GENDERED ELEMENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE PARADIGM Marta B. Chiappe Cornelia Butler Flora
Marta B. Chiappe Department of Social Sciences Facultad de Agronomía, UDELAR. Garzón 780. Montevideo 12900 Tel: (5982) 711 95 73. Fax: (5982) 309 30 04. E-mail:
[email protected]
Cornelia Butler Flora Department of Sociology 317D East Hall. Iowa State University. Ames, IA 50011-1070 Tel: (515) 294 8321. Fax: (515) 294 2303. E-mail:
[email protected]
1 GENDERED ELEMENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE PARADIGM ABSTRACT The alternative agriculture paradigm has been a useful device to both define and direct a social movement toward a more sustainable agriculture. But because male movement leaders defined that paradigm, it reflects their gendered perspective and elements may be lacking that make it more useful for both women and men. In-depth interviews of women involved in sustainable farming organizations and on family farms experimenting with new practices validated the elements of the Beus and Dunlap paradigm: independence, decentralization, community, harmony with nature, diversity, and restraint, but also suggested the addition of two other elements that the women identified as part of an alternative agriculture vision: quality family life and spirituality. The highly gendered nature of agriculture in the US and Canada, where male identity is highly conflated with the role of farmer in the conventional paradigm, may make it more difficult for men who have just joined the movement early on to articulate the aspects of quality family life and spirituality which the women saw as critical.
2 GENDERED ELEMENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE PARADIGM
Perception of, and action toward sustainability in agriculture are highly dependent on the material and cultural context in which actors are situated. There is a growing consensus that sustainability embodies three imperatives: environmental, economic, and social (Holling, et al. 1997: 352). Yet different actors relate differently to these imperatives (Gale and Cordray 1994), based on their social and geographic location. If we are to move toward more sustainable agriculture, it is critical that our models incorporate the way that actors in different locations define and react toward these imperatives. Gender, although it never acts independently of other “locators”, such as race/ethnicity, social class, and geographic location, is an important determinant of location. Ideology, or superstructure1, influences how the imperatives of sustainability are gendered. Because of the female’s unique potential for childbearing, women are often viewed as specially suited for domestic, reproductive activities, such as food preparation, washing and cleaning, health maintenance, and child care. In a number of cultural settings, men’s inability to give birth is offered as evidence that they are innately incapable of such nurturing activity. Men are often vested by law and custom with property rights as well as the control of the labor of household members. Women are sometimes viewed as too weak or too emotional to have such control. Those viewpoints are shared through cultural norms and codified in laws. Material conditions influence gender locations in a variety of ways. Because women seldom have direct access to, or control of, privately held resources, they are more likely than men to be attuned to common resources and their condition (Fortmann 1988; LaStarria-Cornhiel 1995; Shields, et al 1996). Even when women do have legal ownership of land, they are less likely than male owners to
3 make the decisions on how that land is used (Rogers and Vandeman 1993). Women’s responsibilities in the domestic sphere give them a different vantage on sustainability. However, women’s limited access and control over resources – financial, manufactured, human, social and environmental – often limits their ability to put their values into practice. The move toward a more sustainable agriculture involves a paradigm shift. Research has focused on both the material conditions and ideology that accompany that shift (Allen and Bernhardt 1995; Bird, et al. 1995), but there has been little attention to the way that the representation of that paradigm shift has been gendered. We contend that both the material conditions of farm women, particularly where there has been a traditional division of labor within the household, and the ideology present in most farming communities (Gringeri 1993) would lead them to frame sustainability differently than men do, even when they share an overt commitment to moving toward a more sustainable agriculture and world. Following Feldman and Welsh (1995) we argue not only that local knowledge is contested, complex, and heterogeneous, but also that the dimensions of sustainable agriculture are partial and change depending on social location. Alternative/sustainable agriculture discourse, according to Allen and Sachs (1994a; 1994b), still needs to incorporate a feminist perspective. Sachs has found women and men involved in the sustainable agriculture movement aware of the transformative potential of feminist approaches to sustainable agriculture (Sachs, 1996). Kloppenburg (1991), Flora (1992) and Feldman and Welsch (1995) have made the case for considering the implications for sustainability of gendered ways of knowing. Allen and Sachs (1994a) make a strong plea not to essentialize women or legitimize their views solely because of their roles as mothers. They make the case for attention to the interaction between the definition of sustainability and location, stressing the key, but ignored, locators of class, race/ethnicity, and gender. 1 The model linking superstructure and base to actions impacting sustainability is based on Eide, 1982.
