What Is The Rural Worth?
What Is The Rural Worth?
Our farmers feel increasingly misunderstood, economically squeezed, and politically powerless. All this affects their ability to be Good Farmers.
The brewing crisis of agricultural depopulation is a subject I have written about before. But its importance is such that it deserves to be considered again. And again. The figures from the last twenty years are stark: year upon year, the numbers of farmers, farm workers, traditional craftsmen, and rural youth, continue to decline in the West1, whilst across Africa and Asia, huge waves of rural-to-urban migration appear to be relentless2. With each agricultural worker who departs, opportunity, potential, and life drain away from our rural lands. All drains must end somewhere. These drains terminate in our large towns and cities, which although grateful for the glut of extra, cheap labour and young talent, have to expand to accommodate the influx. This expansion takes form as the dreaded ‘urban sprawl’ which, slowly but surely, concretes over the countryside’s final defence: the greenbelt. A stark and visual reminder of the urban’s literal domination over the rural.
The centripetal force of attraction that the urban exerts on the rural grows ever stronger as the urban conglomerations’ size and population swells. In physics, the greater the mass of an object, the stronger the gravitational pull. Likewise, the larger and more influential the city, the stronger the political, social, and economic pull exerted on those who remain in our rural hinterlands. Against such monumental forces, do those from the agricultural class who seek to remain in their place stand a chance? The odds and the laws of “population physics”, are stacked against them.
The rural brain drain leaves behind a critical void. I have argued elsewhere that good farming is a highly skilful occupation and the close proximity of the good farmer to his or her soil is essential for proper care and good work. Thus, with fewer hands directly managing and stewarding the land, the quality and quantity of skilled farm work inevitably decreases. And the land suffers.
There is another consequence resulting from fewer farmers inhabiting in the countryside, which is equally as serious. As the agricultural class becomes ever smaller, its collective voice becomes ever quieter in the raucous cacophony of the modern political arena. As Wendell Berry, Chief Advocate of the rural, bluntly states: the agricultural class “have become statistically insignificant” to our politicians3. The “farm vote” no longer keeps politicians up at night and agricultural or rural concerns rarely enter the debating chambers of our higher echelons of power. Rural underinvestment and neglect inevitably ensue. And the land suffers.
This isn’t to suggest that farmers have no political power. The recent wave of farmer protests that have startled politicians across Europe demonstrate that farmers can effect change and defend their interests when they mobilise. But the truth still stands that in the daily affairs of great halls of power, rural issues remain at the bottom of the inbox, rural emergencies receive relatively scant attention, and rural investment is only begrudgingly granted. Though at times they can make their voices loudly heard, the collective voting power of farmers, craftsmen, and fishermen is too small for politicians to be overly worried about “tactical block voting”. Thus, efforts to win over these ‘insignificant voters’ rarely reach the despatch box. This doesn’t stop shrewd political leaders feigning support: “We are immensely proud of our farmers” they loudly proclaim on carefully crafted social media posts, whilst concurrently signing a trade deal which exposes these same farmers to brutal and insurmountable competition4, or enacting a new agricultural policy that consulted next-to-no farmers. And the land still suffers.
In one sense this lack of concern from politicians is understandable. When your collective vote is insignificant, the pragmatic politician who wants to keep their seat will focus their efforts, funding, and support elsewhere — where the numbers are. And when the most news worthy story that happened in your neighbourhood this week was the successful birth of twin calves to the old cow, how can your local place expect to compete with the big cities where million pound deals are struck daily, where world leaders meet to discuss “world leading problems”, and where the politicians’ “shouting-match stadiums”, or halls of power, can be found? In short, you can’t.
But big numbers and important deals are not the sum total of all that matters — and a wise politician, who has the interests of the whole country and future generations at heart (and not merely party politics), will realise this. They will always have a watchful eye on the goings on in the rural hinterlands, for they are well aware that what happens in these long-forgotten lands has at least two significant ramifications — that affect us all.
