Dear Professor Fortmann:
Your article in THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER NEWSLETTER, "UCB Professor Responds", raised more questions than it answered. Your response, to me, sounded somewhat defensive and avoided the major issues.
Some people who were instrumental in bringing Prop 130 to the ballot, are convinced that you attempted, in a small way, to influence what was a very close election in November, 1990. Some of these people want to take your case to the professional ethics committee of the American Sociological Association, Rural Sociology Association and to the University of California.
Every professor has a right to present research findings to professional meetings. Presenting your "findings" however as "unbiased research" in the midst of a very intense campaign without presenting your personal values and your exploration of the political context of this research is insensitive at the least and perhaps unprofessional.
Your "response", in my estimation, was condescending to environmentalists who have lived and worked in communities in northern California for the past forty years. "...If we are to protect and preserve our environment, we must also ensure the well-being of communities located in the areas we wish to protect." Come on. What do you think we've been trying to do all these years? What do you think the Mattole community has been trying to do? What do you think environmentalists have been doing when they have called for diversification of the economy for the past forty years, when they decried the strategies of multinational corporations who destroy communities by exporting raw lumber and jobs to Mexico?
Readers of the MEC newsletter deserve better than what you gave them. You "talked down" to us.
I have only read a few of your papers and speeches. From what I've read, your work is what might be called a National Inquirer brand of sociology. It is sociological gossip. You sound like a symbolic interactionist, the most subjective and relativistic kind of social theorist.
I wonder how you feel about nature, about ancient forests, as a woman. Ecofeminists constantly tell us that women are by nature closer to nature and love and respect the ancient forests. How do your feelings as a woman influence your perspective on the importance of protecting biodiversity, ancient forests and nature's integrity?
No social research is value free. No social research is free of political context. No social research is free of theory.
Readers of the MEC newsletter want to hear from you as a human person, as a woman and as a professional sociologist who is basing her work on some specific social theory.
I suggest you think about the following questions and send your responses ASAP to the MEC for publication in their next newsletter. This would help to establish your credibility and help establish a basis for dialogue with you. Some of these questions are more general, allowing you to say as much or as little as you want. Others are more specific, requiring specific responses.
1. As a woman, as a human person, how do you feel about the remaining ancient forests of the Pacific northwest?
2. Do you include political economy in your professional work? That is, have you analyzed the changing faces of capitalism, the development of multinational corporations and the strategies of certain corporations in the timber industry which have contributed to the destruction of communities in the Pacific Northwest?
3. What creative ideas do you have to develop diverse and stable communities in rural areas of the Pacific Northwest?
4. Did you support Proposition 130? Why or why not?
5. Are you biocentric or anthropocentric in your personal philosophy?
6. What creative ideas do you have to help reduce the level of violence against environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest?
7. What, in your opinion, is the most viable basis for rural logging communities in the Pacific Northwest given that the historic levels of logging have ended and no one predicts we will ever see the level of annual timber cutting or the number of jobs in the timber industry which occurred between 1950 and 1986 again. Small scale logging will continue during the next fifty years on some private lands and in some areas of national forests, but in some national forests logging will end.
I know readers of the MEC newsletter and many other people who are working to build viable communities in northern California will be most interested in reading your answers to this questionnaire.
Thank you for responding.
Bill Devall, Prof. of Sociology
Trinidad, CA
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2004
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited