From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Wolf Summit in Alaska
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 00:35:57 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec18.123642.531@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:

 > I think this is good advice... in fact, I think it is advice that every
 > person reading this newsgroup should pay a bit of attention to. It is the
 > `venom and vitriol' expressed on all sides that is preventing the 
 > powers that be from taking a clear direction... they read things like the
 > blather on this newsgroup and they dismiss the whole topic as garbage...
 > each side says the same things about the other, and the result is a zero
 > contribution. To give an example, all I need to do is refer to your own
 > post... you don't agree with Mr. Hardwick, so you shoot off a batch of 
 > your own `venom and vitriol'... 

Agreed. However, I do specialise as part of my training programs in
the construction of often hostile discursive communities. Where most
trainers set out to inform and/or condition their participants toward
developing particular skills or attitudes, my own work is more involved
with taking them through a variety of negotiating strategies in order
to demonstrate how totally absurd it can all become on the most flimsy
of excuses.

People will actually stand at opposite corners of a room yelling at
one another, letting all their vitriol and spleen out until you step
in to point out that it all arose from, for example, their differing
attitudes on whether the school of hard knocks is more useful in life
than a university degree. That also seems to be a significant element
underlying these arguments, BTW, but the point I wish to make *again*
is that it is so easy to criticise.

So I don't mind so much what goes on here as I am quite used to it by
now, except to repeat the same warning I have found reason to post to
other groups, as Don Christie has apparently found reason here, that
the longer it keeps up the less credibility and respect the group as a
whole generates in the wider community. Yes indeed, it gets to the
point where people who might otherwise benefit from our debate just
shake their heads in wonder, and go elsewhere.

So, no problem, the longer it keeps up the more proof is available
that that is what inevitably happens, another example I can take back
to the seminar room. And as I posted yesterday, it is also important
for us to keep track of public attitudes as they impact on programs
needed to be implemented from time to time.

 > So when these people turn off their terminals and shake their heads, and
 > when they conclude that sustainable is a noble objective... but that there
 > are relatively few truly viable ideas being expressed, can we really blame
 > them? One side expresses its views and the other takes pot shots... 
 >  
 > They conclude that the best direction that they can take is the one they
 > are on... in large measure because of the fact that they're tired of listening
 > to the narrow-minded assertions of individuals who are unable to see any
 > more than a very small part of a very large picture. 

There it is. Isn't the issue somewhat more concerned with thinking
about what someone else said you *feel* you disagree over, without
ever stopping to *think* about it, instead of taking sides with those
you agree with already and so learning nothing of any use at all?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture