In his introduction to
The New Agrarianism: Land, Culture and the Community of Life, Eric
Freyfogle summarizes what he considers the ethos of the New Agrarian movement,
which, although many don’t call it that, is gaining popularity inside and
outside of the U.S., as droves of people are moving back to the land, choosing
agricultural subsistence farming, over a life lived as an office drone. In his
effort to find a common narrative however, Freyfogle’s text, which is far more
normative than it is descriptive, glosses over difference in favour of a more undividuated
philosophy that values traditional knowledge, family, community, (ecosystem)
health, and independence from market forces. Essentially, Freyfogle conceives
of New Agrarianism as a reactionary movement, one that turns away from the
profit-hungry, short-term thinking of industrial capitalism, in favour of a
more sustainable, albeit more austere existence. Although New Agrarianists
argue for more interdependence on a community level, what they seem to cherish
much more is independence from government and legal bodies – in whom they have
lost all trust. New Agrarianism’s concept of community is thus framed in
opposition to an ‘outside’ that is corrupt, immoral, or just beyond redemption.
The movement, as described by Freyfogle, can therefore be argued to lack a
global, intersectional perspective.
New Agrarians are luddites,
and their lifestyle can be perceived of as backwards. Ecofeminist criticism has
called out New Agrarianism’s sexist historical roots, its heteronormativity,
and its lack of sensitivity with regard to race and class issues. One brave
attempt to dispel ecofeminists’ concerns comes from William Major. In his call for
reconciliation between the two philosophies, he focuses especially on the cult
of domesticity that New Agrarianism is presumed to cultivate, arguing that “A
novel understanding of home and domesticity is necessary if we are to bring
these two worldviews together” (150). Major points to a common project between feminism
and New Agrarianism, namely breaking down the walls between the private and the
public spheres, both of which are political spaces, and, crucially, economic
spaces. For New Agrarianism the home is
understood not just to be a centre of consumption, but a centre of production
as well, which makes man and wife (here’s the heteronormativity) business
partners as well as spouses. Major writes that
“[this] different kind of domesticity deserves a second look if only for the
fact that its alternative, global industrial market economics and a widely
accepted abuse of the land—which in the short run has provided so much to
liberate women from the fetters of a repressive domestic division of labor—has
done exceedingly little to foster a more moral, ‘kindly’ world where cooperation
between the sexes and with the earth’s limitations is the governing principle.”
Perhaps the most
interesting juxtaposition, however, exist between Freyfogle’s ‘manifesto’ and an
autoethnography about the permaculturist network in Edmonton (EPN), Alberta, written
by Randolph Haluza-DeLay and Ron Berezen. In this article permaculture is
perceived first and foremost as a practice, not a philosophy. As such, it may
prove far more helpful in the face of clime change, than a philosophy like New
Agrarianism (which is eerily quiet on the topic). Time and labour intensive as
it is, permaculture might not scale up to where it can provide for a growing global
population, but it certainly scales down well enough to speak to individuals
whose lives are still very much implicated in the capitalist market economy (and
thus considered forfeit by by New Agrarianism).
The value of the EPN
is not in its concentration, but its distribution. Unlike a “geographically
concentrated lifeworld,” like a New Agrarian homestead or an ecovillage,
practitioners of permaculture, from novices to experts, don’t tend to “lose
their bridges to nonmembers” (139). Practices which haven’t solidified into
full-flown philosophies remain much more flexible and approachable, and in a
climate-changed world, this flexibility is precisely what we need because
transition demands compromise. Moreover, New Agrarian’s emphasis on ‘appropriate’
land-use often involves a return to native flora, or heritage breeds, but such
a holding on to the past neglects to face the irrevocable change wrought in
this world by climate-change. Some ecosystems are dying, and the only way to
save them is to resort to innovative but arguably alien (as in foreign, or non-native)
new practices – such as the ones developed by syntropic farmers. Permaculture,
as a practice, embraces such experimentation, because it isn’t bogged down with
ideology. It asks what we can do here, and now, never mind how humble, to
better the world.
Laura op de Beke
Laura op de Beke
Works Cited
Freyfogle, Eric. “A
Durable Scale” in The New Agrarianism: Land, Culture and the Community of Life.
Island Press, 2012 (ebook).
Haluza-DeLay, Randolph,
and Ron Berezan. “Permaculture in the City: Ecological Habitus and the
Distributed Ecovillage” in Environmental Anthropology: Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism,
Permaculture, and Ecovillages. Eds. Joshua Lockyer and James R. Veteto. Berghahn,
2013.
Major, William H. “Reconciliation:
New Agrarianism and Ecofeminism” in Grounded vision: New Agrarianism and the
Academy. University Alabama Press 2011.
More about syntropic farming: https://agendagotsch.com/en/what-is-syntropic-farming/
