What do you think?
Rate this book
Citizenship Papers: Essays
Discerning the political import of complex current events requires great urgency, clarity, and care. Nothing less than the future of our nation is at stake. Wendell Berry’s Citizenship Papers, collecting nineteen essays, is a ringing alarm, a call for resistance and responsibility, and a reminder of how fragile our commonwealth has become at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
“We are encouraged to believe that the governments and corporations of the affluent parts of the world are run by people using rational processes to make rational decisions. The dominant faith of the world in our time is rationality. That in an age of reason, the human race, or the most wealthy and powerful parts of it, should be behaving with colossal irrationality ought to make us wonder if reason alone can lead us to do what is right.” from “Two Minds”
“We are encouraged to believe that the governments and corporations of the affluent parts of the world are run by people using rational processes to make rational decisions. The dominant faith of the world in our time is rationality. That in an age of reason, the human race, or the most wealthy and powerful parts of it, should be behaving with colossal irrationality ought to make us wonder if reason alone can lead us to do what is right.” from “Two Minds”
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
31 people are currently reading
559 people want to read
About the author
Wendell Berry
292 books4,868 followersWendell Berry is a conservationist, farmer, essayist, novelist, professor of English and poet. He was born August 5, 1934 in Henry County, Kentucky where he now lives on a farm. The New York Times has called Berry the "prophet of rural America."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
October 10, 2011
Wendell Berry is quite eloquent about what is wrong with agriculture today. Unfortunately he doesn't have a clue about how to fix it. He speaks of politics and economics as if nothing has been tried, no experiences gained, and nothing learned in 2000 years. Marxism, fascism, comparative advantage, markets and trade or all sorts with all sorts of regulation, protective tariffs, sheltered industries, Blut und Boden... these aren't new ideas but he seems unfamiliar with them all.
Rather like a college student who thinks he can bring about Utopia by decreeing something simple like "abolishing private property" or "confiscating inheritances". Wendell seems to like the idea of isolated, local economies, something like the Middle Ages.
I'm very disappointed in this book. It's not one of his best. In fact, though I've liked him in the past and there are some good passages in this book, on the whole it's so bad I'm probably through reading Wendell for good now. I guess he went a book too far for me.
Rather like a college student who thinks he can bring about Utopia by decreeing something simple like "abolishing private property" or "confiscating inheritances". Wendell seems to like the idea of isolated, local economies, something like the Middle Ages.
I'm very disappointed in this book. It's not one of his best. In fact, though I've liked him in the past and there are some good passages in this book, on the whole it's so bad I'm probably through reading Wendell for good now. I guess he went a book too far for me.
January 22, 2012
I have never read anything by Berry before. This was my intro. It was very easy to pick out his general stance on a variety of topics (movement toward localized economy, pacifism, less government regulation in regard to agriculture, etc) within the first 30 pages of the book. As a collection of essays, it's difficult to move into any kind of solutions to the noticeable problems that he's stated, but everything after the first 50 pages is redundant.
In the first essay of the book, he brings up the serious issue of ambiguous concerns and goals located in The National Security Strategy without any identifiable objectives. ("We will...expand the sources and types of global energy...", "Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy"). This is a concern because it is not really saying anything. How we will we accomplish any of these things? Since Berry has also noticed how vague these ideas are and spends a considerable amount of time complaining about it, one would think that he would come up with listed solutions to many of his noted problems. Throughout the book he expands on his thoughts and what he would like to see as accomplished goals. I found many of the statements to fall into a similar trap that he has noted in the National Security Strategy. ("We should protect every intact ecosystem and watershed that we have left, and begin restoration of those that have been damaged." How?!)
I can agree on many of his viewpoints. I have a very large interest in sustainable agriculture and do agree that while we should not be an isolationist nation, we need to move toward more localized goods if we want sustainability in our food supply and economic security. I also agree with his stance on trading our freedoms in the name of supposed national security, the paradox of war to achieve peace, and the threat of biotechnology in agriculture, human health, and the farming economy. He makes a few very good points in all of these areas, but I do agree with what another reviewer has stated in that he comes across as a college student articulating his idea of utopia without any support. It's just broad generalizations and vague goals.
I was also not aware of his very conservative stance in regards to women's choice previous to reading this and was extremely offended. In one passage, he draws a comparison between women who choose abortion and the act of murdering innocent civilians through war and the institution of capital punishment.
"Abortion-as-birth-control is justified as a "right," which can establish itself only by denying all the rights of another person, which is the most primitive intent of warfare...Acts of violence committed in "justice" or in affirmation of "rights" or in defense of "peace" do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation."
"If a government perceives that some causes are so important as to justify the killing of children, how can it hope to prevent the contagion of its logic from spreading to its citizens-or to its citizens' children? If you so devalue human life that the accidentally conceived unborn may be permissibly killed, how do you keep that permission from being assumed by someone who has made the same judgement against the born?"
After apparent anger over these statements, he includes a postscript...
"As for the "right to control one's own body," I am all for that. But implicit in that right is the responsibility to control one's body in such a way as to avoid dealing irresponsibly or violently or murderously with other bodies. Women and men generally have understood that when they have conceived a child they have relinquished a significant measure of their independence, and that henceforth they must control their bodies in the interest of the child."
All of these statements are extremely offensive. It places women on the same pedestal as warmongers who devalue human life, rather than women who are making extremely difficult choices for the best interest of the child and the woman. I found the postscript even more offensive than the original essay. Once again, a male is assuming that the woman is irresponsible for being pregnant. Let's consider a condom breaking or even a rape happening. Or being unable to afford the morning after pill. Is the woman still considered irresponsible? Women and men have not always had to relinquish their independence in the name of a pregnancy. First, men have never had to relinquish their independence. History has shown that if men don't want a child, they can just abandon the pregnant woman and place the blame on her. Women throughout history have gone through unsafe abortions or abandoned their children because they have been unable to cope. It's much more rational to assume that life happens and sex is a natural condition of being human and have a safe option so that women can make an intelligent decision. But, Berry assumes that a fetus is equivalent to an actual child. I am not here to argue his belief on the fetus as person debate, but I had a lot of difficulty even continuing to read because I knew of his viewpoint on women and could not fathom anyone arguing that choosing an abortion in the best interest of a child was equivalent to violent murder through the act of warfare by government.
In the first essay of the book, he brings up the serious issue of ambiguous concerns and goals located in The National Security Strategy without any identifiable objectives. ("We will...expand the sources and types of global energy...", "Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy"). This is a concern because it is not really saying anything. How we will we accomplish any of these things? Since Berry has also noticed how vague these ideas are and spends a considerable amount of time complaining about it, one would think that he would come up with listed solutions to many of his noted problems. Throughout the book he expands on his thoughts and what he would like to see as accomplished goals. I found many of the statements to fall into a similar trap that he has noted in the National Security Strategy. ("We should protect every intact ecosystem and watershed that we have left, and begin restoration of those that have been damaged." How?!)