Firstly, agriculture fundamentally underpins our economies. The farmers at the recent protests have been chanting “No farmers, no food!” and they are right. Even in a globalised world, a significant proportion of the food we consume still comes from domestic farms. Problems on these farms (such as labour shortages, fuel price rises, crop and livestock diseases, and rural infrastructure deterioration) disproportionately affect the price and the quality of the food we as a society depend most upon. And if the problems are chronic enough, the dreaded spectre of food price inflation (a politician’s worst nightmare) is likely to result. The last few years have shown us all how painful this can be to our pockets.
Secondly, when we total up the sum of land the farmers across our nations manage, it becomes plain that the foremost responsibility for the stewardship of our natural and semi-natural lands falls upon their shoulders. The collective land area they manage is huge: millions upon millions of acres. The health of our countryside and the many public goods it provides (clean water, pollination, flood mitigation, and more) thus depends on farmers doing their job well. The ongoing biodiversity catastrophe (for when some farmland birds are declining by up to 96%5, it must be called such) is one prominent example of what can happen when farmers are stretched too thin through financial pressure and global competition, and are forced to resort to rampant and rapid intensification and agrochemical reliance.6
A wise politician would therefore realise that so much good: ecological, nutritional, cultural, financial, and social good depends on healthy farms, healthy rural communities, and crucially, healthy and empowered farmers. But few of our politicians are wise. And fewer still like to get their hands dirty in the soil and complexity of our rural lands. In the United Kingdom, the job of Environment Secretary (which includes overseeing agricultural policy) is one that a minister is perhaps reshuffled to as a bit of a political punishment. One moment they are in charge of the national health service, the next they demoted to be in charge of farms and the environment. Expertise is not required. Neither is ever having milked a cow, harvested a field, or even ever having set foot on a farm7. Truly understanding our rural areas involves getting your hands dirty and spending your days, come rain or shine, out in the countryside talking and listening to farmers — including those in areas far off the glamorous tourist trail. Inevitably, this requires leaving the hustle and bustle of the city, with all its power and excitement, for prolonged periods of time. Which upwards aspiring politician wants to do this?
Not many.
Forgotten by Westminster or Washington D.C. alike, it is understandable that many farmers feel neglected and perennially misunderstood. This is especially so for those farmers euphemistically deemed “marginal”. Politicians never expect farmers in these areas to reach that golden standard of “productive”. Instead, they expect that these farmers — beaten and bruised from being exposed to the ravages of the free market — will need constant life support through subsidies if they are to survive. The feeling of being “left-behind”, and the constant awareness that your culture and everything you cherish, let alone your very economic existence, is on a perennial knife edge is the daily experience of our marginal farmers — and increasingly our non-marginal farmers too. These feelings are not delusional. They are true.
Few are those who enjoy devoting time and money to the constantly needy and dependent, and most of our politicians cannot be numbered among these virtuous few. Neither can the majority of our so-called progressive elite who claim to be all ears for the “marginalised”. That is, the marginalised that they like, understand, and who tend to vote the way they do. The “Other” marginalised lot, the “angry, white, rural class”8 (as they are euphemistically labelled), should move along with the times and should be thankful for the support they get from the productive (read urban) areas taxes. What’s more, if they don’t like their hard rural life — well they should consider moving to where productivity happens.9 Upland sheep farmers are classic a case in point. They have “sheepwrecked” the fells and valleys; their nostalgic way of life is financially non-viable; and it all should have died out ages ago. So says the columns emanating from the urban offices of our progressive newspapers.
It seems unlikely that those who pontificate in such manner have really endeavoured to understand the concerns and difficulties these rural inhabitants (especially the agricultural class), face. Indeed, some of our politicians and urban elite remain in what seems to be decided ignorance of the rural populations’ trials, concerns, and desires (which sounds a lot like gross negligence). Instead, they berate these marginalised folk for voting the way they do and for not moving along with the times (such as by accepting the wonders of the technological revolution). Such an attitude displays the same level of bias, prejudice, and at times hatred that the urbanites charge the “white, rural voters” with. Ignorance and slander thus prevail. And the land still suffers.
