICHIGAN  STATE  UNIVERSITY   CONSENT  TO  PARTICIPATE  IN  A  RESEARCH  STUDY       TITLE OF STUDY:     Carp  Stories:  Building  a  Cultural  Rhetorical  History  of  an   Invasive  Species     RESEARCHERS:     Error!  Contact  not  defined.,  423.580.5577  /   dsackey@msu.edu                                                                   William  Hart-­‐Davidson,  517.353.9184  /  hartdav2@msu.edu       PURPOSE:   You  are  being  asked  to  participate  in  a  research  project.  The  purpose  of  this  project   is  to  collect  stories  of  individuals’  and  organizations’  experiences  with  Asian  carp   and  other  invasive  species.     INFORMANTS:     You  have  been  asked  to  participate  because  you  are  a  person  who  has  either  worked   for  an  organization  or  agency  that  works  around  issues  related  to  Asian  carp  as   invasive,  conducts  research  regarding  Asian  carp  or  has  made  public  statements   regarding  Asian  carp  as  an  invasive  species.     PROCEDURES:     You  have  been  invited  to  provide  your  thoughts  and  opinions  regarding  invasive   species,  particularly  Asian  carp.  The  interview  will  first  start  by  asking  a  series  of   background  questions  related  to  your  familiarity  with  environmental  issues.   Thereafter,  the  researcher  will  present  a  series  questions  related  to  your   experiences  with  Asian  carp  and  other  invasive  species.  After  the  interview,  the   researcher  will  answer  any  questions  you  may  have  regarding  the  purpose  of  this   study.       RISKS:     While  highly  unlikely,  the  only  perceived  risk  in  this  study  regards  the  fact  that  you   may  be  asked  to  provide  your  opinions  concerning  a  potentially  controversial   issue—invasive  Asian  carp.  You  are  free  to  decline  to  answer  any  questions  that   make  you  uncomfortable.  You  may  also  ask  the  research  to  not  quote  directly  from   your  response.       BENEFITS:     There  are  no  perceived  benefits  to  research  participants.             150       CONFIDENTIALITY:     Your  identity  will  be  protected  to  the  extent  allowed  by  the  law.  You  will  not  be   personally  identified  in  any  reports  or  publications  that  may  result  from  this  study   unless  you  state  otherwise.  While  this  is  not  an  anonymous  study,  all  information   gained  will  be  considered  confidential.  The  researcher  will  retain  your  data  from   this  study  for  no  longer  than  three  years.  The  research  will  retain  your  data  on  a   password-­‐protected  computer.       COST/COMPENSATION:   There  will  be  no  cost  to  you  nor  will  you  be  compensated  for  participating  in  this   research  study.       RIGHT TO REFUSE OR WITHDRAW:   This  research  is  voluntary.  You  may  refuse  to  participate  or  withdraw  from  this   project  at  anytime  without  penalty.  If  the  study  design  or  use  of  data  is  to  be   changed,  you  will  be  so  informed  and  your  consent  re-­‐obtained.  You  will  be  told  of   any  significant  new  findings  developed  during  the  course  of  this  study  that  may   relate  to  your  willingness  to  continue  participation.     QUESTIONS: If  you  have  any  questions,  please  ask  us.  If  you  have  additional  questions  later,   please  contact  William  Hart-­‐Davidson  (Principal  Investigator)  at  517.353.9184  /   hartdav2@msu.edu/  or  Suite  7  Olds  Hall,  Michigan  State  University,  East  Lansing,   MI  48824  or  contact  Donnie  Sackey  at  517.355.2403  /  dsackey@msu.edu  /  or  274   Bessey  Hall,  Michigan  State  University,  East  Lansing,  MI  48824.     You  may  report  (anonymously,  if  you  so  choose)  any  complaints  or  comments   regarding  the  manner  in  which  this  study  is  being  conducted  to  the  Michigan  State   University  Human  Research  Protection  Program  at  517.355.2180  or  by  addressing  a   letter  to  the  Chair  of  the  Board,  c/o  Human  Research  Protection  Program,  202  Olds   Hall,  Michigan  State  University,  East  Lansing,  MI  48824.       I WILLINGLY VOLUNTEER AS A RESEARCH INFORMANT FOR THIS STUDY.       NAME                             151                /              /2012   DATE     I AGREE TO HAVING MY VOICE RECORDED FOR THIS RESEARCH STUDY.                /              /2012   NAME                                                                                         152                                                          Appendix  B:     Preliminary  Interview  Questionnaire                                               153       INTERVIEW  PROTOCOL       OVERVIEW    Introduce  myself  and  describe  the  purpose  of  the  interview.    Read  the  “Consent  Script.”      Inquiry  as  to  whether  they  understand  or  have  any  questions  about  the   study;  thereafter,  I  ask  if  they  are  willing  to  provide  consent  to   participate.    Ask  permission  to  use  an  audio-­‐recording  device  and  disclose  why  I  am   choosing  to  use  the  device  as  part  of  the  study.       QUESTIONS    Could  you  describe  for  me  the  position  you  currently  have?  How  is  it  that   you  came  to  this  position?      What  is  your  connection  to  environmental  movements  or  issues   regarding  the  environment?      How  familiar  are  you  or  your  organization  with  invasive  species?      When  discussing  the  nature  of  invasive  species  to  people  who  are   unfamiliar  with  the  what  they  are,  what  language  do  you  use  (e.g.   metaphors;  special  terminology;  stories)    Is  this  similar  of  different  from  the  way  that  you  hear  others  discussing   invasive  species?        When  did  your  organization  first  become  aware  of  Silver  carp,  Bighead   carp,  or  Asian  carp?      Has  use  of  the  term  Asian  carp  rather  than  Silver  carp  or  Bighead  carp   affect  how  you  or  your  organization  organizes  around  the  issue?    What  position  (or  positions)  has  your  organization  held  with  respect  to   Asian  carp?      Do  these  positions  differ  from  other  groups  or  individuals  focused  on  the   issue  of  Asian  carp’s  presence  within  the  Mississippi  Basin?     o What  do  you  think  of  their  representation  of  Asian  carp?   Does  it  make  a  lot  of  sense  to  you?  In  what  ways  do  your   positions  differ?      Are  there  groups  or  individuals  that  you  or  your  organization  have  built   working  relationships  with  as  you  or  your  organization  have  organized   around  Asian  carp?   o How  did  these  relationships  manifest?  What  is  the  nature  of   the  work  that  you  do  together?      What  publications  are  you  aware  of  that  your  organization  has  produced   with  respect  to  Asian  carp?   o Are  these  documents  available  for  the  public  or  are  they   internal  and  private?  Do  you  retain  copies  of  these   documents?    What  publication  have  you  produced  with  respect  to  Asian  carp?           154        o Are  these  documents  available  for  the  public  or  are  they   internal  and  private?  Do  you  retain  copies  of  these   documents?     If  you  provide  me  with  documents,  is  it  possible  that  I  could  ask  you   follow-­‐up  questions  regarding  these  documents  via  email   correspondence  or  telephone?                                                                                             