I can agree on many of his viewpoints. I have a very large interest in sustainable agriculture and do agree that while we should not be an isolationist nation, we need to move toward more localized goods if we want sustainability in our food supply and economic security. I also agree with his stance on trading our freedoms in the name of supposed national security, the paradox of war to achieve peace, and the threat of biotechnology in agriculture, human health, and the farming economy. He makes a few very good points in all of these areas, but I do agree with what another reviewer has stated in that he comes across as a college student articulating his idea of utopia without any support. It's just broad generalizations and vague goals.
I was also not aware of his very conservative stance in regards to women's choice previous to reading this and was extremely offended. In one passage, he draws a comparison between women who choose abortion and the act of murdering innocent civilians through war and the institution of capital punishment.
"Abortion-as-birth-control is justified as a "right," which can establish itself only by denying all the rights of another person, which is the most primitive intent of warfare...Acts of violence committed in "justice" or in affirmation of "rights" or in defense of "peace" do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation."
"If a government perceives that some causes are so important as to justify the killing of children, how can it hope to prevent the contagion of its logic from spreading to its citizens-or to its citizens' children? If you so devalue human life that the accidentally conceived unborn may be permissibly killed, how do you keep that permission from being assumed by someone who has made the same judgement against the born?"
After apparent anger over these statements, he includes a postscript...
"As for the "right to control one's own body," I am all for that. But implicit in that right is the responsibility to control one's body in such a way as to avoid dealing irresponsibly or violently or murderously with other bodies. Women and men generally have understood that when they have conceived a child they have relinquished a significant measure of their independence, and that henceforth they must control their bodies in the interest of the child."
All of these statements are extremely offensive. It places women on the same pedestal as warmongers who devalue human life, rather than women who are making extremely difficult choices for the best interest of the child and the woman. I found the postscript even more offensive than the original essay. Once again, a male is assuming that the woman is irresponsible for being pregnant. Let's consider a condom breaking or even a rape happening. Or being unable to afford the morning after pill. Is the woman still considered irresponsible? Women and men have not always had to relinquish their independence in the name of a pregnancy. First, men have never had to relinquish their independence. History has shown that if men don't want a child, they can just abandon the pregnant woman and place the blame on her. Women throughout history have gone through unsafe abortions or abandoned their children because they have been unable to cope. It's much more rational to assume that life happens and sex is a natural condition of being human and have a safe option so that women can make an intelligent decision. But, Berry assumes that a fetus is equivalent to an actual child. I am not here to argue his belief on the fetus as person debate, but I had a lot of difficulty even continuing to read because I knew of his viewpoint on women and could not fathom anyone arguing that choosing an abortion in the best interest of a child was equivalent to violent murder through the act of warfare by government.
September 5, 2022
Overview:
The book contains a range of topics which include epistemology, economics, national security, and agriculture. The topics are intimately tied, especially because each has a political theme. To understand information, needs an understanding of a lot of related information and how they interconnect. With that information can an understanding be built as to the potential consequences of behavior, alternative ways to behave, and solutions to problems.
Citizens within democratic societies need to figure out how to manage the various topics together, rather than just have decision told to them by leadership. Citizens need to discuss the issues, and understand the consequences of taking certain actions, because they impact other citizens and nations. Economic production can threaten communities and the environment, but citizens can change policies and behavior. Conflicts do arise, but if they are resolved with violence, then violence becomes justified. To end cycles of violence requires peace oriented behavior.
National Security, Violence, and Democracy:
Leaders speak from a perspective of representing citizens, but the decisions made are by the individual. They do not necessarily reflect what citizens actually think. Leaders during war assume an acceptable price, but that price becomes what was paid. There never was an accepted level of sacrifice. While others make sacrifices, those who live proclaim them acceptable.
When a nation is attacked, the reasons for defensive action would be publicly known. Alternatively, reasons for aggressive or preemptive action would not be publicly known, but known to the few close to the center of power. Preemptive war can be started by the leader. Justifying the war with secret information, without the need to share the contents of the secret information. The war is planned in secret. Without the need of forewarning to execute the plan.
Preemptive attacks do need secrecy, for a discussed preemptive attack would risk being preempted by opposition. Preemptive war is undemocratic, for the leader cannot obtain the consent of the governed. This strategy requires the public to be manipulated by executive power. As information will not be shared, that means that the public needs to be ignorant. Public needs to be fearful of potential consequences of not following the directives of executive power. Even legislature would need to be intimidated. Depending on how much secrecy there is in the government, determines how democratic and free its people are. Secrecy is inherently undemocratic.
Violence without authorization from a national government is considered terrorism. The same acts of violence with the authorization from a national government is considered war. The same acts that are condemned as atrocious under terrorism, are not condemned under war. Using different standards for the same violent acts for terrorism and war, means accepting and affirming the legitimacy of war. Sanctioned violence defined as ‘just’ by the state, enables the same acts to be justified in the same way by individuals. Committing violent actions against opposition, justifies the opposition’s use of the same acts against one’s own people. By trying to destroy the opposition, nations create conditions to destroy themselves.
A war on terrorism requires constantly needing new enemies. Making the war endless, expensive, and supportive of bureaucracy. A nation that is at war with terrorism is making a case of good versus evil. That the government wants to remove evil from the world. Which has the assumption that the government and the nation are the representatives for the good. But nations are far more complicated than being just good. Making the assumption that what the government does is good precludes public dialogue. Assuming the side of the good prevents self-criticism or self-correction.
It is very understandable to want to reaction against an attack. But the reaction usually comes from fear and lack of proper direction. There are many domestic issues that cannot be rectified by attacking foreign peoples. Reactions to attacks cannot protect against destruction of the environment, selfishness, wastefulness, and greed nor obtain self-sufficiency or the consequences of dependence. Foreign and domestic terror are related, but while the public is usually kept aware about foreign terror, domestic terror is ignored.
National security would require becoming more self-sufficient, to prevent dependence on other nations who might not be at peace later. This policy would require appropriate taking care of the environment, adjusting resources use, managing imports, improving community relations and foreign relations. Without an environment that supports life, there would be no point in military strength. Difficult to defend freedoms, when necessities are imported from foreign nations with no such concern for one’s own nation. Should a war break about in which the imports are no longer provided, would have negative consequences on the national supply.
The rule of law is upheld by a nation that declares itself above the law. Foreign power catastrophic weapons are deemed illegitimate, but not one’s own national catastrophic weapons. It is contradictory to speak of wanting cooperation and many other celebrated virtues, while also making claims about sole intention for making war. Cannot reduce terror, by holding terror as a fear against the world. A rouge state is defined in the pursuit of national interests with military capabilities that can threaten neighbors. That is any nation, expect one’s own.
