A while
back I sent a simple survey to a group of people who do research and education
in support of long-term agricultural sustainability testing the degree of
agreement or disagreement with five “truth statements”. The truth
statements were taken from a short essay I had written about sustainable
agriculture and the need for change among public universities1.
The response to the survey was reassuring – not only because these people I
respect agreed with “my truths” - but also because of the rapid response.
Within 48 hours, I had 50 survey responses by email and within a few days, 73 scientists,
educators and activists dedicated to working for a research and education
system that supports a more sustainable agriculture had participated in the
survey. This essay offers further reflections on those five truths, based
partially on feedback from survey participants, partially on my own thinking
and experience, and partially on some lines of poetry that I greatly
admire.
Some
of my friends have reminded me that these five truths have all been said
before. A friendly critic told me that my truth essay had lots of “fire”,
but no real “heat.” I was told it has “all been said before.” Well, maybe so. No less than T. S.
Eliot seems to assure me that some things are worth repeating. In one of
his poems from the Four Quartets, he writes;
You
say I am repeating
Something
I have said before. I shall say it again.
Shall
I say it again? 2
Well
yes, I’m saying it again.
“Why
bother?” Why say it again? Why survey agricultural researchers,
educators and advocates about what they think? I mean, who really cares
what the sustainable agriculture research and education community thinks?
We all know that economic power and political control remains in the hands of
organizations and people who would largely disagree with the “five
truths.” An answer came from Donella Meadows, who wrote that the first
step in changing deeply rooted paradigms was:
In
a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old
paradigm, you keep speaking louder. . . . 3
Finding
justification for my impulsive inclination to continue to speak my truth
(louder) by “pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm”, I
decided to share these “further reflections” with colleagues. So
thanks friends, and here is more of the story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth One:. . . the form of agriculture currently practiced in the U.S. is not sustainable, as it continues to leak toxins and other pollutants from their point of application, use natural resources at rates greater than replacement, and put farmers and ranchers off the land.
“Yes,
we know all that.” This was the
most common response among survey participants. On a scale from 1 to 5,
with 1 indicating “don’t agree” and 5 signifying “full agreement”, 90% choose
either 4 or 5 (with 72% indicating full agreement). One of the
respondents summed it up by writing:
“Most
political organizations, institutions and commodity agricultural organizations
are aware of the social/natural resource problems, however, they lack the
knowledge and understanding that would enable them to take constructive steps
towards sustainable systems. Instead they are locked into old patterns
and keep trying the same old things.”.4
This
is so true. We are all locked into old patterns and keep trying the same
things, or making small changes “around the edges”. Indications that
something is amiss in the world go unnoticed (or noticed only by a minority of
activists). Taco shells being withdrawn from shelves because of
“non-approved genetic material” doesn’t get much attention in the national
press. A “dead zone” where oxygen breathers don’t survive in the Gulf of
Mexico and reports of concern from respectable sources about projected global
water shortages is mostly ignored. Potato production increases to satisfy
our desire for French fries, while more potato farmers go out of
business. We know what is happening; yet we stay on the same
path. Another participant wrote:
”If you keep on doing what you have been doing,
you will keep getting what you have been getting. If you don't like what
you are currently getting, then you need to try something different. The
industrial model of agriculture is not sustainable.”
While
there are some people who honestly support the industrial model of agriculture
(that is the source of “the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm”)
many researchers and educators know something is wrong but can’t see an
alternative. Their response to this first truth is usually something like
“. . . but aren’t we doing better?” And the answer is surely,
yes. Or they might say “so what choice do we have? We have to feed
the ever increasing human population, don’t’ we?” And of course the
answer is yes again. In the absence of a clear alternative path, we fall
back on that which we know best – industrial agriculture with its quick fixes
and addiction to growth at all costs. We have a vague idea there is a
better way (which many of us call an ecological model of agriculture - or
agroecology) but the ecological path seems treacherous, full of unknowns.
Eliot assures us this is the right path when he writes;
“.
. . In order to arrive at what you do not know.
You
must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.”
“This undertaking is beyond the resources or
capability of any single institution (public or private) and therefore can only
be achieved through the re-establishment of some form of commons."
It
was both funny and sad that this survey participant didn’t recognize the
publicly funded land grant university as a “commons.” It was once
upon a time.
