John M. Gerber
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.”
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 and
educators 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. . . (not the wealth and power of its corporations
<mine>).
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. If you would like a copy, contact John Gerber at: jgerber@pssci.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.