Losing ground: Farmland preservation,economic utilitarianism,and the erosion of the agrarian ideal

The trajectory of the public discourse on agriculture in the twentieth century presents an interesting pattern:shortly after World War II, the manner in which farming and farmers were discussed underwent a profound shift. This rhetorical change is revealed by comparing the current debate on farmland preservation with a tradition of agricultural discourse that came before, known as agrarianism. While agrarian writers conceived of farming as a rewarding life, a public good, and a source of moral virtue, current writers on farmland preservation speak of farming almost entirely in utilitarian terms describing its productive capacity and its economic returns. Proponents of farmland preservation use essentially the same underlying framework as critics of preservation:n economic utilitarian paradigm that purports to eschew normative values and evaluate land use decisions based on economic criteria only. I argue that, despite their good intentions, farmland preservationists are doomed to piecemeal victories at best, because their arguments, which rely on a utilitarian justification and disregard the agrarian ethic, are inadequate. Without expanding its focus beyond farmland to encompass farming and farmers, the movement risks losing both integrity and effectiveness.Matthew J. Mariola recently received his Masters degree in the Land Resources program at the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on agrarian philosophy and farmer identity among conventional and organic farmers.The errors of politicians ignorant of agriculture can only rob it of its pleasures, and consign it to contempt and misery.– John Taylor, 1813