The community idea in American country life

The American Country LifeAssociation was heir to Theodore Roosevelt'sCountry Life Commission, which examined thegeneral conditions of farming life in the opencountry, and...its larger problems. In1919, Kenyon Butterfield, a member ofRoosevelt's Commission, met withrepresentatives from 30 states and 25 nationalorganizations to form the American Country LifeAssociation. In that year, Butterfield, ACLA'sfirst president, published a book, TheFarmer and the New Day, whose defining chapterwas The Making of Communities: The CommunityIdea. The ACLA was educator created and led.Solutions to rural problems were seen aseducational matters. But educational philosophywas undergoing scrutiny and new educationalconcepts were arising from the bustling,industrializing, urbanizing times of late19th century. The experimental,unconstrained spirit of the nation at the turnof the century was formalized as pragmatism. Aleading pragmatist and educator of the time wasJohn Dewey, a contemporary of Butterfield.The communitarianism of Butterfield and Deweycarried throughout the life of ACLA in avariety of forms. Even after ACLA ended as anorganization in 1976, the concerns and idealscontinued in successor organizations, and canbe found in environmental, sustainableagriculture, and rural life organizationstoday. This paper traces one of continuingthemes of the ACLA, the community idea as a wayof adding a social dimension to agriculture'seconomic policies and development. The ACLAstory is a metaphor for country life throughmuch of 20th century America. ACLA is alsoa lesson in how organizations come into being,flourish, falter, die, and leave their legaciesto future generations.     

Agriculture and working-class political culture: A lesson from The Grapes of Wrath

John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel can be given a reading that links events and the mentality of characters to mainstream schools of liberal and neo-liberal political theory: libertarianism, egalitarianism, and utilitarianism. Each of these schools is sketched in outline and applied to topics in rural political culture. While it is likely that Steinbeck himself would have identified with an egalitarian or utilitarian view, he resists the temptation to deny his Okie characters an authentic voice that matches none of these schools so well as it articulates an agrarian mentality once associated with Thomas Jefferson and today articulated by Wendell Berry. This reading of The Grapes of Wrath, in turn, can be interpreted as both a rebuke to contemporary social theorists who continue to impose an ill-fitting left-right dichotomy on working class political culture in rural America and as a roadmap suggesting ways that philosophy and rural sociology might engage one another more directly and productively with respect to contemporary rural development and environmental quality issues. Paul B. Thompson holds the W. K. Kellogg Chair in Agriculture, Food, and Community Ethics at Michigan State University where he teaches in the departments of philosophy, agricultural economics, and CARRS (Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies). He is currently conducting research on topics relating to farm animal welfare and to the likely significance of nanotechnology for the agrifood system.     

Hues of American agrarianism

Agrarianism in America assumes manyforms, in part because of the varied sources ofruralistic values, some evolving from times beforenationhood. Views expressed are sometimes anti-city,other times pro-rural. The Jeffersonian perspective isrevealed in three forms, two by historians, one by aphilosopher. They agree that Jefferson was animportant figure in America's land system, but theydiffer markedly in their uses of Jeffersonian valuesabout agriculture, land, and rural life. The essayconcludes with a basis for new agrarianism basedmore on land than agriculture as enterprise.     

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