Protagonists In Hazardous Waste Dispute Use Different Styles Of Argument

December 11, 2000

University Park, Pa. -- Supporters and opponents of hazardous waste disposal facilities and other environmentally sensitive projects often employ completely different styles of argument that apparently allow no common ground for peaceful resolution, two Penn State researchers say.

"We studied a dispute over the proposed siting of a hazardous waste plant. Grass-roots opponents of the plant increasingly refused to be swayed by conventional logic. Instead, their style of argument was based on emotion, driven by the belief that their home community faced environmental peril," says Dr. Martin J. Kilduff, professor of management in the Smeal College of Business Administration. "These so-called 'enemies of economic development' were convinced enough of their cause that they spurned all negotiation, in the belief that any negotiation would eventually result in some compromise that they were not willing to tolerate."

This dispute developed into an unpleasant showdown between the cool language of rationality and the hot, even vehement, language of emotion. Perhaps surprisingly, emotion won, says Dr. Dennis Gioia, professor of organizational behavior, also in the Smeal College at Penn State.

Kilduff, Gioia and Dr. Stephanie A. Welcomer, assistant professor of management at the University of Maine, conducted a study analyzing the ultimately successful grass roots resistance of Clarion, Pa, to the projected siting of a hazardous waste facility by Concord Resources Group, Inc., headquartered in Pittsburgh. They published their findings in the paper, "Resisting the Discourse of Modernity: Rationality Versus Emotion in Hazardous Waste Siting," recently in the social science journal, Human Relations .

"In July 1990, Concord had announced its plans to use 560 acres of rural Clarion County to dispose of 230,000 tons of hazardous waste annually over an expected life span of 20 years," Kilduff says. "The proposed $100 million facility would have consisted of an incinerator, a chemical treatment operation, a solidification/stabilization plant and a waste repository."

Touting the anticipated economic benefits of the hazardous waste facility, Concord projected that it would reduce the county's unemployment rate by 2 percent, add a payroll of $13.8 million a year and increase annual tax revenues by $2 million,

But a local group called Protect the Environment and Children Everywhere (PEACE) mobilized immediately against the proposed siting. PEACE, with an eventual high-point

membership of 8,000 persons, comprised of teachers, plant workers, professors, farmers, attorneys, retirees and business owners.

'The standoff between Concord and PEACE furnished a graphic case study of clashing dialogue between the champions of modernity and so-called average citizens, deeply skeptical of the government and modern corporate practices. They were very apprehensive that their communal identity was threatened by forces over which they had no control," Kilduff says.

"In their heated rhetorical exchanges, community activists rejected the developer's appeal to the principle of free and open debate among rational people, viewing dialogue as a trap, a subtle way of shifting the battle to Concord's ground. For them, there could be no compromise. Concord was the enemy pure and simple," Gioia notes.

?Both authors consider the Clarion case to be a microcosm of the wider culture war pitting corporate and big government advocates of modern development, with all their benefits and consequences, against local, grass-roots groups who are unwilling to accept the risks of hazardous waste in their backyards as a price for modern life.

"This case was one in which the little guy prevailed over almost overwhelming larger forces, so people are inclined to cheer the outcome of this battle. It has all the hallmarks of a `David vs. Goliath' contest," says Gioia.

In the Clarion dispute, signs of protest read: "BURN IN HELL CONCORD, NOT HERE"; "MILLCREEK IS GOD'S COUNTRY, NOT CONCORD'S"; and "GET YOUR ASH OUT OF HERE!"

?"On one occasion, as Concord officials came to inspect the site, community members blocked the road with a human chain," Kilduff says. "After several hours of tense confrontation, riot police forcibly cleared the road of protesters, allowing Concord vehicles to pass."

However, the researchers warn against seeing such confrontations in polarized Hollywood terms with local residents as the heroic underdogs battling a sinister corporate giant.

"Although the definition of progress has come under suspicion, because progress at the beginning of the 21st century is seen by many to be fraught with risk both to the human and natural environment, modern societies nonetheless need to deal with issues like the siting of hazardous waste plants," notes Kilduff.

Gioia asks: "Where, after all, are disposal sites for hazardous waste to be located if every community rises up and defeats all attempts to build them? Community members in Clarion themselves employed some disturbing threats and dubious stonewalling tactics designed to stymie any possibility of negotiation or balanced resolution. Is it OK to sabotage all attempts to negotiate a resolution?"

Such resolutions need some degree of collaborative negotiation and exchange. They require an openness to objections and sincere discussions of costs and benefits that involve all parties in an open, public, and empathetic atmosphere of negotiation. Stonewalling and emotional rhetoric can win a fight, but they do not contribute to resolving society's larger questions about living modern life, the researchers say.

***pab***.

Contacts:

Paul Blaum (814) 865-9481 (o)

Vicki Fong (814) 865-9481 (o)/ (814) 238-1221 (h)

EDITORS: Dr. Kilduff is at (814) 865-9822 or at by email; Dr. Gioia is at (814) 865-6370 or at by email; Ms. Welcomer can be contacted at by email.