The end of WW2 brought about ideals of a united world for peacemaking. But has become globalized under trade that seeks to plunder the world of cheap resources. Difficult to know how nations protect themselves under this regime. Difficult to know how the economy would survive wars of nations.
War is a profitable business, while peace is not. War has been extravagantly subsidized. Violence does not lead to peace. Peaceable means are needed for peace, but are not yet the methods used to obtain peace. Method is still the paradox of trying to make peace by making war. Opposition to violence has become selective or fashionable, which is a brutal hypocrisy of violence against other humans and nature.
Historically, violence leads to reciprocity of violence. Violence committed with moral superiority of justice, affirmation of rights, or defense of peace do not end violence. They justify the continuation of violence. Preparation for more violence.
Economics, the Environment, and Agriculture:
To obtaining the products to satiate economic desires, nations have been willing to sacrifice their environments and communities as normal costs of operations. Work and economic production needs to not destroy the environmental resources, but be sustainable without degrading the users. There needs to be a balance between environmental preservation, and economic opportunities.
The modus operandi is to delegate economic and political activities to others. That change can only occur in the realm of politics, which has already gotten the economic proxies. An assumption that passive consumers can change which will cause public experts, politicians, and corporate executives to change.
Delegation of production to industrial society has led to people not knowing the histories of their products. People no longer know how to produce food, take care of the environment, or even their communities. Difficult to understand the environmental costs of products, and even the origins of the products. The information is too scattered, and the economic processes too complicated. Those within the industries that supply the products, can have reasons for not wanting to share the information about the product histories.
Globalization has become dominated by supranational corporations, which use economic exploitation similar to colonialism. Supranational corporations manage the rules of the global economy through the World Trade Organization. Operating without election and can overrule regional laws that conflict with the free market.
Agriculture is lucrative for everybody, except those who produce the food. Powerful corporations and food conglomerates became wealthy through the work of struggling and failing farmers. While the agriculture business claim this as progress. Neither industry nor politics expects decent prices for food products that can help farmers. Farmers need to be part of the solution within the agriculture economy.
The Knowledge of Facts:
Knowledge is impossible to know in any complete form, or all the consequences of actions taken. Mystery is the norm. Existence is more complicated and intertwined than simple. Individuals and societies are complicated, and are most certainly not idealized perfections. Willingness to judge negatively ancestors who were partly sinners, means being judged under the same terms by successors.
Things that become popular, are in danger of being oversimplified. Such an as oversimplification of the destructiveness of human relationship with nature. Movements also oversimplify, and have a tendency to become self-righteous and self-betray. Denying people rights and privileges, that those within the movement demands for themselves. The problems caused are by other people, and propose policies to change the problems, but not behavior. Claiming to be a particular type of movement or for a purpose, but in practice not keeping to how they define themselves such as peace movements using violence. Making impossible to mean what is said because language becomes anything that anybody wants it to mean.
Knowledge is useful no matter its age, or whether it is empirical or not. Factual information is not sufficient for what is considered true. A fact is a sum of information about the thing. Abstract representations would not be recognized in practice for what they are. Recognition requires incorporating various information. Facts do not live in isolation of other facts. Facts are only true with all their associated facts. Departmentalization of knowledge limits understanding and creates many false ideas. Only the thing, idea, person, or place can represent itself. Everything else is an incomplete model. Only tautologically can reality be represented in its true form.
Social orders are socially constructions fiction. Not because they are false, but because they are incomplete. Even by trying to make them as inclusive as possible, still makes them exclusive. Usually find what has been excluded too late.
There are different ways of handling information such as being rational or sympathetic. Under a rational mindset, any trade-off can be rationalized. While under the sympathetic mindset, nothing can be rationalized. Fear of being wrong or misled motives the rational mindset, while the sympathetic mindset is motivated by failures of carelessness and exclusivity. Many trade-offs fail as they lead to disaster.
Caveats?
The essays have varied quality. Topics are interrelated, but the essays are not necessarily related to each other. Synthesizing a coherent understanding from all the topics is the responsibility of the reader.
Recognizing social contradiction is a familiar theme in the book, but sometimes the explanations are lacking and are one-sided. Sometimes making moral arguments, without explaining why the alternatives are causing the harm. Simplifying the alternative ways and solutions opens the arguments to their own contradictions and counterclaims. Understanding the why of the alternatives can facilitate in finding solutions.
An example of a one-sided argument is the negative consequences of delegating economic production to others. By delegating and not needing to think about that production, the individual can apply themselves elsewhere. If everyone needs to understand every bit of economic production, there would not be much delegating and each person would not have much more on their minds than that information. Ideas, economics, and society can become stagnant.
Another example of a one-sided argument is the need for self-sufficiency. Security and other benefits of self-sufficiency are provided, but not their costs. Self-sufficiency means less trade, but that makes war more likely. Trade increases the cost of going to war, for the nations rely on each other. As the author supports peaceable ways of cooperation, trade is what makes peace become profitable. Self-sufficiency means not having much peaceable negotiations with neighbors. Limits the products and ideas within a nation for the nation would have to produce and figure out everything on their own rather than dividing the labor of that effort. Also, the author supports a sustainable environment, but agriculture production for different foods can be done more sustainably in other countries because their soil and environment can be more adequate for that kind of food. Self-sufficiency is just a different way of degrading the environment.
The book contains a range of topics which include epistemology, economics, national security, and agriculture. The topics are intimately tied, especially because each has a political theme. To understand information, needs an understanding of a lot of related information and how they interconnect. With that information can an understanding be built as to the potential consequences of behavior, alternative ways to behave, and solutions to problems.
Citizens within democratic societies need to figure out how to manage the various topics together, rather than just have decision told to them by leadership. Citizens need to discuss the issues, and understand the consequences of taking certain actions, because they impact other citizens and nations. Economic production can threaten communities and the environment, but citizens can change policies and behavior. Conflicts do arise, but if they are resolved with violence, then violence becomes justified. To end cycles of violence requires peace oriented behavior.
National Security, Violence, and Democracy:
Leaders speak from a perspective of representing citizens, but the decisions made are by the individual. They do not necessarily reflect what citizens actually think. Leaders during war assume an acceptable price, but that price becomes what was paid. There never was an accepted level of sacrifice. While others make sacrifices, those who live proclaim them acceptable.
When a nation is attacked, the reasons for defensive action would be publicly known. Alternatively, reasons for aggressive or preemptive action would not be publicly known, but known to the few close to the center of power. Preemptive war can be started by the leader. Justifying the war with secret information, without the need to share the contents of the secret information. The war is planned in secret. Without the need of forewarning to execute the plan.
Preemptive attacks do need secrecy, for a discussed preemptive attack would risk being preempted by opposition. Preemptive war is undemocratic, for the leader cannot obtain the consent of the governed. This strategy requires the public to be manipulated by executive power. As information will not be shared, that means that the public needs to be ignorant. Public needs to be fearful of potential consequences of not following the directives of executive power. Even legislature would need to be intimidated. Depending on how much secrecy there is in the government, determines how democratic and free its people are. Secrecy is inherently undemocratic.
