On My Mind: The Pastoral Tradition and Its Problems
I am constantly amazed by the staying power of the pastoral tradition that imagines the country as a place where carefree shepherds tend their flocks in an idyllic landscape. The Romans, particularly Virgil and Horace, picked it up from the Greeks. In the Renaissance the idea of a simple, virtuous country life as opposed to the wiles and worries of cities and courts came roaring back. Much of the English poetic tradition and European painting celebrates the same theme. So do Thomas Jefferson, the Romantics, William Morris, the early twentieth-century conservative environmental movement, modern Greens and (in many ways) Wendell Berry.
The pastoral tradition has created some lovely poetry, glorious English landscapes, stunning American national parks. It’s easy to understand the appeal of this imagined alternative to gritty urban life.
I find, though, that the tradition, which Adam Nicolson called the “elite dream of happiness”* is a rampart that divides city from country and makes urban understanding of country life impossible. The landscaped park, the “temple of Yosemite” as John Muir called it, are created by fencing, policed enclaves, where the figure of the farmer despoils the Arcadian dream. The pastoral tradition underpins the popular yearning for small, local, farms that turn their backs on modern agronomy and support neither those who work them nor any significant number of eaters.
As I scroll through my feed on Twitter and Facebook and pull books from library shelves, I’m putting together pieces that I find helpful in trying to move beyond the pastoral tradition. Here are a few of the recent cullings.
- The pastoral tradition is not just an academic issue for me. My family farmed on the estate of the Earl of Pembroke where in the 16th century Sir Philip Sydney wrote his romance, Arcadia. Adam Nicholson in Earls of Paradise: England and the Dream of Perfection (Harper, 2008) brilliantly explores the contradictions between the Arcadian vision of these valleys and the power wielded by then and even now by the Pembrokes.
- The pastoral vision shaped landscape painting even in the difficult conditions of early colonial Australia, nicely described with some wry comments by Jacqui Newling and Scott Hill, the Cook and the Curator at Sydney Living Museums.
J. S. Prout. Harbourside scene with cattle and cowherd. Caroline Simpson Collection. Sydney Living Museums
- In the pastoral vision, shepherds were preferable to farmers, but neither were credited with intellectual interests. In eighteenth century England, farming, like many other traditional activities, was thought ripe for an overhaul by those with book learning. The thought that farmers who at that time in England managed large and prosperous farms might welcome theoretical as well as practical knowledge seems not to have been considered.
“In his 1756 agricultural treatise, the Scottish physician Francis Home argued that the
theoretical principles of agriculture must be derived from experiments in chemistry, not
the practise of farming: ‘[s]omething beyond this art is necessary to the knowledge of
the art itself’. Hence Home divided the agricultural theorist from the practitioner. This
mapped onto the social hierarchy, as Home argued that practising farmers – ‘those
whose minds have never been improved by science, taught to make observations, or
draw conclusions, in order to attain the truth’ – could make no experimental or
theoretical advance.” An interesting article published this year by James Fisher.
In early twentieth century America, many worried that the migration of young men and women from farms to cities was depriving the country of healthy, upright citizens and leading to physical and moral degeneration, criminality et al. The answer to this was to set up youth groups, in this case the 4-H, the rural youth development program whose motto–“I pledge my HEAD to clearer thinking, my HEART to greater loyalty, my HANDS to larger service, and my HEALTH to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world”–gives the organization its name. Bingo. I had long wondered how to connect the very different worlds of English and American farming and here was one way in. 4-H sprang from the same intellectual and cultural moment that gave rise to Baden Powell’s Boy Scouts in England and other European youth movements. Gabriel Rosenberg’s The 4-H Harvest: Sexuality and the State in Rural America (2015) is an absorbing read (if sometimes a tad condescending to his subjects).
- American farmers tend to bristle when they are described as having factory farms. Marc Brazeau, of Food and Farm Discussion Lab, explains why they should be trumpeting the fact that they run large scale, automated, modern operations . I couldn’t agree more.
- I’m learning a lot about ways in which people who are serious about modern agriculture find work that offers them a living from AgGrad “an online community that offers free resources to anyone interested in pursuing careers in the agriculture industry. This includes jobs in grain & feed, AgTech, agribusiness, horticulture, farm & ranch management, animal health, engineering, equipment, food, poultry, beef, pork, agronomy, and more!” A mutual friend introduced me to Tim Hammerich since we both live in Austin, Texas and I’ve been delighted to be a guest on his Future of Agriculture podcast.
- The Culinary Newsletter’s Golden Age 1980-2000
- What are regional cuisines? Reflections on Hawaii and other places
Did shepherds and farmers romanticize the good old days of hunting and gathering?
To read a lot of current authors, yes. Somehow I doubt it. Life’s a bitch, choices are hard, it’s all tradeoffs. No I am not bitter or angry. I love life. But it’s never perfect.
