|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 237
cHAprER
27
The Social and Ethical
Conned of Agriculture:
Is It There and Can We Teach It?
Otto C. Doering IT!
James G. Leising, Rapporteur
"Values are the emotional rules by which a nation governs itself.
Values summarize the accumulated folk wisdom by which a soci-
ety organizes and disciplines itself. And values are the precious
reminders that individuals obey to bring order and meaning into
their personal lives. Without values, nations, societies and individu-
als can pitch straight to hell" (Michener' lssl:so-sl). So argues
James A. Michener in a plea for the teaching of family and commu-
nity values. He sees such values as being distinct to each group in
society and critical to the working of any society with each group
or family having something unique to convey to its next generation.
Many in agriculture still labor under the belief in agricultures
uniqueness. This notion rests on the recollection of Jeffersonts
concerns for a yeoman class to preserve democracy and on the
continuation of agrarian beliefs from the era of populist fervor in
America. The preservation of the myth of agricultural uniqueness
also preserves the notion that agriculture has a unique social and
ethical context. One aspect of this has been a belief that agricul-
ture has a special relationship with the natural world. Depending
on the values implicitly expressed, this relationship is variously
described as one of harmony or one of management of nature,
ranging from that of an English garden to that of Attila the Hun.
Some other aspects involve the value of labor, the place of commu-
nity, and the inherent value of rural life.
What we all need to face is the fact that the uniqueness is gone
and that agriculture is unlikely to operate or exist on the basis of its
own unique social and ethical contexts. Other social and ethical
contexts have overtaken that of agriculture if not by force of vir
237
OCR for page 238
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERG~UATE
tue, then by force of swamping the agricultural population with an
industrial one. it was the social and ethical context of the industrial
population that first swamped the agricultural population. The dy-
namism of the industrial context is superbly reflected by Carl Sand-
burg~s poem Chicago." Chicago is not only "Hog Butcher for the
World" and Stacker of Wheat" but also "Tool Maker . . . Player with
Railroads . . . Stormy, husky, brawling, . . . Flinging magnetic curses
amid the toil of piling job on job . . . Bareheaded,/Shoveling,/Wreck-
ing,/Planning,/Building, breaking, rebuilding" (sandburg' 1970). This
is the new American industrial city. Yet this poem was written in
1916, only a decade after the Country Life Commission (Rasmussen,
1975), written at a time when half of the nation was still agrarian.
We are now well beyond the industrial age and into a postindustrial
age and context. To believe that agriculture still has its own unique
social and ethical context is to be two revolutions out of date.
What we face now is not the challenge of dealing with a social
and ethical context that flows from the agricultural experience. We
are having to deal with the social and ethical context of someone
elsets age. Those whom we teach in schools of agriculture are not
products of the farm the Jeffersonian and populist vision they are
products of the postindustrial age who will be unlikely to go to the
farm or anything like it.
Our current students come to us not only without a sense of
agricultural context but also with only a very limited collection of
any strong social and ethical norms. Neither families nor communi-
ties feel as strongly about inculcating a given set of norms in their
young as was the case in more interdependent communities gen-
erations ago. As these Uundernormed" students approach the uni-
versities or colleges of their choice, they are subject to the posture
of modern science that tries to ignore or avoid dealing with social
or ethical norms as much as possible. Science in schools of agri-
culture is not unique in its disinterest in social and ethical norms.
industrial science and scientific production also have no interest or
willingness to deal with such norms unless they reinforce science
or production.
Over the years, agriculture has had some touchstone social and
ethical issues that have been barometers of our social and ethical
sensibilities. Migrant labor has been one of these. The way we
have dealt with this issue is by eliminating it eliminating it without
compensating the displaced, eliminating it without retraining the
redundant, eliminating it because it was so socially embarrassing
that we were unwilling to apply good management science to a
first-class labor force and make them more productive. Church
groups might give money to migrant labor organizing efforts, but
the same diocese might not minister to the spiritual needs, let
alone social needs, of the migrants. Few applied good science to
make viable employment instead we applied technological displace
238
OCR for page 239
THE SOCIAL AND ETHICAL CONTEXT OF AGRICULT13RE
meet. In spite of (or maybe because of) harping criticism from the
outside, agriculture was unwilling to tackle this issue constructively.
