1
Organic Farming
Organic
farming is a booming business. Land under organic cultivation in the
Background
Although
organic farming as a technique has been used since the 1940’s by people such as
Arthur Rodale, founder of the Rodale Institute, it was not until the 1960’s
that organics took on political overtones. The political applications of
organic farming became apparent with the rise of the environmental
counterculture from the turmoil of 1960’s America. Warren Belasco, in Appetite
for Change argues that the foundation of this movement came from the ’new’
science of ecology. Ecology, Belasco argues, was able
to transcend many of the problems that had been occurring within other social
movements of the time, i.e., divisions within the Civil Rights movement between
Blacks and Whites, divisions within the ‘new‘ Left over ideological direction.
With its holistic view of the world, ecology was a very inclusive ideology,
able to incorporate many diverse individuals and groups, i.e., forward thinking
scientists, back to nature adherents, and others. Ecology was also subversive.
On the surface it seemed innocuous, but in reality accepting its tenets meant
radically changing long standing cultural patterns of behavior and at the root,
society itself. The ideology of the
environmental counterculture saw connections everywhere, as evidenced in
this maxim, written by Barry Commoner in his book The Closing Circle, and
quoted in The Whole Earth Catalog;
Everything’s connected
to everything.
Everything’s got to go
somewhere.
There’s no such thing as
a free lunch.
(Nature knows best)
Basic
tenets of the movement included anti-modernity, de-professionalization,
decentralization of food production, processing, distribution (and government)
and personal commitment to a natural way of life. The development of the
environmental counterculture focused among other things, on food growing
practices, espousing a ‘back to nature‘ outlook, emphasizing craft over
convenience and “consumerist self-protection.” The alternatives to dominant agribusiness
the movement proposed were radical. Belasco asserts
that “these efforts were at once realistic and utopian: realistic because they
were determined to do the hard work of coming up with practical alternatives,
utopian because these alternatives frequently posited fundamentally subversive
ways of doing business and constructing society,” i.e., particularly rejection
of the liberal capitalist model (Belasco 68). One of these alternatives was organic
farming, which while sounding quite simple, actually represented a complete
paradigm shift in food production. Post World War II, American farming
practices had been beneficiaries of the ‘Green Revolution’. Prior to the war,
pesticides did not even enter into the public lexicon. The development of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides was seen at the time as a boon to humanity,
increasing the amount of crops that could be grown, in less time and with more
product reaching the market. Throughout the 1950’s, into the 1960’s and beyond,
few questioned the growing use of these methods and the possible consequences
to human and environmental health. In fact, the New York Times notes that, “from the 1950’s to the 1990’s, farming
without chemicals was widely derided in the United States as the province of
hobbyists, the health obsessed and misty eyed urban and suburban refugees
pursuing romantic dreams of rural life.”[4]
This
began to change with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring,
in the early 1960’s. Carson’s work, for the first time brought into question
the methods of agribusiness, its chemical usage, and its seeming disregard for
the new notions espoused by the growing ecology/environmental movement. In what
would become typical procedure, agribusiness and many scientists virulently
attacked both Carson and later, the new environmental movement. Belasco attributes
the virulence of the backlash mounted by the food industry and others against
the counterculture/organic movement in the 1970’s, to ideological conflict.
Every group that felt threatened by the ‘invasion’ of the counterculture and
its ideas about organic farming, had something to say to refute its tenets. The
food industry argued that a ‘chemical was a chemical‘, whether ‘naturally’ (a word soon to be
extremely overused) occurring or added by humans. Professionals in the
nutrition and technology fields of the food industry (and those connected to
it, ‘expert opinions‘) ridiculed the counterculture methods and ideology,
claiming the counterculture/organic farming methods were quackery, and those
who followed the methods were hysterical and anti-intellectual. The American
government, with it’s pro-industry bias, aided and abetted industry in this
defamation of the character of organic farming and nature, through conflicting
public messages, intra-agency turf wars, and general confusion. The mass media
for the most part reinforced[5]
stereotypes of counterculturalists, organic farmers,
vegetarians and others who adhered to the tenets of ecology and the
counterculture as ‘flakes’, ‘nuts’, and ‘quasi-mystic quacks’. The true measure
of the subversive and dangerous (to the establishment) nature of the
counterculture organic farming movement can be seen in the magnitude of force mustered
to crush it.