… thanks Rachel, I largely agree and accept that feeding the world currently requires ‘factory’ farming to reduce the impacts of famine on a global population of 7 billion. However, I wonder if we’re not borrowing against the future to sustain this market by farming on the basis of a limited (but still scientific) understanding of plant production. The really powerful research around microorganisms and human & ecosystem health suggests a paradigm shift is required in our relationship with the soil that sustains plant production. A good shepherd remains a powerful metaphor for stewardship, sustainability and caring.
The refs below illustrate the challenge ahead, especially in the context of climate change,
de Vrieze, J. (2015). The littlest farmhands. Science, 349(6249), 680 LP-683.
Jacoby, R. et al (2017). The Role of Soil Microorganisms in Plant Mineral Nutrition—Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8(September), 1–19.
Ochoa-Hueso, R. (2017). Global Change and the Soil Microbiome: A Human-Health Perspective. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 71.
Love your work!
How lovely to have you pop up again in the comments, Stephen. I am entirely with you on soil health and happy to have these recent papers from a source that I trust. Let me take a look at them and get back to you.
I am concerned about animal welfare and the use of chemicals in big agriculture.
That’s very understandable. When I lived in Mexico I found that the small farmers, who had very limited resources, treated their animals much worse than larger farmers who could afford better feed, better housing, and better sick care for them. Much the same was true of chemicals. Many small farmers thought the more pesticides and fertilizer the better. So I am not sure either animal welfare or chemical use maps neatly on to the small farmer/big farmer divide.
My experience has been that the reason farmers don’t like to have their operations identified as factory farms is that it suggests a dehumanized operation (just think of the Chipotle ad, where they show food being produced by machines, vs. their food, which is produced on a nice family farm). The vast majority of farms in the U.S. are family farms. In fact, 90 percent of all corn is grown on family farms, and 80 percent of all crops in the U.S. are grown on family farms. Yes, most of them are big farms. They are very often modern farms, as they must be, given their size. Less than 1 percent of the population of the country farms, so farms must be large. (In comparison, in ancient Rome, it took 19 people working in agriculture to feed 1 citizen of the city of Rome, so surviving with so small a percentage of the population farming speaks to the success of modern agriculture.)
So I’d say that what needs to happen is everyone who understands farming needs to make sure everyone understands just what farming today is — that modern does not equal bad, and that big does not equal heartless corporation (never met a farmer, in fact, who didn’t care deeply about farming and thought of work in relation to how many people were being fed, not in terms of income). That’s one of my goals — to let people who have been separated from the reality of farming understand that these are smart, hard-working people who are passionate about what they do (thank goodness) and take advantage of modern inventions so the people who don’t want to farm have the option of staying far from the field.
Yes, I agree that it does suggest dehumanization. I’m not sure I would use that term myself. But I would also stop trumpeting that the farms are family-owned because it all too easily suggests small to those who don’t know who then feel let down when they discover that they are also large and corporate (as they have to be). Like you, I would go with modern, caring, and explain why big, well-capitalized farms can be more caring than tiny operations that are at the mercy of the weather, the market, etc etc. Your books are a great resource.
How about Hunter/Gatherers sitting around their dark, dank cave bemoaning the passing of the days of a raw carrion, roots and berries diet.
Yum.
Brava!
Great read, Rachel, and I also enjoy reading through the comments. Professionally, I work on behalf of Arizona’s ranchers and dairy farmers to connect about beef and ranching in the state. Perceptions are a challenge, as “popular” culture is ok with technology in every aspect of one’s life EXCEPT in growing and raising food (technology as everything from gps-navigated tractors and planting, animal and plant genetics, processing, food safety interventions…). It can become daunting with so many detractors but thank you for the breath of fresh air!
Yes, a great read. When I earned my Master of Agriculture (U of MN–Farm Mgt Econ and Plant and Soil Sci) in 1974, there were 40,000 dairy farms in my home state Wisconsin. I had the pleasure of being an on farm sales person selling dairy feed, fertilizer, and crop protection chemicals–and above all doing “indirect financial analysis”. The vast majority of farms were nuclear family farms milking 40 to 80 cows. It was a pleasant enough though very limited life. Even then, most small farms had one partner working off the farm. Within a few years the trend toward consolidation was evident. Much if not most a transition from single nuclear family husband/wife to extended family–father/son/wives, brother/brother/wives, etc. The advantages of consolidation were several: Time off, time to think, time away to explore other farms–near and far–opportunity to specialize–crops, livestock, financial management. There was also a transition from working hard (physical) to working smart (mental). The improvements in many aspects of “life style” were immense. We now have fewer than 20,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin. Even with the consolidation they are in crisis–but the old 40 cow farm would be economically and environmentally unsustainable. As some other comment writers have pointed out, the world is full of changes. Not all good, not all bad. Most of our farms are now “host” to a legion of immigrant labor. Many treated fairly, many not. But they are adding spice to many of our small towns. Not perfect. But much more interesting than most distant observers would imagine. Thank you for neat blog.