The New Agrarianism was not a quick read for me. It consists of many essays, many of them which we lead me to ponder, and question what their true meaning is—you just stop, and put down the book, thinking of one idea or another, maybe do a little bit of writing, reflecting, or looking up a certain concept in another book. This book is a composite of many short essays, so it is not totally consistent, but that allows for a variety of perspectives on what it means to farm, and what rural life can bring to bigger society.

Agriculture is an interesting word and concept. Fundamentally, it's latin roots are agri- (field) and culture (to cultivate or improve). That sounds pretty boring, as it solely describes the 'rational' or 'instrumental' purpose of agriculture, namely of 'improving' nature to produce food for the masses. If farms were about solely instrumentalism or this book was about the mechanics of the farm, it would not be a particularly interesting book for me to read—I'm a political scientist and not an agricultural expert.

The book suggests that the new agrarianism is more of a set of values then a clear set of actions. It attempts to bridge environmentalism and the reuse of products to all aspects of life. It thinks 'future', instead of our 'disposable' and 'toxic' society which thinks 'today' and 'disposal of wastes'. It criticizes modern urban society in the most fundamental ways, it shows how we are building destructive cities, and are using toxic products that are ultimately killing ourselves. It sees the farm for what it really is: an institution, a generator of folk 'culture' in the other sense of the word (to cultivate one's mind, body, and actions).

This book serves as repository of many different perspectives, although certainly it is biased towards 'radical' back-to-earthers, and other people on the left. Still, at times these articles are critical of even those perspectives for being limited, unfair, or unrealistic. I'd go as far to say about 80% of them are really interesting, although some of them are dry or obvious liberal silliness.

Beyond Agriculture and
a Fundamental Critique of Late Capitalism

Some of the essays most certainly goes beyond the question of agriculture: many are rather radical critiques of modernity and environmentalism. Many see our previous attempts at environmentalism to be weak and insignificant in comparison to the complex and difficult problems that a late capitalist society that we live under, and try to push under the rug.

One essay notes our feverish presence of housing development and upgrading, all the significant solid waste that has created—and that we ultimately build disposable housing for the most part today, and not houses designed to last nearly for ever. It notes that most of our society is centered around a unsustainable consumption society, of materials that must be mined and then landfilled. Recycling and reuse are at best an after thought, and are many cases is non-existence.

Another looks at the changing West of the United States: from frontier to a seemingly alien battleground of Exxon v. Sierra Club. It laments our desire to exploit in one form or another, and to create a series of values are totally foreign to the people and the cultures of the area. At the same time, that essay also critiques and looks at 'rationalized' farming—the form taught at many of our land-grant colleges. These colleges expose the idea of maximizing the exploitation of land, to maximize profit, but sometimes without fully questioning the long term impact on the land or their culture.

Particularly, the cultural aspect is questioned in the article, and why farmers are giving up their land and their life. The author's response is simple: farms have become too mechanicized and too much attached to their instrumental purpose of food production, and their more fundamental meaning of existence has disappeared. So all that is left is work.

What's Missing in these Essays
or Just Plain Wrong...

What I don't like about the book, is that many of the authors are rather presumptionist liberals, who seem to believe that their way is right, and none other is. This book tends to use terms like 'corporate farming' versus 'family farming', but at the same time leaves one wondering what they truly mean. When does a 'family farm' become a 'corporate farm'? Many family farms are now incorporated, at least legally. Some family farms, likewise are pretty big operations. I guess the difference is the issue of mega-farms, where the majority of people working on the farm are not family but are hired hands. But, even that definition is questionable—there are some smaller family farms that are obviously poorly ran and detrimental to the environment, or at least seem that way to unknowledgable passers by, like myself.

The book being written by radical/liberal agrarians, obviously is not going to consider the motor sports or sportmans reasons for the farm and rural lifestyle. Yet, seemingly the book alludes to these things, and they are inextricably linked to such a life. Many environmentalists are opposed to these things are they supposedly damage the environment or hurt animals, although both things are fallacies when done right.

Another issue not addressed is what is a farm and what is agriculture? How is it different from a rural resident with a lot of land and a garden? How is 'family farm' production different then commercial production? I have my own answers to that question, but a book on agrarianism ought to come out and clearly answer such questions without I having to decide on my own what it truly means.

Conclusions

However, despite my dislike for some of the essay's conclusions, I believe it's critique is right of society, but it's solutions are not reasonable in contrast to issues of modern society. We as a society can't undo industrialization, although we can harness it to better as a society. We ought not to repudiate technology, but to embrace it, to make out lives better. It's not going to be easy to change things, although certainly many of the benefits of growing your own (health, sovereignty, and the alike) are always an issue.

In the end it is a good book, and worth your consideration and reading. Some essays will only be worth a quick skim and little thought, and others are deserving of a closer inspection and re-reading of their content.