Communiversity: the future of the university?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of the public university in society lately and my last two blogs reviewed the history of the university up to the colonial colleges in America and then to the emergence of the U.S. land grant university.  This blog speculates on the future…..

The Public University as Communiversity*

The mission of the university is described as the production, preservation and transmission of knowledge.  I believe this is an incomplete understanding of the public mission.  Our failure to take the application of knowledge seriously results in a partially-deserved “ivory tower” critique.   Productivity (application) of knowledge is just as important as production (accumulation) of knowledge.  Research must be fully integrated with teaching, as well as off-campus community outreach to capture the synergy of each and serve the educational needs of the nation.

Knowledge should be available in both the written (published) and community-based (online) formats. Transmission should no longer be a one way “downloading” of information from the teacher-expert to the student-learner, but a mutual sharing of knowledge. The communiversity of the 21st century will make “learning through inquiry” the integrative paradigm that resolves the tension between research and teaching within the academy.

I spent much of my early career working in agricultural extension, where university experts were expected to make recommendations for farmers to implement.   Agricultural extension educators carried the authority of science, the arrogance of academia, and a nearly 100-year old federal law that mandated Extension educators not only aid in the diffusion of knowledge but “encourage the application of the same.”

These 20th century assumptions must (and are) changing.  Some academics (including those in agricultural extension) are actively  inventing new ways of working. Outreach educators engaged in participatory research and education for example, acknowledge the contribution of all learners in the inquiry process – those from the university and those from the community.  All participants are expected to help identify and define problems from their own perspective, suggest alternative solutions, test those solutions and interpret results, thus capturing the synergy of the scientific and the lay learning experience. The outcome of participatory learning is not only community-based knowledge and scholarly publications, but empowered community members likely to act on their new knowledge.

Other university educators are actively creating new online courses and engaging in community conversations using learning networks and blogs.  A rapidly emerging forum for community learning is the online discussion groups that focus on specific activities and issues.

Communiversity Programs

An example of a learning network is the Pioneer Valley Backyard Chicken Association.  While easily overlooked by academics, these networks of active learners share questions, practical experience, and science-based knowledge on a daily basis through a listserve.  To support this group and similar like-minded citizen-investigators, I participate in online conversations and stay linked via Facebook and Twitter groups created to share knowledge and experience on food self-sufficiency.  I believe more academics should join in these conversations to keep up with current public interests related to their area of study.

Another public program that should be adapted by the communiversity is the “Dutch science shop” concept.  In these university-managed and community-based offices (similar to a county agricultural extension office) citizens share knowledge and initiate research to solve problems of importance in their own neighborhood. These centers might also offer a training ground for students through service learning and internships.  Community learning centers would provide a public space for citizens to build group identity and gain public skills, while encouraging local learning, research and action.

A Need for Radical Change

I believe that a radical transformation of the public land grant university is needed to better serve the citizens, businesses and communities of the nation. Citizens should be actively engaged in the research and education programs of their land grant communiversity. Of course, these changes will not occur without much dialogue and debate. Dr. A. Bartlett Giamatti, past president of Yale University wrote, the university should be…

“…a community open to new ideas, to disagreement, to debate, to criticism, to the clash of opinions and convictions.”

Personally, I look forward to the debate and would like to hear your own opinion on these suggestions!

==============================================================================

* I first heard the term “communiversity” from Richard Sclove, the author of Democracy and Technology and founder of the Loka Institute.

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And go here for more of my World.edu posts.

U.S. Universities: the origin of the Land Grants

My last blog reviewed the history and culture of higher education from the tablet writers of ancient Mesopotamia through the establishment of  colleges by the American Colonies.   This essay continues the story with the emergence of the public land grant university.   Few students (or faculty) at public universities know this history.

The beginnings of the Land Grant University

Americans have long valued public education. Early settlers built schools as cornerstones of their new communities.  Leading farmers of the 18th and 19th centuries were known for their interest in public speeches and pamphlets (the blogs of that era) introducing and debating new ideas.  Although the value of education among the elite had been recognized for some time in Europe, affordable public education for all was truly an American idea.

Jonathan Baldwin Turner, professor at Illinois College, graduate of Yale College and native of Templeton, Massachusetts championed the idea of a public university to serve “the working classes” in speeches and pamphlets in the 1830’s.  Support for Turner’s ideas grew among farmer groups, newspaper editors, industrial societies, and state and federal legislators. Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont introduced the legislation which would provide grants of public land (land grants) to be sold to finance a university in each state to “teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes.”

We often associate the idea of “land grant” universities with farming and rural America.  I’ve heard some university leaders reject the land grant ideal as no longer relevant, given that most people today live in urban and suburban areas.  But the name “land grant” had less to do with farming than it did with the funding mechanism the federal government used to pay for the new public colleges.  What made these institutions truly unique was that they allowed access to higher education to those previously excluded, which in the later half of the 19th century were largely rural peoples.  If the land grant university was invented today, it would most likely focus on the urban poor.

The second Morrill Act (1890) further broadened the availability of higher education by providing federal appropriations to support “separate but equal” colleges for African Americans living in the Southern states. In 1994, Congress gave land grant status to twenty-nine Native American tribal colleges, thus continuing the tradition of extending the land grant ideal to marginalized peoples of the nation.  These landmark bills represented a major shift in thinking about the purpose of higher education, which previously had been available only to the wealthy classes.

Research and outreach to communities are added

Although the need for a national system of agricultural research was identified by President George Washington, it took nearly 100 years for Congress to pass legislation creating the agricultural experiment station system with the Hatch Act of 1887.  This legislation represented the second evolutionary step in the growth of the land grants.  It provided federal funding “to promote scientific investigations and experiments respecting the principles and applications of agricultural science.”   The research function was thus added to the evolving land grant ideal.

The third stage in the evolutionary growth of the land grants was accomplished with the passage of the Smith Lever Act in 1914, establishing the national Cooperative Extension Service “to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics and to encourage the application of the same.”  Although the outreach programs of the public universities have been seriously undermined in many states by budget cuts, the concept of knowledge in service to the larger community remains an ideal of the public university.  