155                                                                                               Appendix  C:   Request  for  Documents  from  the  United  States  Fish  and   Wildlife  Service  under  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA)       156       Donnie Johnson Sackey Michigan State University Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & American Cultures 7B Olds Hall East Lansing, MI 48823 February 17, 2012 Dr. Stuart Leon Chief, Division of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 770 Arlington, VA 22203 RE: Freedom of Information Act request Dear Dr. Leon, This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552). I request that a copy of the following records be provided to me: Any and all documents, which includes but is not limited to public comments and letters that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received: during the 60-day public comment period in response to a Federal Register notice of inquiry on silver carp (68 FR 4348243483), during the public comment period (between September 5, 2005 and November 6, 2006) for the proposed rule (71 FR 52305) to add all live silver and largescale silver carp to the list of injurious fishes under the Lacey Act, and during the public comment period (September 17, 2003 and November 17, 2003) seeking inquiry on the addition of bighead carp to the list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act (68 FR 54409). In order to help you determine my status for the purpose of assessing fees, you should know that I am a graduate student, and that this request is made as part of research aimed at the completion of my doctoral dissertation rather than for commercial use. Responsive files will be shared with researchers and the public, and will not be licensed for profit. I request a waiver of fees for this request, since the public dissemination of the requested materials will aide public understanding of the federal government’s process for listing species as injurious wildlife, as they relate to what has been colloquially referred to as “Asian carp.” In general, most people are not knowledgeable about the rulemaking process by which species are listed as invasive. If this waiver is denied, I am willing to pay fees of up to $100.00. If fees are estimated to exceed this amount, please notify me first.       157       For timely process of this request, I can be contacted at 423-580-5577 or dsackey@msu.edu if you need to discuss any aspect of this request.     Sincerely,           Donnie  Johnson  Sackey                                                                                     158                                                                                               Appendix  D:     List  of  Documents  Received  from  FOIA  Request  and   Documents  Received       159                                       Name   Organization   Date   Subject   University  of   Arkansas   Pine  Bluff                                                                             Progress  in   [Research   (Unknown)   n.d.   Canned   abstract]   Bighead  Carp   Product   Development   William  B.   Kittrell,  Jr.   Robert  P.   Glennon   Department   of  Game  and   Inland   Fisheries       Notes   2   This  is  not  a   letter   2   Unknown   who   directly   submitted.   Not  written   for  the   comment   period.     11-­‐Jul-­‐96   "Bighead   Carp  Incident   Jim  Malone   and  Son,  INC.     16-­‐Jul-­‐03   "Bighead   Carp   Comments   ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AT49]"   10   1   Attachment   [Author's   article]     21-­‐Aug-­‐03   "Bighead  and   silver"   1     15     1     Cindy  Kolar,   PhD               Research   Fishery   Biologist   Rob  Maher   No.  of   pages   Illinois   Department   of  Natural   Resources   William  Van   Scyoc     ?-­‐Sep-­‐03   17-­‐Sep-­‐03   "Tables   Reported   catch  in   pounds  of   fish  taken  in   Illinois   waters"   "Bighead   Carp,   Injurious   Species   candidate"       Table  1.  Catalogue  of  letters  written  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service’s  2003   Notice  of  Inquiry  for  Review  of  Information  Concerning  Bighead  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys  nobilis).         160       Table  1  (cont'd)     B.  Sachau     17-­‐Sep-­‐03   "Bighead   Carp  being   banned  from   this  country-­‐ proposal  per"   Mike   Larimore     18-­‐Sep-­‐03   "Too  little  too   late"   B.  Sachau   Mike  Freeze,   Vice  President       25-­‐Sep-­‐03   Keo  Fish   28-­‐Sep-­‐03   Farm,  INC.     "RE  50  CFR   Part  16  RIN   1018-­‐AT49   Big  head  carp   -­‐  public   comments"   (No  subject   line)   1     1     1     2     Joey  Lowery   Lowery   Aqua  Farms,   INC.   1-­‐Oct-­‐03   (No  subject   line)   2     Jamie  Duncan   Daniel   Bellaire  Fish   Farms   11-­‐Oct-­‐03   "BIGHEAD   CARP"   2   1   attachment   13-­‐Oct-­‐03   "Economic   impact  of   bighead  carp"   1     15-­‐Oct-­‐03   "Comment   Concerning   Bighead   Carp"   2     21-­‐Oct-­‐03   (No  subject   line)   1     28-­‐Oct-­‐03   (No  subject   line)   1     Bill  Warren   Mallard   Farms   Vermont   Fish  &   Wildlife   Department   Mississippi   Department   Lester  Spell,   of   Jr.   Agriculture   Commissioner     and   Commerce   Tom  Jones       Fish  Health   Biologist   C.B.  Sledge                 161       Table  1  (cont'd)     Louis  S.   Thompson   Thompson   Fisheries,  INC   28-­‐Oct-­‐ 03   2     "The  potential   New  York   listing  of  bighead   carp   Department  of   3-­‐Nov-­‐03   Environmental   (Hypophthalmichtys   Conservation   nobilis)  as  injurious   wildlife"   2     Hopper-­‐ Stephens   4-­‐Nov-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   Hatcheries,   INC.   1     Keo  Fish  Farm,   4-­‐Nov-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   INC.     3   1   attachment     5-­‐Nov-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   7     Joe  Oglesby,   President   Catfish   Farmers  of   6-­‐Nov-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   Mississippi   1     Randall   Evans,   President   Catfish   Farmers  of   7-­‐Nov-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   Arkansas   2     2     Gerald  A.   Barnhart,   Director   Division  of   Fish,   Wildlife,   and  Marine   Resources   Bob  Hopper   and  Mark   Stephens   Martha   Melkovitz   Carole  R.   Engle   Craig  S.   Tucker,   Director   National   Warmwater   Aquaculture   Center   10-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)   (No  subject  line)                             162       Table  1  (cont'd)     John  D.   Hoskins,   Director   John  R.   MacMillian,   President   Missouri   Department   10-­‐Nov-­‐ of   03   Conservation   "Federal   Register/Vol.  68,  No.   180/Wednesday,   September  17,   2003/Proposed   Rules:  Review  of   Information   Concerning  Bighead   Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   nobilis)/RIN  1018-­‐ AT49   2     National   11-­‐Nov-­‐ Aquaculture   03   Association   "Request  for   Information  on   Bighead  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   nobilis)  RIN  10-­‐18-­‐ AT49,  FR  Docket  03-­‐ 23745"   2     Thad  Finley,   President   Farm  Cat,   11-­‐Nov-­‐ INC.   03   (No  subject  line)   2     Paul  L.   Smith,   President   Trans   11-­‐Nov-­‐ Fisheries,   03   INC.     (No  subject  line)   2     9   1   attachment   (Carole   Engle   research)   John  Teem,   Invasive   Species   Coordinator   Division  of   Aquaculture   Florida   Deparment   of   12-­‐Nov-­‐ Agriculture   03   and   Consumer   Services   (No  subject  line)               163       Table  1  (cont'd)     Bill  Lafferty,   Great  Lakes   Chair                   Law   Robert   Enforcement   Nestor,  Vice-­‐ Committee   Chair   13-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)   2     2     John  R.   MacMillian,   President   National   Aquaculture   Association   13-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   "Request  for   Information  on   Bighead  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   nobilis)  RIN  10-­‐18-­‐ AT49,  FR  Docket  03-­‐ 23745"   Bernard   Hansen,   Chairman   U.S.  Section   Great  Lakes   Fishery   Commission   14-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   "RIN  1018-­‐AT49"   3     Paula  Moore,   Jones  &   Staff   Eaker  Farms   Biologist   14-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)   1     Duane  L.   Shroufe,   Director   Arizona   Game  and   Fish   Department   14-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   "Review  of   Information   Concerning  Bighead   Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   nobilis)"   2     Liz   Christiansen,   Deputy   Director   Iowa   Department   of  Natural   Resources   14-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)   2     Pete  Kahrs   Osage   Catfisheries,   INC.   Cynthia  D.   DiBartolo   David   McLeish,   Chair     Pappas  Fish   Company  et   al.   Council  of   Lake   Committees     15-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)   8   1   attachment   [Glennon   article]   15-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)   3     17-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   "RIN  1018-­‐AT49"   2       164       Table  1  (cont'd)     "Federal   Register/Vol.  68,  No.   180/Wednesday,   September  17,   2003/Proposed   Rules  RIN  1018-­‐ AT49,  Review  of   Information   Concerning  Bighead   Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   nobilis)   1     "RIN  1018-­‐AI87"   2     (No  subject  line)   1     19-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   "Request  for   Information  on   Bighead  Carp:  RIN   10-­‐18-­‐AT49,  FR   Docket  03-­‐23745"   2     Jame  L.  