In Praise of Moderation


Many of the problems our world faces today relate to decision-makers’ unwillingness to compromise, be it with respect to foreign policy, religion, law-making or other subjects over which the positioning of boundaries is heavily fraught, and fought.  Of course, sticklers have the force of persistence on their side, and some positions, no matter the cost, are well worth defending to the last, even if the only resolution you’ll ever get to for doing so is a bottomless platter of cupcakes in the afterlife.  (Not insignificant.)

 

But today’s post doesn’t laud those tireless, relentless, quixotic souls who hang on for dear life until dear life eludes them.  It celebrates those with the guts to give a little in exchange for a greater good.  In my evening’s search for and deliberation over discussion topics for today’s column, it occurred to me that those willing to meet the opposition in between had traveled quite a ways longer than those who stayed still—and not in the wrong direction.  I’m thinking, for example, of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who responded to criticism from journalist Michael Pollan and others about not making transparent enough the differences between Industrial and Artisanal Organic by, among other initiatives, swiftly introducing an animal welfare ranking of farms on a scale of 1-5.  While it remains to be seen how accurately the rating will reflect what it’s supposed to, the company’s exposing its suppliers like this makes it harder to sell slipshod meat, and it’s not something anyone required them to do. Whole Foods, however, will ultimately benefit from making this step in the customers’ direction if this makes them trust the company more—and, consequently, buy meat there instead of somewhere previously judged more deserving. 

When Ethisphere Magazine published its 2007 Most Ethical Companies Ranking, some people questioned their placing McDonald’s on the list.  Using relational ethics, they rationalize the decision by responding: “The answer is that…McDonald’s has clearly stood apart in introducing healthier food fare, sustainable packaging, food safety, and ethical purchasing practices.”  Hey, my 2007 list might look different, but their point’s worth noting. 

Deborah Madison, that eloquent curator of museum-quality vegetables, believes of course in local and organic—but not at the cost of farmers.  Maybe we need to meet the local farmer halfway when we say we want organic and support him while he figures out how to beat the coddling moth,” she writes.  “Maybe we could relax about greens with holes in them…acting more like partners with our farmers and shouldering up to the holey leaves and wormy apples.”

As a distressing conclusion, Tom Philpott writes on Grist about what happens when nobody moves, hands outstretched, towards the middle.  In discussing the outrage that unfolded after Slow Food founder Carlo Petrini disparaged the San Francisco Ferry Plaza Farmer’s Market, he points out that the farmers’ defensive anger and Petrini’s consequent defensive retreat led to a “[missed] opportunity to write a truly provocative commentary on the California scene.”  Nobody’s perfect, and reaching a resolution is always difficult when the backgrounds, interests, methods and opinions of two parties diverge.  But sometimes, what feels like stepping down actually translates to stepping forward. 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.plentymag.com/blog-mt1/mt-tb.cgi/2791


Post a comment

Issue 25



Sign up for Plenty's Weekly Newsletter