President of the University of Massachusetts Kenyon L. Butterfield was an early champion of the land grant ideal.  In a 1904 speech, President Butterfield made a case for the three land grant functions when he called for each college to support ” its threefold function as an organ of research, as an educator of students, and as a distributor of information to those who cannot come to the college.”   Butterfield recognized the necessary integration of the three functions when he stated “these are really coordinate functions and should be so recognized. The college should unify them into one comprehensive scheme. The principle of such unity is perfectly clear; for we have in research the quest for truth, in the education of students the incarnation of truth, and in extension work the democratization of truth.”   While Butterfield expressed this vision in 1904, it was many decades before his ideas were realized.

A brief look forward

The land grant ideal evolved over time to serve the practical needs of a growing nation by integrating research and outreach into the university teaching and learning experience – and making that experience available to previously excluded women and men. I believe the next expression of the land grant ideal will fully extend the university to those citizens not in residence on its many campuses.  It will do so in ways which further integrate research and teaching through online social networks and community-focused university outreach.

University of Wisconsin President C.R. Van Hise’s 1904 statement that “a state university can only permanently succeed where its doors are open to all” must be reinterpreted to not only allow previously excluded groups in, but also to send university scholars out to meet the people of the nation where they live and work. New communications technologies and online networks will not only support this effort, but will make it a necessity if the public university system is to thrive in the 21st century.

I believe those public universities that are able to build upon the land grant ideal, re-engage with the larger community, and take advantage of communications and societal networking technologies will thrive in the 21st century.  While I’m surely biased, I think one way to do this is through research and education focused on agricultural sustainability.  But frankly, we need to “put the public back into the public university” in all our many departments and disciplines.

What do you think?

==============================================================================

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And go here for more of my World.edu posts.

A history of universities before the land grants

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog claiming that we need to put the “public” back into the public university.  My own vision for the future of the public university is one of radical change, but any responsible transformation of the university, radical or otherwise, should be built upon an understanding of our history.  This blog presents my own (biased) review of the history of  the university before the public land grant institutions were created in the U.S.

The Beginning
While the university as an institution is less than 1000 years old, the ancestors of university faculty go back to 2500 BC. The tablet writers of ancient Mesopotamia were the earliest recorded class of intelligentsia. These court scribes had great political influence as they handled the correspondence, records of taxes, and other affairs of state for the rulers of the day.  While the record is incomplete on these early scholars, there is little doubt they were an elite class of men devoted to study, learning and influence.

More is known about higher education in classical Greece beginning around 500 BC. The Greek sophists were the first full-time, paid, teachers. These men gave “sample” lectures in public places to attract students, and then charged large fees to continue with a standard curriculum of prepackaged lessons. Over time, the sophists became known for their superficial and costly teachings. Unlike the sophists, the philosopher Socrates believed that wisdom would not be gained from prepackaged lessons, but had to be earned through critical reflection and dialogue. This controversy between the value of standardized lessons versus critical reflection was a harbinger of later debates such as that between professional training and personal learning during the early 20th century.

The Early Academy
Neither Socrates nor the sophists carried on their teaching and learning in any particular physical place. Plato, a student of Socrates, was the first to have a school at a preset location, a grove dedicated to the Greek folk hero Academus (the first “academy”). For Plato, the purpose of learning was the development of a class of educated rulers or “philosopher-kings.” Plato’s student Aristotle, on the other hand, believed knowledge should not be pursued to develop society’s leaders, but for its own sake. Thus, the debate between knowledge for social purposes and knowledge for its own sake began 2500 years ago.

Throughout this period schools grew up around individual scholars, but only took root when they became associated with storehouses for scholarly manuscripts, or libraries. The first known library was the museum at Alexandria, the Temple of Muses, on the Egyptian coast. Here, beginning around 250 BC grew a museum library that had more than 500,000 manuscripts. This resource for study attracted the great scholars of the period, like Archimedes and Euclid, who came to do full-time research and learn from each other.

Foundation of the Early University
During the Roman period, schools of lesser quality sprung up as minor businesses. Most of these schools disappeared during the Middle Ages when the only institutes of higher learning were devoted to religious studies. During the 11th century, Europe began to emerge from the dark ages, with education becoming more open and available again. The major cathedral church colleges in Bologna and Salerno in Italy, and Paris and Montpelier in France, added new courses to traditional clerical studies and began to attract larger numbers of students. This marked the beginning of the modern university.

Medieval university instruction was in Latin and students entered at age fifteen or sixteen. The baccalaureate or “beginners” degree followed about four years of study and acceptance as a “master” took one to three more years. Many of those students working toward masters degrees were also teachers in the lower level courses, much like graduate students today. Students of the day took time for leisure, often as drunken evenings sometimes growing into riots. One of the most famous was a 2-day brawl in Oxford that began as a tavern fight between students and “townies.” Several scholars were killed, books were destroyed and classrooms were burned.  Sound familiar?

By the end of the 13th century most of the foundations of the modern university had been established including ornate college structures, competitive recruitment practices, standardized teaching methodologies, entrenched administration, examinations, degrees, and academic regalia.  Little has changed at universities since the 13th century and that which has changed has done so very slowly.

Universities are Slow to Change

The major social upheavals associated with the Italian Renaissance in the 16th century and the scientific and technical revolution in the 17th century did not affect the traditional universities, at least at first. Florence became the center of Italian humanistic studies under the patronage of the Medici family, and other centers of learning emerged as alternatives to the unexciting studies at the university. The leading families of the day were business and political leaders who preferred to send their children to popular academies or private tutors rather than the major universities.

Exploration of new continents and new areas of scientific and technical study marked the business  and cultural environment of the 17th century, but had little impact on the universities. Francis Bacon, in the early part of the century challenged colleges and universities to look beyond their ancient teachings. Nevertheless, universities largely ignored the growing scientific movement of the era, much as they had ignored the humanistic movement of the previous century. By the 18th century, older European universities were in a serious state of decline. Struggling institutions progressively lowered their standards to attract students, becoming the diploma mills of the era.  Edward Gibbon described the impressive buildings that had been built for universities as “masking the dry-rot within.”