Dexter,   Acting  Chief     Michigan   Department   20-­‐Nov-­‐ of  Natural   03   Resources   "Nominations  of   injurious  Species"   2     Kevin  Flowers   Flowers  Fish   25-­‐Nov-­‐ Farm   03   "Bighead  Carp"   1     LaDon  Swann,   President-­‐ Elect   U.S.   Aquaculture   Society,  a   18-­‐Dec-­‐ Chapter  of   03   the  World   Aquaculture   Society   (No  subject  line)   4   1   attachment   Peter  W.   Hofherr,   Director   Michael  J.   Donahue,   President/CEO   R.  Sherman   Wilhelm,   President   Missouri   Department   17-­‐Nov-­‐ of   03   Agriculture   Great  Lakes   Commission   17-­‐Nov-­‐ 03   des  Grands   Lacs   National   Association   17-­‐Nov-­‐ of  State   03   Aquaculture   Coordinators   Marion  Berry,   Congressman   (Ark-­‐1)             165         Name   Organization   Dr.  Mike  K.   Anan,  Esq   Kelly   Huckins,   Project   Evaluation   Specialist                 Arizona   Department   of  Fish  &   Game   Kentucky   Doug   Department   Henley   of  Fish  and   Wildlife   KEO  Fish   Mike  Freeze               Farm   Date   Subject   "Confidential   Relationship"   2   Spam   28-­‐Jul-­‐03   "Proposed   Rule:   Addition  of   Silver  Carp  to   the  list  of   Injurious   Wildlife   Species"   1     30-­‐Jul-­‐03   "Silver  Carp"   1     3-­‐Aug-­‐03   "ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AI87]"   1     1     1     1     1     1     Christian   Spies     4-­‐Aug-­‐03   James  A.   Rokia     6-­‐Aug-­‐03   (No  subject   line)   Andrew   Swan   "Carp     18-­‐Aug-­‐03   Problem   Solved"   Illinois   Department   (No  subject   18-­‐Aug-­‐03   of  Natural   line)   Resources   National   R.  Sherman   Association  of   Wilhelm           State   President             Aquaculture   Coordinators   Notes   26-­‐Jul-­‐03   "Review  of   information   concerning   Silver  Carp"   Joel   Brunsvold,   Director                       No.  of   pages   1-­‐Sep-­‐03   (No  subject   line)     Table  2.  Catalogue  of  letters  written  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service’s  2003   Notice  of  Inquiry  for  Review  of  Information  Concerning  Silver  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys  molitrix)  and  Largescale  Silver  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys   harmandi).         166       Table  2  (cont'd)     Lee  Sprague,           Tribal   Chairman                     John  L.  Koon,   Natural   Resources   Commission           Little  River   Robert   Band  of   4-­‐Sep-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   Hardenburgh,   Ottawa   Directory   Indians   Natural   Resources   Department         Archie   Martell,   Fisheries   Biologist                         Bill  Lafferty,   Chair                 Great  Lakes   Robert   Law   5-­‐Sep-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   Nestor,           Enforcement   Vice-­‐ Committee   Chairman   Jennifer   Nalbone,   Great  Lakes   9-­‐Sep-­‐03   (No  subject  line)   Habitat  and   United   Biodiversity   Coordinator   "50  CFR  Part  16,   RIN  1018-­‐A187   Bureau  of   Review  of   Rickalon  L.   Fisheries   15-­‐Sep-­‐ Information   Hoopes,   Pennsylvania   03   Concerning  Silver   Director                   Fish  &  Boat   Carp   Commission   (Hypophtalmichthys   molitrix)   Scott  Hassett,   Secretary     Wisconsin   Department   of  Natural   Resources   16-­‐Sep-­‐ 03   (No  subject  line)             167     3     2     2     2     2       Table  2  (cont'd)     Liz   Christiansen   Deputy   Director     Iowa   Department   of  Natural   Resources   16-­‐Sep-­‐03   (No  subject   line)   1     Chippewa   Ottawa   Resource   Authority   16-­‐Sep-­‐03   "ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AI87]"   2     16-­‐Sep-­‐03   "ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AI87]"   1     18-­‐Sep-­‐03   "ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AI87]"   2     Great  Lakes   Roy  Stein,                                   Fishery   Vice-­‐Chair   Commission   18-­‐Sep-­‐03   "ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AI87]"   4     Aimee   Delach,   Senior   Program   Associate   Defenders  of   Wildlife   18-­‐Sep-­‐03   "ATTN:  [RIN   1018-­‐AI87]"   1       21-­‐Sep-­‐03   "A  life  time   oppurtunity   (sic)"   1   Spam   22-­‐Sep-­‐03   "Nominations   of  Injurious   Species"     2     22-­‐Sep-­‐03   "Proposed   rule;  notice   of  inquiry   concerning   Silver  Carp   July  23,  2003   Federal     2     Jeffery   Parker   Executive   Director     Helen  A.   Brohl,   Executive   Director   Paul  J.   Wingate,   Chair   United   States  Great   Lakes   Shipping   Association   Council  of   Lake   Committees   Mallam   Irahim   Saleh   Kelly  D.   Smith,  PhD     Michigan   Department   of  Natural   Resources   John  A.   Andersen,   The  Nature   Jr.                                                               Conservancy   Great  Lakes   Director             168         Name   Organization   Robert   Glennon,   Biologist     Date   n.d.   Subject   "Silver  Carp   Comments  RIN   number  1018-­‐AT29"   No.  of   pages   Notes   2     Robyn   Draheim,   Assistant   Coordinator   "Injurious  Wildlife   Species;  Silver  Carp   Oregon   Aquatic   (Hypophthalmichthys   Nusiance   molitrix)  and   5-­‐Sep-­‐06   Largescale  Silver   Species   Manage  Ment   Carp   Plan     (Hypophthalmichthys   harmandi)"   2     Lynn  R.   Schlueter,   Special   Project   Biologist   North  Dakota   Department   21-­‐Sep-­‐ of  Fish  and   06   Game   1     "RIN  number  1018-­‐ AT29"   Sam  Flood,   Acting   Director   Illinios   Department   2-­‐Oct-­‐06   (No  subject)   of  Natural   Resources   5     Jim  Doyle,       Govenor  of   Wisconsin   Council  of   Great  Lakes   Govenors   "RIN  Number  1018-­‐ AT29"   2     (No  subject)   1     Doug   Hansen,       Director   Division  of   Wildlife   12-­‐Oct-­‐ 06   South  Dakota   Department   16-­‐Oct-­‐ of  Game,  Fish,   06   and  Parks       Table  3.  Catalogue  of  letters  written  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service’s  2007  Final   Rule  on  Listing  Silver  Carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  molitrix)  and  Largescale  Silver  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys  harmandi)  as  Injurious  Wildlife.                         169       Table  3  (cont'd)     John  D.   Hoskins,   Director   Missouri   Department   17-­‐Oct-­‐ of   06   Conservation   "Federal  Register/Vol.  71,   No.  17/September  5,   2006/Proposed  Rules:   Injurious  Wildlife  Species;   Silver  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   molitrix)  and  Largescale   Silver  Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys)/RIN   1018-­‐AT29   J.  Michael   Hayden,   Secretary   Kansas   Department   19-­‐Oct-­‐ 06   of  Wildlife  &   Parks   "Silver  Carp  and  Largescale   Sliver  Carp-­‐Injujrious   Species  Listing"   2     Jim  Gores,   Invasive   Species  and   Wildlife   Integrety   Coordinator     Oregon   Department   20-­‐Oct-­‐ of  Fish  and   06   Wildlife   "RIN  number  1018-­‐AT29"   1     "RIN  number  1018-­‐AT29   (Silver  Carp)"   1     "RIN  1018-­‐AT29"   2     "RIN  Number  1018-­‐AT29"   2     Doug  Keller   Kyle  J.   Hupfer                 Mark   Maslyn,   Executive   Director     24-­‐Oct-­‐ 06   Indiana   Department   24-­‐Oct-­‐ of  Natural   06   Resources   American   Farm  Bureau   Federation         170     2       Table  3  (cont'd)     Bradford   American   Parsons,   Fisheries   Immediate   Society-­‐North   Past-­‐ Central   President   Division   Kentucky   Jonathan   Deparment  of   Gassett,   Fish  &  Wildlife   Commissioner   Resources   25-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   2     25-­‐Oct-­‐06   (No  subject)   4     1     Steve  Kroes     25-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29  -­‐   Asian  Carp"   Greg  Duffy,   Director   Oklahoma   Department  of   Wildlife   Conservation   26-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   3     Clean  Water   Action   27-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     South  Carolina   Jennifer  Price,   Department  of   PhD   Natural   Resources   27-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Jennifer   McKay,  Policy   Specialist     Tip  of  the  Mitt   Watershed   27-­‐Oct-­‐06   Council     "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   3     Marion   Conover,   Fisheries   Chief   James  J.   Provenzano,   President   Iowa   Department  of   Natural   Resources   30-­‐Oct-­‐06   (No  subject)   3     Clean  Air  Now   30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   2     Erick   McWayne,   Executive   Director   Northwest   Environmental   30-­‐Oct-­‐06   Education   Council     "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Cyndi  Roper,   Great  Lakes   Policy   Director             171       Table  3  (cont'd)     J.  