Rhetorical Traction: Definitions and Institutional Arguments in Judicial Opinions About Wilderness Access

Abstract

This essay examines how the courts have produced definitional and institutional arguments to resolve management disputes regarding national wilderness areas. It demonstrates how judicial opinions employ definitional arguments to clarify ambiguous management prescriptions, and how the opinions use institutional arguments to resolve or defer disagreements about definitions. This analysis supports three claims about institutional arguments. First, arguments about institutional authority allow courts to deflect definitional questions, with the effect of perpetuating political conflict over definitions. Second, arguments about institutional authority raise issues of legitimacy for governing institutions. Third, the divergent effects of institutional arguments on legitimacy make those arguments especially use for examining the role that state institutions play in the constitution of hegemony. The essay concludes by illustrating the relevance of this analysis for understanding ongoing controversies surrounding wilderness management.