This counter offensive was not
entirely successful. Organic farming and research continued during the 1970’s
and 1980’s (fostered by the now well known Rodale Institute), in spite of
industry pressures. In fact, many of its more innocuous aspects and terminology
were co-opted by mainstream business. ‘Natural’ in particular ceased to have
any viable meaning, according to Belasco. In a
continuation of the ‘a chemical is a chemical’ theme, almost anything could be
labeled ‘natural‘. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the food industry’s marketing
practices did more to undermine the political aspects of the
counterculture/organic farming than the full scale attacks of the 1970’s had
ever managed to do. Organic farming and products were brought into the
mainstream, particularly with rising concern in the 1990’s about pesticide use
in agribusiness, i.e., among others, the Alar in
apples scare. Organic sales began
attracting food industry giants such as General Mills and Pillsbury
North America, which bought product lines of organic juices and goods.[6] In the
process, many of the political implications of organic farming were sublimated.
However many still remain and provide resistance to further co-optation by
capitalist structures.
Agrarian Political
Change
“The fundamental
difference between industrialism and agrarianism is this: Whereas industrialism
is a way of thought based on monetary capital and technology, agrarianism is a
way of thought based on land . . . Agrarianism is a culture at the same time it
is an economy. Industrialism is an economy before it is a culture”.[7]
We have explored the politically
charged background of organic farming previously. Despite attempts at
co-optation by the mainstream agribusiness establishment, organic farming has
fought (and is fighting) to retain much of its original political motivation.
Some have likened the burgeoning acceptance of organic farming as being similar
to the acceptance of environmentalism. Even as environmentalism is no longer on
the political fringe, organic farming is no longer seen as a counterculture
experiment. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times noted that while, “once a
fringe notion espoused primarily by back-to-nature longhairs in Birkenstocks[8], the
sustainable [organic] movement is entering the agricultural mainstream,
endorsed by big vintners in California, corn growers in Wisconsin and truck
farmers in Maine.” However, this trend has met with growing resistance from
many organic farmers and consumers, many of whom have a deep- seated suspicion
of anything that reeks of big business (which is why many of them were in the
forefront of the recent WTO and IMF protests) and government. Recent attempts
by the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] to formulate regulatory
standards on organic foods and products have been viewed by many organic
growers with mixed feelings. While acknowledging the need for some kind of
standards, many organic advocates worry that too much government interference and standardization will make it easier for
the organic political message to be buried. This could lead to cooptation by
business and organics becoming another branch of ‘agribusiness as usual’. Charles Benbrook, a
prominent proponent of organic farming notes, “There is a fundamental conflict,
because to a lot of people, this is supposed to be the alternative to the
industrial agriculture system. Is this about getting better food grown in an
environmental way to the most people possible, or is it about creating an alternative
food system that is small, local and sensitive to issues like social justice?”[9]
For many of its proponents, organic
farming is a philosophy and lifestyle, an alternative to the dominant
agribusiness, liberal capitalist paradigm. In order to illustrate the
difference between the two, recent advertisements placed in the New York Times
by various organizations call for eight changes to modern agriculture (which
would essentially eradicate it). The most radical of these calls for an end to
corporate farming, minimizing exports, buying and growing locally (this is also
beneficial to the environment, in reducing use of fossil fuels, chemicals and
mechanization), letting nature be the final measure of all decisions, and
nurturing an agrarian mentality (see above). As more than a way to grow food,
organic farming is indeed a radical notion, promoting basic societal changes in
the way nature, humans, the world and the economy are perceived and conceived.
What discourse fits organic farming and its tenets? We will examine this
question in our conclusion.