Andrew   McCammon     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Timonthy  A.   Pearce,  Ph.D     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Jed  Fuhrman     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Theodore  A.   Endreny,   Ph.D,  P.E.     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     3     Robert   Rutkowski     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "Ban  Two   Asian  Carp   Species/RIN   number   1018-­‐AT29"   Michael   Norden     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1       30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1       30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1       30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "Carp"   1     Friends  of   Marilyn  Ortt,       Lower   President   Muskingum   River   30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     I.E.  Lindsey     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Norman   Andresen,   PhD.     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Marilyn  M.   Harlin     30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Kurt  A.   Brownell,   Natural   Resources   Specialist   James  E.   Byers   Dorthee  E.   Krahn,  PhD.                 172       Table  3  (cont'd)     Richard  M.   McNutt,   President   Tom  Matych   Dan  Foster   Chris  Hunter,     Administrator   David   Weedman,   Aquatic   Habitat   Program   Coordinator   Walter  Taylor   David   Meuninck,   President               30-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ AT29"   1     1     3     Montana   Fish,   31-­‐Oct-­‐06   "RIN:  1018-­‐AT29"   Wildlife  &   Parks   1     "Injurious  Wildlife   Arizona   Species;  Silver  Carp     Game  and   31-­‐Oct-­‐06   and  Largescale  Silver   Fish   Carp  (FR  Vol.  71,  No.   Department   171,  p.  52305)"   2     1     3     1       31-­‐Oct-­‐06   "ASIAN  CARP"   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ AT29,  Comments  on   Georgia   Proposed  Rule  on   Department   Injurious  Wildlife   of  Natural   Species;  Silver  Carp   Resources   31-­‐Oct-­‐06   (Hypophthalmichthys   Wildlife   molitrix)  and  Large   Resources   Silver  Carp   Division   (Hypophthalmichthys   harmandi)       1-­‐Nov-­‐06   "Asian  Carp"   American   Fisheries   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ Society   1-­‐Nov-­‐06   AT29"   (Indiana   Chapter)   Carole  Seagle,       PhD  Marine   Science     1-­‐Nov-­‐06       "RIN  number  1018-­‐ AT29"   173       Table  3  (cont'd)     Joel   Brammeier,   Associate   Director  for   Policy   John  Navarro,     Program   Administrator   David  A.   Ullrich,   Executive   Director   Alliance  for   the  Great   Lakes   2-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   2     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   2     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   2     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   2     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  1018-­‐ AT29  Silver   and   Largescale   silver  carp"   2     Illinois   Council  of   Trout   Unlimited   3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29,   US  Fish  and   Wild  life   Service   proposal  to   list  silver"     1       3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Shedd   Aquarium   3-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   2     Ohio   Department   of  Natural   Resources   Great  Lakes   and  St.   Lawrence   Cities   Initiative   /Alliance  des   villes  des   Grands  Lacs   et  du  Saint-­‐ Laurent   Gordon  C.   American   Robertson,                 Sportsfishing   Vice-­‐ Association   President   Bret  A.   Preston,   West   Virginia   Assistant   Chief     Division  of   Natural   Warmwater   Resources     Fisheries   Management   Edward  L.   Michael,  Chair   Susan  &   Michael   Stinson   James  R.   Robinett         174       Table  3  (cont'd)     John  Covert       3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Thomas  Kelly     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Gerry  Forsell     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Suzanne  Dixon     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Ilene  Beninson     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "asian  carp"   1     Bruce   Lindgren     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "Comment  on   RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Lissa  Radke,                 US   Coordinator   Lake  Superior   Binational   Forum  Sigurd   Olson   Environmental   Institute  on   the  Northland   College   campus     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Nation's   Chuck  Walker,           Capitol  Bass   President   Federation   3-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   2     Kevan   Urquhart,    AFS   Certified   Fisheries   Professional,   Member  of  the   American   Institute  of   Fisheries   Research   Biologists   3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1                 175       Table  3  (cont'd)     Athan   Barkoukis     3-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Judith  R.   Johnston     4-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Stuart  D.   Ross     4-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1       4-­‐Nov-­‐06   "Rin  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1       4-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1       4-­‐Nov-­‐06   "rin  #  1018-­‐ at29"   1     Brian   Gibbons     4-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Mary  Jo   Cullen     4-­‐Nov-­‐06   1     National   Great  Lakes   Restoration   Campaign   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   5-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RAN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     1     Ruth  Spero,         Illinois  Voter   Kim  Stone,         Citzen  of   Lake   Michigan   Basin   Catherine   Greenwald   Chad  W.   Lord,   Director   Suku  Menon     5-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Carol   McGeehan     5-­‐Nov-­‐06   "rin  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Jim  Sweeney     5-­‐Nov-­‐06   Jessica   Kenzie           Great  Lakes   Invasive   Species     5-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Introduced   Fish  Section   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   2   Two   attachments   Margaret   Dochoda,   President       176       Table  3  (cont'd)     Great  Lakes   Robert   Law   Nestor,   Enforcement   Chair   Committee   Gerald  A.   Barnhart,   Vice-­‐Chair   Thomas  W.   Daggett   Great  Lakes   Fishery   Commission   Daggett  Law   Firm     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   3     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   3     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT20  -­‐   Supporting  a   ban  on  Asian   Carp"   1     1     John  Schmitt     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29  -­‐   Ban  Asian   Carp"   Jane  Schmitt     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29  -­‐   Ban  Asian  Ca"   1     1     Jay   Greenberg     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   Margie   Campaigne,   Personal  &   AD(H)D   Coach     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     Shawn  P.   Good,  Chair                         Vermont   Aquatic   Department     Nusiance   of  Fish  &   Species   Wildlife     Committee     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "Comments   from  the   Vermont  Fish   &  Wildlife   Department   regarding   RIN  1018-­‐ AT29"   3     Joel   Brammeier   et  al.         "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29  -­‐   Ban  Asian   Carp"   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   4     Healing  Our   Waters-­‐-­‐ Great  Lakes         177       Table  3  (cont'd)     Phyllis  N.   Windle,   Senior   Scientist  and   Union  of   Director   Concerned   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   Invasive   Scientists   Species   Global   Environment   Program   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ Amy  Elliot       6-­‐Nov-­‐06   AT29"   Vicki  Milano   Tim  Eder,       Executive   Director   John  E.   Roussel,   Deputy   Assistant   Secretary   Nprouko2   Peter  T.   Jenkins   Paula  J.   