It seems ironic that having punted concerns about our treatment of
people, we are now having to respond to concerns about battery of
chickens and animal rights.
What would we like to have a student of agriculture be prepared
to do about social and ethical questions? My goal would be to
produce students who are able to recognize and weigh the trade-
offs involved in applying broad social and ethical norms to today's
decisions. 1 am concerned that our students are mostly unable to
deal with issues like the Wig Green" referendum in California (ban-
ning a large number of agricultural chemicals and addressing many
other environmental concerns), given the many conflicting social
and ethical norms and goals involved. We cannot avoid responsi-
bility by using the device of throwing our students into international
or other cross cultural experiences to sensitize them to Real" is-
sues they must first be able to identify and deal with the context
of their own society. Only later might a cross-cultural experience
be instructive in further teaching the broad nature of our own norms.
1 learned more about American social and ethical norms during 2
years of postgraduate study at London University than at any other
time in my life (but I started from the basis of a strong liberal
arts undergraduate education)
Many of the faculty in schools of agriculture had a single re-
sponse to the Big Green issue that was a non sequitur to the rest of
society. The response was: elf the public were only adequately
trained in science, they would recognize the need for these chemi-
cals and the inherent safety of their use." This response is indica-
tive of several tragic flaws in the way that the agricultural minority
approaches the rest of society. First, even if a member of the
general public had the same scientific knowledge as the scientist,
that individual might still have a different risk preference and val-
ues with respect to health or concerns for environmental damage.
Second, the general public is not likely to ever be adequately trained
in science in the eyes of scientists. Third, we are dealing with
public perceptions, which may or may not correspond to scientific
facts and may correspond more closely to information from a source
believed to be trustworthy. Being considered trustworthy is closer
to a value judgment involving social and ethical norms than it is to
scientific accuracy. Finally, my fellow scientists missed some of the
mayor trade-offs and potential problems of Big Green by being con-
cerned only about the scientific facts. Some of the major trade-offs
were social and ethical, and neither extreme in the debate had all
the angels on its side. By being unconcerned with the social and
ethical arguments central to major public issues, we leave the game
in forfeit.
One of the impacts of Big Green would have been to move the
239
OCR for page 240
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
production of a number of specialty vegetables and fruits to other
states or countries. As a consumer, 1 know that California has the
most stringent pesticide and fungicide use regulations in the nation.
California also has the highest standards of safety and economic
protection for its agricultural labor force of any state or country. If
we move this production out of California, I am likely to be less
well protected from excess chemicals or more risky chemicals than
was the case when California grew the product. Certain foods
might be more expensive or less available. The labor used to grow
and harvest the product is also less likely to have good working
conditions and adequate wages and benefits (according to my stan-
dards as an urban consumer) than would be the case in California.
What this says is that, in some instances, Big Green would likely
result in potentially more chemical exposure for the rest of the
nation that now consumes produce from California and consumer
choice would be changed by price and availability. It might also
result in production under conditions much less favorable to agri-
cultural workers and those of us outside of agriculture know about
these things: we boycotted grapesl All of these secondary im-
pacts involve social and ethical considerations that are important
to society.
How would our students look at Big Green? Would they temper
the science-only approach7 How arrogant might their science-only
approach be7 Would they recognize the importance of public per-
ception and trust and know what they are based on7 Would they
be able to identify and assess countervailing social and ethical
concerns even when one side appeared to have all the social and
ethical weight in its favors Could they make decisions on the basis
of both science and nonscience7
AS another example, how would our students deal with the "circle
of poison" issued Again, scientific and factual information appears
to be on one side, which is pitted against social and ethical con-
cerns on the other side, whose proponents suggest we stop the
production of unregistered chemicals for export. However, even
social and ethical norms can be of widely different scopes and
contexts. There are ethical as well as good scientific arguments on
both sides. Having worked in developing countries for a number of
years, I do not feel I have the ethical right to tell a subsistence
farmer that he is not allowed to use a chemical that is not regis-
tered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency when he is
feeding a family suffering from malnutrition. 1 feel it would be
arrogant of me to do so. Wealthy people are more able to worry
about the long run than very poor people are. Do wealthy people
have the ethical right to force the long-term view on the poor? 1 do
not find this an easy question to answer. Those on both extremes
in the debate are more comfortable than I am in easily dealing with
or just ignoring such questions.