Truth Two: . . . the land grant university has
lost its way; claiming to serve a public good while being driven by the
political agenda of those currently in power, those corporations and large
commodity organizations with enough money to get our attention, and the
disciplinary based science societies that limit what is considered acceptable
research.
The
extent of agreement with this truth statement among all participants was
strong, with 90% choosing 4 or 5 (with half of the respondents indicating
full agreement with the statement). One of the participants bluntly
stated “. . . scientists are among the most selfish of all creatures on the
earth.” Well, this may be true. At the same time, I know many
agricultural scientists who continue to demonstrate acts of service and
selflessness. In fact, many, many agricultural researchers and educators
began their university careers full of idealism and hope that they might
contribute to feeding the world’s hungry and preserving the natural
environment. Something happened along the way to redirect their work, but
I believe “just below the surface” of many academics is a hopeful visionary,
still dreaming of making a difference in the world. There is yet
potential for changing the current university system, but the constraints on
faculty are significant. One participant wrote;
“The
social and cultural environment in graduate school and in ladder rank positions
pushes people to work alone using reductionist methods which limits the ability
to research real world problems that exist today.”
Academic
faculty and extension staff working in agriculture respond to their environment
much like others in any organizational environment. Rewards and
evaluation criteria controlled by disciplinary bound societies encourage
scientists to work within the “silos” of their own special discipline.
Another participant wrote:
“If
researchers from different disciplines don't figure out how to work together,
we will not be able to solve the problems that confront us.”
But
it will likely take more than individuals from different disciplines working
together. This is necessary but not sufficient. Public policy
drives research funding and evaluation criteria to measure success in terms of
short-term economic efficiency, in support of the industrial model.
Interdisciplinary teams of agricultural scientists working together to support
the industrial model may do more harm in the long run than good. As long
as university research questions and methodologies are based on an industrial
view of the world, there will be little progress on the path toward an
ecological agricultural system and long-term sustainability. It
seems unreasonable to hope for much change when the primary goal of research
seems to be short-term economic benefit for those social groups holding
financial and political power. A participant wrote:
“Economics,
i.e., dollars and cents, has become the dominant, if not only, criteria by
which we measure the value of everything -- including impacts of publicly
funded research and education.”
While
I agree that economic efficiency is one important goal for research and
education, it is insufficient alone and may actually be harmful when other
goals such as environmental quality and social justice are neglected.
This narrow understanding of the public mission of the land grant university
allows much of the energy of agricultural science to be directed toward
development of new technologies that improve short-term economic returns at all
costs. One participant suggested an alternative role for the university;
“Another truth is that the US does not have a
clear policy on the role of agriculture and the future of rural America. This
is in contrast to other regions, such as Europe, where a food policy and societal
goals about the rural landscape are played out in everyday life. A major
failure of land grants in my opinion is their lack of leadership in helping the
nation develop such goals. The only goals articulated are the next technical
fix.”
Lacking
a grand vision, technical solutions dominate the thinking of agricultural
scientists. But technical solutions to the complex problems created
by industrial agriculture (such as environmental degradation and social
upheaval) will only create more problems. While this approach may keep
the disciplinary bound research machinery of the university going, it does
little to solve complex social problems. In addition,
administrative leaders (who seem to think their chief responsibility is keeping
the university research machinery well funded) encourage scientists to pursue
only those goals held in favor by the organizations currently holding economic
and political power. Under these conditions the industrial model
becomes inviolate.
Funding
and therefore economic and political power greatly influence research
agendas. Public universities are caught in a reinforcing feedback loop,
in which they find their budgets being squeezed by a public that doesn’t
entirely trust the university (or any large institution for that matter).
University leaders look to their friends in industry and among the big
agricultural commodity groups for political and financial help - and what
happens? Public distrust is confirmed and the budgets get squeezed
more. University leaders then turn back to their private partners and ask
for more help – at a price, of course. It is a vicious cycle, spinning
public universities in a direction away from their primary mission of serving
the public good.