4 The alternative/sustainable agriculture discourse, they argue, has been primarily conducted by middle class white males and often looks at tinkering at the edges with technology rather than addressing what is produced, how it is produced, and for whom it is produced. The notion of paradigm shift has been critical in helping to define alternative agriculture. Beus and Dunlap (1990) have identified key elements of the alternative agriculture paradigm through content analysis of the written work of leading figures in both conventional and sustainable agricultural circles. However, all the writers analyzed were male. Subsequent work analyzing the link between attitudes and behavior of farm operators in Washington and Nebraska has validated their conceptualization and operationalization of the two paradigms, but again, for a sample which was overwhelmingly male (Allen and Berhardt 1995; Beus and Dunlap 1991, 1994; Hoiberg and Bultena 1995). By utilizing only male locations, are key aspects of sustainability omitted? Does the paradigm shift experienced by women connected to the sustainable agriculture movement include the same elements as that undergone by men? To what degree does the male derived paradigm leave out elements essential for the effective development of technology, policy, and education capable of facilitating a movement toward a more sustainable food system? By focusing specifically on farm women's views of sustainability, and locating them contextually, we attempt to bring a gender perspective to the alternative agriculture paradigm as suggested by Harris, et al. (1995), and Smith (1987). Beus and Dunlap's paradigms of conventional and alternative agriculture. In a major contribution to the conventional-alternative agriculture debate, Beus and Dunlap (1990) identified key elements of the two paradigms as reflected in the writings of prominent alternative and conventional agriculturists. Following Knorr and Watkins' definition (1984, cited by Beus and Dunlap 1990:594) conventional agriculture is a "capital-intensive, large-scale, highly mechanized agriculture with monocultures of crops and extensive use of artificial fertilizers, herbicides and
5 pesticides, with intensive animal husbandry." Within alternative agriculture, they included those associated with organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture, regenerative agriculture, ecoagriculture, permaculture, bio-dynamics, agroecology, natural farming, and low-input agriculture. Table 1 shows the key elements identified by Beus and Dunlap for the conventional and alternative paradigms. (Table 1 about here) Beus and Dunlap selected six authors from whom to build each paradigm. Key elements of the conventional paradigm were drawn from the writings of Earl Butz, Marion Clawson, Hiram Drache, Earl O. Heady, Wheeler McMillen, and Jamie L. Whitten. For the alternative agriculture paradigm, they reviewed William Aiken, Wendell Berry, C. Dean Freundenberger, Wes Jackson, Gene Logsdon, and Robert Rodale. Although the authors reviewed were all men, it is likely that their views are not exclusive to men. Their views may even be representative of both male and female perspectives. Nevertheless, we suggest that Beus and Dunlap's alternative paradigm should be compared to the partial local knowledge of women active in sustainable agriculture. The values and beliefs expressed in Beus and Dunlap's alternative paradigm may be a product of male cultural norms defining what is and is not acceptable for public discourse. Given the nature of such discourse, it is highly likely that the more personal aspects of alternative agriculture – those usually kept in the domestic sphere of reproduction, including value reproduction – are not articulated. Such discourse, Collinson and Hearn (1994) argue, protects the masculinity of those expressing views that are deviant and might otherwise be interpreted as "unmanly". A key element of alternative agriculture stresses working in concert with, rather than domination over, the environment. Domination is a central aspect of traditional male identity. The need to articulate an alternative form of masculinity may have inadvertently led to the omission of more "feminine" elements of the alternative agriculture paradigm. Further, the charismatic style associated with movement leadership draws on gendered imagery that
6 expresses authority in paternalistic discourses (Collinson and Hearn 1994). Peter (1997) underscores dominance/control as a primary element in the male identity of the industrial farmer, and contrasts that to sustainable agriculture’s lesser need for control over machinery and nature. Paddock et al. (1986) suggested that agriculture has been predominantly shaped by a male preoccupation – transcending and dominating nature in order to rise above the earth. Thus, the alternative agriculture paradigm is not only "deviant" from conventional agriculture, it is deviant from conventional male cultural identity. Yet the alternative paradigm is still imbued with a masculine location, albeit more inclusive, identity. We contend that the way in which the alternative paradigm was designed may have excluded perspectives on sustainability held by women connected to the alternative agriculture movement. Because of differential access to and control of resources – less power – what women do is often less valued than what men do. Thus, we anticipate that areas traditionally left to women, what Moser (1989, 1993) among others, refers to as reproductive work, will be left out of male discourse. Further, women’s location determined by less access and control of resources, will allow them to see different issues related to sustainability. However, once those elements are given voice, the more complete understanding of the paradigm should be meaningful to both men and women. Methods of Study Twenty-seven farmwomen committed to sustainable agriculture were selected with the support of the Land Stewardship Project (LSP) – a Minnesota-based non-profit organization that, since its foundation in 1982, has devoted its efforts to promoting a land stewardship ethic and sustainable agriculture. From an original list of 35, we selected women representing a diverse range of sustainable farming systems (beef cattle and dairy with rotational grazing; organic vegetable crops, low input grains and non-confinement hogs, sheep and goats). Twenty-seven women were sent an introductory letter that explained that the study would gather information on women's experiences on sustainable family farms.