Universities in America
By this time colleges had been built in America, mostly under the influence of various church denominations to train clergy and political leaders. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Rutgers and Dartmouth were supported partially by colonial governments and mostly by student tuition. Enrollment was from a few dozen to a few hundred students, at most. These were elite institutions that offered traditional training in medieval studies such as Greek, Latin, logic, rhetoric, ethics and theology.

Westward expansion and denominational rivalries contributed to the rapid proliferation of colleges in the later part of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Generally small, these new colleges offered training in geography, languages, law, mathematics, geology, history, ethics, natural philosophy, literature and biology. There was a growing tension between classical training and an emerging scientific and professional training.

President Jeremiah Day of Yale College believed that universities should build character among the young men of leading families and not concern themselves with the needs of the masses.  Even then, the major academic institutions of the time were out of touch with the needs of the nation. By the mid-19th century there was a public call for a more utilitarian education available to more people.  The result was a national investment in the public land grant universities.

Last Thoughts
The publicly funded land grant universities represented a radical departure from earlier American and European colleges. Even so, today many characteristics of universities “before the land grants” endure, for example: the elitism of the faculty much like the tablet writers of Mesopotamia; the continuing debate about education for social purposes (Plato) or for knowledge itself (Aristotle); the “research” library like the one at Alexandria; the drinking parties such as those at Oxford; and finally the failure of the accepted curriculum to address the needs of society during periods of major social change as in Italy during the Renaissance, most of Europe during the first stage of the scientific revolution, at Yale in the early 1800’s, and perhaps even among public universities today.

This history was influenced by “American Higher Education: A History” by Christopher J. Lucas. St. Martins’s Griffin, NY. 1994.  My next blog will focus on the future of the public university.

==============================================================================

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And go here for more of my World.edu posts.

Agroecology – science for a sustainable agriculture

I’m teaching Sustainable Agriculture again this fall at the University of Massachusetts and one of the questions that often arises is “what sort of research should the university be doing to move us toward a more sustainable agriculture.”  I’ve been thinking about this for a long time – the answer is agricultural systems ecology (or agroecology for short).

Agroecology is the framework which will allow us to scientifically address multiple interrelated objectives of economic viability, social equity, and environmental integrity. An agroecosystem may be a field, a farm, or a larger region such as a river valley.  Implicit in agroecological research and education is the idea that knowledge of ecosystem relationships will allow farmers to manage inputs and processes in agricultural production systems and thereby optimize for productivity, sustainability, stability and social equity.

A systematic research method for agroecosystem analysis was described by Gordon Conway, of the Centre for Environmental Technology at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London (Conway, G. 1985. Agroecosystem Analysis. Agr. Admin. Vol. 20:31-55).  Agroecosystem analysis is based on ecological principles that govern relationships among biotic (living) communities and the abiotic environment.  Biotic relationships may be described by principles of predator/prey interactions, competition for food sources and habitats, cooperation and commensalism etc.  Abiotic relationships are described by nutrient cycling, carbon cycles, energy cycles, etc. over space and time.

Conway suggests that four system properties may be used to understand the dynamics of an agro-ecosystem.  They are;

  • productivity,
  • stability,
  • sustainability, and
  • equitability.

Productivity is the quantity of product or output from an agroecosystem per unit of some specified input. For an agroecologist, output may include a marketable product such as bushels of corn, as well as negative products of a system like water runoff, pesticides leaking from the system, or soil lost. Of course, tons per hectare is a standard measure of productivity. But productivity can also be expressed in other units of output per unit of input. Inputs may be measured in tons of fertilizer, monetary value of pesticide, or kilocalories needed to deliver irrigation water.

Stability is consistency of production in spite of short term upsetting influences such as uneven rainfall, pest explosions, price variability, etc. Annual variations in productivity indicate a lack of stability.

Sustainability is the ability to maintain a desired level of production over time, in spite of long term destabilizing influences. Examples of these are; increasing soil salinity, off-site effects of soil erosion, declining market prices, or accumulation of biotoxins in the environment. Systems which rely on heavy inputs of non-renewable and rapidly diminishing resources are not considered to be sustainable. Sustainability is a measure of persistence or long-term resilience of a production system.

Equitability can be used as an indicator of agroecosystem performance which incorporates the social dimension. Social equity is a measure of the degree in which resources and products of a production system are equally distributed throughout the human population. This implies that equality of product availability (output) and equality of resource availability (inputs) are the preferred norm.

A research and/or educational institution that employs agroecosystem analysis will probably conduct more studies on complex relationships among the various components of a agroecosystem that go beyond simple cause and effect.  There will be more research on inputs and outputs that are measured in currencies other than monetary units, such as carbon, nitrogen, and calories.  This will provide the basis for better nutrient management recommendations. There will be more studies on relationships among pest populations, predator populations, host populations (both agricultural crop and non-crop species), and environmental influences on these. This will provide the basis for better pest management recommendations. There will be more studies on interspecific relationships among crop plants and the effect of these on pest populations. This will provide the basis for innovative multiple cropping systems.

Ecological principles will provide an appropriate framework in which to better understand and manage the impact of agricultural systems on the food supply, the environment and people. I believe that ecological approaches to agriculture can be the common ground upon which we address the needs of society, while employing the tools of scholarly research and teaching, for which public institutions are best equipped.

 —————————————————————————–

This paper was presented by John Gerber,  as part of a U.S.A.I.D. sponsored workshop on sustainable agriculture in Lusaka, Zambia, September 18-21, 1990.

==============================================================================

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends. And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.

Please join the "buy local food" movement – and invite your neighbors!

It’s harvest season in Western Massachusetts and everywhere I look I see wonderful local food products for sale.  We have vibrant farmers markets, colorful farm stands and productive farms in my region of the world.   And of course, I have my own very large garden that is producing tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, eggplant, blackberries, green beans, Asian pears, eggs, honey and more this time of the year.  So I am surely not objective when it comes to local food.  I think about it, talk about it, and participate in growing and buying local food whenever I can.

