Making a Living, Making a Life

By Aubrey Streit Krug

As I intern at the Center for Rural Affairs, I’m learning about how the agricultural economy we have now is not inevitable. It can be changed.

Our ag economy is human-made. It’s been shaped by incentivizing and spurred by subsidies. It’s a sticky global system that often entangles the small and leaves loopholes for the large. It’s a way only a few people can make a living. For people in rural places--and for me, as a person with roots and family in a rural place--it’s at the root of dramatic conflicts.

Take these two scenarios:

  1. A rancher has been renting the same pasture for decades when her landlord dies, and the property goes to auction. She is outbid by a local incorporated operation, a pair of siblings. Afterwards the siblings explain to her that the land was simply too good an investment opportunity to pass up. The rancher tries to understand, because to hold a grudge would damage long-standing relationships in this small community.
     
  2. A landlord has two tenant farmers. One gets high yields off his land, and the other gets low. The landlord concludes that the low-yield farmer is lazy or is trying to cheat him. To make up the money, he decides to raise the price of renting his land. And, to be fair, the landlord raises the rates for both of his tenants. The high-yield farmer doesn’t protest this, because he doesn’t want his landlord to decide to rent to someone else.

In these stories, the rancher and the farmer both choose to keep silent about any outrage they might feel. They justify their choices with the reason that they don’t want to incite conflict.

One way to read their justifications is in cultural terms. The farmer and the rancher have been taught that the right action--for them and for their community--is to preserve the relationship. Their choices show that they believe it's best to stay on good terms with your new neighbors and your old landlord, even if you disagree with their actions.

Another way to read their justifications is in economic terms. The farmer and the rancher are still farming and ranching because they know how to navigate the business of acting in their own self-interest. Preserving relationships is a strategy that enables them to protect the opportunity to do future business with the siblings and the landlord.

Do the rancher and the farmer make the right choices? I don’t know.

What I do know is that though we might like to separate ranchers and farmers into categories like the “entrepreneur” (who cares about money, the economy) and the “yeoman” (who cares about traditions, the culture), these scenarios show that it’s more complicated than that. Culture and economy are cut from the same cloth. They’re different ways of looking at and talking about the same thing: the survival of a human community.

As Wendell Berry's work teaches us, an agricultural economy is both how we make a living and how we make a life. It's an agriculture, after all.

Our current system doesn’t have room or need for good neighbors or tenants. But by being those things--and by challenging the human-made policies that have written dramatic conflicts and injustices into the system--we can change it.

We have the power to make a better agricultural economy, one in which more than a few people can make a living and make a life in rural places.

<!--Session data-->
 

Comments

the entrepreneur and the yeoman

Thanks for this very fine and thought-provoking article. A book I believe you'd find fascinating and helpful for thinking about this subject is Jane Jacobs's Systems of Survival. She argues (or rather her characters do, since it's written as a dialogue) that what you call "culture and economy" are NOT cut from the same cloth. In fact, she writes, they are two distinct "moral syndromes" -- the guardian and the trader -- that humans have devised for survival. Both are needed, yet they necessarily have different very norms. When they become criss-crossed, as many would say has occurred in U.S. agriculture, then what results are "monstrous hybrids."

entitled tenants

Wait a minute, the land owner owns the land, not the tenant. Of course a successful lease depends on mutual respect and regard by both the tenant and the landlord. In fact, I just gave up a lease because the landlord was a whiner. But why should the tenants in this example feel any "outrage", unless they have done somehting to make the landlord owe then a favor? When they sell their crops, do they take a lower price because it might help some poor person? If someone wants to hobby farm, or make violins, or write poetry, they'd better have the means to do so, because the enterprise is unlikely to pay for itself. Plenty of people realize this, and make lifestyle adjustments, or seek grants, so they can carry out their dreams. Our world is a better place for that. But they generally don't go around demanding stuff from other people, and feeling outraged when they don't get it.

Intern Needs To Learn - not just CRA Biases!

Philip is correct. The land has an owner which usually is a family also. Many heirs need to sell and the market should be free to give them the highest price possible. Who knows the proceeds might be to support a sick child or relative. CRA has placed biases in Ms. Larsen's piece. i.e. The farm was purchased by an "incorporated operation". Corporations, LLC's, Partnerships are just ways to structure an investment that is good for that family's or individual's operation. There is nothing evil about this fact. Who knows maybe this is two brothers that have saved all of their lives for the chance to purchase a pasture near their operation. They are smart enough to pool their resources and share the cost and do it in a corporation that will live beyond their lives and maybe give the ability to transfer to their kids without being forced to sell their properties when they die. Farming is the business selected by many people whether large or small, it is also a lifestyle that is enjoyed by the participants. Just like a family restaurant that gets passed down because everyone likes the one on one people nature of that business. That doesn't mean that one neighbor has to sacrifice his family goals so one tenant can rent the property or buy the property at a discount. Ms. Larsen now needs to go find a internship that gives her a more understanding view of how rural entrepreneurism works. There are many examples in her article of biases and a total misunderstanding of the real issues of rural life.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters (without spaces) shown in the image.