7 Two declined to be interviewed. One was too busy and the other felt totally uninvolved in the farm. The senior author conducted all the open-ended interviews as the data for her dissertation. At no time were the elements of sustainability asked about directly. They emerged from the conversation. The farms were smaller and much more diversified than the Minnesota average. Many of the women had their own enterprises, quite separate from those of their husbands. Most of the women were married and about half of the married women had children at home. Three of the women were high school graduates, all the rest had post-secondary education, and four had master’s degrees. Ages ranged from 23 to 67. None of the women identified themselves as feminists. All had the major responsibility for household, reproductive work. By the time 25 women had been interviewed, theoretical saturation (Strauss 1987) was reached. That is, themes started to repeat themselves and interviewing additional people did not seem to supply any additional insights (Taylor and Bogdan 1984). The twenty-five interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, analyzed thematically (Van Manen 1990), and returned to the women for comment, so that validity of the interpretation could be reaffirmed (Merriam 1990). Nineteen out of the twenty-five women sent their comments back, stating that the themes identified did reflect their ideas and experiences. Analysis First, we discuss the relevance of the six Beus and Dunlap elements and how the women’s location refocused those elements. Then we introduce two additional elements the women found important in their way of viewing the agricultural enterprise and their relation to it. We found that even with the six elements previously identified, the women nuanced them differently than the mail authors did. Not all women mentioned all the eight elements – the respondents themselves were heterogeneous. Yet the clustering of the elements in the content analysis of the conversation identified important
8 gendered aspects of sustainability and the heterogeneity and complexity of women’s perceptions of sustainable agriculture. Independence. Of the elements of the alternative paradigm described by Beus and Dunlap, independence stood out in the women’s intervies. More specifically, the women most frequently emphasized "reduced reliance on external sources of energy, inputs, and credit" and "more household and community self-sufficiency." As Mary2 pointed out, “[In alternative farming] you're looking at ways to control the input from the outside; you're looking to do more things on your own, to be more self-sufficient.” Beth said, "Instead of trying to solve problems like buying things and bringing them in, [in alternative farming] you try to solve it within your own farm". This emphasis on self-reliance honors one of the important contributions of women in traditional farm households – developing expense-reducing, as opposed to income generating activities. Many of the women indicated that they sought to achieve self-sufficiency in the production and preservation – through canning or freezing – of most of the food consumed in the family, the use of agricultural inputs, farm labor, and finances. Thus, women’s perspectives of the complete food system, rather than its product, added on-farm value to the ideal of independence. In alternative agriculture, women’s crafts become vital contributions to a more sustainable food system. Most of the women expressed a sharp awareness of the chemicals used in commercial food and their consequences for human health, consequences they dealt with in their traditional role as front-line healthcare providers. They indicated that importing relatively few agricultural inputs and making efficient use of farm resources are central aspects of alternative farming. Sustainable farming practices include no, or reduced, use of chemicals (including antibiotics for the animals), using manure from their own animals or from neighboring farmers as fertilizer, and raising their own animal feed. They prefer to
9 grow what they eat, prepare and preserve their own food, and only buy those items they cannot produce, such as coffee or certain fruits. They define their self-provisioning as directly protecting their family’s health. The women aspired to self-sufficiency in farm labor as a way of reaching sustainability. Several noted that hiring permanent labor increases the costs of farming and, in addition, makes the management of the farm more complex. So, during most of the year these alternative farmers tend to adjust farm work to what family members can handle. During summer months, most of the families hire temporary labor to help in short-term, high-labor tasks such as baling hay, harvesting vegetables, fixing equipment, filling silos, or cleaning out manure. (It is noteworthy that many of these tasks were not assigned to the farmwomen, who were, correctly, thought to be fully occupied during the peak season with their own enterprises.) Only two of the families hired permanent workers. In each case, the woman interviewed worked full-time off the farm, and was not heavily involved in farm activities. Independence from chemical companies, bank loans, and federal programs were emphasized as important aspects of the alternative paradigm. Terry, who was in charge of the vegetables on her farm, said: “When I started to look at growing vegetables on the farm, I was looking for a way of growing food without chemicals that was not real capital intensive kind of farming, so I didn't have to borrow money to get the seeds.” Mary’s husband was the main farm operator. They were making the transition towards increasing diversity and reducing the amount of chemicals used. She explained, “What I would like for us to do is not go with the Federal Program. I would just like for us to not plant as much corn and plant other things. It's like you're farming for the government rather than 2 All names are pseudonyms.
10 for yourself. I think we could plant alternative crops. I'd like to see us grow more beans because I think they are less harsh on the environment than corn is.” Six women felt that small-scale farming is more suitable to alternative agriculture than largescale farming. On small-scale farms, several pointed out, manual labor can be used, reducing the need to invest in large equipment and consume non-renewable resources. In addition, because the family remains the main source of labor, family members are able to preserve cherished values and to maintain their ties to each other and to the land. Joanne stated the importance of having more farmers on the land (a part of the decentralization element) this way. “We need to understand what our land is all about, what farming is all about. I'm not saying that you cannot be a 2,000 acre farmer to do that, but it's much more difficult to really understand your land if you've got so large an amount of land to work with.” Karen also connected decentralization with small scale. “I think that the work we do with our hands is admirable and honorable work and doesn't have to be big scale to be worthwhile. We can work in small scale and grow food and serve our local community, which may offer the most sustainable model for agriculture. Because food does not have to be transported long distances to market, it can be sold within 20 miles of the farm. You don't have to have big expenses, irreplaceable achinery that runs on fossil fuels when we do a lot of the work with our hands. And just that part of it, working small scale, connects us so directly with the processes in nature.” Women’s work on the farm is manual work. Thus keeping a farm in balance with the family’s ability to provide labor becomes a critical part of these women’s perceptions of sustainability. And these women are eager to share the pleasure their physical interaction with nature brings them as part of a decentralized food system.
