Dialectics Gone Awry

"You can still find it on the grocer's shelf."
-Rep. Helen Chenoweth, addressing the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on restoring salmon in the Pacific Northwest

In the conservation business, we often hear the term "conflict resolution." Perhaps the reason we expend so much effort on this process is because there seems to be so many conflicting views of "conservation." Consultants abound who counsel us to sit down with those of varying opinions and hammer out conflict resolution scenarios in facilitated meetings often called "roundtables." The sessions are based on the practice of dialectics, the process of "examining opinions or ideas logically, often by the method of question and answer, so as to determine their validity," which (in theory) works like this: an idea, or thesis, has its opposite or antithesis. This leads to a reconciliation of opposites to form a new idea, or synthesis. For example, politics in America is based on a two party system, which embodies a dialectic exchange as a means to create social structure. In my opinion this dialectic process, as it applies to conflict resolution about conservation issues, has gone awry.

Conflict resolution in today's conservation movement is amiss for two reasons: 1) the "establishment" is biased and highly influenced by big business, and 2) the average citizen has lost touch with the natural world. Consequently, a land ethic is often based on misconceptions, or even worse, is corrupt.

When I worked for the US Forest Service, I spoke out against clearcutting as the predominant method of timber harvesting. For this stand, I was officially slapped with a letter accusing me of insubordination. I requested a review from the Supervisor's office, and this request resulted in a conflict resolution meeting with a trained agency facilitator. Attending the session was the District Ranger, my supervisor, a personnel staff officer, some other agency personnel, and myself. I recall one question in particular that was asked by the facilitator. After I explained my reasons for questioning Forest Service policy, the facilitator asked me, "Why would you want to question Forest Service policy?" I have always thought that question indicated the facilitator's bias. To me, the question should have been, "How do you justify your differences with Forest Service policy?"

Examples of dialectics gone awry abound in today's society. Take, for example, an advertisement I saw recently on a flyer for a furniture company sale. The flyer featured images of an elephant, an eagle, a white rhino and several more threatened and endangered species amongst pieces of furniture. The ad read, "Endangered species, come to our store and bag one today!" The twisted logic of the ad equivocated the chance to acquire a rare piece of furniture with a limited (and favorable) opportunity to "bag" an endangered species.

There is a group who call themselves "The Dialectic Society." They recently recognized the phrase "urban camper" as an example of modern day dialectics. This reminds me of the local Trout Unlimited chapter, which vehemently opposes the idea of designating the Chattooga River's Rock Gorge Roadless Area as Wilderness. They claim that it might cause the discontinuation of a helicopter "put-and-take" trout stocking program. One must ask: what are the priorities of a conservation group more concerned about the artificial propagation of a non-native species, than protection for wild native brook trout?

Another example of dialectics gone awry that brings the full weight of the problem upon my conscience is a local radio advertisement. It goes something like this: "What does spring time mean to you? It's time to visit the amazing Cherokee Casino in the heart of the Smokies!!" No comment.

A wise man once said that we have become a society so dependent on artificial environments that we have lost touch with the natural world. If this is true then chances are slim for a fair debate in mainstream society over better conservation. Slim because the predominant thesis of conservation is envisioned by proponents who may be out of touch with the natural world, and whose priorities are likewise detached. Our goal should be, therefore, to facilitate a reconnection to the natural world. The Chattooga Quarterly is dedicated to this goal.

Back to the Top