Reflections on Weeds
As all gardeners know, weeds are a problem. They spend many hours planting flowers, bushes, and trees only to find out that their labor is undercut by the growth of weeds. Weeds grow where they are not supposed to be, they destroy the order that the gardener has carefully established. In short, they are the gardener’s declared enemy. Weeds therefore must be eliminated because they stand in the way of aesthetic and moral perfection. Committed gardeners have to be determined in their firm and persistent opposition to weeds. There can be no doubt: It’s a war, to be precise, an unending war. When you think that you have done the job and eradicated the troublesome plants, you find out the next day that there are new weeds. For some reason, weeds seem to be stronger and growing faster than the seedlings you planted with love and care. But committed gardeners do not give up. They launch counterattacks, using special tools and, if the fight becomes too strenuous, the means of modern chemistry, although they are aware that the use of weed killers is strongly discouraged by the friends of our planet.
Maybe the time has come to reconsider the fundamental question: What are weeds? What makes a weed a weed or, differently put, what distinguishes a weed from other plants? The dictionary tells us that a weed is a useless or troublesome plant. The archaic use of the word points to wild plants, to be distinguished from domesticated plants. The German word is even more ominous: “Unkraut” is the negation of “Kraut,” it is a plant that should not exist. Using the word therefore tacitly implies the command to eliminate all plants that have been marked as weeds.
The stated opposition could not be more explicit. But the distinction does not explain the origin of weeds. Where do they come from? Who has given them the power to grow in gardens making the life of the gardener arduous? What is their place in God’s creation? The story of the creation in the Old Testament does not mention them. When Genesis talks about the Garden of Eden, which was specifically created for humans, the trees alluded to are judged to be good, since their fruits provide food. But there is no reference to weeds. Shall we conclude therefore that the creation did not include weeds? If this is the case, there is an urgent question: How did weeds become part of the vegetation? Did they create themselves? Or did someone add them to God’s creation? One could think of Lucifer, the fallen angel, although the Bible does not mention this. In sum, the study of the Bible does not provide a firm and clear answer to our question. We have to search for answers by developing concepts and hypotheses that can be discussed and tested.
We can distinguish three possible approaches to our problem: first, an essentialist approach, second, a subjective method, and finally, a commonsense approach. Most gardeners, whether they realize this or not, believe the distinction between good plants and weeds is objective. While the layperson looking at a flower bed may be confused, the eye of the trained gardener cannot be deceived. The weed can always be detected and eliminated, as it should be. There are, according to this theory, objective criteria that distinguish weeds and flowers or weeds and vegetables. They can be described and taught, and the experienced gardener cannot be fooled. However, as we have already seen, this does not mean that the gardener will have the advantage, still, he or she knows what a weed looks like and draws the appropriate conclusions. Proponents of the essentialist thesis become uncomfortable, if not even hostile, when someone treats the distinction as subjective and arbitrary. As they like to point out, the task of proper gardening becomes impossible if we cannot clearly and safely distinguish between weeds and good plants. Strong defenders of the essentialist position have fiercely argued against any effort to undermine the objective ground by calling for rigorous laws that permanently protect the essential distinction.
They are aware that there are people who claim that there is no objective distinction. They are the proponents of a subjective approach, which holds that there are no essential weeds. Among gardeners they are a small minority, frequently considered as dangerous outliers to the art of gardening. They do not deny the distinction, but they believe that gardeners have the freedom to define what should be called a weed. If they are fond of a particular plant, they have the right to give it a place in the garden, whether more conventional gardeners like it or not. The distinction, they insist, is ultimately subjective. In their eyes, the essentialist approach confuses reality and conventions. It is a matter of free choice: If I like a dandelion better than a rose, I’m free to express this in the arrangement of my garden. In short, the individualist approach places the emphasis on freedom of choice and accuses the supporters of the essentialist definition of repression. As one of them famously claimed: There was no distinction between good plants and weeds in the Garden of Eden.
Perhaps a third approach could help us to overcome the relentless battle between the two parties. All we need is common sense. On the one hand, we can admit that there is no essential difference between good plants and weeds. It is a matter of convention based on our needs and preferences. Put differently, human interest determines our preferences and choices. The trees mentioned in the Garden of Eden, for instance, provided food for humans. In a vegetable garden, plants that fail to provide food, become undesirable weeds. On the other hand, the distinction between weeds and good plants is not arbitrary and therefore left to the individual gardener. Human interests as collective interests rightly influence the distinction. When you grow carrots, you don’t want to see horse tail between the young carrot plants. As human needs and interests have changed, the distinction between good, i.e. useful plants, and weeds has changed. For the commonsense approach there are no essential weeds, there are only traditions and conventions established at specific times and places. Good gardeners respect these traditions without being single-minded.
One would expect this approach to find broad acceptance, since it carefully balances opposing concerns. However, this is not the case. Both objectivists and subjectivists have viciously attacked this position as a weak compromise avoiding the critical issues. For essentialists admitting that (depending on the context) any plant can either be a good plant or a weed, amounts to treason, because it gives up the objective ground on which a true and reliable knowledge of weeds must be based. For the individualists, on the other hand, a commonsense definition of weed is unacceptable since it gives up the idea of radical freedom. The individual gardener needs the freedom to determine whether a specific plant is a good plant or a weed. A spirited defense of freedom therefore logically includes a severe critique of a commonsense definition of weeds since it offers no more than a weak and ultimately useless compromise. Unfortunately, therefore, we have to report, that there is still no generally accepted theory of weeds. The study of weeds remains as divisive as other aspects of our public sphere. Today, all we have is hope that there will be peaceful negotiations in the future.