11 “I think sustainable ag is the one part of agriculture that supports what you believe is right. Like we should keep our families on the farms. The other entities in farming don't. They come in and say, ‘Hey, if you don't get bigger you should get out of farming.’ We hear that a lot. And Sustainable [Farming Association] is the one organization that kind of supports the way we feel, that you should be able to raise your family [on the farm].” (Janice) In sum, the women stressed their willingness to reduce their household's dependence from chemical companies, banks, and government farm programs. Conversely, they felt that increasing their reliance on farm and community resources would help them to become more independent. Our respondents focused on the household and community as the units to be independent, not the individual. This understanding of the interdependency that comes from independence is based on these women’s social and economic location in relation to the men on their farms, and again nuances our understanding of the independence in the alternative agriculture paradigm. Decentralization. Our respondents’ appreciation of decentralization was based on their everyday duties of providing food for their families to eat. The women perceived consuming locally-produced food and selling the products of their farms within their local regions as important components of alternative agriculture. Terry emphasized the significance of consuming food produced locally as follows: “It became clearer and clearer to me that sustainability has something to do with acting locally and eating locally grown food. This idea that we can ship food across the country and all around the world and think that we can become sustainable – it doesn't exist. I think it's really important to become good neighbors and to act as community. To talk about community and then buy tomatoes from Israel doesn't make a lot of sense. To talk about community and buy things from your neighbor makes good sense. ”
12 Bonnie also emphasized the need to support the local community economically: "I don't believe in shopping malls. I believe in shopping right down here in my little town. We feel like we want to support our home town community." For these women, making a local choice in consumption was in keeping with the reproductive (domestic) and community management roles described by Moser (1989). Women’s importance in family consumption and community maintenance, an important part of the cultural construction of femininity in rural Minnesota, were reflected in their identification of sustainability with the decentralization of their daily purchases. That decentralization was reflected in the marketing practices of the household, which the women often directed. It was common practice among the women and their families to deliver food directly to customers or to sell it at local farmers' markets, thus helping develop community links and foster urban-rural connections. Karen emphasized that the food should not only be marketed locally but also be sold at an affordable price to make it available to local poor people. A strong sense of social responsibility and anti-elitism emerges from her statement: “If you're in a position like I am where you provide a service to your community, which is absolutely vital – food – you have an obligation, a responsibility, to provide those goods and services at an affordable cost. We just can't go charging whatever we want because we want a Mercedes-Benz or a trip to Hawaii. We have to take this seriously. We are providing absolutely vital things to people. We charge prices that are comparable to the grocery store, and we don't ship our food away to expensive markets for people who pay more for organic food. We just sell it to people whether they care whether it's organic or they don't, for the same price. And we do that because we want poor people to have access to clean food. It has to be available to everybody.”
13 Karen’s concern for making food available locally – and to all local residents, regardless of income – reflected her daily experience based on her assigned social role as food provider for her family – and extended that role into the community. Our respondents stressed those aspects of decentralization in sustainable agriculture that reflected their experience. The importance they placed on local production and consumption, the role of farms in providing meaningful work for families, and the need for smaller-scale, more intimate farms if things are to be done properly validates this element of the paradigm but nuances it based on the women’s location in the farming system. Small scale also allowed women’s work to achieve greater visibility and be valued. Community. The women interviewed linked sustainable agriculture to increased importance of both community of interest and community of place. A number of the respondents openly expressed their desire to go beyond individual or family interests and undertake actions that serve their local communities. Five of the women stated that preservation of local community is an inherent part of sustainability. For these women, keeping their communities strong is essential to alternative agriculture. The women identified promotion of economic development at the local level as one strategy for keeping their local community strong and sustainable. Our respondents pursued that strategy by consuming locally grown food, shopping in local businesses, delivering food directly to customers, or selling produce at local farmers' markets. In addition to supporting the community economically, developing good relationships with neighbors was perceived by six of the women interviewed as another way to strengthen the community and contribute to sustainability. These women brought the issue raised by Allen and Sachs (1994b) into their definition of sustainability in a prominent way by asking, “Produce for whom?” The women's commitment to the community and to alternative agriculture was also reflected in
14 their relationships with their customers. For seven of the twelve women involved in direct marketing, farming was not only a way to make a living; it represented a means of connecting with customers and sharing with them the values and lifestyles involved in alternative agriculture. These women's comments show that engaging in a dialogue with customers is at least as important as selling them food. Their efforts are focused on linking consumers and producers, helping urban residents break their separation from the land, and raising consumers' awareness of alternative agriculture issues. As Jenny said, “We try to connect urban people and consumers with where the food comes from, helping them learn how they can support more sustainable farming systems. With all the people who buy food from us, we try to invite them out to our farm. We talk to them about what we're doing and why we're doing it, and also many of our customers come out to our farm to learn more about the farm and about how the food is raised.” Cathy stated: “We have 200 acres, and we have always had an interest in sharing our land in some way with other people. Also, we wanted to have some kind of "you-pick" operation that gave people some direct connection, some direct experiences with where the food was coming from.” Community for both Jenny and Cathy clearly means connection. Six other women showed their commitment to the community and to alternative agriculture by participating in public events such as workshops and presentations, writing in local publications, or joining groups like the Nitrogen Fertilizer Task Force or the Minnesota Feed Lot Advisory Group to promote environmentally sound practices. Through these actions, these women felt they could reach larger audiences and present their views and experiences in alternative agriculture. Almost half of the women interviewed said that networking and developing cooperative links with other farmers who are using alternative practices is essential if they and their families are to gain
15 new insights and information about alternative agriculture. These women stressed that these communities of interest were critical in providing both knowledge and support. Twelve of the respondents stressed how much they valued their participation in those networks. Communicating to other farmers who share similar views is important in developing a sense of identity and self-reassurance, according to the respondents. Both the Land Stewardship Project (LSP) and Sustainable Farming Associations (SFA) – a farmer-to-farmer information sharing network created in 1988 under the auspices of the LSP – play an important role in providing farmers opportunities to socialize with other farmers, develop linkages, share information, and broaden perspectives about the significance of alternative farming practices. Those networks also increased the women’s self-esteem, a function of community not mentioned in previous studies of the community element. Of the 25 women interviewed, eight were involved in the LSP and 18 belonged to an SFA. Two of these women participated on the boards of their local associations. The women find that these organizations meet local farmers' needs and increase cohesiveness among farmers with similar interests. The LSP and the SFA give "support and voice for people to start challenging their own situation” said Mary. Similarly, Janice stated "I think that SFA is like a support group, where you get refreshed and built up that this is the right way to go." For some families, the LSP has been highly influential in their decision to switch from conventional to alternative farming, and even to start farming. In this regard, Helen said: "I guess it's our being involved with people at the LSP and SFA that this gradual change is taking place within our farm." Pam, who started growing and selling vegetables on her own farm after being an apprentice on another farm, stated, “From them [the LSP], I got the courage to apply for apprenticeship.” Harmony with nature. Our respondents emphasized their families' attempts to live in balance with nature. Five of the women interviewed stated that small-scale farming helps reconnect people to land