Violence without authorization from a national government is considered terrorism. The same acts of violence with the authorization from a national government is considered war. The same acts that are condemned as atrocious under terrorism, are not condemned under war. Using different standards for the same violent acts for terrorism and war, means accepting and affirming the legitimacy of war. Sanctioned violence defined as ‘just’ by the state, enables the same acts to be justified in the same way by individuals. Committing violent actions against opposition, justifies the opposition’s use of the same acts against one’s own people. By trying to destroy the opposition, nations create conditions to destroy themselves.
A war on terrorism requires constantly needing new enemies. Making the war endless, expensive, and supportive of bureaucracy. A nation that is at war with terrorism is making a case of good versus evil. That the government wants to remove evil from the world. Which has the assumption that the government and the nation are the representatives for the good. But nations are far more complicated than being just good. Making the assumption that what the government does is good precludes public dialogue. Assuming the side of the good prevents self-criticism or self-correction.
It is very understandable to want to reaction against an attack. But the reaction usually comes from fear and lack of proper direction. There are many domestic issues that cannot be rectified by attacking foreign peoples. Reactions to attacks cannot protect against destruction of the environment, selfishness, wastefulness, and greed nor obtain self-sufficiency or the consequences of dependence. Foreign and domestic terror are related, but while the public is usually kept aware about foreign terror, domestic terror is ignored.
National security would require becoming more self-sufficient, to prevent dependence on other nations who might not be at peace later. This policy would require appropriate taking care of the environment, adjusting resources use, managing imports, improving community relations and foreign relations. Without an environment that supports life, there would be no point in military strength. Difficult to defend freedoms, when necessities are imported from foreign nations with no such concern for one’s own nation. Should a war break about in which the imports are no longer provided, would have negative consequences on the national supply.
The rule of law is upheld by a nation that declares itself above the law. Foreign power catastrophic weapons are deemed illegitimate, but not one’s own national catastrophic weapons. It is contradictory to speak of wanting cooperation and many other celebrated virtues, while also making claims about sole intention for making war. Cannot reduce terror, by holding terror as a fear against the world. A rouge state is defined in the pursuit of national interests with military capabilities that can threaten neighbors. That is any nation, expect one’s own.
The end of WW2 brought about ideals of a united world for peacemaking. But has become globalized under trade that seeks to plunder the world of cheap resources. Difficult to know how nations protect themselves under this regime. Difficult to know how the economy would survive wars of nations.
War is a profitable business, while peace is not. War has been extravagantly subsidized. Violence does not lead to peace. Peaceable means are needed for peace, but are not yet the methods used to obtain peace. Method is still the paradox of trying to make peace by making war. Opposition to violence has become selective or fashionable, which is a brutal hypocrisy of violence against other humans and nature.
Historically, violence leads to reciprocity of violence. Violence committed with moral superiority of justice, affirmation of rights, or defense of peace do not end violence. They justify the continuation of violence. Preparation for more violence.
Economics, the Environment, and Agriculture:
To obtaining the products to satiate economic desires, nations have been willing to sacrifice their environments and communities as normal costs of operations. Work and economic production needs to not destroy the environmental resources, but be sustainable without degrading the users. There needs to be a balance between environmental preservation, and economic opportunities.
The modus operandi is to delegate economic and political activities to others. That change can only occur in the realm of politics, which has already gotten the economic proxies. An assumption that passive consumers can change which will cause public experts, politicians, and corporate executives to change.
Delegation of production to industrial society has led to people not knowing the histories of their products. People no longer know how to produce food, take care of the environment, or even their communities. Difficult to understand the environmental costs of products, and even the origins of the products. The information is too scattered, and the economic processes too complicated. Those within the industries that supply the products, can have reasons for not wanting to share the information about the product histories.
Globalization has become dominated by supranational corporations, which use economic exploitation similar to colonialism. Supranational corporations manage the rules of the global economy through the World Trade Organization. Operating without election and can overrule regional laws that conflict with the free market.
Agriculture is lucrative for everybody, except those who produce the food. Powerful corporations and food conglomerates became wealthy through the work of struggling and failing farmers. While the agriculture business claim this as progress. Neither industry nor politics expects decent prices for food products that can help farmers. Farmers need to be part of the solution within the agriculture economy.
The Knowledge of Facts:
Knowledge is impossible to know in any complete form, or all the consequences of actions taken. Mystery is the norm. Existence is more complicated and intertwined than simple. Individuals and societies are complicated, and are most certainly not idealized perfections. Willingness to judge negatively ancestors who were partly sinners, means being judged under the same terms by successors.
Things that become popular, are in danger of being oversimplified. Such an as oversimplification of the destructiveness of human relationship with nature. Movements also oversimplify, and have a tendency to become self-righteous and self-betray. Denying people rights and privileges, that those within the movement demands for themselves. The problems caused are by other people, and propose policies to change the problems, but not behavior. Claiming to be a particular type of movement or for a purpose, but in practice not keeping to how they define themselves such as peace movements using violence. Making impossible to mean what is said because language becomes anything that anybody wants it to mean.
Knowledge is useful no matter its age, or whether it is empirical or not. Factual information is not sufficient for what is considered true. A fact is a sum of information about the thing. Abstract representations would not be recognized in practice for what they are. Recognition requires incorporating various information. Facts do not live in isolation of other facts. Facts are only true with all their associated facts. Departmentalization of knowledge limits understanding and creates many false ideas. Only the thing, idea, person, or place can represent itself. Everything else is an incomplete model. Only tautologically can reality be represented in its true form.
Social orders are socially constructions fiction. Not because they are false, but because they are incomplete. Even by trying to make them as inclusive as possible, still makes them exclusive. Usually find what has been excluded too late.
There are different ways of handling information such as being rational or sympathetic. Under a rational mindset, any trade-off can be rationalized. While under the sympathetic mindset, nothing can be rationalized. Fear of being wrong or misled motives the rational mindset, while the sympathetic mindset is motivated by failures of carelessness and exclusivity. Many trade-offs fail as they lead to disaster.
Caveats?
The essays have varied quality. Topics are interrelated, but the essays are not necessarily related to each other. Synthesizing a coherent understanding from all the topics is the responsibility of the reader.
Recognizing social contradiction is a familiar theme in the book, but sometimes the explanations are lacking and are one-sided. Sometimes making moral arguments, without explaining why the alternatives are causing the harm. Simplifying the alternative ways and solutions opens the arguments to their own contradictions and counterclaims. Understanding the why of the alternatives can facilitate in finding solutions.
An example of a one-sided argument is the negative consequences of delegating economic production to others. By delegating and not needing to think about that production, the individual can apply themselves elsewhere. If everyone needs to understand every bit of economic production, there would not be much delegating and each person would not have much more on their minds than that information. Ideas, economics, and society can become stagnant.