No wonder rural voters are flocking to those who are claiming to listen and be on their side, even if that means holding their noses to obvious (and sometimes dangerous) moral issues. The temptation to do so is acute when you are financially desperate and fed up of trying to get your voice and concerns heard. Thus, when I see people saying that “the voters for hard-right or populist parties10 are stupid” I get angry. The reason these “enlightened” people “cannot fathom why anyone would vote for such abhorrent politicians” is because they have never been anywhere near these voters’ shoes let alone in them. A long, hard, and reflective look both at their own attitude and the life situation of the rural is what is required if positive, constructive change and dialogue is to begin.
It needs to be said, though, that there is a significant danger for these rural voters who are turning to hard-right parties as their potential saviours. Once they have power, will these politicians stay true to the rural concerns they so vocally advocated for in their campaigns? Will they really endeavour to deeply understand and resolve the complex and systemic rural issues that they face? Or will they dispense with their rural voter base when they see fit and chase after the “real” power and money? My fear is the rural folk, especially those belonging to the agricultural class, are being used as pawns in some cruel game of political chess by shrewd politicians and will find that their so called “saviours” are in the long run, anything but. Like I said, few people want to devote their time to dependent and financially needy people with complex problems, and the hard-right are not known for being counted among them.
Even if the attention of the hard-right does remain on their rural voter base, it is likely that the “care” and support doled out from them will prove to be improper and even harmful. The merger bones they throw out of Jeep to keep their supporter base happy often reek of the stench of short-termism. Rolling back environmental protections for over-burdened farmers may sound benevolent (and may be what some farmers desire) but the overall health of the land suffers greatly as a result. Rather than making the costly but necessary decision to support and encourage farmers to become sustainable both environmentally and financially (such as through Payments for Ecosystem Services or land management grants/schemes), these politicians encourage rapid agricultural intensification to lighten the load on farmers and give them some quick wins. This does indeed yield short term profits, but also leads to long-term and serious costs to the land, its wildlife, and future generations. Such actions that destroy the countryside and erode our common heritage are deeply unconservative in the classical sense. But “Oh well, it keeps the rural folk happy” goes the thought.
And the land still suffers.
If we want our land to heal, if we want it to be productive for the long term, and if we desire for it to provide a convivial home for the whole suite of creation: farmers, local communities, and wildlife, then it is likely we will have to look elsewhere than our great halls of power, shrewd populists, or the urban elite for the necessary action. In short, we will have to look to ourselves and our local communities. For our rural land and its people to heal and prosper, we will need to take a good and hard look at ourselves and what we can do. It is an issue that should concern us all: left and right, progressive or conservative. But it can be hard to know where to begin and what actually might do good rather than greater harm. Borrowing from the rich wisdom of other rural thinkers and advocates here are a few suggestions:
Advocate for rural areas and their people to be given some power. This can be done through normative localism and decentralisation: the setting up of farmers associations and rural committees. These groups can be tasked with fixing some of the issues they face, creating rules and institutions designed and overseen by farmers, and managing sufficient funds provided for these purposes.
Be thankful to our good farmers and support them. This includes buying from them directly, advocating for them in the political arena, and protesting against predatory supermarkets moving into rural communities and against their unfair purchasing power advantage over farmers.
For some of us, addressing rural depopulation will mean that we decide to move into (or back to) rural areas. Not as an “incomer” with all the solutions, but as someone who humbly wants to integrate into the life of the community that is already present and seek to revive the good, the beautiful, and the unique that is already present. And some of us will need to take up farming or working on farms.
We need to develop deep interests and expertise on rural areas that surround us, for what we know and cherish, we will come to love and want to protect. This will involve learning from the masters themselves — the good farmers up and down our country. They are fascinating people, steeped in history, folk wisdom, and naturalist skills. And they do know best about what their local places needs. The cumulative knowledge passed down through the generations concerning the land they live in needs to be heeded and practiced. Perhaps we can be a part of doing so.
