Wendell Berry is one of our most important contemporary writers, for his criticisms of the materialist worldview at the foundation of modern America. His criticisms focus on agriculture, place, and industrialism, symbolic of how we've wandered from the ways of our fathers.
We moderns have sacrificed the intangible for what we perceive as tangible—believing more is always better, efficiency rules, and anyone who gets in the way is a luddite or crank. Our measures of success are in terms of GDP, dollars per share, test scores, and approval ratings. But there is an inherent compromise in accepting these terms. Berry writes, “To regard the economy as an end or as the measure of success is merely to reduce students, teachers, researchers, and all they know or learn to merchandise. It reduces knowledge to ‘property’ and education to training for the ‘job market.’” p. 171
But people aren’t merchandise, nor value mere economics. He writes that “if you want to evaluate the agriculture of a region, you must begin not with a balance sheet, but with the local water. How continuously do the small streams flow? How clear is the water? How much sediment and how many pollutants are carried in the runoff? Are the ponds and creeks and rivers fit for swimming? Can you eat the fish?” p. 177
Industrialists and agribusinesses do not want to measure these things because they conflict with their balance sheets. If they are accountable for the availability of water, the quality of it, the pollutants they spill into our waterways, or the fish that live in them, they would compromise they would lose their competitive balance. I write this, not as one advocating for further environmental regulation, but as one in favor of giving individuals and communities equal protection under the law, rather than favoring large corporations with special interest funds and agendas.
Berry is a bit confused here—the role of government in the problem, and the solution to the industrialization of American culture. He does acknowledge that agribusiness is in bed with the government when he writes, “the advocates of factory farming are not advocates of farming. They do not speak for farmers. What they support is state-sponsored colonialism—government of, by, and for the corporations.” p. 15 Statements like this do approach the problem in the right way, in articulating the destructive nature of corporatism.
But he also argues “the price of farm products, as they leave the farm, should be on a par with the price of those products that the farmer must buy. In order to achieve this with minimal public expense, we must control agricultural production; supply must be adjusted to demand. Obviously this is something that individual farmers, or individual states, cannot do for themselves; it is a job that belongs appropriately to the federal government.” p. 43 But the very next page he writes, “It may be that the gravest danger to farmers is their inclination to look to the government for help, after the agribusiness corporations and the universities (to which they have already looked) have failed them. In the process, they have forgotten how to look to themselves, to their farms, to their families, to their neighbors, and to their tradition.” p. 44
This is one of Berry’s most glaring weaknesses. He has a knack for seeing problems that we collectively ignore, but his worldview has some glaring inconsistencies, like this inability to fully understand the government’s role in fostering the industrialization of American agriculture.
The disconnection of man from the land, which is what happened when millions of families moved away from family farms throughout the 20th century, has caused us to lose our sense of connectedness to the land and the production of food.
Berry says it well, when he writes that the family farm, “died for want of people with the motivation, the skill, the character, and the culture to keep them alive. They died, in other words, by a change in cultural value.” p. 58 Berry doesn’t use the word “materialism” often, but it is clear this is his target. We think little of what we feed our livestock because they are “only calories.” We think little of what we put onto our crops, because they are “only chemicals.” We think little about what is in the soil, because it is only raw material.
It is here that we begin to see some of the consequences: “For decades now the entire industrial food economy, from the large farms and feedlots to the chains of supermarkets and fast-food restaurants, has been obsessed with volume. It has relentlessly increased scale in order to increase volume in order (presumably) to reduce costs. But as scale increases, diversity declines; as diversity declines, so does health; as health declines, the dependence on drugs and chemicals necessarily increases. As capital replaces labor, it does so by substituting machines, drugs, and chemicals for human workers and for the natural health and fertility of the soil. The food is produced by any means or any shortcut that will increase profits. And the business of the cosmeticians of advertising is to persuade the consumer that food so produced is good, tasty, healthful, and a guarantee of marital fidelity and long life.” p. 231
We’ve traded freedom from farm life and the perceived drudgery of traditional farming for a decrease in health and an increase in health-care costs and reliance on pharmaceuticals. But farming should not be drudgery, but a life in harmony with the natural order.
Here is where we see Berry at his best—describing the beauty of the pastoral life. His novels are a vivid picture of this in action:
“Farmers farm for the love of farming. They love to watch and nurture the growth of plants. They love to live in the presence of animals. They love to work outdoors. They love the weather, maybe even when it is making them miserable. They love to live where they work and to work where they live. If the scale of their farming is small enough, they like to work in the company of their children and with the help of their children. They love the measure of independence that farm life can still provide. I have an idea that a lot of farmers have gone to a lot of trouble merely to be self-employed, to live at least a part of their lives without a boss.” p. 74
It is hard to imagine agriculture returning to something like what it was, prior to the mass industrialization of it, but it is also difficult to imagine it continuing as it is. Modern farming is more “akin to mining” (p. 66) than it is to traditional farming. How can such a thing persist in perpetuity?
What is the solution? I don’t think any individual has the answers, but we can learn together by assimilating the best ideas of men like Wendell Berry to build a future that is closer to the cadence set in motion by our Creator. That means slowing down and acknowledging, and working within the rhythms of God’s order, not man’s.