[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Hudson Report



        I would like to thank both Bart Hall and Bill Blake for their
thoughtful commentaries.  I find much to agree with in both.

        As one with some sociology of science and technology background and
interest, I am highly skeptical of claims about "truth" (especially when
advanced as being in some ultimate sense and when pertaining to contested
topics).  Thus I regard all left, right, and even "centrist" positions with
a good deal of skepticism.  I also think that taking any single approach
toward a topic as important as sustainability is foolhardy.  At the same
time, I think that the dialogue (I carefully chose that word over "debate"
or even "discussion") about agricultural sustainability needs to include
prominently explicit considerations of the presuppositions of those taking
different positions, the social and material basis of support for particular
positions (including who funds their promotion) and the anticipated social
(including political and economic) implications these positions. Laying out
clearly what is commonly in the shadows or even in darkness should help
people to make intelligent decisions about where they stand on issues of
sustainability.  This was the point of my original posting.

        I also believe that most people taking different positions on issues
of sustainability are sincere in their positions and have in their own minds
sound bases for taking the positions they do.  As one influenced by the
symbolic interactionist school of sociology, I think that humans must be
able to selectively attend to only some items from the welter of stimuli
around them and they have amazing capacities for imputing meaning to
complexes of these things.  Therefore, I do not find it surprising that
different people reach different conclusions from what is seemingly the same
situation.  For that reason people should not be disparaged for lacking
intelligence, possessing flawed pedigrees, operating cynically, and the like
without reasonable grounds for making such judgements (though I do not
dispute the possibility that some people involved in the debates over
sustainability have such flaws).  At the same time, the positions people
take do have ecological and social implications, and, therefore, these
positions and the social bases for them should be examined openly and
honestly.  A good model for doing this (and one that I try to implement) can
be found chapter 1 of CHOOSING SOCIOLOGY:  AN INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL
INQUIRY by Deena Weinstein and Michael A. Weinstein (New York: David McKay,
1976).

        My own values and my sociological and agricultural scientific
understandings affect positions that I take on matters relating to
sustainability.  I value such things as grass-roots democracy, social
equality, hard work, opportunity,  individual responsibility, community and
family.  I also believe that humans are not exempt from ecological
constraints, so that we must be careful about our numbers and how we use the
land, flora, and fauna of the earth.  Further social and ecological factors
must be taken together in defining sustainability and working to realize it.
Though Avery's perspective on sustainability has its attractive aspects, I
think we have better alternatives.  For that reason, I am pursuing such
avenues as the concept of Community Agriculture Development that is
currently evolving out of  the Farming Alternatives Program at Cornell.
****************************************************************************
Gil Gillespie                                                voice: 607-255-1675
Department of Rural Sociology  (&     fax: 607-254-2896
Division of Nutritional Sciences )         e-mail: gwg2@cornell.edu
439 Warren Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-7801
USA

The transition to sustainability is like a bend in the road.  It will be
the end of the road only if we fail to negotiate the turn.
****************************************************************************