The
many university scientists who intuitively know something is wrong with both
industrial agriculture and the university system that helps support it continue
to act in ways that belie this knowledge. To know something is wrong and
not to take action is place of despair. And when our daily behaviors
violate our own deepest values, we become discontent. Some would say, we
become insane. Despair and discontent is increasing within the public
university. As an administrator and faculty member, I observed the
pervasiveness of this underlying discontent among many of my own
colleagues. Unfortunately it seems to be not discussed in “official
circles” of leadership. One participant notes:
“The
top administrators in the land grant systems are out-of-touch with the rank and
file.”
Can’t
we expect more than a “receipt for deceit” from our leaders? Have we not
learned from the past that “power corrupts” and leadership becomes disconnected
from “membership” over time. This seems to be a basic flaw in all
large organizations today. Universities are not unique in this
regard. One participant claimed:
“leadership
from commodity groups who have much political power, do not represent the vast
majority of farmers”
It
seems the disconnect between leaders and members or followers is just as great
among farm organizations as it is at the university.
Truth Three:. . . the leadership of the farming
community has come to rule farm policy, often at the expense of small and
mid-sized farmers, farm workers and rural communities.
There
was slightly less agreement with this statement among survey respondents.
Only 76% choose 4 or 5, with 53% indicating full agreement. One
participant noted the complexity of the situation:
“I
can't lump all farm leadership into the "bad" column because I know
and work with some extraordinary farm leaders who are regularly overlooked by
the sustainable ag community . . . For instance, Farmers Union has not veered
from working on behalf of small farmers, farm workers, and outside the
conventional system, but rarely gets recognition for it.”
Another
participant disagreed for a different reason.
“I
don't consider the folks in charge to be "leaders" of any kind of
"community"--- but that is contingent on my definitions of leadership
and community. Community requires love and generosity of spirit, and these
qualities are notably absent from farming policy.”
Still
another sees this as part of a larger pattern.
“.
. .the leadership of the farming community has come to rule farm policy, but it
is only fronting for the interests of powerfully concentrated private
capital. The fronting is only a ploy to convince farmers that farm policy
must be OK since the farm leadership is involved.”
These
are pretty strong statements and seem to carry a fair amount of anger. If
we can get past the anger, we might begin to notice how all large organizations
seem to allow their leaders to become disconnected from the vast majority of
their membership. Most organizations have promotion and reward policies
that support individuals who conform to the dominant paradigm. Talented
conformists are the people chosen for positions of power and higher rank.
Talented “trouble makers” rarely find themselves in positions of authority, and
when they do they generally lose some of their “fire” as they learn to
compromise to get along. Why is that? What happens to people when
they get into positions of power? It seems they get disconnected from the
“rank and file” and more important perhaps, they seem to lose track of the
mission of the organization. Of course this is not always true.
I
know many farm organization leaders and university administrators alike who
have dedicated their talents and passion to serving their organization with
integrity. At the same time, I’ve seen many more begin a leadership
career with strong ideals of service only to get beaten down by power and
politics. Unfortunately, there seems to be more in the latter
category. I don’t think we should blame the
individuals. In today’s organizational environment of power-over
relationships and competition for resources, many are led to sacrifice values
they care for deeply, just to survive. This seems as true for individuals
as organizations. Even the sustainable agriculture organizations are
susceptible to this “disease.” One survey participant wrote;
“Sustainable
agriculture organizations have succumbed to the same treadmill, competing for
grants, members, and other resources, the goal becoming the survival of the
organization rather than the vision that created the organization.”
Leaders
get “set up” under these conditions for burn out, whether they are from sustainable
agriculture organizations, traditional farm groups, or universities.
Replacing old leadership with new voices rarely changes systems based on
hierarchical power-and-control relationships. All of our mental
models of how organizations work (especially with respect to the relationship
between leaders and followers) carry this fatal flaw.
Leaders
and followers (members or employees) act in collusion, expecting leaders
somehow to know what is wrong with complex systems and how to “fix it.”
This is a form of dependency that is not healthy in a living organization or
community. We need to understand how organizations create an environment
in which leaders and members alike have internalized power-over ways of
thinking and accepted one role or another. Power-over thinking leads to
behavior in which domination and control is normal and acceptable (except in
the extreme). Eliot warned;
. . . we shall
Die
of the absolute paternal care
That
will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere.
