The Rural Life Problem, 1908
12/13/09 11:54
Plunkett was an Irish aristocrat (born at Dunsany Castle, 3rd son of the 16th baron -- the author of The King of Elfland's Daughter was the 18th baron) who became a leading figure in home rule and developed the idea of Irish rural cooperatives. Interesting guy, might warrant a closer look.
Plunkett’s thesis in this book, which seems to have influenced a lot of American sociologists and County Lifers, is that “the city has developed to the neglect of the country,” and that of Roosevelt’s three pillars of Country Life, “better farming, better business, better living,” the business problems of farmers should be addressed first. (3, 12-13) Plunkett refers briefly to his experience in rural Ireland, and also to Denmark, which has come up so many times in these primary texts that it probably demands some attention.
Being an aristocrat, Plunkett has access to American leaders like Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and James Jerome Hill. He portrays these men as being genuinely concerned with “The Future of the United States” (title of a 1906 Hill speech I need to find a copy of), and especially with soil conservation. Plunkett argues for a strong connection between what he sees as the two key elements of Roosevelt’s administration, conservation and rural life improvement.
During the first phase of the industrial revolution, Plunkett says “economic science stepped in, and, scrupulously obeying its own law of demand and supply, told the then predominant middle classes just what they wished to be told.” (37) “Social and political science,” he says, “rose up in protest against both the economists and the manufacturers,” which, if true, might be an interesting way to look at the development of these disciplines. (39)
Interestingly for an analysis written a hundred years ago, Plunkett introduces the idea of a “world-market,” (40) and says rural neglect is caused in part by the fact that “reciprocity” between city and country “has not ceased; it has actually increased...But it has become national, and even international, rather than local.” (41) “Forty-two per cent of materials used in manufacture in the United States are from the farm, which also contributes seventy per cent of the country’s exports.” (41-2) But the complexity of new trade patterns and supply chains has hidden the mutual dependence of city and country. Plunkett concludes “until...the obligations of a common citizenship are realized by the town, we cannot hope for any lasting National progress.” (42)
If there is specific blame to be laid, Plunkett directs it not at the system as a whole, but at profiteers. “Excessive middle profits between producer and consumer may largely account for the very serious rise in the price of staple articles of food,” he says. But even though urban middlemen are to blame and the problem impoverishes rural people at the same time it aggravates poor city people, “the remedy...lies with the farmer” rather than with legislative action or government reform. (43)
Although he doesn’t explain how the system has managed to marginalize them, Plunkett suggests that excluding rural people from the political sphere has damaged democracy. Farmers’ experience of the cycles of nature, which Plunkett pictures as slower and less mutable than the commercial and industrial processes city people live with, give them a more balanced political sense. City dwellers’ “one-sided experience” may account for “that disregard of inconvenient facts, and that impatience of the limits of practicability, which many observers note as a characteristic defect of popular government.” (49) Plunkett also suspects farmers might be less amenable to “the cruder forms of Socialism...perhaps because in the country the question of the divorce of the worker from his raw material by capitalism does not arise.” (50-1) American farmers are not alienated from their means of production because most of them are proprietors (had this been a problem in tenant-farmer dominated Great Britain?). So even if they aren’t fully capitalists in the sense that urban industrialists are, Plunkett seems to say, at least they aren’t victims of capitalism in the same way urban wage-earners are. (Plunkett avoids any reference to the ethnic immigrant contribution to American life, with the exception of a subtle nod to the success his countrymen have had infiltrating urban politics)
Plunkett tries to call for “a moral corrective to a too rapidly growing material prosperity,” but he fails to identify the motivation for the “reckless sacrifice of agricultural interests by the legislators of the towns.” (54) The issue he avoids confronting directly seems to be the increasing unevenness of the prosperity he cites. Even in rural areas, the rewards are going disproportionately to the few. And in most cases, profits are captured by the middlemen, at the expense of both rural producers and urban consumers.
Suggesting that even though they have no public voice, farmers “keep a full stock of grievances in their mental stores,” Plunkett warns of “serious unrest in every part of the United States, even in the most prosperous regions.” (61-2) Compared to urban people, their “material wealth is unnaturally and unnecessarily restricted; their social life is barren; their political influence is relatively small. American farmers have been used by politicians, but have still to learn how to use them,” he says. (63) This is at least partly due, Plunkett believes, to the way the west was settled.