Moore,  Staff   biologist       1     Colorado   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ Division  of   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   AT29"   Wildlife   1     Great  Lakes   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ 6-­‐Nov-­‐06   Commission   AT29"   2   One   attachment   2     1     "RIN  number  1018-­‐ AT29;  Proposed  rule   -­‐  Injurious  Wildlife   Species;  Silver  Carp   Defenders   (Hypophthalmichthys   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   of  Wildlife   molitrix)  and   Largescale  Silver   Carp   (Hypophthalmichthys   harmandi)   5     Jones  &   "RIN  number  1018-­‐ Eaker   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   AT29"   Farms   2     Louisiana   Department   "Silver  Carp   of  Wildlife   6-­‐Nov-­‐06   Comments  for   Louisiana"   and   Fisheries   "Great  Lakes  and     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   Asian  Carp"             178       Table  3  (cont'd)     Cheri  &  Jim   Niewiara     Sally  Howard                                     Great  Lakes   Dan  Thomas,     Sport   President   Fishing   Council     State  of   Ken   Michigan   DeBeaussaert,   Office  of  the   Director                       Great  Lakes   Rebecca  A.   -­‐-­‐-­‐     Humphries,   Deparment   Director   of  Natural   Resources   League  of   Women   Martha  L.   Voters  of   Willis   Porter   County,   Indiana   Office  of  the   Richard  M.   Mayor  City   Daley,  Mayor   of  Chicago     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29   Asian  carp"   1     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29  -­‐   Ban  Asian   Carp"   1     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "RIN  number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   "Protecting   our  Great   Lake-­‐ MICHIGAN   RIN  Number   1018-­‐AT29"   1     6-­‐Nov-­‐06   (No  subject)   1       179                                                         REFERENCES                                                 180       REFERENCES     Adelmann,  G.W.  (1998).  Reworking  the  landscape,  Chicago  style,  The  Hastings  Center   Report,  28(6),  6-­‐11.   Adler,  M.  (2010,  January  26).  Supermarket  charged  for  carrying  live  bighead  carp.     Scarborough  Mirror.  Retrieved  from  http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-­‐ story/48020-­‐supermarket-­‐charged-­‐for-­‐carrying-­‐live-­‐bighead-­‐carp/     Agnew,  J.  (2003).  Representing  space:  Space,  scale  and  culture  in  social  science  in  J.     Duncan  &  D.  Ley  (Eds.),  Place/culture/representations  (251-­‐271).  New  York:   Routledge.       Agnew,  L.  et  al.  (2011).  Octalog  III:  The  politics  of  historiography  in  2010.  Rhetoric     Review.  30(2),  109-­‐134.       Allen,  B.  (2006).  The  making  of  cancer  alley:  A  historical  view  of  Louisiana's   chemical  corridor.  Southern  United  States:  An  environmental  history  (pp.  235-­‐ 260).  Santa  Barbara,  CA:  ABC-­‐CLIO.     Anderson,  R.  S.  (1995).  The  Lacey  Act:  America’s  premier  weapon  in  the  fight   against  unlawful  wildlife  trafficking,  Public  Land  Law  Review,  16(28),  27-­‐85.     Bacon,  V.W.,  &  F.E.  Dalton  (1968).  Professionalism  and  water  pollution  control  in   Greater  Chicago.  Journal  (Water  Pollution  Control  Federation)  40(9),  1586-­‐ 1600.     Bhabha,  H.K.  (1994).  “The  Postcolonial  and  the  postmodern:  The  question  of  agency.   In  The  location  of  culture  (pp.  171-­‐197).  New  York:  Routledge.   Bowker,  G.,  &  Star,  S.  (1999).  Sorting  things  out:  Classification  and  its  consequences.   Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press.       Boothe,  J.  A.  (2008).  Defending  the  homeland:  A  call  to  action  in  the  war  against   aquatic  invasive  species.  Tulane  Environmental  Law  Journal,  21,  407-­‐426.     Braun,  B.  &  Wainwright,  J.  (2001).  Nature,  poststructuralism,  and  politics  in  N.   Castree  &  B.  Braun  (Eds.),  Social  Nature:  Theory,  practice,  and  politics  (41-­‐ 63).  Malden,  MA:  Blackwell.       Brenner,  N.  (2005).  New  state  spaces:  Urban  governance  and  the  rescaling  of   statehood.  New  York:  Oxford  University  Press.     Britt,  S.  (2001).  Jumping  carp!  It's  not  just  a  fish  story;  residents  gripe,  swap  tales  of     injury.  Belleville  News-­Democrat.           181       Bronzini,  M.  (2010,  March  23).  Review  of  "Chicago  waterway  system  ecological   separation:  The  logistics  and  transportation  related  cost  impact  of  waterway   barriers".  Report  prepared  for  the  Illinois  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Retrieved   April  11,  2010,  from   http://ilchamber.org/documents/lockstudy/Bronzini.pdf     Buck,  H.  D.,  Bauer,  R.  J.,  &  Rose,  C.  R.  (1978).  Polyculture  of  Chinese  carps  in  ponds   with  swine  wastes.  In  R.  O.  Smitherman,  W.  L.  Shelton,  &  J.  H.  Grover  (Eds.),   Culture  of  exotic  fishes  symposium  proceedings.  American  Fisheries  Society,   Fish  Culture  Section:  Bethesda,  MD.     Burke,  J.  S.,  &  Bayne  D.  R.  (1990).  Effects  of  Chinese  carps  and  paddlefish  on  ecology   of  catfish  production  ponds:  II.  Effects  of  silver  carp,  bighead  carp,  and   paddlefish  on  zooplankton  biomass.  Proceedings  of  the  Auburn  Symposium   on  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture.  Auburn  University,  Auburn,  Alabama.     Callon,  Michel  and  Vignolle,  Jean-­‐Pierre.  (1977).  Breaking  down  the  organization:   Local  conflict  and  societal  systems  of  action.  Social  Science  Information,   16(2),  147-­‐167.   Callon,  M.,  &  Latour,  B.  (1981).  Unscrewing  the  big  leviathan:  How  actors   macrostructure  reality  and  how  sociologists  help  them  to  do  so.  In  K.  D.   Knorr-­‐Cetina,  &  A.  V.  Cicourel  (Eds.)  Advances  in  social  theory  and   methodology:  Toward  an  integration  of  micro-­  and  macro-­sociologies  (277-­‐ 303).  Boston:  Routledge.     Callon,  M.  and  Law,  J.  (1982).  On  interests  and  their  transformation:     Enrollement  and  counter-­‐enrolment.  Social  Studies  of  Science,  12(4),  615-­‐ 625.     Callon  M.,  and  Law,  J.  (1995).  Agency  and  the  hybrid  collectif.  South  Atlantic     Quarterly,  94(2),  481-­‐507.     Callon,  M.  (1980).  The  State  and  Technical  Innovation:  a  Case  Study  of  the  Electrical     Vehicle  in  France,  Research  Policy,  9,  358-­‐376.     Callon,  M.  (2002).  Writing  and  (re)writing  devices  as  tools  for  managing  complexity.   In  J.  Law  &  A.  Mol  (Eds.),  Complexities:  Social  studies  of  knowledge  practices   (191-­‐217).  Durham:  Duke  University  Press.   Carolan,  M.  S.  (2004).  Ontological  politics:  Mapping  a  complex  environmental   problem.  Environmental  Values,  13,  497-­‐522.     Chick,  J.H.,  and  Pegg,  M.A.  (2001).  Invasive  carp  in  the  Mississippi  River  basin.   Science  292(5525),  2250-­‐2251.         182       Clarke,  A.  E.  (2005).  Situational  analysis:  Grounded  theory  after  the  postmodern  turn.   Thousand  Oaks:  Sage  Publications.       Coates,  P.  (2006).  American  perceptions  of  immigrant  and  invasive  species:  Strangers   on  the  land.  Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press.       Colautti,  R.  I.  and  MacIsaac,  H.  J.  (2004).  A  neutral  terminology  to  define  'invasive'   species.  Diversity  and  Distributions,  10(2),  135-­‐141.       Conover,  G.,  Simmonds,  R.,  and  Whalen,  M.  (Eds.)  (2007).  Management  and  control   plan  for  bighead,  black,  grass,  and  silver  carps  in  the  United  States.  Asian   Carp  Working  Group,  Aquatic  Nuisance  Species  Task  Force,  Washington,  DC,     Retrieved  from  http://www.anstaskforce.gov/   Documents/Carps_Management_Plan.pdf     Cooper,  M.  (1986).  "The  Ecology  of  writing."  College  English,  48,  364–375.     Cox,  K.  R.  (1998).  Spaces  of  dependence,  spaces  of  engagement  and  the  politics  of   scale,  or:  Looking  for  local  politics,  Political  Geography,  17(1),  l-­‐23.     Cronon,  W.  (1991).  Nature's  metropolis:  Chicago  and  the  great  west.  W.W.  Norton  &   Company,  New  York.         Cremer,  M.  C.,  &  Smitherman,  R.  O.  (1980).  Food  habits  and  growth  of  silver  and     bighead  carp  in  cages  and  ponds  crosses  with  five  stocks  of  Rohu  carp  (Labeo   rohita)  C.  idella,  Hypophthalmichthys  molitrix  and  Aristichthys  nobilis.   Aquaculture,  20,  57-­‐64.     Dann,  K.,  and  Mitman,  G.  (June).  Essay  review:  Exploring  the  borders  of       environmental  history  and  the  history  of  ecology.  Journal  of  the  History  of   Biology,  30(2),  291-­‐301.           de  Certeau,  M.  (2002).  The  practice  of  the  everyday  life.  