16 and nature, thereby increasing the balance between land and people. Although the complexity of the natural system makes this a difficult goal to attain, the women told how their households try to minimize the impact of their farming practices on nature and respect natural processes as much as possible. Rather than dominate nature, they want to live in harmony with it. Diversification of production, efficient use of on-farm resources to preserve the soil and the environment, and use of natural products to control insects and weeds are some of the strategies these farmers use to maintain the balance. Lisa’s statement is representative of the significance that the women attach to this issue: “So, sort of a philosophy too that came to be with all this [alternative farming] was that we just decided that the natural ways are the best ways. And we started sort of observing, making attempts to observe the natural progression of things in the soil, and keep to that, because we just have a trust in God or the natural way. We thought, "Well, it's set up!" It works certain ways, and if you mess with it, it doesn't work any more. And then you lose your soil, and you lose your health, and everybody else loses.” A strong sense of responsibility and respect for the land emanates from the women's statements, "Land is sacred, and is holy, and we have the responsibility to take care of it." "You think of the land before you think of yourself." The women and their families own most of the land they farm, and they are fully aware of their social mission as caretakers of this indispensable resource. Stewardship is the principle that guides their actions, and alternative agriculture is a paradigm that best fits them. Cathy, who uses organic practices to grow vegetables, said: “[Farming organically] is part of our spiritual and religious framework of nurture and care for the land. And it's part of just the overall commitment to other people and mother earth to really not use poisons and to disturb the natural system as little as possible.” Alice expressed the strong commitment to stewardship and sustainability she and her husband hold, and
17 how these values transfer to other aspects of their lives: “The mindset of wanting to be a good steward and take care of the earth affects everything: affects how we farm, affects how we live, affects how we do. And I think that sustainable is just one part of that. . . . I think we became sustainable because of this, and because of that mindset we changed other areas in our lives too.” The women brought up a time dimension when they referred to the need to live in harmony with nature, an aspect not reflected in Beus and Dunlap's characterization of the alternative paradigm. Thus, maintaining the health of the soil and the environment is an important endeavor not just for their household's own benefit but for generations to come. Preservation of the land and the environment for future generations is high on the women’s list of priorities and a strong component of their alternative agriculture paradigm. Helen’s comment epitomizes what many women said: “To me sustainability is being able to, through generations in the future, use our resources whether it'd be the soil, the water, but not have them depleted. That's really what it is for me. It's minimum impact on the land for future generations.” Diversity. In close connection to farming and living in harmony with nature, the women emphasized diversity as crucial to increasing the sustainability of their farms. Combining diverse types of crops is a strategy to reduce the risk of plant disease, while integration of crops and livestock is designed to maintain soil fertility and optimize the use of on-farm resources. Karen, who, along with her husband, uses biodynamic methods to raise orchard trees, vegetables, and flowers said: “Nature doesn't like just having big blocks of one thing growing. She likes having a lot of different things growing. And she helps them be healthier. If you have just a few little things growing together it is sort of a family, rather than a big block of corn, or a big block of apples. It's harder to grow apples when you're growing them in large acreages because you're just setting
18 up this enormous feast for the insects and diseases. But by sprinkling them around in small quantities you're not going to be advertising so glaringly to the insects and the diseases that this is the place to come to. It encourages health to do things on a small scale.” Lisa, who raised vegetables, flowers, orchard trees, berries, sheep, and chickens on a 20- acre farm, stated: “We're striving for biodiversity. In the last 5 or 6 years, we have really tried to make the most of little things and work in all kinds of little ecosystems, I guess you might call them. We always felt that animals were pretty important to that.” In addition to increasing the sustainability of the farm, diversification makes farm work more enjoyable for these women. Terry, who, along with her husband, raises vegetables, fruits, poultry and cattle, emphasized: "What I like about the way we're doing our farm is that it is really diversified. There's a new chore, a new task every day, and things aren't repetitious, and it's exciting. I don't like the fact of doing the same thing over and over". Restraint. During the interviews, some women's low-consumption patterns and even austerity, became manifest. Three women openly expressed either indifference towards or resistance to buying nonessential commodities (e.g., dishwasher, TV set, new furniture), whereas two other woman indicated that they and their husbands bought used farm equipment and other used items to make the most out of them and save money. “If you noticed, we don't have all brand new equipment, but we always try to get our stuff off auctions. Somebody else bought the brand new stuff and couldn't make it, and that's why we basically don't do much with dealerships.” (Debbie) And Beth stated: “We just make sure that we survive this way. There are lots of things that we don't have that our
19 friends that work off the farm have, but we live fine. We have a nice home, but I don't redecorate it very often. I don't like to do that kind of stuff, so we still have a lot of the same furniture that we had 20 years ago, but it's just not all that important to me.” Restraint in consumption has long been the lot of rural women (Barlett, 1993; Neth, 1995), and such restraint has often resulted in hard, grueling work, while investment went into the barn and fancy equipment. Investments in equipment to aid what women did were viewed as consumption (Jellison, 1993). The women interviewed consistently pointed out that their restraint was shared with the men. However, our respondents articulated this element of the paradigm far less than any of the other elements. New Elements in the Paradigm Up to this point, the alternative agriculture themes that the women identified are similar to those identified by the male writers. The six elements: independence, decentralization, community, harmony with nature, diversity, and restraint resonate with women in alternative agriculture. But those elements are not identical in content with those described by Beus and Dunlap. Individual self-reliance did not emerge as theme in our interviews. Decentralization was closely linked both to what was produced and to who consumed it. Independence was expressed in terms of family and community. Community meant connectedness and commitment to place. Connection to nature was expressed in terms of “knowing” and “feeling” based on locality. Diversity was primarily expressed in the crops they produced themselves and the way that crop diversity replicated biodiversity in nature. And restraint was focused on technologies of thrift, as well as non-materialism. We also identified two other elements as critical parts of these women's alternative agriculture paradigm, namely, quality family life and spirituality. These elements, consistent with traditional female identity, may challenge conventional farming and the corresponding elements of male identities.