Another example of a one-sided argument is the need for self-sufficiency. Security and other benefits of self-sufficiency are provided, but not their costs. Self-sufficiency means less trade, but that makes war more likely. Trade increases the cost of going to war, for the nations rely on each other. As the author supports peaceable ways of cooperation, trade is what makes peace become profitable. Self-sufficiency means not having much peaceable negotiations with neighbors. Limits the products and ideas within a nation for the nation would have to produce and figure out everything on their own rather than dividing the labor of that effort. Also, the author supports a sustainable environment, but agriculture production for different foods can be done more sustainably in other countries because their soil and environment can be more adequate for that kind of food. Self-sufficiency is just a different way of degrading the environment.
January 29, 2021
I have been meaning to read this book for a few years. I picked it up on someone else's coffee table and thought "oh this is for me". But I didn't get around to it until last week and now I'm grateful I came back to it when I did. A good introduction to Berry's Agrarian ideals, but also surprisingly, bizarrely, sadly resonant essays written in response to America's overreach after 9/11 that feel like they could have been written this week. This will probably be one of those books I randomly send to people because, really, you should just read it.
June 6, 2025
If you've read one collection of Berry essays, you've read them all. That is unfortunate to say, as I really like his writing, and agree with his points, and know that this work comes from a place of love and concern. It's just, he's pumped out so many essays, they lose their value of insight, as it becomes incredibly redundant and self-referential. Oh well. Some highlights in some of these essays, and a lot of just slogging through variations on a theme.
May 4, 2019
It's always a pleasure to read the wisdom of Wendell Berry, and you don't have to be a farmer to appreciate his work. This book is a re-read for me. The best sections are on local economy vs. corporate global economy, and an analysis of what he calls the "rational" mind and the "sympathetic" mind.
May 5, 2008
The Citizenship Papers is the application of Wendell Berry's "agrarian philosophy" to the first decade of the 21st century.
The essays contained in the second half of the book feel like little more than reworkings of Berry's already well-expounded ideas, a criticism that is unimportant given the immense necessity of these ideas. Berry himself offers a neat summary of his "argument that, except in a time perfectly insane, would not need to be made ... that the human economy must achieve some sort of harmony with the economy of nature; that human work must shape itself conservingly within the limits of the natural world and of human intelligence; and that we cannot define or achieve a good economy or do good work within the terms of nationalist belligerence and industrial war." In general, the prose is not quite as perfectly rendered, perhaps, as it is in Berry's earlier works, but the important ideas are nevertheless clearly expressed and always worth reading.
The essays in the first half of the book, however, are equally immense in their importance but also fresher. These deal primarily with the last bit of the excerpt above--the idea that "we cannot define or achieve a good economy or do good work within the terms of nationalist belligerence and industrial war." I now find myself trying to summarize the first half of The Citizenship Papers, but unable to do so clearly. Its essays tie together the ideas of war, violence, corporations, economy, farming, science, energy, the degradation of definition, and the failure of modern people to acknowledge the existence or value of limitations. Perhaps the common threads of these ideas simply demand more words than this amateur reviewer is willing to devote here; thankfully, Berry has done a more than adequate job in The Citizenship Papers, which you should therefore read.
The essays contained in the second half of the book feel like little more than reworkings of Berry's already well-expounded ideas, a criticism that is unimportant given the immense necessity of these ideas. Berry himself offers a neat summary of his "argument that, except in a time perfectly insane, would not need to be made ... that the human economy must achieve some sort of harmony with the economy of nature; that human work must shape itself conservingly within the limits of the natural world and of human intelligence; and that we cannot define or achieve a good economy or do good work within the terms of nationalist belligerence and industrial war." In general, the prose is not quite as perfectly rendered, perhaps, as it is in Berry's earlier works, but the important ideas are nevertheless clearly expressed and always worth reading.
The essays in the first half of the book, however, are equally immense in their importance but also fresher. These deal primarily with the last bit of the excerpt above--the idea that "we cannot define or achieve a good economy or do good work within the terms of nationalist belligerence and industrial war." I now find myself trying to summarize the first half of The Citizenship Papers, but unable to do so clearly. Its essays tie together the ideas of war, violence, corporations, economy, farming, science, energy, the degradation of definition, and the failure of modern people to acknowledge the existence or value of limitations. Perhaps the common threads of these ideas simply demand more words than this amateur reviewer is willing to devote here; thankfully, Berry has done a more than adequate job in The Citizenship Papers, which you should therefore read.
Read
October 18, 2015This being not the first compilation of Berry's essays that I've picked up, it did not disappoint. Most of these essays were originally prepared as speeches, so many of them cover common topics and overlap considerably. The main topics hovered around shifting from the "Global Economy" to local adaptions base on local resources and local needs and the importance of land conservation and good land stewardship. His writing is calm, yet compelling, and he continues to remain humble in his arguments. Several of the essays hit me particularly clearly among them being: In Distrust of Movements, The Total Economy, and Two Minds. To be honest, I signed up for a CSA (community supported agriculture) share while reading this book. He does an excellent job of spurring action and highlighting the severity of the situation. His works continue to run against the grain of typical Americanism of which I find myself all too guilty of. Highly Recommended. Just beware of repetition in many of the works.
August 4, 2011
I finished reading this book in an amazingly short time. Partly because its is recalled, partly because it is very enjoyable to read. That being said, I do disagree with him on some issues. Yes, it is very important to have a healthy local economy, but that is not to exclude completely global trade, especially in forms of culture exchange:) Yes, it is important to rely on our land and our local community, but something has to be universal. And in my view, universal health care and universal elementary education. Education should NOT be completely local! We need universal standard, we need to teach our kids our best understanding of this world and many of those understanding comes from science. Science education in US sucks! We also need to teach our kids local accumulated knowledge, but that should not be simply the job of school, parents need to spend time with their own kids and teach them by themselves. Lessons like moral must be taught by parents through action and through life!
June 6, 2016
When I first heard about this book I thought it would be a treatise on what it means to be an American citizen. Having now read the book, I can say that my expectation was true to a certain extent, but I think it would be more accurate to say the book is a treatise on what it means to be a citizen (American or not).
Mr. Berry has a marvelous way of getting to the heart of the problem. One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is the unique perspective and solutions he offers in contrast to the tired, oft repeated views you hear or read from the mainstream media and political commentators. It's really wonderful the way he's helped me look at problems from a totally different angle.
I'd also mention that through the whole course of my reading I kept thinking how I wish I could have read this book prior to college. It's an excellent introduction to a wide range of topics and I'd encourage all to read it to help develop their understanding and living out of citizenship.
Mr. Berry has a marvelous way of getting to the heart of the problem. One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is the unique perspective and solutions he offers in contrast to the tired, oft repeated views you hear or read from the mainstream media and political commentators. It's really wonderful the way he's helped me look at problems from a totally different angle.