Berkeley,  CA:  University  of   California  Press.  (Original  work  published  in  1984).     DeGrandchamp,  K.  (2003).  Habitat  selection  and  movement  of  bighead  carp  and   silver  carp  in  the  lower  Illinois  River.  Unpublished  Master's  Thesis.   Carbondale:  Southern  Illinois  University.     Delanda,  M.  (2006).  A  new  philosophy  of  society:  Assemblage  theory  and  social   complexity.  New  York:  Continuum.           Deleuze,  G.  (1994).  Difference  and  repetition.  (P.  Patton,  Trans.).  New  York:  Columbia     University  Press.  (Original  work  published  in  1968).               183       Derrida,  J.  (1980).  Writing  and  difference.  (A.  Bass,  Trans.).  Chicago:  University  of     Chicago  Press.     Dobrin,  S.  I.  (2009).  Post-­‐/Ecocomposition.  Paper  presented  at  the  Conference  on   College  Composition  and  Communication,  San  Francisco,  CA.     Dobrin  S.  I.,  &  Wiesser,  C.  R.  (2002).  Natural  discourse:  Toward  ecocomposition.   Albany:  SUNY  Press.     Drew,  J.  (2001).  The  politics  of  place:  Student  travelers  and  pedagogical  maps.  In  S.  I.   Dobrin  &  C.  R.  Weisser,  (Eds.),  Ecocomposition:  Theoretical  and  pedagogical   approaches.  Albany:  SUNY  Press.     Egan,  D.  (2010,  February  4).  Michigan  study  disputes  economic  effect  of  closing  2   Chicago  locks.  Journal  Sentinel,  retrieved  April  11,  2010,  from   http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/83571672.html       Escobar,  A.  (2007).  The  ‘ontological  turn’  in  social  theory.  A  commentary  on  “Human     geography  without  scale’,  by  Sallie  Marston,  John  Paul  Jones  II  and  Keith     Woodward.  Transactions  of  the  Institute  of  British  Geographers,  32(1),  106-­‐ 111.     Eskridge,  A.  E.,  &  Alderman,  D.  H.  (2010).  Alien  invaders,  plant  thugs,  and  the   Southern  curse:  Framing  kudzu  as  environmental  other  through  discourses   of  fear,  Southeastern  Geographer,  50(1),  110-­‐129.     Eves,  R.  C.  (2012).  “That  we  might  become  ‘a  peculiar  people’”:  Spatial  rhetoric  as  a     resource  for  identification.  In  A.  de  Velasco,  &  Melody  Lehn  (Eds.),  Rhetoric:   Concord  and  controversy  (265-­‐274).  Long  Grove,  IL:  Waveland  Press,  INC.       Exec.  Order  No.  11,987  3  C.F.R.  116–17  (1977).     Exec.  Order  No.  13,112  3  C.F.R.  159  (1999).     Foucault,  M.  (2003).  What  is  an  author.  In  P.  Rabinow  &  N.  Rose  (Eds.),  The  essential     Foucault  (377-­‐391).  New  York:  The  New  Press.     Fuller,  P.  L.  (2003).  Freshwater  aquatic  vertebrate  introductions  in  the  United     States:  Patterns  and  pathways,in  G.M.  Ruiz  and  J.T.  Carlton  (Eds.)Invasive   Species:  Vectors  and  Management  Strategies  (123-­‐151).  Washington,  DC:   Island  Press.       Garvey,  J.,  Ickes,  B.,  and  Zigler,  S.  (2010).  Challenges  in  merging  fisheries  research     and  management:  the  Upper  Mississippi  River  experience.  Hydrobiologia,   640,  125-­‐  144.           184       Goldstein,  J.  A.  (2008).  Aliens  in  the  garden.  University  of  Colorado  Law  Review,  80,  1-­‐   57.         Granovetter,  M.  (1973).  Strength  of  weak  ties.  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  78,     1360-­‐1380.       Great  Lakes  United  has  partnered  with  the  Alliance  for  the  Great  Lakes,  Healing  Our   Waters  Coalition,  &  the  National  Wildlife  Federation  and  the  Natural   Resources  Defense  Council.  (n.d.).  The  cost  and  benefits  of  changing   operations  in  the  Chicago  waterway  system.  Retrieved  April  12,  2010,  from   http://www.glu.org/sites/default/files/carp/barge_myths.pdf   Growing  Problem  of  Invasive  Asian  Carp  in  the  Great  Lakes  and  Mississippi  River     System:  Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Fisheries  and  Oceans  of  the   Committee  on  Natural  Resources,  House  of  Representatives,  109th  Cong.   (2005)  (testimony  of  Gerald  A.  Barnhart).  Retrieved  from   http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BarnhartTestimony11.03. 05.pdf     Growing  Problem  of  Invasive  Asian  Carp  in  the  Great  Lakes  and  Mississippi  River   System:  Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Fisheries  and  Oceans  of  the   Committee  on  Natural  Resources,  House  of  Representatives,  109th  Cong.   (2005)  (testimony  of  Gordon  Robertson).  Retrieved  from   http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RobertsonTestimony11.0 3.05.pdf     Growing  Problem  of  Invasive  Asian  Carp  in  the  Great  Lakes  and  Mississippi  River   System:  Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Fisheries  and  Oceans  of  the   Committee  on  Natural  Resources,  House  of  Representatives,  109th  Cong.   (2005)  (testimony  of  Hugh  Warren).  Retrieved  from   http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/WarrenTestimony11.03.0 5.pdf     Haas,  A.  M.  (2008).  A  rhetoric  of  alliance:  What  American  Indians  can  tell  us  about   digital  and  visual  rhetoric.  (Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation).  Michigan   State  University,  East  Lansing,  MI.     Harré,  R.  B.  J.,  &  Muhlhausler,  P.  (1999).  Greenspeak:  A  study  of  environmental   discourse.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.     Harvey,  D.  (1998).  The  body  as  an  accumulation  strategy.  Environment  and  Planning   D:  Society  and  Space,  16(4),  401-­‐421.   Hayden,  C.  (2003).  When  nature  goes  public:  The  making  and  unmaking  of   bioprospecting  in  Mexico.  Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press.         185       Henderson,  H.  (2012,  October  10).  Asian  carp  eDNA:  New  hits  point  to  danger  in   Chicago  waterways  delays  [Web  log  comment].   http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/hhenderson/asian_carp_more_edna_poin t_to.html   Henebry,  M.  S.,  Gorden,  R.  W.,  &  Buck,  D.  H.  (1988).  Bacterial  populations  in  the  gut     of  the  silver  carp  (Hypophthalmichthys  molitrix).  The  Progressive  Fish-­ Culturist,  50,  86-­‐92.       Higbee,  E.  and  Glassner-­‐Shwayder,  K.  (2004).  The  live  food  fish  industry:  new   challenges  in  preventing  the  introduction  and  spread  of  aquatic  invasive   species.  ANS  Update:  News  from  the  Great  Lakes  Panel  on  Aquatic  Nuisance   Species,  10(2).     Hoag,  H.  and  Ohman,  M.  (2008).  Turning  water  into  power:  Debates  over  the   development  of  Tanzania’s  Rufiji  basin,  1945  –  1985,  Technology  and     Culture,  49(3),  634-­‐651.     Howe,  C.  P.  (1995).  Architectural  tribalism  in  the  Native  American  new  world.   (Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation).  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  MI.     Howitt,  R.  (2002).  Scale  and  the  other:  Levinas  and  geography.  Geoforum,  33(3),   299-­‐313.       Howitt,  R.  (2003).  Scale  in  J.  Agnew,  K.  Mitchell  &  G.  O’Tuathail  (Eds.),  A  companion     to  political  geography  (138-­‐157).  Oxford:  Blackwell.       Hui,  A.  (2010,  January  16).  Invasion  of  the  bighead  carp  has  Ontario  scared.  Toronto     Star.  Retrieved  from     http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/16/invasion_of_the_bighead_c   arp_has_ontario_scared.html     Illinois  Department  of  Natural  Resources.  (2010).  Testing  complete  on  bighead   Asian  carp  found  in  Lake  Calumet:  Fish  could  have  lived  most  of  its  adult  life   above  electric  barrier  defense  system  [Press  release].   http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/PressRelease/LakeCalCarp-­‐testscomplete-­‐ aug2010.pdf     Injurious  Wildlife  Species;  Review  of  Information  Concerning  a  Petition  To  List  All     Live  Amphibians  in  Trade  as  Injurious  Unless  Free  of  Batrachochytrium   dendrobatidis,  78  Federal  Register  180  (17  September  2010),  pp.  56975-­‐ 56976.     Jonas,  A.  E.  G.  (1988).  A  new  regional  geography  of  localities?  Area,  20(2),  101-­‐110.             186       Jonas,  A.  E.  G.  (1994).  The  scale  spatiality  of  politics.  Environmental  and  Planning  D:     Society  and  Space,  12(3),  257-­‐264.       Jonas,  A.  E.  G.  (2006a).  Pro  scale:  Further  reflections  on  the  ‘scale  debate’  in  human     geography.  Transactions  of  the  Institute  of  British  Geographers,  31(3),  399-­‐ 405.     Jones,  K.  (1998).  Scale  as  epistemology.  Political  Geography,  17(1),  25-­‐28.       Jones,  M.,  &  MacLeo,  G.  (2004).  