Post-Politics of Rewilding in Britain

Rewilding is frequently suggested as a 'radical' solution to the biodiversity crisis. This radicalism is generally positioned in relation to traditional conservation practices, which are described as reactive, expensive and premised on control over nonhuman natures. Rewilding instead suggests that a different approach can be more ethical, cost-effective and suited to a world facing increasing environmental crises. However, rewilding has much less to say about the similarly urgent social crises, and as such, could be inadvertently exacerbating these problems. Based on qualitative analysis of 24 interviews with people connected to rewilding, such as landowners, consultants, activists and NGO workers, this paper discusses how rewilding often supports a political status quo that is at odds with a just and sustainable future. A thematic analysis of this data shows that while owners position themselves, or are positioned by others, as doing “the right thing”, many interviewees frame private rewilding primarily in terms of a neoliberal governmentality. This discourse promotes the idea of profit-making, commodification of nature, and large incentives for a small number of wealthy landowners, which would likely further increase wealth inequality in the UK. It also could reinforce the power of a small clique of elites, who are often constructed as crucial to saving biodiversity, while further alienating many other people from the countryside. Given the interconnections between neoliberalism, injustice and environmental breakdown, this paper argues that rewilding as a 'radical' solution, as articulated by these interviewees, is not nearly radical enough.