I’ve written in the past about the need to relocalize our food system to support democracy, to build a vibrant local economy, and to move us toward a more sustainable agriculture.  One might think I’d have nothing more to say about local food, but when I was asked recently to speak at celebration of local food in the nearby town of Granby, Massachusetts, I was moved to write yet another blog!   Here is the outline of what I said……

While it is easy to celebrate local food this time of the year, I am concerned that an increasing number of farmers are competing for customers in a market that is not expanding as fast as production.  We need more people to buy local – and we need your help to make this happen!  Most people buy their food at “big-box” stores (Walmart is the largest food retailer in the world).   We need your help to build a local food economy that will offer some balance to the industrial food system and give us a bit of insurance against collapse, soooooooooo….

…I’m asking you to join the “buy local food” movement and be sure to invite your neighbors! 

If you are going to help, you might first think about what you’d say to your neighbors, who don’t participate in the local food movement.  Here are a few of my own thoughts…..

“I care about good food….  my local community…. and my connection with the sacred.”

1.  I care about good food and we know that local food is “fresher by miles.”   The average food item on your plate has traveled from 1300 to 1500 miles to get there.  And in spite of advances in packaging, refrigeration and handling (which are very energy expensive), sweet corn loses its sweetness within hours of picking…. and there is really nothing like an egg collected “direct from the hen”  and eaten on the same day.  Really… try it!

While some food items ship and store well, such as potatoes and squash…. even with these, you should try a local potato like the yellow, orange, or purple skinned fingerling potato (halved and roasted).  And while one might think that squash is squash is squash….. it is difficult to get the thin-skinned Delicata squash (you can eat the skin) except from a local farm, as it bruises easily when shipped.  I grow my own.

I also care about safe food, and quite frankly I don’t trust the industrial food system to keep my food free of pesticides and anti-biotic resistant bacteria and other human disease organisms (like bird- an swine-flu.  You may not want to know….. but there is a food recall by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration every few days, and Congress has threatened to reduce the inspections budget.  Last summer’s salmonella tainted eggs in the American Midwest was unfortunately not a surprise.  I much prefer to look into the eye of the farmer from whom I buy my food.

———————————————————————————————–

2. I care about my local community, and I much prefer that any money I spend on food stays close to home.  When I spend my money at a Super Walmart grocery store (I don’t), that money leaves the community.  The purpose of a corporation is to  generate profits for investors….. that’s all!  Recent reports of how CEO salaries have skyrocketed makes me sick.  When I buy bread from Ben and Adrie Lester at Wheatberry Bakery, I know my money is going to people I know and trust.

A study comparing a locally owned bookstore and a national retailer found that $100 spent at the local store resulted in $45 circulating in the community through services such as banks, bookkeepers, accountants and advertising etc.  This compares with only $15 from a national chain.  When you are talking about food rather than books, the difference is even more dramatic.  The Local Multiplier Effect is an important contributor to our local and regional economy, creating jobs and building relationships close to home.

———————————————————————————————-

3. I care about my connection with the sacred, so I buy local.  Okay, so this one isn’t quite as obvious as the other two reasons.  I wrote in an earlier blog…. “Putting food in our bodies is the most intimate act we do on a regular basis.  Eating food can either be a sterile, hurried act, offering little cause for joy – or a creative, spiritual act of connecting with other people, the earth – and thus with all of Creation.”

Rediscovering the sacred through growing or purchasing and preparing good food can be an act of healing.  Shopping in a supermarket with its artificial lighting and hurried atmosphere is not a sacred act.  We seek and receive bargains, hurry home to microwave a pre-prepared package  (or perhaps stop for ‘fast-food’ on the way) and thoughtlessly shovel too much food into our hungry bellies (maybe while watching television).

Perhaps we can experience a connection with the divine……..

  •             by collecting an egg from under a hen you have raised yourself…
  •             by pouring maple syrup on pancakes from a tree tapped by a neighbor…
  •             by knowing the baker of the bread (or better yet, baking it yourself)…
  •             by  shaking the hand of the farmer who dug the carrots you bought…
  •             by saying thank you for the gifts of creation; the fruit, the vegetables, the meat, the eggs, the bread and the wine…..

I believe there is value in rediscovering ways to connect with the sacred by growing our own food,  buying real food from people we know and trust, and sharing food with family and friends in a communion of the spirit…

So, yes…. I support the local food system whenever I can.  Are you willing to join me… and invite few of your neighbors?

==============================================================================

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends. And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now. And go here for more of my World.edu posts.

Relocalize the food system to support democracy!

Primary_neg_4colI wrote in an earlier blog “the global food system will always favor large, financially efficient businesses which exploit people, undermine democracy, erode community, and degrade natural resources in order to maximize profits.”  I have argued that for agriculture to be sustainable, we must relocalize our food production and distribution systems.  This resulted in lots of discussion, not all in agreement.

regionalfood

Several of the critics of my “strong relocalization” position focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of non-local food production and distribution systems from an economic and environmental perspective.  And I generally agreed with the criticism.  But sustainability must also include a strong commitment to social justice, and relocalization can support this critical goal by strengthening community and fostering democracy.

My thinking has been influenced by Harvard Professor Michael Sandel, who wrote in Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy “the moral fabric of community is unraveling around us.”  Sandel boldly states that today “the public philosophy by which we live cannot secure the liberty it promises, because it cannot inspire the sense of community and civic engagement that liberty requires.”

life-is-goodThe loss of community which undermines democracy is the product of a worldview built on an individualistic understanding of the good life.   This understanding was born during a period of industrialization, fueled by seemingly inexhaustible petroleum supplies, and guided by a political theory that assumed continued economic growth is a moral imperative.