Regional  spaces,  spaces  of  regionalism:  Territory,     insurgent  politics  and  the  English  question.  Transactions  of  the  Institute  of   British  Geographers,  29(4),  433-­‐452.     Kelly,  A,  Engle,  C.  R.,  Armstrong,  M.  L.,  Freeze,  M.,  &  Mitchell,  A.  J.  (2011).  History  of     introductions  and  governmental  involvement  in  promoting  the  use  of  grass,   silver,  and  bighead  carps.  In  D.C.  Chapman  and  M.H.  Hoff  (Eds.),  Invasive   Asian  carps  in  North  America  (163-­‐174).  American  Fisheries  Society,   Symposium  74,  Bethesda,  MD.           Killingsworth,  M.  J.,  &  Palmer,  J.  S.  (1992).  Ecospeak:  Rhetoric  and  environmental     politics  in  America.  Carbondale:  Southern  Illinois  University  Press.   Kohler,  R.  E.  (2002).  Landscapes  and  labscapes:  Exploring  the  lab-­field  border  in   biology.  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.   Kruse  C.  J.  (2010,  March  22).  Letter  to  Jim  Farrell  Executive  Director,  Illinois  Chamber   of  Commerce's  Infrastructure  Council.  Report  prepared  for  the  Illinois   Chamber  of  Commerce.  Retrieved  April  11,  2010,  from   http://ilchamber.org/documents/lockstudy/Texas%20Transportation%20I nstitute.docx   Lacey  Act,  18  U.S.C.  §  42  (2008).     Lange,  J.  I.  (1998).  The  logic  of  competing  information  campaigns:  Conflict  over  old   growth  and  the  spotted  owl.  In  Craig  Waddell  (Ed.),  Rpt  in  Landmark  essays   on  rhetoric  and  the  environment  (125-­‐144).  1998  Mahwah,  New  Jersey:   Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates.  (Reprinted  from  Communication  Monographs,   60,  239-­‐257,  1993.)     Latour,  B.  &  Woolgar,  S.  (1979).  Laboratory  life:  The  social  construction  of  scientific     facts.  Beverly  Hills,  CA:  Sage  Publications.       Latour,  B.  (1987).  Science  in  action:  How  to  follow  scientists  and  engineers     through  society.  Milton  Keynes:  Open  University  Press.             187       Latour,  B.  (1993a).  We  have  never  been  modern.  (C.  Porter,  Trans.).  Cambridge,  MA:     Harvard  University  Press.     Latour,  B.  (1993b).  The  pasteurization  of  France.  A.  Sheridan  &  J.  Law,  Trans.).     Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.         Latour  B.  (1997).  On  actor-­‐network  theory:  A  few  clarifications.  Retrieved  from     http://www.nettime.org/Lists-­‐Archives/nettime-­‐l-­‐9801/msg00019.html.         Latour,  B.  (2004).  Politics  of  nature:  How  to  bring  the  sciences  into  democracy  (C.   Porter,  Trans.).  Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press.       Latour,  B.  (2005).  Reassembling  the  social:  An  introduction  to  actor-­network-­theory.   Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.     Law,  J.  (1989).  Technology  and  heterogeneous  engineering:  The  case  of  Portuguese   expansion.  The  social  construction  of  technological  systems:  New  directions  in   the  sociology  and  history  of  technology  (pp.  111-­‐134).  London:  The  MIT  Press     Law,  J.  (1992).  Notes  on  the  theory  of  the  actor  network:  Ordering,  strategy,  and   heterogeneity.  Systems  Practice  and  Action  Research,  5(4),  379-­‐393.     Law,  J.  (2000).  Objects,  spaces,  others.  Published  by  The  Centre  for  Science  Studies,     Lancaster  University,  Lancaster  LA1  4YN,  UK,  at   www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-­objects-­spaces-­others.pdf     Law,  J.  (2002).  Aircraft  stories:  Decentering  the  object  in  technoscience.  Durham:   Duke  University  Press.     Law,  J.  (2004).  After  method:  Mess  in  social  science  research.  London:  Routledge.       Law,  J.  and  Mol,  A.  (2008).  The  actor-­‐enacted:  Cumbrian  sheep  in  2001,  in  L.   Malafouris  &  C.  Knappett  (Eds.),  Material  agency:  Towards  a  non-­‐ anthropocentric  approach  (55-­‐77).  New  York:  Springer.         Lien,  M.  and  Law,  J.  (2010).  Emergent  aliens:  Performing  indigeneity  and  other  ways     of  doing  salmon  in  Norway.  [Working  paper].  The  Open  University  :  UK       Lowe,  L.  (1996).  Immigrant  acts:  On  Asian  American  cultural  politics.  Durham,  NC:     Duke  University  Press.         Lytoard,  J.  (1984).  Postmodern  condition:  A  report  on  knowledge  (1st  ed.).       Minneapolis,  MN:  University  of  Minnesota  Press.             188       Mao,  L.  (2005).  Rhetorical  borderlands:  Chinese  American  rhetoric  in  the  making.     College  Composition  and  Communication,  56,  426-­‐469.     MacDonald,  C.  (2003).  The  value  of  discourse  analysis  as  a  methodological  tool  for   understanding  a  land  reform  program.  Policy  Sciences,  36,  151–173.     Mao,  L.  (2010).  Octalog  III:  Politics  of  Historiography  in  2010.  Paper  presented  at   the  Conference  on  College  Composition  and  Communication,  Louisville,  KY.     Marston,  S.,  Jones,  J.  P.,  &  Woodward,  K.  (2005).  Human  geography  without  scale.     Transactions  of  the  Institute  of  British  Geographers,  30(4),  416-­‐432.     Marx,  S.  (2008).  Think  global,  write  local:  Sustainability  and  English  composition.   Paper  presented  at  the  UC/CSU/CCC  Sustainability  Conference,  San  Luis   Obispo,  CA.     Massey,  D.  (1994).  Space,  place  and  gender.  Minneapolis:  University  of  Minnesota     Press.       McDowell,  L.  (1999).  Gender,  identity  and  place.  Minneapolis:  University  of   Minnesota  Press.       Michigan  Department  of  Natural  Resources.  (2010).  Six  Lake  Erie  water  samples  test   positive  for  Asian  carp  eDNA  Michigan  and  Ohio  DNRs  planning  follow-­‐up   actions  with  partner  agencies  [Press  release].   http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-­‐153-­‐-­‐282443-­‐-­‐,00.html     Mol,  A.  (1999).  Ontological  politics:  A  word  and  some  questions,  in  J.  Law  and  J.   Hassard  (Eds.),  Actor  network  theory  and  after  (74-­‐89).  Malden,  MA:   Blackwell  and  the  Sociological  Review.     Monberg,  T.  G.  (2008).  Listening  for  legacies;  or,  how  I  began  to  hear  Dorothy  Laigo     Cordova,  the  Pinay  behind  the  podium  know  as  FANHS.  In  L.  Mao  and  M.   Young  (Eds.),  Representations:  Doing  Asian  American  rhetoric  (63-­‐82).  Logan,   UT:  Utah  State  University  Press.     Mudrak,  V.  (2011).  Triploid  grass  carp  fishBusters.  Retrieved  from  Stanford     University,  Grass  Carp  Inspection  and  Certification  Program  Web  site:   http://www.fws.gov/warmsprings/fishhealth/fishbusters.html     Nan,  L.  (2002).  Social  capital:  A  theory  of  social  structure  in  action.  Cambridge:   Cambridge  University  Press.       Nash,  L.  (2005).  The  agency  of  nature  and  the  nature  of  agency.  Environmental   History,  10(1),  67-­‐69.           189       National  Invasive  Species  Council  (NISC).  (2006)  Invasive  Species  Definition   Clarification  and  Guidance  White  Paper,  Available  at   http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf.     Payette,  P.  (2012,  March  27).  A  salmon  balancing  act  for  Lake  Michigan  fishery   managers.  Michigan  Radio.  Retrieved  from   http://www.michiganradio.org/post/salmon-­‐balancing-­‐act-­‐lake-­‐michigan-­‐ fishery-­‐managers         Payette,  P.  (2012b,  June  26).  Asian  carp  importer  fined.  Interlochen  Public  Radio.   Retrieved  from  http://ipr.interlochen.org/ipr-­‐news-­‐features/episode/asian-­‐ carp-­‐importer-­‐fined/2012-­‐06-­‐26     Peters,  R.  H.  (1991)  A  critique  for  ecology.  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge,   UK.     Pezzulo,  P.  (2007).  Toxic  tourism:  Rhetorics  of  pollution,  travel,  and  environmental   justice.  Tuscaloosa,  AL:  University  of  Alabama  Press.       Platt,  H.  L.  (2002).  Chicago,  the  Great  Lakes,  and  the  origins  of  federal  urban   environmental  policy.  The  Journal  of  the  Gilded  Age  and  Progressive  Era  1(2),   122-­‐153.     Powell,  M.  (1999).  Blood  and  scholarship:  One  mixed-­‐blood's  story,  in  K.  Gilyard   (Ed.),  Race,  rhetoric,  and  composition  (1-­‐16).  Portsmouth,  NH:  Boynton/Cook.     Powell,  M.  (2009).  Materialist  historiography:  New  methodological  constellations.   Paper  presented  at  the  Conference  on  College  Composition  and   Communication,  San  Francisco,  CA.     Pysek,  P.  (1995)  On  the  terminology  used  in  plant  invasion  studies,  in  P.  Pysek,  K.   Prach,  M.  Rejmanek  and  M.  Wade  (Eds.),  Plant  invasions:  general  aspects  and   special  problems  (71–  81).  Academic  Publishing,  Amsterdam,  NL.     