I'd also mention that through the whole course of my reading I kept thinking how I wish I could have read this book prior to college. It's an excellent introduction to a wide range of topics and I'd encourage all to read it to help develop their understanding and living out of citizenship.
April 17, 2010
Wendell Berry is a new favorite author. This book deals with the downfall of Christianity as a peaceful religion as it is highjacked to justify war. Berry looks at the doctrine's in AMerican society that leads us to justify violence- but claims a true reading of the Gospels and a true look at our founding fathers shows how far from grace we have fallen. Revitalized my definition of being American and provokes me to walk forward with the knowledge that we don't have to be as reliant on the corporate machine, nor answer the call of duty when the results will only benefit a select few. The American duty is rather, to question, to be concerned and to take interest not only in self, but community, nation and the human race- not for power but for common understandings and respect.
February 26, 2010
Wendell Berry is a conservative. The things I learned from Lewis and Chesterton about God, the world, and the imagination, and from Weaver and Kirk about society and culture, are here reinforced by Berry and applied to agriculture and economy. As with the other names, I keep stepping back from the book to ask myself, "Where did this guy come from? How could he grow up inside this culture and yet see it from this extraordinary perspective?" He has the perspective that, if I were to guess, the historians in the next Christendom who look back at the fall of America, will have. As in, "Man they were dumb. How could they not have seen these problems?"
October 27, 2007
I picked up Citizenship Papers in the middle of a great depression of my own. I felt deeply unfulfilled in my own personal life, and was distressed by the state of world affairs, and the direction of American politics and government.
Wendell Berry expressed so many of the feelings I also felt, and so much more. Beyond simply affirming my own feelings, Citizenship Papers challenged me. It challenged me to think about what my own values are, their roots, and what action I could take in my own life.
I highly recommend this book to anyone and everyone.
Wendell Berry expressed so many of the feelings I also felt, and so much more. Beyond simply affirming my own feelings, Citizenship Papers challenged me. It challenged me to think about what my own values are, their roots, and what action I could take in my own life.
I highly recommend this book to anyone and everyone.
April 29, 2009
Picked this up at Pomegranate Books. While I enjoy Berry's writing, I often feel as though he is saying the same thing(s) over and over and just selling his essays to different journals. I agree with much that he advocates, although the more I learn about Berry as an individual, the more I tire of his banging upon the pulpit. Perhaps I am only being harsh this morning... we'll see about my review when I'm done reading this collection. (Interesting note: was written in 2004; will we start seeing changes he advocates for now that it's 2009?)
Read
January 4, 2009This book, though written more than a decade ago is a timely collection of essays questioning the importance of scale, landscape and local community in the order of humankind. Given the collapse of financial companies deemed too big to fail, one might wonder if we ough to have allowed them to use bail out money to become even larger. Perhaps we should move in the other direction and reduce our dependence upon any one or group of companies thereby limiting our exposure.
Read
November 21, 2009None
March 2, 2011
There is some really interesting left ideas here mixed with solid American ideals that pierce political loyalties.
January 22, 2015
his essays have good thoughts on agrarianism, and productivity that is understanding people as individuals instead of as numbers.
February 21, 2025
“The commandment to ‘Love your enemies’ suggests that charity must be without limit; it must include everything. A nation’s charity must come from the heart and the imagination of its people. It requires us ultimately to see the world as a community of all the creatures, a community which, to be possessed by any, must be shared by all.” -p.9
“And of course that requires a nation to be, in the truest sense, patriotic: Its citizens must love their land with a knowing, intelligent, sustaining, and protective love. They must not, for any price, destroy its beauty, its health, or its productivity. And they must not allow their patriotism to be degraded to a mere loyalty to symbols or any present set of officials.” -p.10
“If violence is ‘just’ in one instance, as determined by the state, why, by a merely logical extension, might it not also be ‘just’ in another instance, as determined by an individual?” -p.25
“Facts in isolation are false. The more isolated a fact or a set of facts is, the more false it is. A fact is true in the absolute sense only in association with all facts. This is why the departmentalization of knowledge in our colleges and universities is fundamentally wrong.” -p.41
“Once we allow our language to mean anything that anybody wants it to mean, it becomes impossible to mean what we say. When ‘homemade’ ceases to mean neither more nor less than ‘made at home,’ then it means anything, which is to say that it means nothing.” -p.45
“Educated minds, in the modern era, are unlikely to know anything about food and drink or clothing and shelter. In merely taking these things for granted, the modern educated mind reveals itself also to be as superstitious a mind as ever has existed in the world. What could be more superstitious than the idea that money brings forth food?” -p.47~48
“These forms of political economy may be described as sentimental because they depend absolutely upon a political faith for which there is no justification. They seek to preserve the gullibility of the people by issuing a cold check on a fund of political virtue that does not exist. Communism and ‘free-market’ capitalism both are modern versions of oligarchy. In their propaganda, both justify violent means by good ends, which always are put beyond reach by the violence of the means. The trick is to define the end vaguely—‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ or ‘the benefit of the many’—and keep it at a distance.” -p.65
“Whether or not it is economic slavery to have no choice of jobs, it certainly is moral slavery to have no choice but to do what is wrong.” -p.105
“The industrial mind is an organizational mind, and I think this mind is deeply disturbed and threatened by the existence of people who have no boss. This may be why people with such minds, as they approach the top of the political hierarchy, so readily sell themselves to ‘special interests.’ They cannot bear to be unbossed. They cannot stand the lonely work of making up their own minds.” -p.145
“In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is ‘this much and no more.’ Everything that happens on an agrarian farm is determined or conditioned by the understanding that there is only so much land, so much water in the cistern, so much hay in the barn, so much corn in the crib, so much firewood in the shed, so much food in the cellar or freezer, so much strength in the back and arms—and no more. This is the understanding that induces thrift, family coherence, neighborliness, local economies. Within accepted limits, these virtues become necessities. The agrarian sense of abundance comes from the experienced possibility of frugality and renewal within limits.” -p.149
“An agriculture, thus, is good, not by virtue of its universal applicability, but according to its ability to adapt to local conditions and needs. A culture is good according to its ability to provide good local solutions to local problems.” -p.159
“In the context of [life as a miracle], dignity and mystery function virtually as synonyms. For without its mystery a creature can have no dignity. The presumption of complete understanding is always an affront to dignity. So is the presumption that complete understanding will eventually be realized, or that it is not realizable yet. Every creature has an inherent right not to be completely understood. That is the basis of its freedom.” -p.183
“And of course that requires a nation to be, in the truest sense, patriotic: Its citizens must love their land with a knowing, intelligent, sustaining, and protective love. They must not, for any price, destroy its beauty, its health, or its productivity. And they must not allow their patriotism to be degraded to a mere loyalty to symbols or any present set of officials.” -p.10
“If violence is ‘just’ in one instance, as determined by the state, why, by a merely logical extension, might it not also be ‘just’ in another instance, as determined by an individual?” -p.25
