I'm Late For Farm Class

Throughout the entirety of his book, Thompson continuously reverts back to the Jeffersonian ideal of agriculture, which places farmers on a pedestal as virtuous and model citizens for a society.  The intimate connection to the land, dependency on a place, and the virtues obtained through farming allow for desirable attributes that may aid us in our attempt to alter the situation we find ourselves in today.  Although the focus is mainly on farmers, Thompson also admits that Jefferson considered educators to be on a similar platform, for they “could serve as models for essential virtues…through self-discipline and the respect for truth” (Thompson, 191).  

The linkage of agriculture and education seems to be a curious notion.  Would our current educational system, mainly that of primary education, ever allow for an agricultural based experience in addition to the traditional subjects of Math, Science, Social Studies, and English?  

 I am reminded of a conversation I had with a friend and recent graduate of St. Michaels, Patrick Cranell, who spent a summer working on an organic farm.  Upon working in the fields all day and learning the agricultural roots and practices, Patrick insisted that working on a farm for some allotted amount of time should be mandatory for all able children.  As Berry and Thompson have alluded too, Patrick argued that there is a sense of morality obtained and a swift slap in the face from reality when one is working on a farm.  The true work, and pushing the body to the brink of exhaustion, greatly increased the appreciation for farmers, food, ecosystem, and social relations.  He also had a weaker argument saying that the majority of us do not remember what we learned in the early years of grade school, so why not replace that with farming and gain experiential knowledge?  Nevertheless, his idea is compelling.

Upon discussing this topic with other family and friends, I was met with negative reactions simply being that it was a stupid idea, and that the traditional areas of academia are most important.  Allowing farming into education would be irrelevant, a waste of time, and inefficient, ultimately leading to a degradation of our education system (which is odd considering the many flaws in our system anyway).  

Still, I cannot bring myself to believe these counter arguments.  Giving children the ability to farm within an educational schooling environment I think would be advantageous on many fronts.  They would learn matters of Science through crop biology, soil fertility, and animal husbandry; They would learn Math through seasonal rotation, polycultural farming, and the economics of selling food; They would learn literary techniques through the reading of agricultural and environmental writers; And they would learn a local Social Studies through the history of the land and place.  Even if all of the lessons learned are forgotten, like Patrick suggests we have already, there is a chance that these children would be instilled with morals and virtues still allowing them to be positive members of society.   So, could agricultural practices be allowed into the schooling system in addition to the traditional subjects of academia? 

What Happens If A Community Is Wrong?

Overall I understand the discussions of values in the Cartesian sense and the Linguistic Communities approach given be Sellars.  The Cartesian philosophy is enticing, however as we discussed in class, several issues arise; mainly it does not account for the phenomenon where objects seem to have value even if there is no external valuer, nor does it give much hope for the non-sentient beings who still possess value.  Furthermore, the discussions revolving around intrinsic vs. extrinsic value, and subjective vs. objective value become ambiguous and abstract for it is difficult to determine the sources of the value.  As offered by Thompson, Sellar's Linguistic Communities theory states that values emerge from a series of accepted assumptions that, whether consciously or unconsciously, govern a given community.  It also follows from this that we must be respective of other communities for they possess different assumptions and traits: and in order for mutual collaboration we must be open to Others. 

Although I agree that we must be open and respectful, I am concerned with a potentially unsettling ethical dilemma.  How must we regulate this openness to Others, especially if the Others are taking part in activities that are seen as immoral or unethical?  Even though it is tradition, many view female genital mutilation as wrong and immoral.  In this case we say hell with tradition and intervene to stop this practice. But as a result we are not being "open" to this culture.  So what are we to do if we want to respect these communities?  I understand that if we unpack this question discussions will arise about the definition of immoral and unethical.  Further, conversations of rights may muddle the concerns here...for example, what gives us the right to interfere with say other traditions or the like?  So.  All philosophical debate aside, there are real concerns that we must face.

The book "The Spirit Catches You And You Fall Down" by Anne Fadiman is a good example of this concern.  The book follows Lia, a Hmong child diagnosed with severe epilepsy, and her family's cultural struggle that ultimately halts her treatments.  Lia's parents hold strong to there traditional Hmong roots, especially when it comes to healing systems.  They are unsure of the Western biomedical model of treatment and continually refer to Shamanistic spiritual healing practices (while ignoring doctors orders) in an attempt to "fix" the continuing problems they believed are worsening because of the western medical system.  Through a series of language barriers, opposing views of medicine, ignoring medical treatments, and the struggle between two colliding cultures, Lia's condition worsens dramatically.  Lia slips into a coma at age 4, and is not expected to live.  Miraculously she survives but is left with severe brain damage and next to no motor skills.  Many doctors believe that these outcomes could have been avoided if her parents followed the treatments correctly, but the cultural and language barriers proved to be too high. 

In this scenario many ethical questions arise.  Should the doctors have been able to overrule the parent's choice to use traditional Hmong medical practices over western medicine?   If so, would Lia's parents be denied of some moral right to their tradition?  Or, since Lia is at an age where she cannot make life altering decisions on her own, are her parents to blame for her worsening condition?  Did the parents decision deprive Lia of her right to a potentially healthy life?  Is it immoral to continue with traditional practices even if they are not the best option? 

Even though this example is much more severe than the case of agriculture, I think that there are similar complications that may arise.  How are we to deal with differing values about ecosystems, land, and the species that inhabit them?  How are we to confront those who are not yet convinced that, say, animals and trees have moral rights?  Will we be stuck in a never ending, self-defeating debate about whose values are right and wrong?  Can these different communities truly function if there are others that are on the other end of the spectrum?  And what happens if we choose to rebel against these assumptions?  As seen in the art world, almost every movement is a progression and a rebellious response to the times.  What are we to do if values come from assumptions, but these assumptions can be rebelled against, leading to a new set of accepted assumptions? 

So I suppose the question we are left with is: Can we truly be open and respectful to other communities with different values?

A Cosmopolocalism Of Food?

In attempt to blur the dichotomy between localism and cosmopolitanism we discussed a third alternative that combined the two: cosmopolocalism.  Essentially this is comprised of a literal groundedness and connection to a specific place, a ridding of us vs. them mentality, concern over urban and local culture, and lastly, concern of sustainability and global justice.  This suggestion is a median between the two extremes that may bring a moral and environmental balance between the differing mentalities.  I am curious if there is room for a type of agricultural cosmopolocalism in Thompsons agrarian vision or Berry's romanticized localism. 

It seems that we currently have a dichotomy of agriculture.  On one side, the industrial agriculturalist, and on the other, the organic small farmer.  This has led to similar complications that all dichotomy's eventually lead to.  Industrial Organic Agriculture has risen as perhaps an unintended mediator of the two, although it is not the solve all solution despite its few steps in the right direction. 

The tried and true localist presumes that the members of a place must eat whatever is native or grown in the local area.  There is no room for imported fruits or non-native species that we have become accustomed too.  Whereas the industrialist is the exact opposite and wants to provide all products that the eater may think of.  We know the problems with the industrialist process so I won't belabor that point.  And we know that the localized system may be able to solve some of these problems too.  But are the strict guidelines and restrictions of localism necessary?  Or can there be a cosmopolocalism of food that allows for a responsible acquiring of foreign products?

This thought is similar to a previous post that asked if eating a fruit from across the country was still ethical if say, transportation was improved so there were next to no environmental costs.  As much as I'd like to embrace localism full heartedly, I realize that I have become spoiled...and I assume the masses are as well.  I worry that this extreme alteration may not be welcomed.  Is there any kind of ethical medium that would allow for some foreign food products to be brought into a localized food system?