20 Quality Family Life Quality of family life was a key part of sustainability for the women interviewed but was not articulated by the Beus and Dunlap paradigm. Coleman and Ebert (1984), Fink (1986), and Jellison (1993), among others, have demonstrated that over time, conventional agriculture has shifted family relations and separated family members. Not only do the women think that farming in a sustainable manner can improve the health of their families and environment, but they claim that sustainable practices decrease labor time and increase free time to spend in other more valued activities, such as vacationing with the family. This view of alternative agriculture as decreasing labor time contradicts the widely held belief that alternative agriculture is always more labor intensive. Many farm households interviewed are involved in beef and dairy operations. Moving from conventional feeding to rotational grazing greatly increased the time those in charge of those operations – usually men – had available. Our respondents stressed using that extra time for family, not other income generating or consumption activities. Improving the health of the family often involves using safer farming practices, in particular applying fewer or no chemicals. Potential or actual ground water contamination with nitrates, insecticide-generated illnesses experienced by two of the women's husbands, and malformations in animals caused by herbicides led some of the women interviewed to play a significant part in the decision of the family to cut back on chemicals. Two women commented on the connection between women's roles and the decision to choose healthier farming alternatives. “Probably the farm wife had a lot more to do with this [cutting back on chemicals] than the male did because women tend to think about that more, having the kids, being more concerned with them. And I think the women probably put a push on the health aspect of it more than the men did. They were concerned about it because it was affecting their families too, as well as everybody else.” (Susan)
21 And: “I think women by nature are nurturing, I think instinctively. Maybe I am biased. You talk to the women and they are saying, "I don't like my husband using chemicals!" I think in essence a lot of times they're the instigators.” (Louise) Whether women worked part- or full-time on the farm, they often valued being with their families as their most important activity. However, farm labor can be very time consuming and actually compete with family time. Quite frequently, farming becomes an end in itself, and no time is devoted to other activities. Several women were sensitive to the need to decrease the farm workload so that all family members could spend more time together as a family. Consequently, they pushed for changes in the farm operation. Several advocated the use of alternative agricultural practices such as rotational grazing and cover crops because they firmly believed that these involve less labor and help attain a balance between work and family. Susan expressed her concern with the time farming consumed and the consequences this produced on the family: “…farmers just learned to live for nothing but their farms. And their farms became an end in themselves, and that isn't a healthy balance. They had no time for anything else. It was hard on a lot of them. I think that caused farm marriages to split up. I know several myself that split up. There was no time for anything but working all the time. I know [my husband] went through that himself. He just got so busy. And I said, ‘Something's got to change! We can't keep doing this.’ We're getting older. We had no time for anything else. You lose sight of everything. You don't have time to think of anything else, and enjoy anything else. And it affects your thinking too. You think a lot more narrow-mindedly. You have to keep yourself on track when you're that busy. I realize that is necessary, but at the same time it's not healthy to have such tunnel focus continually. It's better to have a little broader view. I know you have to work and work hard, but
22 there's time to smell the roses along the way too! And I just thought that maybe sustainable ag would help.” Alice, who works full-time off the farm, referred to the dissatisfaction she felt with the lifestyle she and her husband had before they started thinking about the sustainability, not just of their farm, but of their lives. “I was very dissatisfied for a while because we could never get away from the farm. And we started looking at what our goals were, for both of us, and when [my husband] saw how frustrated I was, we started making some changes. Now I'm much more content. We've cut down in the number of pigs that we have a year because we just found that it was putting too much stress on us. So we've decreased the amount of work that we do, and we decreased the amount of pigs that we feed out, so that at certain times of the year with heavier workloads, those are cut down and we still have time for family time. I think that exchange that we've made, you know, farming sustainable, is that we're looking more at not just what does the farm need, but what do we need as people.” Among these women, alternative agriculture was perceived as a way of making life less stressful and improving the quality of life of their families. Family quality of life is a critical element in the women's paradigm of alternative agriculture. Spirituality/Religiosity The second new element is spirituality/religiosity. Spirituality and religion are viewed as “women’s work” in many cultures, despite men’s formal religious leadership (Flora, 1976; Samarin, 1972). The women’s understanding of harmony with nature stressed spiritual elements much more than did the original framing of that element. For them spirituality mediated and required their honoring of nature. Further, listening to nature in order to work with it increased their feelings of spiritual
