Although I am appalled by the breadth of issues that the FB has
chosen to take a position on, and even moreso by the focus/direction
of their positions, I am equally disturbed by the polarity that always
seems to be the lynchpin of these kinds of discussions.
If I have learned anything over the last 15 years of life as a
professor of crop science, it is that polarity breeds contempt and
contempt is dysfunctional in genuinely addressing and resolving
contentious issues.
I had an interesting experience with my Crops in Land Reclamation
class this term. The first of about a dozen invited speakers for
this class (mostly from industry and government) is a professor of
philosophy, whose task is to address the "ethics of reclamation".
One of his points dealt with a philosophical theory on "consensus" as
a vehicle to resolve conflict. The class challenged this notion,
claiming that it couldn't work, because it required that:
a) both (all) parties to the issue start by identifying areas of
common ground - e.g. areas of agreement at the outset
b) both parties be "of good will" and genuinely desirous of finding a
solution, and
c) both parties be capable/ready to compromise on at least some
dimensions.
The ensuing discussion revealed much that would be relevant to this
interchange on the FB - and the agriculture:environment interface.
a) For starters, have "we" (both sides) ever sat down and acknowledged
areas of agreement? A list of points of agreement might well be long
and comforting.
b) Then, can we truly say that we are "of good will" towards each
other? How much of what we say is specifically intended to discredit
the other side? How much of what "they" say do we privately but never
publicly acknowledge as right because it may weaken our perceived
strength?
c) And finally, have we forgotten the gift of compromise? In our
haste to rigorously educate our students (who someday become former
Secretaries of Agriculture....), have we erred in focusing entirely
on the black/white while omitting consideration of the vast
range of shades of grey? In marking undergraduate essays, or in
reading diatribes written by former undergrads now grown up, one gets
the distinct impression that "compromise" is a trait nearing
extinction.
Before worrying overmuch about the substance of the argument, perhaps
what is needed is a fundamental rethink of how we go about resolving
contentious issues. Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933