“Facts in isolation are false. The more isolated a fact or a set of facts is, the more false it is. A fact is true in the absolute sense only in association with all facts. This is why the departmentalization of knowledge in our colleges and universities is fundamentally wrong.” -p.41
“Once we allow our language to mean anything that anybody wants it to mean, it becomes impossible to mean what we say. When ‘homemade’ ceases to mean neither more nor less than ‘made at home,’ then it means anything, which is to say that it means nothing.” -p.45
“Educated minds, in the modern era, are unlikely to know anything about food and drink or clothing and shelter. In merely taking these things for granted, the modern educated mind reveals itself also to be as superstitious a mind as ever has existed in the world. What could be more superstitious than the idea that money brings forth food?” -p.47~48
“These forms of political economy may be described as sentimental because they depend absolutely upon a political faith for which there is no justification. They seek to preserve the gullibility of the people by issuing a cold check on a fund of political virtue that does not exist. Communism and ‘free-market’ capitalism both are modern versions of oligarchy. In their propaganda, both justify violent means by good ends, which always are put beyond reach by the violence of the means. The trick is to define the end vaguely—‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ or ‘the benefit of the many’—and keep it at a distance.” -p.65
“Whether or not it is economic slavery to have no choice of jobs, it certainly is moral slavery to have no choice but to do what is wrong.” -p.105
“The industrial mind is an organizational mind, and I think this mind is deeply disturbed and threatened by the existence of people who have no boss. This may be why people with such minds, as they approach the top of the political hierarchy, so readily sell themselves to ‘special interests.’ They cannot bear to be unbossed. They cannot stand the lonely work of making up their own minds.” -p.145
“In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is ‘this much and no more.’ Everything that happens on an agrarian farm is determined or conditioned by the understanding that there is only so much land, so much water in the cistern, so much hay in the barn, so much corn in the crib, so much firewood in the shed, so much food in the cellar or freezer, so much strength in the back and arms—and no more. This is the understanding that induces thrift, family coherence, neighborliness, local economies. Within accepted limits, these virtues become necessities. The agrarian sense of abundance comes from the experienced possibility of frugality and renewal within limits.” -p.149
“An agriculture, thus, is good, not by virtue of its universal applicability, but according to its ability to adapt to local conditions and needs. A culture is good according to its ability to provide good local solutions to local problems.” -p.159
“In the context of [life as a miracle], dignity and mystery function virtually as synonyms. For without its mystery a creature can have no dignity. The presumption of complete understanding is always an affront to dignity. So is the presumption that complete understanding will eventually be realized, or that it is not realizable yet. Every creature has an inherent right not to be completely understood. That is the basis of its freedom.” -p.183
August 27, 2017
Whereas Berry's fiction and poetry pursues a particularly eloquent (and, at times, rustic - in the best sense) extrapolation of his agrarian beliefs, this collection discloses what we might call the political and philosophical versions of those claims.
Critics seeking to pin Berry to a partisan commitment will inevitably fail as he responds, like Treebeard in the Lord of the Rings movies, "Nobody is on my side." This melancholia never transforms (as it does with other authors) into nihilism or pessimism, however; instead, it manifest as it ought to in a farmer: as realistic, but sacred, sorrow. One feels Berry's gentle hands pick up the dying runt of our world and usher it carefully into death.
Meanwhile, the work of these essays is hard. It requires strong shoulders and stout spines. It is, after all, farmer's work, these essays. It works up a good sweat reading them and wrestling with their implications. Berry uncovers what we can describe as "global capitalism," wisely squaring blame on both the State's mismanaged political power and on Capital's exploitation of the worker. Some might call the former "conservatism" and the latter "Marxism"; and truly a "conservative Marxist" critique exists here, if such a term could be understood as coherent! But, again, Berry defies partisanship.
Berry's picture of what rural life could be bears considering, especially for those of us who find ourselves leaders in rural communities. The data is clear: partnering with "job-creators" and big industry only leans a community onto the success or failure of that industry and its minds. If rural communities wish to flourish, they must use their own unique local economics to do it, and Berry has provided a sketch for the way forward.
Critics seeking to pin Berry to a partisan commitment will inevitably fail as he responds, like Treebeard in the Lord of the Rings movies, "Nobody is on my side." This melancholia never transforms (as it does with other authors) into nihilism or pessimism, however; instead, it manifest as it ought to in a farmer: as realistic, but sacred, sorrow. One feels Berry's gentle hands pick up the dying runt of our world and usher it carefully into death.
Meanwhile, the work of these essays is hard. It requires strong shoulders and stout spines. It is, after all, farmer's work, these essays. It works up a good sweat reading them and wrestling with their implications. Berry uncovers what we can describe as "global capitalism," wisely squaring blame on both the State's mismanaged political power and on Capital's exploitation of the worker. Some might call the former "conservatism" and the latter "Marxism"; and truly a "conservative Marxist" critique exists here, if such a term could be understood as coherent! But, again, Berry defies partisanship.
Berry's picture of what rural life could be bears considering, especially for those of us who find ourselves leaders in rural communities. The data is clear: partnering with "job-creators" and big industry only leans a community onto the success or failure of that industry and its minds. If rural communities wish to flourish, they must use their own unique local economics to do it, and Berry has provided a sketch for the way forward.
July 3, 2025
some essays felt very timely (such as the fact the opening essay is on war on the very day we went to quasi war with Iran (which sense has lost media coverage to the big beautiful bill?)) and other essays fell to unreceptive ears (read as more of Berry pleading to anybody who will listen instead of targeting a specific group) however, i can never hate on my good friend, and i consider any chance to crack open a book of his an opportunity to understand his voice better and to act accordingly.
perhaps after reading, i will support the local farmers market (the closest thing farm workers have to unionizing here in my town). perhaps i will try to have a sympathetic mind, as opposed to a rational one. perhaps i will grow stronger in my anti capitalist rhetoric. perhaps i will stop compartmentalizing environmental issues as those for the environmentalists, and start having a stake in this planet on a micro level, not conceding to apathy but instead being more sustainable when i can. perhaps i will also still scroll on my phone when I’m bored, and will use a plastic fork here and there, and will support a woman who had an abortion although i may not have one myself.
as i get when i discover a new interest or “mentor”, i must absorb information with a touch of wariness. berry must not become my bible, but he in many ways will be my blueprint.
perhaps after reading, i will support the local farmers market (the closest thing farm workers have to unionizing here in my town). perhaps i will try to have a sympathetic mind, as opposed to a rational one. perhaps i will grow stronger in my anti capitalist rhetoric. perhaps i will stop compartmentalizing environmental issues as those for the environmentalists, and start having a stake in this planet on a micro level, not conceding to apathy but instead being more sustainable when i can. perhaps i will also still scroll on my phone when I’m bored, and will use a plastic fork here and there, and will support a woman who had an abortion although i may not have one myself.
as i get when i discover a new interest or “mentor”, i must absorb information with a touch of wariness. berry must not become my bible, but he in many ways will be my blueprint.