23 wholeness. The transcendence and imminence of spirituality is embodied in their active choice to work with nature rather than overcome it. Often, our respondents sensed a strong connection between alternative agriculture and their families' spiritual values and beliefs. In some cases, these values and beliefs were deeply rooted in their religious backgrounds. In other cases, they were grounded in secular perceptions of the mission of human beings on earth. Whatever the origin, these values and beliefs clearly reflect a profound respect for the earth and its living creatures and a commitment to preserve them. “Our spiritual belief said we should be caring and nurturing and be learning from the earth that gives us our sustenance. So farming for us is not just a business, not just the way to make a living, it's the way to be more in contact with a lot of our basic sustenance, the natural world.” (Jenny)
“Part of our reason for being on this planet is to learn about what's happening in nature and to expect it and to learn from it. How we can live a better life, a more peaceful life.” (Karen)
“[My husband] and I have a really strong commitment to our faith, and to sustaining the earth, and to be stewards of what we're given. And I think it's a reflection of that growth process, as we're trying to be more of the people that we want to be, of God's people that we want to be, that we've changed our practices.” (Alice) The element of spirituality, although linked with nature, is not the same as closeness to nature. The spirituality of being tied to land and family provided these women with a sense of wholeness in their lives. Spirituality represents connectedness, which, one could argue, is more necessary for women, whose location involves less access to material resources, and thus more
24 appreciation of non-material benefits. Thus, the women felt strongly that spirituality, related to faith and a strong sense of a greater power, was an integral part of their movement toward a more sustainable agriculture. Conclusions The women in this study identified the same elements of alternative agriculture as did Beus and Dunlap in their characterization of the alternative paradigm. However, those elements were nuanced by the women’s gendered location in the food system. Their presentation of the elements went beyond the “how?” of production, but responded to the “what?” and for “whom?” questions posed by Allen and Sachs (1994a). Further, some women identified two other elements that were not contemplated in Beus and Dunlap's characterization: quality family life through balanced production and spirituality. These two elements are an integral part of their understanding of sustainable agriculture. These new elements fit into the realm that European-American culture designates as part of the female domain of reproduction – reproduction of the household (family quality of life) and of values (spirituality). While Zook (1994) identified spirituality as an important dimension of sustainability among Amish male farmers, we contend it is more universal, although we cannot generalize from our study to the whole alternative agriculture community. Initial discussions with men involved in SFAs confirm
that these elements are important to them. But, in communities still dominated by the
conventional male paradigm and conventional sources of male identity, the initial articulation of these elements is left to female discourse. Of course, the women interviewed did not all emphasize the same elements, as they themselves were involved to varying degrees differently in production, reproduction, and community work. It is important that women integrally involved in sustainable agriculture validate the Beus and Dunlap alternative paradigm,. but that paradigm is incomplete without inclusion of female standpoints.
25 Work by Meares (1997) and Peter (1997) suggests of the elements of spirituality and quality of family life increase in importance for males in farm households who are in groups that help them redefine male identity as complementary to, not in conflict with, a more sustainable agriculture. The narratives developed by women as they reflect on sustainable agriculture from their partial and situated standpoints suggest a commitment to social change that links action to their vision. ___________________ 1
2
All names are pseudonyms.
26 References Allen, John C. and Kevin Bernhardt. 1995. “Farming Practices and Adherence to an AlternativeConventional Paradigm.” Rural Sociology 60: 297-309. Allen, Patricia and Carolyn E. Sachs. 1994a. “The poverty of sustainability: an analysis of current positions.” Agriculture and Human Values. IX: 29-35. Allen, Patricia, and Carolyn Sachs. 1994b. "Sustainable agriculture in the United States: Engagements, silences, and possibilities for transformation." Pp. 139-167 in Food for the Future, edited by Patricia Allen. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Barlett, Peggy F. 1993. American Dreams, Rural Realities: Family Farms in Crisis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Beus, Curtis E., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1990. "Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate." Rural Sociology 55(4): 590-616. Beus, Curtis E., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1991. “Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional agricultural paradigms: a proposed scale.” Rural Sociology 56:432-460. Beus, Curtis E., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1994. “Agricultural paradigms and the practice of agriculture.” Rural Sociology 59: 620-635. Bird, Elizabeth Ann R., Gordon L. Bultena, and John C. Gardner (Eds.). 1995. Planting the Future: Developing an Agriculture that Sustains Land and Community. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Colman, Gould and Sarah Ebert. 1984. “Farming Families: the Farm Needs Everyone.” Research in Rural Sociology and Development. 1:61-78. Collinson, David, and Jeff Hearn. 1994. "Naming men as men: implications for work, organization, and management." Gender, Work, and Organization, 1: 2-22. Eide, Wenche Barth. 1982. The nutrition educator’s role in access to food: from individual orientation to social orientation.” Journal of Nutrition Education. 14: 14-18. Feldman, Shelley and Rick Welsh. 1995. “Feminist knowledge claims, local knowledge, and gender divisions of agricultural labor: constructing a successor science.” Rural Sociology. 60:23-43. Fink, Deborah. 1986. Open Country Iowa: Rural Women, Tradition and Change. Albany, NY: State University and New York Press. Flora, Cornelia Butler. 1976. “Pentecostalism in Colombia: Baptism by Fire and Spirit.” Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Press.