240
OCR for page 241
THE SOCIAL AND ETHICAL CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURE
Can and should we teach an ethical and social context to our
students? we can, but we probably should not. Can we teach a
broad perspective that gives context to social and ethical issues? I
am not sure that we can, but I think this is a better approach.
What I am saying is that, first, our society is providing less and
less of an overall social and ethical context for our young. Few
parents are willing to teach and convey it, and precollege schools
believe that they are not allowed to teach it. Second, if we try to
teach this at the college level, we might end up teaching a doctrine
or set of personal professorial beliefs. However, I am less con-
cerned about a Marxist in the classroom than ~ am about a bad
Marxist in the classroom whose only appeal is to the heart, not the
mind. Students need to be able to recognize and then analyze the
social and ethical trade-offs inherent in any important decision to
which they can then apply their own developing values and their
knowledge of scientific facts. Winston Churchillts quip that "if a
young student is not at first a Socialist he does not have a heart,
but if he does not later become a Conservative he does not have a
brain" tells us more than his view about socialists and conserva-
tives. It says something about the process of learning and explor-
ing values and balancing these with facts in decision making.
At the college level, we should not teach a given social and
ethical context per se. We can broaden the knowledge base in
which an individual deals with such questions and we can demon-
strate an approach to such issues by example. Exposing under-
graduates to teachers who are good in their disciplines, who have
broad experience, and who have their own well-developed social
and ethical context is one of the best learning experiences. What
sorts of individuals fit the bill? Keith Kennedy, Jean McKelvey, Jean
and Ken Robinson, Dan Sister, and Milton Barnett at Cornell Uni-
versity; John Axtell, Bruce McKenzie, Deborah Brown, and Don Paarl-
berg at Purdue University; Emerson Babb and Bob Peart at the
University of Florida; and Bill Chancellor and Sylvia Lane at the
University of California at Davis have done this for earlier genera-
tions. If you want students to gain social and ethical context, do
not try to teach it badly; put in the classroom teachers for whom it
pervades the learning experience. Students then see what such a
context does for onets ability to analyze difficult issues and make
critical decisions. A course in ethics can broaden a students scope
but may offer little by example or experience in making difficult
ethical choices.
On a curriculum level, there must also be some background
information or personal experience giving the student some basis
for making comparisons and choices. This means taking a good
class in American government, some well-taught history, English
that facilitates better reading and writing (allowing the student to
enter the world of ideas)' cultural anthropology, applied sociology,
241
OCR for page 242
AGRICULTURE AND TIdE UNDERGRADUATE
etc. Without something like this, a student has no context for social
and ethical issues-no standards for comparison and discrimination
other than personal emotions and experiences.
The following are some goals that we might set for ourselves to
equip our students to integrate social and ethical factors into their
decision making:
1. Do our students understand the difference between facts and
values? Are they equally comfortable dealing with each, and do
they recognize the role of each in decision making?
2. Do our students have a broad context for social and ethical
questions in addition to their own personal beliefs, values, and
experiences?
3. Are our students able to identify and assess trade-offs that
involve facts and values, science, and the social and ethical con-
text?
4. Have our students been sufficiently exposed to teachers who
convey experience in dealing with social and ethical issues in a
nonadvocacy, nonproselytizing way?
If we can answer yes to each of the above, we are turning out
an individual ready to deal with the social and ethical context of
the postindustrial world.
References
Michener, J. A. 1991. What is the secret of teaching values? Money(April):
9~9 1 .
Rasmussen, W. 1975. Pp. 186~1906 in Agriculture in the United States:
A Documentary History, vol. 2. New York: Random House. (First
published in Bailey, L., et al. 1909. Report of the Country Life Commis-
sion.)