Discourse Modeling
By using Dryzek’s
discursive model, we can hopefully break down the basic elements of organic
farming and determine which (if any) discourse it belongs to. We will use the four
categories, i.e., basic entities recognized/constructed, assumptions about
natural relationships, agents and their motives and key metaphors. Like the
Survivalists and Green Romantic/Rational, as a basic entity, organic farming
recognizes global limits. However unlike the Survivalists (but like the
Greens), it also recognizes nature, unnatural practices, i.e., present day
agribusiness, and incorporates both romantic and rational ideas, i.e.,
spirituality, social, economic, political structures. Assumptions about natural
relationships include extensive connections between humans and nature,
equality, social justice, and human responsibility to the Earth and nature
(stewardship), again similar to the Green discourses. Agency is vested in humans and nature, with
varying motivations, some considered misguided, i.e., the dominant paradigm.
Key metaphors used are organic and biological, appeals to emotion and
reason (could be confusing). By comparison of these categories, we can place
organic
farming within the
Green discourse, but must note that it shares aspects of both Green romantic
and rational environmental ideologies, i.e., emotion and reason, promotion of both
a personal lifestyle and a social movement. It differs from the other
discourses, i.e., Promethean, Administrative rationalism et al, in that it
proposes a radical change in society unlike the previously mentioned
discourses, which accept the dominant liberal capitalist paradigm. Like Green rationality, organic farming
stresses stewardship of the land and eco-systems. However, unlike Green romantics, organic
farming proponents do have a practical, usable plan to foster a fundamental
change of society and its economic and political structures beginning at the
literal ‘grassroots’ level.
Conclusion
Organic farming has grown
tremendously in the last decade. This has been both a boon and a bane. Organic
farming has benefited by gaining more adherents, more acceptance and greater
legitimacy. However, this ‘mainstreaming’ has also diluted the message of
political, social and economic change that organic farming has tried to promote
and generate. Many of its terms have been co-opted (natural, for one) for use
in non-organic, non-sustainable businesses. However, if the presence of organic
proponents at the forefront of the recent WTO and IMF protests are any
indication, the
political
radicalism of organic farming is still a vibrant aspect of this ‘growing‘[10] movement.
If organic farming can retain its integrity, it will truly be a radical notion
for change.
10
Works Cited
Belasco, Warren J., Appetite for Change: How the
Counterculture Took on the Food Industry, 1966-1988.
Pantheon Books, 1989.
Dryzek, John S., The Politics of the
Earth: Environmental Discourses.
Rodale Institute, The. “Ecological Agriculture.“ The
New York Times, 02/14/200
Rodale, Maria. “Who is Dennis Avery” Organic Gardening
editorial. May/June 2000.
Internet Resources
Block, Betsy. “What you need to know about organic food.”
Burros, Marian. “
Groves, Martha. “Bringing farms back to nature.” The
Kaufman, Marc. “Modified organic foods get new federal
scrutiny.”
------------------ .
“Organic farms growing rapidly, study shows.”
Van Slambrouck, Paul. “Organic
farmers struggle to keep their roots.” Christian Science Monitor.
May 4, 2000. http://www.proquest.umi.com/
[3] The system
of huge commercially owned food mills/producers sometimes called
‘agribusiness,’ i.e., Monsanto, General Mills.
[5] As it
still does today-recent coverage of the dangers of eating sprouts was
attributed to organic growing methods even though bacteria was found in
commercially grown sprouts as well. In addition, in recent attacks by Dennis Avery, a self proclaimed expert, in
the media (the show 20/20 for one) he argued that organic farming is harmful to
humans and the Earth. (Organic Gardening, May/June 2000 editorial)
[7] New York
Times, 02/14/2000, advertisement promoting sustainable agriculture sponsored by
the Turning Point Project, and supported by many leading proponents of organic farming,
i.e., The Rodale Institute, Grassroots International, Mothers and Others for a
Livable Planet, et.al.