This post was written by Kiaora Motson, Hannah Schandelmeier-Lynch, Grace Boyd and Emma Hay.
Definition
Agrarianism is a philosophy and movement aimed at reconstructing an agrarian-based society to preserve individual freedom and cultivate a strong skepticism of urbanized technology. Although agrarianism encompasses many types of people, most fall under two main categories: romantics and rationalists. Rationalists “celebrate the personal and civic virtues associated with farming– economic independence, willingness to engage in hard work, rural sturdiness, hatred of tyranny” (Beer 2011) while Romantics “emphasize the moral, emotional, and spiritual benefits agriculture and rural life convey to the individual” (Danbom 1991). Together, both rationalists and romantics “share a deep dissatisfaction with many aspects of modern economic, political, social, and religious structures” (Beer 2011) and embody “unwavering skepticism toward modern notions of progress, and a practical and epistemological critique of technology” (Beer 2011).
Concerning environmentalism, many romantics frame agrarianism as a movement to “recapture… a free and natural existence that [has] been lost,” (Danbom 1991) with that “loss” representing a lack of social appreciation for the earth. Not only is the earth undervalued, they argue, but it is also overexploited for the sake of crony capitalism. Therefore, agrarianism acts as both a critique of capitalism and a solution to climate change inducing technologies by promoting self-sufficiency and rejecting modernity.
Context
The ideology of agrarianism began gaining popularity around the turn of the 20th century. With the recent urbanization and commercial values emerging in the United States in that first decade, agrarian values of returning to the land and escaping the horrors of city life, rose as well. Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the most well known agrarian voices at the time, popularizing the ideas of anti-modernization, localism and conservatism. In 1908 he formed the Country Life Movement (back-to-the-landers movement) in order to reform country lifestyles as modernization progressed, as well as favorably inclining the Subsistence Homestead program in 1933 (Danbom 1991).
By the late 1960s and 1970s the new ideas of environmental consciousness, distrust of science and technology and agrarianism reached a peak once more. The problems of the world were thought to be the cause of institutions and capitalism, and the agrarian solutions were based in localism (Danbom 1991). Alienation from work and food had been said to have resulted in the disconnect from humanity and community and it was time to rejuvenate family farming on a small scale. This is when new developments in agriculture and research began to develop, resulting in organic farming and the sustainable cultivation movement.
Today, we see the promotion of agrarianism in media more than ever. This age of ‘new agrarianism’ touches base on the Ecotypes axis’ time and nature. Conservatism and “pure nature” romanticize and seek the recovery of past orientations of nature and a ‘natural’ way of living. However today’s mass agri-processing of labeled sustainable, organic and local farming has become an industry that is slowly departing from its native origins through capitalism (Walker 2012). New agrarian thought is booming once again currently and is finally beginning to dictate the way we reform the U.S. food systems.
Critique
While agrarianism has done much to address the alienation Americans experience with food production in recent years, there are many areas where this “ism” has turned a blind eye to historic and current social inequalities. Specifically, as agrarianism presents itself as a panacea to climate change and capitalism currently perpetuated by the food industry, it contributes to classism and racism when placed in urban settings. The North Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville neighborhoods’ real estate controversy are a good examples of how “community gardens,” imbued with a self-proclaimed “sustainable, back-to-the-land value,” but substantially engender gentrification by “contributing to a kind of rustic, down-home vibe that makes nearby real estate more attractive,” (Markham 2014). However, urban gardening is not new— low income households have been practicing it out of necessity for years. It is only recently, through its adoption in white upper class homes for novelty, that it has become “trendy.” Contemporary agrarianism is now presented as a lifestyle choice, and one that few are able to make due to its high costs – both in time and money. As neighborhoods of marginalized communities are claimed for new businesses and homes in the hopes of growing urban gardens, to rekindle a “lost connection with the land,” the expensive and exclusionary nature of new agrarianism has displaced many of its former inhabitants who can’t afford to live in the newly renovated neighborhoods. Further, agrarianism perpetuates the same system it criticizes but under the misnomer of sustainability, through individualist acts such as homesteading, DIY, self-sustaining, and eat-local movements. Although these movements promote an image of governmental and commercial independence, they end up creating a new system of rules and norms that are similarly exclusionary and capitalistic.