Sandburg, C. 1970. Chicago. P. 3 in the Complete Poems of Carl Sandburg.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
RAPPORTEUR'S SUMMARY
Many believe that agriculture has a unique social and ethical
context. Some of the major aspects involve agriculture's special
relationship with the natural world, the value of labor, the place of
community, and the inherent value of rural life. Otto C. Doering 111
argued that the industrial segment of society has overtaken that of
agriculture and has, in effect, replaced the social and ethical con-
text for most Americans. He stated, UWe are now well beyond the
industrial age and into a postindustrial age and context. To believe
that agriculture still has its own unique social and ethical context is
to be two revolutions out of date."
242
OCR for page 243
THE SOCIAL AND ETHICAL CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURE
Currently, students come to colleges of agriculture without a
sense of agricultural context, but they also have limited collections
of strong social and ethical norms. As a result, students are sub-
ject to the attitudes of modern science. These attitudes attempt to
ignore or avoid the ideas of social and ethical norms and the roles
they play in society. A good example of this attitude was the Wig
Green" referendum in California that was aimed at limiting a large
number of agricultural chemicals. Scientists responded from the
perception that if the public were only adequately trained in sci-
ence, they would recognize the need for these chemicals and the
safety of their use. This type of logic often errs, because the
scientific community fails to recognize that we are dealing with
public perceptions that may or may not correspond to scientific
facts and that may correspond more closely to information from
sources believed to be trustworthy. Being trustworthy is closer to
a value Judgment involving social and ethical norms than it is to
scientific accuracy.
What should students of agriculture be prepared to do about
social and ethical questions? According to Doering, students should
be able to recognize and weigh the trade-offs involved in applying
social and ethical norms to today's decisions. He also advocated
that pushing students into international or other cross-cultural expe-
riences was not the answer. Rather, they must first identify and
deal with the context of their own society.
Can and should we teach an ethical and social context to our
students? Doering believes that we cannot teach the social and
ethical context per se. Rather, he feels we can broaden the knowl-
edge base in which an individual deals with such questions and
we can demonstrate an approach to such issues by example. In
other words, do not try to teach it badly, but instead, put in the
classroom teachers who have it so that it pervades the learning
experience. Students then see what such a context does for one's
ability to analyze difficult issues and make critical decisions. It was
concluded that teachers often attempt to separate fact from values
rather than looking at all the information brought to bear on the
issue that will cause students to look at the whole.
MuCh debate ensued in the discussion group over whether
courses could be used to teach the values and ethics of agricul-
ture. No clear consensus was evident, but it was pointed out that
most faculty have little formal education in the area of ethics, and
therefore, courses of this nature may need to be taught jointly with
faculty from philosophy or other social science departments. A
beginning point for implementing the teaching of ethics and values
might be for each professor to agree to integrate topics that ad-
dress the question, What social and ethical implications does this
course have for mankind and society at large?, However, this
suggestion is made with the understanding that faculty would be
243
OCR for page 244
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
given the opportunity for professional development in this area
and would have thought deeply about the issues involved.
Another concern that was addressed was the idea that students
do not have a context for dealing with social and ethical issues
because they have no standards other than an emotional context
for discriminating the various sides of an issue. In other words,
should the curriculum include some general education in such dis-
ciplines as history and government, English, anthropology, and so-
ciology to provide a context for considering issues? After much
discussion, the consensus was yes. However, one question re-
mained: "How many units should be required and what agricultural
courses should be deleted to make room for general education
courses?" lt should be noted that most universities have required
general education courses; however, this discussion was focused
on the idea of creating a coherent core of courses specifically for
agricultural students.
in summary, Doering suggested four goals that faculty members
might set for students in the area of the social and ethical context
of agriculture.
Students should understand the difference between facts and
values.
2. Students need a broad context for social and ethical ques-
tions in addition to their own personal beliefs and values.
3. Students should be able to identify and assess trade-offs that
involve facts and values, science, and the social and ethical con
text.
4. Students should be exposed to teachers who convey experi-
ence in dealing with social and ethical issues in a nonadvocacy,
nonproselytizing way.
There is no question that the social and ethical context of agri-
culture is one of the least understood and least taught areas of the
curriculum for agricultural students. This session provided a dis-
cussion of the issues involved and provided insight into teaching
about the social and ethical context of agriculture. it is apparent,
now more then ever before, that if we fail in dealing with these
aspects of agriculture, we could become paralyzed as an industry.
244
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ethical norms
