Hearts and Minds PB

Illumination of emotionally laden issues is typically sought through ""objective"" research and analysis. But for his study of animal-rights activists and animal researchers in a small Southern university town, Groves functioned as a participant-observer. Furthermore, he focused on people's feelingsDhow they felt about the use of animals in research, why they felt the way they did and how they felt about their feelings. The results are truly enlightening. He found that the opposing camps are distinguished in unexpected ways: animals-rights activists emphasize an ethic of personal responsibility expressed in rational, scientific terms, while researchers emphasize their roles as caring stewards of scientific research. These contrasting orientations have their origins in a shared acknowledgment of the moral costs of using animals, and Groves argues that polarization has resulted because people have not expressed to one another the shame and guilt that result from their moral ambivalence. As a result, pride, self-righteousness and anger become the dominant emotions guiding interactions between the two groups. This interpretive framework is logical but remains to be tested by moving beyond the author's ""might haves"" and ""could haves"" to a concrete proposal of ways to uncover and then build upon the common ground that exists. (Feb.)