I”m not suggesting that EVERYTHING needs to be grown locally (bananas are difficult to grow in New England)  but rather that we need to move in the direction of relocalization.  And of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with the efficiency of regional, national and even global businesses if they are not exploitative. Rather than maximizing profits for the financial benefit of stockholders, even multi-nationals could optimize profits for a network of locally owned and managed small businesses.  This would provide the efficiency and effectiveness of a large organization while supporting a local economy and build community.

So, what’s the problem?

Rapid industrialization in the early 1900’s along with the railroads and national telegraph system was expected to connect the nation more closely than ever before.   However the connectivity created by industrialization and communication was based more on financial dependency than on a shared vision of a common national good.  Interconnectedness in corporations of ever-increasing size and power, is not the same as a sense of community which in fact, diminished rapidly during the first half of the 20th century.

sandelThe progressives of the era were mixed on their response to rapid growth of business and subsequent loss of community.  Sandel wrote: “some sought to preserve self-government by decentralizing economic power and thus bringing it under democratic control. Others considered economic concentration irreversible and sought to control it by enlarging the capacity of national democratic institutions. Theodore Roosevelt sought to regulate big business, increase the power of the national government, and to build a shared vision through his new nationalism.”

Herbert Croly in The Promise of American Life stated that America needed a stronger central government so that people would feel more a part of a national community.  This political theory however, did not promote citizenship or democratic ideals but rather a utilitarian view of continued economic growth as the dominant shared American value.  Economists and political leaders believed that the primary goal for America was to promote a rapidly rising total output of goods and services and full employment.  While this goal is important to the economy, it was not sufficient in itself to prevent the demise of community and the decay of democracy.

Where do we go from here?

It is surely difficult to imagine a return to a strong civic culture at a national level. Sandel wrote; “from Aristotle’s polis to Jefferson’s agrarian ideal, the civic conception of freedom found its home in small and bounded places, largely self-sufficient, inhabited by people whose conditions of life afforded the leisure, learning, and commonality to deliberate well about public concerns.” A national community is just too big to provide a sense of meaning and purpose that lasts.  We need to connect to something that feels more like a hometown.

People frustrated with national government need opportunities to participate in local institutions that allow more civic engagement in order to feel a sense of agency and control of their own lives.  Local government, colleges and community organizations can be instrumental in both building a local food system as well as providing individuals with a sense of meaning and purpose.  However according to Sandel, current efforts to relocalize the economy face the same “… predicament American politics faced in the early decades of the twentieth century. Then as now, new forms of commerce and communication spilled across familiar boundaries and created networks of interdependence among people in distant places. But the new interdependence did not carry with it a new sense of community.”

What railroads, telegraph wires and national markets were to a former time, satellite hookups, cyberspace, and global markets are to ours – instruments that link people without making them neighbors.  While we need local connections, communities cannot be strong in isolation and small businesses cannot survive without understanding global market forces.  We need a global network of local food and farms.

Relocalization must be global!

I’ve written previously about a proposal to create the Food Commons, a national network of integrated local food production, processing and distribution subsystems.  When we connect this idea with the global food movement called Food Sovereignty, we might begin to imagine a global Food Commons network with governance dispersed throughout rather than centralized in a corporate headquarters.  Sandel, writing about political governance, seems to support this idea, which I think can be applied to business as well.  He writes that only a management system; “…that disperses sovereignty both upward and downward can combine the power required to rival global market forces with the differentiation required of a public life that hopes to inspire the allegiance of its citizens.”

The purpose of the corporation is to generate profit for investors at all legal (and sometimes illegal) cost.  When economic power is concentrated in a few multi-national corporations, it not only erodes the other two sustainability objectives (environmental integrity and social justice) but creates a political situation that undermines democracy.

A network of locally-owned food businesses managed collectively would support vibrant communities, enhance democracy, and provide engaged customers with high quality food grown locally as well as from a distance.  I believe a global network of collectively managed and locally-owned food businesses has the best chance of being sustainable.

To move toward sustainability however, we must reverse the direction of industrialization (centralization, specialization and globalization).  We can do this by getting involved in local organizations and government, supporting local businesses, and encouraging public investment in community priorities.

For agriculture to be sustainable and democratic, we must relocalize – globally!

==============================================================================

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends and perhaps comment below.  For more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please check out my web page Just Food Now.

Sustainable agriculture and the public university

My last blog presented a vision of sustainable agriculture and called for a renewed commitment of the “body, heart and soul” of those of us working at public universities like the University of Massachusetts to agricultural research, teaching and outreach.  However if the public universities don’t re-energize their agricultural programs at a time when a billion people are hungry, another billion malnourished, and still another billion “overfed”, others surely will!

Agricultural education is traditionally associated with state universities, but many private colleges are adding courses on sustainable food and farming today.  I was asked recently by a reporter if there was much difference between these new programs and that of the public land grant university.  While I applaud the growth of the colleges into this field, I don’t believe they can provide quite the same “breadth and depth” of study as a major research university.  I must add however this will only remain true IF we invest in this important area of study and “put the public back into the public university.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately as UMass is working to strengthen our agricultural programs by merging our Bachelor of Science programs in Sustainable Food and Farming and Managing Green Landscapes with the nearly 100 year old Stockbridge School of Agriculture.  This blog presents some of my own thinking on the role of the public university and the opportunity we have at UMass to create our own destiny.

Here is what I believe to be true…

  • My truth is that the industrial agricultural system currently practiced in most of the developed world is not sustainable, as it continues to leak toxins from their point of application, uses natural resources such as fossil fuel and water at rates greater than replacement, puts farmers and ranchers off the land, and results in a poorly nourished citizenry.  I believe that in New England, we can at least partially address these problems by investing in the continued development of more local farms and distribution networks.
  • My truth is that the commitment of the U.S. public university system to agricultural research and education has waned over the past 30 years, as discipline-bound science has come to dominate the research agenda.  Interdisciplinary research and application oriented studies that benefit small family farms, ranches and green businesses are not adequately supported through public or private funding.  Agricultural programs at the land grant (public) universities have suffered and are in danger of disappearing at a time when they are badly needed to address the triple threat of peak oil, global climate change and global pandemic from factory farms.
  • My truth tells me that the human quest for sustainability of the earth, including human and non-human communities, may be the best hope we have to revive those agricultural research, education and outreach programs of the public land grant university.  Maybe, just maybe, working in partnership with progressive farmers, consumers, and environmental and social activists to find a new way to farm, new ways to distribute food to those in need, and new ways to live, our public university agricultural research and education programs may experience a rebirth at a time they are most needed.