March 13, 2023
This took me a long time to read, both because the essays were so dense and thought provoking and because some of them were so incredibly depressing. It's been 20 years since this collection was released and the "global economy" has only wreaked further havoc and our consumerist mindset is even more entrenched. Mr. Berry makes very valid observations and points about how we treat the world and each other, and I'm glad I read the book for what I learned from it, but goodness does it also feel dark.
My main criticism is that many of the essays were repetitive and I am not sure how important it was to include several that said the same things.
My main criticism is that many of the essays were repetitive and I am not sure how important it was to include several that said the same things.
August 21, 2025
I am not sure if this was the best or worst book to read as an introduction to Wendell Berry. I've heard his name plenty, but finally got around to reading him, and this was the book I found. It was fascinating to read something written so close to 9/11. Many of his criticisms were prophetic and proved to be true of where we were headed as a nation. Some of the essays felt repetitive at points, but that is not surprising in a collection like this. I didn't always agree with his ideas and idealism, but he always made me think. I am interested in reading more of his poetry and novels after experiencing this.
May 28, 2017
I have enjoyed Berry's fiction. This was the first non-fiction book of his that I have read. He wrote each chapter bases on a corresponding lecture, and I cannot even imagine having to sit through these dry, rambling lectures. He also oversimplifies issues, including war. He idealizes farming communities and lifestyles so much that he promotes socialism. His arguments fail to fully flesh out the complicated nature of the issues he raises. It was like a old man ranting about the good old days without making compelling arguments.
January 3, 2018
This is my first book of Berry's essays. All in all, really good stuff. His diagnosis of our sick industrial economy is biting and insightful, and his philosophy of life as a gift is compelling. However, after a while all his essays begin to sound the same. This would have a 5-star book had it been 100 pages shorter.
September 18, 2020
This is my first collection of Wendell Berry essays, and I am encouraged to read more. I found myself thinking a great deal about ecology, local community, and food production - and not just when I was reading. Even when I had put the book down I was thinking about economy and my place in it and what we can do differently.
January 24, 2020
Because these are speeches it is hard to just sit down and read them but in true Wendell Berry fashion there are nuggets here with some of the most brilliant lines I’ve ever read. I would read his grocery lists if they were published somewhere.
January 7, 2021
This was my first introduction to Wendell Berry and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. Most of these essays were written 20-25 years ago, but tell truths even more relevant today. Inspirational and sobering, Berry's words will be guiding and directing me as I navigate this world.
January 5, 2015
The friend who loaned me this book said, “When I read this I thought, 'So this is what fresh air feels like.'” That's an excellent way to describe Wendell Berry.
The first three essays (“A Citizen's Response”, “Thoughts in the Presence of Fear”, and “The Failure of War”) focus on the War on Terror which was just starting its overreaches when the book was written. Berry shows the hypocrisy in those who claim the right to restrict any freedom and kill on any shore in order to stop people who...want to restrict freedoms and kill people. These essays alone are worth the price of the book.
But Berry is at his best when speaking on land and farming. Berry loves the land, and works the land, and realizes that unless those who claim to love the land (environmentalists and Christians) and those who work the land (farmers, foresters, and other Christians) can get on the same page, we're all going to lose. “Going to Work” concisely presents the basis of his philosophy on the matter, and “Let the Farm Judge” puts it into action in a specific setting. “Let The Farm Judge” is the best essay on sheep farming I've ever read, and it works as a metaphor for many other contexts. “Stupidity in Concentration” was his best piece on what goes wrong with the current way of doing things. While I liked those three essays the most, there were many others (including “Two Minds”, “The Agrarian Standard”, “Still Standing”, and “Conservationist and Agrarian”) that had their own gems.
This should be a 5-star book, but the essay quality decreased a little as the book went on. The main drag were the negatively written essays. Berry can write aggressively quite well (the anti-war essays and “Stupidity in Concentration” prove that), but a couple times he crosses the line and begins to look too self-defensive. “The Prejudice Against Country People” was probably the poorest of that group. Still, there are both positively-oriented and negatively-oriented essays here that are really, really good, and I almost feel bad to have to critique any of them. “Citizenship Papers” as a collection is worth reading, by anyone and everyone.
The first three essays (“A Citizen's Response”, “Thoughts in the Presence of Fear”, and “The Failure of War”) focus on the War on Terror which was just starting its overreaches when the book was written. Berry shows the hypocrisy in those who claim the right to restrict any freedom and kill on any shore in order to stop people who...want to restrict freedoms and kill people. These essays alone are worth the price of the book.
But Berry is at his best when speaking on land and farming. Berry loves the land, and works the land, and realizes that unless those who claim to love the land (environmentalists and Christians) and those who work the land (farmers, foresters, and other Christians) can get on the same page, we're all going to lose. “Going to Work” concisely presents the basis of his philosophy on the matter, and “Let the Farm Judge” puts it into action in a specific setting. “Let The Farm Judge” is the best essay on sheep farming I've ever read, and it works as a metaphor for many other contexts. “Stupidity in Concentration” was his best piece on what goes wrong with the current way of doing things. While I liked those three essays the most, there were many others (including “Two Minds”, “The Agrarian Standard”, “Still Standing”, and “Conservationist and Agrarian”) that had their own gems.
This should be a 5-star book, but the essay quality decreased a little as the book went on. The main drag were the negatively written essays. Berry can write aggressively quite well (the anti-war essays and “Stupidity in Concentration” prove that), but a couple times he crosses the line and begins to look too self-defensive. “The Prejudice Against Country People” was probably the poorest of that group. Still, there are both positively-oriented and negatively-oriented essays here that are really, really good, and I almost feel bad to have to critique any of them. “Citizenship Papers” as a collection is worth reading, by anyone and everyone.
May 12, 2013
Reading an entire book of Wendell Berry essays is a challenge. These essays are a number of variations on the same theme he has been writing about for 40 years. Over that time, if anything has changed, it has not been for the better. It's hard not to be discouraged.
What makes Wendell Berry worth reading - even his recent essays, such as these - is his sense of patient optimism. He sees opportunities for common sense to prevail and our society's destructive forces to ultimately destroy themselves.
For those of us who believe in Berry's vision of society, his essays are a good reminder that we're not alone, and that there is a quiet movement of people working to do what's good and healthy for human society and the natural world.
What makes Wendell Berry worth reading - even his recent essays, such as these - is his sense of patient optimism. He sees opportunities for common sense to prevail and our society's destructive forces to ultimately destroy themselves.
For those of us who believe in Berry's vision of society, his essays are a good reminder that we're not alone, and that there is a quiet movement of people working to do what's good and healthy for human society and the natural world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews