Pluralism, pragmatism and social problems

The increasingly complex problems that advanced societies like ours face cannot be solved by outdated dichotomies between knowledges and interests. Instead a pluralist and pragmatist approach is needed, and two cases are explored: pollution from Canadian pulp and paper mills and hearings on siting nuclear reactors in seismically sensitive zones in the United States. Both suggest the need for pluralism - recognizing the diverse knowledges and interests involved. Integrating those knowledges and interests (pragmatism) helps determine a solution space from which to select specific solutions for the problem. The pluralist and pragmatist approaches are, finally, shown to be preferable to vague notions of muddling through and to two forms of dichotomies between knowledges and interests. Les problemes de plus en plus complexes que doivent affronter des civilisations de pointe comme la notre ne peuvent pas, on allegue, etre resolus avec des dichotomies desuetes entre les connaissances et les interets. Une demarche pluraliste et pragmatique est plutot recommandee et deux cas sont examines : la pollution provenant des usines de pates et papiers canadiennes et les audiences americaines sur le placement de reacteurs nucleaires dans des zones sensibles du point de vue seismique. Les deux cas suggerent un besoin de pluralisme en reconnaissant les divers interets et connaissances impliques. Le fait d'integrer ces connaissances et interets (pragmatisme) aide a identifier un cadre de solutions dans lequel on peut choisir des solutions precises au probleme. La demarche pluraliste et pragmatique est finalement identifiee comme preferable a de vagues notions de s'en sortir tant bien que mal et a deux formes de dichotomies entre les connaissances et les interets. How can there be this kind of advocacy when the subject is supposed to be a matter of scientific fact? Isn't there only one set of "facts," one reality? Aren't we scientists and engineers trained to perceive that reality? Or are there several realities out there, each differing, depending on our individual - or is it professional - background or motives, our personal or collective politics? Richard Meehan, The Atom and the Fault Meehan's comments embody a common worry, namely that one's interests may distort one's beliefs. Underlying that view is often another assumption, that gaining knowledge requires detachment from one's interest. In this essay, I contend that both views are mistaken. They needlessly polarize complex problems by reducing them to simplistic dichotomies. They transform solvable problems into irresolvable dilemmas. In contrast, a pluralist and pragmatic approach to complex social problems is far more promising. To explain this approach two complex problems are explored: pollution from Canadian pulp and paper mills and the building of new reactors in seismically sensitive zones of California. The hearings of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the late 1970s on the building of such reactors provoked Richard Meehan's concern about the tension between advocacy and objectivity. Pluralism involves recognizing the diverse knowledges and interests in each problematic situation. Such recognition helps define the parameters of the solution space for that problem. When we integrate those knowledges and interests, pragmatism helps us select the best achievable solutions for the problem. In this essay I contrast pluralism and pragmatism with vague notions of muddling through and with adversarial methods that polarize knowledges and interests. First, however, I summarize the two sample problems. Pulp Mill Pollution In the early 1990s, 46 of the 145 pulp mills in Canada used various chlorine bleaching processes to whiten paper (Jenish 24). Canada's $20 billion paper industry was in perilous shape in the early 1990s. All across Canada mills were closing and workers were being laid off. Firms were concerned about the high costs of chlorine-free pulp (30% more per tonne), and the lowered brightness of chlorine-free paper. …