Abstract
Dr. Goldman observed that all true progress involves open dialogue. And all authentic dialogue is predicated upon civility, a commodity becoming exceptionally rare in the contemporary world.
One would think that supporting the practice of breastfeeding should be easy. After all, what could be less controversial than breastfeeding? How could anybody be opposed to mother's milk? And yet all of us know how contentious the discussions can become. The reason, of course, has nothing to do with breastfeeding. Everybody is in favor of it, even (ostensibly), the infant formula industry. What provokes the controversy is not breastfeeding, but developing the means by which the practice of breastfeeding can best be promoted. Is it still possible in this day and age to engage highly controversial issues in a civil manner?
There are a number of areas in which rancor can rear its ugly head. We are very fortunate that ABM members have generally refrained from using the listserv to indulge in heated and offensive exchanges with their colleagues. Once in a great while, however, pointed comments have been made that have come close to being a bit too personal. There have also been times when the listserv has been used to air grievances bearing on internal organizational matters entirely unrelated to breastfeeding medicine, the intended purpose of the listserv. The listserv problem is certainly not unique to ABM. Several professional listservs and intranet systems with which I have become acquainted over the years have carried regrettable ad hominum exchanges conducted by well-educated professionals who really should have known better. This perhaps is the inevitable result of providing an open forum pertaining to a field of knowledge about which so many of the participants hold such passionate beliefs.
Another highly charged forum is the blog. From time to time, a controversy arises that will inevitably require the careful consideration of our members. Often, it is not our adversaries whose anger causes us the most pain, but our friends and colleagues. We want to collaborate with other organizations and societies that share our values and our goals, but on occasion there may be disagreements about how our respective pursuits are supported and financed, and whether such pursuits may involve real or perceived conflicts of interest. Should the vetting of such issues be suppressed in order to keep the peace? Perhaps there is a better way of resolving our differences with our friends. Or perhaps not. What if such differences cannot be resolved quietly and in a low-key manner; what then? At the end of the day, to whom do we owe our allegiance? Do we owe it to our partner organizations, or to our members?
Even the annual international ABM conference is not immune to acrimony. In recent years there have been heated debates in the lecture halls and tense encounters in the exhibition areas. Indeed, any forum open to a wide audience of members or to the public at large has the potential to be used in an inappropriate manner. It is the price to be paid for uncensored and unrestricted dialogue.
Contentiousness can, and often is, also displayed in the arena of organizational meetings. We have on our board and committees many members with strong views about how our business is to be conducted. This is a good thing. A strong and vibrant organization does not need a society of mindless sycophants whose uppermost desire is to remain comfortable in their position and to avoid controversy. We need thinkers. The problem with thinkers, however, is that they have an annoying tendency to make waves. This is also a good thing. The challenge is to enable a vetting of a diversity of views in a constructive manner, rather than allowing such diversity to degenerate into chaos and discord.
So what can be done to protect civility in our emotionally charged discourses?
Chaos is the mother of incivility. In order to ensure a proper decorum of dialogue, all participants must observe accepted ground rules and comply with established guidelines. For example, the purpose of the listserv must be made clear to all ABM members, perhaps on an ongoing basis. To date we have had no serious or frequent departures from the appropriate use of the listserv, but if at a later date a pattern of misuse becomes apparent, it may become necessary to implement a mechanism for vetting messages in advance of posting. Guidelines may also have to be established for posting blogs that might be regarded as overly critical or adversarial by other organizations, particularly those organizations with which we have made common cause and wish to maintain particularly cordial relations. This must be done in a manner that balances our high regard for our organizational partners with our duty to address critical issues relevant to the mission of the Academy.
ABM members should familiarize themselves with the grievance procedure outlined in Article Thirteen of the bylaws. It is anticipated that this procedure will bring conflicts to a fair and satisfactory conclusion while at the same time preventing discord and disruption of normal Academy operations.
At the level of organizational meetings, our new strategic plan will require us to clarify the roles of the various positions of leadership and the ways by which the staff, directors, officers, and committee chairpersons communicate and interact with one another. This will be necessary in order to minimize the tension and confusion deriving from a lack of clarity about such relationships. We also need to have a more precise understanding and codification of the policies and procedures by which the Academy operates, so that the leaders of the Academy do not find themselves at cross purposes with one another.
Our board meetings must be governed by a parliamentary authority. Otherwise, a fair and orderly process of deliberation will be replaced by an improvised, “anything goes” approach, the end result of which will be an ineffective, inefficient, and unfair resolution of board matters, leading inevitably to frustration and hard feelings. What form the parliamentary authority assumes remains a matter of debate, but clearly there must be a set of rules for board meetings to ensure expeditious deliberation and equal participation by all members.
Perhaps most important of all, each of us should take heed of Armond Goldman's call for civility. Certainly many of us have become jaded in this world of reality TV, gutter-level political discourse, and commercial exploitation. It therefore becomes all the more important to remind ourselves that those who accompany us on our odyssey to improve the lot of our fellow man may disagree with us on strategies from time to time, perhaps passionately and vehemently, but in the final analysis they want the same things that we do; they are our colleagues and deserve our respect. First and foremost, we must keep in mind the demands of our mission. We need to keep our eyes on the prize. All the rest is of little importance.