These steps are hard, perhaps very hard. They require significant things from us: our money, time, and energy. But most of the good things in life are hard to achieve, protect, and improve. And it is through the neglect of the hard things that the land still suffers. So, consider committing henceforth to costly involvement with our farmers and their needs, and consider committing to conserving and protecting the good that is found in our rural lands. It will be hard, and perhaps painful, but future generations will look back with gratitude on those who have advocated for, and worked in, our rural lands for their betterment.
And the land will be thankful.
Further reading
See https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CPREZUncertainZHarvest.pdf and https://www.statista.com/statistics/196103/number-of-farms-in-the-us-since-2000/ Though, thankfully, the last 2-3 years in the UK seem to show a slowing/plateauing of the decline in farms/farmers.
Though the large increases in population due to high fertility rates across Africa are keeping the rural population high despite rural-urban migration.
Wendell Berry, Conserving Communities.
E.g. the Turtle Dove in the UK.
Though it must be said, many farmers have, sadly, willingly embraced such technologies, much to their land’s long-term detriment and the erasure of traditional heritage.
Though thankfully, Farming ministers (ranked below the environment secretary) do traditionally have a background in farming.
See Wendell Berry’s excellent rejoinder to Paul Krugman, which was the inspiration and source of many points of the argument in this paragraph https://barnraisingmedia.com/wendell-berry-what-paul-krugman-gets-wrong-about-rural-america/
I would include in this the AFD in Germany, the Reform party in the UK, and the MAGA Wing of the Republicans in the USA. I would class my own political views as small “c” conservative and post-liberal.
It’s a real toughie Hadden!
As a small family farmer in the South West of England I sometimes see the contracting out of land-work as a “cop out” of actually working on your own farm at a scale which is sensitive - It is rare now to see farms where they decide on a system for their land which can be run simply and efficiently with appropriately paid family labour and suitably sized machinery in a lower input - medium output system.
It seems to be a mixture of abstaining from responsibility by abjugating the self from the land & on the other hand being lured/pushed into the industrial machine like and lead model of farming by accountant perceived or actual financial necessity in their present model of farming.
A bit like citizenship that has to be attained to live in a country there is a sense that those young contracting tractor drivers have too little knowledge of what the machines they are ‘harnessed’ to are doing to the land, earth, soils, hedges / unique share of the ecosystem that they are working above & bizarrely against! They are the unknowing humans which/who are pressed into action by militaristic style management at a complete remove from the individual acres.
The siren call of time efficiency to do a narrowly parametered job means all else is thrown into the furnace.
I agree with Wendell Berry and yourself about some serious decentralisation. We have the individual units of our democracy which are to be voted over on the 2nd of May in the form of Wards which can help shift the direction of travel in small ways which can sometimes be the best ways.
Thanks Hadden for your well researched and thought out pieces.
"All drains must end somewhere. These drains terminate in our large towns and cities"
I believe that wholeheartedly. I prefer the rural life. I believe it builds better people. I have always considered city life to be shitty life. The largest city I have lived in was Toledo, Ohio, truly a cesspool. The first generation of rural people who migrate to cities is mostly composed of decent, hard-working people, in contrast to those who have lived in cities for multiple generations. Of course, real populations are always composed of an assortment of people including the worst and the best, and everything in between. And, even within good families are often found as "black sheep."
But it seems like the worst are more fecund on a scale going downwards as the caliber ascends. And, that seems true of rural folks as well as city folk. But, crammed into cities, people tend to descend in caliber. Why that is, or even if it is, I have no clue. I just know that it seems that way to me. The split between U.S. urban and rural is eighty percent and twenty percent. I could not find the data on the split in prison population but my guess is that the percentage of prisoners by whether they were from urban or rural origins would be more like ninety-five and five. If anyone has those numbers I would like to know.