Based on his personal observations of the Middle West in the 1880s, Plunkett says “settlers, knowing that the land must rise rapidly in value, almost invariably purchased much larger farms than they could handle...they invented a system of farming unprecedented in its wastefulness. The farm was treated as a mine,” and soil fertility was turned into corn crops year after year, without fertilizer or rotation. (67) Though averse to blaming government, Plunkett does recognize the “opening up of the vast new territory by the provision of local traffic for transcontinental lines was an object of national urgency and importance...the policy of rewarding railroad enterprises with unconditional grants of vast areas of agricultural land,” he concludes, is “one of the evidences of urban domination over rural affairs.” (69-70)
“Under modern economic conditions, things must be done in a large way if they are to be done profitably,” Plunkett says, “and this necessitates a resort to combination.” (89) Combined effort has three benefits: economies of scale, elimination of “great middlemen who control exchange and distribution,” and political power. (90) For better or worse, he says, “towns have flourished at the expense of the country by the use of these methods, and the countryman must adopt them if he is to get his own again.” (91) But farmers, Plunkett admits, being “the most conservative and individualistic of human beings,” are unlikely to organize themselves in joint stock companies and hand over control to others. (94)
Plunkett’s solution, the farmers’ cooperative, acknowledges the fact that “when farmers combine, it is a combination not of money only, but of personal effort in relation to the entire business.” (96) While this description is not exactly accurate (farmers produce a standardized product, but there are limits to centralization and scale economies relative to say, steel production, so the economic comparison with industry is complicated), Plunkett is trying to emphasize that the “distinction between the capitalistic basis of joint stock organization and the more human character of cooperative system is fundamentally important.” (97) Compared to Ireland, where Plunkett had been instrumental in developing rural coops, “as things are, the [American] farming interest is at a fatal disadvantage in the purchase of agricultural requirements, in the sale of agricultural produce, and in obtaining proper credit facilities.” (114) Cooperatives could address each of those needs.
The long-term result of “better business,” Plunkett says, are “Better Farming and Better Living.” Cooperatives would begin a process of renewing rural social bonds, leading to a new neighborhood culture. Rather than trying to “bring the advantages of the city” to the country, rural communities would “develop in the country the things of the country, the very existence of which seems to have been forgotten.” “After all,” he says, “it is the world within us rather than the world without us that matters in the making of society,” once the physical necessities like clean water, medicine, and electricity have been made available by attending to “better business.” (127)
Plunkett is well aware that his “subject is rural, my audience urban.” (143) This may explain why his final chapter de-emphasizes the establishment of business-oriented cooperatives, and focuses instead on education and socialization. One point he does make is that existing rural organizations, the Grange, and the Farmers’ Union could all be enlisted into the cause of helping establish and support rural coops. It would be interesting to read further, and see if the Country Life Movement ignored this advice, and stuck with a top-down approach; and if this limited its reach and efficacy.
Country vs. City, 1916
12/10/09 21:43
Warren H. Wilson, “Country Versus City,” Papers and Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Society, 1916
(Wilson was head of the Department of Country Church Work of the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions)
This is one of the primary sources Danbom uses in Resisted Revolution. Wilson begins his remarks by saying “in 1910, 53 per cent of the people of the United States lived in communities of 2,500 or less.” (12) This population cutoff, still in use today, is important because “the rural population are predominantly of the older colonial stock; among them are few of the immigrants of recent years. Irish, German, and Scandinavian immigrants used to go to the country, but Poles, Lithuanians, Slavs, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Syrians, and Jews do not go to farms,” Wilson says. Thus the cities reflect their character, the country does not.
Wilson says Wilbert L. Anderson “has described the severe conformity of country people to one type as a result of the removal of those who have characters of greater variation to the cities.” (14) So, in addition to not being changed by exotic immigration, the country is homogenized by the loss of its own eccentrics. Farmers are so individualistic, Wilson suggests, (in spite of being completely homogenous) that according to Englishman Sir Horace Plunkett, they can only be organized in loose cooperatives based on “the natural partnership of the country neighborhood.” (14)
The divergence between country and city over “the general attitude of either population toward life as a whole” is based on the belief by both groups that city people are primarily consumers and country people are primarily producers. The rural “mental posture--what Professor Carver calls his ‘make-believe’--is that of a self-sufficing social life.” (15) Wilson argues that the two areas are dynamically interrelated, and that sociology needs to study and understand this relationship. He cites recent books (Warren’s Farm Management, Powell’s Cooperation in Agriculture and Weld’s Marketing of Farm Products) which he says are “a beginning of great promise.” (17)
Although he touches briefly on religion and public health, Wilson expends his greatest effort reviewing the classics (from the Bible to Cato) to illustrate that farmers work “in obedience to the demands of organized society.” (18) Not only that, he says, but urban markets “organize” otherwise chaotic rural life. Dairymen milk at 4 AM and 4 PM in response to urban demand. The influence of cities can be seen in the “higher proportion of industrious persons in the country populations of states like New York,” versus the “hours of idleness which prevail...in rural Arkansas.” (20) Nowhere does Wilson consider, however, the alienation of economic power that enables the city to control the country. His lack of interest in the lives of actual country people parallels his blindness to questions regarding the justice of the shift in economic and social control from the country to the city. Apparently, if the classics and the Bible supported domination of farmers by city elites, it was a good enough plan for America!
(Wilson was head of the Department of Country Church Work of the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions)
This is one of the primary sources Danbom uses in Resisted Revolution. Wilson begins his remarks by saying “in 1910, 53 per cent of the people of the United States lived in communities of 2,500 or less.” (12) This population cutoff, still in use today, is important because “the rural population are predominantly of the older colonial stock; among them are few of the immigrants of recent years. Irish, German, and Scandinavian immigrants used to go to the country, but Poles, Lithuanians, Slavs, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Syrians, and Jews do not go to farms,” Wilson says. Thus the cities reflect their character, the country does not.