As
long as our mental models of organizational behavior assume that leaders are to
provide “paternal care” the power relationship between leaders and followers
will be sustained. Even the most well meaning people and the most
service-oriented organizations seem to evolve cultures of competition,
disconnectedness and oppression based on power-over thinking, all seemingly for
a good cause (well mostly). But the result is always the
same.
Truth Four:. . . many of us are running ever
faster to stay even on a treadmill where farmers pursue technologies that don’t
offer long-term hope, researchers pursue the next grant, the next research
paper or the next academic award, and extension educators run ever faster to be
at the next meeting, answer the next phone call, or file the next report for an
anxiety ridden administrator who runs from crisis to crisis without end.
There is nothing sustainable about the way we live, the way we work, the way we
farm, or the way we treat the earth.
Everyone
seems to be running faster to stay even. At least 96% of the survey
respondents thought so, choosing 4 or 5 (with 74% indicating full
agreement). Farmers adopting the latest technology are particularly
vulnerable. Each new technology that enhances yield or improves
efficiency makes the technology treadmill run faster. An increase
in raw product yield does little today to affect retail price, since raw
product is an ever smaller portion of the cost of getting food to market.
The economic benefit to individual farmers from increased productivity is
quickly lost as competitors adopt the new technology and total production
increases keep commodity prices flat. The technology treadmill
turns. If you don’t get on, you get lost. If you do get on, you
have to run faster to stay even. The greatest beneficiaries are generally
the manufacturers of the new technologies. As a society, we feel little
is gained but much is lost. Food is cheap, but there are other
problems. One participant wrote:
“The
loss of community, the ungluing of stable human relationships, and the
substitution of material things for substance have played a major role in the
injustice and despair that have plagued agriculture and society… and have
caused untold unconscious damage to our planet and ourselves.”
I
was particularly moved by the recognition that we are substituting material
things for “substance”. Some of the substantive things lost are;
honest relationships, personal serenity, ecological integrity, and
intergenerational responsibility. What we have gained seems to be cheap
fast food and fast lifestyles to support the fast food habit. There is no
end in sight, yet it doesn’t seem possible to keep up with the accelerating
speed of the treadmill. Many research scientists, extension educators and
administrators caught in their own personal treadmills know they need to get
off, but don’t. We each must take responsibility for our own contribution
to making the treadmill run. One of the respondents offered this quote
attributed to Gandhi:
“We each must be the change that we want to see in the
world.”
Many
of us don’t even realize the treadmill exists, until we fall off.
Actually stepping off before the inevitable fall is even more difficult, but is
itself an act of honesty and courage. It also requires a faith that there
is another way to live. Spiritual leaders often tell us that we need to
slow down and discover a way of being that is offers more “stillness” in our
lives. Eliot helps us envision a “still point of the turning world” around
which there is constant movement, turning, ever turning. . . ;
Where
past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards,
Neither
ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point
There
would be no dance, and there is only the dance.
The
dance of life (including work) would not exist without the still point, any
more than a wheel could turn without a hub. This is the center, where all
is in balance. I imagine the farther we get from this still point, the
faster we turn – like a wheel. In our normal workday lives all too many
of us wear. . .
. . . strained
time-ridden faces
Distracted
from distraction by distraction
Filled
with fancies and empty of meaning
We
search for meaning in “distractions” and find our days filled with emptiness.
Some of us deaden this feeling with addictions, pursing something indefinable
but not achievable. And the treadmill keeps moving, turning, ever
turning. Eliot writes. . .
Desire
itself is movement
Not
in itself desirable;
Love
itself is unmoving,
Only
the cause and end of movement,
Timeless,
and undesiring
Eliot
tells us something about the still point. It is love, unmoving itself but
the “cause and end of movement”. Love is creation, timeless and
undesiring itself - the beginning and the end - that place where we are always
“in the now”. Or as Eliot says. . .
. . .
say that the end precedes the beginning,
And
the end and the beginning were always there
Before
the beginning and after the end.
And
all is always now.
.
. . the enchainment of past and future
Woven
in the weakness of the changing body,
Protects
mankind. . .
Our
own belief in the reality of time, past and future, act as “chains” protecting our
weak and ever-changing bodies (that live in time past and time future) from the
still point. We remain only partially conscious since. . .
Time
past and time future
Allow
but a little consciousness.