Its all about sustainability

The term sustainability is overused and abused by politicians, academics, agricultural commodity group leaders, and corporate public relations executives.  It has been co-opted by evangelists for the current industrial agricultural system, who continually try to narrow the definition to economic sustainability at the expense of environmental integrity and social equity.  There are times when I feel that we need a new word to describe the kind of agriculture that lasts.

But mostly I feel the debate, argument and even some of the hyperbole has been a good thing, for it focuses our attention on the lack of sustainability of the current industrial food and farming system.  So for me sustainability remains a big beautiful idea which acknowledges the importance of financial or economic vitality, but balances that goal with ecological integrity and social equity.

The quest for a more sustainable agriculture is a vision worthy of the full commitment of the “body, heart and soul” of those of us at the public university who teach, do research and work with people in communities.   It is a way for us to serve the public good while at the same time creating a sense of purpose in our lives.

Serving the public good

I believe that a clear understanding of how the land grant organization serves American citizens, those today and those yet to be born, is key to the future of the institution.  Most people agree that the system has an obligation to serve the public.  But we have difficulty talking about “who is the public ‑‑ and what is the public good?

Many of the current research, education and outreach programs are designed not to serve “the public” but to serve particular publics, or special interest groups.  I propose that there are interests, common to all people which we might call “basic human needs” such as:

  • affordable and nutritionally adequate food;
  • adequate clothing and shelter;
  • a healthy, livable environment free of violence;
  • opportunities to provide for one’s livelihood; and
  • accessible educational opportunities.

Our teaching, research and outreach should serve these larger public goods by working with the farmers, consumers and communities dedicated to building a more local food production and distribution system.  This is truly “public work.”

Working for the public university

Many of us came to work in agriculture at public universities because we cared about people, hunger, or the environment.  Over time however, we found ourselves working for the economic self-interests of those who held money and power.  Our current system of rewards and advancement pushes us in this direction.  If we are to save ourselves and the agricultural programs of the university, we must reestablish a commitment to public service.

There have been times in my own university career when I’ve traded off my civic ideals for personal advancement.  I too am a “sinner”.  Today I try to speak and live my truth, even when that truth is not very popular.

I know many faculty who have maintained a commitment to their ideals and have directed their work toward public priorities.  Many of these women and men affiliate with the sustainable agriculture research and education agenda.  If you are an agricultural researcher, teacher or extension worker, you are invited to join them.  This may be our last best chance.

In any case, I encourage you to speak out and tell your own truth  – whether you agree with mine or not.  As the Red Queen told Alice  “always speak the truth — think before you speak and write it down afterwards.

And perhaps you will “write it down” in the comments box below!

==========================================================================

For more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.

The future of sustainable food and farming at UMass

Our academic major in Sustainable Food and Farming in the Stockbridge School of Agriculture at UMass has grown exponentially over the past 10 years.  There is lots of interest in local farming and marketing in the region and lots of interest among young people in careers that supports this trend such as agricultural education, community development, advocacy and public policy.  Its been fun working with bright, passionate young people committed to changing the food system, literally from the ground up!

I’m asked from time to time if the growth in our sustainable agriculture educational program is  likely to continue!  I agree with Richard Heinberg when he states that if we are to create a truly sustainable food system in the U.S. we need 50 million farmers!  So, yes…. I think “the world needs Stockbridge”!

But predicting the future is a hazardous occupation and the truth is, we don’t know what the future will bring.  Nevertheless I think it is important to stick to our principles and try to offer the best scientific and experiential education possible, and let the future unfold in the lives of these bright young people.  So when asked about the future, I try to shift the conversation toward principles rather than predictions.  The principles upon which we have built our educational program are based on our vision of the future of sustainable food and farming in New England and include at least the following five components:

1.  First, a sustainable agriculture MUST address the multiple integrated objectives of economic vitality, environmental integrity, and social equity or justice.

This claim is understood by most governments, the United Nations, farm and advocacy groups, and universities.  Some corporations and agricultural commodity groups would like to present sustainable agriculture more narrowly (focused primarily on economic sustainability), but this self-serving position is in the minority today.  The sustainability movement grew out of the environmental movement of the 1970’s by adding social equity/justice to the conversation during the 1980’s – creating the so-called triple bottom line.

2. The long-term viability of large-scale, industrial agricultural systems is threatened by rising energy prices and global climate change in the long-term.

Industrial food production and distribution systems are financially efficient in the short-term and have resulted in low food prices.  However this system is highly dependent on chemical and energy subsidies and is vulnerable to collapse or at least gradual decay.  As energy costs go up and government begins to take climate change more seriously, global food prices will continue to rise and we will need to look at more energy-efficient alternatives to the global food system.

3. Although theoretically it is possible to imagine a large-scale industrial agricultural system that is more sustainable, we do not have the political will to develop the necessary government regulations and tax incentives to move corporate farms and major food distributors in this direction.

It would be possible to create a global, corporation-dominated sustainable agricultural system with the appropriate government-imposed constraints and incentives if we had the political willWe don’t – at least not at present.  The structure and purpose of the corporation itself won’t permit even the most progressive and courageous corporate leaders (and there are some) to voluntarily sacrifice profit to become more environmentally responsible and committed to social justice for very long.

Large-scale, corporate sustainable farming such as that proposed by Walmart will continue to maximize profit at the expense of the other two sustainability objectives, regardless of what their advertising campaigns might say.  Current experiments in sustainability by a few food giants are likely to be short lived, as the structure of the global corporation is designed to make money at all (sometimes legal and sometimes not) cost.  We must look to more local alternatives if we want long term environmental protection, equitable access to food and land, and a fair distribution of wealth.