27 Flora, Cornelia Butler.1992. "Reconstructing agriculture: the case for local knowledge." Rural Sociology 57: 92-97. Fortmann, Louise. 1988. “Predicting natural resource micro-protest.” Rural Sociology 54: 357-65. Gale, Richard P. and Sheila M. Cordray. 1994. “Making sense of sustainability: nine answers to ‘What should be sustained?’” Rural Sociology 59: 311-332. Gringeri, Christina E. 1993. “Inscribing gender in rural development: industrial homework in two midwestern communities.” Rural Sociology 58: 30-52. Harris, Rosalind P., Jeffrey C. Bridge, Carolyn E. Sachs, and Suzanne E. Tallichet. 1995. “Empowering Rural Sociology: Exploring and Linking Alternative Paradigms in Theory and Methodology.” Rural Sociology 60(4):585-606. Hoiberg, Eric D. and Gordon L. Bultena. 1995. “Adopting of Sustainable Agriculture.” Pp 155-171 in Planting the Future: Developing an Agriculture that Sustains Land and Community, edited by E.A.R. Bird, G.L. Bultena and J.C. Gardner. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Holling, C.S., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1997. “Science, sustainability and resource management.” Pp. 346-366 in Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Institutional Learning for Resilience, edited by F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Jellison, Katherine. 1993. Entitled to Power: Farm Women and Technology, 1913-1963. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kloppenburg, Jack Jr. 1991. “Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for sustainable agriculture.” Rural Sociology 56: 519-548. LaStarria-Cornhiel, Susanna. 1995. “Impact of privatization on gender and property rights in Africa” paper prepared for the Gender and Property Rights International E-mail Conference. IFPRI. Meares, Alison C. 1997. "Making the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture: gender, social movement participation, and quality of life on the family farm." Rural Sociology 62:2147. Merriam, Sharon B. 1990. Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moser, Caroline O. N. 1989. "Gender planning in the Third World: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs." World Development, 17: 1799-1825. Moser, Caroline O.N. 1993. Gender Planning and Development. New York: Routledge.
28 Neth, Mary. 1995. Preserving the Family Farm. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Paddock, J., N. Paddock, and C. Bly. 1986. Soil and Survival: Land Stewardship and the Future of American Agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club. Peter, Gregory. 1997. Coming back across the fence: Masculinity in the gendered fields of sustainable agriculture. Master’s Thesis. Ames: Iowa State University. Rogers, Denise M. and Ann M. Vandeman. 1993. “Women as farm landlords: does gender affect environmental decision-making on leased land?” Rural Sociology 58: 560-568. Sachs, Carolyn. 1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Samarin, William J. 1972. Tongues of Men and Angels. New York: The Mc Millan Co. Shields, M. Dale, Cornelia Butler Flora, Barbara Thomas-Slayer, and Gladys Buenavista. “Developing and dismantling social capital: gender and resource management in the Philippines.” Pp. 155179. Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, edited by Dianne Rocheleau, Barbara Thomas-Slater, and Ester Wangari. London: Routledge. Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Strauss, Anselm. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Steven, and Robert Bogdan. 1984. Introduction to Qualitative Research: The Search for Meanings. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Van Manen, Max. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. New York: The State University of New York. Zook, Lee. 1994. "The Amish farm and alternative agriculture: a comparison." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 4(4): 21-30.
1 Table 1. Key elements of the competing agricultural paradigms Conventional agriculture
Alternative agriculture
Dependence -Large, capital-intensive production units and technology. -Heavy reliance on external sources of energy, inputs, and credit. -Consumerism and dependence on the market. -Primary emphasis on science, specialists and experts.
Independence -Smaller, low-capital production units and technology. -Reduced reliance on external sources of energy, inputs, and credit. -More personal and community self-sufficiency. -Primary emphasis on personal knowledge, skills, and local wisdom.
Centralization -National, international production, processing and marketing. -Concentrated populations; fewer farmers. -Concentrated control of land, resources and capital.
Decentralization -More local/regional production processing, and marketing. -Dispersed populations; more farmers. -Dispersed control of land, resources, and capital.
Competition -Lack of cooperation; self-interest. -Farm traditions and rural culture outdated. -Small rural communities not necessary to agriculture. -Farm work a drudgery; labor and input to be minimized. -Farming is a business only. -Primary emphasis on speed, quantity, and profit.
Community -Increased cooperation. -Preservation of farm traditions and rural culture -Small communities essential to agriculture. -Farm work rewarding; labor an essential to be made meaningful. -Farming is a way of life as well as -Primary emphasis on permanence, quality, and beauty
Domination of nature -Humans are separate from and superior to nature. -Nature consists primarily of resources to be used. -Life-cycle incomplete; decay
Harmony with nature -Humans are part of and subject to nature. -Nature is valued primarily for its own sake. -Life-cycle complete;
growth
and
2 Table 1. Key elements of the competing agricultural paradigms (cont.) Conventional agriculture
Alternative agriculture
(recycling wastes) neglected. -Human-made systems imposed on nature. -Production maintained by agricultural chemicals. -Highly processed, nutrient-fortified food.
decay balanced. -Natural ecosystems are imitated. -Production maintained by development of healthy soil. -Minimally processed, naturally nutritious food.
Specialization -Narrow genetic base. -Most plants grown in monocultures. -Single-cropping in succession -Separation of crops and livestock -Locally adapted production systems -Highly specialized, reductionistic science and technology.
Diversity -Broad genetic base. -More plants grown in policulture. -Multiple crops in complementary rotations. -Integration of crops and livestock. -Locally adapted production systems.
Exploitation -External costs often ignored. -Short-term benefits outweigh longterm consequences. -Based on heavy use of non-renewable resources. -Great confidence in science and technology. -High consumption to maintain economic growth. -Financial success; busy lifestyles; materialism.
Restraint -All external costs must be considered. -Short-term and long-term outcomes equally important. -Based on renewable resources; non-renewable resources conserved. -Limited confidence in science and technology. -Consumption restrained to benefit future generations. -Self-discovery; simpler lifestyles; nonmaterialism.
Source: Beus and Dunlap 1990:598-599.