To
be conscious is not to be in time. . .
I
seem to get closest to this still point in meditation. Perhaps at the end
of each breath and before the beginning of the next, we approach the still
point where there is no movement, no running after insatiable desires, no
treadmill and no runner – where “all is always now.”
The
path to the still point may be as long as the journey of a life time and as
short as the distance from head to heart. The journey begins with telling
your own truth and acting according to a clear set of personal values. When
I am clear on my personal values and my actions are consistent with those
values, I know that I am not only more effective in my work but I find more
satisfaction in my life. Many of us who came to work in agriculture
because we deeply cared about people, hunger, or the environment found
ourselves working for the economic self-interests of those who hold money and
power. Our current industrial agricultural system and the public research
university it supports drive us in this direction. If we are to save
ourselves, we must be true to our core values. We must step off the
treadmill before we fall off, and in doing so perhaps save the earth.
Truth Five:. . . the quest for sustainability
of the earth, including human and non-human communities may be our best hope
for land grant universities, the farming communities we love, and perhaps for
ourselves.
This
truth had much support in the survey as well. About 87% of the
respondents choose either 4 or 5 (with 76% in full agreement). We badly
need a bold idea to focus our energy and rebuild hope. The public
universities that should be part of the solution seem to be more of a
problem. The American public has questioned the credibility of land grant
universities because of the seemingly close relationship they maintain with
corporations. The response of many universities to this criticism has
been that they are contributing to economic growth. And this appears
true, at least in the short term. But universities should be obligated to
look beyond the short-term economy and the generation of monetary wealth for
those corporations willing and able to donate to university research. One
respondent wrote:
“A
country's strength and standing in the world community should be measured by
the health of its ecosystems. . .
A
public research university devoted to ecosystem health (rather than corporate
wealth) would certainly be a shift from the situation today where universities
have created special offices designed to attract corporate funding of
research. Have a look at any university web page and you can find a
section that basically states, “we are for rent – just call us.” This is
a far cry from the university of the people created over a century ago.
Imagine
what the response might be if a courageous university president were to
publicly state that the state university was no longer willing to accept grants
and contracts from privately owned corporations. In some states, this
would make little real impact in the total funding picture, since most grant
funding comes from the state and federal governments (large corporate gifts are
another story of course). I sometimes wonder if the payoff in public
credibility and support might not outweigh the money actually provided by
corporate grants.
I
also wonder what would happen if universities declared their primary role was
to support research and educational programs that worked for planetary
sustainability? Now, that would be a big idea. It might also be one
that helped serve the farming communities we love, and maybe save our souls in
the doing. I believe “getting off the treadmill” may begin by
reconnecting to a passion for service to something bigger than ourselves, like
sustainability of the earth.
I
wonder if we will have the wisdom to make the needed changes before it is too
late. Knowledge alone, will surely not be enough since it is
knowledge (or perhaps cleverness) that brought us to where we are today.
Eliot writes;
There is, it seems to us,
At
best, only a limited value
In
the knowledge derived from experience.
In
the end, we may need more than knowledge. We will need wisdom - but a
particular type of wisdom that derives from humility. T.S. Eliot wrote;
The
only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is
the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
Maybe Eliot meant that only the “wisdom of humility”
is truly sustainable.
Footnotes:
1
The essay titled “My Truths
Today – It’s Still All About Sustainability” was submitted (upon request)
to a sustainable agriculture newsletter of a major land grant university.
It was developed from a speech given by the author in Manhattan, Kansas in
February 2001. Upon receipt, the essay was deemed too controversial
to print by the university administration. It has not been submitted for
publication elsewhere but was shared with friends and colleagues. Comments
are welcomed. Contact John Gerber
at: jgerber@psis.umass.edu.
2The T.S. Eliot quotes from ‘Four Quartets’ were
brought to my attention at a workshop given by Margaret Wheatley and published
later in an article by her titled Consumed by Fire or Fire: Journeying with
T.S. Eliot. IONS Noetic Science Review, April-July 1999.
3 From Donella Meadows in Leverage Points: Places to
Intervene in a System. Sustainability Institute. December 1999. See
(www.sustainer.org).
.4
The quotes from “survey
participants” were collected from the email survey. Since they were
anonymous, these are included without individual attribution.