4. A food and farming system with a local focus, managed by families and local community groups rather than corporations, is more likely to address all three of the sustainability objectives.

Addressing environmental and social justice priorities will be more likely when producers and consumers know each other and are part of a shared community.  As long as the negative impacts of doing business impact people “far away”, most of us will overlook these impacts in exchange for maximizing financial return.  However when farmers, distributors and consumers engage within a community, they will be more likely to include environmental and social impact into their decision-making.

Even the “father” of capitalism, Adam Smith, understood the need for a fair distribution of wealth.  His concept that the “invisible hand” of the free market (guided by competition, self-interest, and supply and demand) would result in efficient and fair distribution of resources was in fact based on two assumptions that are no longer true.

The first assumption was a shared sense of ethical behavior.  In the 18th century, there was a sense of “right and wrong” promulgated at least partially by the church.  Even when people and businesses cheated their customers, they were not proud of it (as it seems some CEO’s are today).  The second assumption that is no longer true is that most economic transactions took place between people who knew each other.   It was difficult to cheat a neighbor that you had to see every day.

The global marketplace has lost both a sense of “right and wrong” and any personal connection between producer and consumer.  Transactions are anonymous and the only “wrong” seems to be getting caught.  Under these conditions, the global market no longer generates a fair distribution of wealth.  We must localize the food system if we want it to be sustainable.

5. Local agriculture will be sustainable if and only if they are built on three ecological principles.

The principles are:

A.  Ecological “Rule” Number One – Use Current Solar Income

B. Ecological “Rule” Number Two – Waste Equals Food

C. Ecological “Rule” Number Three – Enhance Diversity

If local farms are modeled after large industrial farms, they too will be as non-sustainable as their larger cousins.  Unlike large monoculture farms however, small farms can be managed as ecological systems.  Progressive farmers are experimenting with new ways to integrate crops and livestock to use energy and nutrients more efficiently and agroecological research at the university must support this effort.

Although quite small, edible forest gardens which mimic late-stage ecological succession, are perhaps the best example of a sustainable food production system.  But even simpler intercropping or polyculture systems are more energy and nutrient efficient than large monocultures.  It is imperative for small, local farms to continue to transition to ecologically managed systems if they are to be competitive and sustainable in the long run.  Consumers can participate in this transition, by supporting these farms and working to make local agriculture thrive in their own community.

——————————————————————————————

The future of  agriculture in New England is local

If we are to stick to the principles espoused above, then the future of sustainable food and farming in New England is local!  I believe we will see a further strengthening of local markets (especially in the inner city) and the development of new integrated crop an livestock farming systems.  Some food items such as grain and dry beans, will be shipped by rail to feed livestock and people and hopefully will be sold through locally owned businesses.  But a recent analysis of local opportunities suggests that in New England, it is possible for us to produce most of our vegetables, half of our fruit, and also provide  for all of our dairy, beef, lamb and chicken needs for a population of about 15 million.  This could be done if we reduce our meat consumption, eat more fruits and vegetables, and increase the amount of farmland in production by about three-fold (similar to what it was in 1945).  For details, see the following report:

foodsolutions

The University of Massachusetts Stockbridge School of Agriculture will play an important role in this localization move toward a more sustainable New England.  Our undergraduate teaching program is already doing so as our graduates begin to make a difference on the landscape.  But we also must make a greater investment in agroecological research and more effective outreach working in partnership with progressive family farmers and non-profit community groups to realize the dream.

We have much work to do and as the Stockbridge emblem reminds us, this work will require the full commitment of our “body, heart and soul.

=======================================================================

I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends.  And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And go here for more of my posts on sustainable and local farming.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN THE COMMENTS BOX!


Local food: lets get serious – NOW!

Although the demand for locally grown food has increased over the past 20 years, most people still shop at the major food chains.  I suspect this is because we live busy lives and supermarkets provide a full range of products year round, are convenient with good parking, and are open every day.  Not everyone is willing to join a CSA or stop at the local farmers market.  But given the continued pressure of global climate change, peak oil, and economic stress, I think we need to get really serious about building a vibrant local food system – NOW!

We need to build a Food Commons, a national network of local and regional food production, processing and distribution options to complement and partially replace the current corporate food system, which is showing signs of being in serious trouble.  According to the authors of the Food Commons proposal, “…the antidote to the unsustainable path we are on is a 21st-century re-envisioning and re-creation of the local and regional food systems that pre-dated the current global industrial food system.”

The Food Commons Proposal

The proposed national Food Commons would consist of three intersecting components:

  • Food Commons Banks to provide financial services to food system enterprises, producers and consumers.
  • Food Commons Hubs to aggregate and distribute local and regional food, create and coordinate regional markets, and provide services to communities and local food enterprises.
  • Food Commons Trusts to own farm land and food system infrastructure in perpetual trust for the benefit of all citizens.

If you are interested in the details and proposal, see; “The Food Commons: Building a National Network of Localized Food Systems.”  The remainder of this post will give some examples showing that we are already moving in this direction.

The Food Commons Trust

I’m pleased to be a board member of the North Amherst Community Farm, which is an example of a Food Commons Trust.  NACF is a community group that was organized in 2006 to save one of the last working farms in North Amherst, Massachusetts.  Private donations, town and state funds were acquired to protect this farm from development.  It is now leased to an organic vegetable and livestock farm, Simple Gifts Farm, which provides food to the community through a successful CSA and local farmers markets.  You are invited and encouraged to help us support this project.

The Food Commons Bank

We have an example of this sort of financial institution emerging in our region called the Common Good Bank.   This is a bank created to serve the common good.  According to their mission statement, by “common good” they mean:

“First and foremost, the well-being of each and every individual person, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, community, satisfying work, rest, and self-determination, empowering those in need.

“Second, peace and justice — a spirit of cooperation and community between all people, with compassionate sharing of the world’s resources.

“Third, a healthy, sustainable planet, with clean air, clean water, clean earth and a healthy and diverse population of animals and plants.”