Wilson says Wilbert L. Anderson “has described the severe conformity of country people to one type as a result of the removal of those who have characters of greater variation to the cities.” (14) So, in addition to not being changed by exotic immigration, the country is homogenized by the loss of its own eccentrics. Farmers are so individualistic, Wilson suggests, (in spite of being completely homogenous) that according to Englishman Sir Horace Plunkett, they can only be organized in loose cooperatives based on “the natural partnership of the country neighborhood.” (14)
The divergence between country and city over “the general attitude of either population toward life as a whole” is based on the belief by both groups that city people are primarily consumers and country people are primarily producers. The rural “mental posture--what Professor Carver calls his ‘make-believe’--is that of a self-sufficing social life.” (15) Wilson argues that the two areas are dynamically interrelated, and that sociology needs to study and understand this relationship. He cites recent books (Warren’s Farm Management, Powell’s Cooperation in Agriculture and Weld’s Marketing of Farm Products) which he says are “a beginning of great promise.” (17)
Although he touches briefly on religion and public health, Wilson expends his greatest effort reviewing the classics (from the Bible to Cato) to illustrate that farmers work “in obedience to the demands of organized society.” (18) Not only that, he says, but urban markets “organize” otherwise chaotic rural life. Dairymen milk at 4 AM and 4 PM in response to urban demand. The influence of cities can be seen in the “higher proportion of industrious persons in the country populations of states like New York,” versus the “hours of idleness which prevail...in rural Arkansas.” (20) Nowhere does Wilson consider, however, the alienation of economic power that enables the city to control the country. His lack of interest in the lives of actual country people parallels his blindness to questions regarding the justice of the shift in economic and social control from the country to the city. Apparently, if the classics and the Bible supported domination of farmers by city elites, it was a good enough plan for America!
Back to the Land movement (1905-7)
12/09/09 08:04
Note to self: Check out Bolton Hall, Three Acres and Liberty. The quote in Danbom (p. 37) is interesting, because it points to a contested nature of suburbs.
“It is not the growth of the cities we want to check, but the needless want and misery in the cities, and this can be done by restoring the natural condition of living, and among other things, by showing that it is easier to live in comfort on the outskirts of the city as producers, than in the slums as paupers.”
Reminds me of growing up on much less than an acre in Attleboro, but eating fresh vegetables all summer and frozen garden produce and pickles during the winter. The suburbs were certainly different for my parents than the sterile wastelands many environmental historians make them out to be. And even where they are, maybe they didn’t have to be...
Rural Primary Sources
11/27/09 13:12
Small Community Economics, 1943
11/25/09 18:18
(Arthur E. Morgan 1878-1975, born in Cincinnati, grew up in St. Cloud, MN. Engineer, Unitarian, President of Antioch College. 1st head of TVA in 1933, removed in 1938 for criticizing TVA’s direction. Utopian. Wrote bio of Edward Bellamy. Founded Community Service, Inc. in 1940.)
Morgan begins with foreword titled “What Is Rural Life?” He says that according to the USDA, there are “about 22,000,000 persons living on American farms.” (5) This is about 17 percent of the 1943 population, and Morgan goes on to say that the “better half of the farms” produce “90 per cent of all marketed farm produce.” If those farms would “increase their production by only 10 per cent, which seems entirely feasible, the rest could go out of business without reducing the total of American agricultural produce.”
Morgan disagrees with sociologists like T. Lynn Smith (President of the Rural Sociological Society and author of The Sociology of Rural Life) who claim “farmer and countryman are almost synonymous terms.” (6) “Even in agricultural communities,” Morgan says, “the population of towns which directly serve surrounding farm areas is from a quarter to a half as great...Most of these village residents also are rural people. Then there are fishing towns, mining towns, railroad towns, summer resort towns, quarry towns, lumbering towns, hydro-electric power plant communities, textile mill towns, and oil well towns, all with their non-farm, rural populations. At the present moment probably about half of the rural population of America is non-farm population.”
In view of this “strikingly new picture of rural life,” Morgan calls for a balanced approach to rural community planning. The “dominant economic activity” should not be the area’s only economic activity, he says. (8) Rather, “Variety and range of economic activity” are keys to developing communities that can satisfy “the normal range of human needs.” (9) Although a “rural community is wise to produce a major part of its own food supply,” Morgan believes “producing crops for the general public seldom is profitable to the amateur.” (10) He concludes that “few American communities are more than fifty per cent self-sufficient by local production,” and urges rural communities to think about what they can produce for the outside market.
While parts of Morgan’s booklet seem to betray a slightly “New Deal” technocratic orientation, his suggestions generally make sense. And they’re directed at rural people, not at bureaucrats -- possibly a result of Morgan’s falling-out with TVA and its techno-bureaucracy. The guy makes sense, and he’s probably worth looking into a little more deeply, when I get around to writing about rural reformers and radicals.
[cross-posted to danallosso.com]
