Group Composition: Different Versus Alike

Related to the previous duality, a greater number of members bring to the organization the richness of differences and heightens the salience of identity issues, which are central to sensemaking. CREA started among a selected group of friends who were mostly wealthy countrymen of their time. Growth in numbers does not come without conflict, as smaller (different to the initial founding group) farmers became interested in participating in CREA groups.

13_{AACREA is located in an office in downtown, in the middle of the Capital Federal District, Buenos}

Tension is generated by the diverse origins of people. Some farmers felt threatened by the incursion in CREA groups of what was politically correctly called a “different” type of farmer. The growth of the CREA groups among different production systems,

different geographic locales, varied climatic conditions and diverse size farms caused tension, which was not existent in the beginning when members were more

homogeneous in production and farm size.

Class, in particular, presented a challenge to the expansion of the movement. The 60s and 70s were years of difficult political transitions for Argentina including outbreaks of class-related violence and military fighting of guerrillas, which had an impact on the agricultural sector as the following quote reflects:

We were in a very difficult national context in those years, and there were tensions within the CREA Movement, with people of a more humanist orientation. But everything went settling down in time, and eventually, AACREA was opened to a new type of farmer. (Former General Coordinator of AACREA)

The tension of opening up the entry of the association to a different, smaller farmer is described. It was with an important degree of internal conflict and power struggles that the institution survived. Once these years of conflict were overcome, AACREA learned how to embrace heterogeneity among its members. The phrase “things went settling down as time went by” reflects a sensegiving scheme, looking at the conflict

retrospectively. The telling of the story implies conflict has been resolved. In the choice of plot and words many of the difficulties suffered become erased. The “new” type of

farmer concept is explained. It is called “diverse” when compared with the initial profile of the CREA farmer, as the following quote from an interview shows:

Until the year 1966 CREA was formed by large farm owners (estancieros). We started to work with small farmers who were wary of the farmers with large ranches. It was an extraordinary experience, because at the table of AACREA, farmers with the fat fingers started to be seated. Farmers who had the white forehead and fat, big fingers14…It was a hard transition for AACREA …but we overcame it, we became the only Movement in Argentina where large scale farmers, small businessmen and small farmers sat down at the same table. It was unique.

Another important factor used to manage, and successfully coexist with this duality was the introduction of consensus as a decision-making strategy:

How to reach consensus in a decision is not easy. I always say that decisions have to fall by their own weight, because it is not easy for a group of people to agree on everything…The decision process becomes slower, but is very important to reach such agreement. (Former AACREA President, CREA member).

The institution has developed this process of consensus, incorporating it as part of its culture. Consensus has become essential in the CREA working methodology. It is the preferred way of making decisions, rather than voting. This major importance given to consensus guarantees a common agreement on some fronts. Consensus is stressed in the

14_{The white forehead is a signal among countrymen of people who work in the sun. The use of hats for}

protection causes their faces to be really dark from sunburn, whilst their foreheads remain of a contrasting white colour. Fat, big fingers are also a symptom of manual, hard labour.

video too, mentioned as a philosophy, as an attitudethat has to emerge from the differences, and finally, is given the utmost significance: consensus legitimates

knowledge. Knowledge for CREA exists and is validated through the consensus reached amongst its members. The importance given to consensus as a philosophy is a narrative strategy to counterbalance the tension created by the heterogeneity given by different people. If momentarily everybody agrees at least on one decision at a particular time, homogeneity is achieved on that decision and difference is -at least momentarily- conquered. If consensus continues to be promoted as its distinctive characteristic, the organization is in a way guaranteeing its own continuity, its own survival. There is room for difference, as long as consensus exists among those who are different.

Martinez Nogueira (1984, pp.35-36) wrote about an example of how consensus had changed its institutional role in CREA. In its initial, founding times there was a consensus not to get involved in political issues. This consensus was natural and corresponded to the vision that farmers had of themselves, centered in their own working groups and far away from state matters. At this point it was more of a doctrinarian affirmation, in line with the characteristics of farmers at the time. When national circumstances changed, this consensus of not to get involved in politics had then a “different functionality” when some members did want to get involved in government issues. Today, consensus on that front implies a definition of the

institutional role and a reassurance to maintain the Movement’s internal cohesion in a situation of increasing political heterogeneity of its members.

Heterogeneity is the frame. That which had been perceived as a menace in past times of AACREA has been redefined in the video as a source of richness, as a frame for action. The stories that stress the message, “we accept the different”, “it is ok to be different”; reflect an on-going tension around difference. Although the content of such difference remains unspoken, AACREA is no longer presenting itself as homogeneous (although its barriers to entry may still seem high to outsiders); it claims to value difference. The duality described implies that acceptance of difference is not yet a taken-for-granted.