The first ever Common Good Festival will be held in Amherst, MA on July 10, 2011 to raise awareness of Common Good Finance, a nonprofit organization working to bring economic democracy to communities in Western Massachusetts.

Other examples are being developed, but one way you can help support better financing for the local food system is to write to the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) asking them to direct FCS banks to be more responsive to the credit needs of small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers producing for local and regional food markets.  The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has a web page to help those willing to write a letter.

The Food Commons Hub

I am not aware of any local food hub as envisioned by the Food Common proposal, but there is interest in developing such a project in our region.  The Feed Northampton Study produced by the Conway School of Landscape Design proposed neighborhood based “food hub” facilities to provide; commonly-owned packaging, cooling, processing, waste management and education for farms in the area.  The report includes a proposal to redevelop a local fairgrounds as a food hub.

What can you do?

The global food system will always favor large, financially efficient businesses which exploit people, undermine democracy and erode community, and degrade the land in order to maximize profits.  If we want to build a vibrant and sustainable food system, we need public investments in a local production, processing and distribution infrastructure (similar to the investment in the national highway system).

At the same time, we need to integrate the drive for economic growth with a concern for the environment and a commitment to social justice.  Unless we are willing to pass regulations and tax laws mandating more sustainable practices in the global marketplace (which is unlikely), this will require a major public investment in infrastructure that will help us relocalize our food system and move in a more sustainable direction.

In addition to creating a Food Commons project in your own area or supporting the Food Commons project with a donation, there are lots of local government, college, and non-profit organizations working on local food projects you can help.   If you want to take personal action in your own backyard, you can begin by growing your own food.  To see more of my own projects and activities, please go to Just Food Now or join my Facebook Group Just Food Now in Western Massachusetts.  But please do join us……

Lets get serious about local food – NOW!

 

Just food now: taking personal responsibility

In my last blog, I presented some ideas on how local government, colleges and community groups might help to strengthen the local food economy.   In this blog, I will share some ideas on how individuals can contribute directly to the long-term health of local food systems by changing our behavior.

But wait you say…..  how can individuals make a difference when government, corporations and university research and education all support industrial agriculture?

Well, lets begin with the assumption that investments in a local food economy make sense in the long term as we face increasing stress to the industrial food economy.   Then if we look at the systemic structure of large systems like corporations and government, we see that their behavior is governed by powerful mental models that discourage their leaders from acting on a long-term perspective.   Let ask…. “who among our leaders has a planning horizon that allows them to think in the long term?”   Afterall…..

  • those we elect to the U.S. Senate want to get elected every 6 years,
  • the President of the United States wants to get elected (or be succeeded by their own party) every four years,
  • those we elect to the House of Representatives want to get elected every 2 years,
  • most local officials run for election every 2 or 4 years, and
  • corporate leaders must show increased profits every quarter (3 months) to be successful!

Given our expectation for immediate results, how can any of these leaders take actions that will pay off in the long term and expect to remain in leadership?   WE have to begin to change the mental models governing western culture by changing our own behavior FIRST!

As I suggested in my last blog, if WE START A “LOCAL FOODS PARADE” (based on new mental models), these leaders will jump right up front and carry our flag!

Leadership of the local foods movement is in our hands!

While we need to continue to work with local government, businesses, colleges and community groups, we also need to take action as individuals to directly support local food and begin to shift mental models.  Here are a few things we might do now:

  1. If you live in an apartment, plant a few vegetables or herbs in window boxes or on the patio. And of course walk or bike to one of our farm stands or farmers markets to buy local food whenever possible.  Better yet, join a CSA!
  2. If you live in a suburban neighborhood, tear up that lawn and just grow food now!  And then teach your neighbors how to grow more food.  Can and freeze as much as possible, and share it with your neighbors.
  3. If you are in less populated part of town and maybe have a large yard (like some owners of “McMansions”), grow a large garden with fruit trees.   And don’t forget  hens, chickens and rabbits for meat, perhaps a milking goat, and bees!
  4. If you live on a farm, grow more food crops (for people).  Much of the farmland in New England is used to produce hay (some for cows, but much for riding horses).  Is this the best use of farm land?
  5. If you are responsible for a public building, grow food on the rooftop.  This not only produces food but makes heating and cooling the building less expensive.   Or look to re-configure parking lots and other open areas with raised beds such as the urban organiponicos in Cuba.

And no matter where you live, think about ways we can make food farming a more attractive lifestyle. Farmers (especially those who don’t own land) struggle with the economics of a food system that keeps prices artificially low through public subsidies and failing to pay for externalities. If we want more local food, we need to help these farms compete more effectively within the global food system.

We all need to begin by imagining possibilities and then getting to work in our backyards, neighborhoods, local government and educational institutions.  There are plenty of examples of ways in which you can get involved in creating a sustainable food system.

Individual Actions

1. Join the Slow Food movement, which “unites the pleasure of food with responsibility, sustainability and harmony with nature.”

2. Buy Fair Trade food products which ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their labor.   And why not try out this cell phone app to determine which products are “healthy, ethical and green.

3. Support Bioregionalism which encourages us to get our food from an area defined loosely by natural boundaries and distinct cultural human communities.

4. Work for clear public commitment to a nutritious diet for all, fair wages and working conditions for farm labor, and a living wage for farm owners.  Share the idea of a local Food Commons with your neighbors.

5. And perhaps the most effective way to support local food is to begin to uncouple your diet from the global industrial food economy starting with avoiding all factory farmed animal products such as eggs, milk, meat, and cheese.   Try to increase the number of food products you buy from farmers you know!

What else?   What would you add to this list?

==========================================================================

For more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.   And for those of you who still wonder if one person can make a difference, please see an essay I wrote on this topic called “Saving the world – one clothespin at a time.”

Systems Thinking for a More Sustaianble World

New Thought Evolutionary

Creating The Beloved Community - Together

Amadou It All

A Fascinating Fungal Fabric and a Humungous Human History

Levi Stockbridge Lessons and Legacy

What can we learn today from "Prof Stock"?

The Niche

Trusted stem cell blog & resources