Further, agrarian ideas have certainly manifested in a hyper obsession with food labels – “local,” “organic,” and “GMO-free” are all key buzzwords that can be slapped onto a food to bring its value up. If “the new agrarians maintain that consumers bear much of the responsibility for restoring agrarian values to the center of American life” (Walker 2012), how can this be reconciled with the notion that not everyone has equal buying power? Again, agrarianism appears to be deeply classist and conservative.
Julie Guthman sums up her three major concerns with agrarianism in the final chapter of her book “Agrarian Dreams,” in which she analyzes the agrarian movement of increasing popularity of organic produce. Her first concern is that the ideal agrarianism is rooted in classist, racist and gender normative histories, linked to a “cultural conservatism.” Second, it presupposes that that these back-to-the-land, small scale or low impact farming will actually be beneficial on agricultural land use and social fronts. There is corruption and exploitation of labor in organic or small scale farms in a comparable amount to mega-industrial agriculture operations. Her third concern is that it is “strikingly anachronistic,” to which we would add technophobic. Agrarianism could also be described as a “feel-good” ism, claiming to accomplish more than it does, as “embracing an agrarian populist ideology… has helped growers efface their discomfort as capitalist producers, allowing them to take an anti-corporate stance while accepting existing social relations as given,” (Guthman 2014).
Let’s believe for a moment that new agrarians really “have encouraged many Americans to take stock of our values and to consider the nature and purpose of life. They have also helped millions of Americans connect the food they eat to the people who grow that food, leading to a broader public understanding of the enormous skill required to produce food” (Walker 2012). Further, it has shed light onto the socially and environmentally destructive practices of industrial monocropping, such as soil erosion, water pollution and air pollution. But we should question the narrative that is still perpetuated today. The conservative, anti-global economy, anti-modernity, anti-technology, anti-city attitudes associated with this deeply classical environmental “ism,” may need to be left in the past in order for us to put a new spin on agrarianism that highlights what it does well. By situating its ideal form of society in a simpler past, agrarianism inherently overlooks many of the complexities of modern life that require critical attention.
Conclusion
Agrarianism can be seen as the intersecting point between past and future, conservatism and localism, and between rationalism and romanticism. This particular “ism” manages to satisfy several nuances generated by the aforementioned ecological philosophies and “isms”. As mentioned in the description, agrarianism is a non systematic philosophy that claims a strong sense of nurturing stewardship, deep understandings of the relationships between place and labor, virtuous character developed through rooted communities, and even includes a sense that spiritual relationship to nature and the cosmos are normatively significant features of the practice of agriculture (Hilde 2009). However, despite the seemingly appealing “ism” through doing a simple google search, one can find that agrarianism is ridden with problems regarding racism and classism.
Attempts at incorporating agrarianism through urban gardens or farmers markets in order to “get back to nature”, have historically been implemented in mainly white, middle to upper class neighborhoods. Agrarianism has and always will be individualistic at its foundation. This is one of the main reasons we would not recommend that any forms of it be used in contemporary agriculture. It is not an economically or equitably feasible option for the future of agriculture. The current and future problem surrounding agriculture, is how to feed larger amounts of people while utilizing all around lower natural resources including land, water, and fertilizer. For this, advances in technology should be valued and prioritized, not feared and eschewed.
The romanticism that often couples with agrarianism shows the good features through rose colored glasses, making them appear even better than they are. At the same time, it allows an ignorance to the societal problems that are inherent to the philosophy of agrarianism. Without making severe changes to this “ism” it should not be applied to modern day America, despite its popularity among those with tendencies towards classical environmentalism.
Works Cited
Beer, Jeremy. “Agrarianism.” First Principles ISI Web Journal, December 23, 11, 1-2. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Danbom, David B. “Romantic Agrarianism in Twentieth-Century America.” Agricultural History 65, no. 4 (1991): 1-12.
Guthman, Julie. Agrarian Dreams : The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014.
Hilde, Thomas C. “Agrarianism.” Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, edited by J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman, vol. 1, Macmillan Reference USA, 2009, pp. 20-23. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Accessed 19 Mar. 2017.
Markham, Lauren. “Gentrification and the Urban Garden.” The New Yorker, May 14, 2014. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Walker, Melissa. 2012. “Contemporary Agrarianism: A Reality Check.” Agricultural History 86
(1): 1–25.