Reynolds,  N.  (2004).  Geographies  of  writing  :  Inhabiting  Places  and  Encountering   Difference.  Carbondale:  Southern  Illinois  University  Press.         Rosaldo,  R.  (1993).  Culture  &  truth:  The  remaking  of  social  analysis.  Boston:  Beacon     Press.       Sackey,  Donnie  Johnson  (2011).  “Tracing  Ecologies.”  Proceedings  of  the  2011   International  Professional  Communication  Conference.     http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/freesrchabstract.jsp?reload=true&tp=&ar number=60871  88             190       Sackey,  D.  J.  and  DeVoss,  D.  N.  (2012).  Ecology,  ecologies,  and  institutions:  Eco  and     composition.  In  S.  I.  Dobrin  (Ed.),  Ecology,  writing  theory,  and  new  media:     Writing  ecology.  New  York:  Routledge.         Sanchez,  R.  (2005).  The  function  of  theory  in  composition  atudies.  Albany:  SUNY   Press.     Savage,  I.  (2010,  March  22).  Review  of  John  C.  Taylor  and  James  L.  Roach's  "Chicago   waterway  system  ecological  separation:  The  logistics  and  transportation   related  cost  impact  of  waterway  barriers."  Report  prepared  for  the  Illinois   Chamber  of  Commerce.  Retrieved  April  11,  2010,  from   http://ilchamber.org/documents/lockstudy/savage.pdf     Schatzki,  T.R.  (2002).  The  site  of  the  social:  A  philosophical  account  of  the  constitution   of  social  life  and  change.  University  Park,  PA:  The  Pennsylvannia  State   University  Press.         Schwieterman,  J.  P.  (2010,  April  7).  An  analysis  of  the  economic  effects  of  terminating   operations  at  the  Chicago  River  Controlling  Works  and  O'Brien  Locks  on  the   Chicago  area  waterway  system.  Report  prepared  for  the  Illinois  Chamber  of   Commerce.  Retrieved  April  11,  2010,  from   http://ilchamber.org/documents/lockstudy/DePaul%20University%20Stud y%  20on%20Terminating%20Lock%20Operations.pdf     Selfe,  C.  L.  &  Selfe,  R.  J.  (1994).  The  politics  of  the  interface:  Power  and  its  exercise  in     electronic  contact  zones.  College  Composition  and  Communication,  45(4),   480-­‐504.       Sellers,  C.  (2004).  The  artificial  nature  of  fluoridated  water:  Between  nations,   knowledge,  and  material  flows,  Osiris  19,  182–200.     Shakespeare,  W.,  (2002).  The  tragedy  of  Coriolanus.  In  S.  Orgel  &  A.  R.  Braunmuller   (Eds.),  William  Shakespeare:  The  complete  works  (1701-­‐1751).  New  York:   Penguin  Books.     Shapin,  S.,  and  Schafer,  S.  (1985).  Leviathan  and  the  air-­pump:  Hobbes,  Boyle  and  the   experimental  life.  Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University  Press.     Shrader-­‐Frechette,  K.  (2001)  Non-­‐indigenous  species  and  eco-­‐logical  explanation.     Biology  and  Philosophy,  16,  507–  519.     Smith,  N.  (1984).  Uneven  development:  Nature,  capital  and  the  production  of  space.     Oxford:  Basil  Blackwell.       Smith,  N.  (1992).  Contours  of  a  spatialized  politics:  Homeless  vehicles  and  the     production  of  geographical  space.  Social  Text,  33,  54-­‐81.             191       Smith,  N.  (1993).  Homeless/global:  Scaling  places  in  J.  Bird,  B.  Curtis,  T.  Putnam,  G.     Robertson,  and  L.  Tickner  (Eds.),  Mapping  the  futures:  Local  cultures,  global   change  (87-­‐119).  New  York:  Routledge.     Spivak,  G.  C.  (1985).  Three  women’s  texts  and  critique  of  imperialism,  Critical     Inquiry,  12,1,  243-­‐261.     Strauss,  A.  L.  (1984).  Social  worlds  and  their  segmentation  processes.  Studies  in     Symbolic  Interaction,  5,  123-­‐139.         Sutter,  P.  (2007)  Nature’s  agents  or  agents  of  empire?  Entomological  workers  and   environmental  change  during  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal.  Isis,   98(4),  724-­‐757.         Swyngedouw,  E.  (1997).  Niether  global  nor  local:  “Globalization”  and  the  politics  of     scale  in  K.  Cox  (Ed.),  Spaces  of  globalization:  Reasserting  the  power  of  the  local   (137-­‐166).  New  York:  Guilford  Press.         Swyngedouw,  E.  (2000).  Authoritarian  governance,  power,  and  the  politics  of   rescaling.  Environment  and  Planning  D:  Society  and  Space,  18(1),  63-­‐76.         Swyngedouw,  E.  (2004).  Scaled  geographies:  Nature,  place  and  the  politics  of  scale   in  E.  Sheppard  and  R.  B.  McMaster  (Eds.),  Scale  and  geographic  inquiry  (129-­‐ 153).  Oxford:  Blackwell.   Taylor,  J.  E.  (1999).  Making  salmon:  An  environmental  history  of  the  Northwest   fisheries  crisis.  Seattle:  University  of  Washington  Press.     Taylor,  J.  C.,  &  Roach,  J.  L.  (2010  February  2).  Chicago  waterway  system  ecological   separation:  The  logistics  and  transportation  related  cost  impact  of  waterway   barriers.    Report  to  the  Department  of  Attorney  General,  State  of  Michigan.   Retrieved  April  11,  2010,  from   http://www.glu.org/sites/default/files/carp/TR_chicago_canal_report_feb10 .pdf     Thompson,  C.  (2001).  When  elephants  stand  for  competing  philosophies  of  nature:   Amboseli  National  Park,  Kenya,  in  J.  Law  and  A.  Mol  (Eds.)  Complexities  in   science,  technology  and  medicine  (166-­‐190).  Durham,  NC:  Duke  University   Press.     Thompson,  N.  (2011,  March  22).  Bighead  Asian  carp  no  longer  allowed  in  U.S.  Daily   Herald.  Retrieved  from     http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110322/news/703229973/               192       Tillitt,  D.  (2003).  Invasive  and  exotic  species:  Reproductive  potential  of  triploid   grass  and  black  carp.  U.S.  Geological  Survey,  Columbia  Environmental   Research  Center.  Retrieved  August  1,  2012,  from   http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/black_carp.pdf     United  States  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service.    (2009,  September  15).  Rulemaking  Reference   Guide.    Retrieved  December  12,  2012  from  the  United  States  Fish  &  Wildlife   Service  Web  site:  http://www.fws.gov/pdm/rguide.html     United  States  General  Accounting  Office.    (2002,  October).  Invasive  species  clearer   focus  and  greater  commitment  needed  to  effectively  manage  the  problem.   (Publication  No.  GAO-­‐03-­‐1).  Retrieved  from  Retrieved  from  GAO  Reports   Main  Page  via  GPO  Access  database:   http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html     Weisser,  C.R.  &  Dobrin,  I.  (Eds.)  (2001).  Ecocomposition:  Theoretical  and     Pedagogical  approaches.  Albany:  State  University  of  New  York  Press.     Weisser,  C.  (2009).  Toward  the  ecology  of  writing.  Paper  presented  at  the   Conference  on  College  Composition  and  Communication,  San  Francisco,  CA.     Whatmore,  S.  (2001).  Hybrid  Geographies:  Natures  Cultures  Spaces.  Thousand  Oaks,   CA:  Sage  Publications  Ltd.     White,  H.  (1990).  The  Content  and  Form:  Narrative  discourse  and  historical     representation.  Baltimore,  Maryland:  The  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.   (Original  work  published  in  1973).     White,  R.  (1996)  The  organic  machine:  The  remaking  of  the  Columbia  River.  New   York:  Hill  and  Wang.       Wilson,  S.  (2009).  Research  is  ceremony:  Indigenous  research  methods.  Black  Point,     Nova  Scotia:  Fernwood  Publishing  Co.,  Ltd.         Winner,  L.  (1989).  The  whale  and  the  reactor:  A  search  for  limits  in  an  age  of  high     technology.  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.       Worster,  D.  (1992).  Rivers  of  empire:  Water,  aridity,  and  the  growth  of  the  American     West.  New  York:  Oxford  University  Press.         Wui,  Y.  S.  and  Engle,  C.  R..  2004.  The  economic  impact  of  restricting  use  of  black  carp     on  hybrid  striped  bass  farms.  Abstract.  Aquaculture  2004,  the  Annual   Meeting  of  the  World  Aquaculture  Society,  Honolulu,  Hawaii.               193       Venable,  D.  L.,  A.  P.  Gaude,ID,and  P.  L.  Klerks.  2000.  Control  of  the  trematode     Bolbophorus  confusus  in  channel  catfish  Ictalurus  punctants  ponds  using   salinity  manipulation  and  polyculture  with  black  carp  Mylopharyngodon   pieces.  Journal  of  the  World  Aquaculture  Society,  31(2),  15-­‐166.     Villanueva,  V.  (2004).  Memoria  is  a  friend  of  ours:  On  the  discourse  of  color.  College     English,  67(1),  9–19.     Young,  R.  J.  C.  (2012).  Cultural  translation  as  hybridisation,  Trans-­Humanities,  5,1,     165-­‐175.                   194